Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It's all right, we'll just get started. Okay, welcome to the August 18th Planning Commission meeting. Vice Chairperson Flores remote, however, has not joined, so he's absent at this point, but all other members are present. Please stand for the Pledge of 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.

Pursuant to council administrative policy, meeting rules and procedures section 5.2, comments by members of the public are generally limited to three minutes or less time if a large number of speakers is anticipated or if approved by the chair. Speakers desiring answers to questions should direct them to the planning commission and if relevant, they may direct them to the appropriate staff member. Speakers can also follow up directly with staff during regular city business hours. If you are in person, please file a speaker's card with the administrative secretary on the form provided on the counter at the back of the chamber. If you are participating via Zoom, please raise your hand to speak. During this portion of the meeting, members of the public are permitted to speak on items that are not listed on the agenda. Public comments for a scheduled agenda items should wait until that time. Please note that the commission's actions are final unless an appeal is filed with the city clerk within 10 calendar days.

At this time, if you're in Zoom and you'd like to speak for general public comment, please raise your hand. We'll start with those that are here present in the chambers. Our first speaker is Tracy Cosomoto.

Hello. My name's Tracy, and the first thing I'm here to do is to announce that we are, and you all probably heard about it, but we are in the middle of a campaign to recall our county supervisor, Diane Vargas, Some of the reasons that she has failed us is Vasco Roads, the Veterans, Discovery Bay, Brentwood, Knightson, and there's, I have flyers if you're interested in learning more. We have a website. And we also have the petition here if anyone's interested in signing. And we're doing pretty well. And I'm excited to announce it. And I hope we get more support from people who may not be aware of it. And I just wanted to announce that to everybody. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Danny.

And yes, I did catch that. Only things that are not on the agenda. I'm freestyling. But later on, you're gonna talk about an item. And it brings me, honestly, to why I'm here. And that was your decision on the Emporium. There are a lot of similarities. And boy, am I going to bring that up. If anything, I think you guys tried to do it with the best of intentions. However, first and foremost... We need a place where you can go relax, have something to eat, have a drink and not have kids and dogs running up underneath your feet. That was my whole thing about the Emporium because they already had a liquor license. They just had to go from a type 47 to 48 or 41 to 48, whatever. But your agenda item tonight proves what it is that I had said before, that liquor is far more of a moneymaker than food. That's why the Emporium came up and they were honest about it. They have a kitchen. They had basically everything but the permission. And it was under the auspices of family friendly. I called out the restaurants, Zephyr, all the others. And I know the argument with them is they sell more food than liquor, to which I say, how do you know? I don't believe it's true because if you look at, and maybe even tonight, after tonight, you see Zephyr says an offer, happy meals but they do offer um drink deals all the other restaurants do the same thing so i will be back when we talk about e3 and the irony is i'm gonna throw at you guys the same thing you threw at me with the Emporium, and that is the whole downtown specific plan. But I will be definitely saying, I don't know, maybe it's a future agenda item, maybe it's outside your control, but if you're just gonna willy-nilly allow beverage licenses because they're under the auspices of a restaurant, just remember, go to Zephyrs, watch those kids running around while dad and mom are just kicking back.

At this time, we have no hands raised in Zoom and no other speaker cards.

Thank you, April. All right, moving on to the consent calendar. We have a regular Planning Commission set of minutes from the July 21st meeting. Any discussions or do I have a motion?

I make a motion to accept the consent calendar.

I'll second. All in favor? Aye. Motion carries. Excellent. Moving on to public hearings. Item E1, an application for an conditional use permit to allow for a type 20 off sale beer and wine ABC license for an existing market known as El Marketito y Panaderia de Brentwood. Staff report by Sarah E. Weiler, thank you.

Good evening, chair, planning commission, members of the public. Before you tonight is a conditional use permit, CUP 26-004, to allow for a type 20 off sale beer and wine ABC license for an existing market known as El Mercadito. The existing locally owned and operated neighborhood market is located at 8335 Brentwood Boulevard, which is within the downtown specific plan and more specifically designated within the downtown boulevard district. The market originally opened in 2013 as Jalisco's Market under the ownership of the adjacent Jalisco's Restaurant and changed ownership to El Mercadito in 2018 and has been in operation ever since. The owners are currently in the process of expanding the market and acquiring the adjacent roughly 1400 square foot tenant space. In addition, the market is requesting approval of a type 20 ABC license to sell beer and wine for on offsite consumption. The primary purpose of the business will remain the retail sale of food and grocery products with beer and wine as ancillary products. The daily hours of operation will remain the same, which they currently are, which is 6 a.m. to 9 p.m., seven days a week. Commercial retail sales is a use permitted by right in the downtown Boulevard district. However, the downtown specific plan is silent on the retail sale of alcohol and therefore the city would require a conditional use permit under the classification of the other uses that the zoning administrator determines because of the type of operation, material sold or stored or other special circumstances requires consideration and regulation. The staff report, Oops, sorry. The staff report and the attached resolution may note many general plan and downtown specific plan consistencies that support the recommendation for approval of the sale of beer and wine for offsite consumption. Given that staff finds the proposed use to be consistent with the downtown specific plan, staff recommends that the planning commission adopt resolution number 26-021, approving the requested conditional use permit for CUP 26-004, subject to the findings set forth in the resolution. That concludes staff's presentation, and I'm available if you have any questions.

Thank you, Sarah. Let's see, does the Planning Commission have any questions of staff? Seeing none. Right, let's move on to public hearing. At this time, the public is permitted to address the planning commission. Remarks are limited to three minutes per person, except for the applicant who will have 10 minutes. Does the applicant wish to address the commission?

Through the chair, I just want to make an announcement that Vice Chair Flohr has now joined the meeting.

Oh, excellent. Good morning.

Good evening, Vice Chair Flohr. Can you hear us?

I can.

Can you hear me? We can. Thank you for joining.

Sorry, there was a little bit of a hiccup on descent, but we're here now.

Excellent. And for your context, we're just opening the public hearing on item E1 for the conditional use permit for the off-sale beer and wine. Thank you. Right, so now, April, can we, oh, sorry, does the applicant want to address the Planning Commission? Is the applicant here? Oh, wonderful, thank you. Not a requirement, but, you know, if you'd like to.

Hello, everyone, thank you for the opportunities. I'm Ana Cardenas, and I'm just, I'm the consultant for the owners of El Mercadito in Panaderia and Brentwood, Like Sarah just said, this would be just an add-on. They want to provide beer and wine sales. Of course, sales, no drinking at the store will be everything to go. But it's something that actually the clientele has been asking for. And so it just seems like it's the perfect addition to the market. and they continue providing all the other groceries, fresh produce, and everything else, just adding this type 20 will be a great addition for this business, and it will actually help the city of Ringwood as well, bring more taxes. Any questions?

Any questions of the applicant? None at this time.

Apologies, I butchered the name of your establishment, so I apologize. Sorry. Okay, any other comments? Otherwise we can proceed.

No more comments.

Wonderful, April.

At this time we have speaker cards and for those that are in Zoom, please raise your hand as you will be next after our in-person speakers if you'd like to speak. Our first person up It looks like Grayson, did you wanna speak on this? Because you put all items, just 10 ticks. Gotcha, no problem. Let's see. No, I don't have any other speakers. Just wanna make sure I didn't miss anyone. These are for a different item. We have no speakers and we have no hands raised in Zoom.

Thank you, April. Do I have a motion to close public hearing? So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye.

Actually, hang on one second. So yeah, because we have a remote participant today, we're going to do all roll call votes this evening. Thank you.

Thank you, Christy.

That's okay. Take a roll call. Commissioner Johnson?

Aye.

Commissioner Jones?

Aye.

Commissioner Roberts?

Aye.

Vice Chair Floor?

Aye.

Chairperson Brand?

Aye.

Motion carries.

All right, moving on to discussion. Would anyone like to add any discussion? Otherwise, no discussion. Vice Chair Flor, I don't know if you wanna open this up. I know it's early, so. I really don't have any discussion at this time. All right, discussion. I'll make a motion. Oh yeah, Commissioner Johnson.

I'll make a motion.

Hold on.

I make a motion to adopt resolution number 26-021, approving the conditional use permit 26-004, subject to the certain findings and conditions.

I'll second.

We'll do a roll call vote.

And just to jump in real quick, Vice Chair Flor, per the law, can you please state whether there's anyone over the age of 18 in the room with you?

Yes, there is. My wife is here with me. We're in a different time zone. It's 3 a.m., and we're in a hotel room, so she's just in the room with me.

Thank you, Vice Chair. I'll remind you, but if you want to just state that before every vote this evening, you're welcome to do that without the reminder. Thank you.

Will do. Thank you.

Commissioner Johnson.

You want me to make a roll call vote? Oh, aye.

Commissioner Jones.

Aye.

Commissioner Roberts? Aye. Vice Chair Flor?

Aye.

Chairperson Brand?

Aye.

Motion carries 5-0.

Congratulations. All right. Moving to item E2. Conditional use permit for a film installation and graphic studio known as Tintix located at 131 Technology Way. The staff report by Andres Orozco.

Good evening planning mission before you tonight is a conditional use permit for cup 26001 to allow for a 10,641 square foot window film installations and graphics studio known as 10 text to be located at the corner of 131 technology way. The proposed window installation and graphics studio would be located on the corner of technology way and business business Center drive. It would be occupying the entire new two story industrial building that was previously approved by the planning Commission on April 15 2025 and is now nearing construction completion. The project site has a general plan designation of business park, which allows for integrated business and research parks large individual corporate establishments professional and administrative office centers and light industrial complexes, including auto youth service uses. The proposed auto film installation and graphics studio use is consistent with the business park designation and aligns with the various goals and policies of the general plan as discussed in greater detail and the staff report. The site is zoned plan development 42 sub area F, which is intended to provide development of industrial office and flex space for potential users and user owners that would provide employment and services to the community. A vehicle window film installation and graphic studio would be considered an auto related service, which would require conditional use permit within this zoning district. The proposed tenant space would consist of three service bays, which would be used for film installation on vehicles. The number of daily vehicles worked on within these bays is approximately eight vehicles per day. The proposed hours of operation are 7.30 a.m. to 7.30 p.m., Friday through Wednesday, and closed on Thursdays. The use will not generate any noise as power tools are not required for installations and all operations will be conducted indoors with the roll up doors closed. Given the information in the staff report and tonight's presentation demonstrating consistency with the general plan and zoning CEQA exemptions, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt resolution number 26020, approving conditional use permit number 26001 as conditioned. And that's it. If you have any other questions, you can let me know.

Excellent, thank you, Andres. Any questions of staff? Commissioner Johnson? No question. Okay. Vice Chair Flor, any questions of the staff?

I have no questions at this time.

Excellent. Okay, so at this time, the public is permitted to address the Planning Commission. Remarks are limited to three minutes per person, except for the applicant who will have 10 minutes. Does the applicant wish to address the Commission? Is the applicant here? You don't have to, but if you'd like, okay. Great, thank you. Let's see. Actually, do you guys, anybody have questions of the applicant while we're talking about it? None? Okay, we'll move on. Let's go ahead and open the public hearing then.

At this time, we have a speaker card in person. For those that are in Zoom, if you'd like to speak on this item, please raise your hands. We'll go to you as soon as we are done with our in-person speakers. Danny?

OK, OK, again, not so much of an issue, but when I saw the map, I realized my granddaughter goes to that little private daycare center. And that was a thank you for answering the question of the noise, because that was honestly that's what brought me over. There was the noise. my question is and i don't know if i'm going to be able to phrase it right as i said i had no intent on coming up but that is how much of due diligence is done when you have a facility that's next to a school or a living structure the issue of course that comes to my mind is winco And now, of course, WinCo was built in 2003. The homes were built in 2016. And as you know, there have been some noise issues. How that slipped, I don't know. But I use that as my baseline for construction such as this. correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like it needs to be constructed. I think it's just a field right now. And so with that being the case, does the school, the facility know that because they have little kids there, they take little naps and some of them are a little hyperactive and you get all that drilling and noise and all that good stuff. So again, I'm not opposed to it, of course, You know, sometimes you gotta look outside of that little area and see what the impact is going to be. That's it.

Andreas, would you mind addressing Mr. Dorman's questions? I think the first one was the noise and then the actual status of the building.

