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, APRIL 25, 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 7:00 P.M.

CALL TO ORDER (6:15 PM)

Roll Call
Present: Beckstrand; Brockman; Gutierrez; Swisher; Taylor

CITIZEN COMMENTS - None (6:16 PM)

ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION (6:16 PM)

City Council Closed Session - Existing Litigation [Government Code §54956.9(a)]
[ 1 ] Case - CBM Group, Inc. v. City of Brentwood

RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION - 734 Third Street Street, City Council Chamber (07:00 PM)

Roll Call
Present: Beckstrand; Brockman; Gutierrez; Swisher; Taylor

PRESENTATIONS (07:02 PM)

A. Proclamation West Nile Virus Awareness

Jon Elam, Vector Control, accepted the proclamation, introduced the Vector Control Manager, and spoke about the after affects of the rain.

B. Proclamation National Volunteer Week (L. Roudman)

Diane Lee accepted the proclamation and added the Library appreciated Council support.

C. Proclamation National Public Works Week (C. Ehlers) For May 9, 2006 agenda.

D. Proclamation Building Safety Week (R. Kidwell)

Louis Kidwell, Chief Building Official, introduced Steve Fox, Plan Checker, Jaime Aldred, Building Inspector, Francisco Rivera, Senior Building Inspector, Lloyd Dinkelspiel, Senior Building Inspector and Dave McGree, Senior Building Inspector and accepted the proclamation.

E. "Spring into Shape" Fitness and Wellness Campaign (C. Bronzan/B. Marx)

Director of Parks and Recreation, Craig Bronzan, introduced Brandi Marx, who had created the "Spring into Shape" Fitness and Wellness Campaign, which was a 10 week program. She encouraged City Employees, Council, Commissioners and employees to participate.

AGENDA REVIEW (07:16 PM)

Motion: Approve Agenda Review adding correspondence to Item 23.
Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Beckstrand.
Vote: Motion carried 5-0.
Yes: Beckstrand; Brockman; Gutierrez; Swisher; Taylor
CITIZEN COMMENTS - None (07:16 PM)

CONSENT CALENDAR (07:16 PM)

1. Approved Minutes of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting held April 11, 2006. (M. Wimberly)

2. PULLED FOR DISCUSSION - Accept the Fourth Quarter Update on the City Council Two Year Action Plan (D. Landeros/G. Leech)

3. Approved of the public art design and concept for mosaic seating and soundwall treatment by "Dannnenbeck" for Pulte’s Rose Garden, Subdivision 8561. (C Bronzan/R. Burr-Siegel)

4. Accepted three awards for the City of Brentwood from the California Park and Recreation Society. (C.Bronzan)

5. Approved the re-appointment of Dirk Zeigler to the Brentwood Advisory Neighborhood Committee (BANC) for a three-year term ending December 31, 2008. (Council Member R. Taylor)

6. Rejected the claim presented by Stephen H. Cornet, on behalf of Maria Baroni (M. Wimberly)

7. Waived second reading and adopted Ordinance No. 823 for a Rezone (RZ 06-05) to modify the Planned Development (PD-18) zoning designation for Shadow Lakes to clarify uses and development standards within this zoning designation by creating zoning subareas and related text changes. The Shadow Lakes project area is bounded generally by Balfour Road on the south, the Hwy 4 Bypass on the east, the Brentwood Hills subdivision on the north, and Special Planning Area R on the west. (H. Sword/D. Hill)

8. Waived second reading and adopted Ordinance No. 824 for a Rezone (RZ 05-10) to modify the Planned Development (PD-18) zoning designation for Shadow Lakes to add recreational vehicle (RV) and boat storage facility as a conditionally permitted use on the vacant approximately 1.2-acre lot along the northern edge of the subdivision next to the water tank. The Shadow Lakes project area is bounded generally by Balfour Road on the south, the Highway 4 Bypass on the east, the Brentwood Hills subdivision on the north, and Special Planning Area R on the west. (H. Sword/D. Hill)

9. Waived second reading adopted Ordinance No. 825 for a Rezone (RZ 06-03) to change the zoning from Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to Planned Development 69 (PD-69) in order to adopt specific uses and development standards for a 4.47-acre site generally located on the vacant land at the southwest intersection of Griffith Lane and Balfour Road, west of the In-Shape City fitness center. (H. Sword/D. Hill)

10. Adopted Resolution 2006-75 accepting Improvements for Wildflower, Western Pacific Housing Subdivision No. 8413, located north of Oak Street and west of Garin Parkway. (B. Grewal/D. Galey)

Mayor Swisher abstained.

