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


 

CITY OF BRENTWOOD
CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 7:00 P.M.

CALL TO ORDER - 734 Third Street, Brentwood, CA 94513 (5:03 PM)
Roll Call
Present: Brockman; Gutierrez; Taylor
Absent: Beckstrand; Swisher

Council Member Beckstrand and Mayor Swisher entered Closed Session at a later time and joined
Council Members Brockman, Gutierrez and Taylor at 150 City Park Way.

CITIZEN COMMENTS - None
1. City Council Closed Session pursuant to Government Code 54956.9(b): CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION. Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) (1) of Section 54956.9: One potential case.

2. City Council Closed Session pursuant to Government Code 54956.8: CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS. Property: 539 Coconut Street. Negotiating Parties: Drina M. Henry/Countrywide Home Loans/Recon Trust Company. City Negotiators: Howard Sword/Ellen Bonneville/Kwame Reed. Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment.

3. City Council Closed Session pursuant to Government Code 54956.9(b): CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION. Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) (1) of Section 54956.9: One potential case.

ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION - 150 City Park Way, Brentwood, CA 94513 (5:04 PM)

RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION - 734 Third Street, Brentwood, CA 94513 (07:01 PM)
Roll Call
Present: Beckstrand; Brockman; Gutierrez; Swisher; Taylor

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - None (07:02 PM)

PRESENTATIONS (07:02 PM)
A. Volunteer Blood Donor Month Proclamation

Trina Brajkovich accepted the Proclamation and thanked everyone who had come to the blood drives. She announced there would be a blood drive on the first Friday in March.

B. Certificates of Recognition - Liberty Girls Varsity Volleyball Team

Mayor Swisher commented that this was the most amazing season for any team in the history of Liberty High School and the City was proud.

Linda Ghilarducci said that the success was due to the support of parents and that it was a lot of work to be a championship team.

Team captains Allison Cecchinni, Tanya Alvino and Nicole Anderson spoke and thanked the community for their support.

Council Member Gutierrez said that the girls represented the school and community with class.

The following team members accepted certificates: Allison Cecchinni, Nicole Anderson, Tanya Alvino, Cheyenne Parker, Leanna Richey, Sam Mayberry, Amanda Humphrey, Paige Winthrop, Kadie Try, Kelly Quinn, Melissa Forde, Ashli Martin, Megan Laffey and Coach Linda Ghilarducci.

C. New Employee Introductions

Director of Finance and Information Systems, Pam Ehler, introduced Amy Williams, Accounting Assistant I and Susan Wood, Accounting Specialist.

Director of Parks and Recreation, Craig Bronzan, introduced Felix Errico, Parks Planner.

Director of Public Works, Paul Zolfarelli, introduced Janet Kurz, Administrative Assistant II.

Police Chief, Michael Davies, introduced new Police Officers, Oscar Johnson, Aaron Peachman, Shawn Slous and Roger Wilson.

Mayor Swisher administered the oath of allegiance to new employees.

D. Contra Costa Water District facilities and water quality improvement projects (Peter Schoemann)

Peter Schoemann presented highlights of CCWD facilities, noting that the District protected water quality and public health. He said that CCWD was proud to provide assistance following the massive devastation from hurricane Katrina. Water quality was a key issue for CCWD and they relied heavily on the Delta and future impacts to the Delta. He spoke about CCWD’s drinking water; CALFED Los Vaqueros Reservoir Expansion; CCWD Alternative Intake Project; advanced water treatment; Canal Encasement Project; City of Brentwood Water Treatment Facilities; proposed plan site for Randall Bold; Los Vaqueros Reservoir Recreation; CCWD’s Water Education Program and of tour CCWD facilities.

AGENDA REVIEW (07:47 PM)

Item 14 Staff report for review of emergency clean-up of Marsh Creek; determination of need to continue activities.

Motion: Approve agenda review adding the staff report regarding review of emergency clean-up of Marsh Creek; determination of need to continue activities.
Moved by Beckstrand, seconded by Gutierrez.
Vote: Motion carried 5-0.
Yes: Beckstrand; Brockman; Gutierrez; Swisher; Taylor

CITIZEN COMMENTS - None (07:47 PM)

CONSENT CALENDAR (07:48 PM)

1. PULLED FOR DISCUSSION - Approve minutes of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting held December 13, 2005. (M. Wimberly)

Mayor Swisher abstained.

