Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

U welcome to the August 5th planning commission meeting. Uh all members are present. would like to join me for the pledge of allegiance. 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. Thank you. Um at this time, Vice Chair Brandt would like to make a statement. Thank you.

Yeah. Uh just very quickly um I think we just wanted to uh well I'll speak for myself um the um with the the death of Ruben Dilva his family shared a really nice message on social media today and uh I just wanted to share that you know our thoughts are with the family and uh as a um I he they wrote a very nice thing in there um his legacy and the memories we've all shared at Rubanos will continue to live on through the dishes we continue to serve and the beverages sweet cheers in his honor. So, it's just a really sweet moment. Thank you.

Thank you for that sentiment. All right. So, we'll go into public comments. Per the city's meeting rules and procedures, public comments are generally limited to five minutes or less time if a large number of speakers is anticipated or if approved by the chair. I won't do 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. 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. Um public comments by Zoom are not allowed in the general public um portion. Public Zoom comments are only allowed on items. Thank you.

Um April through the chair. We only have one general public speaker card. There is no name though. So whoever filled that out, go ahead and spit.

I did not do that on purpose. Good evening, y'all. God in heaven, y'all. I just left my grandkids or they left me, so I was able to make it. Um, just really quick and I wanted to put it on the record for what it's worth. I know there's something that will be discussed tonight. Um, but the city by and large, both planning and the council, at least over the six years that I've participated, there have been decisions made, design builds approved, statutes changed that seem to be inconsistent. Um, tonight and I know you're limited but I will discuss tonight a little later on. My point is for those who think I'm anti- business, I am not. I am pro business. I am on social media the person that fights for the quick stop because they were there before any groups or residents who prefer not to have smoking. So I am pro business. Um, I am also pro following the rules. Various statutes and zones and things like that are put in place for a reason. Um, and I think those reasons such as, and I'll talk about quick stop because then I

don't have to worry about the other one. But they're there for reasons. And if they are abiding by the rules, the zones and the statutes regardless of the type of business, then we shouldn't or we should at least consider grandfathering because if you build something around an established company, whatever that company is, could be a wrecking yard, could be a smoke shop, could be a tattoo parlor. But if you just unilaterally or arbitrarily decide, oh, I'm antismoking, therefore, let's close them down as opposed to a new business trying to come in. Um, and that when you hear me argue for or against, and a lot of times it's against, but it's usually because it's something that either didn't follow the rules or um should not be considered a special exception. I know it's difficult particularly the last time when the council basically said you guys were wrong and overturned a very wellthoughtout position. Um, I also have stated for the record and I'll state it here too that I have put my concerns in writing to the district attorney

and I'm following every avenue that the Brown Act allows me to follow. So, I'm glad you five or four did what was the right thing. You held feet to the fire. They didn't follow the rules. And so, Supervisor Burgess and Tony Orleans, reap what you sow. Talk to you in a minute. At this time, we have no other speaker cards for those for general public comment.

Thank you, April. Well, moving on to the consent calendar. Um, our next item is the consent calendar. There's one set of minutes for the regular meeting of June 3rd, 2025. Is there any discussion or do I have a motion? Make a motion to adopt the consent calendar. I'll second it. All in favor? I I

Motion carries. So, now we're going to move on to public hearings. We have on public hearing tonight item E1. This is an amendment to the downtown specific plan SPA25-00001 and the Brentwood municipal code to allow tattoo parlors as a permitted use subject to administrative design review. Um staff report Eric. Thank you uh chairperson floor members of the commission. Good evening to you. Uh before I get started I just want to uh briefly introduce our new assistant city attorney. And I think you each had a quick moment to meet her and shake her hand before the meeting started. This is Britney Brace. Uh she started with the city back in May and this is her first uh official u sitdown meeting here in the chamber with the commission and we're looking forward to having her uh in future meetings. So u that being said, I've got a map up on the screen which shows the downtown specific plan. I do not have a a traditional PowerPoint type presentation that I'm going to be clicking through. So, I'm just going to be talking to you for a couple minutes um and with a little bit of uh background and kind of how we got uh to where we are here tonight. So, the downtown specific plan was originally adopted by the council back in November of 2005, just about 20 years ago. It's been amended a total of four times since then, including back in June of 2014 to address a council strategic initiative that at the time included, among other things, identifying a list of prohibited uses or uses of particular concern and one of those was uh tattoo parlors. Fast forwarding to late January of this year, Vice Mayor Pearson and Council Member Orleman's brought forth a future agenda item request to the council for

the purpose of potentially allowing tattoo parlors. Um, prior to the meeting and during the meeting, there were a significant amount of public comments submitted both in writing uh and verbally at the meeting. Uh, the majority of those comments were in support of allowing tattoo parlors. This did lead to a pretty lengthy discussion by the council uh and there were differing opinions of course and differing levels of support for amending the specific plan. Ultimately at that time the council unanimously adopted a motion to have staff go back and spend time and resources on an item, bring it back for future additional consideration. That motion also included direction for staff to provide background information, excuse me, on both the pros and cons of allowing tattoo parlors in the downtown. So, this was done at the end of May. It took about four months to get it back to the council. Uh, it was on May 27th. Uh, at that time, there were additional uh written and in-person comments provided. Uh, all of which at the time were in support of a potential amendment. Uh this again uh triggered a lengthy discussion by the council and ultimately a 3-2 vote was passed to direct staff to amend the specific plan to allow tattoo parlors as a permitted use subject to administrative design review approval. So staff went back and prepared the amendment consistent with that direction. I'm going to summarize what the changes to the text uh mean. Primarily, there are clarifications to the administrative approval process and including tattoo parlors as uses that do qualify. Uh, we also made some minor uh non-s substantive technical changes to things like section numbers and punctuation just to clean up the document a little bit. Um, staff also removed the phrase similar uses to the approval of the zoning administrator throughout the list of permitted uses in each district zone to further limit

discretion and and um remove any ambiguity. um added tattoo parlors as permitted uses in several the in several of the district zones and correspondingly removing them as prohibited uses and then leaving tattoo parlors as per as prohibited uses sorry in remaining district zones. So staff prepared a redline version of the proposed changes so that they could be easily reviewed by the planning commission and the public. Those were included as attachment four to the staff report. The changes in and of themselves are pretty straightforward and they're consistent with the direction provided by the council. One thing that was not discussed by the council uh but that staff felt was important is what district zones to permit the tattoo parlors in. And that goes back to the earlier point I made. Given the variety of zones and those are again depicted on the screen uh in front of you in the different colors and their different locations, purpose and intents. Uh staff did not recommend or does not recommend making tattoo parlors permitted across the board. Uh rather staff recommends that they be limited to the downtown core which is that uh red area in the middle of the specific plan and then the downtown general which is sort of the light um purple pinkish color. um as well as the downtown boulevard which is the darker purple color and the western gateway which is the kind of gold or yellowish color at the bottom. So the areas that would be preserved in terms of prohibiting tattoo parlors are the civic center zone which is the green area which is basically where we're sitting right now. um the civic core, which is the blue surrounding area, and then of course the residential areas, which are the lighter uh yellow kind of off to the right on the map. I also wanted to point out that we received

three additional public comments uh combining yesterday and today uh after the packet was published last week. Uh one of those comments was in support of the amendment, two were not. Uh and those were forwarded to the commission today. And then from a SQL perspective, uh staff is recommending that the amendment be um uh exempt from SQA pursuant to section 15061 B3. And I'll conclude uh with the recommendation at this time, which is to adopt a resolution. Uh the resolution the resol um uh do you have any clarifying commission have any clarifying questions for staff? Um, we'll start on the right tonight. Anita, uh, past chair Roberts.

Not at this time. No, I do not. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Jones, not at this time. Thank you. Uh, Vice Chair Brand, any questions? I think the only one was the revision count. I saw three, but then it sounds like the fourth was in ' 08, right? With the civic center or sorry, that would have been the first revision. 08, 2014, 2016, 2017. Did I get that right? Did I say there was only three amendments? No, you said there were four. I just wanted to double check because on the Yeah, on the cover it doesn't say the 08 one, but I don't

Oh, sorry. Okay. Yeah, you're right. There there were there have been four amendments over the years. The first was in '08 for the civic center. The second was in 14 which is the one I referenced for prohibited uses. Uh in 16 it was to accommodate the new library. Right. And then in 17 it was for the parking regulations. So there are four. Right. Okay. Yeah. That it's weird the DSP doesn't say that on the cover for the 081. That's all. Got it. Thank you for clarifying. No problem. Thank you.

And Commissioner Johnson. I just have a just um so the DSP is you said 2005 and then the four amendments that we just went over. Um, you also mentioned, I just want to make sure I heard you correctly, that the um, planning, the planning planning did not recommend um, doing a wholesale review of tattoo parlors like putting the um, allowing everyone to have it.

Correct. And and again, the reason is that when the council discussed this both in January and then at a greater level of detail in May, um the council did not contemplate what district zone specifically tattoo parlors should be permitted in. But when staff went back and was actually processing the amendment, writing the staff report, looking into the plan, uh it was staff's determination that it would not be appropriate to allow them as permitted uses uh throughout the entirety of the plan area just given on or based on how some of those district zones are set up. For example, here in the civic center, it doesn't make sense to allow tattoo parlors or in a residential area. All right. So, at this time, the public is permitted to address the planning commission. Remarks are limited to five minutes per person except for the applicant. We don't have an applicant tonight, do we?

The city is the applicant. So, we'll go straight to public speakers. April,

at this time, chair, we have several speaker cards. We'll start with Tom Gregory. Good evening everybody. Uh so I wasn't planning on coming down here tonight and then I saw a uh social media post by a gal that uh is posting lies about this and um I believe this gal likes to regurgitate some of the lies and misleading comments that council member Mendoza makes about me. I just want to say none of you are on the take. Nobody in city council is on the take. I'm going to be as polite as I can. Some of these knuckleheads that imply our council's on the take have no concept of Brentwood. Um, I've been in Brentwood in business in downtown for 30 years. I'm 53. Prior to that, I went to school in downtown Brentwood. Brentwood Elementary to Liberty Karen Eden Hill. I care about downtown. Any knucklehead that thinks that I would need assistance to rent the only available square footage in downtown Bretwood, a 650 square foot spot. They think that I need to bribe a council member or I need to lobby council members for assistance in renting the only available space in our downtown community. Complete morons. And to insinuate that anybody on council, again, me and Council Member Mendoza obviously dislike each other. That's another topic we'll bring up again later. Um, but she's not on the tape. None of those people are on the tape. I appreciate what you guys are doing. Uh, the reason I came down tonight was because I got pissed off. Uh, so this Cinciana, I use names when somebody just blatantly lies. Um, posted something to the effect about this topic that one of the council members is the attorney for the landlord. There's nobody that works for the city of Brentwood on council, on planning, any branch that has ever been an attorney for me or is currently attorney for me. This just I mean I feel like this is the Trump world, right?

Politicians can make up lies. The community can come up here and insinuate you poor guys are on the tag. None of you guys make enough money, but none of you guys are on the take. That's a complete nonsense. It's irritating that these people come up here and insinuate that. There's no proof, but that's the world we live in, right? the president of the United States can make up anything he wants to sell his story. Unfortunately, so can some city council members. Um the other thing on here is uh that she posted was uh one the one of the attorneys is or one of the city officials is my attorney. Not true. Um council member Mendoza stated that the DBC asked me to not put a tattoo baller in downtown Redwood. Conversation never took place. Absolute lie. Um, but uh these are friends of mine. Estra has been a friend of my youngest step-daughter for 20 years. So, did I want to help them build a business in downtown Browwood? Of course I did. Did I need help to rent that spot? Of course I didn't. There were people lined up to get that spot. But I also, as Council Member Mau stated, just went with the highest bidder, right? That's all these landlords want. All they care about is money. Also not true. Nobody I rented that spot to pays what I was offered to rent it for. I chose people I like and I did business with people I like that I thought would be good tenants. Right? That's how we base our lives. We we do business with people we like. So I'm just here tonight to put some of the the facts straight on this thing. Um I appreciate everybody up here. I everybody in the city of Brandwood is awesome. Always has been. I don't always agree with you. You may you might tell me no, but every person I've ever done business in city brid minus account one council member let's be clear one has always been fantastic. Again, you don't give me the answer I want to hear sometimes, but I'm okay with that, right? It's just business. No, nobody that works for the city. It I mean, you're emotionally invested, but you're

doing the best of your ability for your job when people are like, "Oh, that that damn, you know, city official or whatever." It's it's their job. They don't they don't you guys don't aren't anybody here doing anything because they dislike somebody, right? So, I appreciate everyone's work. everybody at the city. In my entire life of doing business here, I've been in downtown Brentwood pretty much seven days a week for the last 53, so we'll just call it 52 years, right? Everybody, the city of Brenwood's always been fantastic, minus one council member that I'm having issues with. And again, we'll bring that up later, but thank you guys tonight. Um, the tattoo par is great. In my opinion, it should be listed between jewelry store and art studio, right? It's not the 1950s where or whatever when it's going to be a biker club. These people run a beautiful business. It's a beautiful family. I've gone to family events with their parents, their weddings. I I I mean, I know these people. These aren't just somebody that I picked out of the sky and put in my building. I chose who I wanted to. That building was vacant for seven months while I chose who I wanted to go in there because I knew they'd be good for Brentwood. I know they're not food. I know they're not entertainment. I get it. We talked to the DBC. We're all on the same board. A lot of people aren't excited about the entities that are in there today, but I can tell you that those business owners are extremely excited to be