11. Adopted Resolution 2006-76 accepting Improvements for Western Pacific Housing Subdivision No. 8395, located north of Sand Creek Road and east of Fairview Avenue. (B. Grewal/D. Galey)

Mayor Swisher abstained.

12. Adopted Resolution 2006-77 accepting Improvements for Western Pacific Housing Subdivision No. 8697 (Phase II of TSM 8395), located south of Sand Creek Road and east of Fairview Avenue. (B. Grewal/D. Galey)

Mayor Swisher abstained.

13. Adopted Resolution 2006-78 approving a second amendment to the Purchase Agreement between the City and R Brothers Concrete for an Extension of the City’s Option to Repurchase period by two hundred ten (210) days for issuance of Building Permits for site at Sunset Industrial Complex, for a reduction by two hundred ten (210) days for issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, for a revision of when the use of site for the business operation commences, and direct staff to take actions and authorize the City Manager to execute documents necessary for the amendment. (H. Sword/G. Rozenski)

Council Member Brockman abstained.

14. Adopted Resolution 2006-79 approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute the professional services agreement with Harris & Associates for design services for the 2006 Pavement Management Program, CIP Project No. 336-3083 in an amount not to exceed $96,414 plus a 10% contingency for a total amount of $106,055.40. (C. Ehlers/ J. Gallegos)

15. Adopted Resolution 2006-80 declaring the City’s intent to order improvements for the Consolidated Landscape & Lighting Assessment Districts & Citywide Park Maintenance District No. 98-1 for Fiscal Year 2006/2007, and set a date of June 13, 2006, for the Public Hearing. (B. Grewal/C. Bronzan/D. Galey/K. DeSilva)

16. Adopted Resolution 2006-81 approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with ECO:LOGIC Consulting Engineers in an amount of $74,150, plus a 10% contingency for a total of $81,565, for project and construction management and inspection services for the Chloramination of Wells, CIP Project No. 562-5617 and Well #15, CIP Project No. 562-5631. (B. Grewal/P. Eldredge)

17. Adopted Resolution 2006-82 approving and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute an agreement between the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) and the City of Brentwood in an amount not to exceed $3,000 for a utility crossing agreement. (B. Grewal/N. Estakhri)

18. Adopted Resolution 2006-83 approving and authorizing the City Manager to sign a contract for the purchase and installation of a Storage Area Network (SAN) from Cross Circuit Electronics Inc. for the City Data Center and Police Facility funded by the New Police Station, CIP Project No. 337-3142, for an amount of $36,000, and the City Data Center, CIP Project No. 337-3709, for an amount of $50,500, for a total amount of $86,500 plus 10% contingency. (Y. Cho/P. Ehler)

CONSENT CALENDAR ACTIONS (07:17 PM)

Motion: Approve Consent Calendar Items 1 and 3 - 18 as recommended. Mayor Swisher abstained on Items 10, 11 and 12 and Council Member Brockman abstained on Item 13. Item 2 was pulled for discussion. The City Clerk read Ordinances 823, 824 and 825.
Moved by Beckstrand, seconded by Gutierrez.
Vote: Motion carried 5-0.
Yes: Beckstrand; Brockman; Gutierrez; Swisher; Taylor

2. PULLED FOR DISCUSSION - Accept the Fourth Quarter Update on the City Council Two Year Action Plan. (D. Landeros/G. Leech)

Council Member Gutierrez asked about affordable housing and requested a response in the next month. She said 50 units was all for the years 2005/2006 and asked if there would be more in 2007. She asked when the City began to take the full ten percent from each housing development and how many units were approved and how many were affordable. She wanted a context and frame for why it was 50 units in two years, when it was ten percent of development. She asked for more information about the amount for the master plan services consultant fee for cultural arts. The Fire District Master Plan would be discussed later and she had looked at long term fire needs and available options for addressing this for build-out and looked at the quarterly updates as assessments and reevaluations. With regard to agriculture, she asked why task number four would take six months since it seemed like a long time. She said she thought it was nice to see the solar energy in the water conservation plans and to see the timing and she looked forward to monitoring their developments within the proposed timelines, especially the solar energy and solar panel proposition. She was excited about the prospect of having developers install solar panels on new homes.

