These minutes are considered draft in nature and will not be official until adopted by the City council

Deputy Dawn

Informations

• Publié par: Saep
• Nombre de lectures: 15
• Langue: English

Extrait

   

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLEASANTON CITY COUNCIL December 6, 2005

          6:30 P.M. CLOSED SESSION    Conference with real property negotiator, Nelson Fialho, concerning the terms and conditions to acquire a temporary construction easement on property owned by the Sportorno Family Ranch, adjacent to the Callippe Preserve Golf Course and Open Space project. 1. CALL TO ORDER   Mayor Hosterman called the regular meeting of the City Council to order at 7:00 p.m. Councilmember Sullivan led the assembly in the pledge of allegiance.    Mr. Sullivan mentioned the Pleasanton Police Officers Association (PPOA) Charitable Foundation is sponsoring a Pleasanton Giving Tree. The tree in the lobby of the Police Department holds tags that hold gift requests for local families and seniors in need and community members are invited to pick up a tag and purchase gifts that can be returned to the Police Department; gifts are to be delivered on December 23. The Livermore Pleasanton Fire Department is sponsoring a Toys For Tots Drive. All fire stations in Pleasanton and Livermore are accepting new and unwrapped toys for local families in need; toys may be dropped off until Christmas. Also accepting assistance for the holiday season is Open Heart Kitchen and the Tri- Valley Haven. He asked the community to remember its citizens that are over seas and may be in harms way or away from home, whether in the military, working in some type of relief or humanitarian effort.   2. ROLL CALL   City Clerk Dawn Abrahamson called the roll, which was recorded as follows: Councilmembers present were Steve Brozosky, Cindy McGovern, Matt Sullivan, Jerry Thorne, and Mayor Hosterman. Staff members present were: Nelson Fialho, City Manager; Michael Roush, City Attorney; Steven Bocian, Assistant City Manager; Jerry Iserson, Director of Planning and Community Development; Rob Wilson, Director of Public Works; and Pamela Ott, Economic Development Manager.   3. AGENDA AMENDMENTS    There were none.  

Pleasanton City Council Minutes 1

12/06/05 

4. CONSENT CALENDAR    Mr. Thorne requested a correction to page seven, paragraph one, of the November 15 minutes to state, “the intent of this process was to benchmark with not similar industries.” Mr. Brozosky requested a correction be made to page two, paragraph two, to reflect Mr. Sullivan requested agenda item 4k, be removed from the Consent Calendar to Public Hearings and Other Matters, agenda item 6g.    Mr. Brozosky referred to agenda item 4f and asked if the lease agreement with Ether Web Network LLC precluded others from using this site?    Nelson Fialho, City Manager, said the lease agreement established the construction of a lattice structure that would occupy not only the City’s infrastructure and telecommunications equipment but also the providers. If a second provider wanted to utilize this facility, it would enter into negotiations on the terms and conditions with the City.    Michael Roush, City Attorney, said the lease agreement was written in a way to allow others to use the site so long as it does not interfere with this particular use.    Mr. Brozosky asked if the City would be allowed precedent if it chose to install its own communication facility in the future?    Mr. Roush said the lease agreement allowed the City to terminate the agreement if it could show that it had some public necessity to use the site that would preclude the lessee from using it. He believed the City could install its own communication system at 9000 Santos Ranch Road as long it did not interfere with this particular lessees use of the site and if it was demonstrated that the City’s proposed use interfered with the lessee’s, then the City would not be allowed to install its own communication facility unless there was an overriding public necessity of the need to use this site for this purpose. Staff did not anticipate this would occur. He noted that every three years, the City has the option of not renewing the lease agreement.    Mr. Brozosky referred to agenda item 4e and said he was disappointed with the cost to remove the roundabouts.    Mr. Thorne referred to agenda item 4b, PDR-496, City of Pleasanton, and asked if the Delucchi Park Public Restroom project was within budget as upgrade modifications were added to the project.    Mr. Fialho said staff would present to Council a project that attempts to stay within the budget of $290,000. The items that were added to this project by the Planning Commission would be reflected as “add alternates” for Council to consider prior to placing this project out for bid. If Council chooses to agree to any of the modifications as recommended by the Planning Commission, it would have an opportunity to include them prior to going out to bid.    Ms. McGovern commented on several items on the Consent Calendar that she believed the public ought to be aware of: (1) agenda item 4b, PDR-489/PV-138, Nordstrom’s and The Mills Corporation – application for design review approval of a phased development plan for the expansion and remodeling of Stoneridge Mall. Phase I will relocate the existing Nordstrom’s store by constructing 144,000 square feet of new retail area and add two restaurants (The Cheese Cake Factory and PF Changs) totaling 15,600 square feet; (2) agenda item 4g, contract     Pleasanton City Council Minutes