The speaker's timer has expired. Our next speaker is Chris Wares. Good evening. I'll have to apologize. I'm very nervous when it comes to this. So, um, uh, my name is Chris Warz and sir, if you, if you would be more comfortable, there's a button right there that you can use to make the podium go up. Can I be honest? I've always wanted to push this button. Go for it. [Music]

It's It's a small things, right? Um, so along with my wife, we we own uh the the tattoo shop that all this is about. And uh I just wanted to say a couple things. I mean, we we've been coming to these for um I I think this might be like our 16th or 17th time being here. Um I just kind of wanted to reiterate some of the stuff. Uh we have a petition that was made for the the residents of Brentwood that we have over uh I won't say over uh close to a thousand signatures and in full support. Um along with that we made a separate uh petition for specifically the downtown businesses to see if they would support us or see if they wanted a business like ours there. U we got about 30 u business owners that fully support us. Um, and a lot of them have asked to do business together, some sort of cross promotion type thing to help them. We, you know, they they help us. Um, and and and ultimately our goal for the for this whole thing, you know, we we've we've brought in tons of people that support what we're what we're trying to do. And uh, for us, it's this is a little weird to be, I don't know, under some sort of little spotlight and stuff. and and it's something that we're we're not used to. We we just want to put our business in the best position that we can. I mean, we're we're speaking kind of for all artists, um all reputable artists in here and and uh it's not just specifically us, but it is us that we're trying to do uh trying to bring this to. And uh for us, it's just we want to be a part of the heart of the city. And I feel like um having a business that represents a service that isn't represented in the

downtown area where you can go into downtown maybe 80 90% of the people have a tattoo or piercing or permanent cosmetic and to have a business represent that in downtown I think it it'd be great. And for us, we're not trying to come in and and be this, you know, loud thing that, you know, is causing all this. We just want to work with the downtown businesses. We want to in in any way we can, you know, whether it's, you know, some sort of fundraiser, whether it's some art show, whe whatever it can be, we just want to contribute to how awesome downtown is, and that's our that that that's our main goal. So, I appreciate your time. Thank you guys. Next is an unidentified speaker if you'd like to come up. Actually, I think I was identified as one of those morons, but that's okay. Now, I can only defend my own thoughts and comments. All right. Um, I don't know the gentleman. He said he's choosing a friend as his client over money, and that is his choice. I'm pro business. I'd probably do the exact same thing. But that should not be the reason to change a statue. Unless, of course, it's another friend of his, the tattoo owner, who may or may not be on the council, who may or may not be on the take. Tattoo parlors are not in the same class as the gentleman mentioned. This is a state and federal designation. It is not in the same light of business as the gentleman mentioned. I hate to

tell you it to you, but it's in the same category as gentleman's clubs. Look it up. There's been no change since 2014. Well, there's been a couple, but three of the four had to do with working with on public things, not private business. The last one was 2014 and it was specific tattoo parlors. Again, I have no problem with a tattoo parlor. I really don't. Okay. What I have a problem with is changing statutes to accommodate one business. As a matter of fact, that's the same argument I have about Quickstop. Everyone wants to change the statute for one business. And for those who did not know this, uh, tattoo parlors and associated affiliated type of businesses have to be 500 feet away. Well, typically 500 to a,000 feet. It depends on the area. state, city, county, but 500 to a,000 feet. So now let me think what's within 500 to 1,000 ft. A high school and a couple of churches. That ain't me. That's not me. And then limited discretion. It was noted that we don't recommend changing for all the areas, just this one spot. Just this one spot, just for this one business that was put forward to change of statute by one council member.

Lastly, I think you honestly I do believe that you guys have done the right thing. And and I forgot with respect to getting a lot of pro in favor of a tattoo parlor. Hey, we got the same thing with a firehouse. And we all know how that went. that was coordinated and attacked to make it appear that God and everybody wanted a firehouse. And we know that's not true. For the last time, oh, and I do believe there are other business locations available for a tattoo parlor or any similar business that you don't have a change of statute for. If this was the last open area in Brentwood, I'd have a whole different mindset on it. Your decision, it really should be an easy one. It really should. If you take just take the whole 500 ft and that's a state thing. That's not a Danny thing. Just take the 500 to a,000 feet. You do it with smoking. You do it with alcohol. It should be an easy decision. And yes, more than likely the council will turn it over because our friends are friends of friends. But just look at it like that. Just look at it like that. Kristen Mingus,

intimidating. Okay. Good evening, commissioners. Uh, my name is Kristen Mingus. I'm the Downtown Brentwood Coalition's executive director, and I'm speaking tonight on behalf of the Downtown Britwood Coalition and our local member businesses. We appreciate the opportunity to share a perspective on the evolving landscape of our downtown, particularly in light of the recent discussions about a tattoo parlor's opening up in the downtown area. As a coalition, we're committed to supporting local businesses of all kinds. However, our primary mission is to preserve the unique character, vitality, and long-term success of downtown Brentwood. We also want to highlight the importance of the downtown specific plan, which has played a crucial role in fostering a vibrant and thriving downtown. The plan has not only guided thoughtful growth, but has also protected the integrity of our downtown core, ensuring it remains a welcoming, walkable, and economically strong destination for years to come. To achieve this, we believe it is important to be intentional about these types of businesses that occupy the core downtown district. Service businesses like tattoo parlors, while valid and valuable, tend to generate less foot traffic and fewer opportunities for cross shopping and casual discovery, two key components that help small businesses in the downtown area grow. What we'd love to see is uh oh, sorry. What we'd love to see and what we know our community responds to is a focus on foot traffic driven establishments, restaurants, cafes, bars, boutique real re retail, and other spaces that encourage people to linger, explore, and engage with multiple businesses during their visit. We're not here to oppose any specific business or industry. Rather, we're advocating for a thoughtful and balanced approach that prioritizes the economic health and vibrancy of the downtown corridor, ensuring it remains a destination for residents and visitors alike. Following the current downtown specific plan has been a key factor in creating the successful and thriving downtown we have today. Thank you for your time and your

ongoing commitment to the success of our downtown businesses. At this time, we have no other speaker cards for those in person. We'll go ahead and go to Zoom. Our first speaker is Melissa Vanuten.

Hi there. Can you hear me? Okay, we can.

Perfect. Um, good evening, commissioners. I am speaking today to urge you to support amending the downtown specific plan to allow tattoo parlors as a permitted use in all areas that it makes sense. Obviously, um the city hall area and residential areas are not sensible areas. Over the past several decades, public perception of tattoo parlors and tattooing has shifted significantly and for good reason. What was once stigmatized as fringe has become a widely respected and deeply personal form of artistic expression. Today, people from all walks of life, teachers, veterans, nurses, parents, choose tattoos to honor milestones, celebrate loved ones, and carry meaningful stories on their skin. This evolution reflects not only changing cultural norms, but a growing appreciation for the artistry and skill involved in the craft. It is no longer the the tattoo uh clientele of of, you know, rowdy sailors and and bike gangs. Tattoo artists are exactly that. They're artists. They spend years developing their technique, honing their portfolios, and building relationships with their clients. Like painters, photographers, which I am one, and muralists, they bring creativity, precision, and vision to their work. In many communities, tattoo shops serve as hubs as of creativity and inclusion, places where people can feel seen and celebrated, denying them access to downtown commercial districts, effectively denies their legitimacy as working artists and business owners. In addition to the cultural and economic value tattoo studios bring, it's important to acknowledge their role in medical tattooing and restorative work. Many artists today specialize in procedures such as covering surgical scars, repigment, repigmenting skin affected by conditions like I'm going to pronounce this totally wrong vitiglio because I've never had to say it out loud or recre or recreating areolas

after masectomies. These procedures are profoundly healing both physically and emotionally and should be embraced as part of the broader spectrum of community care and wellness. Downtown areas should absolutely reflect the diversity, creativity, and inclusivity of the communities they serve. Allowing tattoo parlors to operate in these spaces signals that we value all forms of artistry and support the rights of small business owners to contribute to the vibrancy and economy of our city. It takes on average about 30 minutes for a tattoo artist to sketch a design for a client. That's 30 minutes that that client could be shopping in other areas of downtown or grabbing an ice cream or a coffee from one of our wonderful downtown businesses. I urge you to amend the downtown or to to suggest the resolution to amend the downtown specific plan to include tattoo parlors. Not only because it's the right choice for our local artists and entrepreneurs, but because it reflects who we are and the kind of community we want to be open-minded, supportive of family businesses, and forward thinking. Thank you so much for your time.

At this time, we have no other hands raised in Zoom. Thank you, April. Sorry through the chair. I take that back. Someone did raise their hand. Okay, we're going to go with Mayor Solvias and we have Thin Diana Tudor afterwards.

Sorry, I was running around. Um I just wanted to ask that um we take a look. I I don't think this should move forward. I think it was pretty irresponsible of the council to vote yes. The 3-2 vote was completely irresponsible. This was such a thoughtful process and it was taxpayer money, resident time that we used to to look at this downtown um co um the Brentwood specific plan and for someone to just come in and bulldoze over it, I find it completely disrespectful to the residents of Brentwood. And um I I think that if something like this is happening, then it needs a longer conversation. we should have workshops like we had before. Um, and also what's interesting is you talk about the four the only four other times it was um changed and that was for either cityrun items, you know, the the Tajima Hall you're in right now, the library, all things that were so beneficial to the community at large. And this is very niche and to bulldoze a plan that was so thoughtful I find it completely irresponsible of the city council to you know the 3-2 vote um completely irresponsible. So I don't know what can be done so that the residents um who were a part of this throughout the years um aren't just disrespected and pushed aside um for this one particular owner. Thank you. Next is Cindiana Toador.

Hi, good evening. Uh, I hope everyone can hear me. Oh, yes, we can hear you.

Thank you so much for confirming that. I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight. My name has been uh uh mentioned earlier for some reason. Uh, I only express my personal opinions and I think they're all grounded in the truth. Um, uh, I want to respond to Mr. um, uh, I think his name the the landlord uh, for the the specific place that supposed to be um, rented out to the statue parlor in discussion. uh Tom Gregory. I just remembered his name. Um so again, uh that possibly proves there's no hard feelings, no personal attacks in any way, even though he um proceeded to do that in a public forum. Uh I want to mention that I am all pro business. I care about Brenwood and I want our downtown to thrive. The reason we see the revival that we see today and our downtown flourishing is because for years we've been following our downtown specific plan to being bring vibrancy to our historical downtown and really respect our heritage and traditions and really make this place um f familyfriendly and a place where the community gathers. I know there have been uh several um letters sent to you along this lines and

I fully support the um that the idea that we need to stick to the plan and respect what previous you know like current previous uh residents of Brenwood put in writing and urged previous uh planning commissions and uh councils to vote on this matter is a matter of planning and that is your job. Historically, I've been speaking to people who are born and raised in Brentwood, people uh, you know, 90 plus year olds uh, or 40 plus year olds and his they confirmed that historically Brenwood did not have tattoo parlors downtown. It must be a very good reason for that is because it's not something that people want it. We need to really be mindful of that and respect tradition and keep Brenwood Brenwood. Most speakers uh that you heard tonight spoke about the meaning and objective of a tattoo parlor. I'm in line with that and there's no first amendment rights issue as uh some of the council me uh members uh mentioned when this item has been promoted for further discussion for this forum and pos you know and later possibly for uh council uh discussion. Nobody denies that Brentwood um We ha we have a a very flourishing

tattoo business and they're all doing great. One of the proponents of this item mentioned that there's no crime around their current place. There's no nothing that prevents them to be successful where they are. However, going back to what downtown specific plan mentions, we want high quality businesses, high performing and high impact investments that will transform downtown Brenwood into a destination for the entire region. As the previous uh um speaker mentioned, this is a niche business. It's not something that everyone like I want to know is it 20% 80% of the population frequent in order to make it worthy to establish it downtown. So the decision is yours and I appre

the speaker's time has expired. Is there anyone else on Zoom that would like to speak? Please raise your hand now. We have no further speakers in Zoom. Thank you. Appreciate that. Um let's see where we are. So, uh, oh, we do need a vote on this one. Do I have a motion to close the public hearing? So, moved. Second. Second. All in favor? I I I.

All right. Discussion. Um, I don't know. Let's start on the left. Chair Johnson.