2. PULLED FOR DISCUSSION - Approve an extension of Brentwood Agency’s Project Area Committee to July 9, 2006. (H. Sword/G. Rozenski)

3. Waived second reading and adopted Ordinance 819 amending the conditionally permitted uses in Subarea "A" of Planned Development-56, Sunset Industrial Park. (H. Sword/J. Zilm)

Council Member Brockman abstained.

4. Adopted Resolution No. 2006-3 accepting the Second Annual Residential Growth Management Program Allocation Recommendation as submitted by the RGMP Allocation Recommendation Committee for the calendar year 2006. (P. Ehler/H. Sword/B. Grewal)

5. Approved reappointments of Saunie Fridley, Sandra Gill, and Patrick McCarran to the Arts Commission. (C. Bronzan/R. Burr-Siegel)

6. Adopted Resolution No. 2006-4 approving, and authorizing the City Manager to execute, an agreement with In-Shape Health Clubs, Inc. to affect additional wellness benefits for City employees at their own expense (D. Landeros)

7. Approved setting the public hearing date of January 24, 2006 for the appeal of a Conditional Use Permit No. 05-22 (Living Water Ministries Residential Home). (H. Sword/J. Strandberg)

8. Rejected the claim presented by Robert Graham. (K. Chew)

9. Adopted Resolution No. 2006-5 amending Council Policy 30-1, Appointment of Planning Commission Members. (H. Sword/M. Wimberly)

Redevelopment Agency Consent Items

10. Approved Warrant list dated January 10, 2006. (P. Ehler/L. Schelbert)

CONSENT CALENDAR ACTIONS: (7:48 PM)

Motion: Approve Consent Calendar Items 3 - 10 as recommended. Council Member Brockman abstained on Item 3.
Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Taylor.
Vote: Motion carried 5-0.
Yes: Beckstrand; Brockman; Gutierrez; Swisher; Taylor

1. Approve minutes of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting held December 13, 2005. (M. Wimberly)

Motion: Approve minutes of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting held December 13, 2005 as recommended.
Moved by Beckstrand, seconded by Gutierrez.
Vote: Motion carried 4-0.
Yes: Beckstrand; Brockman; Gutierrez; Taylor
Abstain: Swisher

2. Approve an extension of Brentwood Agency’s Project Area Committee to July 9, 2006. (H. Sword/G. Rozenski)

Council Member Beckstrand believed the Committee had already expired and there were no notices to Council of any subsequent meetings. She was in favor of the item if it was just through July as stated in the staff report. The Committee should only speak to and work with agendized items regarding policy matters dealing with planning and provision of residential facilities for residents displaced by a project for the Redevelopment Agency and other policies affecting the residents of the two project areas as it relates to housing.

Redevelopment Manager, Gina Rozenski, said Community Redevelopment law stated that the group was established for three years after the Plan Amendment, which was in July 2002. Every year thereafter, there was a one-year extension. The group was interested in being good ambassadors for the City on Redevelopment projects and she recommended that Council consider a six-month extension and at that time, consider disbanding or continuing the group depending on its continued contribution to the various housing projects and conformance of staying within their legal authority.

Council Member Taylor asked if a Committee of this significance needed to be restricted.

Redevelopment Manager, Gina Rozenski, stated Redevelopment Law specified two distinct roles for the group which would be 1) looking at policies that affect displaced residents if it is an Agency project and 2) looking at policy that may affect residents within the project area. The Committee’s specified roles were also mirrored in their by-laws. She recommended that if the group were disbanded in July, there was a consideration by the Council to consider inviting the group to be members of different citizen advisory groups, such as BANC.

In response to Council Member Brockman, Redevelopment Manager Rozenski said she had recruited twice for tenant occupants and would recommend in July, if the group was re-established for another year, that she recruit tenant applicants again.