2

12/06/05

for the Iron Horse Trail Phase II project which would construct a pedestrian jogging trail from Mohr Avenue to Santa Rita Road along the existing, abandoned transportation corridor, scheduled for completion in March 2006; and (3) agenda item 4m, Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day, December 7.     It was moved by Mr. Brozosky, seconded by Mr. Thorne, that the following actions under the Consent Calendar be taken with the amendments to the minutes of November 15 as requested by Mr. Thorne and Mr. Brozosky:    a. Approved the minutes of 11/15/05 with amendments.   b. Actions of the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission. (IR 05:060)   There was no action taken or required on this item.   c. Accepted monthly disbursements and Investment Report for October 2005. (SR 05:324)   d. Approved replacement of ten traffic signal control cabinets from Econolite Control Products, Inc. (SR 05:334)     e. Approved a consultant agreement with Bellecci & Associates to provide engineering services for the design of Vineyard Avenue Median Streetscape Improvements, the rubberized asphalt pavement overlay project and the removal of two traffic roundabouts, CIP Nos. 055003 and 048051. (SR 05:317)     f. Approved a lease agreement with Ether Web Network LLC, to locate wireless communications equipment at 9000 Santos Ranch Road (Water Reservoir and Pump Station). (SR 05:246)   g. Approved plans and specifications, reviewed bids and awarded a construction contract to McGuire & Hester of Oakland for the construction of the Iron Horse Trail Phase II, Project No. 057016. (SR 05:314)   h. New street name for Peoplesoft Parkway Request to rename the existing Peoplesoft Parkway to Oracle Lane in Hacienda Business Park. Zoning for the property is PUD-I/C-O (Planned Unit Development – Industrial/Commercial-Office) District. (IR 05:061) There was no action required or taken on this item.   i. Accepted public improvements for the Val Vista area curb, gutter and sidewalk, Project No. 045019. (SR 05:328)    j. Accepted public improvements for the construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Bernal Avenue and Fire Station No. 4 driveway, CIP No. 055006. (SR 05:310) k. Accepted public improvements for Pleasanton Avenue curb and gutter replacement, Project No. 015031. (SR 05:338)   l. Adopted Resolution 05-087, a resolution ratifying the Mayor’s appointments to various City Commissions and Committees. (SR 05:339)       Pleasanton City Council Minutes

3

12/06/05

m. Proclaimed December 7, 2005 as “Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day” in the City of Pleasanton.    The roll call vote was taken as follows: AYES: Councilmembers – Brozosky, McGovern, Sullivan, Thorne, and Mayor Hosterman NOES:   None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None   5. MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC    Other Speakers    Jeb Bing, Publisher and Editor of the Pleasanton Weekly, provided information regarding the 2005 Pleasanton Weekly Holiday Fund and encouraged the communities support.    Chris Miller, a Pleasanton resident, commented on the Mayor’s name on a political ad concerning House Joint Resolution 55 that would require the President to develop and implement a plan for withdrawal of US armed forces from Iraq. He asked Mayor Hosterman to withdraw her name on the ad.    Doug Miller, a Pleasanton resident, made the same request.    Mr. Brozosky asked if the Council had a policy that would govern how the title of Mayor or Council was to be used?    Mr. Roush said the Council’s policies and procedures are silent to this issue. He recalled a similar issue was looked into with respect to how letters were signed. He did not recall the outcome of this discussion but would look into the matter and provide information to Council.    Mr. Fialho said the practice has been if an individual councilmember or the Mayor wanted to take a position on a piece of legislation, staff is careful that the letter is written in such a way that the person is representing only him or herself and not the City of Pleasanton or the collective Council.    Mayor Hosterman noted there have been numerous times when a councilmember or the Mayor has taken a position on one item or another and written a letter on City letterhead and signed a title without full Council action.    Mr. Fialho said if a councilmember individually or the Mayor wanted to take a position on a piece of legislation that was not heard by Council first and there is a sense of urgency associated with it, an individual councilmember could send a letter as long as it is clear that the councilmember is speaking for him or herself and not on behalf of the community or on behalf of the collective City Council.            Pleasanton City Council Minutes

