Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Uh, welcome to the June 3rd Planning Commission meeting. All members are present. In addition, let the record reflect. Oh, nope. We uh we can just line that out. Everybody is is present. Would you all like to join me in the pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Um, per the city's meeting rules and procedures, public comments are generally limited to 5 minutes or less time if a large number of speakers is anticipated or if approved by the chair. Uh, we're doing five minutes tonight. Speakers desiring answers to questions should direct them to the planning commission and if relevant, the commission may direct them to staff. Um, speakers can also follow up directly with staff during regular city business hours. Please file a speaker card with the administrative secretary on the form provided at the back of the chambers. During this portion of the meeting, those in the council chambers are permitted to speak on items that are not on the agenda. Public comments for scheduled agenda items should wait until that time. April, we have a handful of cards. Our first speaker is Daniel Duran. Okay. Okay. No, I didn't put my last name. You threw me off. I'm sorry. No, we do that. Oh, wow. Good evening. My name is Daniel Duran. I'm the president of the Brentwood Memorial Veterans Building

Building Committee. I'm the commander of American Legion Post 202. But this evening, I'm up here speaking to you as a resident of Brentwood. I went to this high school. I went to high school one year in the American Legion building. So, I've been here for a while. Okay. I want to begin by sincerely thanking you for your unanimous decision to deny the permit for the fire station 94 proposed downtown location. I understand the weight of these decisions, especially when they're wrapped in intense political pressure. Your courage and integrity in upholding the downtown specific plan reflects the deep deep respect for both the process and the people of Brentwood. You've shown that principled local government looks like. Unfortunately, not everyone has shown the same respect. Supervisor Diane Burgess recently published an op-ed in the press stating, and I quote, "Without building more fire stations, the problem will only get worse. Contact the city council today with a clear message. No more delays." She also implied that your decision rooted in your charge to uphold Dantown specific plan somehow endangered lives. This is fear-mongering, plain and simple. It's a troubled tactic to use public safety to pressure the city into abandoning its standards and giving in to poorly planned ill-fitting project. Let's be very clear. Brentwood has had only one fire station for the better part of a decade. Not because of you, but because of concerned residents asking for better planning, but because of the chronic mismanagement by the fire district itself. Their delays, missed opportunities like abandoning the San

Creek site originally proposed in 2005 are theirs alone. And now they come to you not with a plan to fix the community, but with the demands that ignore your design guidelines, your commission's authority, and the very intent of Brentwood carefully crafted downtown plan. This is our city. And yet the fire district backed by the county seems to content to come into our house, ignore our rules, and insist on doing things their way. That's not collaboration. It's arrogance. You didn't yield to that. You stood for thoughtful planning for the future of Brentwood and for the integrity of the planning process. Thank you for setting the standard and for rema reminding everyone that Brentwood's voice matters. Please continue to hold the line. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you Ted and Forier. It's going to be hard to follow. This is our first time here. Um, so, um, we actually, um, started developing a house that burnt down here in in Brentwood on Nancy Street behind Taco Bell. Um, I'm I'm a flipper and my brother-in-law is a a contractor by trade. And um, we got ourselves into um, uh, a little bit of a mess with the with the planning department, some history um, with that particular neighborhood. So, it turns out that that house burnt down. We rebuilt it. the existing structures were were developed um when um that area still belonged to the county and it was developed for the farm workers that were in the area. Um so everything was like

really low budget, you know, um the the way it was laid out, the carports, no structures to, you know, kind of protect people from from the elements on the outside. Um, and then from what I understand, the um the city of Brentwood annexed that uh that neighborhood and then when they annexed it, they overlaid uh a zoning uh zoning of R3 on top of that. Well, when they reszoned it, the existing structures were already non-compliant according to the zoning regulations. Um so what they did is um they pretty much made some of the existing structures legal, non-conforming, and that was, you know, how they they dealt with that situation. over the years, uh, the community that has, you know, moved in and lives there, um, you know, they're they're they're workingass and they have the means now to improve on the houses. So, everybody has tried to do something to improve, um, you know, the the structure and and, um, and they have and so now maybe about I I haven't taken account of the entire neighborhood, but I would say maybe 70% of the existing homes in that area. There's there's 60 homes there in total and about maybe 70% of those have uh modified you know their structures on the outside um just to expand them and to give them more protection. When we started developing that project um we wanted to follow suit and kind of make it look a little bit better and and you know expand from a one car um one car port to a twocar port. And um we also did some modifications to the interior of the house um just to make it better. I'm just saying that just to kind of let you guys know what we were what what our intent was when we were trying to, you know, build the structure. Well, it turns out that we got um to the point where, you know, we needed to get our um you know, final approval and and um the uh the structure, you know, was now non-conforming. That's where we get code enforcement. And then we started talking to Eric over here about it um and some

of the people in the planning uh department. So, what we're trying to do now, we're we're trying to, you know, um come up with a solution that's going to benefit everybody in the neighborhood. Um so, you know, we tried u you know, we had some discussions around doing uh a variance uh and after getting some feedback uh from Eric and and considering the the situation, we pretty much determined that was an option. So really what we're trying to do here to see is um you know we could you know get it that area reszoned so that everybody in that area is allowed to keep their ex existing structures um and um you know so everybody benefits from that. We tried to um go to some of the um the members that or or the homeowners that live in the area to see if they want to participate. um a lot of them were um you know kind of hesitant because they you know kind of fear what's going to happen with the with the city coming and looking at their structures. So um we're actually willing to to take the hit on the application. The application from what I understand is about $10,000 to have it, you know, considered to get reszoned. But really the purpose of being here today is just to figure out or get some feedback. And from what I understand, maybe you guys do have feedback or or you provide that through the staff, but we really wanted to have uh a sense of what you guys consider about reszoning that area. So, we talked to Eric. Eric seemed to seem to be okay with it, you know, and we're presenting it to you guys. Um before we kind of move along and and spend that money, we just kind of want to know where we stand. So, you know, like I said, this is our first time here. We don't know the protocol and or how this works, but really that's the answer that we're looking for. Thank you. And we have some pictures. I don't know if you guys have time to look at some pictures of um what I want to tell you first off is that reszoning is the one thing that we can't do. The city council retains the

authority to do a reszone. Um do you know who your council member is? Like I said, this is the first uh step and so we're going to attend the meeting um I guess next week. Yeah. Do you know what district you live in? Uh, this is Nancy right behind Taco Bell. Nancy Street in Brentwood. That's probably district two. So, your council member would be most likely Pattonia Pearson. Okay. But I would encourage you, there's a city council meeting um next week on the same day in this in this very chamber. I'd encourage you to talk to them. Um, and if you if you need to have some one-on-one time, reach out. Probably the best one would be the council member that's for your district. Okay. Um we can't it's I I hate to send you away without much more information than that, but resoning is just something that we're not able to do in this body. Chair, hold on just a second. Kristen. Hi, Cher. If that's okay, I might bring it just because public comment isn't a time for back and forth, but I I think that they have their information and they can they can head to their council member, but we don't want to talk about an item that's not on our agenda tonight. Oh, absolutely. Yeah, that's that is very true. But um I was kind of done making my comment any just I was just going to encourage you to to follow up with the city council. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ian. Hello everybody. Thank you for letting me speak today, especially the city council staff and the planning commission. I have suggestion that will help it improve city safety and increase the city's revenue. Have you ever noticed a person run a red light? If you've ever been in a car, you probably have. Sadly, this problem is abundant everywhere. And the most ludicrous thing about it is that most of the people who commit this safety violation don't even get caught nor punished. First, I propose that we make more signs alerting the citizens that is against the law to

run a red light and if caught, they will receive a hefty fine. Next, this will make less people even consider running a red light in the first place. Then, we should incorporate more cameras and speed trackers, especially to major roads or intersections that don't already have them integrated. The cost of purchasing and installing these cameras cost about a few thous $10,000 and take a few thousand more for maintenance, but they will generate multiple thousand a day and will soon pay off for itself and more. Also, it will remove un more unsafe drivers off the road with the DMV's point system. That is all and I would like to once again thank the city council staff and the planning commission for letting me speak. Have a great rest of your day. Paul Radliff. Good evening, planning commission, city staff. I want to take a minute and thank you for standing firm in your decision to deny the fire department its approval to move forward on fire station 94. In all the years I've been paying attention to politics, and it's a lot. I have never seen as much gaslighting, fear-mongering, dishonesty, and outright bullying as I've seen being displayed by Supervisor Burgess in the fire department. It reminds me of the politics you see during a presidential campaign. Ugly, deceitful, and demeaning. I understand the demonization of the veterans, our supporters, and the local small businesses in the area. as Diane Burgess has clearly shown over the last few years that we are secondary to her having her legacy monument built in downtown. And let's be clear, this isn't just an issue of veterans, but an issue of for the city of Brentwood's downtown specific plan and just as important that the downtown area has outgrown the viability of a station