So, um I just got to say I've been uh very conflicted on this thing. Very very conflicted on on this. Um cuz I can see both pros and cons to it. Um you know, when I was growing up, I'm just going to say when I was growing up, tattoos were like I grew up in Brooklyn. If you grew up in Brooklyn in tattoos, you were either a gang member or some craziness, some, you know, it was just an unsaavory thing when I was growing up. My son has a tattoo, so and uh I'm not uh going nuts over it. And a lot of people that I know have tattoos, so I just want to state for the record, I got nothing against tattoo parlors. And I really um I don't have anything against tattoo parlors. um or no judgments against them either. But I just want to, you know, I asked earlier about why we don't do it for the whole city. And part of that reasoning is um I don't like unintended consequences. So for example, if we say by right in the downtown area and it's a cup everywhere else, we can have an influx or you know over time more tattoo parlors downtown because they don't have to have a cup if they come downtown versus in any other part of the city. And I think that could be an unintended consequence. I think um I wanted I guess I can't ask this clarifying question about the 500 ft you know is that something that we need to be concerned about 500 feet the distance between the schools no just

I'm not aware of any particular state standard that requires a 500 foot um distance requirement. Uh not to say that it doesn't exist. I'm just not aware of any okay

requirement. So, um, part of the part of my concerns would be that, you know, the downtown specific plan was worked on by the downtown um, coalition. They came up with it. City involvement, people involvement and they they did that. I will say it was though 20 years ago. And 20 years ago, you know, times have changed. I don't know if we should look at updating the the downtown specific plan. I personally don't like uh what I call one-offs, but we've lately been doing a lot of one-offs, like oneoff over here, oneoff over there. There's a one-off this way, a one-off that way. And those oneoffs cause uh issues. So, I'm more let's do it everywhere if we could. Um um and I understand that we should uh want to allow a business downtown. I don't want to be anti- business. We should be able to allow a tattoo parlor. I got no problem with that. the the issue is we are doing a lot of one-offs and sometimes um and we're doing a lot of uh doing that up here. Um so I mentioned that um and I also think that it can be unfair to other tattoo parlor. So what do you know there's a tattoo parlor I guess it's on Balffor Balffor across from the Safeway. So they probably have a cup. So if they got a cup and this one doesn't have a cup, there's an inequity in terms of different businesses having different levels of entry to do business in the

same city, you know, uh different levels, different cost structures, which probably I don't particularly care for. I understand the city council wants this and I um think that you know we're going we and I understand why they want it and I think it's a good thing to open it up. I have a one other question. Are there any other tattoo parlor right now in this area currently in the downtown specific area? Not that I'm aware of. No.

And because I know um what I guess that would be the Brentwoods um Brentwood plan, the one on Brentwood Boulevard. Where's that? Um um the where is it's on Brentwood Boulevard. I think there are a couple. What? Yeah. What are those?

Okay. Um, I'm going to take this one at a time and actually I had a couple of comments to your comments if if you don't mind. Um, so back in in May when this thing was really kind of gaining steam, I did a little bit of research and found a total of uh, now I didn't go back to the beginning of time, but I went back about like 20 years and found uh, seven seven different cup approvals throughout the city uh, for different tattoo parlors. There's a couple on Brentwood Boulevard. There's a couple on S Creek Road. There's a couple and there's three on Balffor Road. So, those are the seven. I don't know how many of those are still either in existence or maybe they are but have changed names since then. Um, but those are all basically outside of the specific plan.

Um, I don't recall when the specific plan was adopted in 2005. I don't recall like getting any requests or um you know people coming to staff saying hey can I put a tattoo parlor downtown? It just wasn't really a thing. In 2014 when the council amended the plan to specifically prohibit them. Then it was clear to everybody okay like don't even bother coming downtown because we can't. Um but again just a reminder that this this started in in January uh through the council. staff is simply responding to

that request. But I I did want to point out too like uh and some of the uh speakers have have mentioned this which I totally understand on you know on one hand when you create a plan and you put a significant amount of time and effort and in the communities involved there's an expectation that that plan is it it's almost like you know the Bible in some sense but plans like that whether it's the general plan which is the entire city or specific plans or zoning ordinances they can and do change over time and but when they do the key is that there's thoughtful consideration right is is this a is this a good thing is it the right moment in time to do it. Uh now to one of your points ideally from a staff's perspective just as a planning professional when you're talking about a specific plan like the downtown and there's other issues maybe that you want to look at. Ideally, yes, you would study it comprehensively and do um an entire update like we did in 2014 with the general plan. Doesn't always work that way. Um and it's a tremendous again getting going back to the uh original adoption is a tremendous uh uh time and resource effort and it's just not that's not happening right now. But that was mentioned at the council meeting in May. I think one or two council members kind of asked like, "Hey, should we be looking at the downtown uh more holistically?" Um, and the answer would be in a perfect world, yes. But this is a very specific item for a very specific use. I also wanted to say just real quick last point is that and while I appreciate the you know the property owner and the potential business owner speaking uh speaking out on this item it this is not about a particular business in a particular location right the way the uh specific plan is proposed to be amended it would be for any tattoo parlor in any of those applicable district zones so you got to be careful to not look at you know a particular

person or a particular location or particular use. It would be uh more districtwide. That makes sense.

Okay. Okay. I um so my you know, I guess what I would sum it up to say is I understand why we why we would want to be more open to um tattoo parlor in the downtown area, businesses in general. I get it and I'm pro doing that. I think um I just wish there was a a a different uh more even keeled way of doing it. That would be my comments.

Uh thank you Commissioner Johnson. Um before before we go on with discussion, I had mentioned to staff that I was going to make a statement about this um and I forgot to do it until just now, but I I just want for the public to understand that the planning commission is making an advisory decision tonight. No matter what happens here, it doesn't change what's going to happen at city council. is just for their consideration. Um, and also the item that we've been asked to consider is not about your particular store or your particular business. It's about whether or not we're going to change the zoning downtown to allow tattoo parlors. And so nothing we say here tonight is any kind of a referendum on on you fine folks. Um I'm ab absolutely impressed with the the support that you've got and um we we you're great people. We just um it's not factored into what we're doing tonight. What we're doing tonight is looking at a section of town and deciding whether or not um the zoning should change or whether the resolution does change the zoning needs adjusting, things like that. So it's totally advisory and nothing to do with um any particular business. Okay. And having said that um uh Commissioner Jones, do you have a discussion?

Yeah, thank you, Chair. Um so first want to express just my appreciation for the work done uh by staff on this amendment. Um you know, the extensive public engagement uh that's taken place over the past several months. Um, everybody's voices matter and so thank you for that. Um, clearly that this issue has sparked interest. It's got some strong feelings from our residents. Um, and I want to thank everyone both here and not here who's taken the time to participate in the process, whether through public comments, attending meetings, or engaging with staff. Now, for me, the issue that we're discussing tonight's not whether tattoo parlor should be allowed downtown. I think that decision has already been made by the majority of the city council and I think that does need to be respected. Um I think also we need to recognize that this is not about one business either, right? It's about all two tattoo parlors um operating today and operating tomorrow. Um to the point of chair floor, um thank you to the business that's here. Clearly you're professional. Clearly you're running a good shop. Um and you know it this is obviously much bigger right than than what we're what we're talking about um today. But I think ultimately what we should be considering really is just the implementation framework for this decision. Um you know the proposal in front of us it allows tattoo parlors as a permitted use. So that's subject only to an administrative design review. Uh the rationale for this is understandable. You know they are becoming increasingly mainstream. They have the opportunity to contribute to a vibrant and diverse downtown economy and I completely understand the intent behind this. However, you know, this represents a significant shift from the way tattoo parlors have historically operated in Brownwood. Um, you know, we're talking about allowing a new category of use in areas where it has previously been prohibited and one that's not going to require planning commission or city council review, no public hearing, no discretionary conditions that can be tailored to each of the individual

situations. So, that raises just some questions for me, some serious questions for me. And I think while an administrative design review is a valuable tool, uh it is limited in its scope and you know given the visibility and the importance of our downtown um I do believe you know the planning commission should at least discuss whether the council should reconsider a conditional use permit as the better tool here. um you know a cup would allow us to look at sight specific factors and pose reasonable conditions and provide an opportunity for public input which I think is really really important. Uh this would be I think especially important in an area just as central and I think as sensitive as our downtown where the cumulative impact of various uses can significantly shape the character of the community. So, if the CUP is not the preferred route, um, as we have our discussion tonight, you know, I I I would recommend, you know, that we do discuss just the administrative design review criteria. I'm open to what that discussion might look like. Um, so again, look, I I recognize, you know, the the potential and I I I think it is important to kind of identify where tattoo parlors have be have now come that it's it's a different world. like like you were saying, you know, Commissioner Johnson, I I I recognize that I don't have tattoos. I probably won't get one. They're a little too permanent for me. But, um, you know, I I get it. I I totally understand, you know, where we're going. Um, but I I do believe that we need more than just an administrative design review to ensure that, you know, these businesses are just integrated thoughtfully into our downtown. So I would be more comfortable supporting this amendment if you know we either required a conditional use permit for tattoo parlors which would just allow us to review and not just us future planning commissions as well you know to to review each proposal just more carefully and just ensure that it fits

the context of the surrounding area. If we can't get there um you know I think we should discuss stren strengthening the administrative design review criteria. So, I I I think we've got a lot of good points to consider tonight and, you know, once discussion is complete, um I I'm I look forward to talking about the next steps. So, uh I'll I'll leave it at that for now and I'll I'll probably have some more comments a little bit later. Thank you. Thank you, um Commissioner Jones and Vice Chair Roberts.

Well, I I happen to piggy back on everything uh you just said. Um my concern is not the tattoo Paula. um and the business at hand. My concern is the process and how we got here. There is a process otherwise we have chaos. I've seen a lot of cities develop into chaos uh because they they just bypass the process and and that is something that I take very seriously. Um, had this gone through a process, the just the normal process, we wouldn't it would probably be a lot easier for all of us. But that council took it upon themselves to take the process out of our hands and kind of dictate that this is what we want. What that does, and I look around at quite a few municipalities, Oakland is one of the ones that come up, but there there's several out there. And when you do that, what you have is chaos. What you have are a hodgepodge of this, that, and the other. Not to say tattoo parers fall in line with that, but there's a process for a reason. Um, this isn't about the tattoo parlor. This is about um the land use. It is about a process that we take very seriously up here and we should. If we didn't, well, I don't know that we would be uh as um supportive in in some of the things that we have had to endure. So, the zoning and planning regulations exist precisely to maintain cohesive, intentional development patterns. We have a downtown specific plan that speaks to that. We have a general plan. So, something was

said earlier, and I I really get this on the record. I know we're kind of late in our general plan. Um, redoing our general plan. And because of that, these one-offs are are another way of doing the comearound on the general plan. has nothing to do with what we're what you wonderful people are here uh to discuss this evening or to at least listen this evening. But the general plan is there for a reason and we're kind of behind on that. It is costly, but doing it this way is not the way to go about it. Um, my bigger concern is a tattoo para, not a problem. But then I'm going to have to deal with someone that comes behind you on a one-off and someone becomes behind them on a one-off. And again, you're we're setting a precedent here. I don't know that city council understands that. And if they do, they're they're opening the city up for possible lawsuits. Why am I saying that? Because if if we go ahead and allow this uh which I you know I'm I'm good with the tattoo Paula the process is what I'm having an issue with. Then the person that comes behind you that wants the same outcome and I and we say no, a council says no. Well, that's going to be a problem for the city of Brentwood. I know I'd make it a problem for the city of Brentwood because you can't do that. It's not a oneoff. It's one for all and all for one and that's the way it should be. It's there set up for a reason. Now, I did my research on this and quite frankly, I was really surprised that council

uh decided to to do it this way. Um, the planning commission is here to make recommendations to council and if the council wants to just do away with the planning commission, they should just come out and say that because we're here to do our research and make uh advisor make decisions or help them in making decisions um that move projects and development forward. And bringing it to us this way is kind of an indicator that they don't need they don't need it. They don't need us. They don't we're not working in concert with one another. And I I I take issue with that. We implement the general plan through actions including the administration of specific plans. That's our role. Um, we annually review capital improvement projects. We recommend to city council plans for the future growth of the city of Brentwood. And although I I know I'm I'm 71, so I've been around a quite a bit uh a lot longer than most of us in here. And at the end of the day, I know the tattoos are the way to go. And people are they're into it and and I and I support that. No question. But I don't support the way this process is being brought before the dis. That is a problem for me. And um I'm going to have more to say about this cuz I I did quite a bit of research on what some of these municipalities look like when they go I don't I wouldn't say go rogue, but when they decide that they don't need to

follow specific plans. They don't need to follow uh the guidance of a general plan that they could just pick and choose. Um, I will share that with uh my colleagues and all of you shortly, but it's it is a scary thought to think that this is the way that we're going to do business. Uh, I don't think the residents I'm a resident here and that's not what I bought into moving to the city of Brentwood. Um, I I like processes. I like to have things followed. There's a pol there's a reason for policy and when we start bypassing it, we're going to run into some some problems. We're in line with the state of California legislature. What we do up here, it's not that we we've written our own um our own uh description, job description. We're in line with the state of California legislature. and the legislature says that there are certain things that we have to do and have to follow and this is one of them. So that's all I have for now, but I'll get back to um my my colleagues here shortly.