4

12/06/05

Kevin Close, a Happy Valley resident, commented on the pending closure of Happy Valley Road between Westbridge Lane and Alisal Street. He encouraged Happy Valley residents to contact Supervisor Haggerty and the Alameda County Public Works Department about the matter as the closure of Happy Valley Road would be an influence on the community and the area enjoyed by everyone in the Tri-Valley area.    In response to a request from Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Fialho said his understanding was that Alameda County was pursuing the closure of Happy Valley Road between Westbridge Lane and Alisal Street. The City has an agreement which states the City would work with Alameda County to find the best method of closure for Happy Valley Road, which was a condition of the LAFCO annexation that was conducted in 2002. Staff has informed the County that it would comply with the agreement but it would not aid them in its effort to close Happy Valley Road. Most recently, the County placed temporary barriers for vehicles exiting the Golf Course to force traffic to turn right onto Alisal Street and a majority of these barriers were placed on the City’s right-of-way. Staff was directed to remove these items, which included temporary bollards and painting on the roadway, which encouraged a right turn rather than a left turn onto Happy Valley Road as well as some signage.    Mr. Sullivan asked if Alameda County had a public review process for this type of matter?    Mr. Roush said that before the County could close the road, it must go through a process by which the Board of Supervisors would have to make certain findings under the Streets and Highways Code in order to close the road. These findings could legally be challenged by anyone affected by the road closure. He did not believe the public review process had been conducted.    Mr. Fialho said based upon his conversations with the County, the County was attempting to find a long-term solution. He believed the County was attempting to use the barriers as an interim measure to create a physical closure to Happy Valley Road. When City staff removed these barriers, he was informed the County would take it to the next level and begin to explore a design concept and procedure for the closure of Happy Valley Road. He was not aware of the current status on the matter since staff has taken a hands off approach to this issue. He indicated that staff would find out when the public review process would begin and provide this information to Council.    Mr. Brozosky asked if the Livermore Pleasanton Fire Department (LPFD) provided service to this area?    Mr. Fialho said LPFD provides service to the Happy Valley area as well as the Golf Course. He indicated that LPFD could comment on the closure of Happy Valley Road and the effect of public safety and its response time.    Judy Symcox, a Pleasanton resident, requested consideration be given to provide discounted rates for recreation programs for seniors, particularly activities at the Aquatics Center.    Ms. McGovern asked if senior discounts were provided for recreation programs?  

    Pleasanton City Council Minutes

5

12/06/05

 Mr. Fialho said senior discounts are provided for some recreation program. He suggested Ms. McGovern mention this item under Matters Initiated by Council and request staff to review the matter and provide a memorandum to Council on the matter.    In response to an inquiry by Mr. Brozosky, Mr. Fialho said pursuant to Council policy, staff has the authority to increase recreational program fees up to 20 percent to recover overhead costs, and anything beyond that amount would be required to be presented to Council for its review and approval.    John Butera, a Pleasanton resident, addressed Council regarding its recent decision to approve the Funding Agreement for the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART Station. He believed The Mills Corporation would only benefit from this new station and not the residents of Pleasanton and Dublin and the greater Tri-Valley area.    Michael O’Callaghan, a Pleasanton resident, expressed opposition to public agencies and quasi-public agencies taking political positions on political issues without going through the process of public hearings.    Nick Christian, a Pleasanton resident, informed Council and the community about a Walk-A-Thon that he is organizing between Foothill and Amador Valley High Schools to raise money to support US armed forces in Iraq.    Ms. McGovern asked how many Pleasanton residents were serving in Iraq?    Mr. Fialho was uncertain and believed Mr. Chris Miller had the most updated list. He noted there is a section on the City’s website that informs the community about some of the activities the City is involved in and he suggested that this information be added to the website.    Chuck Brooks, a Pleasanton resident, made similar comments as Mr. Miller. He believed the Mayor had a right to have an opinion but she should not use her title of Mayor.    Richard Cimino, a Pleasanton resident, asked Council to consider the Alviso Adobe Park Restoration project as part of the tourism surcharge assessed on lodging businesses in the Tri- Valley.    In response to an inquiry by Mr. Brozosky, Mr. Fialho said the Alviso Adobe Park Restoration project is scheduled to be presented to Council in February 2006. Staff has recently had discussions with the School District regarding funding for this project and he believed the School District might be able to augment this project to some extent. He also discussed the potential of securing Federal grants with a representative from Congressman Pombo’s office that would enable the City to proceed with this project.  