So as far as noise, the applicant doesn't expect to have any really noise-generating machines. They're mainly using squeegees and handheld tools to install the film and the tint on these windows or on the vehicle's windows. And then as far as the building's completion, they are currently building and we're expecting them to finish building pretty soon here. And then as far as the school, they should have been notified when the building was approved as well as the CUP. So they should be well aware.

Any more speaking cards in person?

At this time, we have no other speaker cards for those in person. We'll go to Zoom. If you'd like to speak, please raise your hand. We have no speakers in Zoom.

Could I entertain a motion to close public hearing?

Make a motion to close public hearing. Second.

What, roll call?

Roll call vote. Before we go to roll call vote, Vice Chair Flohr, is there anything you'd like to state?

Oh, yes. My wife is still in the room with me. Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Flohr. Commissioner Johnson?

Aye.

Commissioner Jones?

Aye.

Commissioner Roberts? Aye. Vice Chair Flohr?

Aye.

Chairperson Brand?

Aye.

Motion carries.

Right. Moving on to discussion. Any comments, questions, concerns? Oh yeah, Commissioner Roberts.

Yeah, so if I may, I live over in that neighborhood and I pass by your place often, daily. Do you anticipate any parking issues with that thing going on across the street? I guess they'll have parking, but I see that you have parking also. Are you anticipating that there might be a need for more parking beyond what you have, i.e. street parking?

I believe, just to, oh, I'll let the applicant go.

Yes, thank you. In terms of the parking situation, we have six employees that will have their vehicles there. And then as stated previously, we do eight vehicles a day on average. And we're aware that there are 24 spots available. So we don't anticipate any issues with parking. As far as vehicles being worked on, those are all going to be inside. So they won't be taking up any spaces.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I think one thing to point out as well is that this was, when we approved this back in 2025, it was a multi, and you can see this in the design, is that it was meant for three different businesses. This business has opted to take all three. So they get all 24 spaces just to yourself. So that's a big win for sure. Commissioner Johnson, did you have anything? Commissioner Jones?

Nothing to add other than I'm happy to entertain a motion or make a motion.

Okay, real quick. Vice Chair, any comments?

Do you need that? Sorry. Sure. I just want to quickly say that I Just a couple of years ago, we bought a new car and we had it wrapped and tinted and we had to go to Pittsburgh to do it. I can tell you that I was at the shop quite a bit while they were working because there were other cars going on when we were there. And I didn't hear a lot of noise. So I really have confidence that this will be a reasonably quiet business, just the normal comings and goings of a business. And I'm actually glad that... that there's a possibility there might be a business like this here. And Brentwood, I think it'd be very good for the community. Thanks.

Thank you, Vice Chair Flores. Yeah, I just I did want to comment as well, the fact that, you know, it's kind of, I would say it's difficult to have a vehicle in Brentwood without some kind of ceramic tint, because it's so hot. And having any ability to reflect that heat out is, is great. So I just, you know, just wanted to make that comment as well. And then, yeah, I think the one thing was that, yeah, it was just that it was, this is a, we had to classify this as an automotive use because it didn't fit like the normal mold of like an oil change facility or like a mechanic or anything like that. So I imagine that that was interesting. And then the What did I write down here?

Yeah, that was the cup. And then, yeah, all of those, okay.

That's all I have. I'll entertain a motion if no other discussion.

Yeah, I make a motion to adopt resolution number 26-020, approving conditional use permit number 26-001, subject to certain findings and conditions. I second.

We'll take a roll call vote. Vice Chair Bloor?

I do still have my wife here with me.

Awesome, thank you. Excuse me, Commissioner Johnson?

Aye.

Commissioner Jones? Aye. Commissioner Roberts? Aye. Vice Chair Flohr?

Aye.

Chairperson Brand? Aye. Motion carries 5-0.

Congratulations. Thanks, guys. Okay. Moving on to item E3, conditional use permit again for Magano's Well to sell alcohol for on-site consumption beyond 10 p.m. on certain days. And the staff report with Miguel Contreras.

Thank you, Chair. Good evening to the Commission. Good evening to the members of the public. Miguel, I'm here to present Magano's Well, CUP 26-003. which is located at 235 Oak Street within the downtown specific plan, specifically the downtown core. The restaurant's formerly Rubiano's, for those of you who remember it. Magano's well currently operates with a type 47 ABC license, and they currently sell alcohol up until 10 p.m. as allowed by the DSP. The specific request is to increase the hours for alcohol sales for on-site consumption to 11.30 p.m. on the following days, which is Friday through Sunday and the holidays on the screen. Just please note that... Some of these holidays aren't necessarily federally recognized holidays, such as St. Patrick's Day or Cinco de Mayo. The applicant does not propose any changes to the ABC license type. It will still stay a type 47. Type 47, just for clarifications, allows for the sale of beer, wine, and spirits, along with food, which is a requirement. And the project has been conditioned that if they ever want to switch to a different alcohol license type, they would have to come before this commission for that approval. The project as proposed is consistent with the DSP. It qualifies as a class one exemption for existing facilities under CEQA, and staff would recommend that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution to approve CUP 26-003, subject to certain findings and conditions. That would conclude staff's presentation.

Thank you, Miguel. Any questions of staff? Oh, Commissioner Johnson.

How many restaurants are open on the downtown core at 11.30 at night?

The restaurants that are open beyond 10 p.m. at night, it's gonna be Crown and Crow.

Yeah, I don't recall. I know they stopped serving food at some point. I just don't recall off the top of my head, but I don't think Crown and Crow sells food. But yeah, I get to the gist of your question. Yeah. Any other questions of staff? Oh yeah, Vice Chair Flor.

Yeah, I was just wondering if staff had had any input from BPD on how they feel about having this open at this hour downtown?

Yeah, prior to, actually during when I was writing my staff report, I did reach out to PD to verify if there had been any complaints with the current owner, which is McDonald's as well. Dating back for the past two, three months, BPD indicated they haven't had any complaints or any issues. The only kind of an issue they had is that they did a wellness check for a drunk person that happened to be by McConnell's Well, but it wasn't established that it was due to the actual restaurant, and that was a month, month and a half ago. Outside of that, BPD did not comment on any opposition to the proposed CUP.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Jones? And just to follow up, so police looked at the calls for service or problems just associated in that area, not specific to Magana's Well?

When I posed the question, it was specific to Magana's Well. Specific, okay, thank you.

And you had mentioned that you did a assessment for two to three months

Yeah, dating back two to three months prior to when I wrote the staff report. Thank you.

Okay, any other, yeah, no, go ahead.

Thank you, one more, and again, just for clarity, the current hours of what it is minus the alcohol is still going till, is it 10 o'clock?

The current hours for alcohol sales stops at 10. Correct.

But the restaurant can continue.

Thank you.

All right. Last chance for questions. Otherwise, we'll move on. Okay. Fabulous. The see the at this time the public is permitted to address the Planning Commission remarks are limited to three minutes per person except for the applicant who will have 10 minutes. Does the applicant want to address the commission? Excellent.

paper here somewhere. Good evening. Can you hear me?

If you want, you can also lower the, or the whole thing goes down too.

Can you hear me? Too close. Anyway, my name is Ray Elizondo. I'm the owner of Nagano as well. But before I start, I wanted to say that I shop at Mercadito. I love Jalisco's. I get my cars done at 10 tax so i've been here, three years and I shop everywhere in Brentwood I give you guys a lot of thumbs up so. i'm the owner mcgonnell's well i'm asking for a cup that will allow my restaurant to remain open past 10pm on Fridays Saturdays and holidays. and holiday eve's depending on which day will attract more diners who choose to enjoy an evening out for dinner. I am asking for alcohol sales up to 1130pm on the select days, the restaurant will also serve up until 10pm or 1030pm depending on how busy you're doing on that given day our intent is to close the doors at 12am on these extended days of service. I have zero experience in both restaurant and bar industry. I own and operate a logistics company that operates in the western half of the country. We transport e-commerce products from first mile to middle mile and have been providing logistics movements at this level since 1998. My trucking business has been successful and has allowed me the opportunity to step into this new venture. What better way to retire as I turn 70 this week than to open a restaurant? I could not have planned a better ending. I was not looking to get into this industry, but I received a call Well, at the Giants opener this year and was presented with one of those rare deals that seemed too good to be true. And I jumped on it knowing all too well that it was an ideal investment. I spent hours researching this industry and have learned so much in the past few months, which has led me to this day. Apparently restaurant sales peak on weekends at the later hours and restaurant patrons flock to local establishments that are open later on weekends, with most of them living within a few miles of those establishments. I moved out to Brentwood in 2023 and as a single person, I enjoy dining out to dinner, but I have found that besides Denny's and BJ's, there are not a lot of choices to have a full sit down meal after hours. The decision to stay open later is based on providing the downtown location that is convenient to those looking to eat out late with a full menu service. I plan to make Magano's Well the go-to venue for sports and we'll offer the NFL ticket as well as all major sporting events. Our pizza menu provides a place for families to come and have their kids enjoy their favorite pizza while their parents enjoy one of the many games we plan to show daily. I have already been approached by several individuals who want to run out the overflow dining room for the Super Bowl. And we intend to make this room available for special events such as team awards, birthday parties, and family gatherings. The combination of sports and pizza will be a great attraction to downtown vibe. And with our middle of the block footprint, we'll provide a unique setting for all our patrons. Just to touch. on the name of the restaurant. I won't give you my extended version, but I will give you the reasoning behind selecting Magano's. I have presented this question to several locals who have been living here for decades, and I have yet not found anyone who knows the meaning of Magano's and what it represents to this region. in the early 1800s the spaniards came here and they discovered nothing but sand dunes and in spanish sand dunes means meganos and they named this place rancho los meganos in doing my research i said i'm going to name it meganos i also own some property on camino diablo and on sunset and it's a lot of sand and my wells have made it flourish i've got lots of trees i grow avocados it's fantastic so i appreciate the megano's name and the well name so it's called megano's well I'm gonna add that story to the back of the menu and put a plaque up. I'm ending by thanking you to allow me this opportunity and I truly hope that you will see the bright future this restaurant will bring to the downtown area. That's it. I had other comments but my partner here said don't say them.

Any questions to the applicant while he's up? Seeing none. Oh, Commissioner Roberts.

So you'll be selling food the entire time on this extended and it just be on the weekend, correct?

Correct. And just to add to that food question, this gentleman here brought it up. Zephyr uses the same POS I use. And POS, if you're not familiar, is a point of sale instrument. They detail the food and beverage separately. At the end of the day, I can print out a report how much food I sold, how much alcohol I sold. It's an easy thing. Zephyr can do it. Any restaurant can do it. We're not using cash registers with keys and a register that pops out. That's very old school. Just so people know. Yes, food will be sold at all hours.

Okay.

Thank you. Any other questions, applicant?

Just quick, do you anticipate that Sunday in particular, I understand Friday and Saturday, but do you anticipate that Sunday's sales at 11.30 will be as high or there's a demand for the Sunday as much as there is on Friday and Saturday?

Sadly, there's not much foot traffic downtown. I just want to have that option open should downtown start becoming the vibrant downtown it should be. But I want to have that option. But I see Fridays and Saturdays as two principal days. Right now we stay open until 10, but there are several nights that we close at 9 because downtown just becomes a dead zone.

On Friday and Saturday, you mean? Yeah.

If I can add something, I know it's off script, But I stay late and I sometimes catch Uber home and I sit outside on the bench and you guys got the sewage program going on in the alley. And it's really, really bringing out a lot of rodents and roaches. I see them when I sit on there waiting for my Uber. So I know that's affecting some of the locations downtown. I fear it's going to impact my restaurant. Our people come in every day and we scan behind the kitchen equipment. We look behind tables, chairs. It's very difficult right now. You sit out there at 1130 at night, you can see them crossing the road. I don't know if you guys took any preventive measures when you did the sewage, but someone should have investigated what's going to happen when they drill down there and release them all.

Eric, can you take a note of that? I'm not sure what to do with that information, but I imagine staff does. Yes, sir. Okay. Sorry. If you do continue to have a problem, I mean, staff is usually very open to respond accordingly and take action when needed. So, yeah.

Can we also stop the kids from riding electric bikes on the sidewalk?

That's a fantastic question that I don't have a fantastic answer for.