Thank you, Vice Chair Roberts. Um Vice Chair Bran,

yes, thank you. Um I do sincerely appreciate the comments I've heard today. It's just I'm I'm hearing so much thought that has gone into um your individual research and such and so I just I just wanted to share that appreciation. Um I've been a substantial amount of my own as well. So uh I'm this item has definitely been at the back of my mind since I read that it would I since I saw the notice in the press uh last month. Um and uh it's caused me to ask a lot of questions because um in particular this type of land use is not something I'm very familiar with. And so through my own uh uh research and such as well as talking to many different people uh particularly within the community, I've learned a lot about what does this use entail? What does it mean? Um my first thing that I did was I looked at the DSP uh sorry the downtown specific plan. I I looked into it and obviously we've had previous agenda items more recently where the DSP was highly reviewed and critiqued and you know you know all of that. So um pick that back up again and as I described to Mr. thingius is like the the revisions that have taken place over the last let's call it 20 years from what November 2005 I think was um the primary revision points have been civic in nature uh the first being the civic uh this this building as well as some of the others um the library um and then the parking you know the inloo fees related to the parking and then uh due to the big structure over here or over there sorry um The only one that falls outside of that was the 2014 amendment which included a lot of the um addition of non-permitted uses. Now, I went back and

I watched every single one of those meetings in which they reviewed it. Uh the planning meeting to which similar to what we're doing today where we make a recommendation to council and then watched the council meeting as far as how they treated it. Now 2014 was the first instance in which we had a I'll call it a an attempt to best revise the language and I I took a couple of quotes from um the May 20th of 2014 meeting. Um basically there were no public comments. We had a lot of concerns related to specifically permitted use definitions. Um, one of the main things actually uh former chair Ziegler uh was on the committee at the time or the commission at the time and he had commented specifically about the um uh the financial institution uses and so there was a lot of digging into that as a use but breaking down that definition very clearly because at least he had articulated that the the use of a financial institution is more broad than I think the the document at the time did because he was saying insurance they often do financial services and such. So including that as a consideration was valuable. Now I I promise I'm not going to take forever on this, but um really and truly the what came forward was this idea that the the predominant uses were not changed. It was just adding this idea of um adding significant permitted uses. Um, I took a I took a screen grab of what some of the what the DSP looked like back then. Um, and there were no non-permitted uses. Well, that's double negative. Uh, it was only permitted and cups and that was pretty much it. Um, and so most of which and it was commented in the staff report looks identical uh to what it was in 2005 compared to 2014.

So, and saying and also Mr. Gregory, I know you had commented in 2005 commenting about that as far as your concerns as well. So, I appreciate the continuity over the last 20 years in your participation in the city of Brentwood. Um the I think what I wanted to get into as far as the where we're at today with this is the the revisions that we've seen in the in the more recent years as well as the evolution of businesses that we've seen um fill the spaces have primarily I I would call them falling into two different buckets. Um, one of which we have is a I'll call it a more based on my assessment is a a more transactional use. It's a it's a use in which uh a a customer goes into a particular store and um purposefully seeks a very specific type of um uh transaction. Um, when I say this, it's, you know, most cities at this rate, and I've got some details on this, is that most cities classify this as a personal service. So, in the reference to tattoo uses, so city of Pittsburgh, Antioch, um, Walnut Creek, I believe, um, they call it a personal service because it's indicative of a one-on-one exchange. So, you're talking like a tailor, a shoe repair. It's like it it's not a um it's a service where I seek it specifically and I don't seek it in a way that would potentially draw me to a region versus the particular business. The other side of businesses that I see are the I'll call them uh more on the experiential side of business. Now when I hear this it's when I looked at it it it fell into three typical categories that we've seen at least in the last I'll call it five years. Um, we have entertainment, we have dining, and we have um, uh, what

was the other one I wrote down? Entertainment, dining, and uh, gosh, I've got too many notes. And, uh, retail, excuse me. God, that's the easy one. Uh, entertainment, dining, and retail. Now, these are these typically um based off of what we've seen at least I'll call it in the last 5 10 years has been a sort of cohesive relationship from an economic standpoint. And I think one of the winds that we've seen since I'll call it 2019 is that our downtown corridor has blossomed. Frankly, I did a I did a quick uh clickthrough of the street view on uh Google Maps going back to 2007 and it was just it was kind of beautiful to watch the way that the downtown has evolved over the last um you know 17 18 years um in that essence of the DSP. Why am I saying all this? Okay. So, I know it's been brought up as far as consideration for why we may need a a cup as Commissioner U. Jones had described why a more comprehensive type review may be warranted. um as well as the I don't know I don't want to put words in Commissioner Johnson's mouth but um a potential uh uh not a vacuum but a a way of uh drawing a lot of businesses towards a particular area as a result of uh slightly more lax um business regulation in a sense. Um, you know, I spoke with, uh, I had a wonderful conversation with the folks over at the East Contraosta Historical Society. Um, and they did a little research project for me as well because I was curious because I looked at this and said, well, in 2005 or even 2014,

you know, did we ever have any record whatsoever before we had any type of regulation in this region? Um, and they did exhaustive research back, I think, almost a hundred years. and um they were a they I'll I'll read um Dorene, thank you so much by the way because you were so helpful. Um uh researches of photographs, local newspapers, maps, Brentwood city file collections did not create a memory or reference of a tattoo business in downtown Brentwood in its in its history. So I know uh Mr. Ninius, you commented specifically on uh greater Brentwood in the last 20 years. We saw approximately seven. Um, my research was not able to find one that predates uh even the a tattoo location downtown that even predates the city's founding in 1948. Um, I this was important to me because it tells me what was important then and potentially what was important now. Um I all that to say what does that mean as far as a way that um this region's relationship with this particular use should look like. With that, I'd like to return to the DSP and we have a couple of things in there that really comment uh profoundly as far as what the intent of this region is. So we say designate downtown as a specific planning area to strengthen the downtown the downtown as a destination point. This is 3.1.2 in specific planning area. Provide special planning attention to the city core and ensure that development occurs according to design guidelines and land use standards. Okay, that's kind of a blah statement, but um you know even going back to 1983, what our general plan said was maintain

downtown as community center. the city will promote an attractive, economically healthy downtown that will serve as the main community center as the Brentwood community grows. Um, I know that that's a much older statement than what was written in 2005. And if you would like a fun read is read the vision of downtown. It's a it's a kind of a short story, a aoretical short story that um I don't even know actually who who wrote it, but somebody as part of the plan. Um, so that being said, you know, we wrote the DSP and I would say that a lot of the DSP evolved quickly. I know the Brentwood Boulevard specific plan, I think Commissioner Johnson had referenced it, is very similar in that regard. And the reason was behind that was the idea of um the SR4 bypass uh going in and essentially Brentwood Boulevard moving away from being a automotive corridor in a sense. and uh how you know many aspects of the downtown specific plan include this idea of a walkable ground floor. This this walkable space that contains so much uh vibrancy, diversity and um uniqueness, charm that a only a well in California it's a small town but 65,000 people or so um can only bring. It's what makes downtown unique from a place like the streets of Brentwood as an example. Um as part of that in during that 2014 uh revision in which those non-permitted or prohibited uses were added um a meeting was held um and I just wanted to read through what was said because this is the last instance in which the public had a real opportunity to address the downtown area as a whole in terms of what those permitted uses are. So, um, a

notice of public meeting was mailed to all the property owners within the DSP area. Um, there were several questions and comments, including a request to add permitted uses within the Western Gateway neighborhood district zone in order to accommodate uses already in existence. Um, I'll skip. So, other comments were regarded issues in the downtown area, including skateboarding, maintenance of the sidewalks, landscaping, inclusion of additional trash receptacles, which many of these things had actually gone in there. But it's beautiful to see how you, you know, the garbage cans and you get the uh the um the walkways, the widened sidewalks, um all of that. And so I know that um yes, we only had approximately 10 members of of the public that attended that meeting. um to uh Commissioner Roberts uh your comment as far as the the the way that our uh community typically needs to be engaged as far as what they want to see in a downtown space. Um that is a fantastic example of how we engage the public in a way that meaningfully allows them the space and you know similar to this one in a public hearing to communicate what they want from their city as well as what they want from a particular region of their city whether it be downtown or somewhere else. Um, as far as what we do here today, that's that's the our recommendation to city council. Uh, whenever that meeting eventually comes up, there's, you know, to me at least, I'm I'm seeing this as very much an open book as far as possibilities. you know, we recommend this because we do this specific, you know, we're an extension of city council in the sense that we're we're doing a lot of homework for them. And I and I hope that they trust that the work that we're putting in here today and the work that they're hearing uh over Zoom is that uh we have individual considerations and that these

considerations need to be uh front and center. Now, I I can get into the specifics of what other cities have said with respect to these particular uses. One of the ones that um I particularly liked that uh was called out is this active ground floor use. Um it's something that the city of Pleasanton does and one of the areas that uh one of the particular uses that they don't include is uh personal services. They specifically ask that that area be what do they say? active ground floor uses ground floor uses include retail establishments, restaurants, bars, brew pubs, art and craft studios and other uses determined by director of community development, that kind of thing. So, it's it look it sounded exceptionally similar to the way that we see our downtown evolving. And I I personally I absolutely love downtown Pleasanton. They that area has evolved very nicely and I see our downtown on a path very similar to that. Um, a few others, you know, City of Antioch, they allow it. Uh, for the most part, uh, uh, it's it's a mixture of, uh, permitted versus, uh, requiring a conditional use permit. Um, same for the city of Pittsburgh. Um, and, uh, Walnut Creek was particularly interesting. um they have this very uh I'll call it uh uh interesting map where they highlight you know similar to what we do but it's a bit more technicolor. It's it's it's a bit more spattered versus big blocks of individual colors. Um and they have a single strip uh along what is it uh between Cole and Trinity Avenue where it's a permitted use but the rest of the area it's a it's a kind of it's kind of a mixture there. Um, so I guess what I'm saying here today is that I

I have looked off and on on this for the last like several weeks now and I have in my heart of hearts I'm looking at this and saying I think that this particular use is grouped with a uh what I would consider to be a personal service type use, which is a more generic term that I think many other cities have used as a use. And um I think that particular use group needs to be treated uniformly across any uses that match a personal service. And that would in particular would include that of a uh in in what other many other cities reference as a tattoo parlor would fall under that same use. And so if we were going to make an amendment, it would include that we would group them accordingly and and revise our potentially I don't know uh maybe Eric if you can maybe answer this is like in the municipal code how a um we do make reference to personal service or personal services but I don't know how that directly is affected by the downtown specific plan like do they double use that definition uh in terms of use or yes or no. I I I I couldn't figure that out specifically.

Yeah, I'd have to kind of do some research as we're talking here. I know that in the um broader municipal code, title 17, there is a definition for tattoo parlor. Um, I don't think tattoo parlor, however, is referenced anywhere else in the code, which is why in the past those seven prior uses required a CU. Um, but I think personal services are mentioned in in the zoning ordinance and then they're also mentioned in the specific plan, which I think is what you were referencing, right? Um, and there's even some examples like um, you know, hair and nail salons, beauty and barber shops, those are traditional uh, personal service type uses.

Does that help a little bit?

Yeah. And through my long- winded comments here is that um at the beginning I had mentioned that the we fall into we have this fall into two different categories and I I and my perception in my research is that personal services definitely falls on a much more of a transactional basis in terms of uh a business use. And to me at least that's um that's not consistent with what the downtown specific plan is intended to do. And I know that we do have existing uses in this region that meet um that larger personal service definition. And I think continuing on a path that augments the uh entertainment, retail, dining use uses, excuse me, uh would continue to carry the downtown uh region in a more successful economic path. Um so all that to say I'll I'll pass the mic to chair floor. Thank you.

