Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hello and good evening. Welcome to the September 15th Planning Commission meeting. All members are present. Will you please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

through the chair, your mic's not on.

I'm sorry, thank you so much, April. 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 larger 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 scheduled agenda items should wait until that time. Please note that the commission's actions are final unless an appeal is filed with a city clerk within 10 calendar days.

At this time, we have one speaker, Danni.

Test, test, okay. Good evening. I'm gonna try not to snark this thing tonight. Although to be fair, I'm two beers in from the meeting. So you're gonna get what you're gonna get. I wanna talk about Supervisor Diane Burgess and Assistant Chief McAllister. There's an agenda item later that you'll be discussing and I will elaborate upon. But tonight is talking about the playbook that they use. And I'll use Station 92 as an example. God, I'm not used to sounding so calm. I'm going to have to start drinking beer more often before I show up here. Anyway. They want to blame the city council for the overages and the delays in their building of Station 92. For those who don't remember, they pulled every trick in the book up to and including what I think they did tonight, or yesterday rather, which is drop an opus of a rebuttal the day before their council meeting, which gave them very little time to look at anything. And I am looking at you, Diane Burgess, this entire time. But it is. And as I said, tonight's discussion, I'll go into greater detail. But if you look at station 90, the same excuses. It's the council's fault. It's the council's fault. Although the council voted for the firehouse, voted to sell the land. That's all on tape. Why they even came last time to make it seem like the council is dragging their feet, God only knows. Tonight's agenda item.

I made a recommendation.

I'll save it for it's my time to talk, but I'll hit you with the punchline. Approve it. Approve it as written. Because there are traps in there that they can use as an excuse to blame you guys. just approve it as written because they expect you guys to turn it down and they want to call you out and make up more excuses.

At this time, we have no one here in person who would like to speak. Let's go to Zoom. If you'd like to speak, please raise your hand. We have no speakers in Zoom.

Thank you, April. Moving on to the consent calendar. There's a set of minutes for the regular meeting from August 18th. Is there any discussion or do I have a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Motion carries. Okay, moving into public hearings. Item E1, consideration of a second amendment to conditional use permit number 00-04, CUP 00-04-A2 for eight acres kitchen and bar located at 801 Foothill Drive, south of Balfour, including a one year review of the first amendment to the cup. Staff report by Eric Norfinius.

Thank you, good evening Chairperson Brand, Vice Chairperson Flor, and commissioners. I don't have a presentation to click through, but April, thank you for sharing my screen. I'm just gonna leave this up basically the entire time just so we can refer to it. The subject property is outlined in that sort of light blue or turquoise color. This project does have a fairly lengthy history. It dates all the way back to the summer of 2000. when the commission first approved a conditional use permit for the clubhouse associated with the former golf course. I'm gonna fast forward 24 years to February of 2024 when the commission approved the first amendment to the CUP and that allowed the clubhouse to be utilized as a full service restaurant and bar, including outdoor dining and periodic events. This was followed in March of last year when the commission approved a one year time extension for the amendment as the property owner was still working on improvements to the clubhouse and restaurant. So condition 11 from the 2024 approval requires the permit to be reviewed by the planning commission within one year of the commencement of use to ensure compliance with all operational conditions and to determine whether any modifications are necessary. The use, which is now known as Eight Acres Kitchen and Bar, opened to the public in late August of last year. So staff is presenting this one year review accordingly. In coordinating the actual review, I spoke with the property owner and he had expressed a desire to extend the hours for playing music. from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. as those are currently identified in Conditions 8 and 9. So tonight's hearing is basically serving a dual purpose. The first is obviously to conduct the review that was required by the Planning Commission pursuant to Condition 11 and then to consider these requested changes to Conditions 8 and 9. To ensure that the review was comprehensive, I did check in with staff from each city department to see if there were any issues since Eight Acres Kitchen and Bar opened. The only department that had anything on record was the police department, and those were related to two separate noise complaints, one that was filed in May of this year and another that was filed in June of this year, both right around the nine o'clock timeframe in the evening. and both related to noise coming from music at the facility. Both those complaints were resolved and the incidents were closed. One other issue has been identified relating to lighting, both from the parking lot in the facility as well as the outdoor areas around the building. Staff has received complaints periodically from a resident that lives on Spyglass Drive, and I can point this out a little bit later, but essentially it's a property that's southwest of the facility. According to my measurements, the property in question is a little over 500 feet from Eight Acres, the closest property line, and then about 850 feet from the outdoor areas of Eight Acres. With regards to the parking lot lights, I want to make sure the Commission knew that those are the same lights that have been there since the facility opened in the early 2000s, and the only change that has been made by the property owners to switch out the bulb, so they're current. There are currently no restrictions on the hours that the parking lot lights may be on, and the Commission might recall that that was a point of discussion back in February of 2024 when the First Amendment was approved. Regarding the patio lights around the outdoor areas of the building, those should have automatic controls on them so that they shut off by a particular point consistent with the building code. So with this review, we are recommending a condition of approval to require that. Finally, regarding the music, again, the property owner's requesting the hours be extended to 10 p.m. And while there have been two complaints about noise coming from the facility over the last few months, staff certainly recognizes the importance of the request in terms of value to the business and therefore proposes that those conditions be modified. That's reflected in the attached draft resolution. Adoption of those conditions is entirely discretionary, however, on the part of the commission. So if there are concerns about that, the commission can either leave those conditions as they're currently written or you can modify them otherwise accordingly. I also wanted to point out that through the notice of public hearing process, which includes not only publication in the Brentwood Press, but a mailer to a thousand foot radius around the property in question, there were two comments that were received. Both of those came in earlier this afternoon and were forwarded to the commission. And those are both in support of the facility and its operation so far. So at this time, staff's recommendation is to adopt the draft resolution. It's number 26-023, sorry, that would approve this second amendment to the CUP. This includes, of course, the one-year review, and then, of course, the changes that, the other changes that are requested as part of the conditions eight and nine. At this point, I'll turn it back to the chairperson for any questions. I know the property owner's here if there are specific questions of him as well. Thank you so much. Thanks, Eric.

Any clarifying questions of staff?