downtown. What clearly surprises me, however, is her blatant attack on the planning commission membmber's character and integrity. her attack on your integrity and doing your job you were asked to do. Her using tragedy such as car fires and emergency issues lately to justify her claims of your incompetence. I say all this because I have seldom ever seen a commissioner board stand up in the face of such negative and political attack as you have. You have shown a strength of character and integrity that I seldom find anywhere except in military and law enforcement personnel. So on behalf of the veterans that I call my family, the people of Brentwood and the veterans that use our hall as a second home and a place to find peace when the when the nightmares of their of their combat experience threaten to overwhelm them. I say thank you. Thank you for supporting your veterans, your neighbors, your local businesses. You have our back and we have yours. Thank you very much. Mike Makovich. Good evening, council members of the plan I mean planning commissioners. My name is Mike Makvitch. I'm the senior vice commander of VFW Post 10789. I want to take a moment to express my sincere gratitude for your unanimous 40 vote to deny the proposed fire station 94 project. Your decisions reflect exactly what strong principled leadership looks like. Leadership that is rooted in integrity, diligence, and commitment to the Brit Brentwood specific plan which you were appointed to uphold. By following the guidelines of the plan, you demonstrated a deep

understanding of your role, not just as commissioners, but as stewards of Brentwood's future. It is clear that each of you did your did your homework. You listened, you asked thoughtful questions, and you weighed in facts carefully before coming to a decision. That kind of preparation and transparency is what builds trust in local government and it's exactly what the community expects and deserves. It is dis it is deeply disappointing and frankly appalling that certain officials including a county supervisor and the fire district have chosen chosen to publicly criticize and berate you for your for you filling your duty. You were not elected or elected to rubber stamp law proposals. You are appointed to evaluate projects through the lens of the Brentwood values, planning documents, and long vision. And that's precisely what you did. Your vote wasn't just a no to the project. It was a yes to the thoughtful growth, a yes to communitydriven planning, a yes to preserving the integrity of the city's future. You showed the kind the kind of courage that often goes unrecognized in public service. Please know that your work has not gone unnoticed. Many in the community stand with you and thank you for your time, your integrity, and your unwavering commitment to do what's right. Thank you. Have a good evening, Travis

[Music] Martin. Place my belly. Good evening, commissioners, uh, city employees. I want to take a moment to thank each of you, each of you for your service and your integrity. You're going to hear that as a theme, if you haven't already, through our comments this evening. Your unanimous vote to deny the permit for the proposed downtown fire station was not just a decision about architectural compatibility or zoning compliance. It was a stand for the principle that everyone, including the county and the fire district must follow the rules. To have approved that permit would have sent a dangerous message that if you invoke public safety or carry the weight of the county seal that the rules no longer apply to you that Brentwood's downtown specific plan carefully crafted as it was publicly vetted and consistently applied can be tossed aside for political convenience. That not that's not good governance. Let me be honest. The fire district came into this process expecting a rubber stamp. They're not used to being questioned. They are not used to being held accountable. And they expect their size, their authority, and their appeal to fear. Lives are at stake. to override your standards, your processes, and quite frankly, your backbone. But you did not bend. And for that, I applaud each of you. The fire district's entire approach has resembled

the classic 800B gorilla, pushing its weight around, expecting everyone to get out of the way. But that's not why we have planning commissions. That's not why we elect city officials. We put these position we we put you in these positions to make sure that unelected bureaucracies don't run the show unchecked. That you are the line between thoughtful planning and administrative overreach. And last month you held that line with clarity and courage. This kind of public service matters. It matters not just to those who follow the issues closely, but to every resident who cares about fairness, local control, long-term and the long-term integrity of our community. The trust that we place in our system rests at the decisions you make. So, thank you. Thank you for showing the community and the fire district that Brentwood will not be bullied. Thank you for upholding the standards we've all agreed to. And thank you for reminding us that accountability still exists even when it's uncomfortable. You've done the right thing. You stood firm. The community is behind you. So to that I say thank you and wish you all well. Sahil Narula. Hello planning commission staff and planning commission members. Thank you for permitting me to speak about our general plan land use map today. The

general plan land use map is an official city document/map that displays sections of land and that would be allocated in a certain way for development. i.e. residential high density, professional office, etc. Due to this, the general plan land use map is what lays the foundation for new zoning rules, codes, guidelines in the city, etc. Kind of like that. Now, with that, why has not Brenwood amended or updated its general plan land map in seven years and updated it in 11? Brenwood has experienced a drastic surge in in housing and has had a boom in population since then. Not to mention, Brenwood has gotten a new elementary school and a new traffic pattern since due to various new facilities being open up and a new school and a school being hd in terms of population. Not to mention, Brentwood has also attracted a whole new Costco, dozens of new local businesses since then, and has also experienced a colossal surge in residential demand. With the colossal surge in residential demand, Brentwood needs to find a way to sustainably manage growth. would and make sure the quality of life is preserved. Both of those would require a new general plan land use map to preserve to preserve the quality of life to accommodate for amenities that would need to be moved to the new clusters of population and to satisfy the various new traffic needs and general needs of the city like new residential plots needing because way too many people are moving in or new commercial space because of the amount of demand for businesses. A new general plan land use map, as a mentioned, would allow the city to move the location of land allocated for the purpose of recreation, if not already built, nor under construction, to a plot that would match the new clusters of population formed since the last amendment. A new general

plan land use map would also allow Brentwood to remove certain plots of if not needed and replace them with plots that are in high demand, such as removing unneeded industrial space and replacing of a residential or commercial space. due to the surge in residential demand coupled with elomeration economics. Now, with all of these reasons in mind, I believe we should start amending or revamping slashupdating our general plan land use map to satisfy the needs of Brenford today and Redwood tomorrow. Thank you, planning commission members, and thank you planning commission staff. And thank you once again. Thank you, Danny. No, I'm not going to make the same mistake twice. Okay. Well, I'm kind of sort of freestyling this, but I'll start with the easiest temper tantrum. Tony Orleman's does not trust you. He showed it. the hypocrite who each and every one of you had a simple question asked of him and I'm going to paraphrase. Would you follow statutes and laws even if they were against your principles? Each and one of you said yes. That's why you're there. And I believe you. And last session, you proved it. This hypocrite didn't even allow Dave Sparling an opportunity to apply for this position or interview, whatever you want to call it, because in Temper Tantrum's

mind, he didn't follow rules. So, and I'm saying this and I'm again freestyling, so my apologies. We have two groups of people. We are the folks that come here on a regular basis with the eight people watching right now who may or may not go to Facebook, who may or may not hear what goes on here and at the council meeting. Then you have the Facebook Next crowd, a much larger, I'll say more opinionated, if not slanted. And my mistake has always been just addressing my rants here. I'm correcting that mistake, Supervisor Burgess. I'm correcting that mistake, CC Fire. failed candidate, president proxy. I'm going to make sure that everything that is said here and me are going to be available instead of that slanted. I can't call it left or right because it's not a political thing. It's slanted though. slanted to backroom elites and people who want to climb the political ladder like Supervisor Diane Burgess and other failed candidates. So Tony Orleman's who, and that's why I'm saying it tonight, just in case you didn't

know, brings in a weapon at every session. He carries a weapon every time he's here. Now, granted, he has a concealed carry, but he's also the guy three years ago that had all the looks of an active shooter. And you guys can go to YouTube and look at that. Lastly, I want to thank Bob Min, my new friend. He commented on your decision. And he goes, "So if we go with your premise, the premise being that you guys are right, experts can be wrong, then we should instead go with the loudest topic illiterate commentator on Facebook to make our public safety resources placement decision." to which I said that's all well and good except that the big but ugly brown brick building was de denied because of the design not because of bets not because of different locations the design. So, I certainly hope since temper tantrum pulled the decision, the right decision out of your hands and now has put the burden on council, I want council to remember that you're only deciding if your decision was right and your decision was the design. God bless America.

Don Hester, chair, planning commissioners. Um, I just want to take uh a few moments and I'm going to give you back some time. I just say wanted to say uh that it's always important uh for leaders to do the right thing the right way for the right reason and you displayed that admirably and uh for that we're very thankful and I can see the rest of my time. Thank you, Dolores Long. Good evening, commissioners, staff, and public. I want to sincerely thank each of you for your unanimous decision to deny the design review for fire station 94 based on the clear failure to meet the requirements of the downtown specific plan. As a former planning commissioner myself, I understand firsthand how difficult these decisions can be, especially when facing intense political pressure. Your commitment to upholding the integrity of Brentwood's planning standards despite that pressure is commendable. It is truly disheartening to see that Supervisor Burgess has chosen to make desparing remarks about this commissioner's work. Such comments only highlight the political strain you were under and yet you all remain steadfast in your responsibility to the people of Brentwood. Thank you for standing firm not for the politics but for the process for protecting the character of our downtown and for reminding us that Brentwood's future should be planned by Brentwood, not dictated by county bureaucracy. with gratitude. Thank you so much.