Motion: Approve to continue the Project Area Committee for the next six months to July 9, 2006
Moved by Beckstrand, seconded by Gutierrez.
Vote: Motion carried 5-0.
Yes: Beckstrand; Brockman; Gutierrez; Swisher; Taylor

ADJOURN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (07:56 PM)

Motion: Approve adjournment of the Redevelopment Agency meeting
Moved by Swisher, seconded by Gutierrez.
Vote: Motion carried 5-0.
Yes: Beckstrand; Brockman; Gutierrez; Swisher; Taylor

PUBLIC HEARINGS (07:56 PM)

11. Consideration of an appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying General Plan Amendment No. 01-01 and Rezone No. 05-04 for the Bridle Gate project, located west of the State Route 4 Bypass, on both sides of the Sand Creek Road extension. H. Sword/E. Nolthenius)

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

Senior Planner, Erik Nolthenius, presented a staff report and history of the project. Staff had identified four options available to Council. 1) Deny the appeal (upholding the Planning Commission’s decision), thereby denying Discovery Builders’ project as currently proposed; 2) Grant the appeal and approve the mitigated negative declaration, thereby reversing the Planning Commission decision and approving Discovery Builders’ proposed changes to the General Plan and zoning ordinance allowing their project to move forward as currently designed; 3) Approve the appeal with changes and the environmental review document would need to be analyzed again and 4) Council could provide specific direction relating to changes to the project and send it back to Planning Commission. Staff recommended Council deny the appeal and felt the applicant had not made any substantive changes to the project which remained the same as last April.

Vice Mayor Gutierrez opened the public hearing.

Mark Hughes, Discovery Builders, spoke regarding the Bridle Gate project, and felt the project was better than last year and would improve the quality of life for residents. In April, staff had recommended approval of the project to Planning Commission and Planning Commission denied the project. Discovery Builders returned to Planning Commission in November. He spoke about three issues, one of which was that north of Sand Creek Road was planned for 50 acres of commercial and due to the interchange for the Bypass, 17 acres was acquired by the Bypass Authority. The next issue was open space and the project provided 43 or 63 acres of open space depending on how you calculated it. He believed it would be appropriate to include the open space area surrounding the interchange. The third issue was the residential 166-lot component and 45-lots were executive home sites with a minimum of 10,000 square foot lots. These were very large lots, with half of the lots on the east side being single story and native oak trees would be planted to create a natural backdrop. Highlights of the project were the dedication and improvement of the trail and a pedestrian bridge that lead across Sand Creek Road. San Jose Avenue would be completed to the intersection of Sand Creek Road and the necessary soundwall would be constructed adjacent to the City Senior housing site and plans for the commercial site would be ready in six months. The changes made had been related to architectural considerations and further enhanced the project. He asked Council to approve the General Plan Amendment and Rezone of Bridle Gate and present suggestions to further improve the development.

Ron Enos said he was impressed with the project and it would benefit the City. The commercial part was smaller but the interchange would take a tremendous amount of acreage. Opening up San Jose so that people did not have to use Raley’s center to get to the highway was beneficial. He said that the ridge was an opportunity for the City to have executive lots. He was excited about the project to have commercial in the area and connect Sand Creek Road and Heidorn Ranch Road. He asked Council to not deny the project and for clear direction.

Joan Douglas presented correspondence to Council, noting that completion of roads was required of any applicant that would come forward with a project and planting oaks was nice but the trees would not be mature for years. She questioned the open space and said it was 32 to 42 percent and if that included private land, which was not open space and said no one could use it or build on it. She asked what the percentage was without the private land, which was considered open space by the applicant.

Albert Seeno, Discovery Builders, said Discovery Builders did not want denial of the project and asked for ideas or conditions from Council noting that they had worked long on the project. He felt there was not a large discrepancy. He did not want to start the project over and the commercial was ready to go and could bring a good tax base back to the City.

Motion: Approve closing the public hearing.
Moved by Beckstrand, seconded by Gutierrez.
Vote: Motion carried 4-0.
Yes: Beckstrand; Brockman; Gutierrez; Taylor
Abstain: Swisher

Council Member Beckstrand asked to break down which of the improvements the developer was receiving development fee credits for or other forms of reimbursement.

Senior Planner, Erik Nolthenius, said most of the infrastructure improvements were fully reimbursable by the development fee program. There would not be many things in the agreement that would not be reimbursable.

City Engineer, Bailey Grewal, said the total costs for Sand Creek Road and San Jose extensions was estimated at $5 to $6 million. Fee credits to the developer would be approximately $1 to $1.5 million of reimbursement and the balance would be their cost.
Council Member Beckstrand said building the roads would be necessary since they would be bringing traffic and impacts to the areas.

