CITY OF BRENTWOOD
CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2006
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 7:00 P.M.
WORKSHOP (6:00 P.M.)
Roll Call
Present: Beckstrand; Brockman; Gutierrez; Taylor
Absent: Swisher
Introduction to Green Building Presentation. (H. Sword/H. Kline)
CALL TO ORDER (06:58 PM)
Roll Call
Present: Beckstrand; Brockman; Gutierrez; Taylor
Absent: Swisher
PRESENTATION (06:59 PM)
Proclamation to Chief of Police, Michael Davies, upon his retirement.
Vice Mayor, Ana Gutierrez, presented the Proclamation honoring Chief Davies.
Police Chief, Michael Davies, said he was grateful to the City and thanked
citizens.
AGENDA REVIEW - None (07:03 PM)
CITIZEN COMMENTS (07:03 PM)
Bud Kyle, Bay Area Vending Company, said he was gateful for the facilities
where small business people could discard cardboard. He had taken boxes that
were flattened to the facility to be discarded. Someone had taken large,
un-flattened boxes and thrown them into the bin. He said he felt people had
misused the valueable system.
Council Member Brockman said dumpsters were being moved to a City facility.
Barbara Guise, Tri Delta Transit, said Tri Delta came back with three prizes
after competing with 750 entries and the "We Go Everywhere" campaign had won
the grand prize. She also spoke about the traffic light at Oak Street and
Brentwood Boulevard and said the timing needed to be changed.
CONSENT CALENDAR (07:08 PM)
1. Approved minutes of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting of
October 10, 2006. (M. Wimberly)
2. PULLED FOR DISCUSSION - Accept the Annual Report on the Parks, Trails,
and Recreation Master Plan at the recommendation of the Park and Recreation
Commission. (C. Bronzan)
3. Accepted the resignation of Dirk Zeigler and accept the vacancy created
by Chris Regan, and approve the appointments of John Breneman and Stephen
Smith to the Brentwood Advisory Neighborhood Committee (BANC) for a term
ending December 31, 2008. (Council Member Taylor)
4. Set the date of October 24, 2006, to hear an appeal of the Planning
Commission’s denial decision on an appeal filed by Bailey Neff of the
Community Development Department’s determination regarding the completeness
of an application for a tentative subdivision map (TSM 8446). The property
is located at 1060 Minnesota Avenue (APN 017-080-007). (H. Sword/D. Hill)
5. Adopted Resolution 2006-262 for the cancellation of the November 28,
2006, and the December 26, 2006, City Council meetings, due to the holidays.
(K. Chew/M. Wimberly)
6. Adopted Resolution 2006-263 fixing the employer's contribution under the
Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act (Non-Public Safety).
Adopted Resolution 2006-264 fixing the employer's contribution under the
Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act (Public Safety) (K. Chew/P.
Standley)
7. Adopted Resolution 2006-265 extending supplemental military pay and
continuation of health benefits for Associate Engineer Frank Lideros, up to
February 28, 2007, as he is currently serving in the California Army
National Guard, Operation Enduring Freedom. (K. Chew/P. Standley)
8. Adopted Resolution 2006-266 to reject the bids received for the Second
Street / Pine Street Traffic Signal, CIP Project No. 336-31580 and direct
staff to review design alternatives prior to readvertising and rebidding the
project. (B. Grewal/P. Eldredge)
9. Adopted Resolution 2006-267 of initiation proposing the formation of
Landscape and Lighting Assessment District No.’s 06-3, 06-4 and 06-5 and
proposing the annexation of territory to Landscape and Lighting Assessment
District No.’s 02-3, 02-5 and 04-2 and ordering the Engineer of Work to
prepare and file the Engineer’s Report for the Consolidated Landscape and
Lighting Assessment Districts for Mid Year Fiscal Year 2006/2007 in
accordance with provisions of the Streets and Highways Code “Landscape and
Lighting Act of 1972”.