At this time, chair, we have no other speaker cards. Thank you, April. And thank you everybody for commenting tonight. Much appreciated. Um, our next item is the consent calendar. Uh, there's one set of minutes for the regular meeting of May 6, 2025. Is there any discussion or do I have a motion? I make a motion to accept. Do we have a second? I'll second it. All in favor? I I moving on. Uh, moving on to item E1, a focus zoning code update related to regulations for self- storage and drive-through facilities. Jennifer, thank you, chair, and members of the commission. We are here before you tonight to bring forward um the next steps of our city's focus zoning code update, which included originally three main tasks, including the creation of new objective design standards, zoning code updates required by state law, and specialized focus zoning code updates. As part of the uh focus zoning code update, the city council recommended staff work on updates related to six items shown here. To date, the city has completed work related to car washes and short-term rentals, which were reviewed and adopted by the city council in December and continues to work on regulations related to alcohol sales and service stations, which will be brought forward separately in the future. Tonight, staff will be presenting to you recommendations related to self- storage facilities and drive-through uses. Both of these items were previously presented to LED as well as the full city council to receive direction on the proposed amendments that are being brought before you

tonight. The first is self- storage facilities. Self- storage facilities are currently listed in seven zones within the city with the city currently served by six different storage facilities that vary in size but generally occupy large parcels with multiple singlestory structures. Given the scarcity of the remaining vacant commercial land in the city, the majority of council believed that self- storage facilities may not be the highest and best use for the land and therefore directed staff to draft amendments that would restrict self- storage facilities to only the six plan development zones which they are currently allowed. Maintaining this approach to regulation of such facilities would maximize the economic development potential throughout the rest of the city. In addition, it was recommended that the code be updated to clearly define self- storage facilities to create development standards for new and redeveloped facilities within the current zones to ensure compatibility with the surrounding uses. Based on this direction, the proposed amendments before you tonight include new standards related to the minimum lot size, setbacks, height restrictions, architectural standards, and perimeter fencing and screening. In addition, standards related to lighting, security features, and residential manager units were also included. Specific prohibi prohibited uses for storage facilities were also added that include storage of toxic materials, sale or distribution of goods, vehicle repair, and truck rentals. The next area for discussion is drive-through uses. Over the past few years, drive-throughs have become critical for many fast food chains after COVID um after COVID as restaurants were required to shut down indoor seating areas. Many companies are now switching to drive-through models because they are more profitable and smaller than sit-down restaurants requiring less staff and maintenance. The anticipated continued demand for drive-thru uses um on sites on major arterials has the potential for negative effects throughout the city, specifically those

located adjacent to single family residential neighborhoods and along major commercial corridors which are already impacted by high commuter traffic and peak hours. City Council was presented with options on whether to f further regulate drive-through establishments within the city. And based on concerns, the city council has recommended that the new development standards be implemented for all future drive-through uses to lessen or avoid negative impacts that could result from new and remodeled drive-through establishments. Based on this direction, staff has drafted amendments to include new development standards related to residential setbacks, queuing analysis, separate waiting lanes, vehicle stacking, pedestrian access and circulation, ordering board location, and building design. Based on these recommendations, staff is requesting that the planning commission adopt the attached resolution recommending that the city council adopt an ordinance to amend the Brentwood municipal code to add development standards for the new land use classification definitions for self- storage facilities and drive-through facilities and update the references in all zones throughout the city related to these uses. And with that, that concludes staff's report. Um staff is available as well as we have our consultant uh online via Zoom is also available for questions. microphone. Does the planning commission have any clarifying questions for staff? I think we'll start on Gerald. Uh Commissioner Johnson, questions. Not at this time. Okay. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Roberts, not at this time. I kind of went out of order. Commissioner Jones, uh, not at this time. And Vice Chair Brandt, um, nothing now. Thank you. And, um, no, none for me either. Thank you. Um,

thanks a lot, Jennifer. Um, at this time, the public is permitted to address the planning commission. Remarks are limited to five minutes per person, except for the applicant, who will have 10 minutes. Um, I don't know that there's an applicant tonight, so we'll we'll just go ahead with the public speakers. April, this time we have no one in chambers that would like to speak. So, we'll go to Zoom. If you'd like to speak on this item, please raise your hand. Chair, we have no hands raised at this time. All right. Do I have a motion to close the public hearing? So moved. Second. Anybody? Second. All in favor? I I And is there any discussion by the commission? Um I guess we'll go this way again. Uh, Commissioner Johnson, just to say that, you know, the city council has u brought these um issues before us. That's my understanding to basically get the planning commission's approval because that's state law. That is correct. Okay. Thank you. I don't have anything else. Um, Commissioner Jones, any discussion items? Um, yeah, indulge me a little bit. Obviously, still being somewhat newer on the commission, um, looking at some of the things, particularly limiting, uh, self storage to the existing zones. Um, so is is the assumption that the six existing facilities meet current and future demand? that was the thought that it does currently meet the current demands um

and that based on just the overall economic impacts uh and weighing the the benefits pros and cons of economic um impacts of self- storage facilities that they felt that um it does meet the current needs and that would be best limited to their current locations. Got it. Okay. Thank you. Um, and I bring that up, you know, just purely as a something to think about that, you know, if residents or small businesses need storage and there's a lack of supply, you know, could that potentially push them further away? But, um, that that clarifies. Um, and then as in terms of the the drive-thru setback and queuing standards, um, again, just indulge me. The the proposed 100 foot setbacks and queuing standards, um, what was the modeling or precedent studies that just supported those specific distances? Um so originally what we had done um was we looked at some of the existing facilities within the city um and kind of looked at for specifics. Wendy's was one of the the recent ones that we had um process within the city. It's most likely I think our our most recent one. Um and looked how far a noise might travel um for things like that. And so there wasn't it's not an exact science or anything like that on the the 100 feet, but we looked at where existing facilities were located, how far they were from single family residential, and what felt too close and what felt appropriate. Um with this within the 100 ft, it still has to be bordered by uh a masonry wall. Um in the past, we didn't have that requirement. It could be bordered by landscaping or a street or something like that, but in this case um we felt that with the masonry wall um to divert sound that 100 feet would be an appropriate distance. Okay. Okay. Um and I bring that up just

you know just because you know we get this wrong it could potentially cause additional neighborhood frustrations or safety issues, things like that. So it's just I think just something to consider and think about. Um the though the other two I'm I think I that was answered in the report so I'm good. Thank you. Vice Chair Brand. Yeah. Um couple questions here. Uh my side. Um the prohibitions that were listed, how do we traditionally enforce those? Is that is that resident reported or Okay. Yeah, typically it's resident reported. And um one of the reasons for doing these development standards are are existing code without saying it doesn't really allow these things. Vehicle repair kind of it's a common sense thing like you can't have vehicle repair at a storage facility. Um however with it not being explicitly written in our code um it potentially could be an enforcement issue. And so things that we have come across in the past um in which we've had to enforce, we wanted to make sure we're explicitly um included. So there's no questions in the future that these things are definitely prohibited at any future storage facilities. Understood. And and the existing six um self- storage facilities are all amendable to those uh prohibitions. Okay. Um the mixeduse districts uh are excluded here. Um, and I just wanted to get a sense of which districts or sorry, which are which zoning in the general plan are specifically called out as mixed use. So, some of the examples of a mixeduse district would be some of the the areas within our innovation center. Um, and the reason why we excluded these is because when you live in a mixeduse

district, usually you live above a commercial business. And there's less um expectation of noise when you have a mixeduse district than it is a single family residential neighborhood. Um, and so that's why we wanted to explicitly um exclude misuse districts uh for for reasons like that. Understood. Okay. Um, for the ordering board, it specifically calls out the drive-thru should be oriented and directed to face away from adjacent residential uses. When it says adjacent, I I figure we probably have some specificity on that as far as uh total distance. I know you mentioned the 100 foot. Um what what do we classify as that minimum distance with respect to the term adjacent? Yeah. So that would fall back more towards the residential setback where the ordering board shall be located a minimum 100 ft from the boundary of a residential zone unless it has a masonry wall um that separates it. Right. And I think uh did I read that right? that it has to be minimum 4 foot uh wall to insulate the um the drive-thru from an adjacent street or maybe I made that read that wrong. Typically, the masonry wall would be required to be a sixoot masonry wall. Oh, six foot. Sorry. Yeah. Um and then as far as the comments here about the building design, um they are that our favorite word shall uh comes up again here. City of Brentwood commercial and industrial design guidelines. Um, so are we saying that that those guidelines need to be adhered and assessed by planning commission as and potentially city council? Correct. As part of any design review application, that would be something that we would definitely look at. Okay. And then the rigidity of those design standards with respect to the industrial and uh commercial standards. I know there's not compared to the IODS uh they're a bit looser. So I I don't when we say

adherence it's it's uh I think I use the term assessment because it's it's not black and white like IODDS. Correct. It is not um as objective as IODDS. Um what we our intent here is to say that all new designs shall abide by the design criteria of the commercial and industrial standards where currently other ones say they should. um our current code says buildings should um abide by those in which you have the discretion at that point to determine which ones are applicable and which ones aren't. Um so in this case it gives a little bit um more enforcement and a little bit more teeth to the planning commission to make uh the buildings adhere to those guidelines. Yeah, that's how I read it too. So I'm I was happy to hear that. Um and that's all my questions. Thank you. Thank you. Um, okay. I guess I'm first of all, um, Jennifer and all the staff, thank you so much for putting this together. Um, a lot of work goes into these things. Appreciate it. Um, I I did want to um just stick a pin in something. So, these these usages um drive-throughs and um um per, you know, self storage facilities are not big job producers and Brentwood um being I guess the last number I heard 88% commuters we really want to get some jobs in Brentwood so um to me it makes sense to um limit these a little bit and uh so I appreciate the effort here to get some definitions on things

Um, I would like a standard um that I didn't see in here to keep the uh the queue and order window um not in view of the main street at least so that um when you when you're driving by the thing you're not seeing a line of cars as much as possible. Um I I would give you as an example the McDonald's on Balfur over by uh what used to be Corton Cortona. Um if you look at it on and you're on Balfur, which is the main drag, they by the time the drive-thru exits kind of there, but but that's just like one or two cars at a time. So it's all kind of stacked at the back or the side. And I I really like that. So that would be a suggestion that I would make. Um, as far as uh not being adjacent to any res residential or 100 ft is not very far from residential. 100 ft is um not much wider than a lot of lots in Brentwood. I mean um maybe two lots wide if if some of the smaller lots are like maybe 50 feet. It's It's like you could stand, you know, on the sidewalk in your driveway and look down two drives driveways down and that's the distance. And so to me it feels a little bit short. Um and uh it says no exceptions unless there's a wall. And whatever the the distance is, I I would say there shouldn't be exceptions at all. So I I don't approve of um pushing them in any closer than that. even if there is a wall.