Council Member Taylor said that the hill was a main focal point and he did not want to cut down the hill. He suggested soundwalls and noise abatement and did not want to send this back for an environmental impact report. This was a gateway to the City and would impact the community and he asked that it be done in a proper manner.

Senior Planner, Erik Nolthenius, said that there were not substantive changes made to policy issues related to the General Plan and the applicant did make concessions on the design review portion of the project but did not get to the heart of the matter.

Council Member Brockman said he believed there was not clear direction given last time and the project had not changed dramatically. He said the City did not want commercial going across Sand Creek and there was a limitation with the property of 35 acres for commercial space without relocating Sand Creek, which could not be relocated because of topography. The reason there was less commercial was the off ramp took acreage away and open space was short. San Jose was a realignment and should not be realigned. He wanted to give clear direction if Council wanted to send it back and not deny the project. He said although it was not a prominent hillside he proposed having a park to increase the open space and have one third of the executive homes on the hillside added to the lower section of the development. There would be noise because of the Sand Creek overpass. He suggested giving the developer the option of doing a new sound study and placing a condition that before obtaining grading permits, they perform a sound study and conform with the sound mitigation. He said he was in support of Option 3, to approve the appeal with changes or it would go back to the Planning Commission and he did not want to see the project again after that.

Council Member Beckstrand spoke about the General Plan Update noting the housing/jobs balance. She believed the elements in the General Plan were important and she was in agreement that a reconsideration to the General Plan element was needed with regard to the commercial element. Council needed to consider reducing the property to 36 or 37 acres, given the right of way and set backs that the Bypass Authority required, and that Council did not want to move Sand Creek Road. It would be a rezone and warranted consideration. She did not consider the freeway interchange open space and it should not count as well as private properties. She expressed concerns about environmental impacts and sound from the overpass and whatever moved forward on the project was a combined effort between the City, the Bypass Authority and the developer to be sure that sound mitigations were met. She was unsure of whether an environmental impact report needed to be done again and needed more information. The appeal needed to be denied and she directed staff to rework the commercial acreage. She was in support of Council Member Brockman’s suggestion of placing the park on the hill, moving cluster housing down and she asked to explore those items further. She asked to be sure to address environmental issues for residents. Council could either deny the appeal and direct staff to work on the rezone for commercial acreage for the General Plan or uphold the appeal and direct staff to address other items.

City Attorney, Damien Brower, said should Council select Option 3 and approve the appeal with changes, staff requested that it be given the ability to study what changes were recommended to determine whether or not further environmental review was needed be it an environmental impact report or additional mitigation measures.

Planning Manager, Heidi Kline, said she believed that if the Council desired to have a substantial change to the proposed General Plan and Rezone, denying the project did not mean the developer was precluded from resubmitting new plans that were substantially different. An environmental impact report may not be required. If additional sound studies were done and the other information was available it would allow staff to evaluate and potentially come up with mitigation measures in agreement with the developer. If they agreed, staff could move forward with the mitigated negative declaration.

Council Member Brockman said he was concerned about denying the project and starting over and it was a matter of fairness. He said he was in support of Options 3 or 4.

Council Member Beckstrand said that Council had been clear a few months ago and there should have been some changes and she strongly disagreed with certain designations. She was concerned about moving forward with Option 4 and felt the developer had not taken Council seriously.

Vice Mayor Gutierrez spoke about the preservation of the hillside, noting it set a precedent for other developments in the future. There seemed to be some type of flexibility issue whether it be with commercial or open space. The hillside was a central spot for housing and if it was a gateway, it should promote the elements documented in the General Plan. The commercial acreage was not in line with Council’s desire; however, Council could explore flexibility on this. With regard to the soundwall and landscaping, there were other factors that may have increased the noise and may affect different types of mitigation. She believed the developer needed to explore and Council had given direction and changes made did not address that direction. There were no proposals addressing specific issues outlined in the staff report. She asked if the project was sent back, would the issues regarding commercial, environmental sound/mitigation, hillside and open space change or if the project should be denied.

Council Member Taylor asked for a response from the developer.