Adopted Resolution 2006-268 declaring the intention to order the formation
of Landscape and Lighting Assessment District No.’s 06-3, 06-4 and 06-5 and
the annexation of territory to Landscape and Lighting Assessment District
No.’s 02-3, 02-5 and 04-2 for the levy and collection of assessments and
setting the date of December 12, 2006, at 7:00 PM for the Public Hearing in
accordance with provisions of the Streets and Highways Code “Landscape and
Lighting Act of 1972” and Proposition No. 218. (B. Grewal/D. Galey)
10. Adopted Resolution 2006-269 amending the Budget and Fiscal Policies No.
10-5. (P. Ehler/D. Davies)
11. Adopted Resolution 2006-270 approving the Contract Documents, awarding
the Construction Contract and authorizing the City Manager to execute said
Contract for the 118 Oak Street Remodel, CIP Project No. 337-37130 for Bid
Package #1 - Carpentry to R. A. Jones Construction in the amount of $99,200,
plus 10% contingency. (H. Sword/R. Kidwell)
12. Adopted Resolution 2006-271 approving and authorizing the City Manager
to execute a contract with AT&T/SBC for internet services in the amount of
$30,888 per year for a three (3) year contract in the amount of $92,664 plus
a $325 one time installation cost and to make non material changes to the
contract in consultation with the City Attorney. (P. Ehler/Y. Cho)
13. Approved and authorized the submittal of a grant proposal to the
California Department of Education After School Education and Safety (ASES)
Program for funding for the PAL After the Bell Program. (C. Bronzan/K. Wahl)
14. Adopted Resolution 2006-272 to approve funding based on the 2005/06
Fiscal Year budget from the City’s Agricultural Administration Fund to the
Brentwood Agricultural Land Trust for first six months of Fiscal Year
2006/07. (H. Sword/L. Maurer)
15. Waived second reading and adopted Ordinance 839 for a rezone request
(Rezone 06-12) to amend Planned Developments (PD) 26, 29, 35, and 58 to
establish specific development standards for affected property located
generally southwest of the intersection of Grant Street and Minnesota
Avenue, north of Lone Tree Way between O’Hara Avenue and Anderson Lane,
northwest of the intersection of Fairview Avenue and Grant Street, west of
Fairview Avenue and immediately north of Sand Creek Channel, and northeast
of the intersection of Broderick Drive and Berry Lane. (H. Sword/T. Nielsen)
16. Redevelopment Agency - Adopted Resolution RDA-115 adopting City
Council/Administrative Policy 10-5 Budget and Fiscal Policies as set forth
in Exhibit A as that Policy may be amended from time to time and adopt
Redevelopment Agency Objectives as set forth in Exhibit B. (P. Ehler/D.
Davies)
CONSENT CALENDAR ACTIONS: (07:09 PM)
Motion: Approve Consent Calendar Items 1, and 3 - 16 as recommended. Item 2
pulled for discussion.
The City Clerk read the title of Ordinance 839.
Moved by Brockman, seconded by Beckstrand.
Vote: Motion carried 4-0.
Yes: Beckstrand; Brockman; Gutierrez; Taylor
Absent: Swisher
2. PULLED FOR DISCUSSION - Accept the Annual Report on the Parks, Trails,
and Recreation Master Plan at the recommendation of the Park and Recreation
Commission. (C. Bronzan)
Council Member Taylor spoke about accomplishments listed in the Annual
Report and asked they be placed on the website.
Motion: accept the Annual Report on the Parks, Trails, and Recreation Master
Plan at the recommendation of the Park and Recreation Commission.
Moved by Taylor, seconded by Beckstrand.
Vote: Motion carried 4-0.
Yes: Beckstrand; Brockman; Gutierrez; Taylor
Absent: Swisher
PUBLIC HEARINGS (07:12 PM)
17. Consideration of appeal of a Planning Commission decision regarding the
locations of the trash enclosures for the City Block retail project (DR
05-27), generally located on the vacant land at the southwest corner of the
intersection of Griffith Lane and Balfour Road, west of the In-Shape City
fitness center. (H. Sword/D. Hill)
Associate Planner, Debbie Hill, presented a staff report and the history of
the City Block project. There had been two appeals filed; one by the
applicant, Matt Ellison, and another by an adjacent neighbor, Bonnie Keaton.