Motion: Approve Accept the Fourth Quarter Update on the City Council Two Year Action Plan.
Moved by Brockman, seconded by Beckstrand.
Vote: Motion carried 5-0.
Yes: Beckstrand; Brockman; Gutierrez; Swisher; Taylor

PUBLIC HEARINGS (07:23 PM)

19. CONTINUED FROM APRIL 11, 2006 - Adopt a Resolution approving a Negative Declaration; introduce and waive the first reading of an ordinance for a Rezone (RZ 06-01) to create Sub Area C with uses and development standards in the PD-24 Zone and modify the Sub Area Map, as well as associated changes to the PD-13 Zone, to include the uses and development standards in the Paradise Cove subdivision (Fahmy Ct. residential project) located south of Balfour Road and east of Guthrie Lane. (H. Sword/J. Strandberg)

Community Development Technician, John Strandberg, presented a staff report, stating Rezone 06-01 was a house keeping item to amend PD-13 and PD-24 zoning code with uses and development standards for Paradise Cove. Planning Commission heard and approved the item on March 21, 2006, and staff recommended adopting the Resolution for the Negative Declaration and waive the first reading of the Ordinance.

Mayor Swisher opened the public hearing.

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

Motion: Adopt Resolution 2006-84 approving a Negative Declaration.
Moved by Beckstrand, seconded by Brockman.
Vote: Motion carried 5-0.
Yes: Beckstrand; Brockman; Gutierrez; Swisher; Taylor

Motion: introduce and waive the first reading of Ordinance 826 for a Rezone (RZ 06-01) to create Sub Area C with uses and development standards in the PD-24 Zone and modify the Sub Area Map, as well as associated changes to the PD-13 Zone, to include the uses and development standards in the Paradise Cove subdivision (Fahmy Ct. residential project) located south of Balfour Road and east of Guthrie Lane.
The City Clerk read Ordinance 826.
Moved by Beckstrand, seconded by Gutierrez.
Vote: Motion carried 5-0.
Yes: Beckstrand; Brockman; Gutierrez; Swisher; Taylor

20. TO BE CONTINUED TO MAY 9, 2006 - A request to consider a six (6) month extension for the previously approved 53 single-family residential lot allocation of the Residential Growth Management Program for the Estates at the Preserve (Passport Homes) project, located between Lone Tree Way and the future Grant Street extension, just east of O’Hara Avenue. (H. Sword/J. Zilm)

21. TO BE CONTINUED TO MAY 9, 2006 - A request for clarification concerning how the on-site affordable housing units, required by the Affordable Housing Program (City Council Ordinance No. 790), are accounted for under the Residential Growth Management Program and its total annual allocation of market-rate lots. (H. Sword/J. Zilm)

NEW BUSINESS (07:27 PM)

22. Fire Issues:

a. Receive presentation of East Contra Costa County Fire District’s draft Fire Service and EMS Master Plan.

City Manager, Donna, Landeros, said Consultant, Scott Kinley, would make a presentation, which would also be provided for community groups. There was an overview on fire construction since two stations would be projects undertaken by the City, associated issues with the fees for those constructions and the contract for the third fire fighter. She asked for Council’s comments on the governance as it related to future entities providing fire service and she requested additional feedback and direction from Council.

