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

Past Agendas

September 9, 2003

A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Brentwood was called to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 734 Third Street, with Mayor Swisher presiding.

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

The meeting adjourned to closed session at 6:30 p.m. pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(a) – l


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

Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation pursuant to Gov’t Code § 54956.9(a):
Brentwood Associates, LLC v. City of Brentwood, et al.; Case No. C03-02081

Closed Session adjourned at 6:45.p.m.

The meeting reconvened at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Swisher presiding.

Boy Scout Troop 93 presented a Flag ceremony.

Mayor Swisher reported that Council consented to have the City Attorney to represent the City in the Case of Brentwood Associates, LLC, Case No. C03-02081. Council Member Petrovich absent. Motion carried. He stated that there was no report on the Real Property Negotiators Closed Session item.


A. 80-volt presentation.

Sue Stewart, Corral Director, and Megan Belik and Sarah Davis, thanked Council for their support of the program and presented a video with the A-Cappella choir singing in the national cathedral on June 15, 2003 and a picture for the Council.

B. New Employee Introductions and Oath of Allegiance.

Chief Michael Davies introduced the following new employees:

Mary Flann Police Department
Marco Estrada Police Department

Mayor Swisher administered the Oath of Office.

C. Presentation of a plaque for the State “Ag” award.
D. Proclaiming Thursday, September 11, 2003 as Patriot Day, a day of solemn observance, mourning, reflection and unity in commemoration of the two-year anniversary of September 11, 2001.

Mayor Swisher invited everyone to the September 11, 2003 service at 5:30 p.m. in remembrance of the tragedies of September 11, 2001.


Presentation Item C Staff requests the presentation be pulled and rescheduled at a later a date.

Item 4 Corrected budget sheet.

Item 5 Corrected budget sheet.

Item 7 Affordable Housing Ordinance – additional language included regarding the phase-in period.
Correspondence received from Archer Norris.

Item 11A Addendum to the Agenda of September 9, 2003.

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

Item 11B Approve the appointments of Anne Kelly to the Commission on Aging and David Navarrette to the Brentwood Agricultural Land Trust.

Item 12 Correspondence from collective neighbors regarding Braddock & Logan.

Item 14 Correspondence received from Western Pacific Housing.

Item 17 Change in Resolution language.

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


Chris Robinson, Chairman of the Day in the Park Art and Wine Festival, announced that the Festival would be held on October 11 and 12, 2003.

Council Member Beckstrand informed that the Vineyards at Marsh Creek, Signature Homes and Michelob were sponsoring the Day in the Park event and she presented a $10,000 check from Rosenblum Wine Sellers to Chris Robinson.

Priscilla Wright said she was responding to a public notice given to the parents and guardians of children enrolled at Liberty High School. She was concerned about a public notice regarding a permanent application that had been filed with the District for a source of air pollution and she read a description of the proposed project pertaining to ATC Associates, Inc., which had proposed a system consisting of a vacuum blower to extract petroleum vapor from wells drilled at the site. She expressed her concerns about emissions from the proposed source and said that the notice stated that the levels were acceptable. She said she had informed Liberty High District to let them know it was affecting her children and added that she had printed out a health risk screening analysis and that benzedine was a toxic air contaminant and a carcinogen and would be emitted during the operation of the facility. She was concerned that benzedine could have acute effects on the immune and neurological system. She asked how it would be recognized if the contaminants would be in the water and air and she said she was concerned that it affected her children. She asked if this was State mandated and if the City had any jurisdiction over it. She asked for an investigation and noted that October 1, 2003 was the deadline for the State to file.


1. Approved Minutes of August 12, 2003.

2. Waived second reading and adopted Ordinance 755 authorizing an amendment to the contract between the Board of Administration California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the City of Brentwood, as approved in bargaining unit agreements.

3. Approved Resolution 2970 accepting the work performed by Granite Construction Company for Sand Creek Road (Central), CIP Project No. 336-3061, and direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder.