Oh, yeah, Vice Chair? I have two. As far as the the lights and I did read it, but I guess I read it a little quick. We're just talking about automatically shutting off the lights for the patio, right? The parking lights will stay on. That's correct. Okay. I just wanted to verify that. And I did have a question and I had notified you earlier on this that I think a member of the public, certainly myself reading the staff report would notice that the police weren't able to come out in time to hear the noise complaint. By the time they got there, it was done. And I think that a person might wonder, well, the police have to be the ones to come to answer the call because community enforcement obviously isn't working in the middle of the night. So, but obviously also the police have higher priorities than a noise complaint. So I just wanted to point out that in May, actually on May 26th with the second reading, the city council passed a nuisance ordinance, which became chapter, I believe, 8.39 in the Brentwood Municipal Code. For the public listening, I think the last I looked this afternoon, it's still not been updated in the interactive municipal code, but it's there. And it states that... You know, it used to be that if the police came out and they didn't hear anything, there wasn't anything they could do. But now, if a member of the public is being bothered by loud noise or music or any kind of loud noise, really, if they call for the police to come out, if they have a timestamp video, like a cell phone video or other... physical evidence and if they're willing to sign a statement and possibly appear if there's an appeal from the person that receives the complaint, that the officer can accept that and can go ahead and process the complaint. And so I think that that's a real relief for the community to know that if they have somebody that's making a lot of noise, They can document it and then the police can accept that documentation I think and I think that really solves the problem if anybody was wondering I Think with that I have no more questions.

Thank you All right any other questions of staff no Let's see at this time the public is permitted to address the Planning Commission where remarks are limited to three minutes per person except for the applicant who have 10 minutes if desired. Does the applicant wish to address the commission? No, okay.

Thank you.

Okay, any questions of the applicant while we're on the subject? Okay, the city has received two public comments, which Mr. Delafitte has described regarding this item that were sent via email or otherwise for our consideration. Copies of these comments are made available on the city's website. Let's go to public comment, please.

At this time, we have one speaker here in person, actually two. We're going to start with Laura.

Hi, City Council. So I'm actually a neighbor. I live in the really close to eight acres and I'm for the business extending their hours till 10 p.m. I'm also open if you want to put in an espresso machine so I can walk in there early in the morning. But yeah, like I think it's a great thing for our community. Like I'm an avid runner and I'm often walking past eight acres. It's been a nice walkable place, third place to be. And so I'm really excited for it to open beyond nine o'clock. And I'm not trying to hurry to get a glass of wine before or after my run and before heading home. So yes, I'm for it. Thank you.

Next, we have Danny.

Hello again. Once upon a time, I was a DJ, and I would play for establishments like Eight Acres, Weddings, Bar Mitzvahs, whatever you want to call it. When the place was supposed to close, let's say 9 o'clock, The client would have to wrap things up between 8, 8.15 so that I can close out and get out of there by 9 o'clock. Of course, there are times when the partygoers want to, as the kids say, keep the party going. And it would push the boundaries to 9 o'clock. This is going to be the same dilemma regardless of how you vote, whether it stays at 9 or 10. And that is, what is considered noise after 10? Because you can have a group of people leaving the establishment, Hu Han, Yi Han, all those Hans, at 10.01. You can have music that plays up to And the person can explain this a whole lot better than I because I don't know. I only go from experience. But there are timelines that physics just can't beat. Carrying down gear, putting gear away, maybe folks who had one too many waiting for their Uber ride, whatever the case may be. So I'm definitely in support to the 10 o'clock. I would also add, though, if you're going to limit what is considered noise, to rethink that. If you look at what I heard anyway, two complaints in 20 years, I think Zephyr's had that this year. So that's a pretty good record. And the lighting, well, do you really want people walking around in the dark because it's 10.05? Is it that much of an inconvenience to somebody? Is it worth risking somebody's life because the lights have to be turned off at 10 o'clock?

Again,

The person can explain far better than I his business. I can talk about what it's like from an entertainer standpoint, set up, break down, the whole shoot and match. So just something to consider. Thank you.

At this time, we have no other speakers here in person. We'll go to Zoom. If you'd like to speak on this item, please raise your hand. We have no speakers in Zoom.

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

Through the chair?

Yeah.

I'm sorry, can I just say a couple things real quick?

Absolutely.

Just for clarity. So condition six, which didn't really come up in my presentation at all, but condition six of the original approval from February of 2024 establishes the actual operating hours for the facility. And it reads as follows. The restaurant and bar shall open no earlier than 9 a.m. and close no later than 10 p.m. daily, including holidays. So that would remain as is. That's not being proposed to change. Conditions eight and nine where the 9 p.m. reference is made to music. That's what we're talking about. So Mr. Dorman's comments relative to noise coming from that are valid in the sense that that's the actual request, but the hours for the facility itself would not be changed from the original approval. Does that make sense?

Understood, yeah, thank you for that clarification.

No problem.

Okay, discussion. Any comments we should start with here? Yeah, thank you.

No, appreciate it. I'll keep it pretty straightforward. So, you know, for me, I think that the biggest thing on these types of conditional use permit requests is the location and the compatibility of the surrounding neighborhood. you know these are discretionary permits right so i i'm really looking at the actual site the operating history the the surrounding uses to just decide you know what makes sense for this particular location and i think with with eight acres um there's a there's a pretty substantial buffer you know from the surrounding homes and you know we also now have a good year of actual operating history to look at so i think in respect to the to the noise complaints that were noted in the staff report um I know when officers responded, they found no music playing, they closed the incidents. Of course, I'm always gonna take resident concerns about noise very seriously, but I also think we have to look at the full picture and just be balanced about it. So if we're talking about only really two complaints over the course of a long time, year at least, neither resulted in a confirmed violation, I think that matters. On the other side of it, we had a speaker here tonight. I know we've seen some through email as well from folks in the area that enjoy the restaurant. They're supportive of allowing the music to go a little later. So I think that matters too. Looking at the location, the separation from the nearby homes, the operating history, very limited number of complaints, feedback we've received. I think moving the music cutoff from nine to 10 makes sense to me. I think that's a pretty modest cutoff for that area. And I think given the circumstance and just that particular location, I'm comfortable supporting staff's recommendation. So I'll leave it at that.