Um All right. So, um moving on to storage where there'll be some more discussion about walls. Um it looks I think that we're we're only going to we're not going to be having a lot of multi-to storage. Is is that correct? It's it's mostly one story. All of our current facilities right now, I believe, are one story. Um, we've added the the guidelines um to the building height um because we've seen in other communities redevelopment of existing storage facilities where they they take down the singlestory buildings and build like threetory huge buildings. Um so it it's more so since we are limiting it to the current locations. This is for more so for future redevelopment of those facilities. Um, but we did want to limit the height. Um, it was discussed at council and they wanted to make sure that since the majority of our existing facilities are near single family zones that they limit it uh in height in proximity to the adjacent properties. And that's the 35 foot. And a 35 foot would accommodate maybe two stories. Um, I'm just trying to think because, forgive me, most of the self storage that I've seen, you just drive up to what looks like a garage door and I'm just trying to imagine a second floor that you would drive up to or Yeah. Or you would you would actually take an elevator or stairway up to your unit and carry it all down. Interesting. Okay. Um, thank you. That's a little bit I was just curious about that. Uh uh number five. Let me get back up to it in the uh Sorry, we we've got storage and uh um drive-thru on the

same thing. It makes it a little hard to Where can I find it? Oh, I got to go up a little bit more. I really should have saved the page for this uh development standards. Um, number five, it's this is on page 8 of 24 in the uh in in the uh resolution. Um, it says, "Exterior access for storage units shall be fully screened from the public right away through building design, decorative walls, landscaping, or other screening methods as deemed appropriate by the community development director." Um the wording as deemed appropriate is concerning to me because it's not um it's it's not objective and um you know objective is on our minds a lot lately mostly for residential but um I've always been of the opinion that we should be as objective as possible. Um I was it we are also bound to the um the commercial and industrial design standards which would have been nice to have in the packet but I have it up and and you have it up but um we do need screening. I I think the walls should have landscaping on the exterior. So in like part six, landscape and heartscape shall add to the character of the new buildings, facilitate sustainable water use. Landscape design shall be integrated

with the buildings on site, enhance the natural environment of the area. And that does call back to um uh walls as they're defined. um on page 14, item seven in the uh in the commercial design about no blank walls. Um they they do need landscaping. I don't know if you need to repeat that here. Um and again, I I've seen walls be redefined as um fences and even chain link fences. And I I I would really like to see some language that clarifies that a chain link fence is not a wall. Um, if you if you take my drift, sorry, that was probably a little too snarky, but um that walls should be masonry walls. And lastly, where we have um conditional use of personal storage in PDS particularly, I'm wondering shouldn't should there not be limitations on the total square footage or the percentage of square footage um so so that we couldn't get uh some overzealous um future commission s or councils uh establishing some PD as a zone for personal storage and putting just like all personal storage in there. I I think there's probably um ways that we we prevent that now. is is there not like in a PD you can't make a PD be all one thing like it conditionally permits one thing but there should be variety right in in the PDS that they're currently allowed it has a variety of uses and so within those um in each of them I believe you know only one of the parcels developed as self storage there's nothing that

would prohibit an like a second property within that PD or from prohibiting the PD from having more than one self- storage facility we don't have anything like that But um the permitted uses in all of those are very extensive and self storage is only one of those uses within each of those PDs. Yeah, I guess I guess in my nightmare scenario, somebody goes in and buys all the other businesses, mows them all down and starts putting up personal storage. So, um I don't know how likely a scenario that is, but it is something that occurred to me reading it. And um I think those were were the observations that I had. So, um, I'll go back around just for discussion. Does anybody Oh, Commissioner Roberts, did you not go? Commissioner Roberts. Commissioner Roberts is fine. Forgive me. Commissioner Roberts has I I think that uh two things. I just wanted to comment on uh Jennifer making that um communication real clear to us about the before and after how things are viewed today. I appreciate that. And uh Mr. Jeremy, Commissioner Jeremy kind of hit some some uh pieces that I was prepared to speak to regarding the growth of our community and if that would become an impact down the road. But something like this can come back to the planning commission in due time at some point in time. It can be revisited. Correct. Absolutely. And if there's a parcel of land and a developer that comes in um and wants to request a zone change or to to modify their um uses, they can always do so at their discretion. Um but yes, it can always be revisited in the future. That's great. That's all I have.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Forgive me. Um, does anybody else have any additional I just I just want to make sure I clarify something for my own sake for the six. So, a couple things for the six um storage facility locations. So, do and I read this, but I just want to make sure that I ask it. Does any of these new um regulations affect them? [Music] Um no. Right now they are permitted. They are all permitted. They have existing conditional use permits. They are allowed um to stay whether I don't believe in any of these would necessarily make them legal non-conforming. Um it would be if they were to redevelop that they would then be required to abide by these rules and these design standards. So, if they wanted to add um let's say um I think Acorn is the largest if I'm not mistaken there on seven acres or something like that. Um if they wanted to add to their facility, then they would be subject to redo everything, let's say, uh as uh commission uh excuse me, chairperson floor said, you know, walls that had uh plants on them. they would be required to do all of that work if they if they chose to, let's say, expand. If they chose to expand, it's it's not as clear-cut. They would be required to come back for design review potentially and modify their conditional use permit, but it would we would have to look at how much they're expanding. If you're only adding a tiny little small portion of a building, staff in the city council or planning commission might not have the nexus to require them to develop all of their existing buildings. Um, but we

definitely could require them to anything new that they construct and develop is going to have to meet these new standards. But we wouldn't necessarily in all cases be able to require them to retroactively go back and modify the designs of their existing buildings that they are not touching. Um but that would be based on the level of expansion that they're doing. um and whether there is a nexus to require that at that time because I I I just want to propose something about Commissioner Jones had brought up you know as the city grows um we have these six um storage facilities there may be a need for um you know additional storage and while I agree that you know we need jobs and we need and those don't have the best use to you know create working facilities and stuff. Uh, we may need that and it would be prudent to do it in the same areas that we already have, you know, storage facilities. So, I guess I wouldn't want them to all of a sudden have to pay 10,000, 20,000, $30,000 because of these um new founded cup requirements. At least for those six, they should have a little bit uh more leniency in case we need growth. we can be in that area where we you know where they already are and it might probably provide the city with a little more flexibility. Um that's my first comment there. Second one is on the um drive-thru issue. So as restaurants in general are not going to build freestanding at least freestanding from scratch sitdown restaurants because of the cost associated with it. So I understand we have these you know cups and we don't want a lot of drive-throughs because

maybe we don't want a lot of fast food restaurants. Understand that. But it may come to a point in time when there are no um people willing to develop that land. I think that was even written in the um staff report there somewhere. So I guess my question is uh um how everybody who wants a drive-thru like someone if you know some a new fast food restaurant wants to put in a drive-thru has to come before the planning commission and we do have the discretion of giving a sep. Um, I just want to make sure there's flexibility so that we don't end up mixing everything which causes a problem as well. Um, before we move get into doing motions, um, I have a question. Um, I don't know if this is for Eric or for Christie. This is an advisory. So, if we wanted to um propose alternative language, do we need to rewrite the resolution or can we add can we can we pass it but with additions saying we would we would want to change this or that or how would that work? That would work for me. I want to make sure that Jennifer and Eric have the um the feedback from the commission um you know in a in a good format and I' I'd probably defer to to Jennifer to have her kind of summarize uh the feedback and indicate that um you would want to adopt the resolution and have provided that feedback for council for their consideration. Um, if there's something very specific, I would not adopt this resolution, you know, with that with this particular strikeout. You could give that to Jennifer, but otherwise, a general um overview of your feedback um is is totally fine, and you can adopt

the resolution with direction to staff to provide your feedback to the council. All right. Um Okay. So, with that, I've I've heard some uh discussion. I definitely heard mine. um about increasing the uh the residential setback. Um striking and we'll we'll we'll talk about all of this. I'm just I'm just making a list for us to chat about. uh striking the um uh mason masonry wall exception. Um um uh finding an objective alternative to deemed appropriate or maybe some additional wording to make it um I don't know um I would like to clarify the walls or walls but that's actually in the uh in the uh commercial design document. So, um I don't think that we're have that in

front of us tonight. So, those would be three changes that I would suggest. Um and other other changes that were discussed. Can you Did you have any um so thank you for putting the the 100 foot that was on there, correct? It's a 100 foot right now, right? And we're looking looking to potentially That was Okay, great. Thank you. And then Commissioner Johnson, I know you you brought up about the existing storage facilities having uh some additional flexibility to add if need be so that we can keep it contained in those areas if we had additional growth. And I I bring that up too only because again I I I mix because I 100% agree with Cher on the job component, the economic component, but I also want to be careful that we have residents that need storage and then ultimately don't have it anymore because we've run out being the city getting a little bit bigger, right? Um, so I I I think that flexibility component might just be something to consider within the existing six so that there there's at least something, you know, that allows for the, you know, potential if residents potentially need it. Okay. So, I have four items so far. And just to add to that, we want to make sure that when we put that in writing of some kind that we are making clear that it because it's subjective, right? And so I I want to make sure that when we say we're going to add we're going to add on to um existing um establishments that they they're given the flexibility. And I'm not sure that we want to just leave it as existing flexibility because someone can come behind and say, well, what did they mean by flexibility? So, let's be