4. Approved Resolution 2971 authorizing the City Manager to execute a change order in the amount of $6,000 with Antioch Paving Company, Inc. in order to complete the construction of the Second Street Parking Lot, CIP Project No. 336-3135, and add the amended CIP Budget Sheet into the 2003/04 Program.

5. Approved Resolution 2972 authorizing the City Manager to execute a Change Order with Top Grade Construction in the amount of $121,450.00, authorize the City Manager to approve change orders up to 10% of the contract amount, and revise the 2003/04 CIP Budget Sheet to reflect actual expenditures to date.

6. Approved an Agreement for Payment of Contract Services with Pinn Brothers Construction, Inc., and Approve an Agreement for Contract Services with Raney Planning & Management for an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Marseilles Project located north of Central Boulevard, west of the Union Pacific railroad tracks and east of Griffith Lane.

7. Waived second reading and adopted Ordinance No. 756 for a Zoning Code Amendment adding Chapter 17.725 to provide an Affordable Housing Program.

8. Approved Resolution 2973 authorizing the City Manager to transfer design funds in an amount not to exceed $160,351 from the Police Facility Project, CIP Project No. 336-3110, in order to separate costs associated with the due diligence analysis being performed in conjunction with a possible site location move, CIP Project 337-3142, and add the project sheet into the 2003/04 CIP Program.
9. Approved Resolution 2974 submitting the General Obligation Bond Tax Rate to Contra Costa County for the 2003-04 tax roll.

10. Rejected the claim submitted by Arlene Bingham as recommended by the City’s third-party insurance adjuster, Contra Costa County Municipal Risk Management Insurance Authority and the City Attorney.

11. Approved Resolution 2975 approving the Final Map of Subdivision No. 8722, Brookdale Court, located south of Balfour Road and just west of Clearview Drive, accepting the improvement security, approving the Subdivision Improvement Agreement, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the same.

11A. Approved Resolution 2976 approving Temporary Use Permit No. 03-13 to allow for the use of City owned property for the staging of the annual Art and Wine Festival sponsored by the Brentwood Arts Commission for 2 days, Saturday, October 11th and Sunday, October 12th, 2003.

11B. Approved the appointments of Anne Kelly to the Commission on Aging and David Navarrette to the Brentwood Agricultural Land Trust.

It was moved/seconded by Beckstrand/Gutierrez to approve Consent Calendar Items 1 – 11A as recommended by staff. Council Member Petrovich absent. Motion carried.

Item 11B Approve the appointments of Anne Kelly to the Commission on Aging and David Navarrette to the Brentwood Agricultural Land Trust.

Mayor Swisher pulled per agenda review to discuss appointments.

It was moved/seconded by Swisher/Hill to approve the two appointments. Council Member Petrovich absent. Motion carried.


12. Consideration of a Resolution granting an allocation for 311 dwelling units to Braddock and Logan Services, Inc. for its project located east of the Union Pacific railroad tracks, west of Lone Oak Road and north of the new Sand Creek Road, in accordance with its application submitted for the Residential Growth Management Program (RGMP). Continued from the meeting of August 12, 2003.

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

Senior Planner, Jeff Zilm, introduced a staff report noting that there had been residents with concerns at the meeting of August 12, 2003 and that Council had requested the applicant and staff meet with the residents to find out about concerns and work with issues prior to approval of the RGMP for the 311 allotments. The applicant and surrounding residents discussed several issues regarding the RGMP allotment, which was to obtain approval for a certain number of lots and to proceed with the map and with the process of working at getting the project approved. He explained that there were a lot of steps between now and the final process that would allow the residents who had any concerns or comments to work with the City and the applicant to resolve issues prior to final approval of the project. Information had been presented this date prior to the Council meeting, which staff had not had a chance to analyze; however staff had addressed all of the concerns presented at the August 12, 2003 meeting.

Mayor Swisher opened the public hearing.