Ms. Keaton had requested the trash enclosures be located in the parking lot,
in the interior of the site. The applicant, Mr. Ellison, had requested an
alternative to the trash enclosures, which would locate a trash compactor at
the rear of the building, eliminating the three enclosures closest to the
adjacent residential neighborhood, and would have one enclosure near the
building pad adjacent to Chevron. Planner Hill presented the three possible
alternatives for Council action and added the developer, Matt Ellison, had
submitted correspondence requesting continuance of the hearing.
Vice Mayor Gutierrez opened the public hearing.
Liz Lonsway said she had a pool in her back yard and would be upset if she
had to smell trash. She was concerned about health issues and rodents. She
said if the trash container was in the front of the building, the shop
owners would care what went into it and what it looked like. She asked
Council to look at the human aspect of having the trash behind her home.
Applicant, Matt Ellison, spoke about trash compactors. He said smell would
be contained and the container would be leak and smell proof. Animals and
vermin would not be able to get into the trash since it would be self
enclosed and the noise was programable. The compactor could contain one and
a half months of garbage and he felt it could eliminate two trash enclosures
and would be environmentally friendly.
Applicant Bonnie Keeton said she was familiar with trash compactors and the
smell was bad and there could be leakage. She had attached, along with the
appeal, a petition of the people who lived along the boundary and did not
want the health hazard. She was opposed to the trash container being placed
near her premises and asked they be placed in the middle of the site.
Diane Jasey said she was behind In-Shape City and had been dealing with
rats. She felt garbage would intensify the rat issue and she had two pets in
her backyard. She asked for Council consideration.
Fred Aeschbach said he was the original owner and the proposal was different
and had changed. He did not want a trash compactor behind his home and said
they were noisey. He asked for an eight-foot wall and asked the containers
be placed where they were more centralized.
Motion: Approve closing the public hearing.
Moved by Taylor, seconded by Beckstrand.
Vote: Motion carried 4-0.
Yes: Beckstrand; Brockman; Gutierrez; Taylor
Absent: Swisher
Council Member Taylor said the Planning Commission had asked the containers
be placed in the front of the building and he was inclined to work with
Planning Commission recommendation. He asked how parking would be affected.
Associate Planner, Debbie Hill, stated six parking spaces would be lost.
There was a reciprocal parking agreement between the three parcels on the
site and there would be an agreement between the City Block project. The
zoning allowed for flexibility.
Council Member Taylor asked if the trash compactor could be placed in a
neutral zone.
Associate Planner, Debbie Hill, said there were areas on the parking lot
where the compactor could not be located.
Council Member Taylor said he would like to have a compactor in the parking
lot and drop the wall to six feet.
Council Member Beckstrand said she had reservations regarding the smells of
the containers. She felt she did not know enough about them to make a
decision based on the mechanics. A person could smell a dumpster quite a
ways away and she would not appreciate that up against her backyard.
Water Operations Manager, Chris Ehlers, said staff did not want to make a
recommendation on a compactor or dumpster and could go either way and
accommodate the service. A compactor failed last year when the power went
out. They were like most peices of equipment.
Vice Mayor, Ana Gutierrez, asked if there were specific requirements on
trash compactors.
Water Operations Manager, Chris Ehlers, said most were the same as a
roll-off dumpster.
Vice Mayor, Ana Gutierrez, asked to confirm mitigation measures with regard
to the second story.
Associate Planner, Debbie Hill, said the applicant had, in the final plans,
oriented the windows so none of them were facing the rear yards of the
adjacent neighbors.
Vice Mayor, Ana Gutierrez, asked Assistant City Attorney, Karen Murphy,
about the comments of one applicant and asked if there had been any
violations.
