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
August 12, 2003

A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Brentwood was called to order at 7:03 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 734 Third Street, with Mayor Swisher presiding.

Present: Council Members Beckstrand, Gutierrez, Hill, Petrovich, Mayor Swisher
Absent: None

PRESENTATIONS

A. Presentation of $8,000 donation from OMNI Funding to Brentwood P.A.L.

B. New Employee Introductions and Oath of Allegiance and announcement of Police Department Promotions.

Police Chief Davies introduced the recently promoted Sergeants, Dave Castle and Carrie Martinez and the newest Police Officer Steven Daansen. Public Works, Paul Zolfarelli, introduced new employee, Martin Hopkins. The oath of office was administered.

AGENDA REVIEW

Item A The amount should be listed as $8,000 instead of $800.

Item 6 Amends conditions of approval to include an additional condition.

Item 8 Remove from the agenda and re-advertise due to withdrawal of
application by Stephanie Wassenberg.

Item 25 Corrects the CIP No. to 562-5630 and adds budget sheet information.

Item 26 Additional material submitted by Shepherd’s Gate.

Item 28 Correspondence from Greenbelt Alliance.
NOTE: Item 28 will be taken as the first public hearing.

Item 29 Additional correspondence.

Motion to add the following item the agenda at the conclusion of open session on the basis that the item came to the attention of staff after the agenda was posted (Government Code 54956.5):

CLOSED SESSION

Conference with Real Property Negotiators pursuant to Gov’t Code § 54956.8
Property: 9100 Brentwood Boulevard
Agency negotiators: John Stevenson & Dennis Beougher
Under negotiation: price/terms of payment.

It was moved/seconded by Petrovich/Hill to approve the changes per Agenda Review. Motion carried unanimously.


CITIZEN COMMENTS

Irma Gamez spoke on behalf of the neighbors regarding the soundwall and frontage on Empire and she thanked Council.

Karen Rogge thanked Council, staff and the developer for continued assistance and the time spent working with neighbors regarding Item 6, Mission Peak subdivision, located on Lone Tree and Empire. The City was making a monetary sacrifice by completing Empire, four lanes, and the installation of the soundwall.

Bill Putman reported that the Delta Community Services barbeque would be held August 23, 2003, from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Erlinda Frizzell said she had participated with CCISCO and she asked to be in the first category for the inclusion zoning program.

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. Approved Minutes of July 22, 2003. Hill abstained

2. Approved Resolution No. 2952 accepting work performed by Tennyson Electric Company for traffic signal installation at the intersection of Fairview/Minnesota Avenues, CIP Project No. 336-3120 and Central Boulevard/Griffith Lane, CIP Project No. 336-3057.

3. Approve a Resolution supporting the efforts led by Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) to reauthorize and extend Measure C as a primary funding source for transportation improvements in Contra Costa County, subject to two conditions. This recommendation is contingent upon CCTA continuing to provide funding for projects that benefit East Contra Costa County, such as Vasco Road, Highway 4 Bypass Extension, Highway 239 and Highway 84. We further recommend that any Measure C funding not be associated in any way with growth management, smart growth or the Urban Limit Line. While staff agrees that extending Measure C is a good thing for the citizens of Brentwood and the County in general, we cannot support nor encourage our citizens to support it without the above-mentioned conditions. Continued to August 26, 2003

4. Approved Resolution No. 2937 authorizing the Mayor or City Manager and City Clerk or any of their designees to execute a Quitclaim Deed terminating any interest the City of Brentwood may have in a portion of an easement for public storm drain and utilities purpose, which included a temporary construction easement recorded September 7, 2001, Instrument No. 2001-0268445-00, Contra Costa County Records, identified as a portion of APN 018-210-008, generally located on the north side of Sunset Road between Sunset Park and Sellers Avenue and hereby conveying said interest to Ronald Nunn and Shirley Nunn, his wife, and any other documents necessary to terminate City interest in a portion of the easement for public storm drain and utilities purpose including a temporary construction easement

5. Approved Resolution No. 2938 authorizing the Mayor or City Manager and City Clerk or any of their designees to execute a Quitclaim Deed terminating any interest the City of Brentwood may have in a portion of an easement for public storm drain and utilities purpose, which included a temporary construction easement recorded September 7, 2001, Instrument No. 2001-0268446-00, Contra Costa County Records, identified as a portion of APN 016-190-013, generally located on the south side of Sunset Road adjacent to Sellers Avenue and hereby conveying said interest to Ronald R. Nunn and Lindsey Ann Nunn and Laura Kay Nunn and Robert Ellis Nunn, and any other documents necessary to terminate City interest in a portion of the easement for public storm drain and utilities purpose including a temporary construction easement.

6. Approved Resolution No. 2939 approving the Final Map of Subdivision No. 8470, Amber Park, located south of Lone Tree Way and just east of the Empire Avenue Extension, accepting the improvement security, approving the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the same.

7. Approved Resolution No. 2940 for the purchase of a new solid waste automated collection truck from Golden Gate Truck Center and authorize the City Manager to execute a purchase agreement not to exceed $203,965.36.

8. Approve the appointment of Stephanie Wassenberg to the Parks and Recreation Commission for a one-year term. Pulled per agenda review

9. Approved City of Brentwood Parks and Recreation Department Affiliated Organization Requirements.

10. Approve use of Balfour, Guthrie Park by Brentwood Oakley Youth Football League. Referred back to staff to negotiate with the interested parties and return to Council should an impasse occur.

11. Waive second reading and adopted Ordinance No. 754 adding Chapter 8.40, Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling, to Title 8 Health and Safety of the Brentwood Municipal Code.

12. Approved Resolution No. 2941 approving a Resolution of Intention and waived first reading of Ordinance No. 755 authorizing an amendment to the contract between the Board of Administration California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the City Council of the City of Brentwood, as provided in approved bargaining unit agreements.