J.P. Troy said he was the neighborhood spokesperson and that he and the neighbors had met with Mr. Ziblatt. He and the neighbors asked that the item be continued for a couple of weeks and he said he felt that the meeting with Mr. Ziblatt had not been productive. He presented a history of the area and noted that information had been presented to staff and Council this date. He referred to the binder regarding notices sent to the property owners pertaining to zoning and that certain zoning had been promised during the annexation process. He said that he was not against the Braddock and Logan subdivision and the schools but the zoning was not what the people were led to believe it would be. He referred to a map that he had brought with him and said he believed that residents within 300 feet had not been notified. If Braddock & Logan wanted to build 311 homes and if the gross acreage was conclusive to that, it was all right. He referred to the zoning of the properties that bordered his and that he had obtained another map which was different than the previous map and he compared the amendments and did not understand how the zoning could have changed. He said he felt it was an oversight and asked for Council and staff to take more time to find where things were lost and that the residents be shown the zoning.

Peter Ziblatt, Braddock & Logan, said he had pledged publicly to work with the neighbors, had been out to see them and that he felt a lot of progress had been made and issues worked through. He had explained to the neighborhoods how the general plan was driving this and a lot of details that had been raised by the neighborhood would not be able to be dealt with right away and he had kept his promise of meeting and working with neighbors. Until there was an allocation in hand, there was not yet a project and Braddock & Logan felt that going forward was the right thing to do even though the neighbors concerns were valid.

Mike McPoland informed that when the annexation attempt was made of the north Brentwood area, the annexation process failed at the time. There had been a petition signed by a number of residents allowing the areas to be annexed to the City and did not include this area at the time. A former employee to the City had mentioned to the people that these were half acre lots, which was not correct. He said he believed that further research may provide other information.

An unidentified person stated that Mr. Troy did not represent all of the neighbors and that he and his cousin were in support of Braddock & Logan. The size of the project would trigger proper development in the area and bring in infrastructure and he was in support of Braddock & Logan. He said he believed that this was the proper thing to do and that the fine tuning could be done in the tentative phase.

An unidentified man asked Council to wait for two weeks until there was time to meet with staff and until it was explained to the neighbors how it ended up this way when the neighbors were all promised that it would be more rural. He did not disagree with the subdivision and asked to meet with staff to learn more about zoning.

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

Council Member Gutierrez asked about the zoning change.

Director of Community Development, Mitch Oshinsky, said the zoning changes had been done in November 2001 as part of the adoption of the general plan update and zoning changes at that time were Citywide and had been noticed on a Citywide basis. There had been 30 public meetings on the general plan update where the changes had all been reviewed and commented on by residents over a two year period. The action was to grant an allocation under the RGMP and would have to go through the Tentative Map and design review processes and did not guarantee the 311 homes. Braddock and Logan would need to go through an environmental review.

Council Member Gutierrez did not believe it was unreasonable for neighbors to ask for a transition that made sense and all of that could be ironed out in the tentative map process. This was not an approval of the whole project; it was about the number of units.

Director Oshinsky said it granted Braddock & Logan an allotment of 311 units through the RGMP program and they would still need to go through the tentative, design review and environmental review processes. Through the processes, the impacts of the units were evaluated and there was no guarantee that Braddock & Logan would get 311 units and this set the maximum number of units.

Council Member Hill said that when the RGMP had been established, it would give the developer a target to not bring the City a project that would not meet a minimum number of points. The City would not consider any discussion of an RGM allocation unless it met a minimum of 100 points. In an initial application for the RGMP allocation, the project did not meet the minimum of 100 points. At the Housing Subcommittee level, the project had been modified, including working with the school to change the acreage, moving some trails and some of the minimum things that the City believed would assist in bringing Braddock & Logan to the 100 points and it gave Council more comfort that the project would be beneficial to the community as a whole.

Council Member Gutierrez said she was not comfortable granting a project based on a minimum and others had exceeded that minimum.

Council Member Hill explained the RGMP process and said some of the major items that needed to be incorporated and coordinated, such as schools and roads would be anticipated as part of this prior to going into the tentative map process. It was a snapshot of what the developer had in mind if it fit with what was being done in the area. That would allow the developer to discussion to move forward with the tentative map process.