Assistant City Attorney, Karen Murphy, said the applicant had recited a
nuisance abatement for the County and the issue was trash enclosures. If the
enclosures became an issue in the future, it would be an issue under the
City’s nuisance abatement and there were City Ordinances in place.
Vice Mayor, Ana Gutierrez, said the concern was trash and smell. It was a
commercially zone property. She felt there could possibly be a compromise
and spoke about Council alternatives. She asked if there were any other
alternatives.
Associate Planner, Debbie Hill, said two alternatives would require the
project return for zoning amendment and design review and limiting hours of
pick-up. Having enclosures located on the interior of the site within the
parking lot could present a safety hazard due to cars circulating and people
in the parking lot. Should Council decide to have the enclosures placed on
the interior of the site, she asked that staff be able to propose an
amendment to limit the hours from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Vice Mayor, Ana Gutierrez, asked if there was any way to relocate the water
fountain features, if Council decision was to place the enclosures in the
front.
Associate Planner, Debbie Hill, presented site plans to Council.
Vice Mayor, Ana Gutierrez, said she would be in support of the project if
the architectural features could be preserved should Council decide to place
the enclosures in front.
Council Member Brockman felt the enclosures should stay at the back in Site
Plan #1 or #3. The Municipal Code did not call for anything about trash
enclosures being placed in the front of buildings and there was no
regulation against it. He felt the logical place to put trash was behind the
buildings on a commercial site. A nuisance had been created in buildings
where the City had approved trash enclosures in parking lots. He was in
favor of #1 or #3. He was concerned about the nuisance and said one month
before emptying a compactor was out of the question. He felt the wisest
choice was #1 with trash recepticles picked up regularly, twice a week.
There could be a condition to require the applicant to produce service two
to three times per week He said having trash enlcosures would not cause more
rats since they were already prevalent. By placing containers in front,
parking would be lost. It was a commercial site and that was what was
supposed to be there.
A discussion ensued among Council Members.
Director of Community Development, Howard Sword, requested Associate
Planner, Debbie Hill, to explain distances as shown on the site map.
Council Member Taylor asked for a compromise between the applicants and
neighbors, and if the item could go back for design review so the applicants
and neighbors could work out the project.
Associate Planner, Debbie Hill, said the appeal was on the trash enclosures.
Assistant City Attorney, Karen Murphy, clarified the Planning Commission did
not hear about the compactor issue. The Planning Commission had heard about
the trash enclosures, front or back.
In response to Council Member Taylor, Assistant City Attorney, Karen Murphy,
said the request was made to staff.
Associate Planner, Debbie Hill, said staff had received a letter from the
Maggiore’s notifying the property owners would not be able to attend and
requesting a continuance. Since there were two appeals on the item, staff
was just presenting information to Council and it would be Council's option
as to continue the item or not.
Vice Mayor, Ana Gutierrez, said this was a commercial site and she wanted to
work with both parties. The trash containers were not abutting the fence and
containers would be picked up during certain hours so as not to create a lot
of noise. She was in favor of a compromise, Site Plan 3, and something
positive could be built for the greater community. She was in favor of
Alternative C, which allowed the trash compactors in the back.
Council Member Brockman asked for clarification of hours of operation,
regarding to Site Plan 3. He did not want a nuisance issue with regard to
trash pick up.
Director of Community Development, Howard Sword, said this was the first
time staff had heard about the trash compactor as a solution and the
location. There may be a location for the compactor that may be a
compromise.
Council Member Brockman said if Planning Commission had not seen the
information regarding the trash compactor, there may need to be research on
it. He was not in favor of placing a recepticle in the front parking lot
area.
Council Member Taylor was opposed containers being placed near housing.
Assistant City Attorney, Karen Murphy, stated this was a de novo hearing and
Council could look at other alternatives and this could come back to
Council. Alternatively, if the item was something Council believed that they
would benefit from the input of Planning Commission regarding the placement
of a trash compactor, it could be sent back for input.
Council Member Taylor asked for a continuance and asked the item go back to
Planning Commission.
