Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

There we are. Uh, welcome to the October 21st planning commission meeting. Let the record reflect that Commissioner Johnson is absent. And let's do 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.

Okay. Um, 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. We'll do five minutes tonight. Uh, speakers desiring answers to questions should direct them to the planning commission and if relevant, the commission may direct them to staff. Speakers can also follow up directly with staff during regular city business hours. Please file a speaker card with the administrative secretary on the form provided at the back of the chambers. During this portion of the meeting, those in the council chambers are permitted to speak on items that are not on the agenda. Public comments for scheduled agenda items should wait until that time. Uh Zoom participation during this general public comment period will not be accepted. And please note that the commission's actions are final unless an appeal is filed with the city clerk within 10 calendar days. April through the chair. We have no speaker cards for those here in person. All

right. Thank you. Um our next item is the consent calendar. There's one set of minutes for the regular meeting of September 16th, 2025. Is there any discussion or do I have a motion? Make a motion to adopt the cons consent calendar. I second. All in favor? I I

motion carries. Okay, we're going to move into our first um item. It's uh in public hearings E1. its conditional use permit for unwind yoga and meditation located at 3870 Balfur Road Suite D within the City Block commercial center. an application for a conditional use permit CUP25-8 to allow for a yoga studio known as Unwind Yoga and Meditation to occupy and operate within an 897 ft tenant space located at 3870 Balfur Road suite D APN 010-110-019 Miguel

thank you chairperson Flores Miguel with the city of Brenwood planning division I'm here to present uh conditional use permit 25-008 for unwind yoga and meditation which is uh proposing to locate at 3870 Bor Road sweet D. Uh the site has a general plan um designation of general commercial. It's within the uh PD69 zoning district and it's also within the city block commercial center. The specific request is to establish a yoga studio which would occupy an 897 square foot uh tenant space. Uh the yoga studio would have an 18 person maximum occupancy which would include guests and instructors. The requested hours of operation are um on the on the projector. um they vary throughout the week and uh staff has actually included a draft condition to limit the hours from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily. That way it offers the applicant greater flexibility and um just in case someday they want to have a Saturday session at 3, they don't have to come back to the planning commission for uh to modify those hours of operation. The project would be consistent with uh the general commercial and general plan designation. It would uh also be consistent with the PD669 zoning district. And the project does qualify for a class one and a class 32 uh categorical exemption for existing facilities and uh infill. Uh staff would recommend that the planning commission adopt as condition resolution number 25-016, thus approving the conditional use permit number 25-00008. That would uh conclude staff presentation.

Does the planning commission have any clarifying questions for staff? Anybody? I don't at this time.

Not at this time. Okay. Um all righty and um at this time the public is permitted to address the planning commission. Remarks are limited to five minutes per person except for the applicant who will have 10 minutes. Does the applicant wish to address the commission? Okay. Um does planning commission have any questions of the applicant? No. Okay. And um this time we h we have uh public speakers. April, do we have any public speakers? At this time we have no speakers here in person. So we'll go to Zoom. If you'd like to speak on this item, please raise your hand.

Chairperson, we have no hands raised in Zoom. All right. Thank you. Um do I have a motion to close the public hearing? So moved. Second. All in favor? I I motion carries. Um is there any discussion by the commission former chair Roberts?

Not at this time. Um just um an observation that that area seems to be having read the documentation an area where there is quite a bit of exercise and or activity uh relative to one's phys physical um piece. So you got yoga, you got karate, um I think something related to um gymnastics or something like that. So it's it's kind of cute in that it's that space is is coming together quite nicely for um or something that is healthy in the community. So that's all I have on that. I noticed that.

Uh Commissioner Jones. Yeah. No, I've I've looked at the staff report, the supporting materials. Um, I agree. I mean, I think it's a good compatible use for the commercial center. Um, consistent with the general plan, no anticipating traffic parking impacts. Um, low intensity, well contained, and yeah, it's turning into a health spot. So, um, but I'm I'm supportive of of the staff recommendation. Uh, Vice Chair Brand.

Yeah. uh echoing what my other fellow commissioners had described u the I believe this is one of the first tenants for this building as well um or at least proposed because of um it everyone always talks about this building it's like what what's in there um I would propose that um the I believe Miguel commented that the um they made a draft approval uh draft condition for the extension of the hours to 10 p.m. in the event that they wanted to um extend beyond. So, I'd offer that as a possibility for um as part of a motion um as well as um Oh, no, that's it. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you all. Um that that sounds like a good idea to me. A a healthy area in the um in the city. That's kind of a cool idea. And uh I I um read over the application and listening to all the discussion I have uh full support of this item as well. Is there anybody would like to make a motion? I make a motion to adopt resolution number 25-016 approving conditional use permit number 25-08 subject to certain findings and conditions including the 10 p.m. uh uh operation time. Yeah. And do we have a second?