real specific about what is flexibility? Is it 100 feet? Is it thousand feet? Um, you know, is it are we going to look at it for a a con container space? um additional storage space, additional 10 uh units. We got to be real specific because someone can come in behind us and say, "Well, it's subjective and we're only going to give them 100 ft." And and that will that will not be what I don't think the commission is trying to say up here. I I guess I'd be as specific as I can get, you know, they own a certain plot of land, right? And then we have certain rules about setbacks. We have rules about how far you can go a buttress against you know your property line. So as long as they were meeting all the current rules you know butressing you know against their property line um their setbacks um and I don't even know like for example how much they're actually taking up of their total property because that's not necessarily in here. My only concern is that as we grow that we may need additional space and I don't necessarily want another um uh self- storage unit, but at least those folks could, you know, at least build within their property line. Can I can I interject with a question for uh Commissioner Johnson? Um where in the development standards for the um the storage do you not see flexibility? I mean which which which item which is it hold on get to the right spot here. Okay. It's not that I don't see it is

that if they were to submit to um at least that's what I was asking Jennifer. Excuse me. Um if they were to submit to build then everything that the you know are the rules coming in now would come into play and then they would have they may have to update the whole the whole facility. Oh which would then which would then make it prohibitive or may make it prohibitive to expand that piece of property. Oh because they were they were built outside of these rules and then if they want to expand Exactly. then all of a sudden they would have to comply. I understand what you're saying because Jennifer clearly said that it it if it's a small um piece to the parcel, they might not need to go through a whole redo. But that's where the sub being subjective comes in because what is a small piece compared to building out the rest of their their uh their land. And if they build out the rest of their land, it mean could be substantial. I I don't think so, but just hear me out. Then they might be charged to have to comply to these new set of rules for their entire facility. And that can be real cost prohibitive. And then they and then they wouldn't do it. And then we wouldn't get the benefit of getting the additional storage if we so choose. And all I'm talking about is the specific properties that those six. I'm not talking about any Yeah. anything else. I'm just talking about those six. Um and if there's if they would like to build out in case we do need that, it might be beneficial for the city to keep the additional storage in those six. Oh,

I agree. So, so again, it comes back to being real clear and as clear as we can without knowing the lot size of these six facilities. And I don't know what terminology might be best used here to say that they are more than than welcome to build out everything that is on their property without having to succumb to this new set of uh guidelines. Okay. Well, let's um let's en envision some scenarios. Um I'll start with like probably the worst one first was when we were talking about um if they wanted to to expand the two floors, that's kind of not what they already had. So, I would think that in those kind of situations or if they're going to tear it down and rebuild it, um that probably isn't what you're looking for. You're looking more for like if they just want to expand. Me personally, I'm looking for if we those six just those six as long as it doesn't violate let's say going to three stories or anything that we wouldn't do now like right now I my understanding is we couldn't go to three stories so don't want to do three stories don't want to but if we contain the self storage in the six locations where they are I shouldn't really use the word contain because there are some sub, you know, there are some I'm not trying got to be I'm not I'm not trying to use the word contained, but it would make it um potentially better for the city if they're in the areas where they are now than to say a new place come in or something different. That's that's all I'm trying to get to. Now, if they want to buy an additional parcel next door to where they are, all I take my stuff

back. I'm just talking about on their current their current land. Okay. We just need some language. If I could interject, I think um what I think if if I'm hearing you correct is what you're getting at is um and this is one where I think I would hope that you would give kind of staff some leeway in crafting language to present to council. something along the lines, if I'm understanding correctly, is that um if an existing facility were to remove, replace or remodel more than 50% of their existing square footage, then they would need to abide by all new regulations. if they were adding an addition that is less than 50% of their existing square footage that only the existing or that only the new portion of the development would have to follow this and the remaining existing portion would not. Um I we would need to look into like this percentage wise and nexus type information to present to council on what would be appropriate and what we could actually support. But I think that's you're getting at is is that there is some kind of cut off that if you're less than a certain percentage of square footage then only the new portion would be required um and you're not required to remodel the entire facility. Okay. I think staff understands that that's the direction that you choose to go. I sorry been trying to chime in here a little bit. Um the I just flipped through all the PDS all all the PDs that are impacted here and what I found was that almost all of them show the existing facilities all six sort of uh landlocked if you will. So the plausibility of those six facilities like physically expanding um looks pretty unlikely. So to me at least it

from a practical standpoint and the only other one is here is to look at the industrial commercial area which there's still a fair amount uh in and around Brentwood. So that would probably be the more likely point to which a new facility would go in therefore governed by these rules. So what I might offer to the commission is that we might consider um more heavily focusing on inner development. So like if they wanted to build up or if they wanted to like expand their density within their existing plot because that's probably more likely given uh the expansion. So if it's if it's an intermediate expansion versus a you know I'll call it a gross expansion which would be a you know full new lot or a full new facility. Um so yeah then um sorry I was clicking through the regulations as well and I know that we specifically call out the uh to chair Flor's point about um uh what was it um we talked about as dean by the committee um there's things that we put in the architectural standards under uh the development standards 17.755.002 002. When you get to like item D, it says they shall comply with the following design standards. Well, there's a ton of design standards that are actually in the um commercial design line guidelines. So when we talked about um a lot of these things associated with the um uh well in particular the drive-through permitting uh or sorry the drive-through design uh you know we talk about the 100 foot rule or the proposal of this 100 foot from adjacent residential facilities. In the commercial design standards, it also says that you can't have you they strongly uh recommend to not have drive-thru um lanes located between the actual building and the street. So, you know, I hate to point the finger at the most

recent Wendy's approval, but that has exactly that where it uh yeah, maybe I don't remember how far it is exactly from the uh the edge of that uh drive-thru to that house on the corner adjacent to San Creek, but um if you had that as part of the design, if you had that uh drive-thru going the other way, you're adding an regardless of how far it is from the actual uh residential complex or or housing development, you would have uh the building as being a physical barrier of sound uh mitigation. So in a way by putting it on the other side or away from the street, away from any uh more built up residential areas, it's sort of already baked into the commercial design standards. So I just I think in tandem between those two things, as long as you as long as whatever governing body um acknowledges that both of those uh items are as critical as the other one and and on their own, they're kind of useless, but they need to be kind of held in held in the same vein in order to be effective. So that's how I interpret this. And then the other bit was about um the uh the walls just like we want walls that are not blank particularly to be f facing the street. We don't want that. You know, we can have trelluses. We can have gardening uh sorry um vines and things like that. Just ironically enough what we see in the DSP as well. Um that's all in the commercial design standards as well. So this is all a lot of the stuff that we've got already. I think it's just a matter of getting the attention of the body that is reviewing the item. But I'm still not sure, and maybe Jennifer, you can help clarify from from my perspective, is that when I look at when we call out those specific items in the in the um

uh the municipal code, how is that differ from the reference to the documents like the commercial design standards? So right now the the commercial design standards or our design portion of of our code our um design review section in municipal code refers to the design guidelines and indicates that projects should abide by them. Um and so in that case it is not required because they they should but they don't have to. Um what this does is it strengthens that a bit to indicate that for these specific uses they shall. So if there is a clear and objective guideline within those then new developments shall abide by it. Okay, that that was my understanding as well. So I just to maybe the recommendation that I have based off of my rambling at this point is that we do a cursory review of the commercial design standards and extract things that we think are most applicable to not only the self- storage but to the drive-through uses and place them and have them as line items in the BMC. That way they are a shall. It's like you have to do this and it's not up to interpretation. That to me would give strength to those items that are going to maintain that consistency or whether if we want to have some kind of um growth um uh amenability uh depending on uh what that is. It's like if if we want something that supports growth, have that in the commercial design standards because it's a little bit more flexible in terms of what we choose to abide by versus not. Whereas in the BMC

specifically, that is a hard you shall apply that particular standard. So I offer that I've called out a few things specifically in the commercial design standards. I don't know if there's any other ideas there, but I would certainly invite it for further discussion. I just want to um interject here again. Um on page eight, uh number 17, plan drive-through windows to minimize adverse physical and visual impacts. There's three items, A, B, and C. A and B are avoid. And um in terms of what uh comm vice chair Bran was saying, I think these should be shells. Uh item C actually says drive-through windows and driveways are not allowed in locations facing any residential area, including residential areas separated from the use by an intervening street. And I wasn't sure that the uh the draft resolution adequately addressed that that they they just cannot be. So like item K the ordering board should be. Should be isn't shall be. Should is should. Um whereas like in J you use the word shall be but in K you use should be. I would say in K. It definitely needs to be shall be. Um, so this is like on page 24 of 24 in in the uh resolution. Um, so definitely the ordering ordering board shall be oriented and directed. So that would be something we could change. Um and again uh drive-th through windows and driveways are not allowed in locations facing any residential area. So they cannot be facing residential.