Thank you vice chair brain. personal services thing. Very interesting. And um it kind of brings up a point where these are the kinds of things that your planning commission can can bring to you um to think about, you know, if tattooing belongs in a category that already exists or does it need to remain separate? These kinds of things. These are just good examples of why things should go through the planning commission. But I'm getting ahead of myself and um man I I'm going to talk about some things today that I normally never talk about from DAS and the the first is my personal opinion of this type of business which uh normally my personal opinion whether I like a kind of business or not whether I you know sit around with my wife saying oh you know Brentwood needs more of this or we should not have so much of that or Um it's because that's not what the job is here. My job as a planning commissioner and I I I am very proud of these commissioners. I believe they all understand their role is not to figure out, you know, is this thing that's before us something that we like. It's is this thing something before us that is in the public interest. actually uh I think it's gov65105 that mandates that we consider the public interest um first and foremost anything else would be um uh malfeasant it would actually be a violation of our oath but I won't go there right now um if it was so I'll tell you because um clearly it matters how people perceive us perceiving this business And so for me, um, I've never had anything against tattoos. I would

have a tattoo if I wasn't so indecisive. I just cannot figure out something to permanently put on my body. I love graphic art. I've been a graphic art fan um my entire life. Um, I like it all. I like uh I like uh you know the the Art Nuvo posters, Musha. I like um comic books. I like manga. I I watch anime like a fiend. Um I I if I see somebody with a tattoo, the only thing I think about is I wonder if it'd be rude if I went up and asked them if I could look at that. So um because I'm always curious to see the to see the artwork. And um to me uh graphic even going back to the I'll probably mispronounce it, but the woodcuts, the Japanese woodcuts, the ikioa um I have books of that in my house. So, I have nothing against tattoos. I love them. I would have one, but um a I I'd never have been able to really commit to something permanent on my body and b I'm not big fan of pain. Um and uh I have other reasons, but love it. Love tattoos. Uh never ever have I been judging somebody for having a tattoo. I've just always thought they were cool. So, that's what I think about tattoos. And again, I would never ever say that except that in this particular instance, um I think the issue around tattooing and how people perceive tattooing is important um to understand in this particular conversation just because there is a there is a certain controversy around it. So, there you have it. Um, but again, not my job tonight to think about any of

that. None of it matters um for this item. It matters a lot. But for this item, um what I care about doesn't matter. What matters here is what is in the best interest of the community. And uh so I'm going to talk about some other stuff that I don't normally talk about. um legal issues, the legality of of tattooing as a form of free expression. Again, I support free expression. Um I believe in freedom of speech. Um I believe people have the right to do what they want to do. Um I have no problem with any of that. However, um we don't generally in open session I I know a council member made an extensive speech about some legalities and stuff. That's not something that we do here usually. We do care very much in this city that everything that goes into our code, everything that goes into our general plan, everything that goes into the specific plans is consistent with the law. and we have a legal staff that reviews everything that we do. Um, you don't see it much because that's legal work and it's confidential for obvious reasons or should be obvious reasons, but we we do care a lot about the law. But up here, we're not usually talking about the law. Um, other than um you'll notice that we do always have an attorney. We have a new Hi, Britney. We have a new attorney tonight. Um, but we always have an attorney in these meetings. And the purpose of the attorney is usually to make sure that we conduct the meeting in accordance with the law. And they tell us, you know, like I'll alter, can I say that? or sometimes if we're going to suggest a change to something and we're not quite

sure if it's kosher, we'll ask and sometimes, you know, we'll recess and go in the back and talk about. So, um we're not here tonight to um affirm or deny anybody's right to free speech. It's just not an issue that comes before Brentwood Planning Commission. What's before us tonight, as I mentioned before, is a zoning change. And a zoning change, like I said, usually goes through through staff. I mentioned legal and they make a very strong effort, believe me, because it's the the day and age that we live in. You know, you want to you want to have your ducks in a row legally. Um, and they do all that work and staff does an an incredible amount of work. We did have something before us recently where we we had to make a a change to um our design review standards because the state mandated that they be objective and staff worked I have no idea how many hours. The product was amazing when it came out and um they had consultants and they they do legal work, but all this comes to us and then we looked at it and then we we suggest changes if we have any and you know and then it goes to city council for something like that. So that's what the lawyers do here. Um and that's what staff does here. They they do 90% of the work before it ever comes to us. We we really just review evaluate and so we take that review and evaluate responsibility very seriously here. We we do our best to understand everything that's given to us to read um and we make decisions on that basis. And I just want everybody to know that. And um so the the other reason I brought up the

the speech about the legalities is I I I think that people might have heard that and thought well the reason that this is coming forward at this time is in response to a Supreme Court ruling and that's not the case. That ruling happened years ago and uh this did not come to us as a result of Supreme Court ruling. I believe that um this was brought by a council member who um knew someone that wanted to do a business in downtown Brentwood and they would need a reszone to accomplish that. Um so I think that was why that was proposed. Um and I think that that's the wrong way to go about things. I I I'll just be right up front. It is this is the wrong thing to do. And I'm I'm going to list some reasons. Um first of all, if we do a change to the general plan and particularly to these specific plans which are actually they are part of the Brentwood general plan. The Brentwood general plan is I've heard it called the Constitution or the Bible, whatever. We we go by that. That's we have a general plan. Every city has to have a general plan by state mandate. Again, we're required to do this. Um, and the general plan, we live and die by that. And for a city like Brentwood that's growing fast, um, we don't want to make mistakes. We want to be very conser considered. And especially for the specific plans, the reason that they break them out. The reason you you know you can look at at zones all you can look at the land use map in the general plan and just look and and there's zoning like you know um housing densities there's uh uses like industrial but the specific plans really get into these are areas of the city that we want to concentrate on and make

the best they can be and there are meetings I mean you you've heard people here talking about how there's meetings, there's public hearings, um people, there's workshops. I mean, I I remember the last time the the the general plan was done, I was over in the community center and there was like tables everywhere and big maps and um people representing uh all the interests, a lot of developers, a lot of residents, um planning commissioners, um city council members. I was there as a resident at the time and and it it takes a lot of thought and a lot of discussion and even for the downtown specific plan. I think we heard from um the DBC tonight that they that they're really kind of honing in on a vision for what they want downtown to be. And uh my personal opinion on that and I don't think it's a controversial one is it'd be great if we could have another go at the downtown specific plan sometime relatively soon. So that because you know this this vision of downtown is evolving and it is changing and things do change. Um so that's that's what one reason why I don't think we should be making you know quick changes. Um another reason is that zoning changes should be done for the benefit of the city as a whole and for the benefit of the residents and businesses who've invest in invested in the city. uh residents have a right to expect that we will uphold our oath of office which requires this commission to act in the public interest which is gov65101 section A. Um and again this planning commission um is trained and we we know what our responsibilities are. And

again, considering a zoning change for an individual business is not the same as considering zoning a zoning change for the benefit of the general public. Um, another reason sudden changes to the general plan and the municipal code um road conference in the city government. Um, our general plan and municipal code are published for everyone to see. Uh you can just go online and look at them. Uh prospective businesses can go look at them. Homeowners or per home purchasers can go look at those. I did when I came here. Um and review those documents, understand what the city is about, what the city intends to do, what goes where. Um it it matters. Circulation plans for future growth. um all kinds of things that are in there that people when they invest in this community, they deserve to have some certainty about what the rules are going to be. Um they don't want them changing uh just at random and possibly in a way that might cause an aversive impact on their investment. And let's let's face it, a business or a home, especially for homeowners, the residents, the you know, the the 99% of the taxpayers here that are just homeowners. And um it's the biggest investment they have in their life for most of them, for most of us. Um so they don't they they don't want to see things just change. and we're constantly fighting change that's being forced forced upon us from the state. But um we can't do anything about that. But we do we do our best to be consistent and deliberate and so we do know there's going to be changes. But there's a process and um the public

should be involved in those processes. They should be able to follow along and see the reasons for those changes, provide input, and perhaps most importantly, they want to have plenty of advanced notice so they consider their personal options for how to deal with the changes. Um, and in considering a reszone, a downtown specific plan to permit a new kind of business, um, we could probably let people know we're going to do that well in advance before it becomes um, in effect because there might be other people that run tattoo shops that would like to come downtown. Uh, I you know I they might there might be other tattoo shops that would make a better bid for the space. There might be better tattoo shops that would want to occupied another space um that wish they could come downtown and had no idea they could and then all of a sudden boom they can and and then they have to adapt to that. And um I don't think that's a fair way to do things. I think the fair way to do things is as we go let people know what we're doing. Let people come in and comment. Let them participate. Help the city understand what's a good idea, what's a bad idea. Um, let staff work on it. Staff has a great deal of expertise in all the legals, all all of the possible ramifications. They'll think of things that um all the consequences intended and you know that. So, it's important. It's it's not something that we should just slap a a reszone and and certainly not to accommodate a single business. And um again, this is nothing I have great respect for you guys, but I want you to understand there's a process um

cha changes to the general plan um which the DSP is part of should never be rushed unless we're compelled. Uh again, we've had state laws that compel us to do some of these things, but other than that, um staff should be given the opportunity to fully vet any proposed change. Uh consider all the consequences, uh both intended and as I said, draft a proposal that can then move through the process and the process would usually come through here first and then go to the city council. um they should be enacted far enough in the future so the public can make whatever plans they'd like to make to adjust to the new rule. It's not a process that should be rushed. And um this one, and again, please don't take this the wrong way, but changing the zoning at the request of a specific business, which is something I've never seen us do here, um sets a dangerous precedent. It creates the appearance of favoritism. should never be the case that a party should be able to contact a commissioner or a council member directly and ask for a change to the general plan or municipal code for the benefit of that individual party. Um, and I thought a lot about this, but granting this kind of a request creates the impression that if a person knows somebody downtown, they can maybe just approach them for a favor. And if they appro approach that person for a favor and that favor that person sees that favor as something they can support um then maybe they'll they'll do it. It might be granted. Maybe they'll they'll give the person whatever change in the law they want. Um unfortunately what we all know about human nature is that for some people support is something they can put a price on. And

I I'm definitely not saying that's the case here. I I do honestly believe that council member Orlemens just is trying to help a business that that he wants to see succeed. But um it sets a dangerous precedent because then you know I don't want people knocking on my door saying you know hey can you can you help us get this change in the law? It's not appropriate and people will be suspicious. Um, and again I found that difficult to say and because you you're such nice people and I I don't want you to think it reflects on you but this is the reality that we live in. So um what I think a better way to approach this um and this is moving into the discussion phase where we're going to start talking about what we want to make this look at. Um, but I I think a better way to approach this would be for the city council to go back to staff and ask staff to fully research this proposal and bring forward a well thoughtout proposal for consideration. I I feel like this has been rushed. Um, city council did dictate some s some terms to staff before getting direct input from staff and we never usually do that. um having staff do this like right away taking as little time as possible. Um this creates the risk that you know things that advisable provisions might be emitted, things that staff would spot, things they're trained to look for. Um and not going through planning commission first where we are citizens like you. We're not specialists in this. I'm a computer programmer. Um, we we're not we're here as residents, informed residents,

taught what our responsibilities are, and given these documents to go through and understand, and we work with staff. I can call staff, you know. Um, but for the most part, what we do is we want to look at it the way that you would look at it if you were up here or the way that you would look at it or, you know, anybody else would look at it. anybody would look at it if they were up here making a decision for the entire city of Brentwood. And it it's kind of amusing to me because um just before I was chatting with um Eric and we were talking about how there's this disconnect. People see the um the business world, the corporate world, and how fast it all moves and how you can make a decision and just implement it. And government is not that way. There's a reason why government's not that way. We are being asked to make decisions and make recommendations on things that affect affect everybody that lives in this city, everybody that has business in this city, um everybody that visits this city. And so we have to be circumspect. We can't just put up a business and if it fails, well, it goes under and so what? if we if we fail, if we don't do a good job up here, um it affects a lot of people. People can suffer, you know. Um, so I just want the commission to understand, staff to understand, and for for the folks that are here in the audience to understand that I can't I can't recommend that we move forward with this given the process that was done. um I would feel like I was not fulfilling my oath of office. I would feel like I'm not doing my duty to

consider first the public interest. Um and I work basically at the pleasure of the city council. They can just get rid of me tomorrow. You know, I but that's that's their prerogative. What I'm I'm saying is um I don't think that I could in good conscience go along with this, but at the same time, I don't think it's, you know, a terrible idea, but I just think it needs to go through the process. Um my first pre preference would be to see a revision of downtown specific plan. I think it's due, but um you know, I don't set policy here. None of us do. But I I would like to at least see this go through a rational policy and I would like to see the other businesses that are in the same business that you are have the same opportunity that you do to contemplate moving their business downtown. Um without being blindsided by the fact that a it's loud and boom, you're doing it, you know. Um so with that um I think uh maybe we should do another round of discussion about what people want to recommend that we do here. Um I I guess before I do that I I will say that um I have been listening to the comments of the other commissioners and um looking at this in a in a more traditional way. Uh, I understand the um why people want to see this be a conditional use per permit. It is all over town and um it would be consistent with what we do and um if we make it by right, which is what they're proposing, then you could have 10 competitors on your street. We can't we can't do anything about it. you know, um the way that that they're

proposing it be great for you. You come downtown, you open your business, and then right next door you've got a competitor, and then two doors down, you got another competitor, and then five doors down, you got another competitor. This is an unintended consequence. The way this thing is written, it's written by right, that they can just come in and anybody that wants to can open a tattoo parlor in any in any shop in that area has defined. I don't think that's very wise. Um, I'm intrigued by what Bister Bran said about tattooing. Um, yeah, I think I think it should be a normal thing. Maybe, but maybe it fits with barbers and salons and nail shops and things like that. Maybe that's the kind of thing it should be. Maybe it should be a personal service. We don't we're not being given the opportunity to make these kind of considerations because the city council is just telling us, hey, you know, approve this, approve it now, make it by right and get it done. And um I think that there's a lot that that we could recommend and um I would like before I started recommending specific things, I would like to have staff go through and make their recommendations and that would be what what I would do. Okay, I'm gonna stop now. Um, does anybody want to take another go at this? Uh, as far as specifically how you'd like to to write up um a recommendation? That's just my opinion and I know that others would maybe just want to suggest changes.

