Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Let's go ahead and call this meeting to order, please. Thank you, April. Um, welcome to the January January 20th planning commission meeting. All members are present. Or actually, let let the record reflect that Commissioner Roberts is absent. And um, would you like to join me in the pledge of allegiance? I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you everybody. Some boiler plate for you. Per the city's meeting rules and procedures, public comments are generally limited to five minutes or less time if a large number of speakers is anticipated or if approved by the chair. Let's I think we're good. Speakers desiring answers to questions should direct them to the planning commission and if relevant, the commission may direct them to staff. Speakers can also follow up directly with staff during regular city business hours. Please file a speaker card with the administrative secretary on the form provided at the back of the chambers during this position portion of the meeting. Those in the council chambers are permitted to speak on items that are not on the agenda. Public comments for scheduled agenda items should wait until that time. Um Zoom participation during this general public comment period will not be accepted. Please note that the commission's actions are final unless an appeal is filed with the city clerk within 10 calendar days. April to do it.

Chairperson, we have one uh speaker card. Danny. Hello. Hello. Oh, there it is. Not that I need it, but it needs to be recorded. Okay. One hell of a year. And I'm talking about this one, not last. I was hoping our city manager would attend, you know, with being the new guy and all. Oh well. So, why is this one going to be a hell of a year? I'll elaborate on the agenda item. Suffice to say, yeah, I'll wait to the agenda item. But for now, let's talk about a missed opportunity. Oakley may be getting a data center. Now, from this point on, although I may go down rabbit holes and with a dash of rambling, which is typically me anyway, um I want to discuss why we missed this opportunity and that stems from my history. I've built data centers. I've retrofitted. I've closed them down. I built one in El Paso, one in Arlington. The El Paso was from the ground up. They're what's considered hardened buildings. And the beautiful thing about hardened buildings is that you need on-site people to take care of everything from plumbing to the actual systems to

upgrades, the whole shoot and match and building the infrastructure of course has to be upgraded. But more often than not, the state and the fed will kick this stuff in. You think San Jose spent their own money? to build the Google and the Apple and all that stuff. No. And then electricity. Yes, that is a big concern. But in Oakley, they don't have an independent electrical system. They're going to pull the same PG& power that we are going to use. Our rates are going to go up even though we don't reap any benefit from all whatsoever. Plus, when I built data centers, I'm talking about the early 2000s. So, solar was a fantasy. Wind was a fantasy. Yet, the actual building of one Oh, and servers were this big. So imagine you having an iPhone 4 and then someone offers you an i7. That's how much it's changed over the decade, man. Almost two decades. I follow it. I love it. I love what we call dead rooms. It would require because it would be a buildup for us if it were on PA1. It would actually give us something for PA1, not a Taco Bell and mixeduse housing. Although, if we had mixeduse housing, that would be great because then we would have people closer to the data center. But we're talking about MEP, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, those jobs. We're talking about general

construction. those jobs. We're talking about infrastructure upgrade. We're talking about if you know the it won't matter to you but sonnet rings and mans that would be investments from these businesses. And the beautiful thing is whoever builds it up and lives in there if they move it's still there. Back when I was doing it, it was called, we called them pilots where people would parse out pieces of data center kind of like uh re Wei works, we sit, whatever that one with companies uh renting spaces and there will always be customers especially now with the onset of hey AI and Bitcoin just those two would be drawing a lot of attention to us. I honestly hope Oakley turns it down. I think we made a mistake. If they came to us and we didn't even think about it, we made a terrible mistake. Thank you.

At this time, we have no other speakers here in the chambers. All right. Thank you so much, April. Um moving into the consent calendar. Uh our next item is the consent calendar. There is one set of me minutes for the regular meeting of October 21, 2025. Is there any discussion or do I have a motion? Motion to approve the uh consent calendar. I'll second.

All in favor? I I motion carries. public hearings. We have a conditional use permit. Just want to let the record show that I did I didn't vote on that because I wasn't here for Oh, okay. through the chair. But Commissioner Johnson, did you watch the meeting? Because you can vote on it if you watched the meeting. Okay. So, let's retake that vote, please, and get it on record on the mic, please. Okay. Yeah. All in favor? I I I abstain.

Motion carries. Thank you. I'm sorry about that. So, uh, moving on to public hearings. We have a conditional use permit to establish a 24-hour emergency veterinary care facility located at 5541 Lone Tree Way within the Lone Tree Plaza commercial center. And to give the staff report, we have Jennifer. Hi, Jennifer.

Thank you, chair, and members of the commission. Tonight, we are here to consider an application for conditional use permit 25-00 or 25-011 to consider a 24-hour emergency vet clinic. The subject property is part of the Lone Tree Plaza um integrated shopping center and the specific building is located at 5541 Lone Tree Way. The proposed tenant veg er for pets would take over an approximately 5,148 square foot tenant space within the centrallylo pad building. The property is located within the PA1 specific plant area and is zoned for regional commercial uses. As proposed, the vet would provide services to most small animals, including dogs and cats, as well as exotic pets such as reptiles, birds, and small mammals, as well as turtles, on a 24-hour basis, 7 days a week. They would employ approximately 8 to 10 employees on the premises per shift. As outlined in the staff report and based on the submitted application plans and project description, staff believes that the project is consistent with the general plan and zoning designations and would qualify for a categorical exemption under SQUA. And with that, staff is recommending that the planning commission adopt resolution 26-001 approving conditional use permit 25-011. And that concludes staff's report. I'm available for any questions you have tonight as well as the applicant who has also joined us here in the audience. Thank you.

Hello Jennifer. Do we have any other 24-hour veterary um emergency vets in Brentwood? Um I am not aware of any others. Um I believe within the staff or within the um project description from the applicant they have done their due diligence and is their understanding that there is not. That was my only question. Thank you. Anyone else?

I have no questions. Thank you. At this time, the public is permitted to address the planning commission. Remarks are limited to 5 minutes per person except for the applicant who will have 10 minutes. Does the applicant wish to address the commission?

Hi, good evening. I'm Jennifer Jeffers. I'm an Alam Atkins law firm in San Francisco. Uh I'm here on behalf of Veg Eer for Pets or Veg. I'm also joined by Samantha Fishbone. Veg's director of real estate here. So we'll be happy to answer questions after this, but I wanted to just um thank you all first, the planning staff and commissioners for your time and efforts and also preparation to get us here. As um uh Miss Heagen mentioned, we are here to discuss Veg's request for a conditional use permit to allow for 247 emergency veterinary clinic at 55441 Lone Tree Way. So, we just wanted to give you a little bit of background about Veg so you knew what that was, also what they plan to do in this space, um and then can answer questions. Um next slide, please. Oh, thank you. All right, so a little bit about Veg. Uh, Veg has one single mission. It's to help people and their pets when they need it the most. The company was founded in 2014. It's the only nationwide emergency veterinary business. As the slide shows, there's more than 100 locations now across 34 states, including 16 open locations in California alone. There's a few things that separate veg from other veterinary clinics. The first one is that veg perform only performs emergency veterinary services. There's no vaccinations, no spaying or neutering, routine checkups or boarding. Basically, it's an urgent care for pets. Secondly, during treatment, Veg does not separate people from their pets. Customers can choose to stay with their pets throughout the entirety of procedures and Veg staff meets them where they are, even if that ends up being on the floor sometimes. Um, all in all, as I mentioned, with the 100 locations and opening more every day, Veg is a um, very wellestablished operation that takes great care for their patients and customers while also maintaining harmony with surrounding uses. Next, please. So, a muchneeded local serving use,