I'll second. All in favor? I I motion carries. Congratulations. Welcome to Brunick. That has to be the the shortest uh item we've had in quite a while. [Music]

All right. Um moving on to an item that may not be quite so short. Uh text amendments to this is item E2. text amendments to the Brentwood Municipal Code related to the adoption of objective design standards for residential and mixeduse development needed to comply with state law as required by the city's adopted housing element implementation policies. Jennifer,

thank you. Uh we are here tonight in collaboration with JZMK partners to present the text amendments to our municipal code related to the adoption of objective design standards for residential and mixeduse developments, which we call our ODS. Tonight's brief presentation will be given by Drew Watkins and we also have Tim Hagen on the line both from JZMK who are joining us tonight via Zoom. We hope that over the past month you've had additional time to review the draft ODS as they are very lengthy and detailed. Um, and uh, with our consultant team, we are here tonight to assist you, assist you in any way possible so we can make sure that your comments and concerns may clearly be articulated to the city council um, at the end of tonight's discussion hopefully. And with that, we'd like to hand it over to Drew who's joining us via Zoom and he can share his screen.

Great. Thanks, Jennifer, and thank you commissioners for uh, having us here this evening. Uh, I'm going to share my screen. we have just a very brief presentation and then you know expect that we can go into uh detail on various aspects of the the ODS. Um I'm going to make this full screen. Okay. Um so uh why are we here? We're reviewing progress to date on the the current draft draft of the objective um development standards or the ODS. Uh and what we're really looking for is your comments and recommendations on this document. We've gotten uh some feedback from a presentation that was done about a month ago. Uh we've gotten some additional feedback uh since then and so we're looking kind of for you know cohesive feedback to uh uh look at alterations to the ODS as we bring that to uh city council. Uh and so you know what what are the goals of the ODS itself? Uh it's really to create a clear set of citywide regulations for uh multif family and single family residential development. Uh it looks to preserve the character of Brentwood. It creates standards uh that uh results in buildings that are appropriate to their context and environment. It encourages human scaled buildings uh promotes high quality site and building design and emphasizes a pedestrianoriented uh environment. Um we started this process uh uh really back in 2023. Uh we did a study session uh with city council in 2000 at right at the end of 2023 and then really went into uh the process of drafting uh the document. A uh public review draft was shared in in April. Uh and uh we then introduced the ODS to the land use development committee and and finally

did a review with you last month uh just over a month ago uh an initial review. Uh and so now we're hoping that that uh we we can get some specific feedback and and some of the the comments we've already gotten uh deal with roof materials uh specifically whether we should require tile uh roofs on on all buildings. Uh uh we've also discussed maybe masonry is a more flexible term but something you know a very durable roof material. Uh we've also gotten some good comments on contemporary architecture style whether that's uh really appropriate anywhere in the city maybe PA1. Um uh so looking for your your uh feedback on that. Uh and then you are there areas where we should increase our objectivity within the the architectural style chapter. you know, this is always a a balance in that chapter between providing enough specificity that we know what we're getting um but also providing um some flexibility where appropriate. And so if there's if you have direction on areas where you'd like to see more specificity um that that's something that we'd uh enjoy hearing from you as well. Um so some of the next steps uh planning commission provides recommendations to the city council on how to uh on what changes should be made to the draft ODS uh and then uh we will work to create a final draft uh to bring to council uh for consideration uh and their input uh during subsequent public hearings. So thank you and with that staff again uh we just wanted to reiterate the amount of work that has been put into drafting the ODS so far. Um this has been a long and thorough process which started by taking the initial 2006 initial uh residential design guidelines and carrying over all applicable guidelines to these new guidelines. Um, this included areas such as the allowable roofing material, which current which previously encouraged roof tiles, but also allowed for various

roofing materials based on specific architectural styles. Uh, the draft document before you tonight was not changed after our initial discussion at the last meeting based on your request. And as Drew indicated, we have provided you with different options on the initial three discussion topics outlined in the agenda report. Um staff is here tonight to assist in any way possible to make sure your comments and concerns can clearly be articulated to the city council. Um and we are here to uh go over the topics you previously discussed as well as any other additional topics that you would like to go over tonight. And with that, that concludes staff's report.