Can I, you know, um Oh, man. I'm just going to ask I just think that we need to be try not to impugn impugn people's um uh why they do certain things cuz I really don't know what's in anyone's uh heart or you know I try we've had me and you we've debated back and forth and you know that I got no ill animosity towards you at all right and I just think that, you know, people can come down on different sides of something and it's not um because they got money or because they knew somebody or anything like that. I'll also say that, you know, we we have uh a couple of things coming through the planning commission, drive-thrus, which are amendments, and I've sat here while we made them stricter and stricter, and we have drive-thrus, and we have, you know, all sorts of stuff going on that are amendments to, you know, the general plan or downtown specific plan or various things. this is this is just another iteration of that, you know, where there's a something specific happening. Um, I've always been anybody who, you know, you said, you know, Chris, I've always been this person who always said, "Let's let the uh process work. Let's, you know, have future planning commissions have the ability to look at certain things and make decisions." But I've watched how we have, you know, tried to handcuff people, future planning commissions, city council members to do a certain thing. This is to me, it's no different. It's just a different

item. Whether it's tattoo parlor, drive-thru, it's the same thing. Um, I really I just wish we could be careful. And that's all I'm going to say is just be careful about impuging people's decision making, why they're doing what they do or and I'm not saying it just sounds that way. It feels that way. It makes it feels that way. And I that's the only thing I want to say about it. I I you know, I express I have some concerns about the way this thing works. I can see both sides. Literally, I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth. I could give you an argument why that tattoo parlor or not that tattoo parlor, why we should have a downtown specific area. Why we should allow tattoo parlor's down there. I could give you an argument and I could give you an argument why we shouldn't do it too. I've been thinking about this thing, battling it back and forth in my own mind. I feel like a I'm having a tennis match with myself on this particular issue because it's not cut and dry. At least for me, it's not cut and dry. There's a reason we are we have been over the last I don't know we're very we make stuff very difficult for businesses and I'm not convinced this is going to make it any better. you know, you can put different businesses at a disadvantage, but we have been very we have made things very difficult. And then, you know, um I can see why people don't want to make it uh more difficult. And I can also see why the downtown business coalition would not want to do it, want to stick to the plan. But times change, too. And I see that too. You know, you gave a saliloquy about, you know, going all the way back. I mean, 20 years back to I forget how many years we went back. No, you know, like back that time tattoos were like, you know, like you know, you're in a biker gang and uh you know, I can understand why they didn't have it down in in Brentwood. We were a farming community. Times change.

I'm just saying I am with you guys on process dispers. You know, it's it's a it's difficult, but I am not willing to, you know, throw stones at anybody any, you know, for any decisions that they made. And I think that we should try to look at this. You know, it's going to go to the council. They requested it. They voted on it. We work for them. We should make uh good recommendations if we That's how I personally feel. We should make recommendations that enhance their proposal or enhance what they want to do that makes it better for the city. um based on all the research. I mean, dang, I always I always am impressed with Christopher G. This guy, he's like freaking he got like 15 jobs to do all of this stuff. But, um I'm always impressed by what we do up here. And I think um we should make good recommendations recognizing our position in in this. That's all I really want to say.

Thank you. If I may. Well, just one second. I just want to reply and then we'll come. Is that it? Sure. Thank you. Um, Chair Johnson. Um, uh, Commissioner Johnson. Yeah. Wait, wait, wait. Yeah. Yeah. Here. You want that?

Um, I I appreciate your comments and, uh, I just want to reiterate in case anybody is unclear. I have no intention to impugn anybody. Um, and I did not mean that in any any sort of a way to impugn anybody. I'm just saying that that I would prefer to do the process. Um, and I I would like to hear um any suggestions for improvement from everybody. We're going to go to uh um past chair Roberts now. And but um what we're trying to do here is is gather, you know, any kind of suggestions and ideas that we can bat around. And sorry, sorry, Chair Johnson, go ahead past. Uh, if I may, I'm going to be very clear about something that Commissioner Johnson said, and I've been up here probably the longest of all of you. We don't make it difficult for businesses to do business in Brentwood. We're careful about who comes into Brentwood to do business with Brentwood. And that is our role up here. The residents trust this commission to do what is right because they are the ones that I work for. I work for the residents of Brentwood. Yes, I work side by side with city council, but I listen to the residents of Brentwood. So, I want to be real clear about that. and the statement about we make it difficult for people to come into Brentwood to do to do business. I'm looking at business everywhere. I see a hotel going in. I see two coffee shops coming in. I see restaurants coming in. So, I don't know that that's an accurate statement. I think that we're careful about who we want to do business with in Brentwood.

And I'll leave it at that. At the end of the day, this byite is going to present a problem. It's not the tattoo. I'm not interested the tattoo. I'm okay with the tattoo parlor. What I'm concerned about is the process. We have processes for a reason. And if you look around at the overgrowth or the fast growth or the no growth or the vacancies because folks bypass the process in some of our municipalities. I think of PaloAlto. I think of Oakland. Uh you can go to Walnut Creek now and see a whole lot of that. I will tell you that there is a reason for processes and we're there to follow the process. Now, if we want to change the process, let's do it right. I'm not saying that, you know, there's anything wrong with what's before us. What I'm saying is that there is a process that we need to follow and if we don't like the process, there is a process for changing that. But to just hand pick and say, "Well, you know, we're going to make an exception and we're going to make an exception and we're going to make an exception at some point." Then why do we have a process? Let's just let anybody and everybody land where they want to land. I am not with that. I didn't move to the city of Brentwood for that. And there are a lot of residents that feel very much the same. For every resident that says one thing, I can find two that say something else. So, I want us to be very clear and careful with our words because I'm pretty sure that the hotel that's building itself out by the streets of Brentwood and the coffee shops that are building themselves out

and some of the restaurants that I see coming into this community would make a a a very different statement. They work very closely with the planning department. They get along with the planning department. We do our part here as commissioners to make sure that all of the designs that are going into these locations um reflect well for the citizens of Brentwood and for the city of Brentwood. So yes, I think somebody got ahead of themselves and decided that they would bypass the process. And for that, I'm troubled because if one person can do that, anyone can do that. And now we're going to have a legal problem. And that's the thing that nobody wants to talk about is the legality to this. It's not about the tattoo parlor. It's about the process. They're there for a reason. And if we're going to buck the process, then let's be get let's get ready as taxpayers to deal with what happens next. And that's all I've got to say.

Thank you. Um, Commissioner Jones,

thank you. Um, I I I don't disagree with a lot of what of my fellow commissioners have said tonight. Um, I I have concerns about the process. Um, I have concerns about some of the things that Chair Flor brought up that I agree with him on. Um, the things that Commissioner Johnson have said, I I I see that too. For me, I I I want us I I think it's important to kind of stay within the scope of what it is we're being asked to do tonight. Um I do I don't I don't disagree with what is being said. Um but that being said, the majority council spoke we have to listen. Now, there can be arguments to push back on that and say no, we don't because they didn't follow the process. And I don't I don't necessarily disagree with that. But on the flip side, I I think it's up to us tonight to take what has been put in front of us and come back to them with what it is we think we should do. Maybe we we recommend a a conditional use permit. Maybe we say cap the number of tattoo parlors in the downtown core. I I'm open to those discussions, right? But I I'm not there on, you know, basically just sending it back. And if I misunderstood that, correct me. But I I I don't I'm not comfortable going there. I think we need to have a discussion around what types of conditions we should put or recommend, right, to the council um and let them decide on whether or not they want to do it or not, right? Um, so I I I don't disagree with what's being said tonight, but I also want to be careful with the scope of which what it is we're being asked to to to to take into account, and I'm worried that if we go a

little outside of that, um, I I just don't know how how well reflected that is. So So I I'm I'm not done with the discussion. I'm open to hearing more. Um but I I do think we need to have a discussion around what we recommend to the council in terms of the direction they gave. We can have the you know the arguments around whether or not those discussions or that direction that they gave to us was correct or incorrect. Either way, it's the majority. That's what they asked for. I think we have to deliver on that. Um and that's what I would like to really I would like to do. I would like to explore the idea of whether or not a conditional use permit is appropriate for this particular um item. Whether we strengthen the administrative design review process and make amendments to that, I'm open to that discussion. Um but I I I don't know if I want to just kind of send it back and if I if I misunderstood that, please correct me. But I I' I'd like to take it to where I think we were what we were asked to do tonight. So I just leave it at that. Thank you, Commissioner Jones. And I I do want to point out that I've been asking for um suggestions for changes and so far I haven't heard any. So, um we'll move on to Vice Chair Brandt.

Yeah. U Thank you for keeping us on track, Commissioner Jones. Let's uh I'm setting the intention right now that we're uh going to avoid another round if at all possible. Uh, just to for all our sake, it's 9:05. So, I'm just putting that out there for now. Um, I'm just I went back to the E1 resolution to say adopt a resolution recommending that the city council adopt an ordinance approving a text amendment to the downtown specific plan to allow for tattoo parlors. And so this is a question of um uh what text amendment would we like to provide that specifically relates to the uh is it an allowed use? Is it a cup? Is it a is it a distance thing? Is it any of these uh types of variables? Now you know Commissioner Roberts commenting on this uh the weight of the process to which we followed. And I think there's an argument to be made that, you know, anytime you multiply something by zero, it's always zero. Uh if you fundamentally disagree with how we got there, it's, you know, you can never get there because or you can never get an answer because you're always going to be at zero. Um, I'd like to hopefully keep us on track with this because, uh, yeah, city council is asking that of us and they voted in a majority to, um, ask us to provide a recommendation that best aligns with what our perspective is with respect to this particular use. So that being said, um I had articulated earlier that I think that the um the continued prohibition of tattoo parlors is consistent with the DSP's goal as well as the um the greater business population of the uh downtown area's

economic growth to maintain it that way. And so in this case, I would um I'm more strongly considering the rejecting a text amendment to the DSP for that reason. Um and so that would be essentially um what we vote we uh there's a name for it. I can't remember every time this comes up where you have to rewrite our resolution, but uh we just kind of flip it around. But um you know so I would like to start there. I think there's there you know as Commissioner Jones commented there there are arguments to consider a cup uh for this type of use. Um and as you know Commissioner Johnson commented like that would be more uniform with the rest of the city. Um that's that's certainly uh you know if you're talking fair application but um as of right now if we don't really have any you know in the absence of any uh specific uh agreed upon amendments uh I'd be ready to make a motion here. But I I just I do I know I think a few of you haven't spoken again yet. So it is only fair that some of you get to go around again. I want to I want to stick to what you just said about trying to move this thing along. Just a quick question. When they when they the council came up with this right now in the DSP, it's a prohibited use. Correct. I'm looking at uh page 73. Uh it's a prohibited use. Correct.

Correct. Um, and did they discuss and I'm I'm sorry I'm not as dilig I I I I'm trying to be I look U. Did they discuss having a CUP as Commissioner Commissioner Jones mentioned? You know, I don't recall specifically if that came up. Um, it it may have. Don't remember. But

because I I would I'm personally with uh as Commissioner Jones said about the direction we're given because if you just take it through the process, what's going to happen is whatever we do is going to get would get overruled in the process if we you know just you know just just decided we wanted to do something else. So I want to contribute to, you know, make make something better or maybe something in that regard than to just try to override what's that. So I don't know if the cup is okay, but I that at least would make it consistent throughout the um city and we would then allow it and it um it wouldn't be a prohibited use. So, that would be my only question.

Yeah. And I'm sorry. Let me take that back slightly. It's been a while since I uh I was at the meeting. I went back and watched it, but um my memory is is fading by the minute uh just in life in general. So, um but I just wanted to say the since the specific direction was to allow them as permitted use as a permitted use. I'm pretty sure the idea or notion of requiring a CUP came up and that's not where the council landed. Okay. Then what about um com uh Commissioner Jones's other recommendation about the administrative process behind the scenes? You're strengthening it essentially adding Yeah.

Yeah. I I would just say I think there's um a lot of options that the planning commission has tonight in terms of what the resolution ends up looking like and what the recommendation actually is to the council. I don't know if Britney would want to weigh in at some point based on what those changes look like if there are any, you know, sort of, you know, legal background or legal implications uh to consider. But we can certainly craft the resolution according to the consensus of the commission. Uh yeah, and I I would just add that um from a legal perspective, this particular proposal from staff is what's already been reviewed by the legal team um and has um with that any additional um you know burdens or conditions or standards that would be placed um would probably need to be reviewed additionally. Um but the recommendation could still be made today for council to consider those different standards and of course go through the traditional legal process to make sure you know everything is in order. So far I have um suggestions maybe reject the amendment, maybe um make it a conditional use permit, maybe strengthen the administrative review. Um I wrote down maybe just lift the prohibition because the the point was made that currently it's a prohibition. Um so something might happen there. Um and then of course uh my own recommendation is similar to rejecting the amendment as to ask the council to

go back and give it to staff to build it from the bottom up which I think is the right way to do it. Um in in which case then staff could bring it to us and and then at that point in time we could uh I don't know. Um, let's let's continue going down the row. Um, Commissioner Jones, do you have any additional items that you would want to put on this list?