Veg's use is a vital one for the community. As mentioned, it stays open 24 hours a day. It handles emergencies that can happen at any time. Staff are available 24 hours a day. There's usually eight to 10 employees on site per shift in order to handle emergency situations when they arise. And the service is even more valuable because as um as Commissioner Johnson noted and question whether there were other emergency 24-hour services in the area there or not, this would be the first one. Most clinics in the city in surrounding areas close at around 5 to 6 or they're not open sometimes on weekends. Um, Brentwood residents currently have to travel about 10 miles to go to Antioch for something that would be comparable. So, this would be bring a much needed service to the city in a central location that would be convenient for residences um for residences to access. Next slide, please. Uh, for the project site, as as um Miss Hagen noted, this is a small accessory building located in the Lone Tree Plaza Shopping Center. It's the shopping center currently is home to a variety of uses including retail shops, grocery stores, a gas station, restaurants, and a Petco. The area surrounding the property is predominantly commercial. There's also um other large retail shopping centers. To the north and south, to the east is the four freeway and to the west is um some uh residential across the road. There are also numerous businesses within the shopping center and near the property that open early in the morning or stay open late at night. Sometimes other ones operate 24 hours a day, including gas stations, coffee shops, and gyms. The suite that Veg is looking at is about 5100 square feet. It's 5,148 of commercial uh space. It was previously occupied by a salon. And the proposed project would not involve any train changes to the footprint, height, landscaping or parking to the existing facilities. Next

slide, please. And this gets a little bit into what it would do. And this is all relegated to the interior tenant improvements on the building. Um there's a few minor exterior modifications um that would include likelike materials, but basically as you can see in these slides, the buildout includes high-end finishes, custom cabinetry, Italian tile flooring, and the like. Um Veg has essentially figured out because it's been such an experienced operator, how to eliminate noise and odor concerns from these types of businesses. For odors, they utilize imperous surfaces in their designs so that everything is easily cleaned. Additionally, they install a state-of-the-art HVAC system that circulates air at a higher than average rate and all of the air that is exhausted in the building is first filtered, so odors are not an issue. Likewise, uh noise is also not an issue. Uh all of Veg's operations occur indoors. There is nothing outside. Veg also installs high quality soundbat installation. uh sorry, insulation and acoustical ceiling tiles to minimize any noise concerns. Um unfortunately also because so many of the animals that are coming in need emergency services, they're not usually in a position where they're making a lot of noise as it is, but to the extent that they they do make any noise, the the um measures that are taken by Veg and the construction would eliminate noise concerns and impacts. I'll also just note here that the buildout also includes installation of a whole suite of standard security features. So there's 247 video monitoring, a double door vestibule that requires staff to manually buzz in customers twice before they can enter. And then all medications that are there are stored in secure containers when not being used to treat the pets. Next, please. Uh here's a it's very hard to see, but here's a a proposed floor plan. So you can kind of see that this is really optimized for emergency care.

The majority of the clinic consists of large open concept treatment bays and space. There's also four private exam rooms and other specialty spaces such as an X-ray room and a surgery room. The remaining space consists of restrooms, a staff break area, and storage. Next. So, per the city's municipal code, the veterinary clinics without kennels are permitted on the property with a conditional use permit. Veg does not offer boarding or kenneling services. All animals that are present on site are receiving active emergency care and treatment under constant supervision. Overall, the proposed clinic will be a valuable addition to the city, especially considering that there are no other 24-hour emergency clinics within the city limits. The clinic will also be a good fit for the shopping center specifically because there's already a number of animal and serviceoriented uses in the center. So, a slide please. With that, I'll just um conclude by saying with for the above reasons on the slides and as we're uh happy to answer more questions, we respectfully request that you approve our application and thank you for your time.

Thank you. Um does anybody on the commission have questions for the applicant? Go ahead. Oh, you just one question. Is this a franchise or is it all owned by centrally by one corporation? You want to Yeah. Do you want to Yeah, it's all corporate. Do you want to speak to any more about that or No, we'll actually need her to come up to the mic if we're going to take comments. Thank you. Hi, Samantha Fishbone, director of real estate for Veg. So, no, it is completely corporate. We do not do any franchising of any kind. Commissioner J.

Yeah. Thank you. Um c can can you elaborate a little bit further on um just how the late night arrivals, [snorts] departures, things like that are are handled. Yeah. So on average like 85% of the people that come to us are really more urgent care than emergency. So I'd say in any given hour it's pretty fluid. You probably have one to three people in at a time. There's never a case of like 20 30 people in there at once. It's pretty kind of flows pretty nicely. Um but when you arrive there is a double glass door entry. So it used to be buzzed in the first one and then buzz into the second one. That's security for both the doctors and the patients. Gotcha. Thank you. And the average number of um pets that are typically there at any given time.

I'd say one to three up to like maybe at a busy time maybe up to five. Otherwise, if there's more in there, they're usually under the care being treated after surgery. Gotcha. Okay. And thank you for the um HVAC um just breakdown and understanding of that. So, thank you, Chris. Hi, [clears throat] thank you for the presentation. Um I was the one question I had was about biohazard disposal. Any can you walk us through that? We have a third party that comes and picks that up a couple times a week. Yep. through the back entryway disposed up properly. Okay. So, stored on site until the dispos Okay, great. Thank you.

And I have no questions for you. Thank you so much. Okay. Thank you, April. Do we have any um public comment at this time? We have one speaker card in person. Danny, just kidding. We have no speaker cards in person. Let's go ahead and go to Zoom. If you'd like to speak in Zoom, please raise your hand now. We have no speakers in Zoom. Thank you so much. All right. Um, do I have a motion to close the public hearing?

Make a motion to close the public hearing. Second. All in favor? I. Motion carried. and discussion. I think I'll start on this end today.

Okay. No, thank you. Um, so I mean I I think I'm I'm prepared to support the item. I I I think um you know it's located within an existing commercial center. It's it's consistent with the plan. Um I think it does provide a needed regional service, you know, to the point that the would and I think this is something that would would serve a need. Uh so um being that it you know it's not really expanding on the building footprint um everything's indoors um parking noise I circulation impacts I think that's minimal and manageable um so I I I think you know when you look at the the whole scenario um I I I would be prepared to support the item. Thank you. Uh Commissioner Johnson.

I I don't have any comments about this at this time. Not I'm good. Okay. And Vice Chair Brand

uh yeah, I want to echo what uh what's been said here today. U I think the there's I did the I looked it up and I I think the nearest one is um it's the VCA over by um BART in Antioch. And uh the only reason I really know that is I did have an emergency with uh my past pet now. And that was a few years ago. And I was I remember going through that experience thinking, man, I I wish I'm surprised we didn't have one in Brentwood. And I had to drive back and forth and um this is just wonderful to see that and especially in that shopping center, we have a really wonderful diversity of

uh economic choices, let's just call it. And um you know, a facility like this, you know, it I see so much benefit to the community and it's just uh yeah, so that's all I got. Thanks, All right. Um, for myself, yeah, I've been to the uh the emergency bed over in Antioch as well on Sunset. Um, it is a pretty good distance to have to go, especially if you want something done quickly. Um, and uh have always been happy to go there. Um, they're pretty good people over there actually, but uh I'm glad to see uh someone somebody wanting to provide this service right in Brentwood. Um, nobody in Brentwood is going to be more than, you know, four miles from you basically. Uh, and then, uh, there good service for the people on the south and east end of Antioch as well. It would have to otherwise go over by the board station. So, um, I like that the dimension of 8 to 10, um, employees as jobs that we see. Um, I like the location. It's a it's in a place where, um, people coming and going 24 hours a day is I don't think is going to be any kind of a problem. there's just a, you know, a Costco there um in a freeway and, you know, it's not bad. Um, and I did appreciate really that um I could see that there was thought in the floor plan to put um you know, like the employee area, conference room and things like that over in adjacent to the other business, the the barber shop, so that um if there is pet noise, it'll be farther over. Um and uh yeah, I just think it's a really good project. I'm happy to see something coming in into that space. It's been empty for a little while and uh um I'm feeling pretty favorable for it. Those are my comments. Um so I'm ready to hear a motion.