Thanks. Yeah, I tend to agree. I just want to say that for anybody that might have a noise complaint, now that they have the nuisance ordinance and where they can document it and take responsibility for making that complaint and make a statement, they can do that. So I don't think that I'm concerned in any way. I am hearing that... nobody really seems to have any problem with this. And I did some research and Deer Ridge is my neighborhood. And what I wanna say is I haven't been able to find anybody that is opposed to this. And I just want to say that since 2017, Deer Ridge has had a lot to deal with, and I think it's fair to say that the Deer Ridge neighborhood has some trust issues. And what I want to say is that Sean McCauley and Eight Acres have earned the trust of the neighborhood by being good neighbors, listening to what people care about, and providing a really nice restaurant. I think that they've earned some consideration on this and so I have no objection to going to the 10 o'clock time if the rest of the council, if the rest of the commission feels the same way.

Thank you, Vice Chair. I would agree. I love the fact that we do have the nuisance ordinance, I guess it's called. It does kind of help, particularly in some of these gray area situations. And I would agree that so far it's been exemplary. So I don't see any issue here. And I spoke with a couple of the folks in the neighborhood and they all seemed fine with it. moving the music to 10 o'clock. So unless there's any other comments, I'll look for a motion here.

I'm prepared to make a motion. I'm just gonna find it here. I make a motion to adopt resolution number 26-021, approving a second amendment to CUP 00-04, CUP 00-04-A2, including a one year review as required by CUP 00-04-A1.

I'll second.

All in favor? Aye. Motion carries. All right, moving on. Item F1, general plan conformance review for the East County Service Center project, including Contra Costa County's recent acquisition of the 5.06 acre parcel to include within the scope of the project located south of Technology Way and west of Brentwood Boulevard. Staff report from Eric Malthenius again.

Thank you again no presentation on this item either, and my verbal remarks are actually gonna be much shorter. So staff brought this item forward originally to the Commission at its last meeting on August 18. With the recommendation to adopt a resolution determining that the east county service Center did in fact conform to the general plan. After taking public comment, the commission engaged in a fairly lengthy deliberation and ultimately identified several conformance issues, voted four to one to direct staff to bring back a resolution finding that the East County Service Center project does not substantially conform to the general plan or the Brentwood Boulevard specific plan. The primary areas of concern identified that night by the Commission related to circulation, land use, and noise. So based on the Commission's direction, staff went back and prepared a new draft resolution for consideration, which was attached to the staff report in tonight's packet. It should be noted, and this was referenced earlier by a member of the public, that staff did in fact receive a letter from the county administrator's office yesterday. I think it was mid-afternoon, somewhere around there, indicating its opposition to the commission adopting the updated draft resolution. Staff forwarded that letter to the commission before the end of the day yesterday, just for reference. No other public comments written written public comments have been received. So at this time, again, consistent with the direction that was provided at the last meeting of August 18th, staff is recommending that the commission adopt resolution number 26-013, finding that the East County Service Center project does not substantially conform to the general plan. There's no real applicant here other than the city kind of being the applicant for the conformance review. So I'd be happy to answer any questions and would just say that hopefully you found the draft resolution matched with the conversation and discussion that took place at the last meeting. So with that, I'll turn it back to the chair. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Eric. Let's see, any questions of staff? I know there might be at least a handful, so.

I'll go first. Eric, can you explain to us a little bit what is a special plan and how it relates to the general plan, and is the special plan the binding zoning, or is the general plan the binding zoning?

Yeah, and Vice Chair Florid, you mean a specific plan? Specific plan, what did I say?

A special. Oh my God.

I think specific plans are definitely special. So it's one way to identify them.

I had a special moment.

Yeah, so I mean, every city and county has a general plan pursuant to state law. And cities and counties have the options of preparing specific plans or community plans. There's different terms for them. I've never heard them called special plans, but maybe we'll start using that. For certain areas of cities or counties. So in Brentwood, we have one for the downtown and one, of course, for Brentwood Boulevard, and then one out in PA1, also known as the Innovation Center. They basically serve as subsets to the general plan. They're not, in terms of hierarchy, general plans at the top, and then everything flows from it. Some specific plans are more general in the sense of providing policy guidance. Some specific plans are more detailed in that the development regulations are kind of built into them. Brentwood Boulevard and downtown are both sort of hybrid documents, in my opinion. And people probably look at them different ways, but To answer your question, Brentwood Boulevard has not only goals and policies itself that are consistent with the general plan, but they also have development standards. So it functions basically as a zoning document. Now there are cross references to other portions of the municipal code, including our zoning ordinance in Brentwood Boulevard, but by and large, it kind of stands on its own. But again, it is a subset of and flows from the general plan. Does that make sense?

Yeah, so we should be looking at the specific plan as well as the general plan as we consider this item. The initial approval that was quoted in the staff report that went back to 2010, my understanding is that predates the specific plan. I was reading through the first chapter of the specific plan and I think that one actually came into being in 2012. So... At the time of the original approval back in 2010, I believe that almost half of the eventual property that's being covered here was not in that application. The second half of the property they purchased, I believe in 2025. And at the time that they bought it, the property they purchased in 2025. I believe most, if not all of it, was in the Brentwood Boulevard specific plan area. Is that correct?

Yeah, I'm sorry, real quick. April, could you share my screen? This is... This is part of the complication of this project, and I don't know how easy this is going to be for everybody to see, but if you can follow my cursor here, there are six parcels here that are directly south of Technology Way and east of Business Center Drive. Those are the ones that were involved in the 2010 conformance review. and are part of the general plan. You're right in the sense that the specific plan for Brentwood Boulevard hadn't even been adopted at that time. But I think they called it the East County Government Center back in 2010. It also only included those six. So the larger piece to the south, which is about five acres, was purchased in 2025, and which is what staff has been communicating with the county about over the last year. That's the piece that's in the Brentwood Boulevard specific plan. So basically, the overall project is within the general plan, yes, but then there's a portion of it that's within the specific plan, not all of it. So it's kind of funky.