Council Member Gutierrez said that City would get the much needed infrastructure and she wanted to be assured that all of the details were not be set in stone.

City Manager, John Stevenson, said that all of the details would be worked out through the conditions of the tentative map process and all of the details on the exact location, size and configuration of the park and school. The process would take a number of months and the inclusionary housing ordinance would be negotiated at that time.

Council Member Hill said there seemed to be confusion as to where the zoning came from and that the process had taken place in many meetings. The zoning was established when the general plan was adopted November 27, 2001 and there was a land use map regarding the zoning and its potential uses. There would be lot sizes of 6,000 to 8,000 square feet as being the common area. And it was not physically possible for Council to address all of the issues at this meeting. He stated that the applicant was guaranteed through the Map Act that they could submit a tentative map and start the process. Council had taken an advance look at the project and anticipated the impacts and it gave Braddock & Logan a snapshot of what they needed to deal with. He believed that Braddock & Logan would be prepared to deliver on their commitments. The zoning was in place and Council needed to move forward. Braddock & Logan had heard loud and clear the concerns of the neighbors and many of the concerns would be incorporated in conditions of approval during the process. He was prepared to move forward on the allocation and noted that Braddock and Logan would be there for the neighbors and be held accountable for their actions. Many of the neighborhood concerns would be incorporated in the conditions of approval.

Mayor Swisher said that Braddock & Logan would come back and fix problems such as road problems, problems with the School District or would move things around or would add more parks. He was confident that Braddock & Logan would work with the neighbors.



It was moved/seconded by Swisher/ Hill to approve the RGMP and Resolution 2977 as recommended by staff. Motion passed by the following vote:

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

Council Member Beckstrand returned to the Council Chamber.

13. Approve Resolution authorizing the City of Brentwood to accept monies from the State Citizens Option for Public Safety (COPS) program.

Police Chief, Michael Davies, explained that the County allocated money, in the anticipated amount of $100,000, and as a condition of the allocation of the money, a public hearing was required before the local agency and required that the money would be used by the Police Department.



Mayor Swisher opened the public hearing.

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

It was moved/seconded by Hill/Beckstrand to approve Resolution 2978 as recommended by staff. Motion passed by the following vote:

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


14. Consideration of an Ordinance amending Chapter 2.44 Arts Commission to amend Officers, Poet Laureate, and Public Art Program.

Pauldina Scherff, Parks and Recreation Services Manager, introduced Ron Beatty, Chairman of the Arts Commission and Jan Melloni, Arts Commissioner.

Ron Beatty, Chairman of the Arts Commission, stated that the concerns of the Council at the last meeting had been addressed by the Arts Commission and he referred to the staff report. He said he had met with City staff and that when someone applied for a permit to build, they would ask for cost figure and that was how the money would be calculated. The fee resolution would return to Council at a later date.

City Attorney, Dennis Beougher, said that the actual fee was not set as part of this item; it was the ordinance and the resolution setting the fee, where definitions could be included as to how to calculate the fee.

Council Member Hill noted that when the City issued a permit, there was a value on the permit per unit based on whatever the model was and it was the expectation of the Commission that the calculation would occur on the stated value.

City Manager, John Stevenson, stated that detailed language could be added prior to the next Council meeting.

Mayor Swisher said that in looking at the projections for the coming year it added up to a lot of money.

Chairman Beatty stated it was a lot less than it had been and it was going for one percent for the builders and it did not make sense. He added the Commission was trying to be practical.

Council Member Hill said that with projects based on unit counts, it would be more money than what was calculated. He said that the Arts Commission and staff needed to develop a strategy on how the money would be spent. The fee was broken down to 20 percent administration and 80 percent public art and he said he believed that the City should be prudent on how it would be spent and accounted for every year since it was a significant amount of money to not have some sort of master plan rolled out. Developers deserved that as part of paying the fee on behalf of the property owners and the public needed to know.