Sure. I'll um make a motion to adopt resolution number 26-001 approving conditional use permit number 25-011 subject to certain findings and conditions. Second. All in favor? Hi. Hi. Congratulations. Welcome to Brentwood.

Okay. Uh moving on to uh E2, a zoning text amendment um RZ25-4 to Brentwood Municipal Code section 17.715 accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units in compliance with recent changes to state legislation. And we have a staff report from Sarah Uleriler. Sorry. Been a while, Sarah.

No problem. [clears throat] Good evening, planning commission. Thank you, chairperson. Um, before you tonight is what is becoming your uh yearly legislative update [laughter] on JADUs and ADUs to amend the city's municipal code section 17.715 to comply with the state of the latest state legislation. This year there are three main bills that affected the ADU and JADU regulations. Those bills are SB543, AB154, AB462. Many of those changes are more cleanup and clarification items. However, I'll go over these amendments on a high level on the next slide for you. A redline version of the current ADU ordinance uh is attached to your packet tonight in order to track the amendments required this goound. So starting with SB543 which became effective in January of this year. It codified many of the state housing and community development department uh also known as HCD guidelines. This legislation clarifies the city's review timeline for determination of a complete application uh to 15 days from the date of submitt of the application and provides an appeal process for incomplete application deter uh determinations or denials. The city currently is required to submit their ADU ordinance to HCD for review and approval. This law adds that failure to submit a copy to HCD or failure to respond to their review comments will now result in an ordinance that is null and void. This law also clarifies that the definition of allowable square footage uh now specifies that it's based on interior livable uh space. Additional clarification was made to clarify that the the quantity of JADUs and ADUs that are allowed on each property. Um, and

then the law clarified that utility connection requirements, impact fees, and capacity charge charges are not, excuse me, also cannot be applied to JADUS, which is consistent with the current requirements for ADUs. Uh lastly, the law exempts JADUs and ADUs that are less than 500 square feet from school district fees and um clarifies that fire sprinklers cannot be required for JADUs if the main home is not fire sprinklered. Um next we have AB 1154 which also became effective on January 1st of 2026. This law revises the owner occupancy requirement for JADUs to now only apply when a JADU shares sanitation facilities with a single family dwelling. This law also prohibits Jedus from being rented for less than 30 days at a time. Um, and lastly, you have AB462, which went into effect immediately, uh, which was October 10th of 2025, which relax the issuance of certificates of occupancy under certain conditions for an ADU in disaster affected areas that are subject to state emergency, excuse me, subject to a state of emergency um, on or after February 1st of 2025. There were a few additional modifications uh to our ordinance that were really again made to ensure that we were compliant with state legislation. So um uh one cleanup clarified that the review period for a pre-approved ADU is specifically uh for that of detached ADUs only. Um, the other clarification was that the existing law prohibits a local agency from establishing size requirements for ADUs based on percentages of the primary dwelling. Um,

so clarification language was added to ensure that at least an 800 ft attached ADU must be allowed even if it exceeds 50% of the square footage of the existing home. So, given that the city's ordinance is required to be updated in order to comply with state legislation, staff recommends that the planning commission adopt resolution number uh 26-002 um recommending that the city council adopt an ordinance approving the zoning text amendment RZ25-004 to amend the Brentwin Municipal Code section 17.715 for ADUs and JADUs in compliance with state planning law. The the commission's recommendation will be forwarded to city council for their final action. I'm available for any questions as is Aaron who we have from Goldfar and Litman. She's available um on Zoom if needed for clarifying questions. Thank you.

And thank you Sarah. Do we have any um clarifying questions for Sarah? of it. Ju just to I think more for those that are watching, but just to confirm that the these amendments are essentially intended to bring our municipal code into alignment with the current state ADU JD laws, right? There's no local policy or anything like that. No new local policy that's being put into place. Correct. We're just amending our current I guess you would call it local policy in order to comply with the state, but we're required to do so. Yeah. Thank you. Mhm. Uh, Commissioner Johnson

and and our our role is to just recommend we don't get we're not the full authority on this. We're just recommending to the correct. The city council makes the final determination. Okay. Thank you. Uh, Vice Chair Grant,

I mean, I have a lot of questions, but I think we'll wait until get through this. But thank you. Yeah, I I have some. Um first of all I was my first question is again you know we we seem to be getting these uh quite frequently every year um where we have to uh re rewrite the Brentwood municipal code to um conform to just a almost tsunami some days of um state laws just basically taking away planning and um hemming us in a little bit more and more. And uh uh just for the benefit of the public who's watching this tonight, this is just another of many exercises we've had to do where your city planning staff, your planning commission, and your city council um are losing the ability to um create the city that you want. And instead, we're being required to create the city. that the state imagines that every single state, every single city in the state um should be like without regard to um any kind of individual considerations for individual cities. So um let's see the thing about the fire sprinklers. I think um I won't ask a question about that. the 15-day review. This is just um a review just to see if the application is complete. Is that correct?

Correct. Completeness determination. And did we used to have um our own deadline for that particular step? Previously it was subject to just the standard permit streamlining act which is 30 days. So now the state has basically codified a process for ADUs which is uh more streamlined. So the 15 days now. I see. And um do you think that uh cutting another two weeks out of the process is going to create more ADUs or I mean are ADUs usually fairly urgent that they have to be built? Um or is I don't I don't understand why the state is asking us to do that.

Sure. I mean it's it's not necessarily going to change any of our review timelines. Um the city previously for any sort of you know addition uh ADU modification you know any kind of building permit for residential projects are concerned were typically reviewed within two weeks. So it's a it's complying with our current uh process that we currently follow. So I don't necessarily see an impact to us currently um as far as the workload and things like that is concerned. Yeah, I I mean I do notice that in a lot of these um new rules that they keep passing, there are shortened deadlines and uh I'm I'm concerned that there will be a cumulative effect over time where um I mean there's there's no additional staffing that is provided by the state or any kind of um funding. It's just the city is just required to uh deal with the compressed workload and if we have you know um a lot of shortened mandated things that staff must review um not only this one but others that have come before it. And it seems to me like staff would be put into a position where be difficult sometimes without having to go into overtime or um you know putting aside other things that the city um needs to do just to just to get done with um things that the state has compressed on to you. And uh so I I just want you to know that that we're aware of that and we we appreciate that this is a burden for staff and it's a it's an basically it's an unfund unfunded mandate. Um can you tell me a little bit more about the removal of occupancy requirement that I think it's down kind of the last thing on the page.

Are you um the owner occupancy requirement that you owner occupancy. Sure. So, um there previously there was a owner occupancy requirement for Jedus that um the owner had to live in either the main home or the Jedu. Um that is now done away with. The only time we can require that is if the Jedu shares any sanitation facilities with the main home, then there has to be a owner occupancy requirement. And um do you recall why there was originally an owner occupancy requirement? What was the purpose of that?

My understanding, and we can clarify if uh with outside legal counsel or our attorneys here if needed, but my understanding is just to ensure it wasn't that all of them weren't rented out. It wasn't just like a a rental property with, you know, three potentially rentals on it, that the property owner lived on site, was able to kind of manage and make it more of like a residential community than just a rental property. And uh so they've just kind of done away with that benefit and now they can all just be rentals, you know, as corporate owned. Um all right. Well, thank you so much. I'm sorry for all the questions. No problem.

Okay. Um I need a Oh, did I do the motion to close the public hearing? Oh, I got to do public speakers. Sorry, we were doing questions. Um, I got out of space. It's been three months. Sorry. Uh, April, go ahead with uh public comment. Thank you.