Albert Seeno, Discovery Builders, said that Discovery Builders had checked with the Bypass Authority about doing an acoustic analysis. He agreed with Council Member Brockman about placing a condition of approval at the time of the grading and improvement plans, berms and soundwalls could be done. There was nothing that could be done with regard to commercial since the land had been taken. Regarding the hillside, they would be willing to loose a few of the estate sized lots on top and place the park there, which would increase the open space ratio. Sending it back to Planning Commission would be difficult. There had been a consensus that there should not be anything on the hillside and he asked if there was a happy medium or an exception and if conditions could be given. The development agreement was in place and it had not been amended and plans could still be submitted by August.

Vice Mayor Gutierrez asked Mr. Seeno if Discovery Builders was willing to change the things requested by Council and bring the project back.

Mr. Seeno responded that if the project was denied, it was his understanding that the project could not come back for at least one year and it would need to be substantially different and not just an adjustment.

Vice Mayor Gutierrez stated that Council was asking for more than an adjustment.

Mr. Seeno asked to have 166 lots, whether it was clustered down below with the park at the top of the hill. The map could be redesigned if Discovery Builders was sent back to the Planning Commission. There was nothing he could do about the commercial and could place houses down below and exceed the open space. He asked Council for an approval to the rezone and general plan and if he had to go back to Planning Commission with the redesign map, he would and he would like to keep the project going.

Council Member Beckstrand asked about the degree of substantive changes, what the laws were regarding reapplying and if the changes were substantive enough that the applicant could come back and re-file tomorrow so they would not be caught up in a one-year holding period.

City Attorney, Damien Brower, stated that it was his understanding that the requirements in the City Zoning Code related to the substantial change, which was a City requirement. He said he would need to rely on staff’s past interpretation of the Code.

Council Member Beckstrand said it was a City determination, not by State law and City Attorney Brower concurred that it was a City provision.

Director of Community Development, Howard Sword, said that there was not sufficient information for Council to approve the appeal. There would be a General Plan and Rezone for sure and there may be necessity for a small adjustment in some of the other elements. Although Council did not have sufficient information to approve the appeal, there was sufficient information to move forward with Option 3.

In response to Vice Mayor Gutierrez, City Attorney, Damien Brower, stated that Option 3 discussed approving the appeal with changes and as was indicated in the staff report, staff would return to Council at a subsequent meeting with changes along with the environmental review and a determination on what staff felt was an adequate level of environmental review, based on the changes presented to the Council.

Director of Community Development, Howard Sword, clarified that it would not represent an approval but would show that the project would return at a subsequent meeting with specific items for approval.

Planning Manager, Heidi Kline, said depending on the degree of cooperation between the applicant and staff, staff could determine if the applicant was willing to move forward and do the requested studies. The studies and results would determine how the City could mitigate and what changes were needed and then the City could possibly move forward with a mitigated negative declaration.

Vice Mayor Gutierrez asked if the intent of Option 3 was to move forward and City Attorney, Damien Brower, suggested that City Council continue the matter from the January 10, 2006 meeting and direct staff to return the appeal and revisions at a subsequent meeting to allow staff to make the changes.

Vice Mayor Gutierrez said she was in favor of Option 3 because she wanted to be specific with the changes and also move forward.

Council Member Beckstrand expressed concerns about having the EIR and the Bypass left to conditions of approval and may not ensure the best mitigation for residents. If Council decided to move forward with Option 3 to continue the appeal, she asked for clear direction from staff on what the best options were for ensuring the full and proper mitigation for residents.

Director of Community Development, Howard Sword, said the proper mitigations may affect the actual lot layout and staff needed to know the information as they were looking at adjustments to the map.

City Engineer, Bailey Grewal, stated that the Bypass Authority had a preliminary plan for the interchange at Sand Creek Road and the grades should be enough for the sound consultant to figure out how much and what type of mitigation would be required.

Planning Manager, Heidi Kline, said the applicant agreed to moving homes down off of the hill, thereby having to cluster/have smaller lots by the base; that a sound study be done to determine what the wall height would be; that commercial acreage be reduced to reflect the interchange on part of the property, due to the applicant moving homes down off of the hill and the topography would be saved, thereby keeping open space at approximately 40 percent and not including the interchange, private yard areas or creek in the calculations.

Council Member Brockman said staff should receive clear direction on the executive lots and park aspect.