    Pleasanton City Council Minutes

6

12/06/05

6. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS   6a. Review of policy to establish priorities for funding future Capital Improvement projects. (SR 05:312)     Steven Bocian, Assistant City Manager, presented the staff report.    Mr. Fialho clarified that from staff’s perspective, the projects that Council currently had prioritized as listed on page six of the staff report had equal value and importance. Council had previously discussed and determined that these were five important projects and staff would return to Council to present a fiscal plan that would enable it to embark on some of these projects. The proposed policy is for CIP projects going forward and as new projects surface and as Council approaches each CIP, the idea is for Council to utilize this system to assist in focusing on the collective priorities in order that they may be funded appropriately. There is one current example in the CIP that he believed was the correct way to approach a conceptual CIP project: the Youth Center. Staff set aside approximately $50,000 to embark on a master plan process to plan out how and what this facility might look like with the thought that staff would gain an understanding of what the layout and square footage would be and then ultimately if Council chose to bid this project, staff would gain a broader understanding of the cost. Depending upon this information, the idea of the CIP Reserve would work adequately and once it was established as a priority and once Council was ready to proceed and fund this project, staff would transfer funds from the CIP reserve for this project. In taking this approach, it would help to defuse the situation that surfaces from time to time that the project was under budget when in fact it was never under budget and the real detail work had not been completed until the time additional allocations were being made.    Mr. Brozosky inquired how a project that was categorized Priority One or Priority Two and cost significantly more money than what was available for a long period of time would effect a lower priority, particularly the Bernal property.    Mr. Fialho said the proposed policy would allow for this type of discussion to occur in advance of programming money into these individual projects. He believed Council would engage in a meaningful quality discussion at a workshop whereby it would prioritize CIP projects and inform staff and the community about its collective priorities. He believed there might be some projects whereby Council would allocate more money to a Priority Two versus a Priority Three project, but the key is flexibility.    Mr. Brozosky believed any CIP project could potentially be a dual-purpose project and wondered if it would be wise for Council to prioritize these projects in this manner, such as the Veterans Memorial Building project, which could conceivably be argued to be a Priority One – Health and Safety.    Mr. Fialho said he was trying to find a way whereby Council could tackle two issues with one project. Staff believed that if a project qualified under that category, it should outweigh Priorities Four and Five – Community Need and Community Enhancement. In advance of a workshop, staff would attempt to identify the forecasted needs and put these projects into this priority ranking system and present those reasons to Council, which would be the launching point for the policymakers to discuss, debate and ultimately decide what the ranking should be going forward. In using a prioritizing system, it would allow Council to have a discussion and     Pleasanton City Council Minutes

7

12/06/05

when staff presented the CIP it would fit with its collective direction for how it wanted to proceed with capital projects. The prioritizing system would also allow for this type of discussion to occur outside of the CIP process.   Mr. Brozosky wondered what the advantage was in establishing a policy that would identify criteria for prioritizing future Parks and Miscellaneous Capital Improvement Projects as opposed to the Council priority system.    Mr. Fialho believed one advantage would be that staff would attempt to define Priorities One through Five rather than a simple one through five numerical ranking.    Ms. McGovern indicated she had requested a chart that would outline Capital Improvement Projects over the past five years and include the original cost for each project as approved by Council and the actual ultimate cost once the project had been completed. She was concerned about placing all of the money into a reserve fund. Based on the proposed priority categories, she wondered how the Reserve Fund could be prevented from funding one project while the remainder of the projects fall short and remain unfunded for a longer period of time. She wanted cost containment included as part of this process in order to keep each of the Capital Improvement Projects contained within a budget and have cost overruns and contingencies be within that budget so that the overall cost would not continue to escalate and reduce the possibilities for additional projects. In moving forward with the proposed CIP policy, she wondered how Council could take the current Capital Improvement Projects and have a complete picture which would entail and outline all of the CIP projects as noted on page six of the staff report, the status, design costs, and predicted funding to complete the projects, which would eliminate a project being underfunded and make the agreed upon cost as close to what was predicted as possible.    Mr. Fialho said Council would manage the CIP Reserve, which would eliminate staff from taking money from the Reserve to pay for a shortfall. The CIP Reserve was established in part because no project was ready to move forward until it had completed the appropriate planning process. Assuming Council supported this concept, staff would bring back language that would set this in motion for the upcoming fiscal year and secondarily, add language that states the CIP Reserve is intended to be used as a mechanism to create and establish sufficient funds so that Council, when it is ready to focus on a project, could move forward and the Reserve Fund would not be used indiscriminately for any reason other than what Council authorizes it to be used for.    Ms. McGovern noted that staff in its presentation mentioned that a project would be funded with the most money available because it would be the highest priority project, which concerned her because she did not want to fund a project with the most money available. She wanted to fund a project on what Council believed the cost should be based upon the scope of the project.    Mr. Bocian said this concept would eliminate the current practice of establishing multiple funding reserves for CIP projects. The advantage of this approach would establish a process whereby funding tracks the highest priority projects and as a result, there is a greater chance that an individual project(s) in the highest priority category would be fully funded more quickly as opposed to utilizing the current process of establishing reserves to partially fund numerous projects. This approach would not have the intent of putting more towards the highest priority projects in excess of what the project needs.     Pleasanton City Council Minutes