We have the one speaker card. Danny, hello. Hello. Yeah, you know, the whole need to put it on the record thing. Well, like I said before, boy, one hell of a year. And I am referring to this year. And I hate reading from here, but I want to make sure I don't put any cuss words in my diet tribe here. The rel the ridiculous statutes and laws that are putting us in a spot where we might as well rubber stamp buildouts. We got screwed with our slow law, slow walk. God, I want to swear so bad of HCD proposals. Now, normally I will call out the usual suspects, but recent events with BPD got me thinking. What if staff was ordered, hinted, and or intimidated by leadership to slow walk, misstate, pretty much anything for us to miss our opportunity to keep some control? Where does this lay the blame? Well, our former city manager, otherwise known as the quarter million dollar man and our soontobe booted, I mean soon to be leaving current city attorney. But could a would a shoulda does nothing for where we are now except as I

suggested about Bridalgate. We hold ADU, JD, AAU. All the ADU initials hold their feet to the fire. Except there is no or else. I read the usual gibberish designed to put money in the pockets of homeowners and developers. There are guard rails to keep some semblance of our city design, but there aren't any or elsees. What if there's over parking on the streets? Sure, the city can sight, but will they? Because you need people to actually do it. And a lot of times you generally know who the snitches are. So, they won't be motivated to do anything. people rarely will, you know, follow the rules such as appropriate parking, number of parks and all that unless there are reasons to follow the rules. The same thing applies to the whole Airbnb avoidance, houses going to be tracked. If a homeowner rents his residence, what prevents them doing so with many apartments? I mean, it's said, it's clearly stated, but what's the or else? How can you enforce it? And if you can enforce it, then what what are the punishments? Because let me jump to that place. Well, before I do that, do ADUs go through planning? I'm not quite sure. I I think it may have been answered, but if they don't, how can it be regulated to meet

the city plan? I suggest forwarding this agenda item until violations are clearly defined. I didn't see in any of the zoning whether from city or state about or else this implies we can consider creating enforcement of the guardrails. The guardrails are there, but we don't have any enforcement mechanisms and we can't come up with them tonight. Hopefully Britney can do her job and see if there are options. We've had enough advice from our soon to be booted, I mean our outgoing city attorney. Her latest contributions to said BPD situation leads me to believe that she was derelic in her duties with HCD. Now it's freestyle. We can't help what is coming down from the state. Everything's implied that we have no choice but the signness. I don't think so. I think because we have guard rails that are written but no enforcement in place should give us the opportunity to at least find out if we can enforce the guard rails. I don't see anything in the document that says we can't.

Thank you. And anybody on Zoom? There's no other speakers here in person. So, let's go to Zoom. If you'd like to speak, please raise your hand. We have no speakers in Zoom. Thank you. Um, do I have a motion to close the public hearing? So moved. Second. All in favor? I. Um, before we we go on, there was a question um from the audience about do ADUs go through planning and I think that's kind of an interesting question. Would you like to address that, sir?

Sure. Thank you. Um, planning reviews the building permit. Um, but it's only required to have it's ministerally approved now. So, only a building permit. But again, that is routed to planning for review and approval consistent or for consistency with our zoning ordinance and the state legislation. So, we are checking those boxes when we're reviewing them. And um prior to some of these state legislative um bills that have come through in the last I don't know several years um there used to be more involvement or is it about the same?

It was very similar before um we had trying to remember now if we had an uh administrative process I don't think we issued any separate approvals for ADUs at least not as long as I've been here. Maybe Eric can clarify. Um, but it's always been fairly administrative.

Yeah, thank you Sarah and through the chair. The last several years, let's call it 10 years, it's been basically an administrative process, but I do know that when I started here back in the early 2000s, um, we actually required conditional use permits for we called them at the time secondary dwelling units or granny units. Uh, so if you look back in the files for the city, say 2000 to 2010, you will find old use permits uh for certain secondary units. I don't know how many we processed in total, but at some point that changed and we had to change it because of the state laws that were passed. [clears throat]

Thank you. Um, so that's Yeah, there you go. We used to be able to at least permit the things. Um, all right. Is there any discussion by the commission? I think I'll continue starting on my right.

Thank you, chair. Um, yeah, look, I I I I remember when I went through the process of interviewing for the planning commission, a council member ors asked me if I would follow the law if uh even if I didn't necessarily agree with it. And um I said I would. Um, so tonight I think, you know, that's kind of one of those uh one of those cases where I'm going to demonstrate that. Um, but I I will say that um, you know, this is just this is unfortunate. Um, you know, this is this is not a partnership when it comes to working with the state when we're basically being told that, you know, we're essentially reduced to just administering housing policy rather than, you know, shaping it. Um, I just think that's bad governance. I don't like it. Um but unfortunately I think our role tonight isn't to debate state law. Um it's our job to make sure that we're bringing, you know, our code into compliance. So um you know, I'll support this item um on that basis. Uh but like I also said when I went through the interview process that I would say what I think and so I'm doing that. Um so I'll just I'll leave it at that.

Thank you, Commissioner Johnson. Uh, Commissioner Johnson. Um, I just have a quick question. Sarah, um, we want somebody from the audience. Well, not somebody, Danny was talking about um, uh, consequences. So, just out of curiosity, I know that you know all of these things that's there. Is there any possibility for consequences or that? Ju just enlighten me on that. Do you mind defining what you mean by consequences? Like if they don't comp if they don't meet the requirements,

if they don't meet the requirements, um you know, right now it's like approved almost when they come before the planning department. So if they don't meet it, what happens? Right? So we can write a letter of denial if they don't meet the requirements and explain why or and why they don't meet and what their process is to meet them. So if they need to let's say reduce or increase the setback, say they only have a three-foot setback and they're required to have four, we can let them know that. So we have to outline everything as far as where they're not compliant with the current legislation and provide them potentially an opportunity to correct it. But we can deny it if they don't meet those requirements. Okay.

Does that help?

Yes, it does. I mean, it is it is I've seen my fair share of these uh things come before the planning commission over the couple years that I've been on it. Um and it is unfortunate. I really don't like I really don't like when when we have no flexibility. That's whether we're here locally and we have no flexibility or we're trying to enforce no flexibility or the state is trying to enforce uh no flexibility. I wish they would give us goals and say, "Hey, your goal is to increase housing by x% and you can figure out how to do it." Um but with no flexibility, whether it be in the city level or the state level, it doesn't do us any good. So I I always kind of defer not to having computers do the work for us or making us robots and we just um just comply. So it's unfortunate. I wish there was a way to do it and then you know and make some sense. But that's my opinion. I don't have any further comments.

Thank you uh Commissioner Johnson. Uh, Vice Chair Brand.

Yeah. So, [sighs] echoing a lot of what's being said here today, um, we're sort of no strangers on this commission as far as, um, playing tugofwar with the state of California, but, uh, always seeming to be losing our anchor at the back [laughter] on the Brentwood side. Um, you know, that being said, I I went through this pretty extensively as far as the all the bills and um a lot of the content in the staff report, which was fantastic. Thank you, by the way. Um, I'll try to keep this as short as I can. So um I know in here uh the first thing I'll talk about is in this uh I know it clarifies a bit about the [sighs] uh application of objective design standards as it relates to ADUs specifically but not JD JADUs as far as I'm aware. Right. Typically, JADUs are part of the existing home already, like a conversion of a bedroom or conversion of maybe a portion of the garage. So, a lot of you're not typically dealing with design standards. You're just converting interior space, if that makes sense. Um,

right. I guess I'm uh what I'm asking is it seems as though there's two two categories of ADUs. one is governed by our ODS and then the other half the another chunk of them are not. They all are required to meet the same standards as far as setbacks, height, the very minimal design standards that we have, but they all I mean I guess if you're trying to say Jedus aren't called out in there, that's because the Jedus are part of the existing home or so it would be the existing single family home and just conversion of that space. So not necessarily changing of the exterior design or adding any new space. Um, so you wouldn't need to really review for compliance with design, but J, excuse me, ADUs are required to comply with very minimal objective design standards, not our full residential objective design standards. We can't apply all of those.