But um in in the design document it says avoid drive-through lanes which are located between the building. And I would say we should have language in in the in the in the municipal code that says uh drive-through lanes shall not be located between the building and adjacent streets. Drive-through exits shall not drive-thru shall not exit into major entry. Is that sort of what you're thinking? Um so I would like to like to see that. So, um, I'll add that as an item here because we we we kind of took it away from the discussion we were having about Commissioner Johnson's item, which was the, uh, the storage. So, um, add not sure. So, you mean item 17? I believe that's on page well the page actual page 12 of the commercial design standards in the uh document on the Brentwood uh homepage but um yeah it's it's I actually have it as page 13 but it's labeled page eight yeah it's labeled page eight but yeah um so anyway so um I if I'm hearing you right it's like adding those three items as being part of so A B and C under line item 17 because I think this is the only section that the only section that specifically addresses drive-thru uses with relation to I'll call it circular circulation design for lack of a better phrase. Um there's a bunch of other stuff that might impact it from a from a cosmetic design standpoint, but this is uh these three uh line items do address the actual I think circulation concerns with respect to adjacency to residential as

well as um potential noise mitigation whether it be active or passive. So So now we have um three suggestions for the uh drive-thru. and deemed appropriate and then deemed appropriate. This is storage. This is drive-thru. Drive-thru drive-thru. And it does look like there's no specific mention of storage related in the similar way that the drive-thru rel is mentioned in the commercial design standards. But because it's specifically called out, I I think it it's it's deemed appropriate that we integrate those as shall in the BMC versus not. Yeah, we did I did find a should just now that I I didn't really care for which is on K there's a should. So we should and on I there's a should and the setback is a shall be this is a shall that's a shall. Yeah, it's just I think I said K is a should and I Okay. But did before before we did we get um I I I would like to circle the the just want to get back to flexibility. Um do we do we have language that Commissioner Johnson the the language that that was suggested to you?

Is that what you want to see? So with with and this is just um so we have the planning staff and just you know my background I don't you know I used to build we used to build these things and property you know the property configuration sometimes uh as we know you know the odd shot oddshaped lots can sometimes determine the way the building is facing and where the drive-thru is and you know the ease of access. I was I was trying to ask you about the um flexibility around storage. Oh, okay. I just wanted to know if um the language that Jennifer offered you is is good. So, you're good with that? Okay. I'm good with that. All right. Now, and now you want to go back to that. Okay. Right. Um so that my only concern is um we just have to I think that the commission needs to make sure that it sometimes when we put these shells these hard and fast rules about the way the drive-thru is going to go. It's all great when the property lines are, you know, a nice square lot or it's perfectly fitting and then yeah, you can put a building matching everything the way we want it to match. But if you have an oddshaped lot or um for example, odd shaped lot and the traffic the main traffic where you would drive into the drive-thru or drive into the lot is on a side where you don't expect it to be. It forces it forces the um whoever the company is that's building to build a different looking building if they're going to build it at all. So my only thing is that we be careful about the shoulds and the shalls. Um they can always come before the planning

commission. They can and you know we can all look at it and say no for example no you it doesn't work. But when we say shall not, we're going to we're going to make sure that they don't even try. And that's the only thing I would caution us against. Yeah. Sure. Or the only the only challenge I would say to that I I agree with what you're saying in respect to being mindful of that word. But um when I look at particularly things like drive-thru and the setback and you know having 100 ft um I would never want to have any real leverage behind adjusting those things if it's you know just because the property line's different we have to move the speaker facing the home like we can't do that right so so I I I think that's what you mean but I wanted to be sure I don't want the speaker to face the home either what I'm saying is I don't know what's coming But, uh, I don't know what's coming, right? We could have recommendations in there. None of us know exactly what's going to come before you and what's what's going to happen. So, only thing I'm saying is that it might be that you let them come before the planning commission and if if the the the case justifies it, they get the cup. If it doesn't, they don't. That's all I'm saying. I don't want if somebody came and you know they were 50 feet away and they wanted to have a speaker you I would be the first one going no right we don't want that but uh that would be my only con only only so my concern um with that line of reasoning is that in the past I have seen documents come through here that clearly said should And um there was a clear intent and yet some

commissioners would be very liberal in their interpretation and allow something that was not the intent. And um this is why I I prefer objectivity in all things. Um, so if if you're saying that that it's too tight, um, then that or that an exception should be possible, um, I I would need to have some way to understand under exactly what conditions an exception would be possible. Um, and and I So, can you clarify that for me? that that's not what I'm saying. I guess uh I know we wanted to make sure there was a wall be I'm just going to give you an example like you know we want to make sure that the drive-thru uh there's a wall between it and you can't see it from the street. Okay, I'm just using that as an example. There may be a case where because of the where the main traffic is and the size of the lot, the drive-thru has to be seen from the street. That's what there may not, you know, I'm just saying there may be a case or that the wall I don't know. That's the problem. I don't know. If I knew the exact example or if I could draw it out, I would tell you. What I'm just saying is all I'm suggesting is that we take into consideration that these people have to come before the planning commission. They do have a city staff and we we put the words in there and if they say if they come before the you know the city staff and they think it's okay or maybe they don't or they come before the planning commission and maybe there are some liberal liberal you know people that don't agree necessarily with what you thought but the majority does then it doesn't happen or it does I don't know it's it's well to be have a little

bit I I I just stand by my point that if if you say should um and a lot of people will just read that as oh they can do it. Um if you say, you know, they don't have if you say should they'll say oh they don't have to do it. They shall do it then they have to do it. um in the hypotheticals that you posed, uh what that suggests to me is that maybe that's not the best site for a drive-thru. So, um and I I think that there is um some process for variances in this city. Um I don't know if we put a shall, would a a variance still be possible? If it's shall then it would be strictly prohibited. Um it would require a variance and typically a variance would have to be something there specific variance findings. Um I'd even have to look at our variance provisions to see if something like this would even be allowed under a variance section which I don't know off top of my head but typically variance findings are that there's something unique about the property. Um which is often very difficult to make those findings. So um yeah I I don't know specifically if a variance is the correct route or if it would even be available but typically if you say it shall not you know or shall then if it doesn't meet that requirement it's not able to be applied for. So it just would make it difficult but not impossible which is kind of what I like. So for because if we're if we're going to plan, let's plan, you know, I'm sorry, I'm I'm I'm hogging. Uh, anybody else? Chris, sorry, Vice Chair Brand. Um, yeah, and I think I think we've kind of gotten to

what Commissioner Johnson was commenting on. It sounds like that a having to submit for a variance would be an active deterrent to the development of drive-throughs. Is that a fair assessment? Yes. Okay. I just want to clarify just so everyone understands. Yeah. Anyone else want to jump in on this one? I have a summary that I've created. If you want to share my screen and we can maybe go through this if if somebody would like to make a motion. I don't really sense the commission coming together on certain items, but um I think it would be instructive to put it up and then we can kind of dissect it if if every is that okay? Okay. So, I'll zoom in first just on the drive-thru section. So, from what I understand is is for the drive-through section would be for um section F to increase the residential setback and remove the unless separated by the masonry wall provision and an I and K potentially change it from should to shall. And then um in regards to the current design guidelines, make number 17 on page eight objective and add directly into um sections uh in somewhere into the drive-through section. And then right below that is cut and paste of what that 17 page eight is. And those were my three notes that I have for that section. And these are just the drive-thru sections. Yeah. Um All right. And do do you have a similar workup for the storage? So for storage, I have on number five to remove the subjective language surrounding the deemed appropriate. For number six, define a wall or refer back

to the design standards for the section of defining what a wall is. Um and then consider non-conforming nexus related to new square footage. Potentially consider relating um related to including a percentage removed, renovated, remodeled square footage to kick in renovations of the rest of the site. That's I think that's everything that I had written down. Um, uh, where were removing deemed appropriate? Uh, let's I want to go back and look at that. I'm going to I'll pull it back up on my screen. I think that was in reference to the, uh, discretion of the community development director with respect to um, that that's what I recall. Yeah. In the staff report, it's it's just that I wanted to strengthen that so that it's it's more than deemed appropriate. it it has to meet the the criteria that it does screen. You know what I mean? Correct. Okay. And um well actually now that I think about it um sorry to interject again. Uh when it says through the building design, decorative walls, landscaping, that would be through the purview of the planning commission or or city council depending on um because that design review for a new facility at least or a heavily remodeled one uh that design would come to us. So in a way it's you know the initial work would probably happen with the community development director but then ultimate approval would come through a body like ours. I think I mean am I is that a fair assessment? There is one of the PDs where it does not require a conditional use permit where it is um allowed and so we could redo it to say by the community development director you know or planning commission something like

that or we could just leave it as deemed appropriate to compensate for the uh by right use of the I think it's the acorn storage right? Yes. Yes. Okay. Mr. Gina shall be fully screened from the public rightway through building design digital walls. I'm speaking or or other I don't know effective screening methods. I just don't I don't want the um community development director deeming something appropriate that doesn't fully screen. Yeah, maybe maybe I'm not I'm not looking into it far enough on that. Um, but I mean deemed appropriate to me it's it's pretty clear. I mean essentially you're saying it's appropriate. It's it's meeting it's meeting it right. So I mean I I think that's just my my thought on it but I mean I'm open to hearing more. Yeah. Again deemed appropriate u means the community development can deem it any way they want and I want it to be sure that it is fully screened. U chair floor. Um maybe suggestion here is that you're talking item five under category D of the development standards for um if we can get a bit more objective in terms of the BMC addressing what the definition of a we'll call it a fully screened wall and that way it becomes an objective definition and then at that point if it meets or doesn't meet that the community development director would be um assessing that on a more objective standard versus that or that simply gets lifted and put into the uh um or no, this is already proposed. So, but yeah, just being a bit more specific on the actual definition and if there isn't one that exists, we just create one and then propose it to council. Yeah, I'm I'm kind of I'm quite winging now. It does say it shall be fully screened. So hopefully um