13. Approved Resolution No. 2942 ratifying two additional amendments to the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Miscellaneous Office Bargaining Units for Fiscal Years 2003-2008.

14. Waive second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 753 to amend Section 17.870.007 (B) of the Municipal Code relating to the effect of City Council action on Zoning Ordinance Amendments.

15. Adopted the City of Brentwood’s Mission Statement for Affordable Housing Program.

16. Approved Resolution No. 2943 approving a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the City of Brentwood, Contra Costa County, East County Transportation Improvement Authority and the State Route Bypass Authority to construct intersection improvements at the intersection of Vasco Road and Camino Diablo, CIP Project No. 336-3105, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement.

17. Approved Resolution No. 2944 authorizing the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement in the amount of $599,502 with Raines, Melton & Carella Inc. for the design, preparation of the necessary environmental documentation and services during construction for the Surface Water Treatment Facility Project – Phase I, CIP 562-5629, and authorize the City Manager to approve change orders up to 10% of the contract amount.

18. Approved Resolution No. 2953 making a preliminary assessment not to renew the cable television franchise held by Comcast of California IV, Inc. and setting the date of September 6, 2003 for an Administrative Proceeding.

19. Approved Resolution No. 2945 accepting the offers of dedication for the rights-of-way of East Country Club Drive, Putter Drive, Palm Place, Caddie Lane and Caddie Court for public use as shown on the Final Map; accepting the offers of dedication for all the easements and accepting all on-site public improvements (waterlines, sanitary sewer, storm drain, fiber optics, and streets with all related improvements) for maintenance; accepting the Subdivision Maintenance Bonds and releasing the Subdivision Improvement Securities for Brentwood Lakes Unit #2, Lee Hancock Construction, Inc., Subdivision No. 8063, located north of Balfour Road on East Country Club Drive.

20. Approved Resolution No. 2946 authorizing the City Manager to execute a change orders with Mark Thomas & Company in the amount of $82,000, to include a 10% change order contingency, for Lone Tree Way Widening, and with Bellecci & Associates, Inc., in the amount of $103,411, to include a 10% change order contingency, for Fairview Avenue Realignment, portions of the Northwest Quadrant Infrastructure Project, CIP Project No. 336-3127.

21. Approved Resolution No. 2947 authorizing the City Manager to execute the amendment to the agreement with the Contra Costa Water District pertaining to treated water services.

22. Approved Resolution No. 2948 approving the Final Map of Subdivision No. 8352, Deer Creek, DeNova Homes Inc., located south of Balfour Road and on John Muir Parkway, accepting the improvement security, approving the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the same.

23. Approved Resolution No. 2949 approving an agreement with Contra Costa Water District outlining the responsibilities for the design and construction of the Phase 1 Surface Water Treatment Facility, CIP No. 562-5629.

24. Approved Resolution No. 2950 correcting Resolution No. 2881 to reflect the correct extension date of the deadline for response by Comcast to the City’s Request for Proposal dated September 4, 2002, from June 20 to July 21, 2003.

25. Approved Resolution No. 2951 authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement for Kimley – Horn and Associates, Inc., for the design and construction support for the Zone I Reservoir 1.3, CIP Project No. 562-5630, amend CIP project budget sheet accordingly, and authorize the City Manager to approve change orders up to 10% of the contract amount.

It was moved/seconded by Petrovich/Gutierrez to approve Consent Calendar Items 4 – 7, 9, 11 – 17 and 19 – 25 as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.

Item 1 Approve Minutes of July 22, 2003.

It was moved/seconded by Swisher/Beckstrand to approve Minutes of July 22, 2003. Council Member Hill abstained. Motion carried.

Item 2 Approve a Resolution accepting work performed by Tennyson Electric Company for traffic signal installation at the intersection of Fairview/Minnesota Avenues, CIP Project No. 336-3120 and Central Boulevard/Griffith Lane, CIP Project No. 336-3057.

Mayor Swisher asked to see final budget cost on CIP projects.

RESOLUTION NO. 2952

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT THE WORK PERFORMED BY TENNYSON ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION AT THE INTERSECTION OF FAIRVIEW/MINNESOTA AVENUES (CIP PROJECT NO. 336-3120), AND CENTRAL BOULEVARD/GRIFFITH LANE (CIP PROJECT NO. 336-3057).

It was moved/seconded by Swisher/Hill to waive full reading of Resolution No. 2952 and approve as recommended by staff. Motion passed by the following vote:

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

Item 3 Approve a Resolution supporting the efforts led by Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) to reauthorize and extend Measure C as a primary funding source for transportation improvements in Contra Costa County. Continued to August 26, 2003

Council Member Gutierrez said she was not comfortable about the Measure C renewal and their support of cities in east Contra Costa County regarding infrastructure needs. In looking at the transplant packet, which had the proposal for their renewal of measure C, Contra Costa County had written that they did not want to use some of the funds do Vasco Road and Highway 4 in the City. She noted that Council Member Beckstrand had been working with the County to give the City the necessary infrastructure.

Mayor Swisher said the conditions were issues placed in the budget with no strings attached for growth measures for the approval.

Council Member Beckstrand had asked the City Engineer and City Manager to carefully word a letter to respond in some way to CCTA and if the City did not respond in some way with a Resolution, it would be as if the City was in agreement. The City should not support it until issues were resolved and it should be tailored to individual community needs and general plans.

Council Member Gutierrez noted that the Resolution stated that transportation improvements in Contra Costa County were contingent upon CCTA providing funding on projects that benefited east Contra Costa County and that Measure C funding not be associated with growth management. She asked to be very clear about the language that was being used in the Resolution.