Right. And is there a is there a simplified document available to the public as far as that concern? Um, this I don't know how you describe it, this simplified or or Sure. We have um a checklist of required materials for ADUs. So, we can update that based on this new legislation. There's not a whole lot of changes that are occurring. It's more cleanup on this round. So, um but we do have likeformational handouts, but not necessarily like a design set of design guidelines. Um they're justformational uh handouts that we have.

Okay. And um I know as you described the check question um has to be fulfilled within 15 days. Um now the appeal process it sounds as though it's for denials only. Is there an appeal process for someone who believes if I'm my neighbor for example or someone down the street has an ADU and I don't believe it's consistent. Do I have recourse to be able to appeal the decision made by a ministerial approval?

So the appeal process is new this round of legislation and it's only for the completeness determination. So if we let's say we get an ADU application and they their height is double the height that it's allowed. So we can let them know hey your your application's not complete. Your height is too you're too tall. you are above the regulations and you need to reduce it to X to comply. they can appeal that determination and say no we believe we do comply because of XYZ or the other process is you can be um you can appeal the denial if we say hey like you haven't met these things we cannot approve you because your height's too tall we've told you the setbacks don't meet you know XYZ you can appeal that determination saying we don't agree with that as well but it's only denial of the actual approved appeal of the denial or appeal of the determination of completeness or not. And that's only an appeal that can be filed by the applicant themselves. So the neighbors, nobody else has the ability to file that. It would only be of the applicant,

right? So, it's kind of a one-way street as far as the applica, well, the the appeal process, which is extremely unusual. Um, it says also, so pre-approved plans exist within uh for Brentwood for ADU. So, if I was a if I was an applicant, I wanted an ADU, I could select amongst a series of pre-approved plans to expedite the process. is that

so we were required I believe it was last year um to have a process for designers or developers to apply for a set pre-approved design so they could submit to us um five designs that they would say hey we can offer these and we want to go through your process to become preapproved so that residents could use these. We haven't had anybody actually apply to get a design pre-approved. So, we actually don't have any like on file to be like, hey, these are the ones. But, we have a we had to allow for a process for somebody to submit for a pre-approved design that we could consider and residents could use in the future, but at this point, we don't have any on file.

I got it. Okay. Thank you. Uh, moving down. So the big one that I wanted to talk about is the impact fees. Now I know a lot of this particularly 543 goes at length about once you hit a certain certain threshold or maximum threshold you no longer have to incur types of uh developer fees school fees um things of this nature. We can't um you know we talked about this last oh gosh I don't remember that was like two years ago. uh where you know there's no there's no recourse to say well we have an increase in population in this particular area via some type of ADU uh an increase in density how do you financially support um you know those social systems that surround us uh fiscally uh and this certainly is a back door to be able to implement that. My understanding is that anything below 500 square feet as an ADU is not uh does not require the school district doesn't have to ask for a school fee. Is that right?

Correct. They they actually cannot ask for a school fee under 500 or less. Right. And we're pretty aware B USD and um Liberty Union both they they solicit that development fee right now for ADUs above 500 ft. Correct. We our building division requires the applicant to submit approval from the school district or it's basically a receipt of the fees being paid before we issue a building permit for the permits that it applies to.

Right. Okay. So, that leads me to my next thing is it it seems as though and I' I'd like clarification maybe from uh uh assigned council. Um can minimum and maximum unit sizes be established for ADUs? And supposedly the answer is yes. A local government may by ordinance establish minimum and maximum unit sizes requirement both for attached and detached ADUs. Now that threshold basically says that um you know we say I think you said in the presentation uh we can't control that threshold as it relates to the primary dwelling unit. So up to 800 square f feet or 50% was it 50% I don't want to speak um yeah sorry uh and 1,200 square feet for a new detached ADU and up to 50% of the floor area of existing primary dwelling and detached ADU. Um, now that would give us the option to be able to essentially say we can put a lower limit, as far as I'm aware, and I'd like to get feedback on this, is we could put a lower limit on the minimum square footage that an ADU is built so that an ADU would essentially incur these fees back to us. So if we do nothing, it basically says, well, they can build what uh anywhere from 150 to 490 or 500 square f feet and then there's no fee. And then for the developer fee, that's over 750, right? I think 700 square correct 750 square feet,

right? So if we said what if we say ADUs have to be a minimum of 751 square feet and at that point you know we supposedly we can do that. So I'd love I'd love some feedback on that as far as uh from well I guess either council [laughter] I can jump in.

Good evening. Um, so to the question regarding minimum size, there is a limit. Um, so you'd have to allow a an efficiency unit, which I believe is 150 square ft. So that wouldn't really address the goal of having a cap at 750 or 500 square ft, right? The efficiency unit has different requirements. It's similar. Uh gosh, there was another name for it. Um, sorry, my blanking on it, but there's a different definition for an efficiency unit. Correct. Yes.

It's like a single room with I can't remember if they has a bathroom or not. Um as opposed to the what probably we offered to the public as far as one of those fancy ones that, you know, you can lower into your backyard via a crane, which is, you know, two bathrooms or two bedrooms, two bathrooms, and a patio, something like that. Um, so I I guess I would like to open this discussion to say, well, for a traditional ADU, based off of the state's definition, I suggest that we be very clear uh to council at least that we intend we believe that it's important that we have a minimum square footage rating so that you know we we can't just we do allow an efficiency unit, but my guess is that most people that would want to live in a that isn't attached to, we'll call it local family or friends. Let's say it's a it's an independently uh rented unit, it would only make sense to live in a nicer place. And so I would suggest that we create a bottom uh threshold for that. Um so that's uh one area here I'd like to address. The uh moving on to the the California building code also allows local agencies to adopt amendments, additions or deletions to the provisions of the CBC which are reasonably necessary and are more restrictive than the CBC standards. So do we have specifics within the current sorry I want to reward that. What areas of opportunity do we have with respect to uh ADU building code or just building code in general to sort of give us a chance based off of the way that these new bills are written to address? And I know they probably don't

have an answer right here, but have we done a even a cursory analysis of uh the CBC to see if California building code, sorry, uh to see if there are opportunities for us? I know they pushed for example the this what did they call it the interior interior livable space is the new definition for you know inside square footage because cities were counting the measurement to the exterior wall and so you can't do that you have to measure it from the inside of the wall so it's all this silly song and dance of we're going to split hairs so it's only fair that municipalities should be able to split hairs too and so I I would like to at least to see what opport opportunities we have there. I mean, I haven't done that level of research, but I I would gather that there is some opportunity there for us to be more stringent and find a way to be a lot more uh we'll call it aggressive with um our treatment of some of these new bills. Um all right, I'm getting there. The the parking aspect, I know there's six points in the parking says stuff about 80. Uh, it's waved. The requirement for parking is waved if it's within a half a mile of public transit in a historically significant district. Um, uh, let's see. when there's a car share vehicle within a block of the ADU. Do we have like a heat map or anything with the city that says like, okay, if you overlay all of these available areas based off of like, you know, bus stops and, you know, maybe uh the downtown area or any other historically, you know, significant districts to see like this is genuinely how much this is affecting this area as far as parking and which areas residents should be prepared to encounter a a potential increase in parking. that cannot be regulated by the city.

That's a big question. [laughter] We we don't have a heat map. I can tell you that.