Um, you know, I I think again whether it's through the conditional use permit or strengthening the the ADR, I mean, I think these are some things to consider. Um, capping the number of tattoo parlors. um probably already a part of this. Correct me if I'm wrong. Um with site and building design, um just making sure they fit with the surrounding buildings, they they blend with the downtown aesthetic as in terms of, you know, what you're seeing through the windows and stuff like that. Um I would think that's already a part of it, but correct me if I'm wrong. I I I didn't quite see that. Um, I think you know, signage and branding, although I think again that falls in with ADR. So, so I I may be just repeating what's already there, but being careful with this with the with the signage and making sure that we're just encouraging high quality signage. Um, you know, another thought that I was thinking, you know, just kind of going back to the art and culture component of this, and you know, I think tattoo artists, they they view themselves as that. They view themselves as artists, right? Right. I mean, I think that's a fair assessment. You know, maybe encouraging the tattoo parlor to incorporate like local art into their space. Um whether it's murals, designs, you know, something like that. Um promoting community events like art showcases, workshops. Uh I think from, you know, a public safety and security standpoint, you know, to strengthening the administrative design review process. Again, I'm trying to stay within the scope of what the majority asks us. Not saying I agree or or or disagree with what the majority said. I just think we have to stay within that. I I get what's being said tonight and I want to emphasize that because I'm trying to not put personal emotion into this um and just stick to what has been handed to us. So, you know, I'll stop there to see if there's anything that I'm off base on. If anybody wants to push back because if there isn't a majority, then of course, you know, I will continue.

Thank you, Commissioner Jones. And past Chair Roberts, do you have anything you want to put on the list? Uh, thank you. I I appreciate that

through the chair. I'm sorry. Real quick, can I just say um on a procedural level um because this has happened a few times at meetings as well. We're not exactly sure where the commission is going to be going at this point. Um and it could go a number of different directions. So what I would recommend is once a motion is made right and there is a second to that motion we would then take a quick break to uh modify the resolution accordingly come back display that you run through it make sure the commission understands exactly what that means and what that looks like and then take the vote on it. If for some reason that vote doesn't pass we would do the same thing on a subsequent motion. Does that make sense?

It does. And I I really appreciate that. I don't think we're at that point yet. We We still have a list a little This little list I think we can do a little bit more work on, but when we get there for sure. Chair, can I may I ask a clarifying question to Mr. Normine? Just back on that CUP deal. So, you would say that would change their the council's intent? Would I say that would change the council's intent? I would say yes. Okay. Yes. Um, I'm talking chair. Oh, go ahead.

For simplicity sake, you know, we're I think this is the shortest packet we've had, at least since I've been on commission. Uh, 45 pages. That's impressive. Anyway, um, we've been given a simple question, which in this case, I think a simple answer is warranted. Now through that it can just be a simple yes or no and um we can add a lot of tinsel on it as well to you know uh change this and change this but um and I don't as you described I don't want to jump to conclusions as far as what the intent of our council was but at least what we're being presented with. So I I think this is just a yes or no at this rate. Um it's do we want to allow this uh do we want to remove this from the prohibited list? I guess that's a better way of saying it. Um yes or no. So if unless we I'm not seeing any substantial movement uh in any of these more nuanced uh aspects of it. So, if we can provide a recommendation to city council that says, you know, planning your your planning commissioners have potentially u uh disagreed that um prohibition is uh sorry that uh making this a permitted use is uh how we should proceed, then that's that's the that's essentially how we do it. Uh it's pretty straightforward. And if they want to come up with a more um nuanced uh means of of providing a you know do we want to do a uh do we want to widen the scope and say that like certain businesses throughout the downtown you know you need a quant you know we've

that's been a thing before where you say there's a quantity of certain businesses or these businesses have to be within a certain distance of one another. um certain businesses have to be uh complimentary and create objective criteria that meet that that wasn't the ask here. This was simply do we want to have this yes or no. So I and so I'm ready to make a motion. Um and I think I know uh Eric is has commented that we probably should take a pause but um yeah chair floor sorry. Um, before we do that, before people start considering that, I just wanted to um pick up on a couple of the these things as far as the the signage and browning branding. We already have a sign ordinance.

Um, is there something that the sign ordinance doesn't do that you wanted to to do? Um, you want to I mean, we can't really control the the imagery. I mean, it's pre-expression, right? So, but we can control all the things that sign ordinance does control. Size of the signs, placement of the signs, um number of signs, that's all that's all in the municipal code. Correct. Yeah. And I would leave it at that.

Okay. So, we'll we'll take that one off. And I would say the same thing about safety. Um there's there's no building in Brentwood. It's not required to to meet safety standards as far as I know. Am I am I correct in that, Eric? That safety is is already built in. Yeah, correct. All businesses. So, let's take that out. Um, capping the number. Um, I'm not sure we can do that. Um, this is getting into something that uh um well, I can leave it on the list for now. So other than that, strengthening the admin review as far as signage and safety. I I mean I don't know what we can the staff kind of knows what businesses can and can't do here in general, you know, commercial properties. I don't I don't know if there's anything that specifically it is was there something else specifically?

The goal was to open up a discussion. Okay. and to try and keep us on the path of what the majority council asks us to do.

All right, fair enough. And um so then the one what I want to uh mention to uh Vice Chair Bran is that if we did move to um you know reject the the amendment or I recommend that they not do it. I do think that including our logic for why we did it um would make them have something to discuss to think about because if we say well we just we we don't agree and we don't tell them why um that makes it really easy to ignore you know that I think that that we have to say something. Um, I mean, I've got the things that I've said about why it should go through the process. Um, and, uh, Pastor Chair Roberts has said why she thinks it should go through the process. And I I think that if we if we were going to make a motion to um to not pass it um or to not to not recommend it, then we should probably say why if if that makes sense. I think we've done that once before uh where there's a kind of uh there's a bulleted list beneath it to indicate uh reasonings behind it. Um I don't recall the last item in which something like this happened, but um I'm wondering if we um yeah, I mean obviously the best source of the context would be uh watching this

meeting, which I hope they all do or are watching right now. Um for that uh level of depth and context that I think is is uh really necessary with a sensitive item like this. Um and so you know I I at least top of mind for me right now is that it's like yes if if we proceed as is I would suggest that yeah the planning commission has you know something to the effect of the planning commission has concerns with regards to the I'll call it allocart nature of an amendment to a foundational document with that is contained within our general plan and that it's important important that a large group of the populace is allowed to um or has the ability to make suggestions and such so that more than just a singular uh uh business or other residential or what have you entity um could be impacted. And so as as to your point, Commissioner John says the idea that there are unintentional consequences. So when we make, you know, you make one little turn, sometimes the whole thing breaks, right? Um and so not not to not to put words in your mouth. I'm just just trying to make similar here. So, um, all that to say, I think I I think our comments are uniform, at least from what I've heard as far as for the most part. um our encouragement to city council to potentially um uh consider the idea that maybe in they're going to do what they want with this particular thing is that they consider the possibility that this document does need some type of larger revision and that you know I think this this uh commission is also intentional on the idea of amending to some degree

uh with regards to uh uh tattoo uses or as I call them personal services. So, um I I think we could uh Eric, I I think we can contain that all into a singular motion so that that message is escalated to city council. I don't know if that's the right way to say it, but that's what's coming to mind.

Yeah. And I don't know if this totally answers your question. And I don't know how Britney feels about this, but I was looking back at the um sorry, it was the December 3rd meeting from last year, and that's when staff presented the uh proposed changes to the zoning ordinance relative to ADUs. Um so everybody was on the commission save for Commissioner Jones. And at that time, the commission was concerned about the scope of the changes. And what ultimately happened was the commission declined to make a recommendation. So this was I was still researching that, but I don't believe there was a resolution that was actually adopted. Um the commission simply said, "We're not making a recommendation." And then that was forwarded to the council for its consideration at its public hearing.

Right. I I I remember that vividly. Thank you for using that as an as an example of what I was trying to recall. Um so yes that that as you know to this commission that that is a example of a of an option to proceed and um it's essentially taking our hands off the wheel ultimately. Um so uh is that like an abstain vote? Uh sure. But um you know we we all have to we have to decide on on our individual level uh what we feel is most appropriate. And uh as you said, even regardless of if we agree with um what the uh what the resolution from city council was, we have to agree upon something that is in response or provides some type of recommendation andor uh no recommendation at all. Um so um yeah maybe uh chair floor why don't why don't I give you a chance to respond and then

Okay. Well um first off is uh I'm not feeling very warm about uh declining to make a recommendation. Um I I think that that just it gives it gives the city council no sense of where where we're at. Again, I think that um I have reasons for my reservations and uh um I could go into those now, but I I do think past Chair Roberts, did you did you want to weigh in? I know you have some re reasons that do do you have some wording or do you want to let me have some Mike beat you to it? I for one would like to see this move forward, but I don't like the way it was presented. I really would like to see it move forward. I don't support spot zoning. That's what I I see this as. Um but I would like to figure out a way that we can move it forward. Uh and if that is an administrative design review, tightening that up, that would be great. Um, I don't want to set a precedent that we'll see more of this coming from city council. Um, I want it to go through its normal process and procedures as has been the past for as long as we've been uh in the city of Brentwood as a planning commission. And this is out of sort. So that's where my dilemma is. Um, I I will join um, Commissioner Jones in in um tightening up some of the design review to try to move this forward. But I want the caveat for sure to reflect that we cannot

consider doing things like this as the new normal. Because if this is our new normal, then I I have a feeling we're going to run into some serious issues or the planning commissions that come after us. Um we are setting a precedent. So that being said, subject to administrative design review or tightening it up might be the best way to move this forward. But I must tell you that it does not make me feel comfortable. I am not comfortable. Um but I do want uh let me be clear. Whatever we do, city council is going to do what they want to do regardless. I'm aware of that based on how this was presented to us. And that's unfortunate because we're supposed to be working as a team uh and not be and this seems very fragmented. But I would prefer that we give them something to to work with. And if that's I'm not comfortable with the cup because that stands forever. But I am comfortable tightening up the administrative piece um and um and and moving forward on that with the caveat that spot zoning is something that I'm not comfortable with. Um, may I chair for may I make? Um, Mr. Nthenius. Is it possible considering what Commissioner Roberts and Commissioner Jones said, is it possible to say we um I guess, you know, make a motion to endorse this deal with these recommendations with the recommendations

of the administrative overview. Is that can that fall in the line? Yes, of course. I mean, it's going to it's going to depend on what those additional standards, you know, look like and and how they read, but we would reflect that in the resolution and then when it goes to the council for consideration, um they'll be aware of that and again, ultimately, it's going to be the council's decision, but we certainly want them to know what took place tonight and what the commission's recommendation is. Commissioner Jones, what were the administrative um enhancements that you had in mind?

I was hoping to have a good discussion around that. Um because you know I I'm I I I want to be mindful of the the administrative design review process, but I I I want to just at minimum entertain the idea of adding some additional things that might alleviate some concerns out there that residents have. You know, um it was a 3-2 vote by the city council, so there is some contentiousness there. And I would love to try and bring, you know, that in into onto the table to try and find a middle ground. Right. So I I I'm I I had I started to kind of list some things. Thank you, Chair Flor. I know again a lot of those things are probably already in there and and it sounds like there's maybe some things that we cannot do and if that's if that's fine, right? Uh, but I'm I'm throwing those out really more as a discussion point to try and understand where where where what additional things we could do to try and get to the middle here. So, I'm open to any suggestions that anyone has as in terms of what they think might accomplish that.

Okay. Um, so I'm listening to all of this. We we don't really have a lot of consensus here. I just want to remind you guys uh what I was proposing that we do. I was proposing that we ask the city council to send this back to staff. Let staff work it from the ground up then bring it to us. So because for us to sit here and try to imagine um things like oh what would be you know some good ways to strengthen the admin review well like we're we're we're kind of doing staff work from the dis and I don't like I don't support that. Um what I what I believe is that um staff would be best able to um come up with these kinds of suggestions for improvement. And that's that's another reason why I suggested go back to staff. you know, if it was me, um, I, you know, I'm I'm not opposed the idea of just rejecting the amendment outright, but I I think a better reason, a better way to to proceed given what everybody has said. I've heard, let's just tell them we don't want it. I've heard, let's make some changes, but we're kind of fuzzy about how to do that. Um, and I've I've heard that, you know, like maybe we should just send it on. Um, but to me, I think that if we send it back to staff, um, if the city council will relinquish, send it back to staff, let staff work it up uh, the right way. And, um, I' I've

heard that from Eric and I think I agree with that. Let staff work it up and come back. And I the only thing that I would ask staff is that is that whatever they design would be something that would um be passed but come into effect so that the public had sufficient notice so other people that want to take advantage if if there is new zoning downtown. other businesses that might want to um have that business would have enough advanced notice so that they could also participate. So um that would be if I was going to make a motion, I'm tempted. Um rather than just reject it outright, I would say we think that the process is wrong. And I've I've heard um Commissioner Roberts say that. I've said that that the the correct way to do this is to first send it to staff, get staff recommendations, then let it come back through the normal process to the planning commission so that we can see the staff recommendations. So if I think, you know, if there is something staff sees in there that could be strengthened, they could strengthen it. Or if there if there's not, you know, let's see what they can they can do. I mean, it's it's it's what they're what they do. That's their job. That's like how they they they know what to do, right? We don't And um that's why I'm making that suggestion. And because again, I think that the whole process is wrong. I don't I don't I don't approve of doing this at all for just one business. Like I said, I think that there's a slippery slope, but if I I feel like the city council um has the votes to do it. I just would like to see

them do it the right way and send it to staff first, say, "Okay, you know, we we want to allow we don't want to have a prohibition on tattoos anymore downtown." what what would staff look at and see what they want how they would recommend moving forward with that. Let's take that input and work with that because the input that we have right now is it's going to be by right and that's it. And I don't I don't think that the council um has completely thought through the implications of that. And um so like I said, if I was going to make a motion, that's the motion that I would do. I I would I I would move that we make a recommendation to uh the the city council to um send it back to staff. Let it let let the request be generally processed just as a request to um lift the prohibition on tattoo and then let staff go and gather the information and they can talk to the DBC and they can consider these ideas. Well, is it like a hair salon? They can consider everything because that's what they do. And so I I don't know. Um isn't that what happened though? I I I think I heard didn't Isn't that they sent they made a they made a recommendation the staff went back for four months. Isn't did I mishare something? I don't know.