Council Member Hill said there was a danger of sending CCTA a letter with any conditional support since it was never exposed to the public and all they would see was that Council endorsed it. He said he believed that CCTA had not done anything to acknowledge east County as part of a permanent solution and he was reluctant to send any form of endorsement. An acknowledgement of receiving it was one issue but until the County demonstrated to Council that they were interested in helping to solve the problem, the support should be withheld and they had ignored the City. Up until the last four years, Vasco Road was not even a road to consider rezone significance even though the City had been telling the County for the last ten years that it was the road to the City and east County and they had continued to ignore it. He did not believe that they deserved any support.

Council Member Beckstrand asked to send something back and asked staff to adjust the resolution and send a letter or resolution that was a little stronger.

Council Member Petrovich agreed and asked staff to bring it back to Council.

It was moved/seconded by Hill/Gutierrez to continue Item 3 to August 26, 2003. Motion carried unanimously.

Item 8 Approve the appointment of Stephanie Wassenberg to the Parks and Recreation Commission for a one-year term.

Council Member Petrovich noted that Stephanie Wassenberg had now accepted an administrative job at Bristow School and had asked to be removed from the agenda.

Mayor Swisher noted that staff would need to re-advertise for new applicants.

Item 10 Approve use of Balfour, Guthrie Park by Brentwood Oakley Youth Football League.

Council Member Petrovich asked about the exclusive use of the field by the football league and said that soccer should have the same opportunity.

Director of Parks and Recreation, Craig Bronzan, presented a staff report regarding both the teams, EDYSL and BOYFL. He noted that there were limited fields in the City and that normal use of the facilities was an administrative action and that this was out of the ordinary.

John Simmons, Vice President of EDYSL, and Kenneth Lee, Secretary of Brentwood/Oakley Youth Football League spoke about their teams.

Council Members agreed that there needed to be communication and coordination.

Director of Parks and Recreation, Craig Bronzan, said that with Council direction, staff would meet with both groups and resolve it as administrative. If an impasse was reached where it could not be resolved, then staff would return to Council. He noted that the agenda item previous to this one set the guidelines in the future to set deadlines for requests for use of fields.

It was moved/seconded by Petrovich/Hill to allow staff to negotiate and if there was an impasse, staff could then return to Council. Motion carried unanimously.

Item 18 Approve a Resolution making a preliminary assessment not to renew the cable television franchise held by Comcast of California IV, Inc. and setting the date of September 6, 2003 for an Administrative Proceeding

Council Member Petrovich stated he had spoken with Phillip Arndt and at his request, he asked to comment.

Phillip Arndt, Comcast, Government Affairs Manager spoke regarding the franchise agreement between Comcast and the City and the non-renewal of the franchise. Comcast urged the City to defer taking action on this item. In the last six months, both Comcast and the City had negotiated, in good faith, in the informal process and were close to reaching an agreement on a new franchise and that was proof that the informal process was successful. Based on the progress made by Comcast and the City, he said Comcast felt it was in the best interest of both sides to continue in the informal process and Comcast was willing to sit down informally to discuss any remaining issues that the City had. Comcast respectfully requested that the Council defer taking action on Item 18. If Council wished to go forward with the item, Comcast requested that the date set for the administrative hearing be pushed back to allow time for both parties to meet informally.

Walter Hansell, Cooper, White & Cooper, Legal Counsel for Comcast, said that Comcast understood that the City wanted to talk about issues with the Subcommittee and Comcast. There seemed to have been a miscommunication about how and when to signal that there was an agreement or mutual readiness to have an agreement. He said he that he also heard that the City had a July 21 deadline to submit a formal franchise proposal and July 23 was the date that Comcast saw as published and Comcast submitted a proposal on that day. He said he believed that if Council intended to deny the proposal, it must evaluate the proposal that had been submitted. To deny the proposal as was on the agenda item, may seem like a formality or a step to other things, but to Comcast, it was an attack on the franchise to do business in the community and Comcast would need to take it seriously and would need to respond in a formal way. A decision to deny the proposal would be in error and not consistent with the Federal Cable Act and due process. The item on the agenda spoke to scheduling a hearing for September 6, 2003, and the hearing, by nature, involved the production of evidence by the City and Comcast, the introduction of evidence, the taking of testimony, a court reporter there to prepare a transcript by the City and the taking of testimony and preparation of a transcript of what occurred, which was not optional and was the requisite process that the City would be entering into. The City would need to make a written decision on the record from that hearing and because it was a City process, the City would need to designate an individual to be the judge of the proceeding on September 6, 2003. Once that path was taken, Comcast had a certain approach to be taken and Comcast asked not to do this now and it did not need to be acted on tonight and the City was free and Comcast agreed that the City could reserve and preserve whatever rights it had and this was an action that could be deferred or continued and should there be any doubt, the City had full attention of Comcast who wished to continue working together. The principles should resume talking and he requested that if Council was determined to go ahead with this or seriously consider it, that Council continue it until after the next Cable Subcommittee meeting and decide whether the City had seen evidence of the kind of progress that the City would like to see in the process.

Council Member Hill said that this item had been on the agenda many times in the last six or nine months and now there was a plea to give Comcast more time to discuss it. He said he believed it was pointless and there were numerous opportunities to resolve issues and bring to the table the issues that needed resolutions by the full Council that could even be agreed upon by the Subcommittee and Comcast or the full Council could weigh in. He said all he had heard about was extension and if the City had a flaw in the timing that would place the community at risk, it needed to be acknowledged and perfected. The City needed to get serious about this and get this behind the Council since staff members and two Council Members were spending an inordinate amount of time and Comcast paid Mr. Hansell to run the bill up and Mr. Arndt as a staff member. He had asked to hear from the Subcommittee and he said it was time to get the facts on the table and make decisions and not spend more time.