We haven't gone into that level of analysis and quite quite honestly and I understand what the rationale, but the state does not care. You know, that's the bottom line. And we have regular calls with these folks and webinars and it's just every year they they their goal is basically to make these things easier for the homeowners to build and and that splitting hair thing that you talked about earlier. I my my guess is and I don't know this for sure, but my guess is that these laws get tweaked every year because of situations that come up that they hear about. We got to fine-tune it even more, right? Which then makes the cities have to fine-tune it as well. It's crazy. It's I completely agree and I can't sit here in good conscience to and do nothing [laughter] because what are we doing here? If we're just going to sit here and say yes, it's like there's no point. Most of these things are going ministerial anyway. So why not exercise a little bit more discretion when it comes to what options do we have, you know? Um, there's no pro there's no appeal process for a ministerial review. That would be fun. I go to get convicted and I can't appeal my case. It's like says somewhere in the constitution that's not okay. Um, so, uh, moving on. So, uh, let's see. Minimum square footage. Um, even stuff like solar systems required for the new constructed ADUs. So, if I'm a homeowner and I have a new constructed ADU and the primary residence doesn't have a solar, how do I how do I create unique utility requirements for uh a solar system? How do I'd have to run an inverter different than the rest of the other house does? And I it says that you can there's no requirement that you have

to run independent utilities from the ADU to the primary residence. So some of this stuff doesn't even make sense as far as you know in a practical world. Um yeah the independent how do you how do you interpret the word independent? What I also recommend is that we have some sort of minimum standard for what I would call uh environmental concerns. So this is stuff like should we be able to require uh some type of central air system and HVAC? We've gone through the last several years, at least since I've lived here, where we, you know, last week it's been 35 in the mornings and then we get to August and it's 110. Is there a minimum standard that we should say that, you know, most all the new homes that we build have that those types of systems? Why don't we require that of ADUs? I believe we have the ability to have a little flexibility there. Um, let's see the we talked about design designer review like I say. H. So those all in short these are my first pass suggestions and I' and I'd love to get some feedback as well as any other I invite other spitballing to see what we can do here and now so that uh we can put our hand on a Bible and say we did our best through the chair. I I just wanted to throw this out there as well, and I don't want to sway the conversation and the ultimate recommendation, but um state law also requires the city to once the ordinance is adopted uh to send it to the state for for their own review. Um and I remember I did that a couple years ago. I think it was in either 23

or 24. And you like send it off to this like online portal or you know, email and it just sort of disappears, right? and I never heard back. And I'm thinking that's great. Like the ordinance is adopted. Everything's okay. Well, the last time in I think it was March of last year, did the same thing. Didn't hear anything. So, you know, same thing like, "Hey, we're good." Right? In like October, HCD came back and said, "Hey, uh, we reviewed your ordinance and we have some concerns about it." So, I'm just letting you know that we're going to be doing that again because we're required to. So, however the ordinance gets tweaked, we just need to be sensitive to the fact that um we're basically implementing the state law, putting our own little twist on it that the state may have a problem with and come back and say you got to change it anyways if that it's a again it's a crazy process, but it's like a a check and a balance. Um and you don't always know if they're going to agree and it could be nine months later, it could be two years later and they're going to raise a flag and go, "You didn't do this right. So just throwing it out there.

Chair, if I may also add quickly, [clears throat] um the state also um last year imposed um a new law under AB130 that does limit local jurisdictions ability to enforce certain um California building code uh amendments relating to residential uses um with certain exceptions. So just wanted to put that out there as well. And I take it um HCD doesn't impose any kind of a 15-day time limit on themselves. Yeah. All right. Um thank you, Vice Chair Brand. Um let's talk about fire sprinklers for a minute. Um, when I moved to Brentwood and we were shopping for houses out here, I noticed that most of the houses that I looked at had sprinklers and most of the houses were um, in the newer sections of Brentwood where we were looking and I talked to my realtor um, also used to sit in this chair um, and asked him uh, you know, boy, it's it's nice. They all have sprinklers that we're looking at. and he says, "Well, it's it's required since I forget how long ago it was required in Brentwood that all new houses have sprinklers, but there was a time when they didn't." So, there are houses in Brentwood that don't have sprinklers. And um it's just a matter, the reason why there's houses in Brentwood that don't have sprinklers is they were built before they were required. It's only a matter of what date the house was built on. That's the only reason why they they are not required or they are required as far as I know. Um, this is just as far as I know. I'm not I'm not speaking to the law or anything, but my understanding is, yeah, you see a house that's got fire sprinklers, it was built after a certain date. And you see a house that doesn't, it was kind of built before a certain date. Um, and so

we have uh item K1 here. Fire sprinklers shall be required in ADUs and JD JADUs only where they are also required for the primary dwelling unit. Um, and it just seems to me like, well, that doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense because if you're building, so the JADU edition, I can see, but if you're just building an an um unattached ADU, fire sprinklers are just water. The the unit's got to have water anyway. So, it's it's not like you're having to have the house all rewired for utilities. Um it's just that if you're in an older section of town where you know uh maybe somebody who's challenged in affordability would be forced to live. In other words, you know, um basically the effect, not the intention, but the effect is that yeah, if if you're kind of poor, you can burn. That's how that works, right? it it's not I'm saying it's not an intended unintended consequence, but it's a consequence of not understanding the local situation in Brentwood. And that's why I'm saying these state laws like this one that we're discussing tonight are written with no consideration for the individual city, what the circumstance is in that city. This is where your local officials um would know. I would be able to go, you know, if I was trying to make a decision on something, I could come to to Eric, who has a long memory of what has transpired in this city, um, and find out more about it or I could talk to the residents who have lived here for a long time. We do have some people that have been living in Brentwood for a very long time, um, and find out and make

decisions based on situations locally. And I I always think that local government um should have some agency. I I I just think that in the sense that you know the federal government can be a little bit tough sometimes on the states. I think the states sometimes can be a little bit tough on the counties and the counties can be tough on the cities. The state in this case is being really tough on the cities. taking away all of our flexibility with something like this. And and again, like I said, I'm sure they don't I'm sure they're not sitting up in Sacramento going, "Oh, well, poor people can burn." But that's what they're what that's what they're enacting. You know, they they just aren't thinking about it. They don't have any perspective on it. They're not planners. They're just um basically they're just politicians. Um and so I think it's I think it's important I think it's important that we talk about this. Um, I heard a public comment earlier about why the city of Brentwood doesn't um challenge these things. Well, I I am aware that um these things are being challenged in court. Um I believe it's going to the Supreme Court. Um it's not us, but it is a city in California. And so it'd be redundant for the city of Brentwood to try to tackle it. We're not a rich city, and the cities that are doing this um are better positioned. Um, but I certainly am interested in the outcome of that. Uh, if people are interested, there are people that are doing citizen movements like our neighborhood voices that are trying to get a um a ballot measure, but that requires like a million signatures, petition signatures. And uh uh that costs money, you know, and there's not anybody that's uh got that

kind of money that is interested in helping because basically the people with a lot of money are the people that are benefiting from these things. So, um having said all that, I uh I want to cycle back to what Commissioner Jones said. We do have a responsibility to always follow the law and up here we always follow the law and um I know that we've been challenged on that even by council members but the fact is we always follow the law here and um and so that is my intent tonight is to follow the law but I did appreciate having the opportunity once again to speak to whoever might be listening out in the public if you care about what happens in your city. If you believe that your city should have the right established in what 1926 by the Supreme Court that local zoning is a valid function of a city and if you feel like um that's being taken away from you if you're not happy with the um excessive growth that you see if you see it as excessive growth or excessive traffic all the comments that I see online uh a lot of people attacking the city, the city staff, city council for um a lot of growth that we genuinely cannot control. And I I appreciate the public doesn't doesn't fully appreciate that, but um you know, we're just getting hammered. And so having said all that, if there is there any more discussion? I I just have one thing m that I may add

if I may.

So the vice chair mentioned about this 750 foot deal. I'm not I just want to ask a question because we asked the attorney, but I don't know that she had a full opportunity to explore that. So I just wanted to maybe get some just hear her out on this going to 750 above 750. Not that I would say that we do it here tonight, but maybe we can do it separately. Like, can you I guess the question what I'm asking is can we can we vote for this, right? But then bring the whether we raise the ADU square footage to 750 up at a later date. I think ordinance. Oh, sorry. Was a question for me. I I believe yes if that if you could answer that would be great.