One more question. The building itself... appears to be built as we just kind of have the one picture to look at in the staff report that I don't haven't seen any plans from the county or anything. But as I look at the picture, it appears to me that the actual building is kind of on that line between. So some of the building is in the specific plan and some of it's in the general plan. Is that correct?

Yeah, I know what you're saying. And it's, I would say the majority is probably on the larger piece that's within the specific plan. There may be portions of like the north side of the building that bleed into that BP area for the six parcels on Technology Way. And that stands for the south end of it. Yeah. But yeah, I don't know exactly where it fits on the overall project site because the site plan that they gave us wasn't very, wasn't super detailed.

Right. And again, the staff report that we got, it's just a picture. Yeah. So, okay, so I don't want to draw a conclusion yet. We'll save that for discussion. But I just wanted to clarify those points. Thank you.

He actually hit on the questions I was going to ask, so I'm good. Thank you.

That makes it easy. I just had, I think, one or two. The 2010 conformance review was, the zoning was PD 42, if I remember correctly, in that, as part of that. Correct. And so when the 2012... what we call rezone, I guess, integration of the BBSP would essentially mean that a new conformance would be needed to meet the BBSP versus that of the PD42 because of the rezone, right? I hate to call it a rezone, but that's kind of...

Yeah, well, but again, the six properties on Technology Way were not included in the specific plan, so neither the general plan nor the zoning has changed on those parcels over the last 15 years. Those have remained business park pursuant to the general plan and then PD 42. The piece, the larger five-acre piece that was incorporated in the specific plan, I don't know exactly what that property was zoned. It may have been part of PD 42, but it basically got... folded into the greater specific plan area. It's part of the, it's within its boundaries now.

So I know, I think it was like a 2.86 acre property that was the original 2010 approval. Now, one of the things that I needed clarification on The presentation, I have a picture of it here somewhere, was two buildings that were both about 20,000 square foot on either side of Technology Way. Now, how does those actual buildings relate in the general plan conformance then as opposed to the new bigger 120,000 something square foot building in terms of general plan conformance now?

And when you say how do they fit, how do they compare maybe?

Well, so I guess the supposition of the county here, and I'm trying to dissect this myself too, is that they are saying that it's already been approved before. But my understanding at least is that the presentation of it was a smaller piece of land. The design for those buildings was very different. Now we're talking five and a bit acres versus two and a bit acres before. Like I'm... I'm not trying to split hairs, I just wanna understand the difference between both the item that we have here today versus what that approval was. Because I watched that meeting this morning and it was real short. And to be fair, they also exercised the same kind of, well, you were actually presenting the item. That's a long time ago. And they were all grumbling in their seats too, so there's nothing new here.

Yeah, I don't remember that meeting very well. It's a good question. I mean, I guess you have to look at it as a whole now, right? I mean, when we were putting the original staff report together in August, I know Christy and I had a few conversations because we were like, well, how do we... How do we present this in a sort of coherent manner, right, so that everybody understands? It's complicated by the fact that there was this prior determination, number one, and number two, that they added on to the project site and made it bigger. And you have two different designations, two different zoning. So it's just, it's really very unique. I don't know if there's a good way to sort of... explain it other than the 2010 determination was made at the time based on general plan and zoning. Again, the specific plan had not been adopted yet. We're looking at it now as this new project and trying to fold it all in together, knowing that it's gotten bigger, both from a site size and a building footprint.

Right, and I believe our general plan recent revision was like 2014, so.

Correct.

Yeah, so it's like we were dealing with a different general plan as well as different zoning. So I just, I'm trying to navigate this, what are these things is not like the other kind of situation. I just, there's so many variables here and I just, I don't know, I probably have missed quite a few, but I wanted to make sure I understood that. Thank you for that.

I don't know, did that help at all?

It did, it did. I think it illustrates the murkiness that we're kind of navigating at this moment. Yeah, Commissioner Jones.

Sorry, just to confirm again on the dates, the Bremen Boulevard specific plan was adopted March 27th, 2012. General plan was adopted July 22nd, 2014. We updated again in June of 2024.

I'm sorry, we updated what?

the general plan in June of 2024? Or was it just 2014?

No, 2014, July of 2014. Okay, thank you. There have been individual amendments made to it over the years since the 2014 adoption, but we haven't done a comprehensive update.

Just little minor changes, tweaks. Thank you. Excellent.

Any other questions of staff?

That was a bit long-winded.

Okay, let's see. At this time, the public is permitted to address the Planning Commission. Remarks are limited to three minutes per person. We don't have an applicant, so unless, I don't know, is there a rep from the county here? No. April.

At this time, we'll start in the chambers. If you would like to speak on Zoom, please raise your hands who you are ready. Our only speaker here in the audience is Danny.

Okay, the punchline first. The reason I said that is at the end of the day, the county can do whatever it wants. You know it, I know it. So by them throwing these red herrings at you, that gives them cover for all the screw ups that will invariably come with this project. Again, I referenced Station 92. They've already screwed it up. And what do they do? They try to blame the council for their mistakes. CINO did this with Bridal Gate back in 2006. And the Mighty Munchkin... is just going from the same playbook. They expect you to turn it down so that they can come back and maybe throw a bone or two, but not enough to really make a difference, and then you'll deny it again, or they will appeal it to the council. And just like Station 92, miraculously, they'll bring up papers that you never saw. Look at yesterday. You received that opus yesterday. Of course it was planned that way. They know how to cover themselves. So take the wind out of their sails. Go with the assumption that they're going to do whatever they want anyway and just approve it. So then that way they can What can they say? Oh, the planning commission didn't do this and wouldn't allow us to do that. No, give them the whole God-blessed thing. Here, don't talk about it. Just do a first, second roll call. And Diane and the little consortium, they won't be able to do anything. But remember, they don't need our permission. And I think you are all aware of that. They don't need our permission. So kibono, who benefits by you guys talking about it tonight? Them. They benefit. So why give them the benefits? And this is coming from me. So that ought to tell you exactly how much I don't want them to succeed.