we could just remove everything after or other screening methods period. I I would like that better. And if that if Yeah, I was just going to note for the commission just in terms of uh interpretation of your own code. Um I would say that that section was written to state that storage units must be fully screened, right? They shall be fully screened and the as deemed appropriate relates back to the other screening methods. So you wouldn't necessarily need to use those four first ones listed. building design, decorative walls, landscaping, you could use something else that was appropriate. That's it relates to that, not the actual screening itself, which actually must be done. All right. Well, in that case, I would probably leave the community development director into it because then that person would at least if if some other method was uh proposed, that person would be um in a position to see that other method. So I'll withdraw that if if also too remember we can always appeal a decision made by the community development director and have it reviewed here. So but we is not the five of us. We is whoever sits here at the time the application comes through. And again that's that's the hell of legislating, right? Um all right. So I'm sorry. Uh I'll I'll take that one back. So, I'll go back to see what we've got. Did we miss anything else as far as the content on the uh that's being projected right now? Otherwise, I'd say we should proceed with the motion. Yeah. And again, uh we can take five off of there. Um and uh the the only other thing is

um can I see the uh oh can I can I see the definition on consider non-conforming consider consider non-conforming nexus. Is city council going to understand what we mean by consider non-conforming nexus? And we'll go into more detail on what that would mean as part of the staff report. This is just for notes and for the motion. Okay. Um All right. I don't have any more comments on that. Does anybody else? Are we ready for a motion? I'll hear a motion. Yeah, I'll um I make a motion to adopt resolution number 25-010 uh with the presently amended recommendations on screen for both drive-through and self- storage uses. Uh recommending that the city council adopt ordinance to amend the a Brenton municipal code to add development standards for self-s storage facilities in chapter 17.755. Add development standards for drive-through facilities in chapter 17.6. 655 add new land use classifications for each in section 17.03.030 and update references in all zones throughout the city related to the uses. You want to add Did you mention about this? Yeah. Okay. Before there's a second if I may. Um the onscreen verbiage is that appropriate for the sec to I know vice chair brand used the verbiage onscreen. Is just she he's assuming to this obviously but I want to make sure we're clear on what that is. Yeah, that's f that's fine. If you want to include the the what we're looking at on screen that Jennifer has prepared for us tonight, we'll we'll include those in your and I know that's what you meant. I know that's what you meant, but I I just for the record. Yeah. I wanted to make sure it was clear. So, okay. I'll

second. All in favor? I I I Motion carries. Okay. Um that was our public hearing. Moving on to business items. Um F1, review of the 202526 to 202930 capital improvement program, the CIP for consistency with the general plan. Eric, thank you. Uh good evening, chairperson, floor, members of the commission. Um I have a brief presentation. This is an annual item that the commission is required to review um for general plan conformance related to the CIP and it's the capital improvement program. It's a 5-year program of uh related improvements and our finance department is in charge of um really creating the document, but it has input from a variety of departments. So, I'm just here tonight to bring it to the commission for conformance. As you can see, I'm flying solo in terms of uh staff backup. Uh so to the extent that uh the commission has any specific questions about projects, I'll do my best to answer those. Um but essentially um just to summarize real quick, the general plan um lays out certain major objectives that directly relate to the preparation of the CIP, which are as follows. Uh update the CIP to include as appropriate roadway improvements necessary to support buildout of the general plan. Uh that's an action item in the general plan circulation element. Uh also to include capital projects that are sponsored by the city uh necessary to maintain and improve traffic operations in the 5-year CIP. Uh that's in the circulation element. And then um during the annual preparation of the CIP, review the conditions of bridges, coververts, and other flood control and

storm water conveyance infrastructure. Uh that's from the safety element. So there's really three primary purposes of the CIP. Uh one is to integrate capital improvements with other activities such as implementation of the general plan. Also to ensure that planning for capital improvements is tied to realistic predictable sources of income to finance those improvements. And then third to define desired improvements and anticipated construction schedules so there's adequate time for planning, design, and public review prior to construction. Um, as you probably already know and uh noticed as you reviewed the CIP in draft form, it's organized into uh what are called categories. There's seven of them. So, there's uh roadway improvements, parks and trails improvements, water improvements, uh wastewater improvements, community facilities improvements, future improvements, and those are ones that are currently not funded. Um, and then last but not least, development improvements. And those are ones that are basically being done in conjunction with a specific, excuse me, a specific development project. So, um, as I mentioned, this is a a 5-year program that looks ahead based on the coming fiscal year. Uh, so this one is for 2025 2026, which starts on July 1st, uh, rolls into the end of June next year, looks ahead for the following four years. Um but staff is constantly updating it and bring it to the council for formal adoption um which we're hoping to do at the uh June 24th meeting. So this is a critical meeting to make sure that the planning commission is on board with general plan conformance. And I will say too that each project sheet within the CIP itself has a listing of how that particular project uh conforms to or complies with the general plan referencing specific

goals, actions or policies. So hopefully that was helpful for the commission. And then I'll just conclude by um stating that the commission's or the staff's recommendation, I'm sorry, is to adopt a resolution recommending that this um document is consistent with the general plan. And then again, it'll be forwarded to the council for formal adoption of the CIP at the end of June. So with that, I'll turn it back to the commission for any questions. Thank you. Are there any clarifying questions this afternoon? No. All right. Okay. Um, at this time the public is permitted to address the planning commission. Remarks are limited to five minutes per person. Um, again, no applicant. Um, so we'll rem move right into public speakers. Uh, April chair. We have no speaker course for those here in person. We'll go to Zoom. If you'd like to speak on this item, please raise your hand. We have no hands raised. Thank you. I will now close public comment. And is there any discussion by the commission? Uh, Commissioner Roberts, since I you last time, no, Commissioner Roberts has none. Uh, Commissioner Jones, none at this time. Thank you. Uh, couple things I wanted to discuss. Um, the countywide smart signal CIP. Um, I know we the reference to improve improve circulation in locations with highest levels of uh congestion. the selection of intersections. Is that clear as of right now what you know because this is a grant? Um Eric, I'm not sure if you know, but um if there's if there's predetermined intersections that are at the top of the list in terms of uh improvement just to I I didn't see that in the in the item, but

yeah, I'm going to the page right now. So, countywide smart signals. Yeah. If it's not listed in either like the description or justification below the the graphics at the top of the page or under the supplemental, my guess would be no. Um, but I can also check in with engineering staff subsequent to tonight's meeting and see and and then just board the information on to the commission as an FYI. Yeah, it says 15 intersections total. And I know at least on the on the big picture in terms of the roadway improvements, it's there's a call out like halfway between O'Hara and Brentwood Boulevard, but that was the only one that I could find. Um, just to ensure that whatever reasoning that went behind to suffice general plan policy CIR1-7 that it's just aligned with that. That was my only comment on that one. Um, let's see. the uh Lone Tree Way roadway improvements um I believe phase one is complete phase two um I had had some comments about this I think last year um in terms of uh multimmodal transportation throughout that region adding the sidewalks adding the um uh some of those extensive ways despite the fact there's a lack of uh other development happening there um just for the resident feedback is there is there any uh schedule for the phase 2 completion. I know that includes a signal at Lone Tree Way and Smith Road as well as a potential signal at O'Hara and O'Hara. It's a small lane there that only goes about 50 ft. But um that's moreformational, I guess, as a question. Yeah, I'd probably have to follow up with the commission on that one as well because I only see that uh under supplemental information, it references that phase 2 is for the undergrounding of the overhead utilities. Yes. Which was estimated to begin in January of 2025. Yeah. Yeah. And that includes this I get a lot of

complaints in my neighborhood about this, so I'm bringing it up. Uh there's a electrical pole that is basically in the center of the road uh at the intersection of uh Smith and Big Basin. Um it would free up a second lane for school traffic through there. Uh and soon and that's part of this uh CIP. So just as far as the um implementation goes, I I'm curious as far as both the timeline as well as its integration within phase 2, what type of, you know, is is PG& involved in that sort of discussion? You might not have this information. I just I bring it up. I want to make sure it's out in the public. Oh, and it's not might not. I I don't. Okay. But um I do understand the question and I'll I'll do what I can afterwards to um just as an FYI provide it to the commission. Okay. Uh three more. Sorry. Uh wastewater treatment plant expansion for phase two. Um, how are we defining the definition of future development as well as uh is that associated with what I would we would project as being our buildout capacity for Brentwood for population and residential I guess um infrastructure development just to Yeah, I'm trying to get to the project page. Wastewater treatment plant expansion you said. Oh, phase two. Yeah, phase two. Where is the language you're referring to? I'm sorry. Let me find it here. Uh, talk about a lot of wastewater here. Um, sorry, just a what is I think it's the uh treatment plant expansion phase two. Mhm. Yeah, I'm reading through it right now.