Council Member Gutierrez noted she had seen this on each Council agenda over the last couple of months and there seemed to be a lot of work going on and no resolution. The City had made extensions and there were meetings where the City was prepared to make an extension and no one showed up and an effort had been made to contact people. There were mitigating circumstances in those events and regardless of the circumstances, there was no one present or something had happened and there was one thing or another and it seemed fruitless.

Council Member Beckstrand commented that with the issues that the attorney brought forward, there was nothing that had not been discussed or anticipated and moving forward with the process did not preclude the City from continuing with the informal negotiation process. It was just a safeguard for the City in the event that the City and Comcast could not come to something agreeable.

Council Member Petrovich said he had spoken to Phillip Arndt and he had recommended that 30 extra days be given to Comcast and that the September 6th date be moved. After hearing the attorney speak, he said he was opposed to doing that at this point and would not change his mind or make any recommendations to the Council. He said July 21, 2003 was the published and approved date and was in the motion and the staff report said the July 21st. Everything said July 21st, with the exception of a resolution that came afterwards and was mis-typed. He did not recommend an extension because of the comments of the attorney.

It was moved/seconded by Petrovich/Beckstrand to approve Item 18 as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Council moved to Item 28 prior to hearing Item 26.

28. Consideration of an Ordinance adding Chapter 17.725 to the Municipal Code establishing a citywide affordable housing program, and consideration of a Resolution amending the Master Fee Program to establish an affordable housing in-lieu fee.

Director of Community Development, Mitch Oshinsky, stated that per the direction of the Council and Housing Committee, the Affordable Housing Program was intended to assist the City in meeting its affordable housing needs by including a percentage of very low and low income housing in all new residential developments of ten or more lots and included payment of the housing in-lieu fee for projects of between four to nine lots. He explained that the program would help assure that new affordable housing was distributed and integrated throughout newly developing areas, rather than being segregated in limited locations. Developers could request to pay in-lieu fees or alternative equivalent proposals rather than building required affordable units and other alternatives included, but were not limited to, dedication of vacation land, off-site construction or conversion of market rate units to affordable units and dedication of affordable units to the City. In order to assist the development community in shouldering the additional burden of providing units below cost, the City would offer incentives to developers, apply a loan, or in any combination deemed appropriate to the City, such as, but not limited to density bonus, fee-deferrals, flexible design standards and fast track processing. Housing in-lieu fees and income from rental units dedicated to the City, would be deposited into separate funds to be used solely to assist with the provision of affordable housing, construction or other affordable housing opportunities. The Planning Commission, Housing Committee and staff recommend that Council pass the ordinance and resolution to add Chapter 17.725 Affordable Housing to the Zoning Code and set the housing in-lieu fee.

Mayor Swisher opened the public hearing.

Extensive public input was received. The following individuals spoke in favor of the affordable housing program ordinance:

Irma Pontoja, interpreted by Code Enforcement Officer, Bernice Arteaga
Allison Brooks
Miguel Campos, interpreted by Code Enforcement Officer, Bernice Arteaga.
Dulce Rosales, interpreted by Code Enforcement Officer, Bernice Arteaga
Ofelia Landeros, interpreted by Code Enforcement Officer, Bernice Arteaga
Magarita Leon, interpreted by Code Enforcement Officer, Bernice Arteaga
Oliba Cardona, interpreted by Code Enforcement Officer, Bernice Arteaga, who also read a letter from CCISCO into the record
Mike McPoland
Rodrigo Valdez
Karen Rogge

Mayor Swisher asked for those supporting CCISCO to raise their hands and a number of people in the audience did so.

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

Council Member Gutierrez spoke in English and Spanish, saying that she had received a letter from Oliba Cardona and it showed that the need was in people working in Brentwood earning lower wages and she asked that it be changed to include that fact. Brentwood residents were the key factor and she said she felt that the developer should build the lower end units in the development and sometimes there were bigger square foot lots and it would not be feasible. There was the housing in-lieu fee or to provide the alternative of constructing very low units. She said she had read the different options such as the vacant land and it was an inclusionary housing ordinance. She asked for additional verbiage to say that the applicant requested the in-lieu fees and to have that go through the City Manager and come back to Council as part of the approval process. She did not want to see someone just pay the in-lieu fee.

Council Member Petrovich commented that he was in agreement with the ordinance except for the in-lieu fee, which he liked because the City could loan it to the people to buy a house in an affordable area. A loan from the City could be obtained and the home could be purchased under the same conditions as a house built by a developer.

Council Member Gutierrez interpreted the information in Spanish.

Council Member Beckstrand recommended that some sort of a mix of the pools be reconsidered.

Council Member Hill said he had no problem adjusting the ratios and there was low and very low income people that need housing and whatever could be done to adjust it. The purpose was to build units and to affect a policy. The in lieu fee would allow the City the flexibility to loan it and the opportunity to rehabilitate properties that were in need and would raise the standard of living for those that were occupying them. There would be projects that would not be able to implement the affordable index based on land costs and the mix in the area and could not be implemented across the board. It required a mix and the main purpose was to put units on the ground and integrate them into the community.

Mayor Swisher said that was an area that could be adjusted to the right need and if the City was one-year into the program and 80 percent of the people were paying in-lieu fees, the calculations would be off a little and staff would need to bring it back to Council. There were two pools; one was the residents and then non-residents. A lot of people would be applying and there needed to be a point system or rating scale be set up. He asked that Priorities 1, 2 and 3 be placed on an even scale and Priority 4 on a lower scale and that the City would need to point out on how to qualify.

ORDINANCE NO. 756

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE ADDING CHAPTER 17.725 THAT ESTABLISHES AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM..