Thank you, Jennifer. Appreciate that. Um at this time, uh we're going to see if the planning commission has any clarifying questions. And I just want to remind the commission these are clarifying questions for the presentation because I'm sure that there's going to be quite a bit of discussion tonight and um staff will be involved in that discussion. So with that um does anybody have clarifying questions for staff? No. All right. At this time the public is permitted to address the planning commission. Remarks are limited to five minutes per person. April At this time, we have no speaker cards for those here. We're going to go ahead and go to Zoom. If you have any questions, please raise your hand. I have one hand raised. A icorn,

can you hear me? We can hear you. Great. I just have a question about fire resilience. It seems to be a big issue for insurance and also from a governance perspective in the state and I was wondering what considerations were made in the architectural styles and considerations.

Go ahead, Miss Iicorn. If you have any other further comments, please make them during your time. That's it. That's all I have.

All right. Thank you. U Thank you. Um Jennifer, do you want to answer that question quickly? Uh this was briefly discussed um at the last meeting. Um we did not include it in the staff report. Um I don't believe there was enough to to have an outline of it, but obviously we can talk about it more um at your direction, but staff did include um a requirement to include an ember resistant zone um within 5 ft of all structures located in the very high fire severity zone um in the most recent state fire hazard severity zone maps and the state responsibility areas. Um we also have conditions in here that refer back to the contraosta fire department as well as all the state um fire districts. Um what our five foot um area that we included for the five for the very high fire severity zone. It's a mouthful. Um it's consistent currently with with state guidelines and our county guidelines. Um, as we talked before, if we want to be a little bit more um proactive, we can maybe have it go down to instead of just the very high areas to the high areas. And there are multiple options that we can go, but currently we have a five foot um requirement for all areas within the very high fire severity zones.

Thank you, Jennifer. And if the caller um wants to stick around for a while, the I think the those um those provisions are in the last chapter of the ODS. So, we'll probably be getting to them uh sometime later, but uh that was a a pretty good summary. All right. Um through the chair, that um speaker has raised their hand again. They have additional time. They do. Okay. All right. Go ahead, Miss Iicorn.

Hi. Apologies. I think there are a lot of more considerations to just the 5-ft clearance. There's also the ember resistant filters on the fireplaces, burning standards, um the kinds of vegetation that's used in the community, etc., etc. It's a really a much broader topic than just the 5-ft zone. So, I I think this is worth a lot of investigation in the community because we're already starting to hear that our insurance is going up because we're near a, you know, a nonfunctioning golf course with lots of dead grass. We used to be in a really safe zone and this is going to have a lot of impact on the community. I'm done.

Um I just want to comment again to the to the caller that um in addition to the the safe zone, there is discussion in the um in the document in front of us about um uh water um tolerant um plants that that can help with that. Also, this is design um and so a lot of what is covered as far as fire safety is actually in the fire code which flows down from the state through the county fire department and would be a subject that you would find out more about in the Burntwood municipal code. Um and there is more but the the area of discussion tonight is more about design elements and will be more about um appearance and materials and uh but we are always mindful of fire here. So I do appreciate the comment. Um April, do we have any others or

I I

I motion carries. All right, we're going into um discussion by the commission. And before we start, I I know I took quite a lot of notes and I think probably if I know my commissioners, there's probably going to be a lot of um individual recommendations possibly for revisions or items that we're going to want to um look at possibly incorporating into some kind of a resolution. And Jennifer, if I could impose on you again to keep a list for us and that um makes it possible for for you to display that list from time to time and so the public and ourselves can can keep track.

Absolutely. I have it ready and waiting. Thank you so much. All right. Um All right. Uh discussion by the commission. Anita, do you want to start? I mean, former chair Roberts. Well, I would um recommend that we maybe go chapter by chapter so that we don't hop around too much. Um and uh to that end, the first chapter, I I don't have any comments on um that seems like a a doable things. Is the rest of the commission immuneable to doing it chapter by chapter?

That's fine with me. Yeah. Okay. So, we're on So, we're on the introduction. Um, Commissioner Jones, you have anything on the introduction?

Nothing right now. Thank you, Vice Chair Brand.

No, it's pretty straightforward. Almost identical, I think, to the the first one. Okay. Um, well, I I kind of had something on the table of contents that we'll we'll touch on more when we get to chapter 4. So, um, I'll stick a note in that, but I do have some notes on the introduction. Um the purpose in the new introduction and maybe before I get into this is I I want to ask a question of you Jennifer of in the process of producing the new document was a lot of reference made to the old document was it was it like you took the old document and then went from there or was it kind of a a fresh start or some combination of that?