I feel that in the very near future, I'm going to have flowers and candles in front of my restaurant. I'm serious. Someone's going to get hurt. At 35 miles an hour, those bikes can knock a 200-pound man a block away. And they zoom by every day. And it's going to take a tragic accident, but I think you guys will eventually do something about it.

Yeah, mass times velocity. That's how you get it, right? Okay, thank you. Thank you. Sorry, Commissioner Roberts, go ahead.

Talk to me about the music and the outdoor scenario with music. Is that going to be something that you are going to continue on the weekend?

No outdoor. We will never use the outdoor facility. I installed windows that slide open. and the band will play inside, and it won't be big-time bands. I'm looking at James Taylor, Carly Simon, light music, nothing heavy. This is my crowd, or the patrons, I expect, are going to be couples over 40, families with their kids, you know, very mellow. No big, huge JBL boxes going off.

Okay. Thank you for answering.

Okay, anything else, sir?

I said it all.

Okay, thank you. All right, let's move into public comment. April?

At this time, we have several speakers here in the chambers, but just wanna make an announcement to those that are on Zoom. If you'd like to speak on this item, please raise your hand now. Our first speaker is Danny.

I like this guy. And I'm conflicted. I really am. You guys know I talked to you earlier. Because you could have taken his name out, put the Emporium in there. And as a matter of fact, take his name out and put the Emporium in there. Either way. There are nine bars that disguise themselves as restaurants. Now what's interesting, and maybe that could be part of the CUP, and maybe this gentleman wouldn't mind being the experiment, the point of sales. That is a way to track what the percentages are of liquor and food. And if they are following the appropriate, whatever falls under type 47, well then that's a beautiful thing. And if they're not, then maybe they need to come up and explain themselves, or maybe have to get a different liquor license to represent what they truly are, which are bars. Now I was gonna go into a whole thing, but I like this guy, I like what he has. And I think he legitimately would be more of the restaurant that serves than the other restaurants that pretend to be restaurants. He sounds like he's that kind of guy. And I honestly believe if you threw in the CUP that on a regular basis staff has to see the distribution of food versus beverages to keep everyone honest. But like I said, he sounds like Viddy And same circumstance wants to change the alcohol type he's at the downtown specific and he's doing this with the best of intentions and, as I clarify to Commissioner Johnson, who said. The emporium didn't have. A kitchen I corrected them, yes, they do have a kitchen so it like I said. Substitute one, put in the other. Let your conscience be your guide.

Quickly, Mr. Dorman's comment about, sorry, I'm paraphrasing here. Enforcement, how does community development typically exercise that, if at all? I'm not familiar with a process like that in which receipts are reviewed to I think you're referring to the 50% plus $1 or whatever and Miguel maybe

So looking at the actual language from ABC on the type 47, what it states is that it must maintain suitable kitchen facilities and must make actual and substantial sales of meals for consumption on the premise. So type 47 doesn't have a 50%. It says substantial, which is that's kind of going to be the hard part to tack down of what exactly is substantial, 40, 45, 50, 60%. That's where it becomes a little tough for us. And then in terms of actual, how do we keep track of this? If say, for instance, you allow them to operate only on the weekends and we receive a complaint that, hey, they're open on a Tuesday, that's one method is through complaints. Other methods is, for example, if PD has to get involved, that's another way of keeping track of them.

Eric do you have any any other yeah thanks we all know and I will say that's a pretty unique scenario where staff would get in that level of detail I'm not aware that we've ever placed a condition of approval on a project as such we do investigate complaints of course and those are filtered through our community enrichment staff and to the extent that they involve you know planning issues we will get involved but I I've never seen that happen before

Okay, that was my understanding as well. I just figured I'd bring it out there. Okay, thank you. April, anybody? Oh, I'm sorry, Vice Chair, go ahead.

Yeah, I just want to weigh in on the question of whether the city would monitor the receipts for food versus alcohol. And this is, I think it's important for the community to understand The city does not issue the type 47 license. The ABC, the California State ABC issues the type 47 license. We're just saying that somebody with that kind of license can operate at this location. And so the actual enforcement that the operator uh maintains requirements of the type 47 including the uh the revenue flow would fall on the state more than the city the city would enforce the hours this is what this cup is discussing is whether or not to allow the restaurant to operate past the hour of 10 o'clock and if that was allowed um and only on certain days, then the city would certainly take an interest in complaints about the person operating at a different time. But no, the receipts are not something that the city would be responsible for looking at. That would be the ABC. I just wanted to get that out there because it It's been a topic of confusion in the past. The public doesn't understand that we don't issue the license. We just say that a person with a certain kind of license can have a business at a certain location for the CUP. Thanks.

Thank you, Vice Chair. April.

We have additional speaker here in the chambers and then we'll be going to Zoom. So if you'd like to speak on this item, please raise your hand. Buck.

Yeah, I'm Buck Kleckner. I live in Brentwood. I live in Garen Ranch there. I feel Brentwood actually is two different locations. Yeah, the brick and mortar stores over by Lone Tree and over by Sand Creek. I don't like that area. I don't go out and eat that area. The thing is I go to Brentwood, downtown Brentwood. I think it's a family area. I live with my grandkids and my son, and we feel very safe in this area. And I've been in his restaurant twice already since he opened up. I met him on, before the July 4th parade, and I asked him when he's opening up, he says, well, I open up on the weekends and everything, and I feel very comfortable. He's done a great job at remodeling, and I think he's a great addition. It'll be no problem with his alcohol there. Thanks a lot, have a good day.

At this time, we have no other speakers here in the chambers, and we have no hands raised in Zoom.

Thank you, April. Let's see, moving on. So, do I have a motion to close public hearing?

So moved.

All second?

Roll call vote. Vice Chair Flor. You're on mute. One more time.

Sorry about that, my wife is still in the room with me.

Thank you, Vice Chair Flohr. Commissioner Johnson.

Aye.

Commissioner Jones.

Aye.

Commissioner Roberts.

Aye.

Vice Chair Flohr.

Aye.

Chairperson Brand.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Great, on to discussion. Any topics to bring up? Or, yep, Commissioner Roberts.

So, you know, I think it's a great idea. My only concern is, you know, on the weekend when we're talking about only pulling data for the last two months from the PD and we just had this conversation, correct me if I'm wrong, about another entity that wanted to come into the downtown area. And we talked about PD not having enough coverage. Here we are on a weekend. I think it's a great idea. My bigger concern is because it's just the weekend, it's a CUP, one, two, When we talk about holidays, if these are holidays exclusively, great. But I also heard the gentleman say something about Super Bowl parties, folks that want to do special events. And they might go a little later. I don't know if that falls into this, this, this, uh, additional time that's being noted here in the packet, these other events, or is, are we just talking exclusively with the following holidays as listed? I'm not sure. And maybe Miguel can answer that. Uh, because I did hear the gentleman say that he's keeping himself open for other events and I got to tell you, I get it. But I also get that it's downtown. It's midnight. Last call, I believe, was 1130. And the place is supposed to close at 12. There's a lot going on there. And so I do have a concern about that downtown and the neighbors in that neighborhood. There were no... complaints or no one wrote in, I don't know. We made a submission to the neighborhood, I think, as we should, but I am concerned about the weekend, Friday and Saturday. Sunday, I don't understand why we'd need to keep this thing open for an additional 1.5 hours on Sunday, Sunday night, people are getting up to go to work. Those are my thoughts.

Thank you, Commissioner Roberts. Commissioner Johnson.

I guess I do believe, I'm kinda leaning towards having the CUP. I would say that I am with Commissioner Roberts on the Sunday, but I, But I recognize that we want businesses to flourish. And I think people want to have places to go in Brentwood. Right now, there's really, I think the gentleman said, you got to go to Lone Tree or something like that. There's really no place to go in Brentwood. So I would... Personally, I would think that maybe Thursday, Friday, Saturday versus Friday, Saturday, Sunday, that's me. I agree with you on the Sundays and people getting up to work and go to work and that sort of thing. And the only other concern that I had was... was the holidays. Because some holidays fall on Monday or a lot of holidays. Well, I got to look at the list again. But may fall on a Monday or something to that effect. But personally, I think we need to try to allow businesses to grow. And I think the community needs to have places to visit, I do agree with you on the Sunday. I do agree with that. I've been willing to go Thursday, Friday, Saturday more than I am Friday, Saturday, Sunday. That's where I... And then the only other concern I have is, because the spirit of what he's asking, what the gentleman is asking for is really weekends when businesses are gonna thrive, you know, his most busiest days of the week. I think Thursday might be the third.

Third.

Just a moment, let's let him finish.

Thursday might be the third most busiest day of the week there. So I'd be more amenable to that. I'm not quite sure in my mind, I'm open on holidays and when holidays fall on a Monday, I don't know how that works exactly, but I think the spirit of what he was trying to do was to build business on the weekends and I'm with that program.

Sir, do you wanna just make a quick comment? Yeah, please.

Chair Brand, so in order to invite speakers back up, we gotta reopen the public hearing and we need a vote and everything.

Even the public, the applicant?

Yeah, that's part of the public hearing. So if we're going to reopen it, we've got to reopen it to everybody.

I'm going to trust you here for a moment. How critical? Because it's a whole process for us to reopen.

I just want to answer the Sunday. That's all.

The Sunday question.

You can do it. I just need a vote to reopen the public hearing.

Let's reopen public hearing.

Can you move?

I'll second that.

Roll call vote. Vice Chair Flores?

My wife is still in the room with me.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Commissioner Johnson?

Aye.

Commissioner Jones?

Aye.

Commissioner Roberts? Aye. Vice Chair Flores?

Aye.

Chairperson Brand?

Aye.

Motion carries.

Sundays. He's right. Sunday is probably going to be a Sunday where Monday's a holiday. So there is nobody getting up early to go to work. And these parties, people have been coming into the restaurant since I've been open, telling me about their kid's birthday party and their bridal parties. Super Bowl starts at 3 p.m., ends by 8 p.m. It's always on Sunday, and usually the whole town is awake and vibrant that night. So it's not going to be Sunday until 1130 with the next day everybody going to work. It's going to be a typical pre-holiday Sunday. And I like the Thursday idea. Maybe we can add that. But it's not what you think as far as the parties. Just about everybody wants to rent it in the afternoon and have 12 o'clock parties after a baseball event, maybe when they give out awards. So it's birthday parties, sports awards, that sort of nature of events that I would let it out for. No big bashes. That's all.

All right. And since we reopened publicly, anything else you want to say? Because I'd prefer not to have to do it again. No, no, that's it. Okay. I'm just asking. Thank you. Okay, so motion to close public hearing. So moved. Okay.

Well, let's make sure we check with the public to see if anyone else would like to speak. So anyone here in the chambers would you like to speak? Danny, is that you?

I really like this guy. Okay.

Sorry. Oh, no. Mr. Darman, before you talk, Christine, is it, since you spoke already, is that?

Yeah, I think you've already spoke on this item, so.

But you reopened public comment.

He's the applicant, so.

He still had time.

Yeah, we wanna make sure that everybody in the audience gets to, but I'll leave it up to the chair here. It's at your discretion, chair.

Do you promise me it's a good comment? I promise you it's a comment.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Okay. No. A comment was made by one of the commissioners basically implying that the public does or does not know things. And I agree. There are some things that the public does and does not know. I do know that the ABC is responsible for any type of liquor license, but it's the council that decides whether or not they can have the license. I go back to the Emporium. So you can't have it both ways. Secondly, the point of sale, I honestly think that's a great idea. And the reason why is, yes, the ABC is responsible for it, but you know what? The ABC is also responsible for if they're selling liquor after hours. Does that mean that PD doesn't come in? Does that mean the city doesn't come in? So yeah, you can use the excuse, of, oh, it's the ABC, it's the state, it's not us, but it is us. It's a conditional use permit. And if that conditional use, and by the way, I'd love to have you open on Sundays, but that's just me, I'm a drunk. The conditional use is just that. And whether it's, he can be open on Sunday, he can be open on Thursday, whatever the case may be. is within your wherewithal to ask as a condition of approval to get the information vis-a-vis point of sales receipts because you don't know. And the whole thing about you know I forgot what the verbiage was but now, all of a sudden it's yeah it's kind of Gray, what is a lot versus a little that's ridiculous okay. That is ridiculous so. AGAIN, I HOPE THE GUY GETS IT. I REALLY DO. BECAUSE, BOY, WHEN SOMEBODY WANTS TO REOPEN THE EMPORIUM, OH, I'LL BE BACK AND I'LL BE TALKING ABOUT THEM. AND I AGREE WITH YOU, COMMISSIONER, REGARDING THEY HAVE THE COPS GO BACK AND DO A THREE-MONTH THING, BUT EMPORIUM, BOY, WHAT'D THEY DO, TWO YEARS? SO IT'S LIKE, COME ON, STAFF, YOU KNOW, LET'S BE A LITTLE FAIR AND EQUITABLE WHEN IT COMES TO DUE DILIGENCE. Thank you, I really do appreciate it, Commissioner and Chairperson, for allowing me to do this.