I'm just trying to find what you were Oh, yeah. And then it says um Yeah. So, treatment facility was planned and constructed to accommodate future expansions. Um includes a fiscal year. Um sorry, I missed that bit. Uh my understanding at least of the transment plant expansion is that um oh wait I'm sorry under description justification which is right under the graphics. Yeah the final buildout population per the current general plan right and accommodate planned and approved development of the city. Yeah. So that when the general plan was updated in 2014, there was a population buildout estimate. Um we had to do that for environmental impact purposes. Yeah. Um so I think that's what that's saying on this sheet is the future expansion of this is tied to the build out of the general plan. Okay. And it's tied to that 2014 calculation, right? Okay. Got it. Um the downtown Wi-Fi project um in terms of its coordination with the general plan, I'm kind of lost in terms of its align uh alignment with it only because this was kicked off in 2012. you know, our capability for um cell infrastructure has grown exponentially and I I would just kind of question its relevance in today's standard whereas I mean most LTE or 5G can give you faster speeds than you can over Wi-Fi. So, um just a I might submit that as a possibility as far as it's not very I think it's only like $10,000, but um just a just a question there. Um and then uh fleet electrification just a broad question as far as the federal government had recently uh ruled in the

Senate that uh they can overturn their 2035 mandate. I don't know if there was any change in terms of our direction based off of that um uh recent uh vote, I guess you could say. Um or if we're just kind of holding steadfast with the original intent to maintain that from a California legislative. I don't want to get too into uh but just a question. Yeah. And actually, if you wouldn't mind, can you go back just real quick to um Sure. your question on the it's downtown public Wi-Fi upgrade. What exactly was your question on that one? just uh the fact that I don't think it really applies anymore to the current general plan policies only because the infra even if with revised infrastructure um we don't have even with our most busy events like a October fest or a large event uh we have sufficient cell throughput cell tower throughput to you know suffice data calls that sort of thing um and just as a general expense. I'm not sure. Uh just a it's more of a open for discussion topic kind of thing for this body as well as when it goes to council. Okay. Yeah. And again, I don't really have any information for you tonight on that one. Um would it be possible for further um context to be provided to council when it goes back to them just in terms of how the revision like how this money is being spent potentially as well as um h how it directly applies to the general plan in 2025 versus 20 2014 from a technology standpoint. Maybe that's a better way of uh describing it. Yeah. And I think I understand your question. Um, I really deferred to the staff and the other departments in terms of uh the policies that were identified

for for conformance, but maybe uh in the resolution that gets adopted, we can add some language to that effect. I wouldn't necessarily feel too comfortable with anything related to funding per se since that's solely a uh under the council's perview. And Christie, I don't know if you um have anything else to add to that or if you have other thoughts, but that's what I would do at this point. on that one. Yeah. And I just would chime in to say, you know, tonight the planning commission's action uh proposed action is to determine uh conformity of the um capital improvement program to the general plan. Um, you know, some there's not going to be an exact policy in the general plan for every single project, but there are going to be overarching general plan policies um that should cover and that you know staff is recommending cover uh you know these kinds of groups of projects. And so your action tonight is just to to determine the conformity as these projects come forward. Um, you know, the council will consider them on an individual basis in terms of funding and that kind of stuff as they as they come forward, but the commission's perview is limited to this um state law required conformity determination. And so that's that's this evening's uh job. And if I'm understanding uh correctly, Commissioner Brandic, forgive me if I'm not. Um you just had question about the specific policy that um these wireless projects are that require these wireless projects in the general plan or or you are you indicating that you don't think it these wireless projects are consistent with the general plan? I I'm I'm suggesting that the the the lack there's lack of specificity in terms of what technologies are being implemented as far as Wi-Fi goes and that that would be

a from my perspective a uh would weigh heavily in terms of how that technology suffices the general plan needs listed here. That's all just because it's a very it says Wi-Fi upgrade, but I don't know what that means. Um, typically we would, you know, we they'd get a little bit more specific versus, you know, like the wastewater treatment stuff. They're very specific about, oh, it's got it's going to cost this much and it has, you know, this amount of, you know, it's got to clear this amount of water. That sort of thing. I'm I'm just not seeing that degree of um specificity with this particular item. That's all. Yeah. And one other thing I I didn't mention this earlier and I can't remember the exact date, but I know that um the this document um it's kind of interesting from a staff perspective was because once the council adopts it every year, it's it's usually like in May or June. Um it's not that long afterwards that staff from the finance department says, "Okay, it's time to get ready for next year's CIP." So it's it's literally like a an annual thing that you look at constantly, right? Um, but there was a a workshop with the council, I want to say, again, I don't have the exact date, but it was last month in May, um, where they basically had an opportunity to review everything and ask questions. I wasn't at that meeting, but this document basically reflects at least in part, uh, the discussion that took place at that meeting. So, uh, again, I think I understand your question, but um, my understanding is that like this one in particular, they they didn't have any concerns or issues with because it's still in the draft. Yeah, that's fair. That's fair. I guess just for the commission's perspective in ter Oh, sorry. From my logical standpoint, it's as if, you know, we had some miraculous leap in uh capability and we were still talking about, oh, we need to have our roads that suffice uh uh horsedrawn buggy traffic versus that of vehicular traffic, right? It's we're in a kind of

similar space here where it's like, oh well, we have other technologies that might better support our residents and be, you know, substantially cheaper. Anyway, uh thank you very much for that context. Um I don't I I imagine you don't have a comment about the fleet electrification because if it's it seems kind of question I I really don't but if you wouldn't mind just repeating that real quick I'll add it to my list of notes and then again I can follow up with the commission on a comp matters had an article about it. uh just the fact that the Senate had voted on something with respect and there's a big battle right now that you know whether or not that's constitutional or I'm not getting into that but um just the fact that it has happened and that some type of federal mandate could be a that a uh a California mandate could be overturned therefore relieving Brentwood of a potential uh additional expense. That's the best way of saying it from my perspective. Okay. So, and I don't know if other commissioners have questions or comments, but to the extent um that would be it. Again, I'll do my best to summarize um those with some follow-up information, but probably won't be till next week, but I'll send the commission an email and then if you have further questions after you see that, please let me know. Yeah, that sounds great. Thank you so much. Sure. Anybody else? Okay. Um, as for myself, I didn't find any um problems with uh conformity. Um, I guess since since we mentioned Wi-Fi, I'll mention this is free Wi-Fi. And as fast as my cell phone is, the first time I go to a hotel room, um, I try to get on the hotel's Wi-Fi. Um I'm not I I think there's still

probably a benefit, but we're not discussing the benefit today. Um and as far as the um the things going on in Congress right now, um they're not finalized yet. And so we would have to wait for them to finalize that and then the general plan might need to be modified and then we could determine whether there was conformity. But the the general plan that we see today is the same general plan we had, you know, five months ago. So if it was conformant then it's conformant now. Um I did want to just say that what I did really appreciate about this item that came before us today is is people like to know sometimes and I see comments, you know, what is the the city spending all their money on and capital projects are very high visi usually high visibility. These are when you think, oh, is somebody doing something? Um, investing in the capital improvements is doing something. So, I would love it if the c the public would go and look at the um the capital improvement program from time to time. And it's just page after page after page of all the improvements that are going on. And some of them uh pretty exciting, you know, the the new soccer fields and things. Um, so that's out there for it. Uh and um I would encourage the public to look at that. Um having said all that um I'll entertain a motion. I make a motion to adopt resolution number 25-010 recommending that the city council adopt ordinance to amend the

Brentwood municipal the chair that the previous motion oh sorry sorry why did I miss that page three middle of the page looking there we go I make a motion to adopt resolution number 2550-011 finding that the city's 2520 202526-202930 capital improvement program is consistent with the general plan. Can I get a second? Second. All in favor? I I I motion carries. Moving on to umformational reports from committees and upcoming schedule. Uh so we're doing something a little different this time. We're letting people discuss um well actually this one looks a little different but um commissioners can also discuss events that they've attended and um anything else they'd like to talk about. Uh transplant committee commissioner uh vice chair brand. Yeah. Um nothing substantial in terms of updates about East County um transportation projects. Um last May 18 May May 15th was bike to work day. Um transplant did a big thing about that and the budget discussion for this fiscal year um shows no diff significant deviations from the previously there's minimal staff and such associated. So not too much to report. Um design review you didn't meet have not met um land use and development committee, that's me. Um I think I reported last time that the the the LEUD committee land use and development we call it LED up here. Um had met and we had discussed

um the taken a first discussion of the objective the objective design standards for uh residential which is a requirement by the state that we have objective designs. We can only um judge residential product projects by objective designs uh due to some new laws and we'll be meeting probably again on the 16th which would be the next scheduled date. Um we were given the design, you know, and given a month to to go through it. It's quite thick. I have it actually right here. Not not super thick, but it there's a lot. And um we'll be discussing that and I'd encourage the public to to uh tune in. Um and finally, the Brentwood Municipal Code Review Committee. We still haven't met this year. Hopefully soon. All right, moving on. Request for future agenda items. Um, do we have any future agenda item requests? I don't have any. Seeing none for me. Thank you. Okay. Seeing none, um, the next regular planning commission meeting is scheduled for June 17th, 2025 at 7 p.m. and will be held here at the council chambers located at 150 City Parkway. I need one more motion. All motion to adjurnn. I'll second. All in favor? I I

Yeah. Yeah.