Scott Kinley stated that he had been retained to prepare a master plan for the Fire District. The goal was to look at the operational issues within the organization, organizational infrastructure, policies and procedures and level of service provided by the District and opportunities to increase the level of service. He presented an overview of the area, District, the analysis of District operations and governance service levels, compensation and revenue. Findings were that the consolidation had been and was working and would continue to work with the recommendations provided. The new agency had governance related issues, fiscal issues and internal operational and service level issue that had been addressed in the report and governance and fiscal issues would require an integrated solution. The recommendations had been patterned into two sections: Overall District-wide service levels and providing the level of service to that it served. Recommended service level response goals was a category of response goals and goals pertinent to the organization and the community served needed to be developed by the board and the authority having jurisdiction. He recommended the sprinkler system be pursued in every area where possible. There were strategies with respect to increasing the District’s revenues to off-set increases in a level of service to identify methodologies for the nexus between increased revenues and services provided and alternatives relative to the present methodologies and what was an appropriate fair method. The majority of people interviewed were in favor of an Advanced Life Support System (ALS) on the fire engines as opposed to private ambulance and the recommendation was to move in that direction. A majority of the recommendations were predicated on the ability to generate the revenue necessary to pay for them. Each station location was identified by plotting how far an engine could go in four minutes. He spoke about mapping and staffing levels and pay scales. County Supervisors had asked Chief Dawson to request a quote from California Department of Fire (CDF) to provide services in the same manner and what it would cost if consolidated with Contra Costa County Fire. When generating revenue, there were very little resources or options left to the City. There could be a special tax, a benefit assessment, contract for services or charge for services. Contracting for services may reduce the overall cost. The two options open to the City were the special tax or benefit assessment. The issue before the citizens was cost of service, level of service and how it would be paid for and governance. The City had a choice of the existing governance models, which was a dependent District controlled by the Board of Supervisors or there could be a dependent District, where the Board of Supervisors appointed autonomous members of a board to run the Fire Department or an independent District where members of the board were elected from the community that it served.

b. Receive a verbal staff report regarding current and future fire issues for the City of Brentwood; and provide direction to staff and the Council representative regarding future fire service for the City of Brentwood. (D. Landeros)

City Manager, Donna Landeros, spoke regarding fire station construction, and said three fire stations and fee reimbursements had been worked on. Fire Station Nos. 52, 53 and 54 were referred to in a power point presentation, a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk’s Office. All fees collected within the City would be used for City fire station construction and/or equipment. Outstanding construction costs were approximately $4.5 million. In approximately four years the City would have the cash flow to complete the third station, which would be the replacement of the Downtown Station. The City was ready to undertake the Shady Willow station as soon as the developer was ready. One of the difficulties in the District was trying to make a comparison to the revenue that was generated within the City and services that were received. The City generated almost one half of the property taxes in the entire District and was the largest contributor to the growth because of the level of construction. A chart in the power point showed how much some of the other cities spent on fire services on a per capita basis. The District had a revenue issue that would need to be resolved for it to be viable for the future. In making the assessment, the City did not know after going through the LAFCO process, if the City would be able to keep all of the property taxes from the six percent since it was a LAFCO decision. At build-out, with a population of about 70,000, the assessment could be approximately $212 per parcel or could be higher to bridge the gap. She spoke about the contract for the third firefighter position, to provide a third firefighter at two stations and worked out to be seven full-time equivalent employees. The contract had terminated December 31, 2005 and staff had been waiting for the master plan before the contract was brought to Council. An additional complication was the District expected the City to cover all of the costs of operating the third fire station. The station would be completed before the District had made a decision on what kind of supplemental revenue to go for and to go to the voters on. The City would be faced with absorbing the operating costs of the third station. The third firefighter would be moved from the two existing stations and the City would be paying a supplemental amount to have two firefighters at the three stations. Those were the same two firefighters that everyone else in the District received without having to pay additional funding.

Council Member Beckstrand stated that Council had never discussed the issue of whether the City would fund a third firefighter until the third station was built and then those firefighters would be moved over to the third station and the City would continue to solely fund that station.