At this time, we'll go to Zoom. If anyone in Zoom would like to speak on this item. Please raise your hand. We're gonna come back to the chambers, because we do have an additional speaker on this item. Go ahead.

Hello, my name is Sarah Mariani. I just wanted to come up for a few minutes to say that I've been a realtor in this town for 21 years. I've lived in this town since 2000. I've seen the growth. I've seen the downtown change numerous times. We have a wonderful community. Absolutely love Brentwood and what it's turned into. McDonough's Well, amazing. I've watched it. just transform and it's been a beautiful thing to see. I think it's going to be a great thing for downtown and I also know the owner so I know that he's very responsible and the extending of the one and a half hour program you know, on the days that he's asked for, I see it as being a good thing. And I know that he'll do the right thing if something were to get out of hand, which I don't see. I've been in there numerous times because, like I say, my son also works there. You know, it's just a great family place, honestly. And It's a great place for people to gather. I see people all the time. I know a number of people in town and people really seem to enjoy it. And as it grows, I think it's going to be just an amazing place. So thank you.

At this time, we have one hand raised in Zoom. T. De Silva, go ahead.

Good evening. My name is Teresa DaSilva. I am the former owner of Rubiano's. And I just want to say, my husband and I built that restaurant to be family friendly. And when we sold the business, I got to know Ray and he prides himself on the same thing, same values, providing a space for families, for friends, for everyone to gather. Now, when you talk about only doing three months study, we never had any issues with PD because of the fact that it was a family friendly restaurant. And that's what he's trying to provide. I've seen the renovations. And it's going to be an amazing space for our downtown. With that being said, we have a lot of businesses closing downtown. La Conda's for sale. I'm sorry to say, sip and scoop, we all opened together with Joey across the street at BCBC. We need our downtown to thrive. And right now, it's back to where we were, or it's going to be back to where we were in 2018. There were so many shuttered businesses. We brought life back to downtown and I know that Ray and Magano as well will bring that. With that being said, I hope you honor and provide him the CUP because he's gonna bring an amazing space to the biggest footprint downtown. Thank you for your time.

At this time, we have no other speakers in Zoom.

Thank you, April. Motion to close public comment.

So moved.

I'll second.

Vice Chair Flohr.

Oh, my wife is still in the room with me. Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Commissioner Johnson.

Aye.

Commissioner Jones. Aye. Commissioner Roberts. Aye. Vice Chair Flohr.

Aye.

Chairperson Brand.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Wonderful, all right, thank you. Back to discussion. Commissioner Johnson, did you have any other comments we kind of left off with you?

I just want to summarize real quick to get to Commissioner Jones. My preference was to agree with Commissioner Roberts on Sundays. If the applicant wanted, I'd be flexible on Thursday, Friday, Saturday. And my only other concern was holidays, how that works. Holidays, how that works, that's my only other concern, but I'm open on that one.

Commissioner Jones? Yeah, thank you. One thing I think too to consider, and I'm putting this into play just because we've done this before, is that cup follows the land, right? Well, I'm looking at this not only from the lens of the current applicant, but also is everything we're doing today gonna make sense for future applicants potentially down the road, right? So I wanna throw that out there, but to me, I mean, again, I think the important thing is just what we're actually being asked to approve, right? an existing restaurant asking for a limited extension of alcohol service hours on certain nights. We're not approving a nightclub. We're not changing the license. We're not turning this into a standalone bar and we're not giving unlimited night hours. So I think the conditions are pretty specific. because this is gonna continue to be a type four seven restaurant use, right? Alcohol services gonna have defined cutoff. There's gonna be conditions dealing with the things that we talked about, music, entertainment, all that stuff, all those activities so that it doesn't continue late into the night with the doors open. I also think it does matter that Brentwood PD did look at this. They didn't really identify any particular concerns or additional conditions that they felt were necessary. So for me, I think all that's an important part of the equation. We have an existing restaurant, the use is allowed. There hasn't been any concerns identified by police. I think we can put reasonable conditions around the extended hours. And I think we should give the business the opportunity to do that. So I'm with my fellow commissioners that have spoken so far on taking a look at the days that were recommended, like Thursday, Friday, Saturday, very open to that. But I think what we're looking at in front of us is not something that I would certainly want to deny. I would want to do it. I'm very open, though, to having some additional conversations on what some of the tweaks we might make just to make sure that we're all feeling comfortable. But ultimately, based on what's in front of us, I'm comfortable supporting this extension. So I'll leave it at that. Thank you, Commissioner Jones.

Vice Chair Flora.

Yes, thank you. I wanted to first address that this is a type 47. And the thing about a type 47 that distinguishes it from perhaps some others is that a type 47 does not forbid anyone under the age of 21 from ever going into the establishment. And so it doesn't seem to conflict or be inconsistent with the downtown specific plan in that way. And so to me, it seems consistent that this is a family friendly business. And I did mention before that the rule about restaurant revenues or income streams is the state law. And it's not something that is specified by the city of Brentwood. And I do agree that like a lot of things that come out of Sacramento, it's not necessarily the best worded law. But when I was researching alcoholic beverage licenses previously, it seems like that as a practice, there is a 51% ish rate that seems to be a casual rule, if not specifically mentioned as a number. So I'm pretty comfortable with it. I think that it's a restaurant and it's already operating under those conditions. And so I feel like that this is a family friendly business. And I like that, that it's downtown and it's a family friendly business. Um, as far as the holiday list, uh, I only saw two holidays on there that they were looking for that were not actual holidays. And that would be the Cinco de Mayo and St. Patrick's Day. And I certainly understand why a restaurant, um, would want to celebrate these two traditional, um, holidays that are not federal holidays, but they are traditional holidays for people to go out and, um, and maybe have a dinner and a drink. So I'm pretty comfortable with that list of holidays. And I do appreciate Commissioner Jones statement. This is of course a CEP and it does follow with the building. And as you've probably gotten to know me by now, I will be the first to point out that the applicant is not the issue. it is the uh it is the appropriateness of the uh condition on the building because um unfortunately all human beings are mortal and there will be another owner in the future and they may make different choices having said that i do really appreciate um the spirit that this applicant brings to this and his his intent to make a good family friendly business that will help downtown. And I see it as from my own point of view, doing this, allowing it to stay open a little bit later on weekends is probably an appropriate step. I'm still open to discussion. And as far as the Sunday, I'm not too worried about the Sunday. I think that as the applicant has stated, that there's not gonna be a large incentive to stay open on a Sunday that's not a holiday night. But at any rate, I don't have strong feelings about it. And if I feel a consensus going, Either way, in the commission, I'm likely to be swayed. So those are basically my feelings on this. Again, it's a type 47, so it does not bar children from going in. It allows families to come together. And if a parent wants to have a cocktail or a glass of wine or something with dinner, they can. And as a parent, that's their right to make that decision. So yeah, I'm feeling pretty positive about this thing. And I'm certainly open to hearing more discussion about it. Thanks so much.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Yeah, I've been taking some notes here from my fellow commissioners, and I think I'm hearing quite a bit of consistency across the board with the five of us. I know that the topic of which days I know the kind of talk between Thursday and Sunday has been brought up. This idea of the variety of business choices. I know I just did a quick search and there's not a whole lot of restaurant, sit down restaurants that are open past 10 o'clock in Brentwood. And I think that's, it's something to call out. Like, you know, you have somebody in from out of town, their flight gets in at 9.30 and they're like, hey, we should go out to eat. Well, this might be an example of some place that is the only one that's open. and uh and it's really funny that i'm you know i'm a i'm a father of four and i love family friendly things and and yet i'm almost i almost kind of don't care that it's family friendly or whatever but uh in any case i uh i you know downtown i think we've made these comments before i mean thank you for calling in mr silva as well um I see options like this as being really flexible personally. I see that adding another hour and a half, 90 minutes or so to the time after 10 isn't outlandish. It's not... like to think and and very frankly too you know everybody downtown that has a conditional use permit for the most part are are required to follow the same rules uh we we've got all the conditions of approval which are very you know uh explicitly listed in the actual permit itself so it's it's not it's not anything out of the unusual so when it when these talks of enforcement and all this kind of stuff come up it's like that's why it's called a cup and And really and truly when we talk about conditional use permits as a whole, it's trying to make sense out of something which falls into a gray area when it comes to zoning. And so this body has to make a meaningful decision based off of a variety of variables, some seen, some unseen, where we have to make a call. And that's why there's five of us, so that we can disagree with one another. Or agree, you know, one of the two or both. But in any case, Sundays versus Thursdays, I don't really mind one way or the other personally, because that's kind of the off days. When I look at the other flexible hours that I see with downtown establishments, it's usually Fridays and Saturdays. Those are the hot days, obviously. But, you know, if, as was said as well, it's like, you know, the... The permit that follows this right now is a 47. They're not asking for a change. If a change of permit was required, it would require a different conditional use permit. If, for example, Sunday was approved and he wanted Thursday instead, Eric checked my math on this, but he'd probably need another conditional use permit to be able to open on Thursdays as well. If it was separate from this resolution.

Yeah, I mean, you'd want to take care of as much as you could with this resolution, because if there are future changes, that would require future planning commission review.

Yeah, yeah. And so in this case, the applicant is asking for Friday, Saturday, Sunday. So I mean, in a more perfect world, we would definitely try and proceed as close to the original ask as possible from just a formality standpoint. I wanted to, there was one comment about the breadth of pamphlets that went out. So presumably within our 1,000 foot radius, I would imagine that's at least a couple thousand households. Do we have a ballpark on that as far as how many people were notified? I don't know, Miguel, maybe you know.

I think this question probably better suited for April since she does the actual noticing.

Yeah, give me a moment because I have to look that up.

I mean, even if it's just, I just wanted to have a number there.

I'll check. I process every public hearing notice, so I don't really have that roughly, but give me a moment.

Okay. While she's looking on that, yeah, I think Brentwood residents are interested in variety. It's one of the number one things I hear about when I talk to people is like, We want different restaurants. We want different options for people to do. And I'm definitely, I love the idea. I love the connection to the local span. I apologize, I couldn't remember exactly what you said. It was something in relation to the sand dunes, the origins of the term Magano. I'm a history guy, so I love that kind of stuff. And then, what else did I take? Comments about downtown being exceptionally safe. I think we pride that, I know Brent would, Police does a fantastic job of patrolling downtown, particularly after hours. I think they demonstrate a great presence there in the after hours time, that being after the 10 p.m. period or so, particularly on weekends. And then, yeah, that's all I have. So, I mean, I give that. I'm hearing mostly positive agreement here, so I... Oh, sorry. Commissioner Roberts, go ahead.

I'm going to stick with Friday and Saturday. The gentleman did come up. He communicated very clearly that this was his segue into retirement. He doesn't know anything about restaurants, but I do believe that based on what I'm hearing, it looks like it's going to be a good plus for downtown. I'm still adamant about a midnight meeting close on Sunday. I'm just thinking about the residents in the neighborhood. I mean, it's 50-50. Do people go out and socialize late? I know NFL is, and I'm a big football person, Typically, if you are going to be watching games on the West Coast, some of them might start later than others on the East Coast. I just want us to be sensitive to the residents in that neighborhood with midnight close last call 1130 on Sunday. And frankly, for Thursdays, why Thursdays? I mean, folks are still getting up on Friday. I would like to keep it on Friday and Saturday. That's just my take. FRIDAY AND SATURDAY. AND THEN, OF COURSE, THE GENTLEMEN CAN COME BACK AT A LATER TIME AND COME TO THIS COMMISSION AND ASK FOR SOMETHING ELSE. BUT I'M MINDFUL OF THE CUP AND THAT REGARDLESS, IT IS JUST 1.5 ADDITIONAL HOURS, BUT THE CUP GOES ON INTO PERPETUITY. I DON'T KNOW THAT I'M COMFORTABLE WITH KEEPING A RESTAURANT OPEN DOWNTOWN UNTIL MIDNIGHT ON SUNDAY.