Commissioner Beatty informed that the Commission had a provision to make a master plan for approval in the public guidelines.

Council Member Beckstrand stated that there had been a subcommittee formed in the Arts Commission to bring forth, develop and prioritize ideas. She noted that the City still had a lot development to be done and that a lot of the cities had done this after build out.

Jan Melloni, Arts Commissioner, said that the City of Walnut Creek had implemented one percent for arts program and had done it late in their development. The art was beautiful there and was not necessarily in the form of statues.

In response to Council Member Hill, Commissioner Beatty said there would be provisions for a developer to make a grant request to incorporate dollars into the project to enhance the project.

Council Member Beckstrand said that the Lone Tree undercrossing had been considered.

Commissioner Melloni said that when the City reached the build out stage and would be doing redevelopment, some of the funds could be used for performing arts and bringing programs into the City as an art element and that in the future, the ordinance could be changed.

Director of Finance and Information Services, Pam Ehler, stated that the proposed fee expenditure would be brought to Council every year and would have City guidelines and every purchasing policy and everything spent over $50,000 since Assembly Bill 1600 allowed for that.

City Attorney Beougher said that the money must be expended within five years.

Director Ehler said that the Finance Department would stay on top of the five year issue since they had done that with other development fees.



It was moved/seconded by Beckstrand/Gutierrez to waive first reading of Ordinance No. 760 as recommended by staff. Motion passed by the following vote:

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

15. Waive second reading and adopt Ordinance 758 approving a zoning amendment of PD-42 to add development standards for planning area F, generally located south of Sand Creek Road and west of Brentwood Boulevard Highway 4.

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

Assistant Planner, Debbie Hill, noted that the item was for housekeeping purposes.

It was moved/seconded by Swisher/Hill to waive second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 758 as
recommended by staff. Motion passed by the following vote:

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

At 8:38 p.m., Council recessed for a short break and reconvened at 8:43 p.m.

16. Waive second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 759 amending Title 16, Subdivisions and Land Development, to add Chapter 16.165 and Chapter 16.166 authorizing the City Manager to approve final maps and execute subdivision agreements.

City Attorney, Dennis Beougher, noted that this was the second reading of the ordinance concerning authorization of the City Manager to accept final maps and subdivision agreements.

In response to Council Member Gutierrez, City Attorney Beougher said that the City Manager would be authorized to execute final maps and subdivision agreements as long as it was concerning the standard agreement drafted by the City Attorney. If it was not the normal one or had any changes, it would be brought forth to Council.

City Manager, John Stevenson, stated that staff would bring reports to Council to keep them updated on what, when and why an item was being recorded.

It was moved/seconded by Hill/Beckstrand to waive second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 759 as recommended by staff. Motion passed by the following vote:

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

17. Consideration of a Resolution supporting the efforts led by Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) to reauthorize and extend Measure C as a primary funding source for transportation improvements in Contra Costa County.

City Engineer, Bailey Grewal, introduced a staff report and added that approval was subject to two conditions. The recommendation was contingent upon CCTA continuing to provide funding for projects that benefit East Contra Costa County, such as Vasco Road, Highway 4 Bypass Extension, Highway 239 and Highway 84 and that any Measure C funding not be associated in any way with growth management, smart growth or the urban limit line.

Council Member Hill said he appreciated the incorporation of the recommendations and that smart growth was alternative growth and there was nothing smart about the suggestions Contra Costa County on how those in East County lived. He was inclined not to support CCTA since they had never been supportive of East County and the City should get in line since the County had not demonstrated that they were willing to do more than they had always done.

Mayor Swisher said the City should support Measure C and he was in support of the two exclusions recommended by staff. This was money for streets and even though the City would receive a slim amount, at least the City got the money. It would be up to the County to legislate more money and if the City did not support measure C, there would be no more money to legislate in the future and would the City be making progress by denying it. He added that the City should submit a support letter for Measure C.

Council Member Gutierrez said that this was a double edge sword and she did not want to support it but the money was for roads. It was unfortunate that the City had to wait until 2020 or 2030 to receive what was needed now.