Um it was it was not a fresh start. It was more of a combination. What we did is we looked at other cities and best practices. Um, and then we looked at what we had in our current design guidelines and what has worked and and really what the essence of of our city was and our residential character that we want to maintain. Um, and so um, similar to well so our current design standards, we didn't have architectural styles in it. Um, so that was something we looked around. Um, not all cities include architectural styles in their objective design standards. Some just say, you know, you have to have um step backs or different window treatments or trims. Um but they're not as specific as architectural styles. And we felt that it was very important to include that um in these so we can maintain some of of our current characteristics and and neighborhood um characteristics. Um so that is one thing that is new. we went around and we looked at what um we felt was mostly used and and we had that kind of as our base. Um but then in terms of site planning and neighborhood planning and single verse second story, you know, one and twotory single family neighborhoods, um we looked at what we had in our existing guidelines and we took those directly from there and made them objective where we could and added those in as well. Um, so it definitely is a collaboration of of our existing guidelines and and new and best practices.

All right. Thank you. Um so I I guess the reason why I was asking that question I'm I'm looking at the um the purpose statement in the overview and in in the new um ODS the the purpose statement basically talks about the legal environment and um there were a lot of things that in the original design guidelines that I think might have got lost a little bit um that I thought were were valid and valuable. um things about the uh the context about the city of Brentwood being rapidly growing. Um community expectations, we we care a lot about what our community thinks needs to be done. um the the goals and purpose I I think that you have have some of that but um I I just for example when I look here at uh basic design principles principle number nine says use quality materials and craftsmanship highquality state-of-the-art materials and design that will maintain their appearance over time and convey a sense of pride in one's homes shall be used in all new construction and they will also reduce long-term capital uh costs. And this has been my my focus on for instance the roof tiles is is I want to use roof tiles that will last and um that I I see that reflected in here and I just didn't I didn't see any of this kind of material. Um it's kind there is some stuff scattered through the document but the introductory document um I thought could have used a little bit more um about Brentwood and not just about um

the purpose of this document is not just to respond to a to a state mandate. I mean we we are redoing the document in response to the state mandate. Nonetheless, we have design standards for more reasons than just that. Um, so that would be my first comment on the introduction. See if I have any more. And um the so the goals uh that we have are fine, preserve the character of Brentwood's neighborhoods, encourage human scale buildings, emphasize pedestrianoriented environment. Um, but I thought that inclusion of some of the old design principles would strengthen this document if we if we um provide the reasons why we're doing things that and I I should if I have it here in front of me. I I always like when I discuss this, I always like to start off by reading the one or two lines from the law that really have us doing this.

I had it in front of me somewhere. Anyway, the the the one thing that we are required to do is uh provide reasonable and objective design standards. And objective just means that there's not a lot of room for interpretation that that you can easily understand what it is you're supposed to do. And that's something I I really support actually. Um reasonable is a little bit um harder. You know, who knows what any one person two people can disagree on what's reasonable, what's not. And so I thought having a little bit more um of why we're doing things in the introduction would strengthen that reasonability and make things a little bit more defensible. Um there is a listing in here of the styles that's in the introduction. Um, and I think I'll save that comment from when we get into the styles. And so those would be my comments on the introduction. Okay. Um, with that, let's uh go on to chapter 2, site planning. Uh, Roberts, do you have anything? Um, I'm good with uh chapter 2 as well. It's pretty laid out. I have no issues with chapter 2 either.

Okay. Um, Commissioner Jones, I'm the same. Thank you. And Vice Chair Brand? Yeah. Nothing further here.

Oh. Um, perhaps predictably I have a few notes scattered through here. Um, looking at section 252, the required public open space. Um, and it makes a a mention that the open space quantity may include the city's park dedication requirements, but it doesn't say much more than that. Uh, may include doesn't doesn't really tell you much about our park dedication requirements. Um these these requirements are uh percentages of the site. Our park requirements I believe are percentages of the population. Um we should probably add something that clarifies. I mean, we we have had projects recently where the the park content was a little bit of a controversy here and there and and I don't want to go into any other items that we've discussed in the past, but um I think it's important that um these open spaces, if they're going to be designated as parks, it's important it's important to know that um they need to designate enough park space and we have municipal code built around it um to meet to help us continue to meet um our our park uh requirements. We we do have um we're we're in a deficit right now because a lot of people have paid in loop fees. Um I want to I just wanted to say that there needs to be an acknowledgement of of how that works kind of in this design or or or cross reference back to the municipal code. And um looking at some of these um you know the there's one there's a one continuous

open space that's a third of the total required and then the rest can be broken up into smaller pieces and um we we kind of have moved away from pocket parks in Brentwood and so um I can see these being um sometimes an open space is just an open space it's not a park and that's fine but if if they're going to be a park. Um, we kind of want to have a park that's of sufficient size to meet the requirement. And so I think that there should be a little bit more fleshing out of that in in this section in section 2.5

for clarification. Um, in 2.5.1 for the applicability, it does state that these requirements are in addition to the minimum requirements provided in the zoning ordinance in the municipal code. Um, our city's park requirements um are in a different section of our municipal code. Um, and so while these are in addition to it, those still would supersede. So the minimum park requirements um that we have that's based on the population and everything like that still lives in the municipal code. and this is above and beyond what's already required.