8

12/06/05

   Ms. McGovern noted staff mentioned the majority of funding for Parks and Miscellaneous projects comes from developer fees and the CIP General Fund. In addition, as indicated in the CIP, General Fund contributions to the CIP may be impacted as greater emphasis is placed on providing public services and facility/infrastructure maintenance to the City’s growing public assets as the City approaches build out. She asked if commercial, retail, office or industrial development pays fees that could be used for CIP projects?    Mr. Fialho said yes.    Ms. McGovern asked if the fees were lower than residential fees?    Mr. Bocian said residential fees were typically lower. He noted that a fee amount is assessed for residential and commercial projects that were developed as part of a fee study the City conducted in 1998.    Ms. McGovern believed consideration of increasing the residential and commercial fees could be a possibility to help the City continue the Capital Improvement Program.    Mr. Fialho said it could be a consideration.    Mr. Sullivan mentioned Environmental Awareness is a major category listed in the Council’s priorities with several prioritized projects listed and he did not see these projects reflected in the proposed policy. He believed the policy needed to broader to include the categories of Environmental Awareness and Regional Benefits. He appreciated staff’s comments related to flexibility for funding projects and questions asked by Councilmembers Brozosky and McGovern related to how the highest priority projects continually receive funding and the projects with a lower priority are never funded. He inquired about the process that would provide this flexibility?    Mr. Fialho said it would a Council decision, which is why the proposed system would not tie the Council’s hands in any way. The proposed system allows for a community conversation to occur and assist the Council in organizing which projects should be funded.    In response to an inquiry by Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Fialho envisioned the Council’s existing five priority projects as reflected on page six of the staff report being handled separately. In moving forward, if Council identified new projects as part of its priority workshop, staff would attempt to organize these projects using the proposed policy that would identify criteria for prioritizing future Parks and Miscellaneous Capital Improvement Projects and in advance of preparing the CIP, direct Council to have a conversation in the context of the proposed policy to determine funding.    Mr. Thorne wondered if Council could expand the use of the Park In-Lieu Fee Funds for a project, particularly as the City approaches build out as opposed to holding onto the funds for the purchase of property.    Mr. Bocian said Park In-Lieu Fee Funds are currently dedicated to purchase property. If Council wanted to expand the use of the Park In-Lieu Fee Funds, he believed it would be appropriate for it to direct staff to research the matter and outline the restrictions to expand the use of these funds.     Pleasanton City Council Minutes