City Manager, Donna Landeros, said the City’s options were very poor and could continue to supplement the District for the third firefighter, in spite of the inequity for the City, or discontinue the supplemental funding, where the District said they would lay off seven firefighters. Staff recommended continuing the contract on a quarter by quarter basis and stressed the urgency for the District of getting a resolution on the governance and the special tax issue. The community desired three firefighters on an engine with a paramedic. The inequity of the funding and the threshold issue was governance and the City had no participation or say in how District resources were allocated. There was no seat at the table and the decisions were made by the District Board. She said she felt it was important the City have a proportional vote in how resources are allocated if Brentwood is expected to pay for supplemental services. She asked Council to provide direction regarding governance principals. The existing governance structure would be acceptable to the City if additional revenue did not have to be provided in the six percent property tax would be enough and if the service level would be guaranteed to be the three firefighters with paramedic coverage at all three stations. She believed that supplemental funding would need to be provided and the cities of Brentwood and Oakley would need to agree to not be overruled by the unincorporated area. She requested Council approval on the contract for the third firefighter and discussion and direction for Council representatives and staff on master plan issues.

Council Member Gutierrez asked how the City would benefit from the Fire District. If the City was covering costs and funding most of the fire stations in the City, what was the incentive to be in the Fire District. There were governance issues and the City and residents would be paying a lot for fire without any say. It seemed inequitable to pay so much and ask residents to pay more without having a partial say. She asked for more information as to why the City would benefit from continuing to be in the Fire District. She agreed that having an Advanced Life Support System firefighter paramedic was costly.

Council Member Brockman said there was a certain inequity to be dealt with. There were two firefighters provided for all of the cities in the East County area. The City was supplementing with money and paying for the third firefighter. He felt it would be a disservice to the citizens to not provide three firefighters and it was a level of service he believed the citizens did not want to give up. Additional funds had to be raised and there would somehow be more taxes, assuming the citizens voted for it. If citizens did not vote for it, it would not be accomplished. He was in support of approving the quarterly payment since it could not be stopped. The City did not have governing control to be sure the funds stayed in our area and the County had control. He believed the City should look at what it cost to have their own services and what it would cost to combine with the City of Oakely and create a district and then there would be governance. The City was already paying for the fire station to be built and paying for the third fire fighter and six percent of our income was being taken and given to the County for the services here, as well as supplementing other areas and he recommended finding out what it would cost.

Council Member Gutierrez felt there was not enough information and said if the City was covering most of the costs of the fire stations, what was the incentive for being in the District.

Mayor Swisher said that the City was under a time crunch, with the next fire station opening up and the City was to pay for it and would loose part of the level throughout the City by moving the third fire fighter over to the other station in order to staff it.

Council Member Beckstrand said timing was very unfortunate of being placed in a position to make a decision about the employment of the District employees. Council had discussed with the County, the City would give them a boost while they got organized and sorted through their issues, choices in consolidation or not, staffing and levels of service. The County had told the City that three years would be plenty of time to get studies accomplished, consolidations figured out and then assume those things for themselves. She felt that the options were placed before Council as if the City was solely responsible for employees having been hired by the District and if the City did not extend the contract, the firefighters would be out of a job. She felt it was not the City’s responsibility and it was the County’s and the City was not solely accountable for the firefighter’s jobs. She asked to see answers to the questions and concerns brought forward and she wanted to see exactly what the City was getting for their money and what the City could do with the money if they were governing it. She wanted to continue to provide the best to the residents and if the City was going to be solely responsible, as it had been for the last several years, then she wanted the money that went with it.

City Manager, Donna Landeros, said the City had a very good working relationship with Chief Dawson and Scott Kinley.

Council Member Taylor said there would need to be some type of agreement for the third firefighter, either quarterly or year to year. He was in favor of paying for the third firefighter.

Council Member Brockman said that the City would have to come up with more money or there would not be a level of service and if the voters did not vote for it, there would not be a level of service. If the City had to ask the voters for money, it would it be better to be a joint district or our own district and it should be looked and studied.

Mayor Swisher requested any public comments.
Barbara Guise said she agreed with Council Member Beckstrand. She spoke about the third firefighter and said all over the Country, volunteers worked very well. She saw no reason why the third firefighter could not be a volunteer. She suggested a temporary solution to the problem until there was another solution.