I I appreciate that. My my my concern is that a a person um contemplating doing a project here might need to be made aware of that at least by by reference. you know, um 2.7 uh 2.7.1 possibly it's it's a minor thing, but um it this is covers a couple of different um scenarios. One is where you have a a a single lot that's having two units on it, say a duplex. And another scenario is where you have an existing lot with a house on it, and then somebody wants to split it to do an ADU. And um some of the language um was a little confusing to me when I first read it. um when it says the the maximum size of a primary dwelling unit is 800 square ft. Um and then it you know a person might get confused reading that not understanding that you're talking about you know um a new split um and you know the maximum height. Again, a lot of this it just it just seems like we're covering two different kind of scenarios in in one in one item or am I just completely confused?

So, this this specific section, urban lot splits are a little bit different. Um that actually comes straight from state legislation um and it is I believe SB9 uh urban lot splits uh to housing unit developments. And so these are some of the requirements that are coming from that and it is a specific type of development application that's a little bit different um but this does include those development standards um in this document um because those are administrative approvals um that we are not allowed to regulate through design review but we still want to codify them with objective design standards and um objectively codify what is in the state law for those types of developments. that and please forgive me but that did bring up a question that I meant to ask at the beginning. Um this the document is meant to replace in whole our our current design standards and it was created to satisfy um SB35 project requirements where we have to do ministerial. Um, but we do we have projects that are not subject to to these regulations, objective designs.

The only thing that I can think of is stateex exempt accessory dwelling units um do not have design you cannot apply um objective design standards to stateexempt ADUs. But for the most part, as far as I know, Katie can probably clarify, you know, AB201, um, any other new state legislation that we've seen over the last four or five years typically has standard language that, um, says that they are all applicable to any reasonable and objective design standards adopted and codified by the city. All right. Thank you. Appreciate that. And those were my chapter 2 questions

up to the chair. Um, are we kind of I assume we're sort of taking notes through this process. You would me I had a few comments here based off of your comments. Um the I know sorry for the 2-h sorry 2.5.1 and two um I wanted to is it does it make sense to just mention what our goals are in the general plan with respect to um our park um just to say that like you know because I I know we mentioned the zoning ordinance but a lot of this too is getting our you know our park quota up.

Yeah. Yeah. So there was definitely a lot of areas in our objectives design standards where I think some of our initial drafts we had some of that same language and as you can see it's already a large document and so in a lot of areas we took a lot of the language out and just referred directly to the code. Um but if there are areas like this specifically which you want to make sure that they don't miss the code. Um you know obviously staff we know that the parks are important. we're we're going to make sure that they meet the zoning code and the objective design standards, but yes, absolutely. If a developer looks at this, they might not be familiar with it. Um, and so they might not know it right away. So, we can definitely reiterate in certain areas some of these areas. Um, but yes, staff kind of drew some of them out just because some of them were redundant or if the code changes for any reason, um, we would have to change this. Um, and so there there are some areas like that when the municipal code or our parks section of our code is really the ruling document for those requirements. If we change that code, we're also going to have to come back and read this. So that's why we didn't quite want to do it in all cases, but um I there are areas where we can actually, you know, have our goals and what we want without explicitly stating, you know, it must be X, Y, and Z. Um, so they at least know where exactly in the code to look. We could be a little bit more expressive in that area.

Yeah. I just know because I know at least this this body has talked at length about our, you know, desire to see these parks uh come up and, you know, maintaining that uh uh that goal. I think we're only at 3.7 right now, but trying to chase after that five acres per uh what is it thousand residents? Something like that. Um, so, um, yeah, I I would propose that we'd say mention something in there and just say like, you know, uh, and align, you know, maybe not specifically address what the, uh, what that target is, but just comment that the city, you know, in relation to the city's goals relating to park density or something, uh, as detailed in the zoning ordinance, something like that, just because it's really important, at least I think it's really important to um as part of the decisions we make uh up here at least. So um so there's that and then the um 2.7.1 the one we just talked about. Um is it make sense to put just an asterisk after some of this that basically indicates that this is uh in reference to SP9. I think we had kind of went back and forth on that a little bit just to share that yeah this is this is here that's the that's the basis for it and you know by commenting on the uh the specific law I I don't know I would offer that as well just to as a um for context

sure we're we're brainstorming at this point

well well I think that that's a good idea especially when it comes to the um the SB9 uh because At some point people are going to reference this document and I I want what we decide um and are editing as planning commissioners to be clear. But what is been but what is being dictated by and I use that word harshly uh dictated by the legislature is identified as that. So I I do believe that an asterisk should go by this this first one anyway SB9 so folks understand that's not our doing that's a legislative doing.