At this time, we have no one here, no one else left in the chambers to speak. We'll go to Zoom. Again, please raise your hand if you'd like to speak on this item. No speakers in Zoom.

Thank you, April. Let's see, I'll close public comment and discussion. Who would like to start? Commissioner Johnson. You don't have to, but I figured you're up. All right. Commissioner Roberts, any thoughts?

I live in that corridor. I think it's how I feel. I think all of you get how I feel. And I think you're right. I think the gentleman that came up to the mic is right. I think that we have communicated our angst on this. I think we did a very good job when we met the last time about the things that should not have happened that happened. the disregard for the community as a whole, and there's definite disregard. But at the end of the day, the county is going to do what the county wants to do on county land, and there's really not I mean, there's really no need to reiterate what I thought was a very thorough conversation at our last meeting regarding this. I'm just saddened that the folks that live in that area, including myself, are going to have to deal with a tremendous amount of traffic. It's unfortunate, but there's little or nothing we can do about it, because we can't tell the county one way or the other what they need to be doing in order for all of us to be safe in that community. So I happen to agree, just approve it and be done with it, because the next thing that I understand is coming is the data center. And she can do that as well on county land. And that is something that we'll be talking about as well in the very near future from Ms. Burgess. So I happen to agree that there's not much we can discuss here. Not much that I want to discuss anyway. Understanding that there's not much we can put forward more on the record because we've put quite a bit on the record at our last meeting and that's all i have to say thank you commissioner roberts uh commissioner jones any thoughts yeah um

I've tried to remain, you know, kind of technical throughout this process. And, you know, you look at like section code 65402 requires the commissioner review location, purpose, extent. We've done that. Location for me is the biggest issue. I'm glad during questionnaire, the piece came up about the 2010 finding and the Brentwood Boulevard specific plan being adopted after that, the general plan being adopted after that. So I don't think we need to necessarily repeat anything, or at least anything that I'm gonna say that I did in August. I think, you know, I'll be candid on the timing of the additional information. That was a little frustrating. We had this discussion back in August and we get this information barely 24 hours before this meeting. So what the intent of that was, I'm not gonna go there, but it certainly creates a perception that just feels a little off to me. But that said, I've reviewed it, I've considered it. It doesn't change where I land on just the broader conformance question. You know, I don't know if we wanna look at the fire issue, given the letter that we received. You know, they're confirming they have the appropriate equipment to be able to handle that building. So I don't know if that means we take that one out, go with the rest. But, you know, I'm not gonna rehash everything that I did, because I think August meeting, you know, tells everybody what I said, so. I'll say like I did in August. That's okay, that's okay. I'll say like I did in August though. As we've all stated, it's an advisory finding and I understand nothing stops this project with the county's ability to move forward and that's fine. There's strong views on both sides, that's okay too. Reasonable people can disagree and I think this is an example of that. but I genuinely hope the project's successful. I hope it serves the residents well. I hope the concerns we raise never become significant issues, but if they do, at least those concerns were identified and put into the record. So I'll stop right there.

Thank you, Commissioner Jones. Vice Chair Flor?

Or Johnson, you wanna go next?

Roll the dice.

I'll leave it to the closer to close, I'm probably in the center of the group, but I do think that it's gonna bring, the people who have businesses downtown, they're gonna be happier because there'll be more people to support the businesses during the day. I think that we should revisit the general plan. I mean, I think when Anita was chair, we were talking about getting the general plan redone and I think the Brentwood specific plan should be redone because they're over 10 years old and things change. I think the bypass, I forget Eric, when was the bypass put in there? 2000.

Well, I mean, the first segment was done in like the early 2000s, and then I think it was done in three segments overall. When it was officially completed, it's probably been a good 10 years. Exactly.

So I think that that changed the route of Brentwood Boulevard and the intentions that happened there. I think we're going to have more jobs downtown and it'll do reverse commute because people probably may not live here, may not live in Brentwood and be driving in, which is what we kind of want instead of everybody driving out. So, and then lastly, as Danny said, this thing is already up. We're not completely up, but it's in the process of being up or put up or built. I think the people who live in the East County, like Oakley, Discovery Bay, Brentwood, would prefer not to go to Martinez to handle county business. I'm not telling you that everything that the county has done has been appropriate or not. I shouldn't say appropriate. I'm trying to think of the right word to get sentiment to communicate effectively. But I don't see anything wrong with this project. So that's where I stand.