Okay. Thank you. Um thank you. So the definition of ADUs does include efficiency units. Um and the statute is clear that um the minimum size of an ADU has to permit an efficiency unit. So I understand that efficiency units can seem different from an ADU but it is encompassed in that definition. So 150 square foot ADU is the minimum size allowed under the statute. Thank you so much. Thank you.

And um before we go to a motion um I'd like to cycle back to uh Vice Chair Bran. Um I I just jotted down notes. I think you had about four suggestions for amendments. Um, I'm not sure if we can make these amendments tonight, but um would you be satisfied to um talk about these as um upcoming items when we get to uh suggestions for new items? it only seems applicable to um divorce the two in a sense because I I will fully acknowledge that yes we have a homework assignment here tonight and it's very much laid out in front of us and it's a yes no uh question but you know uh so um I'm I'm certainly open to it and I and I appreciate the um uh clarification that that might be a more appropriate means of, you know, pursuing that type of, you know, shift in our or shift in our municipal code or such or whatever needle that we can thread through this uh uh web of confusion from Sacramento. So, um yeah, I will uh I will happily take that.

All right. Um with all of that discussion, um I guess we're ready for a motion

through the chair. Really quick, I just wanted to clarify if you don't mind one thing. Um, in regards to the fire sprinklers, since I know we were had a discussion about that. Um, City of Brentwood actually required them much earlier in our building code than the state required. Um, I I was talking with our building official regarding this and you we made an or we adopted our own changes to the building code to request fire sprinklers back in the early 2000s when they weren't required until like 2013 I believe by the building code. So, we're in a little bit of a better situation than other cities because we do have uh we had that in place prior. So I just wanted to say that just because we had made that finding previously that we were able to require them earlier on.

Thank you. Yeah, certainly um still early 2000s there were already um I think 20,000 people living here in 2000. There are some houses and it especially in the older poorer parts of town which was my concern is just the idea is that some of the the more old properties that are more likely to be needed to provide affordable housing to people who are genuinely poor are going to be the ones that are going to be left out. As far as I'm concerned, it's neither here nor there. Um I think through the sheriff, sorry. Um, but that is a fantastic example of how a more stringent building code, at least from a local municipality, could positively influence the future. You know, maybe not this moment, but, you know, when the planning commission in 2046 convenes and has to look back at this meeting, hi. Um, you know, hopefully we could have done something to make their job a little bit easier. So, as I'll leave it at that. Sorry.

Thank you. That's much appreciated. All right. Uh, with that, um, I'll hear more discussion or a motion.

Um, not to not to just keep sort of being a dead horse here on this, but like I just going back to what Vice Chair Bran was saying, you know, and I I I don't I don't disagree, you know, with anything that's being brought up. And I think the thing that we have to be careful of as a commission is um, you know, we can spend time trying to find, you know, loopholes and ways to to to get past whatever the state is trying to do, but, you know, Eric, you brought up a point earlier that this gets submitted to the state, the state looks at it. They see anything they don't like, they just come back and they tighten it even more, right? So my my concern I guess is is I I I think you know the the solution really lies more at the ballot box, right? It doesn't necessarily align through this commission trying to find ways to get around stuff. Um we have to look at the people that are representing us and we have to ask ourselves and I'm talking about myself as well as uh folks in Brown right vote that way. But I, you know, we have representatives that are voting yes on these initiatives, right? So, I I think we have to think about that and, you know, remember that, you know, um, as long as you have the people that continue to vote yes on this, these are the problems that we're going to continue to come across. So, you know, I don't want to go down a rabbit hole with that type of conversation, but I I bring that up more under the the case of, you know, we can spend time trying to to dig way dig around and and and find ways to to get around some of these things. But I I think, you know, the point that Eric made earlier, that's that that I think it says a lot, you know, that is as long as the folks that are continuing to vote yes continue to represent us, we're going to have a problem. And so I would just encourage anyone that's listening, you know, looking at things like our neighborhood voices that um you know, organizations like that to to just truly understand who it is that's representing you and you know, just ask yourself, is that the person that you want? And and

maybe we can get some different votes, you know, the next time around. So I I'll just I I wanted to bring that up because I do get passionate around these things. This is this is stuff that is very concerning to me when you have, you know, a state legislator there that's that's telling a city what they can and cannot do. I mean, I just think that that's that's wrong and we have to remember that. So, um, I would just say for anyone listening, just remember that when you go to the ballot box, find out who who's representing you and do they align with what it is that you want. So, leave it at that. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you, uh, Commissioner Jones. I I agree. Um, Sacramento um appears to be playing a game of whack-a-ole and uh unfortunately we are the moles to be whacked, the people of Brentwood and your elected representatives. With that, um, do we have a motion? Anyone?

Yeah. Um, as set forth in the staff report, I make a motion to adopt resolution number 26-002 recommending that the city council adopt an ordinance approving a zoning tax amendment RZ25-00004 to amend section 17.715 of the Brentwood Municipal Code for accessory dwelling units, ADUs, and junior accessory dwelling units, JADUs, in compliance with recent changes to state legislation. Do I have a second? I'll second it. Um, all in favor? I I

opposed. You guys have it. All right. Um, time forformational reports from committees. Um, hold on just a second. I'm going to make a note for myself. Uhformational reports from committees and upcoming meeting schedule. Uh transplant uh committee vice chair. Uh we last meeting was canceled actually. Okay. Um design review subcommittee um commissioners Johnson and Jones. We have not met

um land use and development committee. That's me. And I believe we find we've written that very rarely last year for some reason, but we we do have one coming up. Um it normally would have fallen yesterday on Monday, but that was Martin Luther King Day. So it's if there's going to be one, it'll be next Monday. Um and the Brentwin Municipal Code Review Committee haven't met. All right. And moving on to G1, uh request for request for future well actually moving into request for future agenda items. G1 new requests. Do we have any future agenda item requests?

Yeah, a couple. Um the first one is uh have we established a running list for our city's uh or at least I'll call it council's opinion on current legis legislation whether it's actively being uh chosen and particularly land use related because we're planning but um it would be great to get a sense of what that stance looks like and you know maybe craft that through a very creative ative conversation that highlights the the challenges that or in congruencies that you know cities like Brentwood have with said laws or maybe the ones where it greatly influences us for in a in a positive way just so that we have a clear, you know, 95 thesis. I'm making a lot of biblical references today. Apologize. Uh on the on the door as far as uh what works and what doesn't. So, um, yeah, I I that's the first one. Um, did you did you get that

kind of Yeah, I was going to ask for to clarify. So you're you're talking about changes to legislation that occurred last year that went into effect say January 1. Like what which ones sort of affect the city from a land use perspective or Well, like what um do we have a a does our city carry an official position on those particular bills? M

I know some cities you was probably referring to Huntington Beach, but uh they're a bit more aggressive when it comes to these kinds of comments. And so I wasn't sure it it'd be interesting for us to at least from as a homework exercise to kind of go through them and and propose a propose a stance. Maybe council has some ideas on how to lean on certain ones that maybe they feel more passionate about. and uh you know if there's other cities that share that same sentiment, they will know that they're not alone. So yeah. So, um, would you be looking for Sometimes when the commission brings up these future agenda item requests, I try to figure out if it would be better served for everybody to bring like a formal item back or if there's something I can simply report back to the commission, say in like in a group email format, like aformational item u that might lead to more discussion. So, I'm trying to figure out like is this something that you want to bring back to a future meeting to actually discuss or is it something we can kind of research and get back to you with what's here's what we have to date and then maybe that informs you how to move forward. Does that make sense?