THROUGH THE CHAIR. I HAVE THAT NUMBER FOR YOU AS WELL. IT'S A THOUSAND FOOT RADIUS TO SITE OWNERS AND THE TOTAL IS 153. OH, WOW.

I WOULD HAVE NOT DONE WELL IN PRICE IS RIGHT ON THAT ONE. COMMISSIONER JONES, DID YOU HAVE A I hear your gears turning. Oh, yeah, Commissioner Johnson, go ahead.

So the reason why I'm looking at it as success rate of the business. So I do know that Thursday is probably his third busiest day. And so that's why Thursday versus, and I agree with you on Sunday, is to try to give the business the business an ability to make additional funds. Now, you said 90 minutes. Let me tell you something. 90 minutes can be three sales or four sales. And in a restaurant, I don't know how many tabletops he has in there. That's a lot. That's a lot. And I want to try to ensure that He's successful in there, and we give them all the way to be successful. And as far as the CUP continuing on in perpetuity, We want any business that's there 10 years down the road, five years down the road, we want them to be successful. If it's going to be a restaurant, obviously, that depends on if it's a restaurant with ABC license 47. If it's that, we want it to be successful. If it's something else, then they're going to have to come back before us. But that's why Thursday. I tend to lean with you on Sunday, though. Commissioner Jones?

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with Commissioner Johnson. I completely understand what you're saying, Commissioner Roberts. The part where we were saying my gears were kind of going is if this was a... You know type for a like nightclub status style operation, I would have a lot of concerns on a on a Thursday right. But I think, given the the license type and this being a restaurant. I just I just wonder, you know how how. potentially concerning it could get, right? I just don't see it happening with more of a restaurant style atmosphere. So I'm inclined more to, well, the other piece I'll say too, because the resident piece is a really good point and it's something that has to be factored in. But I also, when I look at the location of this particular spot, I think there's enough buffer there to alleviate some of those concerns. So I would go with Thursday, Friday, Saturday, I think is where I would lean. But again, happy to hear what others have to say and we can go from there.

I would say my only concern is now we've got ask the applicant if they're amenable to, do they prefer Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and I mean, if, I mean, we haven't heard from, if I may, yeah.

I'm sorry, I'm just, I'm looking at one of the, you know, as part of the motion, it's saying on certain days of the week. Does that open this up a little bit to?

It's in the motion that's on the red line.

do you know do we need to put the specific are we looking to do the specific days of of this we need to yeah and miguel can confirm but as i'm reading the draft resolution it specifies you know what where the extended hours would apply to so i would recommend that yeah as to asking the applicant again again you're welcome to do that but you'd be reopening the hearing so i i would say you know you've you've heard from the applicant and it's just deliberation time yeah whatever the commission's comfortable with in terms of emotion thank you yeah um before we chair brand yes i literally took the words out of my mouth yeah yeah before before we um go to contemplating reopening public comment and whatnot

I just want to kind of summarize where I'm at because and where I where I feel the commission is at at the moment. And I think we're rolling towards a consensus. And as far as the just on the procedural thing, as far as the the the motion itself, it refers to the certain days as stated in the resolution. So what we would do is in the past, we usually uh spoken to the attorney if we want to make a small change to the actual resolution and then we'll uh we'll amendment we'll amend the motion to say as as noted in the version that's up on the screen so that would take care of that whatever we we come up to as far as the days here i feel like Right now, I don't have strong feelings on either of these two options of not allowing Sunday or allowing Thursday. I don't have a strong feeling. And so I just want a sense of consensus among my fellow commissioners before I lean one way or the other. And I think I hear at least three commissioners leaning towards saying no to Sundays. So I think I feel a consensus there. uh thursday i know that there's um i think at least one strong objection to allowing thursday and i hear i hear two that are kind of in favor of it and so um i kind of like uh i i don't know that there's a consensus on thursday yet so it'd be hard for me to vote for it um and so i'm still i'm still waiting to hear for that from that um and i i think that the um the applicant and just to address your question chair brandt had mentioned uh just briefly that he was open to staying upon sunday on thursday he didn't mind it too much and um and i think we already heard from him on sunday as well so i i'm not sure we need to reopen public comment at this time thanks yeah and that that seems to be the uh sort of gathered consensus at this rate is

Thursday preference over Sunday, the applicant is amenable to that. Are there any other, so we talked timing, the holidays, I have not heard any, I believe you had some comments about what days they land on or something, did I get that right?

Nobody seems to have that issue, so I will move off of that.

Okay.

So when it comes to the holidays, I want to make it clear that those are the holidays noted in the packet. And if there were additional holidays that should come into this communication, that they would have to come back before the Planning Commission. I want to make that real clear. Okay, then I'm ready to make a motion.

I think the only exception, and check my math on this, is that if another holiday, maybe that's not listed here, happened. Okay, so.

Let me just say this, okay. I make a motion to adopt resolution 26-019, approving CUP 26-003, allowing the sale of alcohol between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. That's a slight...

instead of saying certain days of the week through the chair can i ask a quick question of um commissioner johnson yes i i heard you say to 11 p.m did you mean 11 30. excuse me okay if i said that i made a mistake i'd like to offer a friendly amendment sure i i would just amend that and then that to say um uh

that we're amending the Texas CUP. Chrissy, we've done this before and I would defer to legal to help us understand the correct phrasing for the motion.

Thanks, Vice Chair Flor. As I see it tonight, it looks like Commissioner Johnson, your motion is to potentially amend condition of approval number seven. If you might pull that up on your screen, it's condition of approval number seven at the end of your resolution. It states the permitted hours of alcohol sales for on-site consumption are as follows, and it provides the days of the week and the list of holidays that staff has recommended, and it is included in the resolution. So you could adopt the resolution as is, but with any changes to COA number seven that you want to propose.

So I would adopt it. I would just change from Sunday to Thursday. That's the only thing that we're talking about right now.

yeah and one other thing just to follow up on what Christie mentioned, there are other areas of the resolution towards the top, where we address days during like findings, so if that is in fact the motion that gets adopted, we would also adjust the resolution accordingly so it's consistent.

So what would I read?

Oh, let's be careful.

Yeah, direct me now. So just direct me to where I would read this.

So for example, on page two of the resolution under finding four, it references that proposed alcohol sales and consumption, including the requested extension of service hours until 11.30 p.m. on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays. So we would adjust that to read Thursdays, Fridays, and Saturdays to be consistent with the change to condition seven, if that's what gets adopted. I'm sorry.

No, that's right. The only other thing too is it only references federal holidays. And I know there's two in there that aren't in that item.

Yeah, in that list. So just we could amend that to just say and the holidays referenced in condition of reference.

Yeah, okay, great.

Correct. So when I read the motion, I would just read the motion with just saying, on certain days with the amendments that we agree, how do I read this?

Yeah, you can just say you're making the motion to adopt the resolution as is with amendments to condition number seven and throughout the recitals and findings of the resolution to confirm consistency with updated condition number seven. Does that sound good?

I was good up until a moment there.

Oh, you got it. If you want to make the motion that I just made, I think you can just refer to it and we'll have it for the record.

Okay. I make a motion to adopt resolution 26-019, approving the CUP 26-003, allowing the sale of alcohol from 10 p.m. to 11.30 p.m. on certain days of the week. I will reference our attorney's statement prior to this, changing the date from Sunday to Thursday.

Yeah, and again, just to clarify that that change would be reflected primarily in condition of approval number seven, and then that staff would make the other adjustments throughout the resolution for consistency.

And that change will be reflected in number seven, and that staff will make the adjustments to the said document.

And Commissioner Johnson, did you also want to allow St. Pat's and Cinco de Mayo? Yes.

All of the holidays that were listed in the document.

That's right. I'll second that. Okay, roll call vote, please.

Vice Chair Fluor.

My wife is still in the room with me.

Thank you. Commissioner Johnson?

Aye.

Commissioner Jones? Aye. Commissioner Roberts? Aye. Vice Chair Fluor?

Aye.

Chairperson Brand?

Aye.

Motion carries 5-0.

Congratulations.

Okay.

Do we need a bio break? Okay. We'll take, let's take 10 minutes. We'll be right back.

Thank you.

My name is on here.

All right, are we all set? Excellent, okay, we will resume. Moving on to business items, item F1. General plan conformance review for the East County Service Center project, including Contra Costa County's recent acquisition of a 5.06 acre parcel to include within the scope of the project, the staff report from Eric Nolthenius.

Good evening, Chairperson Brand, Vice Chairperson Flor and Commissioners. I do have the pleasure of presenting this fairly unique item tonight, so thank you for your patience as we work our way through the presentation. I've got about eight slides. Some of this is background, some of it's maps, so hopefully it's not too painful. I'm certainly happy to answer any questions when we conclude. So just gonna start with orienting everybody to where the project is actually located. I have the site, excuse me, identified in red here. This is a fairly recent aerial photograph. Directly north of the project site is Technology Way. You'll notice the building on the corner on the north side of Technology Way currently under construction. That's where Tintix will be locating. You considered that application earlier tonight. Directly east of that is the Goddard School. There's a couple of vacant parcels on Technology Court. And then on the corner of Technology Way and Brentwood Boulevard is the Auto Zone. Directly east of the site is Brentwood Boulevard itself, across which is some commercial retail and office developments. The direct south of the site is currently vacant. It is proposed for development. You may be familiar with an application called Emblem that's been proposed for a number of years and currently not really moving forward, but it's still technically active and on the books. And then directly west of the site is a portion of the Silvergate apartment complex. You'll notice the clubhouse and the pool there in that southwest corner of the site. And then we also have the Coppergate townhome development to the west as well. The site is just under eight acres in size. It consists of seven parcels in total. There are six along Technology Way and then the large one, excuse me, the large one which fronts Brentwood Boulevard and in total they're just under eight acres in size. So this, it's not really a project, but this item does have a fairly lengthy history. I'll take you back to December of 2010 when a prior planning commission actually determined conformance to the general plan for the county's acquisition of those six parcels along Technology Way. And I included the resolution from 2010 in the agenda packet just so the commission could have it for reference. That was followed excuse me, in August of the following year by the county's actual acquisition of those six parcels. Ironically, we really haven't heard much from the county, or we hadn't until early last year when we learned that it had acquired that single larger parcel that fronts Brentwood Boulevard. However, the county did not ask for general plan conformance at that time, and I'll get that in a following slide. So then fast forwarding to January of this year, the county issued what's called a notice of public review for a proposed mitigated negative declaration to comply with CEQA. That 20 day public comment period ran from early February through basically the end of February. The city did submit comments on that document and I know several members of the public did as well. That was followed in early March with adoption of the MND by the Board of Supervisors. And then the county actually broke ground on the project and initiated site work later that month, end of March. The project itself consists of a three-story building that's approximately 120,000 square feet in size. And the primary purpose is to essentially provide a centralized service center for residents of East County. And it's an office building with approximately 10 departments that will be housed inside and various amenities. And this slide just shows the conceptual site plan that was included in the mitigated negative declaration for the project. You'll notice the rectangular shaped building itself kind of central to the site. And then the perimeter is essentially just a large parking field. So the reason that this is kind of a unique item and I don't remember the last time the commission looked at a 65402 review, definitely wasn't the current commission that we have. And it may in fact have been that 2010 commission that looked at the six parcels along technology way. But essentially the California government code and again specifically section 65402 requires the county or a county prior to either acquiring or disposing of real property and or constructing projects within a city to request conformance to the general plan in the form of a determination from that city's planning agency. And in most cases, and in Brentwood, it's the planning commission. That specific section also requires the planning commission to provide a determination within 40 days of it being requested. failure to provide that determination within that timeframe is basically deemed as a finding that it conforms to the general plan. I do wanna point out that case law recognizes the immunity between cities and counties and holds that a finding of nonconformity, if that's the finding that's made under that section, does not make that other agency's general plan binding on either the city or county. So it's kind of a, it's a funky situation. Basically what that means is the city's review is advisory and it doesn't really assert any sort of regulatory control over the county. So hopefully that helps just kind of as some background. Specific to this item, this request, as I mentioned earlier, the county did not submit a request for determination of conformance consistent with that section or the larger parcel. Again, the six parcels on technology were done prior, you know, 15 plus years ago. So that means that the statutory 40-day timeframe never really commenced because we didn't receive a request. The county did give the city a letter back in early March basically saying that the city did not have any authority to request a conformance review. The city then submitted a letter in response saying, well, We really do, and even if the county doesn't request one, we're gonna submit something to the Planning Commission anyways, which brings us to tonight. And again, as referenced previously, all the parcels have been acquired by the county, and of course the project construction has already begun, and you could see that if you drive by the site. So now getting to the general plan itself, it's kind of interesting because the seven parcels that are included within the boundaries of the project site actually have two separate land use designations. So the six that are along Technology Way, and those are about three acres in size total, those are designated as business park by the general plan. And then the southerly portion of the project site, which is that larger five acre section, is actually within the Brentwood Boulevard specific plan. And it's further defined as COIR, or Commercial Office Industrial and Residential. And it's basically a mixed use district. Based on the applicable general plan land use designations, including, by the way, their citation of offices as permitted uses, the acquisition of that larger parcel last year, and then the location, purpose, and extent of the overall project does conform to the general plan, and that's staff's determination. We also looked at goals and policies of both the general plan and the Brentwood Boulevard specific plan and did not find any that the project would be necessarily inconsistent with. The consistency is demonstrated in part through the example policies that I put into the staff report. That's not meant to be an exhaustive list, by the way, because there's a host of policies throughout both documents. But again, those were just included as example reference points for the commission. And then this image, which was also in the staff report shows that mixed designation on the project site here the site is. Excuse me identified in yellow and you'll notice the kind of light purple color on the north end BP that's the business park and then the darker red area which is the larger five acre piece that's referencing the Brentwood boulevard specific plan. In conclusion and specifically related for just a second related to CEQA, I wanted to point out that this conformance review of the county's acquisition does not trigger CEQA review because the county already conducted its own. This review itself is really advisory and non-binding. City has no discretion in terms of how the project is conducted. And it's really only meant to be for review of the county's acquisition. And regardless of the commission's determination tonight, the county can still proceed with the project as proposed. And in fact, the county is proceeding as it proposed earlier this year. Lastly, the commission's determination regarding the general plan is separate from that CEQA review. So it doesn't supersede or withdraw the comments that were previously provided by the city. And then lastly but not least, staff's recommendation to the commission is that you simply adopt a resolution as drafted, determining the project conforms to the general plan. What I did not include in the staff report and what I'm happy to talk about tonight during discussion are options the commission might have one of which is to take essentially no action. The other is if the commission disagrees and finds that the project in fact does not conform to the general plan, we could come back with a resolution to memorialize that at a future meeting. So with that, I will turn it back to the chairperson for any questions. Oh, I also wanted to point out most items slash projects have applicants. There are no applicants in this case. So it's really just me tonight along with Christy. So we'll do our best to answer your questions. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Eric. So moving on, I guess we can go to public comment. At this time, the public is permitted to address the Planning Commission. Remarks are limited to three minutes per person except for the non-existent applicant. The city has received zero public comments regarding this item. Copies of these comments would be made available to the city's website on the meeting information page. April.