Council Member Beckstrand asked if the item could be sent back to the
Planning Commission for final determination and if the item needed to come
back to Council.
Assistant City Attorney, Karen Murphy, said since this was a design review
applicaion and if Planning Commission amends it and there were no appeals
filed, it would stay at the Planning Commission. An appeal could be filed on
any Planning Commission action.
Vice Mayor Gutierrez asked if Council was comfortable with having options
explored and then sending the item to the Planning Commission.
Council Member Brockman said he was in favor of sending the item to the
Planning Commission since new information had been presented.
Motion: Approve referring the item back to the Planning Commission for
consideration.
Moved by Brockman, seconded by Beckstrand.
Vote: Motion carried 4-0.
Yes: Beckstrand; Brockman; Gutierrez; Taylor
Absent: Swisher
18. Consideration of appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial decision on
an appeal filed by Bailey Neff regarding the Community Development
Department’s determination regarding the completeness of an application for
a tentative subdivision map (TSM 8446). The property is located at 1060
Minnesota Avenue (APN 017-080-007). (H. Sword/D. Hill)
Associate Planner, Debbie Hill, presented a staff report and said Mr. Neff
was appealing the Planning Commission’s decision on his appeal of the
Community Development Department’s determination regarding the completeness
of an application for Tentative Subdivision Map 8446, submitted on August 8,
2003. The California Government Code allowed government agencies to charge
application fees for development permits and the City’s Subdivision
Ordinance required that filing fees be submitted at the time of filing of
the tentative map. She presented a history regarding the application for the
subdivision map, stating Mr. Neff’s application fees had not been paid at
the time the application was submitted and staff believed the time period
had never commenced. Staff had worked with Mr. Neff to get the application
complete, in good faith the fees would be forth coming. Planning Commission
had heard the appeal and voted to deny the appeal. Staff had received a
letter from Mr. Neff requesting a time extension for the hearing, and staff
was not in support of a time extension as it could violate the 60-day time
period for a final determination on an appeal. Staff recommended approval of
the Resolution denying the appeal filed by Mr. Neff. Once Mr. Neff submited
the application fees, along with items necessary to complete the
application, staff would be able to bring the tentative subdivsion map
before the Planning Commission for action.
Council Member Beckstrand asked staff opinion should the hearing be
extended.
Associate Planner, Debbie Hill, said the section in the California
Government Code that required the decision making body make a final decision
on an appeal within 60-days from the filing date. The original appeal was
filed September 8, 2006.
Assistant City Attorney, Karen Murphy, said the appeal would need to be
heard by November 7, 2006.
Vice Mayor Gutierrez opened the public hearing.
Bailey Neff read the Government Code section that said nothing precluded the
applicant and a public agency from mutually agreeing to an extension of
time. He said his mutual extension of time was being denied and he presented
his appeal. He said when an application was received by the Planning
Department, there was 30-days to act upon it and he said this was presented
to the Planning Commission and they never acted upon it. He submitted the
application August 8, 2003 and said the reply was 42-days later. He
presented the history of his application and said there had been submittals
where he did not receive replies or received late replies. He said Planning
claimed the fees had never been collected. He submitted a check to the
Planning Department for the fees and it was returned to him as the
application was not complete. He felt he was in compliance with the
Government Code and felt the application was deemed complete.
Council Member Beckstrand asked if fees were submitted at the time an
application was submitted Mr. Neff responded no, and said the idea was to
find out what fees were due and those were outlined in the reply from the
Planning Department.
Council Member Beckstrand asked if what Mr. Neff was asking for Council to
was to deem the application complete without any fees paid.
Mr. Neff said he would be glad to pay any and all the fees in accordance
with the Government Code.
Council Member Beckstrand asked if Mr. Neff if he believed the Government
Code gave him grounds to negate the fees.
Mr. Neff said no.
Council Member Beckstrand asked Mr. Neff if he was willing to pay the full
fees due.
Mr. Neff offered his credit card and said he wanted all fees to be in
accordance with the Government Code.