Is it possible to have that summarized somehow? because I I mean I haven't done all the necessary research to make a meaningful opinion on everything, but if there if there could be some kind of summarized list of those mandates slash, you know, uh legislation that way we actually get our eyes on it. I mean, I'm sure I could dig them all up, but uh for the sake of simplicity, maybe that could be a little bit easier. And then um you know, given you know, we all review it independently. um if we then were to meet at a later date to then discuss what's important, what's not maybe and then we whittle that down to I'm just speaking from like theoretically here like we whittle it down from 35 bills to five and we say these are the ones that we feel most passionate about and we believe the city should uh carry an official position on and we make that recommendation to council from a land use perspective. uh that that just gives us a bit more of a at least as a commission I I feel like our role here and I don't want to speak for everybody here is like we are uh we serve as an extension of council in order to make meaningful recommendations when it comes to land use because they can always pull whatever item you know uh that we that comes before us. that it it is important that we do our due diligence to review this and come up with opinions that are meaningful but not only reactive but proactive. So I see at least in this case uh proactive responses would be us essentially going through all of these and and making a getting we got to get the gears turning with uh the folks that live above us. And so this would be the first step. So I and I I don't want to get in too deep of a discussion since you're just bringing it up tonight, but I can tell you that as a matter of course at the staff level, we don't um take stances on

individual bills. I mean, there are some that come up that I know in the past we've written letters of either opposition or support, but we don't do it on every uh bill. It's just it's I don't even know how many were passed last year. It's it's probably an insane amount. Um, but I can do some research in terms of what we done historically, including last year, and send that to you sort of as a starter and then if we have want to have a further discussion, we can bring it back as a future agenda item. Is that that would be a great start. I think I like I said, this is very early on, so I' I I've got a lot of reading and such to do, but I think there's I think there's I would like to see the next step taking place. So that's all.

Perfect. not not to be contributing dis discussion because we're not in discussion on this item, but I I just want to point out for the benefit of staff and for the um for the uh person making the motion that uh I believe Cal's every year's uh creates a summary list of all the new legislation after it passes and that might be re resource that either staff or uh vice chair brand could avail themselves of because I That's interesting. And I'll start with that with the full commission and then you can take that information and and get back to me in terms of how you'd like to proceed with it.

Yeah, that sounds perfect. Yeah. Um, and then the next one obviously we kind of talked about for 45 minutes now is uh uh can we get some kind of uh process going to identify ordinance opportunities for us with respect to um the recent changes that were just approved today or assumingly they stay approved. Um, I think my extent of discussion kind of gives enough context to understand what I'm getting at or I'd be happy to provide more.

Yeah. So, this is a little tricky because you're talking about the ADU ordinance that just got recommended for approval, right? You're talking kind of talking about coming back and looking at ways to tweak that potentially.

Uh, no, not necessarily that. I I just I know that we have some options to that can be exercised supposedly and I just like to know what all of those are. I mean, I've I identified some some I think are accurate, some maybe not so much, but um I would just like to see what those opportunities are. Uh and I don't know if staff can give us a recommendation based off of those things um based off of what we you find as being potentially available. So, I'll give an example. When we reviewed the ODS objective design standards for people listening, uh staff, it sounded like I heard staff give us a lot of options and say, "We tried this, but this doesn't work because X, Y, and Z. We may have gone this direction, but we have to keep it within this route." Like it's it's almost like a a guide book where we're choosing our route in a sense. And I I I would guess that we would need to how [clears throat] do I say this? It would I think we should look at the recent and potentially upcoming ADU legislation and just see what options that we have as a municipality. what what levers can we pull with respect to uh the uh at the local level what can we do and if that's a no sure but I in all that I have read I don't I I can't honestly believe it's a no [laughter]

okay and similar to the last item would you be okay with me going back with select city staff and kind of providing that to you again like in a in an email format to the full commission kind of reporting back and then you can say hey I'd like to drill down on this further or that's good for now because again we're probably going to be faced with I don't know how many but I I'll say a series of bills this year that will then become effective next January 1 as they further kind of tweak and refine

state law for ADUs. So maybe that's the opportunity where we can kind of do that additional research you're you're kind of looking for. It's tricky, right? Because we're at at the staff level, we're trying to make sure that the ordinance we're crafting and presenting to both the planning commission and the city council is going to pass muster, right? We're not like trying to handcuff ourselves, so to speak, but we're also not we don't want to ignore what the state is doing because they're going to kick it back to us, right? Which is what I mentioned earlier. So, it's it's a very delicate balance that we're trying to strike. Um and and we don't always like, you know, as professional planners what the state is telling us to do, but we're in a very difficult position as well, so it's hard. Um, but would that be okay with that item as well to kind of report back to you and and then have you kind of run with it at that point or

I think that'd be a great start. And similar to the last item, I I think there's a lot more digging to be done. I mean, this is a we know that this item was coming for a while, but um, nonetheless, I um, I would like to do more research and I would invite this commission to do the same. So whenever that report reaches our inbox uh you know I'll definitely be reading it and I look forward to a future discussion around it. May I offer a friendly amendment?

Sure. I just I just want to frame this um in the sense that uh as as we look through these things um let's look for things that you know I was talking about unintended consequences before let's look for things that um are causing consequences that are adverse to the city in either the opinion of staff or the planning commission or city council for that matter just just so that um some things are more burdensome than others. I think Sarah was mentioning the 15day review of the application not so burdensome but there might be other things so that um so you're not just going through just kind of trying to say see everything but if there are things that are um you know less than ideal for us things that that we we would change if we could um let's have a look at at those things like maybe um the pri the priority should be the highest for the things that are causing the most pain and um and then see if we can do something about that. Is is that kind of a where you're going with it?

Yeah, I I I know we're not trying to get into too much discussion right now. I think it's more of a vulnerability search and you know we can identify in our own

and I think our argument is that much stronger when it comes to you know and and really frankly one of the ways that I work and the way that one of the ways that I think is that the sheer review of this content and looking at the the documents that we look at it tends to coax out these opportunities that weren't first available to us. And so I think doing these reviews is as as mundane as they might seem are valuable to us because as many of us have seen a movie or read a book for the second or third time, you're like, "Oh, I missed that part or I didn't put those two together." So it's I don't know, maybe it's a homework assignment for the city of Brentwood. I hate to call it that, but nonetheless, it's it's I I think it's a good activity for us. So, yeah.

Okay. Thank you so much. That's all I got. Thanks.

Um I have one kind of going in a completely different direction. Um I'm thinking about committee reassignments are coming up pretty soon after we um select uh after the city council selects the new commissioners. Um, and I'm wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea for us um at least on certain comm committees to have an alternate um person to be on the committee. I I know um a couple of times the design review committee design review committee has only got two members on it. It's it's on a Thursday morning at 10. Pretty much everybody here um except me has a job. and and that was true of me not too long ago. Um and and so it can be it can be difficult to make it. And you know, I actually brought this up as a um as a public comment because it just drifted into my mind at the last city council me meeting when they were talking about committee assignments. And um council member Pearson made a good point that if things were discussed, you know, across multiple meetings, then it could be a Brown Act problem. But we do have committees where things get resolved in one meeting. So I don't know. I see a discussion with uh council. So I maybe it's not something that's permitted.

Sorry. No, I was just I don't know if it rises to the level of a future agenda item necessarily, but we do have that as a as an annual item as you mentioned. Uh we'll talk after this meeting about how to do that. I don't we don't really see a problem at this point with doing it that way. uh and we'll just structure it accordingly on the agenda. Okay. But that's fine. Yeah. I don't think we need to come back for another discussion about it necessarily. Yeah. So, we'll just talk about it when we do the assignments. Yeah. Excellent. Thank you. That was all I had. Any others for um future new requests? Um all right, with that I need one more motion.

Motion to adjurnn. Second. All in favor? I. Motion carries. Thank you so much to everybody tonight. We we kept you kind of long. So, thank you. Please make sure your mics are turned off, otherwise they're still hot.