At this time, we have one in-person speaker, Tracy Cosmoto.

Okay, so I've had a problem with this county. And if the county was so nice as this gentleman was notifying its residents and neighbors, perhaps it wouldn't be such a hard pill to swallow. I object to the county accepting anything because basically it says substantially conforms. No, it should conform, not mostly. And also, too, I had a whole host of things I wanted to say, but I am going to not say a lot, but I am going to say that this county, this commission has should not allow the county to come in and bulldoze their way into our city and inflict their wills onto our city without cooperating And what they're doing is they're the neighbors next to this building. For example, the county is putting an entrance on not just Brentwood Boulevard because they're going to save a spot for some building sometime in the future. However, this community next to it is going to have to suffer all this traffic for how many years? Who knows? Why can't they put an entrance on Brentwood Boulevard and then move it when the time comes? But no, they're going to go ahead and let these people who were never told go ahead and suffer. But anyway, I have a lot of issues with the county and their failure to engage or cooperate with the bare minimum. They didn't submit. I don't even know if they responded to the to the county's, to the city's comment letter. I have no idea if they responded, but perhaps they didn't, which wouldn't surprise me. But here's the gist of it. Here's what I'm going to get to the point of. I feel that this city should demand that the county watch us, take care of us. If they're not gonna cooperate, I think the city needs to sue them and make them. I think the city needs to protect the people at whatever cost and not just sit back and let them roll over us to our overall objections just because they can't. Just because it's a county, that's okay. They have to do it. They could do it. No, this city could fight these people and make them listen. Take them to court. Make them hear our voices. Don't just sit back. Oh, it's the county. Nobody can do anything. I think that's BS. I think it's BS. And you should fight for us, for the people who don't want it. Make them at least compromise. That's all I'm saying.

At this time, we have no other speakers here in person. And we have no attendees outside commissioners in Zoom.

Thank you, April. I will now close public comment. Moving into discussion. I'm sure there's a fair number of opinions on this, so. Oh, I got some. All right, Commissioner Roberts, go for it.

So let's go back to that slide that you said, there was something that was in the slide that the city objected to that was supposed to be part of the process. The city disagreed with the assertion and responded to the county on March 31st. So here's what I don't want us to do. I do not want us to have our time wasted with this lady who has put upon, and I live in that neighborhood, so I'm one of the people that unfortunately is about to suffer. I'm gonna have to move because of that traffic situation that is definitely going to occur. My concern is because it seems like at this point, looking at this, they're going to do whatever they want to do and there's nothing you can do about it short of what this speaker, what the young lady just spoke to. And I doubt seriously that the city is going to court. But it doesn't make sense for us to sit here and have the back and forth. We can put some stuff on the record, but she's gonna do what she wants to do. And she did it on purpose to begin to break ground. She broke ground to usurp the process. People were not notified. That little school definitely wasn't notified. So that you couldn't stop the construction. And right now it is so far out of control where they're actually performing construction at two o'clock in the morning to bypass heat. So that lets you know what we're dealing with and suffering through. I think that this is gonna go forward, doesn't matter what we say, doesn't matter all of the wrongs that were done here. I know I've spoken out loud about this. I'm gonna keep speaking out loud about it, but she's gonna do what she wants to do. And it's quite clear that she could care less about the residents in that neighborhood because none of them I wasn't notified. All I know is that they just broke ground and. And now we've got this big building and the first comment that is gonna be made is, oh, well, you're anti-jobs. It has nothing to do with jobs. You're transferring jobs from one place to another. And the construction, those poor guys, I don't even wanna get into, because we don't have a union here. When the construction is done, those jobs go. It's temporary. So we're not going to talk about that either. At the end of the day, this is a terrible situation that has occurred in our community. And this was set off by the county. Shame on the county and shame on Diane for doing it and bypassing all the processes, including this planning commission, to do it her way. That's all I've got to say. I might have something more to say later, but right now that's all I have to say.

Thank you, Commissioner Roberts. Commissioner Jones, yeah.

Okay. I'll keep my comments focused on just... you know what i think is the main issue here for me anyway but um before i do that i do want to i want to thank staff on this one this is like you said uh eric kind of a interesting agenda item and um i know there's you know obviously a lot of complexity behind it then and probably comes across and just reading the agenda but i know you guys have been working through just some unusual issues here and just appreciate you getting this in front of us um so We're being asked basically to make a general plan conformance finding basically after the fact and after the county has already bought the property and the construction's already underway. So the reality is whatever we do tonight, the project's happening, right? We can vote yes, we can vote no, we can decide to not make a finding at all, but the building's under construction and it's moving forward regardless. But I don't think that makes this discussion pointless. I think it's still worth having because at least we're putting our concerns on the record and we're explaining how we're looking at this just from a planning standpoint. And I think that matters for residents because they should understand where the city and this planning commission are coming from, regardless of what the county has already decided to do. But I'll add just one piece of feedback for the county. I don't know if anyone from that group's listening, but just particularly on the community outreach side, As I've talked to residents and just seen some of the online activity, I've been surprised by just how many people still don't even know what this building is. I still see people asking, what's being built over by the Jack in the Box on Brentwood Boulevard? And I've also heard concerns from people, particularly in the surrounding area, we just heard one, two actually, that there really wasn't much proactive outreach to them. um so i want to you know try and be as fair as i can i'm not saying there was no public process right i'm sure that the boxes were checked right the the legal boxes um but i'm just saying there's a difference between making information available and and really going out and engaging the people who are going to be living and working around a project this large for the foreseeable future So as the county does move forward with this, fair feedback, I'd just say be a little more proactive with the community. These are your constituents. They should know what's coming, why it's coming. They should have a meaningful chance to understand before the construction equipment shows up, and that didn't happen. I do wanna disclose too, just for the record, that during the environmental review process, the county environmental review process, I submitted some written comments about this project in my capacity as a Brentwood resident. identified myself of course as a planning commissioner, but I made clear that I was speaking only for myself and not on behalf of the city or this commission. And some of the concerns I raised then are the same concerns that I have tonight, particularly regarding location and traffic. So on the project itself, I'll say this. I'm glad the county's bringing more services to East County, right? I think having those services closer to the people who need them is a very good thing. But where I'm having a hard time is the location, right? This is a large regional facility. It's 120,000 square feet. And a lot of people using it are gonna be coming from outside Brentwood. And for many of them, the main regional access to get here is Highway 4, right? So if the facility is all the way over off Brownwood Boulevard on pretty much the opposite side of town, that means a lot of the people coming to this building are gonna have to move across basically all of Brownwood to get to it. And that traffic's gonna be on roads like Sand Creek, Balfour, Lone Tree, and of course, Brownwood Boulevard. That's interesting, right? And I understand that those are regional roads, right? They're supposed to carry regional traffic, but I don't think the fact that they're regional roads by itself is like an argument against the project per se. But I think we also hear pretty regularly from residents about traffic on these roads already. So people tell us, they're crowded, they're frustrated with how long it takes to get across town. And just traffic problems, at least from what I hear, is consistently one of the concerns that we see in the community. So now we're talking about adding 120,000 square foot county facility that's specifically designed to serve people from around the region on the opposite side of town from the main regional freeway access point. And that's where I think the question becomes important. Now I know, and I know it's referenced here, that the county's working with city on improvements around the site, that's good, but once somebody leaves Highway 4, right, they don't magically appear on Technology Way, they have to get across Brentwood First to get there. And those roads are not gonna maintain themselves. The city's gonna have to keep them in good shape and ultimately that's taxpayer money to accomplish that, right? So when we're talking about adding just more regional traffic across Brentwood, I think it's fair to ask not just what happens right around the project site, but what that means for the roads people are actually gonna use to get there. And what I'm trying to understand is whether it really makes sense to put a major regional facility this far from Highway 4 when that means more regional traffic has to travel across Brentwood on roads that are already heavily used, especially during peak hours. And that's what I'm trying to reconcile. There's another piece, too, that's part of the general plan that to me, I think, you know, makes the question even more important. And as I was looking at it, I believe it was Action LU3B says major office uses should be concentrated near the Highway 4 interchanges at Lone Tree Way, Balfour Road and Marsh Creek Road. So what I'm struggling with after reading that is whether a regional facility of this size in this location really fits with that broader direction in the general plan. And I don't think it does. Yes, the land the county building is being built on, that's being built on allows for offices. I understand that, but it's kind of mixed when you look at the various plans that that land is a part of. So we're talking about 120,000 square foot regional facility that's serving people from throughout East County. And I think it's fair to ask whether this is really the kind of location our general plans point us toward for this type of major office use. Again, this isn't about whether county services are good or bad, and it certainly isn't about whether I want those services in East County. Of course I do, and I commend the county for doing that. But like other planning decisions we've made, the question in front of us isn't whether we personally like or dislike the project. The question is whether the project substantially conforms to our general plan. And as I say right now, I'm having a hard time making that finding. Our general plan specifically tells us to concentrate major office uses near the Highway 4 interchange. And so, This is a major office. And it just seems that we're not there, right? And when I combine that with the fact that this is gonna generate regional trips across roads where residents already regularly raise concerns about traffic, the location for me becomes even harder for me to understand. The other thing I'm still wrestling with is what the most meaning projects already under construction. And whatever we decide tonight isn't gonna change whether this building gets built in this location. So I'm not sure yet whether the right thing for us is to make a formal finding that it does not conform or whether the better thing is just to simply to decline making a finding at all. I wanna hear from the rest of, from everybody else and discuss before I think I decide where I land on that. um but you know and with this i've been critiquing and i i'll say this just to try and end this a little bit more positively i i really do hope that this project goes smoothly um i hope when the building's completed that it's successful that county and brentwood residents get good use out of it and and none of the concerns that we're talking about tonight turning into turn into long-term problems um we'll see about that but look if issues do come up once this building's fully operational, whether it's traffic or something else, at minimum, at least these questions were raised and the concerns were made part of the public record. So for me, the location's still the piece that I'm struggling with, given the question that we're being asked of tonight and just some findings within the general plan, but I'm open to hear more from everybody else and just seeing if there's something that I might be missing. So I'll stop there.