Okay. Yeah. Yeah. We can definitely either have footnotes to specific government code section in this. Um but yes I think I' I've got the general context. I would want to look back at the government code numbers and the AB and SB numbers and make sure everything is is correctly dotted and te's crossed. But yes, I uh we could definitely there's different options that we could do that to clarify.

Yeah, that's a sounds like a good idea to me. Do you like some of these state laws may be repealed at some point in the future and go back and get back to uh a little bit more sanity? Um, all right. Enough of that. Uh, we're on to, uh, chapter three, site design. Uh, that's your Roberts. Chapter 3. Site design I'm all right with as well. Okay. Uh, Commissioner Jones. Same. Thank you. And Vice Pure Brand.

Um, as far as the amenities and stuff, I think that was mostly agreed upon previously. So I'm I'm not I don't really have any significant concerns. Yeah. Between parking, bicycle parking. This is all pretty remedial stuff. But yeah, nothing nothing further.

All right. Well, again, predictably, I have something um on on in the first section 311 is is shared open space. Um, and I didn't know if if uh cross referencing back to section 2.5 might be helpful here. Um, and public open space may be counted toward the required shared open space provided that is designed according to public open space requirements. Yeah. Um, yeah, I think that makes sense after rereading it. What else do I have in this chapter? Anything? That's it for me for chapter three and um moving on to chapter four building design uh for chair Roberts.

Okay, so building design. So I believe this is where we get into Um, there was something here that I wanted to speak to. Um, we talked about the roof the last time, so I don't want to rehash that. Uh, there was something here that I wanted to speak to. Um uh let me find it and you can move on to someone else and I'll get back to you.

Okay, we'll circle back. Um, Commissioner Jones,

um, just with starting with the purpose, uh, just the the first, uh, bullet point, um, to mediate the scale, massing, and bulk of buildings to reflect the human scale, enhance the pedestrian experience, and respond to a building's context through refined building massing and fade articulation. Um, I I'm I'm I feel like that could just be simplified a little bit more. Um, you know, I know this is a very technical document and I recognize that, but I also think, you know, there's there's just an opportunity to maybe clarify a little bit more what what that means and what we're trying to really go for. Um the other one I think actually we clarified. So that was it that I had for now. Thank you.

Uh Vice Chair Brand. Um first is comments on roof form. I think there's a couple that I'm not super wild about. Uh the two in particular are the shed and the flat. Um those are basically the same except they're uh the shed is obviously at an angle. I think the I think at least recently we've all commented on how having some type of geometric shape. I know they highlight a lot here but if we can scratch those two I think there's similar comments with respect to some of the more

um avanguard architectural styles uh and which include these. So I I would just want to call those out specifically and um I imagine that you know as we get further in the document there would be further changes backwards that would you know obviously changes that would sort of cascade as a result of a bigger decision being made. But those are the those are the first two there. Um I think the the massing is all pretty consistent. We're okay with the setbacks. Um the ground floor uses I think this is just almost all in with respect to mixed use. So, no real Yeah. MDR, HDR makes excuse sounds. Um, yeah, the sound insulation one too. I I'm not super familiar with this particular building code regulation, but um I know it's come up on a number of occasions with respect to single family homes with a proximity near I'll call them slightly busier, not just a one lane each way, but maybe a two lane each way in terms of you know, how effectively does that insulate on like a second floor versus a first floor? Um, maybe Jennifer, can you can you kind of elaborate on that a little bit for my Yeah. So, typically for um noise attenuation, what we do is um we require I think now for our actual general plan, I think requires noise studies for all