It was moved/seconded by Swisher/Hill waive first reading of Ordinance No. 756, pending adjustments to the priority scale and the point system for qualifications and to include the request of Council Member Gutierrez that it be brought back to Council as a consent calendar item. Motion passed by the following vote:

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

RESOLUTION NO. 2954

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD REVISING DEVELOPMENT FEES TO FUND AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND REPEALING EXHIBIT A (CITY OF BRENTWOOD DEVELOPMENT FEE PROGRAM) OF RESOLUTION NO. 2220 AND RESOLUTION NO. 2202 AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2366 TO REVISE THE MASTER FEE PROGRAM

It was moved/seconded by Swisher/Hill to waive full reading of Resolution No. 2954 and approve as recommended by staff. Motion passed by the following vote:

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

At 8:45 p.m., Council recessed for a short break and reconvened at 8:54 p.m. with all Council Members present.

Council moved to Public Hearing Item 26.

26. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s recommendation regarding the Cedarwood project and approving a Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM 8534) subdividing a 54.69-acre site into 177 single-family residential lots and five remainder parcels; and consideration of an Ordinance approving an amendment to PD-45 establishing development standards for the site, located on the north side of Sycamore Avenue, on either side of the future Garin Parkway extension.

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

Associate Planner, Erik Nolthenius, presented a staff report and noted that Richard Bates had filed an appeal to the Planning Commission recommendation based on six points. The first two points of the appeal indicated that the traffic study prepared for the project was inadequate and did not take into account the additional traffic generated by the group home. Staff response to the two appeal points was that a supplemental analysis had been prepared by the project traffic consultant and concluded that the group home would not generate any significant traffic impacts. He pointed out that the original traffic study analyzed the project based on a total of 178 units, in effect, counting the group home as a single family unit. The supplemental analysis indicated that no additional impacts would be generated. The third appeal point indicated that the mitigated negative declaration prepared for the project misidentified the group home as a residential unit and it was more like a commercial establishment. The response of staff was that while there would be a minimal number of employees at the group home, as required by the nature of the services provided, the use itself was residential and was defined in the City Zoning Ordinance under the heading of “Residential Facility” and was permitted in residential zoning districts. The fourth appeal point indicated that the group home was inconsistent with the zoning of the project site and staff response was that the general plan designated the site for low density residential development and the group home was consistent with the designation since it was a residential use. The project site was zoned Planned Development 45 and there were no standards in place to regulate development of the project site. Part of the project included established tailored development standards and the group home specifically identified in the standards and as a result, the group home would be consistent with the zoning of the project site, if approved by Council. The fifth appeal point indicated that the project violated the U.S. and California constitutions in that the group home would be owned and operated by a faith-based organization, made possible by the City’s approval of the RGMP allocation. The response of staff was and the action to approve the project would not foster any religious activity and there was no entanglement with any religion, no contract with religious institution, nor was there a condition of approval at the facility to be leased or operated by religious organization. The City did not own the land and was not stating who or what the applicant could do with that particular parcel and was approving the land use. Who operated the group home, whether it was a religious organization or a non profit or private entity was up to the owner of the parcel and City approval did not state what entity or who would operate the facility and permitted it as an appropriate land use. The City did not support or participate in any religious activity and did not act to establish a state religion or a religious faith. The owner of the group home could and would determine how it was to be operated and who, if anyone, would manage it. The City had not offered any financial support to the group home or to the applicant. The sixth and final appeal point indicated that the group home was discriminatory on the basis of gender since it would not accept men. The appellant pointed out that the mission of the home was to minister only to the needs of women and their children, both sons and daughters, and specifically excluded the treatment and sheltering of men. Staff response was that there was nothing in the City approval of the project that was discriminatory, based on gender. If there was a discriminatory policy created by the owner of the group home or the applicant, the City was not responsible for that action. If the owner or applicant created a discriminatory policy based on gender, it was a private matter and did not involve the City. With regard to the consideration of an ordinance approving an amendment to the Planned Development 45 Zone, there was nothing currently in place to regulate the development of the site since the PD-45 Zone was created as a shell, when the general plan was updated in November 2001. The applicant had proposed a set of development standards as part of the overall project, which were initially reviewed by staff and presented to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission had recommended that the Council approve a set of standards such as those listed in the ordinance and he mentioned a couple of the key standards. There was an exception to the density transition policy being requested and Council review of the Subdivision Map was required since the parcels directly north and east were both larger that one acre and the applicant was proposing adjacent lots that were less than 20,000 square feet. The parcel to the north had a similar land use designation and zoning classification and a zoning classification that would allow the creation of similar size lots when, and if, it was subdivided. Planning Commission and staff recommended that the Council deny the appeal that was filed; waive the first reading of an ordinance approving an amendment to PD 45 in order to establish development standards for the project and pass a resolution approving the Subdivision Map and an exception to the density transition policy as well as the mitigation negative declaration that was prepared for the project.

Vice Mayor Beckstrand opened the public hearing.

Richard Bates asked Council to examine the constitutional issue that he had brought up and it was not only his opinion that there was a constitutional problem and that on August 6th the City had received a letter from a national civil rights group that dealt in First Amendment issues. He believed that staff analysis was superficial and that in looking at the Residential Growth Management Plan and credits allocated under that, it pushed the project above the 100 credit limit, which allowed for the 13 additional homes. It was his opinion that it constituted State support of an organization that was clearly engaged in religious-type practices. While the City’s approval said a residential home or a homeless shelter, the only organization that was considered was Shepherd’s Gate and because of that and the totality of circumstances, the lobby and effort that was put forth by a former Mayor constituted governmental support of a religious organization. Through the 13 extra houses, it was the extra building that would generate the required funds to get the shelter built. In his appeal letter, several solutions were put forth to the constitutional issue and any one of them would get rid of that issue by taking the forty credits away. It may return the project back to its original call for density or the Residential Growth Management Committee could look at other things to get it over the required number. There were other organizations in the County that were not faith based. He noted that former Mayor McPoland had stated in the minutes of the October meeting there were other organizations that were considered for this and he had not been able to identify them. Other organizations he had spoken to had never even looked at for this. The facility could be donated to the City and there were a lot of other uses for such a facility in the City and a resource center, a library and a sports facility were needed. He said he had consulted with other attorneys and going this way could subject the City to some very expensive constitutional litigation and that he believed there were other uses. He recognized efforts in trying to get amenities built for the City and it would be an excellent job if, in exchange for the credits, the City received a community resource center, library or any other number of things built. It would be a greater benefit to more citizens in the City. The scenario showed that Council could get things done and it was unfortunate that instead of a charity that wanted to come into town, the citizens go out and have a Community Center built and not have to raise it through private funds or possibly tax dollars. The people who proposed the project had their hearts in the right area and he thought that better uses could be made of the project and the Residential Growth Plan. He requested that the Council carefully consider what it would do by voting for it tonight and close examination of the evidence would show that there were problems with the project.