9

12/06/05

   In response to an inquiry by Mr. Thorne, Mr. Fialho indicated there are a few properties that are included in the General Plan and the question as to who pays for these properties is open. These sites include: (1) a site in the quarry area that is contemplated for a community park; (2) a site located off Vineyard Avenue whereby it is not clear to staff whether the City would have any obligation in the purchase of this property; and (3) the property adjacent to the Vervais property that at some point council might want to purchase. When staff drafted the Impact Development Fee Report, Council established a policy that required Park In-Lieu Fee Funds would only be used for acquisition of land; however, State laws allow cities to use Park In-Lieu Fee Funds for acquisition and development of a property. If Council chose to expand the definition at some point and be flexible in terms of how it utilizes this money, it would modify its existing policy.    Mr. Brozosky believed the CIP Reserve set an expectation to those involved in working on a project as to what the Council would support. He asked if staff would be returning to Council with cost estimates and work with the Council to establish a level of comfort as it related to the budget for each project?    Mr. Fialho said the CIP Reserve Funds are set and staff has a tendency to engineer and plan for whatever is currently available and often the projects exceed that amount in terms of what the estimated costs are associated with each project. He emphatically stated that Council would control the CIP Reserve in terms of how it was programmed and ultimately utilized. The concept behind establishing one Capital Improvement Reserve account is Council would first masterplan the project and hold a discussion and debate through a workshop to determine the size and scope of the project and once Council has determined this, only then does it fund a project. He believed this approach was more fiscally responsible and a conservative way of managing the CIP.    Mr. Brozosky believed the CIP Reserve Funds established some type of expectation and when the amounts are exceeded, Council has an opportunity to discuss it.    As it pertained to large projects, Mr. Bocian believed the process needed to include determining the community needs to complete a project, which often times Council determines it cannot meet all of these needs and will need to downsize a project.    Mayor Hosterman invited public comments.    Kevin Close, a Happy Valley resident, expressed concern related to the prioritization of a project and Council subsequently changing its priority because insufficient funding was available as opposed to slowly building a reserve for a project in the future. He provided the example of the bypass road, which would take substantially more funding to complete this project than what is currently available in the Reserve account. He believed the bypass road project could cover the entire spectrum of the CIP proposed categories.    Debbie Look, Chair of the Pleasanton Library Commission, presented a letter to Council that outlined the impacts the proposed policy would have on the Library and its planned expansion or rebuilding of the Library. The Library Commission believed the replacement of the Library needed to be recognized as a high priority. Under the proposed CIP priority categories, as noted on page five of the staff report, an expanded library is suggested as being a Priority

    Pleasanton City Council Minutes

10

12/06/05

Four need. On behalf of the Library Commission, she requested that the library project be rated at least a Priority Three given that it would address a community need.    Tom Gallagher, representing The Friends of Kottinger Creek, agreed that Council needed to determine a prioritization process for Capital Improvement Projects particularly with many interests and needs being demonstrated by various groups. If the proposed policy was implemented by Council, he believed it should not affect the current Reserve for the Kottinger Creek Restoration Project. He asked Council to consider the project measured against the staff-prescribed criteria as follows: (1) address a community need and provide economic developments to the City; (2) eligibility for a financial grant; (3) a strong multi-purpose focus that benefits the community at large; and (4) historic preservation.    Cheri Puls, representing The Friends of Kottinger Creek, expressed concern related to the Kottinger Creek Restoration project and asked how the proposed policy would affect the funding for this project and how would it work for future projects.    From staff’s perspective, Mr. Fialho said the reserve for this project of $1 million dollars would remain and continue to remain untouched moving forward. The project is currently estimated at $400,000 out of balance and in order to close this gap, staff has applied for grant funding, which it believes the City would be successful. If the City were not awarded grant funding, Council would be faced with a decision as to how it wished to proceed.    Ms. Puls expressed concern related to the criteria identified, which mirrored those of Mr. Sullivan’s that there is no category that specified environmental concerns. She suggested a subcategory of environmental concerns be defined as fixing what has been damaged, which is the basis for the Kottinger Creek Restoration Project. She also noted there is no mention of quality of life issues by either protecting or making it better. She suggested that whatever criteria is adopted, a better job should be done of measuring projects against them accurately by having a closer dialogue between the actual project managers and the task forces in order to gain a better understanding of the scope of a project. She also suggested using the criteria identified in its grant application to the City or for projects similar to this that would provide staff an opportunity to directly address the criteria that would be helpful to staff and Council in evaluating projects.    Mayor Hosterman closed the public comments.    Mayor Hosterman indicated she had been struggling with how Council deals with priorities of amenities and projects for the City and up until this time, Council individually numerically ranked its priorities, which has been a subjective process. She believed it was difficult for Council to focus and prioritize what it determines is best for the community. She believed a number of additional sub-areas could be developed for discussion as it pertained to the proposed policy. The proposed policy is a valid starting point and provided some type of construct within which to have discussion and dialogue, which would leave Council with some sense of criteria.    Mr. Sullivan believed Council needed a better way to organize its thoughts and projects and prioritize them. He wanted the policy guidelines to remain flexible to enable the Council to fund projects, which are important to the community. He wanted to avoid having a policy structure that prevented or reinforced only projects that are politically popular. He wanted the categories to closer reflect Council’s adopted priority list. He asked staff to review Council’s     Pleasanton City Council Minutes

11

12/06/05