Vince Wells, Vice President of Local 1230, said he represented the firefighters and recommended Council continue with funding. There were members present that wished to stay on with the Fire District. Three people on a fire engine made a world of difference.

Council Member Beckstrand asked Mr. Wells if he had gone to the County to ask why they would not fund the firefighter before asking the City.
Mr. Wells responded that he had not asked the County and he would ask them.

c. Adopt a Resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute an Interim Fire Protection Services Agreement with East Contra Costa Fire Protection District in the amount of $142,327.50 in substantially the same form as attached to the Resolution and further authorizing the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, to make non-material changes to the Agreement. (P. Ehler/ D. Davies)

Motion: Adopt Resolution 2006-85 approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute an Interim Fire Protection Services Agreement with East Contra Costa Fire Protection District in the amount of $142,327.50 in and further authorizing the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, to make non-material changes to the Agreement and until information requested by Council is provided so Council could come up with a viable plan or options for moving forward.
Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Taylor.
Vote: Motion carried 4-1.
Yes: Brockman; Gutierrez; Swisher; Taylor
No: Beckstrand

City Manager, Donna Landeros, confirmed the following: Council was looking for more information such as what the benefit was to the City by remaining in the District; to begin an analysis of looking at what it would cost the City to run our own department or jointly with an adjacent community and timing of an election. Staff would report back to Council within 60-90 days. She requested direction on whether or not the principal of proportional representation was important since staff was trying to move the issue and receive feedback from the County and had been frustrated by the pace and did Council wish staff to keep moving forward or step back. Council Members directed staff to lean harder and keep pushing forward.

23. Approve the sales price, method to select buyer, and sales strategy criteria for 2010 Elkins Way at Sunset Industrial Complex; direct staff to commence request for proposals to sell 2010 Elkins Way (H. Sword/G. Rozenski)

Council Member Brockman said he had a potential conflict of interest since he had property adjacent and left the Council Chamber.

Redevelopment Manager, Gina Rozenski, presented a staff report, recommending Council sell the parcel for the appraised value due to prevailing wages and to avoid any appearance of a gift of public funds. Staff recommended the following: Council direct staff to send out a fresh request for purchase proposals rather than returning to the existing list that had been created 20 months ago since the existing list was for a different parcel and different size with a different sales price and different zoning and that the sales ranking system be amended by increasing the category related to relocation of businesses from the merged Redevelopment Project Area by an additional two points.

Mayor Swisher requested public comments.

Karen Kendall read her letter into the record. She said she had been working with the City to purchase Lot 4 in the Sunset Industrial Park and when the subcommittee selected the tied parties, they decided to award the lot to another company. Kendall Automotive rented month to month in the downtown area and she had been reminded that her business was not a desirable business for downtown. She asked Council to consider the best approach to selling the lot. She felt the City should offer her the lot for purchase at the original price and should not be required to submit another proposal. She requested City Council suspend the item.

City Attorney, Damien Brower, spoke in response to a comment from Council Member Taylor regarding Pottery World. He said he believed the parcel the previous speaker was talking about was off of Carroll Court and the 2004 action was regarding who would receive that one acre parcel. This evening’s item was a two acre parcel that had been previously owned by Pottery World and had since been repurchased by the City. The action before Council was involving Elkins Way and the action referred to that had occurred in 2004, occurred around Carroll Court.

Council Member Gutierrez spoke about the most equitable method and procedure for people to apply for available lots.

Redevelopment Manager, Gina Rozenski, said that Council had directed staff to repurchase the parcel and to obtain an appraised value. $5.50 per square foot was set three years ago and property had gone up. She cautioned the Council to set the price at whatever they chose, but if the property was set for less than fair market value, which was now $7.50, prevailing wages would be required, which would be much more costly for the ultimate buyer to build their construction using prevailing wages than it would to pay the difference between $5.50 and $7.50 per square foot. In addition, it could be an appearance of the gift of public funds.

Mayor Swisher said he hoped Kendall Automotive got this since they were right there with owner A. He said Mrs. Kendall was correct in what she stated which was that she was in the downtown and he hoped Kendall Automotive moved out to Sunset Industrial Park.