No, and I was just going to say that it's this has been such an interesting process and I know there's um discomfort on the part of the planning commission. I totally um understand that. Um, it's difficult for staff at times too because we're put in a position to, you know, move something forward based on on direction and but to your point, Commissioner Johnson, that's exactly what happened. So, it was brought up at the end of January. Um, there there was consensus in in terms of a unanimous vote at that time that the council wanted to look into it in more detail, but there was no decision made as to what that would actually look like. So when it came back at the end of May, four months later, that's when the council kind of got into the minutia of what it might look like and where you ended up with the split vote to allow it as a permitted use, which is, you know, why we're talking about it again tonight.

Um, at the time, I don't I don't remember, did you did you submit a um a proposed resolution at that time? Do you do you did you have wording from staff? No. So that was that was council discussion from the dis. Um there was no resolution that was adopted. It was just a motion directing staff to amend it and to allow them as a permitted use and um was the instruction to include uh by right permitting as opposed to so that was not by staff that was city council.

That was city council. Yeah. Um and Britney did you have anything you wanted to add as well? Oh, yeah. I just wanted to add that um the city council did direct staff to include um one I don't want to it's not it's a condition I guess um or a standard uh for the administrative design review um which was compliance with the safe body art act and staff prepared um the proposed changes to um put some requirements in there to make sure that we were ensuring compliance with the safe body art act. Um, so that is um the one condition that the council directed staff to include already.

All right. And I'm sorry, chairperson floor, just one other thing real quick. Um, I didn't go through this in detail during my original presentation, but on um pages two and three of the staff report for this item. There is some discussion about what occurred at the January 28th council meeting and there's a basically a bulleted list of items that the council brought up at that time that they you know wanted more information on that they were concerned about and um they specifically wanted to have some information about you know pros and cons and economic development impacts etc. And so again that's what happened in uh in May.

Okay. Um, so you know, I did read through the res the resolution and the red line. Um, so you've you've done all the research and you've you've had a stab at it. Um, so I'm thinking it probably wouldn't take a huge amount of staff effort to just go through and make sure that um I don't know. I I I think I'm I'm kind of leaning back more towards uh with all this discussion, I'm leaning back towards Commissioner Bran's idea to uh maybe just reject it. Um, and but I do want to I would like to give the reason that we feel like or at least I feel like is probably the most important thing is that we shouldn't be making um we shouldn't be making reszones on at the behest of a single business. we should be making reszones because they're they're good policy and we we you know and again and because it creates the hazard that this is how we'll do business going forward and then people will start coming to individual city council members asking for things and that's what we don't want to see. So or is that am I overstepping or maybe we should just re you know like make a motion to reject. Um, real quick before any of that happens, um, I was just reading through as, uh, Eric was describing the, um, uh, the bulleted points, uh, that were in reference to the, uh, questions that were raised from council, stuff like our two studios, the highest and best use of downtown, would a comprehensive update to this downtown specific plan be a better option? City prefer potentially taking property space away from other businesses? These are all questions we've answered tonight. Um, at least I feel like I in some capacity have

answered most of these questions from my perspective. I don't I'm not sure if everyone else um shares that perspective or has a perspective, but nonetheless, I think we have answered a lot of those questions. So, thus, I think our our our decision uh is uh inclusive of all of those questions that council has for um this particular area. Um, so that being said, um, I'm I'm I'm going to go ahead and make a motion. Um, so let's say we make a motion to I make a motion to um, what we say reject resolution number 25-012 recommending that the city council um, do not adopt an ordinance approving an amendment to the downtown specific plan. and the Brentwood municipal code to allow for tattoo parlors. Probably need to mess with the verbiage there a little bit though. I don't know maybe Britney can word smith that in a way that's

so just to clarify though.

So um I know that there's a motion on the floor. Is there any way that you can take that motion and add to it until it is brought back to the commission through its normal process? In other words, I hear what he's just said. I don't want us to go so fast into rejecting something that if it were presented appropriately, we might have considered it uh as a a a plus. So, I'm I'm hearing what you're saying and I'm wondering if we can tell city council, yeah, we we can't we can't accept it right now the way it is being presented to us today. However, consider whether it's the administrative piece or the cup or something else and bring it back to us. I want to give them some direction, but the way it's being presented here, it they're kind of I I I can't see how we can move forward with this. So, I'm looking for a little guidance on the language because I happen to support what you've just said, but I want to go more into how do we move forward in making it a yes, sending it to city council for them to take another look, see, and say, "Okay, yeah, let's let's not be so quick to set a precedent here that could present problems in the future. It's not even for me. It's not about the tattoo, Paul. It's about about the way it's being presented.

So, do you want to accept that as a friendly amendment or do you

I'm just looking for some language. it. Um, just to understand it carefully, I believe that we are providing a recommendation by rejecting the staff recommendation of allowing as a permitted use. So we are providing that but I think as as chair Flora described before the uh the specifics as to why uh that is uh I think are contained in our deliberation in the last two and a half hours or so um answering all of the questions that were brought forward here that came in the last several meetings. So I think the context is there and I think the considerations that we've established are also there. So to me at least the the why related to this motion is contained in this meeting uh that we've just had. So um I'm I'm not I'm personally not as concerned about communicating that through specific words in the motion. I think it's uh I think in in this case that it's important that council watches our videos so that they are fully informed with what uh our opinions are uh comprehensively. So that that's my perspective here. So I I know we have a motion on the on the table here. Um I'll I I invite a second.

You were in the middle I'm sorry. You were in the middle of talking to legal about the wording. Yeah. I just I I think I know we had Eric you had commented that the um having a a brief recess uh if we can you know obviously once we get a a second would warrant a a brief recess so that a a resolution could uh correct be yeah proceed with say what yes I said do we have a second

well I'm sorry just real quick um I want to make sure I understand the motion clearly. So you're not you don't want to decline to make a recommendation. The recommendation is to actually not move forward with the amendment. Right? So it's a it's not a neutral, it's a don't do it. Correct. Okay. Yes.

So however the wordage is for that would be my what would be the motion effectively. And then there were just to um clarify no um listing of the reasons why that recommendation is being made. Um Vice Chair Brand, is that what you your was included in your motion? Um uh I mean it would be great if we could get you know at you know because this is an item that is a recommendation to council is that part of the staff report at least a chunk of the staff report probably would summarize this meeting here today and include unless we have things that are so categorically important that we guarantee or we absolutely want to have included in that staff report. that way that um certain points get over you know uh get communicated uh directly versus more passively through various comments we've made individually.

So um I I think that I'm feeling a little bit more um agreement on uh just the uh the basic motion than everybody's reasons why. So, um I I'm kind of going with Commissioner Bran that we probably don't need a list because we have we all have like different reasons than we've all expressed them.

I know there's a motion on the floor. So, Commissioner Grant, please please give me just a little grace. One last question. I think I saw an email about um having if we did approve it that maybe it can be on the second floor of a building rather on the ground floor. Is that something we I don't know about Go ahead. Uh well, let's let's get through the motion first and then if we if we don't if we don't pass, we can go for additional. But we need a second. Uh Okay, I'll second it.

Okay. So, so before before the commission takes a vote, can can you then grant staff just a few minutes to sort of huddle up and figure out what the resolution would look like? Because if we're adopting a motion specifically to, you know, reject the amendment, we want to memorialize that. So, it might be a fairly short resolution actually, but I want to be able to figure that out with Britney. Absolutely. Let's take Let's take uh what do you 10 15 minutes? We just we'll just take a a recess. Yeah, we'll shoot for 10. Okay. So, done. We're going to take a recess.

You know what would have been really cool, but we can't dictate to the uh people how we want to see their shop set up. I don't want to get caught up in that, but it would have been very cool because this is a form of I can't discuss it. Yeah. Oh, all right. Did you hit Wait a minute. Did you just slap that that gavvel? I did. I g

Did you gabble me? I'm getting ready to pop you upside your head. Your mic is on

Eric, you ready to go?

Okay, we're we're ready to go. Okay. All right, we're back in session. you guys um have something for us.

Oh, real quick. I'm sorry. So, um before we get started, I just want to say um we took the draft resolution that was included in the agenda packet, modified it. Um it's going to look like not slightly, but it was basically removing a lot of language that we needed in order to uh process the amendment forward. So, it's it's kind of working the opposite way in the negative, not adopt the ordinance, and then we're removing a lot of text. Um, so Britney can uh if April can share Britney's screen, she will kind of go through it slowly, just kind of scroll. If the commissioners have any questions as to why something was changed, please let us know. Um, and then if it fits with the motion, uh, the commission can then ask for a vote.

Excellent. Thank you.

Yes. So, um, as Eric mentioned, please feel free to stop me if you have any questions. Um, or oh, bigger. Okay. Um, hopefully that's a little bit easier to read. Um, so we just change the title. um a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Brentwood recommending that the city council not adopt an ordinance. Um there was a recital here about SQUA because there's not going to be a recommendation for a particular um approval of any project. Um we took this recital out. Uh additionally um for the terms of the resolution itself um any you know change to zoning requires uh a finding that it be consistent with the general plan and specific plan. So we've taken out this second paragraph of the resolution which um which finds that the um proposed ordinance is spec is consistent with the general plan and specific plan. So that's those changes right there. was a pretty big chunk of text um consistent with um that reasoning um there wasn't any need because there's no um action being taken. So this paragraph three we've taken out um finding that the ordinance is appropriate and not contrary to the public interest. Um so that's that change. And then paragraph four um again the the squa issue we've taken that out in the text of the resolution itself since

there's no action being recommended and that is I believe the last change and then we just the second oh oh yes and then the really important part the planning commission hereby recommends that the city council not adopt the draft ordinance um and that was former paragraph 5 that we added this not And um it is the new paragraph 2.

And then last but not least um I I know that uh because they report out on this at meetings. Uh most if not all the council members I think watch the meetings live. The ones that don't watch it live go back and watch it. So they will certainly know what transpired tonight. And then we will do our best at staff level when it gets agendaized for the council to at least summarize uh that that'll be tough to kind of discussion tonight, right? But we'll do our best to summarize the discussion so it's actually in the report so they have it as well. Um and then this resolution that gets signed by the commission will be attached.

Uh some of us may have had notes. I have notes. If you want to if you want I can just zap you some notes of what my concerns were and that would be fine. Thank you. All right. Um Vice Chair Bran, do you do you accept? Yeah, I'm uh I'm in alignment with the motion uh on the screen. All right, we um we have a motion and a second. Um do we need a reading or do we just vote? Now that you have a first and a second and you're you're understanding the changes, I would just uh call for the vote with eyes and nose. Okay, perfect.

Call. Um do we need a roll call? I I don't think we need a roll call. Um, all right. We we have a motion on the floor to uh as as shown on the screen. Um, all in favor say I. I. I. All oppose. No. No. Sounds like the eyes have it.

Thank you everybody. That was pretty long. And all right. Um, now we're moving intoformational reports from committees and upcoming meeting schedule and um, uh, Wester brand uh, transplant.

Um, yeah, just a few things. the um there's a couple new transit assessments that are taking place as of right now um from the transplant committee. Um there's a proposed improvement to make a transit lane that would go direct from State Route 4 to the downtown Brentwood park and ride. It's about two and a bit miles. Um it looks as though southern Brentwood will continue to be an ondemand microtransit zone. That's where you can call for these individual rides to um sort of minimize the amount of time that it would take to take a much more arduous path um via um you know a goofy bus route or something like that. And then um we're we've also been identified as a transit priority corridor to help alleviate the uh congestion around um rush hour times uh with respect to highway 4 and um increase overall uh public transit ridership. So um there's a couple things in the in the pipeline there. Thanks.

Thank you. Um design review subcommittee commissioners Johnson and Jones.

Oh, we did not That's funny. It sounds like every report I gave when I was on that committee. Um, LEU land use and development committee. Um, we've been, uh, definitely been intending to have meetings. Uh, we do have, actually, I have it right here. We have the, um, objective design review for, um, for residential. Um, unfortunately, we've had to reschedu twice. So, we should be um meeting on the third Monday of this month, which I believe is the 18th or 19th. And again, I I wish we'd been able to have it sooner. I think the public would be very interested in seeing this. Um hopefully we'll get some some participation. It is kind of an an unusual time. It's on at 5:30 in the afternoon, I believe, but uh it's an important thing that we're doing, so hopefully we'll get a chance to do it this month. Um, and uh, the Brentwood Municipal Code Review Committee.

No meeting still. I'm hoping soon. All right, perfect. Moving on. Requests for future agenda items. Do we have any new requests? Okay, seeing none, um, I need one more motion. Uh, motion to adjurnn. Second. All in favor? Hi. Hi. Hi.