Council Member Beckstrand asked if Mr. Neff was asking Council to ignore the
difference between the Government and City codes if they did not match up.
Mr. Neff said he did not believe that anyone wanted to violate the
Government Code in collecting fees. He said if Council was interested, it
should be discussed. He said he believed everyone wanted to be in compliance
with the Government Code He wanted to, and if Council wanted to collect
fees, he offered the credit card, On the other hand if the City wasn’t in
compliance with the Government Code, there was a claim. He asked Council
what they would like to do.
Motion: Approve closing the public hearing.
Moved by Taylor, seconded by Beckstrand.
Vote: Motion carried 4-0.
Yes: Beckstrand; Brockman; Gutierrez; Taylor
Absent: Swisher
Council Member Brockman said it was standard to submit a fee submitted with
the application before it was reveiwed. Submitting a project to be reviewed
and it was not reasonable to assume the application was complete. The
project had been ongoing for three years. He could not see approving the
request and felt it should be denied.
Council Member Taylor asked if there were any violations.
Assistant City Attorney, Karen Murphy, said Mr. Neff had not submitted the
fees with the application and the City’s position was there was not an
application in place yet and the fees needed to be paid in order to move
forward.
Motion: adopt Resolution 2006-273 denying an appeal filed by Bailey Neff on
the Planning Commission's denial decision regarding the Community
Development Department’s determination regarding the completeness of an
application for a tentative subdivision map (TSM 8446). The property is
located at 1060 Minnesota Avenue (APN 017-080-007).
Moved by Taylor, seconded by Brockman.
Vote: Motion carried 4-0.
Yes: Beckstrand; Brockman; Gutierrez; Taylor
Absent: Swisher
19. Consideration of a Resolution for an update to the City’s Residential
Growth Management Program (RGMP), last updated on September 13, 2005,
clarifying issues relative to affordable housing units, adding to the list
of exempt projects, and making minor changes to both the "Amenities" and
"Agricultural Enterprise" criteria. (H. Sword/E. Nolthenius)
Planning Manager, Heidi Kline, presented a staff report with recommended
changes to the RGMP. She said there had been clarifications to the number of
units for the Carmel Estates. Several exemptions had been clarified so it
would match with the tentative subdivision number. Clarifications were
recommended for a very high density; the Village Community Resouce Center;
and TAC credits for Agricultural Enterprise criteria.
Vice Mayor Gutierrez requested an example of Exemption 1, affordable housing
units, subject to Chapter 17.725 of the Brentwood Municipal Code and a
recommendation for approval from the City’s Housing Subcommittee, would
work.
Planning Manager, Heidi Kline, provided Council with an example and said
staff wanted to have how many market rate units would be built worked out up
front instead of rather than having to come back to Council for more
allocations later.
Vice Mayor Gutierrez opened the public hearing.
Bailey Neff asked about the fiscal impact stating that none had been listed
in the staff report. He said items and costs associated with the items were
not identified and asked to obtain the information. He wanted to have input
on how the affordable housing worked.
Planning Manager, Heidi Kline, stated with regard to the fiscal impact, the
change in program did not exempt out any additional units nor categories.
The staff report had been mailed in advance to all residential developers as
a courtesy, as well as posted in the paper.
Motion: Approve closing the public hearing.
Moved by Beckstrand, seconded by Gutierrez.
Vote: Motion carried 4-0.
Yes: Beckstrand; Brockman; Gutierrez; Taylor
Absent: Swisher
Motion: Approve Resolution 2006-274 approving an update to the City’s
Residential Growth Management Program (RGMP), last updated on September 13,
2005, clarifying issues relative to affordable housing units, adding to the
list of exempt projects, and making minor changes to both the "Amenities"
and "Agricultural Enterprise" criteria.
Moved by Taylor, seconded by Beckstrand.
Vote: Motion carried 4-0.