Council Member Hill asked Mr. Bates if he would be opposed if STAND was the recipient and Mr. Bates responded that he would not and that if there was a resource center with STAND, who paid rent in the current resource center, it would be great. He said he believed that there could be a community resource center that was donated to the City and for the next five or ten years, the resource center would be used and charities could come in and use it rent free and have a review panel oversee what purposes it would be used for. If it came to the City, it would stay in the City inventory and another problem he had was that if it was donated to a private group, faith-based or not, it was given to one group and it did not stay with the citizens. If something should happen, the organization would no longer be in business and it could be sold and be boarded up if there were no funds. He said he believed that the objections were laudable and they would assist people and that there were better uses for the project that would help more people and work on the causes that lead people to drug problems and homelessness and battering problems. If it was STAND or Shelter, Inc., or if it were a resource center where many different charities could be there to direct people to different services, that would be great. He did not like where it was, which was located in a residential home and that if it had battered women, he would think that there was the possibility of having a batterer come by looking for his wife or children at 2:00 a.m. or 3:00 a.m., since it was not an anonymous shelter. The City would hear from STAND and from their experience, having an anonymous home, was the best place to put victims of domestic violence. He said he understood that there were homes in east County that even the police department did not know where they were located.

Shannon Cox said that Shepard’s Gate had changed her life and she was in favor of it.

A letter was received from California State Assemblyman Guy Huston’s Office and read by Senior Field Representative, Mary Piepho. Assemblyman Huston said he felt it would provide a benefit to the area.

Helen Torres said she was in favor of the home.

Linda Oliver said that the women’s privacy issue had been taken to the extreme and asked what had been done with their public funds. She stated that it had to be shown that it had to be a reliable public service agency.

Nicole Bates asked that the item be revisited and that it belong to the City for the citizens.

Ray Westergard, President of the East Bay Chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said he was in support of Richard Bates’ appeal and asked that Council support the appeal and reject the City Planning’s proposal and he referred to a letter submitted from Americans United.

Cindy Elling said she had been a volunteer at Shepherd’s Gate and was in support of it and she asked Council to deny Mr. Bates’ appeal.

Gloria Sandoval, Executive Director of STAND Against Domestic Violence, requested that Council reconsider the Planning Commission approval of Cedarwood project and support the appeal. She read highlights from a letter that had been forwarded to Council.

Julie Mason, East County Regional Director for STAND Against Domestic Violence, said she was dedicated to the elimination of violence. She asked that the City to look at using this resource for a community wide application, be in control of it and support the elimination of domestic violence.

Council Member Petrovich asked Ms. Mason if she supported Shepherds Gate and she responded that she supported community efforts that would eliminate domestic violence.

Corporal Raymond Spears, U.S. Marine Corps, noted that the property was being donated to Shepherd’s Gate by someone else for this use. It seemed to him that it would be difficult for anyone to come and say that they were opposed to Shepherd’s Gate and that they wanted to be placed in there instead and yet they supported these types of community services.

Mike McPoland said he was not aware of ever giving Signature Properties a density bonus because of a homeless shelter. They had received 13-units because of additional park trails and roads that Signature had done in the community and that was why they had received a density bonus. He asked that Council do it for the community.

Ike Montenez said that the City had a library, parks and playfields and even if they were not adequate, the City had those services. He said he felt that there was a great need for a facility like Shepherd’s Gate he supported Council efforts to build the facility.

James McKeehan, Executive Vice President of Signature Properties, said that if STAND wanted to manage the Signature facility, they should propose that to Signature and an agreement could be made with them. There was no agreement with Shepherd’s Gate and he said an agreement could be made. Signature Properties would own and operate the facility and he committed to bring in a quality operator.

Betty Martin said she was in support of Shepherd’s Gate.

Terry Dominguez had volunteered and worked for Shepherd’s Gate, who helped the whole community and not just women. Donations were made to men, women and children and others should be willing to step up and assist Shepherd’s Gate.

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

Council Member Petrovich commented that he was not in favor of the RGMP and did not believe in density bonuses. If he approved the project, it would be because he believed in the project and not the promise of a shelter on the project. He said he supported the shelter and that there were children’s programs such as P.A.L. and that there were monies were going to programs for children. He had visited Shepherd’s Gate in Livermore and he spoke to the neighbors and no one had a problem with them at all. He did not have a problem with Shepherd’s Gate and had not made the promise for a bonus density.

Council Member Gutierrez said she did not wish to speak regarding judicial system comments. Property rights should be factored into things. She referred to comments regarding the need for different services and it was true that the City needed all those things and needed schools and that the City had to start somewhere. She said she believed that this was a good beginning and that the idea of a cooperative community was the spirit of the City in coming together to provide a community service. She said that what would best serve the community would be both and STAND and Shepard’s Gate, since both had the same goal. She added that the project was not defined by the homeless or battered women’s shelter.