Vice Mayor Gutierrez said she was open to exploring what types of options there were.

Director of Community Development, Howard Sword, said that the photo montage would assist in protecting view sheds and some executive home sites may be able to be preserved. He wished for the visual aspect of the community.

In response to Council Member Taylor, Planning Manager, Heidi Kline, said that timing would depend upon the developer, until the plans were redone and could typically be several months.

Motion: Approve Option 3 to continue the public hearing with direction and clarification on the following items: the developer agreed to moving homes down off of the hill, thereby having to cluster/have smaller lots by the base; that a sound study be done to determine what the wall height would be; that commercial acreage be reduced to reflect the interchange on part of the property, due to the applicant moving homes down off of the hill and the topography would be saved, thereby keeping open space at approximately 40 percent and not including the interchange, private yard areas or creek in the calculations. The inclusion of some hillside executive lots may be considered. Council did not want to see the project back as an appeal.

Moved by Brockman, seconded by Beckstrand.
Vote: Motion carried 4-0.
Yes: Beckstrand; Brockman; Gutierrez; Taylor
Abstain: Swisher

At 9:14 PM, the City Council recessed.

At 9:21 PM, the City Council reconvened with all Council Members present.

12. Approve a Resolution adopting the 2005 Urban Water Management Plan as submitted by Brown and Caldwell, Environmental Engineers and Consultants. (P. Zolfarelli/C. Ehlers/D. Williford)

Chris Ehlers, presented a staff report requesting approval of a Resolution adopting the 2005 Urban Water Management Plan, noting that upon adoption, the Plan would be submitted to the Department of Water Resources - State Water Resources Control Board. The Board has a one year review period and could recommend changes. Should any changes be requested, the Plan would be resubmitted to Council for adoption.

Mayor Swisher opened the public hearing.

Motion: approve closing the public hearing.
Moved by Swisher, seconded by Beckstrand.
Vote: Motion carried 5-0.
Yes: Beckstrand; Brockman; Gutierrez; Swisher; Taylor

Motion: adopt Resolution No. 2006-6 adopting the 2005 Urban Water Management Plan as submitted by Brown and Caldwell, Environmental Engineers and Consultants as recommended.
Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Beckstrand.
Vote: Motion carried 5-0.
Yes: Beckstrand; Brockman; Gutierrez; Swisher; Taylor

City Manager, Donna Landeros, stated the Plan could be placed on the City website for public review.

13. REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA - Consideration of a Resolution amending the City of Brentwood Cost Allocation Plan and Schedule of City Fees to include a Traffic Signal Maintenance and Operation Fee. The Item has been removed from the agenda, if it is brought back for Council consideration, it will be re-noticed

OLD BUSINESS (09:26 PM)

14. Status review of City Council Resolution No. 2006-2 and emergency action regarding the contract for the removal of debris and vegetation from a portion of Sand Creek; determination of need to continue emergency action.

Director of Public Works, Paul Zolfarelli, explained that Delta Excavating had done the cleanup up to the bridge at Shady Willow as of this date.

Motion: approve the extension of the need to continue the cleanup activities.
Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Taylor.
Vote: Motion carried 5-0.
Yes: Beckstrand; Brockman; Gutierrez; Swisher; Taylor

INFORMATIONAL REPORTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS (09:28 PM)

Council Member Taylor reported on his attendance at a Mayor's conference with City Manager, Donna Landeros. He said he would be attending the League of Cities.

REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS (09:29 PM)
Council Member Gutierrez requested staff to explore administrative policies that other cities may have regarding consistency in Council Member interaction with different organizations.

Council Member Taylor directed staff to research on what the expenses were and what other Council Members were paying for various activities when representing the City and a guide was needed for what was customary and what was not.

Director of Finance and Information Systems, Pam Ehler, said that there was State legislation that had begun this year and she would research and return to Council with a staff report.

City Manager, Donna Landeros, said other cities in Contra Costa County could be surveyed.

Council Member Beckstrand welcomed Mayor Swisher back.

ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Approve adjournment.
Moved by Beckstrand, seconded by Taylor.
Vote: Motion carried 5-0.
Yes: Beckstrand; Brockman; Gutierrez; Swisher; Taylor

Respectfully Submitted,

Cynthia Garcia, CMC
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