Redevelopment Manager, Gina Rozenski, said she hoped Council would consider the revised sales strategy, which would help in that ranking.

Council Member Gutierrez said to keep consistent and interweave efforts with the specific plan. She agreed with the Mayor and she supported staff recommendation in terms of the pricing.

Motion: Approve the sales price, method to select buyer, and sales strategy criteria for 2010 Elkins Way at Sunset Industrial Complex and directed staff to commence request for proposals to sell 2010 Elkins Way.
Moved by Taylor, seconded by Beckstrand.
Vote: Motion carried 4-0.
Yes: Beckstrand; Gutierrez; Swisher; Taylor
Abstain: Brockman

Council Member Brockman returned to the Council Chamber.

OLD BUSINESS (09:01 PM)

24. Adopt a Resolution approving an official City Logo and Tagline (D. Landeros/L. Maurer)

Economic Development Manager, Linda Maurer, presented a staff report, stating that potential options included Mt. Diablo and a tree element. Staff had worked with Mayor Swisher and Council Member Beckstrand on the design of the logo.

Council Member Beckstrand said there was a third grade classroom at a local elementary school that had class discussion about the old and new logo and tagline. The children were challenged to come up with their own logo designs based on what they thought about the City. In seeing the new logo, the children were unanimously in support.

Economic Development Manager, Linda Maurer, said there were seven logos currently being used throughout the City and the effort was to get to one unified logo. Staff recommended that Council approve the new logo showing Mt. Diablo and a tree and the tagline with Heritage, Vision and Opportunity. She provided the logo Council had reviewed in January as an option and alternate to the first recommendation. Work would immediately begin upon Council approval, on a graphics and standards manual and how the use of the identity was dictated. Changing the logo would become part of the normal cost of doing business in the City and would be phased in as new products were needed. She wanted to take advantage of the free opportunity to replace the City monument sign at Lone Tree Plaza. The developer has agreed and would allow the City to replace the sign at the developer’s cost with the new logo and identity as well as working with the new Chamber event sign planned for new locations.

Council Member Taylor was not in favor of changing the logo and wanted to stay with one of the old logos.

Council Member Gutierrez said she saw the logo as a marketing tool to accomplish the goals Council had set in terms of economic development and business retention. It had more to do with the action and the downtown specific plan and keeping the downtown alive.

Motion: adopt Resolution 2006-86 approving the official City Logo and Tagline.
Moved by Swisher, seconded by Gutierrez.
Vote: Motion carried 4-1.
Yes: Beckstrand; Brockman; Gutierrez; Swisher
No: Taylor

INFORMATIONAL REPORTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS (09:13 PM)

Council Member Gutierrez attended the Friends of Marsh Creek Water Shed tour. A question had arisen about the Creek being local flood control or a local creek. She said it needed to be looked at as both. She wanted to see those types of standards for other areas, especially enhancements.

Council Member Beckstrand said EPAC, which was the policy advisory committee for bringing BART to East County, was able to pursuade the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to fund sending BART, staff, directors and elected officials from East County to Portland, Oregon to ride the metro systems and speak with elected officials and compare the system to what the City was looking at here. The consultant felt the pattern for growth and urbanization in the Portland/Hillsboro/Beaverton/Gresham area was similar to East County. There were exciting possibilities and issues to work out as to what the actual mode of transportation would be and how it would affect residents. She urged residents to keep abreast of public information and meetings and be ready to mobilize on issues dear to East County.

REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS (09:16 PM)

Council Member Gutierrez asked to about exploring an administrative policy on how developers interact with Council and the public. She said it could be problematic and create issues with public perception. She would also like to avoid meeting with developers who have not read city ordinances and she wanted that as a policy. She asked what other cities did.

Council Member Taylor attended the League of Cities and said with everyone posturing for position in June, they did not believe anything would happen in the Capital and nothing would happen in November.

Mayor Swisher congratulated Parks & Recreation on being recognized for their awards for Sunset Athletic Complex.

ADJOURNMENT (09:25 PM)

Motion: Approve adjournment.
Moved by Swisher, seconded by Gutierrez.
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