Council Member Hill noted that there had been a lot of people asking for affordable housing and there was a part of the community that was in need of support in a time of crisis and STAND was almost saying not to support Shepherd’s Gate and was asking for support. He said that both would need to co-exist since there was a lot of demand. He said he did not know the motivation of the appeal points and that Council had the discretion in the zoning from 1.1 units to 5 units, 3 being the target of mid-range. The project was at 3.2 units and was increased and he said that whatever decision was made about the service provider, it would have to fit into the community and not stand out and be a situation where it would have a positive effect on those it served. He said his support for this aspect of a user depended on the quality of the user. Shepherds Gate was private industry working with non-profits to provide an amenity for the community. He said that this was not City government interjecting its opinion about who, how and when it operated and was private industry working with non-profits to provide an amenity for the community. He said he did not believe that government should burden the taxpayers with it and the City should applaud the effort of Signature Properties or any builder that wished to create a relationship that added an amenity to the community. The City would not be spending taxpayer money in doing something that private industry could do. He said he believed that the appeal points had no merit and he supported the project and wished to approve it and deny the appeal.

Vice Mayor Beckstrand commented that she had researched, on a number of occasions, and that she believed that this was not one of the concerns of the men who penned the Constitution as they pondered over separation of church and state. She said she understood that the City had a need for things and that there were a lot of resources that were needed. She believed that there was another resource center and library coming in the City’s direction. She said she was familiar with Shepherd’s Gate in Livermore and she made quilts for them and worked in the church putting together hygiene kits for the women who brought their children there. She had worked with the Battered Women’s Alternative and because of smaller children, women without transportation would not have been able to keep children in school and maintain some sort of normalcy for the children. She said she appreciated what both Battered Women’s Alternative and Shepherd’s Gate had done and that there was room in the City for all of the facilities. There were 47 families three years ago that lived in cars and the children had to go to school so the need was there and there was no reason why they could not work together. She said she believed in the development that Signature Properties had brought forward and that they had addressed the very things that the City had looked to provide the citizens in the way of residential existence. She said she was in support of the project.

RESOLUTION NO. 2955

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE CEDARWOOD PROJECT, APPROVING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 8534 TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION OF A 54.69-ACRE SITE INTO 177 LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE AND 5 REMAINDER PARCELS, AND REAFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW NO. 02-33, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SYCAMORE AVENUE, ON EITHER SIDE OF THE FUTURE GARIN PARKWAY EXTENSION (APN'S 016-190-006 AND 007).

It was moved/seconded by Hill/Petrovich to approve Resolution No. 2955 denying the appeal of the Planning Commission’s recommendation for Cedarwood project and approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, Tentative Subdivision Map 8534, with an exception to the density transition policy and reaffirming the Planning Commission’s approval of the DR 02-33 as recommended by staff. Motion passed by the following vote:

AYES: Council Members Gutierrez, Hill, Petrovich and Vice Mayor Beckstrand
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Mayor Swisher
ORDINANCE NO. 757

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO PD-45 BY ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR AN APPROXIMATE 54.69-ACRE SITE, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SYCAMORE AVENUE, ON EITHER SIDE OF THE FUTURE GARIN PARKWAY EXTENSION (APN'S 016-190-006 AND 007).

It was moved/seconded by Beckstrand/Hill to approve Resolution No. 2955 to introduce and waive first reading of Ordinance No. 757 approving the amendment to PD-45 establishing development standards for the project site. Motion passed by the following vote:

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

27. Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision in regard to the elimination or modification of a Condition of Approval regarding affordability for the Design Review of a 178 unit Arbor Ridge apartment project. WITHDRAWN BY APPELLANT

At 10:22 p.m., the Council recessed for a break.

At 10:28 p.m., Council reconvened to regular session with all Council Members present and moved to Item 29.

29. Consideration of a Residential Growth Management Program (RGMP) allocation for Braddock and Logan’s S & S Farms Project, generally located west of Lone Oak Road, east of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, and north of the new Sand Creek Road extension.

Council Member Beckstrand declared a potential conflict of interest and left the Council Chamber.

Senior Planner, Jeff Zilm, explained that there was a ten criteria checklist that had to be looked at to give points to the developer to earn the right to obtain the allotments in accordance with the RGMP and that they needed to score a minimum of 100 points to be considered for the total number of allotments requested. In going to the RGMP Committee, it was evaluated that Braddock and Logan did not have enough points to make the 100 guideline. Braddock and Logan were told to go back and the key was to provide a site for the School District since the District was in dire need of having schools built. Braddock and Logan was told to go back and rework their plan to get a site that would be suitable to the School District and it was a 12 acre site in a configuration that was easy for the School District to come in and place the standard school layout and make it work. They had been asked to asked to create more space in the development for the under crossing of Grant Street under the tracks and to come with a plan to benefit the citizens who lived on Lone Oak to not have access off of O’Hara Road, which would be a major thoroughfare or give them access through the development or the cul-de-sac on the other side. Out of a possible 370 total units that could occur in that area, Braddock and Logan was asking for an allotment of 311, which was 59 units under what was the maximum in mid-range. Since the School District was in dire need of the site and part of the Braddock and Logan commitment was to have the 12 acres of land available for the School District and to have the land at a finished state, with connecting roads from Grant Street as well as providing sewer, water, electrical and all the hook ups needed to get the school built on the site and to meet the School District’s short time table for construction.

Peter Ziblatt, Braddock and Logan, said he was aware that the adjacent neighbors had submitted a letter raising concerns that he was alarmed about. He explained that it was a possible oversight by Braddock and Logan in addressing the issues up front and the status of the project details that would come up in the future. He said he welcomed meetings with adjacent land owners since there were mutual concerns and issues that needed to be solved mutually. He asked that Council proceed to approve RGMP with a commitment from Mr. Ziblatt that he would set up a meeting with the various land owners who had signed the letter. He said he would look for solutions and work together on resolutions. If Council did not see fit, he would not be opposed to a continuation of the item pending a meeting.