Thank you, Commissioner Jones. Commissioner Johnson, comments?

I might be the, I guess, the lone wolf on this thing here. I do agree with Commissioner Jones about communication. I think we have suffered a lack of communication, not just... Here, but previously and other things I think it might leave a bad taste in folks mouth. I know this area of town it's an area of town that I got in trouble for once before arguing about trying to develop that area of town. I'm not against this building. I think, if I'm not mistaken, it's going to have apartments or that's coming later on, but it's coming later on. But I'm not against this building. I am against the way it came about, if that makes any sense. I don't know if that makes sense exactly, but I'm not against the building. I think we have a large lot and whatever improvements we're gonna make in that area is gonna cause traffic. whether it's one large 120,000 square or multiple items, we're going to have traffic there because we go from nothing to something. And anytime you go from nothing to something, we're building out an area, um, that is going to make a difference in our community. So for me, I'm not going to take a whole long time about, you know, the building, for all the reasons that Commissioner ANITA MENTIONED AND COMMISSIONER JEREMY MENTIONED. I'M NOT GOING TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME IN A WHOLE BUNCH OF DISSERTATION BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BEING BUILT ON IT. BUT I DO WANT TO JUST SAY ONE THING. WE CAN ALWAYS DO A BETTER JOB COMMUNICATING over 25, 26 years that I've lived here in this community. I've lived here 26 years. I don't have a problem building out that area, trying to modernize that specific area of Brentwood and bringing jobs. I know people may not like it, but I think... Sometimes you get bad taste in your mouth, and we have a bad taste in our mouth, and that's causing some of the reaction. But I don't have a problem with this building right now.

Thank you.

Moving on. Vice Chair, comments?

Yes, I have quite a few.

I figured, but I have to ask.

Yeah. First of all, I want to thank staff for bringing this forward. I understand that from the point of view of the public, it might seem futile since obviously the county doesn't care what we think about this. However, I do think, and I think Commissioner Johnson stated it perhaps best that it's best that we have a public record of these issues going forward so that as the city lives with the consequences of this project, the public will know that we stood up and spoke for them on their behalf when their county would not. I think the last time this came to the Planning Commission was when there was discussion of the county acquiring the first part, the PD 42 parcels, and that was in 2010. And that was 16 years ago, 16 years. And 16 years in Brentwood is a very long time. And I want to give you some perspective on just how long a time that was. We've grown... more than 30% in population in that time. And in the 10 years before that time, our population had doubled. So we had a super fast growth because that was encapsulated part of the time when there's big growth before the crash in 2008. And so at that time, the Planning Commission that was in place then was considering something very different. The project has since expanded. It was 2.8 acres at that time. And then the new parcel, I think they said was 3.5. At any rate, we're more than twice as large as we were then. And so for the county to file an MND and kind of indicate that there was no need to really best and I'll tell you why. To talk about some of the things that were in the in the staff report. It mentions. down in, what page is this? This is page eight of nine in the staff report. And it mentions that there's a requirement that all projects shall be reviewed for compatibility with adjacent uses in accordance with all applicable general plan goals and policies, as well as municipal code requirements, including, but not limiting to the following land use issues. Traffic generation, impact of noise generated by new development on existing and planned land uses, new sources of light and glare, parking demand and any operational characteristics that may create public nuisances. I think that these are important things that we should be reviewing. I do note that in the staff report, there's not as well as municipal code requirements, including but not limiting to the following land use issues. Traffic generation, impact of noise generated by new development on existing and planned land uses new sources of light and glare. parking demand and any operational characteristics that may create public nuisances. I think that these are important things that we should be reviewing. I do note that in the staff report, there's not an extensive review of these items. And I understand that there's not going to be a satisfactory outcome, and I I hesitate to critique staff for not doing such a deep review because of that. And I do appreciate the fact that Brentwood City staff is doing a constant, amazing job of keeping track of a lot of wild, wild state mandates that come down that force them to do many, many tasks that do nothing to benefit the citizens of Brentwood. So I'm not gonna harp on it too much, but we don't have a good way to, we don't have a lot of data in front of us to support an analysis of these things. And for that reason alone, I would say that it's gonna be hard for me to make any findings, but I will say that as far as traffic generation, yeah, when you open 120,000 square foot facility right there, in that area at a time when Brentwood just recently had to drop speed limits on our major arterials by five miles per hour just because the traffic is getting too tough to handle. There does seem to be a shortage of parking in this project that I've seen noted in multiple posts on social media where people are adding up and there's not gonna be enough parking even for the people that work there. much less the people that this building is being built to serve. And I see this as a pattern in county development. I did jury duty a few years ago at the Martinez courthouse. And anybody that's been down there for jury duty can tell you the parking is just a nightmare. And if you're not there at the very beginning of the day, you're going to park very far away from where you need to be to do your duty to the public. And I really feel for the people that are living in that area and just trying to maneuver through there. And they're going to be seeing a lot of cars on the street that they did not use to see and a lot of traffic. We did just get new fire maps last year. So I can't believe that... there's no new risk to assess for that. We're all paying much higher rates for insurance these days because of the increased fire risk, the severe droughts we've had over the last several years. That particular area has had a lot of built building going up around it. It's just outrageous that there has been no review of the environmental impact and for people in the public that may not understand, environmental impact is not just about birds and trees and animals and breathable air. It's certainly about those things, but it's also about traffic, noise. Yeah, new sources of light and glare, as it mentions here. It's about the entire effect on the surrounding area. And environmental, in this case, takes the broader view of the word environment, which is just, you know, all of the combined characteristics of the area, not just, you know, when we think about environmental things, we think about things about the earth, but it's about everything. It's about people. It's about everything that affects people, human beings. Yeah, we have no, we haven't seen in this packet, we don't see the plans from the county as to what they even plan to build there. Really, we just see a site and we see what the zoning is on that site. We don't even have the M&D to look at. Again, this is not a knock on staff. They have things that are going to be more consequential that will actually accomplish something that they're working on. But when we're asked to evaluate this, we don't have a lot to evaluate. And a lot of it is because the county didn't really even do us the courtesy. And it just gives you an idea that the county doesn't really care about us. And for those who don't know how their county government works, the county government is basically five elected positions as five county supervisors. They are districted. And so we do have a district that represents the city of Brentwood, Oakley, parts of Antioch, areas around here. So our district is District 3. Our District 3 supervisor is Diane Burgess. And Diane Burgess, as the district supervisor for our district, had the ability to convince the Board of Supervisors that this should have been done. And she has shown a complete lack of caring and a complete contempt for the City of Brentwood on this and other issues. But on this issue, which we are addressing tonight and which I'll confine myself to, she did nothing for us. I do want to talk about conformity or consistency with the Brentwood Boulevard specific plan. In particular, this is an issue that has come up before. And I think Commissioner Johnson has just alluded to there are differences on this body about that. And there's differences between staff frankly and some of our positions and i think that that's um understandable and it kind of comes down to the the coir um designation is which is supposed to be um mixed use walkable livable areas um possibly where there is commercial, it would be like first floor commercial and then upper level apartments, I guess like, um, um, The area down in San Jose, the name, I can't think of it right now. But it is, nonetheless, it's mixed use. And it's supposed to be a place where people would want to live and envisioned more and more for future American communities as younger buyers coming into the homeowners market are demanding more of that and a little bit less of the suburbs, although we do love our suburbs here in Brentwood. And so I think that this is being all office buildings is really a violation of COIR. If you look at that particular area in the Brentwood Boulevard specific plan, I think you'll see that it is actually supposed to be residential. Staff does take a more textual view of that. It says you can also, that area will also have some commercial use But I think that if you go back and look at other parts of Brentwood Boulevard specific plan where they really describe what they were intending for these COIR areas, it becomes very clear that they intended them to be walkable areas where people could live and work. And this is very far from that. So I don't think it is consistent at all in my view. And I think what it does is that anytime that we would approve such a development or have one imposed on us. In this case, what it does is it erodes the promise of the Brentwood Boulevard specific plan and what everybody that has worked on that specific plan, including multiple city councils, multiple groups of citizens that have been invited to participate in workshops through the years. This is what everybody in Brentwood wants to have over there, and it's just getting further and further away as that intention gets paved over with what is not consistent development. So, yeah, I don't agree that this is consistent with a Brentwood Boulevard specific plan at the very least. I don't think that... we've been given the type of resources that we would need to make some of the findings that I am seeing in the proposed resolution. And so it's gonna be difficult for me to find a way to move forward on the resolution as written. I don't feel like there's a lot of consensus that's gonna be pulling me in that direction. I'm certainly open to anything that anybody wants to say about it. As for me right now, I really am struggling to find anything about this that is consistent with either the letter or the spirit of Brentwood's zoning for any of these districts. So yeah, I think that that's where I'm going to leave it for now. I'll be listening for any other discussion. Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair. yeah there's there's a lot here and i like um commissioner jones i wrote a very extensive letter to the county uh with my comments as well on this whole project back in when was it february gosh it was six months ago holy cow more than that um yeah the whole concentration of this and i think you were the one that used the word i know we talked earlier today and it was uh ceremonial i think that's that's the one that keeps popping into my head with this because it it is truly that what are we doing here today there's no action it's it's it's representative it's just we're we're we're airing our grievances our you know 95 feces on the wall. That's essentially what a lot of this comes down to because there's not much action. I'm not aware of any action that can take place about all this. We're in a sense kind of, I think Eric described here that as part of this, there's that 40 day window and the county didn't even invoke it and so therefore we're the ones doing it. And so in a sense, I'd like to think of it like we're sort of cleaning up after the game in the locker room. The game's been played already, but what can we do? Well, we gotta make sure the locker room looks great before we go into the next game. And you know, I think a lot of that is doing that and we kind of, I know myself, I'm kind of hanging my head here thinking like, well, this is where we're at now. So I'd like to just briefly go through this. You know, we're supposed to find what is consistent with the general plan. I'm struggling to find, you know, when we use this term substantially conforms to That term is usually in reference to comprehensive agreement. I'm sure Webster's defines it a bit differently, but in my perspective it's, what do they say in law? It's the over the shadow of a doubt or, so Action LU3B, concentrate major office uses along State Route 4 near Lone Tree Way, Balfour and Marsh Creek Interchanges. Does it do this? No. Let's see. Policy SA3-5, ensure that all areas of the city are accessible to emergency response providers. We have a ladder truck for station 92. It only goes up almost 40 feet. This building is over 50 feet tall. It doesn't do that. Require a new development to occur in a logical and orderly manner, focusing growth on infill locations and areas designated for urbanizations on the land use map. Be subject to the ability to provide urban spaces, including paying for any needed services. logical and orderly manner this goes back to this idea that you're plopping down this 120 000 square foot building in a part of town that um used to be a major thoroughfare and no longer is as a result of the bypass um i'll read just a few more to save everybody that policy lu 1-5 encourage new developing to be contiguous to existing development wherever possible I don't see any other giant office complexes as the vice chair referenced San Jose, where you have a long span of office complexes, no differently than you would have like tailored economic centers or residential centers to be somewhat contiguous. Encourage new development that is convenient to bus or future passenger rail transits. Everybody's been talking about EBART and this kind of stuff. Where's all that gonna happen? Along Highway 4. It's not gonna happen on this side of town. Yes, we do have bus line 373, but that carries a very small number of people, relatively speaking. And then this one, I'll just leave it with this one. LU3-5 actively promote implementation of the downtown specific plan and Brentwood Boulevard specific plan and periodically update these long range planning documents as necessary. I think we've already gone into this, right? COIR, the whole basis of this is a variety of uses that are consistent with what fall within the Brentwood Boulevard specific plan. One of which is that 70% of COIR needs to be housing. and we're not talking about the, I think it's five point something acres, I think total, that would represent 80 houses, 80 dwelling units for the city. And so now because, and this is just my interpretation, it's like because this land is now effectively the county's embassy within the city of Brentwood, It means that it's not our land. So now we've lost the opportunity to develop 80 more homes on property because that was what we had originally intended it for. So once again, the general plan tells us that, the Brentwood Boulevard specific plan in this sense is an extension of the general plan. So therefore, it's another instance in which we're sort of struggling to sort of accomplish the goals that we have as a city as defined by our general plan and can't do that because we don't have a conversation. Commissioner Johnson, you were talking about this communication. I mean, I think we've seen more private enterprise provide significantly more substantial outreach to the community proactively, not just the literature that the city provides as per law, but there's been substantially more that comes from private industry than it does, than we've seen, at least I've seen with the county. We're, you know, I'll give you just the highlights of my letter because it's probably 12 pages long. So I'll just, you know, there were a couple of things here about like the parking was brought up 424 spaces. The county doesn't have a standard for that. We do. It still doesn't meet that. It doesn't meet either standard. So in a sense, it's like, yeah, if we were going to apply the general plan standard, it doesn't meet that. Let's see, yeah, I talked about COIR. We can calculate this anyway. That may even impact our RHNA targets. I don't have the specific data on how this land is specifically tailored to our RHNA needs, but ultimately, this is us meeting our needs at the state. So you could think of, in a sense, is we're trying to suffice the expectations of the state of California on top of this, and now the county's telling us, well, no, you can't do that, because we're gonna build this here. So there's another, you know, kind of kicking us while we're down. You know, we talked about noise briefly, but, you know, some of the noise that's created, you know, we have this building in particular, the idea is that it's built 50 feet tall or so. That creates a lot of noise very up high, which spreads it out. So when you create, when you look at nearby hotels, like the, I think it's the Hampton Inn that's there over on Brentwood Boulevard, the sound's going to permeate on the upper levels up over there above what our general plan dictates as being acceptable. So you got another example of that. Let's keep going. The traffic report. I mean, when we talk about circulation, it's one of the categorical aspects of the general plan. Top three things we hear from people in Brentwood is it's like, well, we don't have enough restaurants that are great. The traffic is getting awful because O'Hara is one lane each way. Brentwood Boulevard in a lot of spots is two lanes each way, but even still. And then third is typically a variety of issues, whether it be the schools or something have you. But the traffic, the report that was given to us by the county, it was almost laughable in terms of its lack of comprehensiveness. In a nutshell, it basically said that the traffic would be identical to what it would have been pre-pandemic. And this was a study that was done by the Goddard School. That's one of the adjacent facilities that was shown by Eric Nothinius. It's a the increase that the County had claimed here is a blip on the radar. And so the circulation claims in terms of its compatibility with the general plan, I don't think are argued in good faith. I don't even, even a conservative estimate would have most likely been greater than that. And so to assume that there'd be a less than 1% VMT increase with a project that was supposed, was it 300? I can't remember the total number of prospective employees, but 300 something. Most of which, if you're going to do some back of the napkin math here, you're going to say that maybe 30 of those employees are going to actually live in Brentwood. Most of them are going to be commuting from older facilities coming from Antioch, Martinez, somewhere else in the county. I mean, it'd be great if they moved to Brentwood, but there's no guarantee of that. You know, this is the thing about how this project would propose itself. It would become the third largest employer of Brentwood overnight. What are we doing about the way that that, when we talk about contiguousness and uniformity across Brentwood Boulevard in the Brentwood Boulevard specific plan, you just plop down a huge project there and say, well, we're not gonna see much change on the exterior. I would strongly differ given what we've all seen here on this diocese at least and what previous diocese have you seen. It's really unfortunate that there's been no discussion unilaterally. And I set up an appointment with Diane's office back in January, February, something like that. And I got a very kind of shove off response that says, just send me your questions and information and maybe we'll talk. And that discussion never happened. And I wrote this extensive letter because I felt it was important that it got out there. Because I read, I think, gosh, what was it? 800 something pages, something like that. I read the whole thing. And that's why I wrote this, however many long pages of this. And it's public record now, so feel free to read into it if you've got questions. But I just... this is the kind of rigor that I know this audience in particular does when we review projects. And that's the promise that we made to Brentwood as planning commissioners, that we would go to this level of specificity, rigor, attention to detail, because it's what our residents ask of us. And it's what, I would expect of a planning commissioner, if I was in the audience, thank you, Ms. Casamodo, for still hanging on here. And I just, it really disappoints me because most of these I'm almost done, I promise. We live in a democracy where the idea of democracy is this idea that we have a conversation, and a conversation is where work gets done. And if we can't have a conversation, it's dictatorship. And I don't know how to I wish a conversation took place and I'm just, it's so unfortunate that it didn't because this is where we are. And I, I hope and pray that if another project comes forward, that this is a little different. And I hope that, you know, if, if the public is as concerned as this audience is, uh, make some changes. And that's just how democracy truly works. And so, you know, with that, I've heard a variety of comments here today. And I would, you know, I would strongly encourage us to make some kind of motion in the direction of nonconformance with our general plan, nonconformance, sorry, non substantial conformance with the general plan. And I don't know how that would look in terms of our, maybe Christie can help us out here, but I would also strongly for council members that are listening tonight, I strongly encourage them to pull this item so that y'all can review it. Because I think everybody in a position of leadership in the city of Brentwood should read this whole document and have something to say about it. and no differently than we would a bridal gate project or something else that is so conflicting and consequential and all this kind of stuff. And so I offer that to council because I think it's warranted. So with that, I will entertain further discussion, but I would definitely certainly be interested in a motion.