Council Member Beckstrand said if nothing was done, the City would go on record as being fully in support of it and this was a way that the City could show what had been promised by the County and that it was not happening or could show that this was where the line was drawn. She said she believed that this was the only way to be sure that people in central County did not assume that the City was saying yes by not saying anything.

Council Member Hill said that this was a commitment and that CCTA would include the City and the projects. He asked that CCTA adopt a list of projects that benefited East County prior to the support by the City.

Council Member Beckstrand noted that it could be postponed until after the Thursday Transplan and Bypass Authority meetings.

Mayor Swisher asked when CCTA would adopt their expenditures for Measure C if it passed since the money had not even been approved and was probably spent.

Council Member Beckstrand noted that there were four planning committees in each sub area of the County to assemble the projects and program expenditures by June 30, 2003. The transportation entity did so in the form of the projects and if this went on the November 2004 ballot, there was not much time left.

City Engineer, Bailey Grewal, said he believed that the list of projects were from the last list prepared by Transplan and had not yet been approved by the board.

Council Member Gutierrez said that it had been made clear that the items on the list were proposed and that she had not seen a resolution passed.

Mayor Swisher said that nothing was in concrete until Transplan had the money.

Council Member Hill said that the support was conditional subject to Transplan adopting a satisfactory list and at least the sub regional planning effort recognized the priority of the projects and only under those circumstances would he support encouraging adoption of Measure C otherwise, the City was getting in line and placing money in their pocket.

City Engineer Grewal said that the first condition in the resolution was that the County continue to provide funding for the listed projects.

Council Member Hill said he could assure that as Transplan decided how money from Measure C would be divided, the priority list was already established and he did not want to wait until the year 2030.

Mayor Swisher stated that the money was not just for major streets and was also for local streets.


It was moved/seconded by Swisher/Beckstrand to waive full reading and adopt Resolution No. 2979, supporting the efforts led by CCTA to reauthorize the extension of Measure C with the included amendments to the resolution as recommended by staff. Council Member Petrovich absent. Motion passed by the following vote:

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

18. Update on open trench cuts in City streets.

City Engineer, Bailey Grewal, presented a staff report regarding revisions to the standard specifications for open cut trenches in existing streets. He said he believed that the trenches degraded and reduced the life of the pavement and he referred to the legal battle with the City of Santa Ana and Southern California Gas Company and there were other cities that had gone to court over a fee and had lost to PG&E. He said he felt it was best to change the City standard, making the requirements more stringent and in the last three years, he did not allow trench cuts and if allowed, the contractor would have to resurface the gap on the street.

City Manager, John Stevenson, informed that the City could not have a fee and could do a two-sack slurry backfill so that the trench could not physically settle.

City Engineer Grewal said that slurry seal would be done on old roads, five to ten years old, and he would prefer to have the grinding so that the joint did not appear on the pavement. He added that if the contractor area was more than 100 feet, the requirements applied and if they were doing 50 feet, the contractor could do slurry seal in that area.

Council Member Hill said that there was a significant amount of asphalt left on top of the surface, which made the road unpleasant to drive on. Irregardless of the size of the trench, it should be fixed within 14-days and no one should get an exemption. He said he was concerned about staff conditions of approval as it related to adding new pavement, travel lanes or bike lines and the transition occurring in the traffic pattern or path of the tire versus in the center of the lane or in the center of the overall roadway. He asked that staff be diligent and take the initiative when looking at approving and inspect plans and that they get the transitions into the less vulnerable areas versus letting the developers decide.

Engineer Grewal said that whenever there was widening, existing pavement would be capped to the centerline or the existing pavement would be ground to the middle of the lane so that the joint would not be where the tire of the car was.

Mayor Swisher used PG&E for an example and said that if they were to put in a trench, they would patch back the trench and they would not have to seal the whole side of the road. With all of the new subdivisions abutting existing roadways and all of the cutting in for new pads, it had not been on top of the priority list as far as workmanship.