residential projects. Um and they are done we're required of them to do by by a noise acoustical engineer. Um they do it based typically off of the number of of trips on our roadways. You know arterials are thought to have you know a thousand trips a day and they have all of their metrics that are regulated through you know acoustical engineers and then they do all the measurements. It is looked at in all forward facing um buildings. So, first floor, second floor, also backyards for multifamily, common open space areas. Um, it's not just in this document. We also have goals and regulations within our general plan for the same thing for noise. Um, and so we require that noise study to show that all of the ratings on all of the windows are going to be below um certain noise requirements. Um what I've seen is very common in a lot of these projects. The houses that back up to, you know, Balffor um those homes on those specific lots, we would have a condition or mitigation measure that says those homes have to have, you know, double pane windows that meet this STC rating. Um and their engineer is certifying that based on that type of construction that those homes that back up that are most impacted would be below this level. Um so it's not something it it is something that it's difficult to do at a staff level but um it is something that's important to have in here and then we have their um engineer provide us an analysis we have it peer reviewed typically through our SQA consultant who peer reviews it and takes a look at it and confirms and then we have conditions and then during the plan check stages we make sure that those specific homes have that option to have those SDC ratings on the windows the doors sometimes are different thickness core doors Um the same thing with the insulation on the walls depending on where they back up to whether it's a freeway, whether it's Balffor, you know,

or something, you know, smaller like Garin Parkway. So if I'm understanding this right in terms of noise attenuation this is 410.1 in case anybody u the the purpose here is to define what methodologies we use to mitigate you know uh ambient noise uh from typically dense noise origins. Mhm.

Um but as we talked about it's uh we can't comment on a minimum standard with respect to noise mitigation. So it's like the first floor has to be under a certain it sounded like that's that's a civil engineer type uh discussion where um they make those uh particular standards. Is that I can't remember the objective standard that we are following is the the STC rating of 50. So they are confirming that on every floor the STC rating inside the building is not is not less than 50.

Okay. and and the all these materials are giving us because it's weird because normally we when we talk about these design standards, it's all cosmetic for the most part. It's it's all exterior. This I think this is one of the few ones where it's it's slightly inboard from the exterior of the home for the most part. Correct. These are acceptable options. These are, you know, standard industry options that are typically inside. It's the types of windows. It's the types of insulation and the type of construction. Typically, these that we have listed are not things that you're going to see um but are objectively used to achieve your 50 STC rating.

Gotcha. Okay. And for you know future proofing is it you know I I envision at some point we would you know have to add to this uh if any new technologies come along uh for this further mitigation and this isn't inclusive. It says these may be used. Um okay. And so they do not have to choose one of these. Um these are standard industry standards to be used but so these are what may be used but we can consider other options um as long as the goal is less than 50. Got it.

Yeah. Perfect. Yeah. Thank you for clarifying that. That makes a lot of sense. And then um the I think this this the last one that is ironically the last one on the list is the the mail delivery. Um, I know that USPS is usually the one that defines what the how they they pick how they uh are going to assign the mail. And obviously recently it's been much more common to have the um uh the boxes, not necessarily an individual um thing, but I just I want to make sure that that comes out there as saying like you know that the postal service decides that not necessarily the developer, but um yeah, and that's yeah, that's all I got for four. Vice Chair Bran, if I may, I'm sorry for clarification. 4.1.4 roof form. Um can you can you tell me again the one that you were talking about just so I make sure the same one? Uh, I wrote down the shed and flat.

Thank you. That's what I those two the flattest ones. Thank you. Jennifer is keeping notes, too.

All right. Um, and and so I I that was what I was looking for was the the male. Um, so in this commission is as I've sat here for several years, that has been uh an issue. um uh developers have been called out regarding uh not providing and I don't know that they have anything to do with it, but I do know that it is an issue here in Brentwood and so because we're representing the residents of Brentwood and this is mentioned 4.1 uh 4.12.2 uh excuse me three. It's something that um needs to be more than just a statement. It needs to find some kind of action to make sure that the residents are are not running to the post office, which is what's been an issue here in Brentwood, um trying to uh purchase a box that's not available because the developer um wasn't didn't need to uh make room for uh mailbox stem. So that is something that we definitely want having heard the residents here in Brentwood time and time again. It's an issue.

Yeah. By including this, this is something now that we can ask upfront on their development and design review applications to show that they meet this standard. they can we can now require them to show on their plans where they're going to have their mailboxes and their delivery standards and they can have that as a standard note um that we can require on their plans upfront. Okay. Um instead of waiting till further stages uh down the road where in the past this sometimes had happened. Great. Thanks.

Right. And um I think I'll go on chapter four. Well, I didn't have a a note on the noise attenuation. Um, so I'll go there first since Vice Chair Bran brought it up, brought it up. Um, for for reasons I won't go into, I recently had occasion to be looking at these ASME90 standards. Um, and 50 is not a great noise reduction level. Um, it is kind of the standard that people use. And I noticed that this is um related back into California building code. Um so I would I would assume that we don't have an option to up the ASM E90 standard in Brentwood. Would we would we run a foul of the reasonleness or like if we wanted to have our own standard? Um, I would have to look into it because I know um, anything that deviates if we have special building code requirements has to go through a separate process or a building vision. I'm I'm not spec I'm not super familiar with those requirements and what findings we would have to make to make deviations from the code. Um, but we can look into that.