It's getting late. From a motion standpoint, if we want to go back to options, because if there is a non-conformance motion, is it something as simple? Or did you say, I know Eric, you talked about potentially having to come back. If we could just walk us through the options.

Yeah, so the simplest option, which I do not see having, is to adopt the resolution as drafted. The other option is if there is a consensus to go 180 and say this does not conform to the general plan, I'd like to just maybe summarize some of the concerns that were identified by the commissioners, include that in a motion to then direct staff to bring it back, because we would want to memorialize that in an updated resolution, and I would want the commission to be able to review that ahead of making the actual decision. So you wouldn't be making a formal decision tonight, but basically telling us to come back with something updated, right? And I could do that at one of the September meetings. So that would be my recommendation if that's kind of the direction you're going.

I'm certainly interested in that. process that you described uh I think it would just then be outlining what our uh what our major gripes if you will are well with the project or you know if I may through the chair yeah you you brought up I mean I think we I brought up a specific item I know you brought up the same about uh it

having a conformance issue with the fact that it's not close to Highway 4 at all. I know you brought up quite a few different other scenarios that detailed non-conformance. So I'm almost wondering if it would make sense to just take those, the things that you mentioned, I know the one that I did, I'm not sure if you brought up another, I think you did as well, but maybe if we just take those things and just have those as here's why we're doing it, that would suffice.

If we had big buckets, so the level of specificity that you're asking here with the resolution in mind, I'm starting to write down a couple of buckets that may be relevant. So circulation was one that was brought up, noise was another one. The actual land use itself was another one. In terms of that breadth of bucket sizes, are there any other ones that I've missed that wanna get called out if you're in agreement with the idea of proceeding with the resolution that Eric was talking about?

I feel like your list has been probably the most comprehensive list we heard, so I would go with it.

Okay. So if we start with those three, I mean, I'm fine with listing those three because, I mean, really the details would take us a decade to write everything out. But at least those three, I think, stood out most based off of what was said here today. I mean, I'm certainly open to any others that may not have been discussed. I'm just looking through notes here.

Well, you just had a long list addressing the findings and how they did not conform. I would stick with that.

Yeah, I mean, I can list out the policies that I put in here that I took from the general plan that I thought were incongruent with this project or the land itself, I guess.

Yeah, I mean, I think for the purposes of the direction tonight, it's probably okay just to list out those sort of topical areas. I'll go back and... connect those to the actual policies that were also referenced, because I want to document those in the resolution. So the resolution won't be super general in terms of, oh, circulation concerns. It'll cite actual policies that you were concerned about and that you can then adopt at that September meeting. Does that make sense?

Yeah, and if we miss anything, that would be an opportunity for us to then make any minor revisions that are appropriate based off of our observations.

Yeah, of course. So good point. So we'll draft it to the best of our ability to capture the discussion tonight. And then when it comes back on the agenda, you'll, of course, have had a chance to review it in the agenda packet. And then if you want to make tweaks to it, we can do that at the dais, essentially. It's just too hard to do it right now because... It's a 180.

Sure, so just to be clear, so circulation, land use, and noise, those were the three I think that stood out most prominently. If there are any others, say speak now or forever hold your peace.

No, I think that speaks.

Okay, and then I assume we don't need a motion on this because we have to come back and do the resolution anyway, right?

Yeah, I would make a motion just to memorialize it. And then to your point, Chairperson Brand, I know you referenced the council earlier. Once the commission adopts the updated resolution, that would then trigger the standard 10-day appeal slash call for review period where anybody could file a request to basically talk about this item further that would then go to the council. and we'll talk about logistics of that if it does go to the council, but that would be the point at which that occurs, not tonight.

Yeah, fair enough. So not quite positive what that motion would look like, but if someone was willing to be the guinea pig and entertain one, I'd be all ears.

All right. I could take a stab at it. I don't have the list in front of me. But Eric, do you have the list that you need? Do we need to give you more specificity before we put it into a motion, or do you have it?

No, I have the three items that the Commission talked about. But if you could just include those in the motion one more time for the record, and that would be circulation, land use, and noise.

Certainly. So I would make a notion that we return this item to staff with instruction to further research inconsistencies with the Brentwood General Plan in the areas of, forgive me, what were the three again?

Circulation, land use, and noise?

Yes, circulation, land use, and noise. and bring it back to us at a future meeting for further consideration.

That works for me. Thank you, Vice Chair Flohr.

Thank you. So that's my motion. I'll second. Roll call.

Roll call. Vice Chair Flohr.

My wife is still in the room with me.

Thank you, sir. Commissioner Johnson?

No.

Commissioner Roberts?

Aye.

Commissioner Jones? Aye. Vice Chair Flohr?

Aye.

Chairperson Brand?

Aye.

Motion carries 4-1.

Okay, moving into informational reports. Chair, may I say something real quick?

Yeah, please, go ahead. Just to, not to keep this going, but I just, I wanna thank staff on this because, look, I know this is easily could be misconstrued as, to your point, Chair Brand, about this being ceremonial, But as I stated earlier, having this on the record, I think is important. And I think doing this, it's happening either way, but I think it's important to put this on the record. So I wanna thank staff for taking this back.

I would second that as well. Absolutely. Thank you, commissioners. It's gonna wrap up here. So moving into informational reports, transplant, Yeah, yeah, didn't make the meeting.

Unfortunately, I was out of town.

Design review. Did not meet. Land use, we didn't meet this month. And municipal code.

Did you guys, I don't think you guys met. Have not.

Okay. Moving into new agenda item requests. Any future agenda items?

Anything?

No? I don't.

I don't have an agenda item exactly, but I just want to say because I think this is a good spot in the meeting to say that I really appreciate the efforts and staff and enabling me to participate in this way tonight and particularly Eric who did a lot of coordination and again as a very busy person and also to April who did a practice soon with me this afternoon and again April As the clerk, I think the public often doesn't really realize how hard the clerk's office works for the city every single day. And I really appreciate the efforts of staff on this and on so many other things. Thank you very much. Absolutely.

Thank you, Vice Chair. And with that, the next regular Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for September 1st, 2026 at 7 p.m. and will be at the City of Brentwood Council Chambers located at 150 City Parkway. Do I have a motion to adjourn?

I'll make a motion to adjourn. I'll second. Second. Roll call.

But of course, one final time, Vice Chair Flora.

Yes, my wife is still here and we're watching the sunrise out the window at 6 a.m.

Thank you. Commissioner Johnson.

Yes, aye.

Commissioner Jones. Aye. Commissioner Roberts. Yes. Vice Chair Floor.

Aye.

Chairperson Brand.

Aye.

Motion carries. This meeting is adjourned.

Thank you all. Thank you.