Yes: Beckstrand; Brockman; Gutierrez; Taylor
Absent: Swisher
NEW BUSINESS (08:50 PM)
20. Incorporate the consideration of changing the land use of the property
south of Lone Tree Way and west of Gann Street into the next General Plan
Update. (H. Sword)
Director of Community Development, Howard Sword, presented a staff report
and said the item was requested to be considered by Council at the last
meeting, related to the appeal of Skipolini’s Restaurant and the adjacent
Sterling Preserve Homes. Council Member Beckstrand had asked if a land use
change in the General Plan could be considered outside of the General Plan
Update. He said it could be done and did not recommend the City initiate a
special planning study of this outside of the General Plan. The General Plan
designation was Ranchette Estate and ten homes could be produced on the 21
acres. That density would prevent improvements from being financed on Lone
Tree Way and would not provide adequate financing for in-tract
infrastructure to serve the homes and the existing land use designation was
not feasible. He spoke about access from Lone Tree Way and said the
estimated schedule for an independent planning study for a potential General
Plan Amendment was 18 months. A comprehensive environmental study would need
to be prepared and at least, a mitigated negative declaration would be
necessary. The estimated cost of preparing an independent land use study was
approximately $150,000, should the City initiate the General Plan Amendment.
Council Member Beckstrand asked that some consideration be given to the
General Plan Update and she asked it be taken back to the Economic
Development Subcommittee to discuss with Planning Commissioners as to
whether or not this was the appropriate zoning.
Council Member Brockman said he did not want to spend a lot of money on the
the General Plan Update.
Council Member Beckstrand said the City did not have to do the process and
the public had the right.
Council member Brockman said there should be a discussion between Planning
Commission and Council to reach a consensus of reasonable direction.
Council Member Beckstrand asked for a report to be brought back to Council
and Planning Commission.
Council Member Taylor did not want to spend $150,000 on a General Plan
Update. There would be a General Plan Amendment done where everything would
be looked at and he could not see spending the money.
Vice Mayor Gutierrez agreed with other Council Members and said phasing and
timing were crucial, especially since the Brentwood Boulevard Specific Plan
and then the General Plan Update.
Council Member Beckstrand said staff needed a consensus from Council that it
was alright to agendize that and move forward in the Subcommittees.
City Attorney, Damien Brower, stated the item before Council was to
determine whether or not Council would like to incorporate consideration of
the land use of the property south of Lone Tree Way and west of Gann Street
into the General Plan process or if Council would like to do a specific
study.
Vice Mayor Gutierrez requested any citizen comments on the item.
Motion: directed staff to incorporate the consideration of changing the land
use of the property south of Lone Tree Way and west of Gann Street into the
next General Plan Update and referred that particular piece of land and its
use to the Economic Development Subcommittee for discussion. (H. Sword)
Moved by Beckstrand, seconded by Brockman.
Vote: Motion carried 4-0.
Yes: Beckstrand; Brockman; Gutierrez; Taylor
Absent: Swisher
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS (09:13 PM)
REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS (09:13 PM)
Council Member Beckstrand requested a broader discussion with the Economic
Development Subcommittee on Item 20 and report back to Council.
Council Member Brockman requested the following: 1) A report and timeline on
the downtown parking garage. 2) A report on downtown incentives and fee
deferrments for businesses that relocate to the downtown. 3) A report on
signage directing traffic towards the downtown area. 4) A report on the
downtown merchants association and adverstising for the downtown area. 5) A
report on directional signage to parking garages for the downtown area.
Vice Mayor Gutierrez concurred with Brockman on the exploring downtown
incentives for small and commercial businesses. She asked what was available
for small businesses dealing with high rents for commercial prop. in the
area.
Council Member Brockman directed staff to look into the traffic signal
timing lights.
Vice Mayor Gutierrez requested an item on solar panels, and the ways
municipalities could promote or make them affordable and feasible.
ADJOURNMENT (09:19 PM)
Motion: Approve adjournment.
Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Taylor.
Vote: Motion carried 4-0.
Yes: Beckstrand; Brockman; Gutierrez; Taylor
Absent: Swisher
Respectfully submitted,
Cynthia Garcia, CMC
Assistant City Clerk
|