Thank you for that perspective. I don't disagree, actually, that there's benefits to be had or any of that. But that's not what we're here to talk about today. What we're here to talk about today is it's basically a design review. We're just looking at the project and seeing if it conforms to our general plan. And so... We can talk all we want about the functionality of the thing, but that's not what we are. We're the Planning Commission and we're here to do the fairly dry task of evaluating this project against our general plan and because of the location, the Brentwood Boulevard specific plan, which is... despite what some claims have been made in the public arena, the Brentwood Boulevard specific plan is the zoning for the area. And as we spoke with Eric earlier, it is a controlling document and along with the general plan, and we need to look at it. I'm a little confused. I don't even know where the county is anymore. We've been accused of slow walking things. We did this review, which is only an advisory review anyway, and we didn't spend way too much time on it. We put a few things in there where it was clearly out of conformance, which The county seems to be conceding and they're just saying well, but it's just a small percentage, you know, like we didn't we didn't give them enough like we didn't spend enough time giving them more reasons or something. And so I'm baffled by that first. We're slow walking them and then you know, we're not giving enough consideration. So I just, I don't know what to say anymore. Again, this is an advisory. It's for the county to look at and they can do what they want with it. I am disappointed as a taxpayer in District 3 and in Contra Costa County that they don't care more about their city, their cities and what their activities are doing to their cities or how they're affecting their cities. It seems like they should care. I just, I don't get it. So with that in mind, I'm just gonna talk here a little bit tonight about why I think that this review is something that we should be doing. It's our responsibility to do it. It's an advisory review. I don't know why anybody at the county is mad about any of this, but they seem to be. But all we can do is really carry on because we are the Brentwood Planning Commission. It's what we're required to do by law. We're just doing our job. So as we talked about during clarifications, the Bremen Boulevard specific plan didn't exist when the County first proposed a project on what was then a portion of the site. And that there was in fact, as people have been pointing out an initial approval that was back in 2010, And 2010, there was no Brentwood Boulevard specific plan, and the site they chose was completely outside of the area that would be defined by the Brentwood Boulevard specific plan in the future. So I don't see why that approval should be considered any kind of a blanket, you know, well, it was okay then, it should be okay now, but I have seen that going around. What I do know is that the Brentwood Boulevard specific plan was passed in 2012, and then the county added a large portion of land, which is pretty much in the Brentwood Boulevard specific plan, and even moved the building into the Brentwood Boulevard specific plan. And to me, I think that looking at it from the perspective of the city of Brentwood, we need to look at this project and evaluate it against the Brentwood Boulevard specific plan, at least the portions of it that are in that area. I see nothing wrong with that. I do continue to believe that there should have been a new draft EIR. We've had a major demographic shift since that first approval in 2010. The population has gone up from 51,481 to 66,607. And since it seems to be so popular at the county, I'm gonna give you a percentage with two decimal places, which don't matter, but it's 29.38% increase. in just 16 years. So yeah, we've added a third more in just 16 short years to our population. And I think that when you're looking at a city that has not expanded its boundaries and population has grown that much in a short period of time, then yeah, the traffic's going to change. The infrastructure is going to change. Everything is going to change. So I do think that we should have had a draft EIR. I regret that we did not. The new parcel was added again after the Brantley Boulevard specific plan took effect, and I think it needs to be evaluated. I have two minds here. I want to be mindful of staff and my fellow commissioners. I don't want to sit here all night, but You know, having read my correspondence, we're being criticized for not giving them enough reasons. I am prepared to sit here right now and give them many, many reasons why it does not conform. Let me just tell you where I'm going. Again, I don't know that I'm gonna do this yet, but in the Brentwood Boulevard specific plan, there are 10 goals. that shall be evaluated. And it says not that they should be, there's no ambiguity. When you look at the goals and you look at the paragraph right under it, it says those 10 goals shall be evaluated for every project that goes into Brentwood Boulevard specific plan. And I don't see anywhere in the staff report where we evaluated all 10 of those goals. And we've had this come up before where we had to look at those goals in the specific plan. But if you go and you look at chapter two, they give you 10 goals. None of those have been evaluated. We can sit here and do that. And I can tell you, they're not gonna pass very many of them. And since there's 10 of them, it's simple. Every goal that they don't meet, that's 10% failure. And at some point, it's gotta meet their threshold for substantial. because I can guarantee you it's over half. It's at least 50% failure rate on that. But we can do it. I mean, I'm just going by what I looked at this afternoon because I only had a little time to process that letter. But we can certainly go in there and give them a lot more reasons why it doesn't conform. And we could do that right here in this meeting. We could be here all night doing that. But there's more in the document. there are 14 policies and guidelines. And we have not looked at all 14 policies. And pretty much as you go through those policies, they all have shall clauses. They're not optional. They are policies and they need to be met. And we haven't even looked at them. And we can review those here too now. And those, a lot of them have multiple parts. I think some of the lettering goes down to the MNL section of the alphabet. So we could certainly pick this project apart. We can give them a higher percentage of nonconformities. I thought we did a good job last time of just pointing out some non-conformities and making some findings but if they're not enough findings for the county i am prepared to sit here all night and give them findings it's easy there are many many things in the brentwood boulevard specific plan where they have not bothered to conform i don't think they even looked at it so um i don't know uh I think maybe the best thing we should do is just ignore their input the way they're ignoring ours and go ahead and consider what's in front of us tonight. Staff has done a good job of bringing back what we requested. And again, I don't want to make everybody stay here all night. But that is my stance on this. I'm so disappointed in the county for playing both sides. Whatever they can say to make us look bad, you know, in public opinion. You know, they go one way, oh, you didn't say enough. They go another way, oh, you held us up. You know, you're slow walking, you're fast walking. You know, just make up your minds. We don't care. We're just trying to do our jobs over here. So... With that, I think I'm going to not ask to review these things tonight. However, we do have that option available to us. And so with that, if there's any other discussion, I'm glad to hear it. Or if somebody wants to make a motion, I'm glad to hear that as well. Thank you.

Yeah, Commissioner Jones.

I mean, I can wait. The only question that I wanted to get some feedback from just fellow commissioners, chair, is just one of the items regarding the areas that are accessible to emergency response providers. The building's proposed to be 50 feet tall and there's inadequate evidence in the record to demonstrate appropriate fire price availability. I just want to make sure, given the latest information that came in from the fire confirming that they do have the necessary equipment if that's still something that's reasonable to keep in there. So I just wanted to throw that out there before we are making any motions.

Thank you, Commissioner Jones. That's a very honest point. I think Chief McAllister made it really clear in his letter, the accessibility of that particular apparatus. I just wanted to say quickly about the letter. I actually appreciated the letter very much because when I had submitted my letter Oh my gosh, when was that? February, I think it was, when they had public comment. I didn't get this level of detail. So now I'm stoked at the fact that they went into such fantastic detail with their rebuttal. I would say I'm slightly disappointed that as a resident, I guess I wouldn't get this, but when we made our finding, we got this, so... I would really love it if the county would go through our general plan and do this work themselves and so that we've had something to look at here. I know they only looked at the five that we had brought up, but I'd be open to the discussion. I know I kind of went on a rant last time about this is like, it is a discussion. And this was my first sign of it. So I got really excited when I read it. I also did the same thing. I stayed up late last night and I went through the general plan again. to see everything. I think I got through maybe a third of it. And then I got real tired of going through it. And I had a lot of yeses, a lot of nos, a lot of I don't know. But It did really make me begin to question that, you know, we've got this item in front of us to which Eric, keep me honest on this is the city elected to open that 40 day window with the general plan conformance review ourselves versus the not applicant, I guess, being the county because of this extraterritorial jurisdiction thing.

Yeah, Christy might have to help me with this one, but essentially there really is no 40-day time frame with this particular item because the county didn't formally request that the city go through the process. So, yeah, we did it on our own without them asking for it. So the 40-day timeline doesn't really apply because it only applies when someone asks.