Council Member Hill said the key was quality of workmanship and that it was incumbent upon City inspectors to ensure that the quality of workmanship was better.

City Engineer Grewal said that Engineering would see that on the pavement widening, either the contractor overlay the entire existing pavement or make sure it was done correctly.

At 9:12 p.m., Council Member Hill left the Council Chambers.


19. Discussion concerning cancellation of the November 11, 2003 and December 23, 2003 City Council Meetings.

City Attorney, Dennis Beougher, said that the current ordinance stated that Council shall meet on the second and fourth Tuesday of every calendar month and that the ordinance would need to be changed. He said wording for the ordinance would return to the meeting of September 23, 2003 as part of the workshop on the rules procedures. The ordinance would need to have first and second readings and then 30-days to become effective, prior to November 11, 2003.

Mayor Swisher requested that the meetings be of November 11, 2003 and December 23, 2003 be cancelled.

20. Discussion concerning the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ballot measure.

City Attorney, Dennis Beougher, noted that this was in relation to the urban limit line and that on September 15, 2003 the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors would consider reviewing ballot language concerning urban limit lines and that it required a four-fifths vote by Board of Supervisors and then a vote by the entire County. He suggested having language that would allow an exemption for an urban limit line that had been created by a local jurisdiction. If the voters of the City decided to have their own urban limit line, it should take precedence over whatever the County and this initiative would present. If local jurisdictions decided to set their own urban limit line, it should be their prerogative as to how the voters of Oakley, Antioch or the City decided what the urban limit line was and what should take precedence and not the voters of other cities in the County telling the Brentwood what their urban limit line should be.

Council Member Gutierrez said that the County could not impose language.

City Attorney Beougher informed that once the voters had approved it by the entire County, before there could be a change to it, it would still require the vote of the entire County. LAFCO could still ignore anything presented by this but once the voters in Contra Costa had decided, they would be very limited in what they could do. Once an initiative was approved, it took precedence over whatever legal authority the City had. He said that there should be some process that should be provided within the valid initiative to preserve the rights of the voters of the City. It should provide for an exemption that if a local jurisdiction decided to approve its own urban limit line, it would take precedence over any of those approved by the ballot measure. It would still be consistent with urban limit lines and would also provide for local jurisdictions.

Council Member Beckstrand said she believed that the County would not listen anyway and asked where they stood on the issue.

City Attorney Beougher said he had come up with something to support local needs and would still be supportive of what the County was trying to do.

City Manager Stevenson said that the County could hide behind the vote of the people.

City Attorney Beougher explained that the voters of the City should be allowed to say that this was ultimately what they would like to see the City look like. It should be presented as local control and should be exempt from having other cities in the County decide far from here and did not have an interest.

Council Member Gutierrez said it was alright to send a proposal for County consideration and that the voters should decide what to do with the City.

Council Member Beckstrand added that it did not hurt to try.

City Attorney Beougher said it presented an alternative to what the County was imposing on the City.

Mayor Swisher directed the City Attorney to write language and take it to the September 15, 2003, County meeting and he asked to work with the cities of Oakley and Antioch to present a united front.

Council Member Gutierrez asked that the County representative be notified.


Barbara Guise said she believed that the last item on the agenda was a movement by the County to continue to grow in the unincorporated areas so that they could make all of the developer’s fees and squash cities. She said that she had been the former chairman of the Contra Cost Transit Authority and stated that the City needed a plan. There needed to be a list of improvement included in the ballot measure so that citizens could know what they were voting for and that a Member of Council needed to be a member of the Contra Costa Transit Authority Committee. She had done that and if Council just sat on Transplan it would not work. Getting on the Committee would be the only way to protect the City and convince the Transit Authority to give the City money ahead of time. Money could be bonded up front that could be paid with projected fees and she had seen it work.



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

There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:22 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Cynthia Garcia
Assistant City Clerk


City Administration
City of Brentwood City Council
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
(925) 516-5440
Fax (925) 516-5441