Council Member Petrovich said he did not believe in the RGMP and he asked to place a condition of approval on the project in that the project was tied into another project on Armstrong Road and he asked for an explanation.

Director of Parks and Recreation, Craig Bronzan, stated that Armstrong Road was before the Council as a discussion item regarding a number of un-landscaped areas, some in the City that were awaiting development as a condition of the future development and others that were pieces where there was not a road at the time. Residents had brought forward the un-landscaped areas behind sound walls on Armstrong Road and the initial complaint from the neighbors was on the eastern side of the Belvedere subdivision that ran parallel to the railroad tracks off of Balfour Road. There was an estimate of $64,690 and also the KB Home section located below Balfour off of Walnut, with Armstrong on the south side also had an un-landscaped section and staff suggested that to Council that if one was landscaped then the one adjacent to it was not that they may consider landscaping both. The south part of Armstrong Road would be $65,150 to landscape and he was not sure when that would happen and would be when the development to the east of the subdivision developed and there was no plan at this time.

Council Member Petrovich said that if Braddock and Logan agreed to do this they would be reimbursed in the future when the project went forward and Community Development Director, Mitch Oshinsky, said that they would.

Mr. Ziblatt assured Council that it would be looked at and agreed to if it made sense for Braddock and Logan.

Council Member Petrovich said he would rather have a decision prior to approval for the RGMP, which he did not believe in.

Council Member Hill noted that Mr. Ziblatt had said that the residents raised a lot of issues and some of the details evolved past the point in the normal process. It would be beneficial to table the item and bring it back in two weeks and would give Braddock and Logan the opportunity to meet with everyone that was listed and walk them through the project. The dialogue would ensure that the concerns of the residents were addressed and the project could possibly be modified accordingly. The RGMP was the starting block of what ended up being a 12-month approval process of going through specific design review of the site and how all of the connections to sewer and water were handled. It was not a guarantee about what the total number of units would be. It was the maximum number of units that would be considered under the RGMP and could be something less, depending on the outcome of the discussions through a number of public hearings. He believed it would be to the benefit of the residents to continue the public hearing.

Council Member Gutierrez added that it was a must to meet with the residents and communicate.

Mayor Swisher opened the public hearing.

James Troy said that he and his neighbors were ranchette properties and he asked Council to preserve them. He had tried to get a hold of Barddock and Logan on several occasions when he realized his back yard would be developed. He and his neighbors said had been led to believe that there would be one acre parcels behind them and then the zoning changed. This was not a blighted area and he realized that there would be a subdivision planned for the area. He referred to a map dated November 20, 2002, which showed the ranchette estate properties and other properties zoned from Ranchette to R-110 and the lots were way under the 10,000 square foot area. He said he appreciated Braddock and Logan holding them to the buffer lots, which were supposed to be .5 acre and property was getting shaved off. He added that the neighborhood would like to establish a relationship with Braddock and Logan and work out the issues and the group did not want to be overlooked. He spoke about a fence and the farm animals in the area and neighbors that would be moving into the subdivision and he proposed the separation. He asked that the item be postponed so that the neighborhood could meet with Braddock and Logan.

Steve Barr stated that he was disappointed that he was not approached by Braddock and Logan and he encouraged Council to continue the item until the neighborhood could meet with Braddock and Logan.

Mike Tague said one thing that was not part of the project was that the access into the neighborhood was not good and that when the neighborhood was in the County, they had fought Rural California Housing for a better road to get out on Grant Street since there would be 200 more houses. Before any work happened back there, there needed to be a left and right hand turn lane and to find a way to keep people off of the narrow streets that the neighbors traversed into the into the neighborhood. He suggested doing Grant Street first and then go toward his neighborhood since it was their only way in and out and he asked that Braddock and Logan keep it in mind before starting construction.

Annette Beckstrand spoke as a citizen and thanked Council for giving consideration to the numerous concerns brought forth by the residents. She said she looked forward to opening communications with Braddock and Logan and coming back to Council with something that the neighborhood would feel good about.

Council Member Hill suggested continuing the item to the next meeting on August 26, 2003 in order to obtain resolutions to some of the issues.

Council Member Gutierrez asked to continue the item to September 9, 2003, since she would not be present at the August 26, 2003 meeting.

It was moved/seconded by Hill /Petrovich to continue the public hearing to September 9, 2003. Council Member Beckstrand abstained. Motion carried.

Council Member Beckstrand returned to the Council Chamber.

OLD BUSINESS

30. Waive second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 752 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. Swisher abstained

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




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 Petrovich/Gutierrez to waive second reading of and adopt Ordinance No. 752 as recommended by staff. Motion passed by the following vote:

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

Mayor Swisher returned to the Council Chamber.

INFORMATIONAL REPORTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS – None.

REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

Council Member Beckstrand noted that Tri Delta Transit staff had requested a workshop be scheduled with Council since a route change had just been done and they wished to discuss timing and the implementation of bringing another route to the City. She suggested the date of August 26, 2003 for the workshop.

Council Member Gutierrez asked to explore options regarding a potential expansion or a new Library.

CITIZEN COMMENTS – None.

At 11:06 p.m., it was moved/seconded by Swisher/Gutierrez to adjourn the City Council meeting to convene as the Redevelopment Agency. Motion carried unanimously

Following the Redevelopment Agency meeting, the City Council reconvened with all members present and adjourned to closed session at 11:26 p.m. pursuant to Government Code §54956.8

CLOSED SESSION

Conference with Real Property Negotiators pursuant to Gov’t Code § 54956.8
Property: 9100 Brentwood Boulevard
Agency negotiators: John Stevenson & Dennis Beougher
Under negotiation: price/terms of payment.

At 11:31 p.m., Council the meeting reconvened in open session with no action to report.

There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 11:32 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