Understood. And because of the circumstances, it makes sense. I guess what I wanted to say was that the city is doing its due diligence to make sure that this is buttoned up from the conformance standpoint, even though it's completely advisory and there's no teeth in essentially what we're doing here today, based on my understanding at least.

exactly and obviously what would have been ideal in this whole scenario not saying that it would have changed the ultimate determination or elate any concerns but if we had gone through the formal process back let's say a year and a half ago when the county was in the process of purchasing that larger piece so that we could have essentially done that done a redo of the 2010 conformance determination. So we're sort of coming in at the very back end. And again, if you drive by the site, you know that they're already under construction. So it's just, it's a very awkward position for everybody to be in.

Understood. And one of the themes I'm hearing from my fellow commissioners here is this sort of like, do we... maybe I don't want to put words in your guys' mouth, but the phrase proportional response comes to mind. And we have a kind of, you know, we have a duty as a planning commission to look at this and say, well, you know, yeah, they're ignoring us because they can. That's what state tells us. And so I don't know what would be a proportional response here. And I see, I did the same exact thing. I went through it and I was, and it really made me tired. Because there was a lot more things I probably could have come up with here. What I might propose at this moment at least is we can always proceed with a finding of essentially no finding as far as I'm aware. We don't necessarily have to say that we find conformance or non-conformance. We can essentially sign there are no findings from an advisory standpoint. Is that accurate or no?

Yeah, so Christy, help me with this one, but are you potentially suggesting that the commission just not make any determination?

Not like I'm not making a motion, I apologize. Right, right. The idea is that, you know, if we, as a commission, we found that we did not, we were not making a determination. I mean, it is a business item, so I'm not sure what our,

lateral opportunities are here okay if i yeah if i if i could just jump in um so had this process gone as it normally goes and it was you know referred to the commission by the county um the law says government code section 65402 says that the planning agency shall render its report as to conformity with the general plan or part thereof within 40 days after it's submitted to you so in an effort to uh you know comply with the this process and with the statute the law requires the planning agency to provide a its determination so um if you're you know at this point the commission has had two resolutions we had one one before with with finding substantial conformity and then you know we were directed to bring back one um you know based on the the the findings that the commission had stated on the record last time. So that's what you have before you tonight. So I'm not seeing it in option three, if that's what you're looking for.

Yeah, that's really helpful clarification wise, because sometimes we've had these instances where we just kind of let it go and say like no finding, what have you. So it does sound like there needs to be a yes or no or conformance slash non-conformance in the duality that exists. So yeah, Commissioner Jones, you had an idea.

No, I was just going to say, I mean, personally, I'm prepared to just move forward with the resolution minus the item that talks about fire and emergency response. given the letter that we received. I just feel like when you get a letter like that, fire chief's essentially saying they've approved it, they're okay with it, they can handle the emergency response to that building. I just think that's a fair thing to take off, I think, given him saying that. So my proposal is basically, not a motion, by the way, is to just take that one off, go with the rest. That's it.

Can I interject? I just wanna mention, and I don't know where I'm going with this, but I just wanna mention that just a couple months ago, the supervisor, county supervisor was excoriating us in the press because if they didn't get this downtown station built, people were going to die. And now, now they have ample coverage. And nothing's really changed. I mean, it's not built. So the hypocrisy is just staggering.

Very fair, Vice Chair Flory. And I know what you're saying on that. Where I'm going with this basically is that In the record, you've got the fire department confirming that, you know, appropriate equipment's available, project's been reviewed, and I just say, you know, based on the information, I would just be comfortable removing that. You know, we get new information like that that resolves a concern. I just feel like the record should reflect that. So I'm just trying to keep this as... as just straightforward as possible. To me, I just think that one could be taken off. I think the other ones that are in there are very on point, at least in my opinion, and that's it.

Yeah, Commissioner Jones, or Johnson, excuse me.

It seems like I could be wrong in the hearing, but if the commission's, I'm willing to make the motion to adopt it so we can go on from what I've been hearing each commissioner say. So unless somebody doesn't want me to, but. Real quick, I think Commissioner Roberts wanted to say something real quick. Oh, okay. Don't want to interrupt.

So I wanted to say to my fellow commissioners and chair that Diane Burgess does not substantiate what we do here on the dais. And we have to be really strong in our communication with one another to understand that, and I do believe that having served as a planning commissioner for quite some time, we have seen some things that have not been transparent from this young lady. And I don't ever want us to feel that What we do up here needs to be substantiated by her. It does not. We are here representing the residents, which we happen to be a part of that community. And I do believe that we do a very thorough job in vetting everything that comes before us. I can't say that there's ever been a time as a planning commissioner and a planning commissioner chair that we did not spend the requisite time going through our packets. So this is really for Commissioner Floyd, Vice Chair Floyd, yes this is something that this is character this is her character and we can't get caught up in people's characters i think that if we stay focused as commissioner jones is is uh communicating here that we just stay focused we look at the packet we have made our comments they were CLEAR AND THOROUGH COMMENTS SHOWING THE NONCONFORMITY WHEN WE MET LAST. AND WE'RE SPEAKING TO THIS NOW. I WOULD NOT GET CAUGHT UP WITH THE SEMANTICS OF THIS WOMAN BECAUSE THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE OF THAT. Stay focused and I think we do a phenomenal job as planning commissioners and with that said, I would be ready to make a motion.

Just one second, I know you were talking the same thing. I had a quick thought as far as So Commissioner Jones, you were talking about, I think policy SA-5 for the EMS providers, is that right? Okay.

Correct, yeah. I'm proposing just removal of that, go with the rest. Just to be explicit, I think that was the only thing.

And then, oh, Eric, a question. Is there any indication that city council will review this item?

That's a great question. That's something that we've talked about internally with respect to state law and logistics. And I don't know if Christie's ever been involved in something like this in another community. We're not sure if the council really has the quote jurisdiction to do that the way the state law is written. Now mechanically with other items that the commission reviews, the council certainly does, right? There's the appeal process and then the call for review process, which is initiated by the council. I'm not really sure that this particular item has that ability to go to the council because of the way state law is written. And I might not be articulating that super well. So if Christie wants to jump in, please do.

You did a great job, Eric. That's absolutely right. The government code section 65402, which is why we're here today. It specifically states that a planning agency and it defines the planning agency should make this determination. And that's the planning commission here. So you're the final review authority per state law.

Understood, okay, thank you for the clarification on that, because I was still unclear. It sounds like we have sort of arrived at our final destination motion-wise. I know I saw a few opportunities for that momentum, Commissioner Johnson or Commissioner Roberts, I don't know.

entertain a motion i just want to make sure i understood what commissioner jones was saying about the fire department or you know did you want to add something to that no i was saying uh remove that bullet point in the resolution where we're saying the inconsistency with policy sa35 which requires just taking that bullet point out before before before we we move um i'm willing to go along with that if there's uh three commissioners that feel strongly that we should take that out

I haven't heard everybody on it yet.

through the chair just real quick the other thing as the commission is kind of continuing to deliberate i asked april to share my screen this is the uh a word version of the draft resolution included in the packet i've took the liberty of striking this particular one not knowing how the uh the motion is going to be made and i'm certainly able to make other adjustments to it depending on what the motion is but before let me just say this when a motion is made Excuse me, and there's a second on it. Can you give me a second to make any further adjustments to it and then display it on the screen so that everybody's clear?

Yeah, that works.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, I thought I might have misread what the commission is going for, so I'm going to let Commissioner Roberts make her motion.

Because I think I misread what the. I still would like to hear some discussion about where people are at with the item being striked here that we're looking at on the screen. I'm willing to go along with it if there's three that wanna do this. So far I know Commissioner Jones wants to do it. Commissioner Johnson, do you want to do it? You want to strike this? But I thought, so from what I was hearing, I thought there were...

Okay, let me make the motion. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. I make a motion to adopt... resolution for the city of Brentwood. This is the, including the Contra Costa County's recent acquisition of 5.06 acre parcel to include within the scope of project, with the exception of the fire piece that was a part of this packet.

I'll second.

I'm gonna ask for a point of clarification here just so I know what I'm voting on. So before, at the last meeting on August the 8th, right, that was August the 8th? 18th. 18th, excuse me. There were a list of things that we found that we felt didn't meet the general plan, correct? Correct. And on the screen is the list of the things that the commission felt didn't meet the general plan.

Mm-hmm.

I'm correct on that. All right. So then, um, commissioner Roberts is making a motion that says, I guess you're saying that everything except the fire piece meets the general plan. What I'm saying doesn't meet the general.

If you read it, it does not substantially conform to the general plan.

Go ahead.

Okay. That's what I'm saying. Okay.

I'm sorry. I'm good. I got a second on the floor. So we got a motion and a second. Oh, yeah.

I'm sorry, to jump in just one more time. So motion in a second. On the screen is striking the reference to policy SA 3-5. That's right. Consistent with the motion made by Commissioner Roberts. And then the rest of those bullets would remain in the resolution as the reasons why the commission finds this project not to conform to the general plan.

Correct.

Got it? Okay, great.

There's a second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. No. All right, motion carries 4-1. All right, moving on. Informational reports. Transplant Committee.

We had a meeting and we... We did? We did. We did. Contra Costa Transportation Authority gave us a presentation of all the plans that are coming forth and how money is being spent. It's been, I guess, the third time that it's happened. I'm sure you've had the same presentation. So that's what we did.

Nice. Design review? No meeting. Okay. Land use, no meeting, and municipal code. No meeting. No meeting. Excellent. Item H1, new agenda items. Do we have any future agenda item requests?

I would like, I have one. I would like for the department to vet whether county is planning on bringing a data center onto their property which is what's been communicated to me here in Brentwood. I know that we didn't know much about this building other than what was brought before us back in 2010. So all this happened very quickly. And I don't want us to be blindsided. So if you could just confirm or bring back to the Planning Commission, if a data center is on its way to Brentwood, and it doesn't have to be this year, but is it something that is being discussed? I would like to know. You don't know now, but we didn't know a lot of things. I just need that to, if you could.

I knew I was in trouble when you cleared your throat and you looked directly to the right.

Right.

And then I turned my head and I was like, oh no, she's looking at me. That's totally fine. Yeah. Would a communication to the commission suffice outside of like a formal agenda item just as a follow? Okay, great. I appreciate that. I can do that.

It is just a little bit of information, commissioners. It is spreading like a wildfire in pretty much most of the municipalities here in Northern California. And based on what's happened with... this situation on the technology way, I'm really concerned that something like this can find its way to Brentwood without us knowing. So I see the fights that are going on. I'm sure all of you see it as well. And I want to be in front of this. I don't want us to be caught being reactive, but trying to, as most cities are doing now, put moratoriums And that's something that I would like to have a conversation about with my commissioners at some point, put a moratorium here in Brentwood on data centers.

Yep, totally understood. And I'll follow up with the commission here in pretty short order.

I appreciate it.

You're welcome.

Okay. If nothing, yep, Commissioner Johnson. I have one.

And I think Commissioner Flohr might have brought this up before. But I'd like to... See if we could mention as a commission, I don't exactly know the way to do this procedurally, but we do need to start getting a new general plan, a new Brentwood. I think the general plan is over 10 years old, and we need to, and I don't know exactly the mechanism that triggers that. Money. But at least I think we should start looking at it because... I think that would help us in our deliberations.

Yeah, and I can just tell you real quick that there's a lot of background on that particular item as well, and I can provide that to the commission along with the data center request. I think it'll suffice. And again, as always, when you get communications from me and you have other questions, feel free to call me or meet with me or whatever. But I think I can provide that in an email to all the commission.

I just want to say, I can't wait till I can say to Commissioner Flora, thank you for that.

All right. Any other comments? Fantastic. The next regular Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for October 6th, 2026 at 7 p.m. and will be at the City of Brentwood's Council Chambers located at 150 City Parkway. Do I have a motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn.

Second.

All in favor? Aye.

Thank you for that. That was, that was mild, Mike.