Um, yeah, it was just a question. It's really difficult when the state, you know, basically um most of what's in municipal code just comes directly from state recommendations anyway for many for many matters. Um so where was I in my notes? uh roof forms and the right off the bat it says roof forms shall complement underlying architectural style. Uh compliments kind of open to interpretation. Um, so that would be an area and I have some thoughts about how we could um maybe go when we go into the individual styles there are there is a section about the roof and um within the individual styles uh you could say which roof designs would be valid for each style and name them based on what's on this page and use this page page is definitional and then you could refer back to it and then that way. So for instance the the shed roof um would not be a whole house roof but there are um things that that you I think I actually saw a definition of maybe a front entrance that had a shed roof because it's up against the house and the roof just hangs off the side of the house for something like that. So, obviously you don't want to, you know, have a 3,000 square foot house with just a shed roof, but it's good for um certain accessory uses. And that all could be defined. And but what I like about this is here you have actual um definitions of what a

roof form is, what it looks like. And and then you can use this going into other sections as as a reference. And so a person can flip back here and say, "Oh, okay. I can do this. I can't do that." um for instance a Victorian you probably wouldn't have a sawtooth roof you know and things like that but it might be appropriate uh in some kind of an apartment building I I don't know I don't want to go into that right now but uh moving on to entry topologies 4.11.1 um just a minor note uh where you talk about entries 4.11.1 um says you can you can do some things and uh and then it kind of doesn't say what what you know you're making an exception to. It's kind of it's kind of like you can make an exception and have it around the side instead of the front, but it doesn't really mention where you're required to have it in the front. And so I thought for for clarification um you could add a sentence on there that said um otherwise for other considerations um the other than the the site entry the entry would confir conform to the um standards for the specific entry type and then you go on to mention what each entry type is you know dooryard or porch or whatever that is you're just saying it can be on the side, but um it's not clear when you read it like why couldn't it be on the side, you know? Um so again, I just saw it as an exemp exception to a a rule that wasn't

stated. That kind of sort of makes sense. through the share. Also, I don't remember, but I want to say that the entry it has to be on the first floor as well. I don't recall that specifically, but um I don't I don't see that written here, but I mean, it's possly accessible sidewalk or pedestrian pathway, I guess. Um, I don't know how that would uh that's it's not super well outlined. Maybe that's just maybe that's just downtown. I I got to look that up.

That might that might be for some of the you know there's they talk about this is all about residential and ground floor. I don't really know if if I saw anything about door entries for um like an apartment building where you have a walk up or anything like that, but yeah. Yeah. Or mixed use potentially.

Yeah, for mixed use they do have some um frontages shop front like 41135 and 41136. Yeah, I wasn't too concerned about the um the the entry types as much as just this one little this very small Got it. Okay. Thank you. Um the next question I had was under 4121 um 1A uh utilities, equipment, service areas, etc. are or at the rear or side of the building if not part of the primary frontage. And I wasn't maybe I just didn't read carefully enough, but I didn't really get to where um we described utilities that would be part of the primary frontage. What kind of utilities are we

in the right above that doesn't it in the 412.1.2 too. Um, all above ground utilities and equipment, for example, electric and gas meters, fire sprinkler valves, backflow prevention devices, etc. Service areas such as garbage collection areas. It it lists there what the the utilities and the equipment are in the proceeding.

Sure. But which of those might be part of the primary frontage? You have backflow pretor vice devices that are typically within the the front landscape setback. Um fire sprinkler valves oftent times they try to put in the front um landscape setback. Um these are common key things that we're pushing back frequently trying to get them out of of the frontage. Okay, I think that was it for chapter 4 for me. We can look at that language a little closer. Pardon?

So, we we can look at that language a little closer on the 412.1.2. Appreciate it. Thank you. Again, it was I'm a lay person. It was a little confusing to me, but um that's what I have for chapter 4 everybody.

Okay. Um just just uh go back a little bit on that. um because I didn't know we were talking about some components in on the interior and installation. And so I think it's relevant here because I'm finding that some of the units I've done some research of my own and I'm finding that um that sound transmission that's required uh the developers are not stepping up. I I don't know how it's being missed, but people from ceiling to floor can actually hear uh the footsteps, and that's no good. Um I think that the most common problem in the construction of the floor ceiling um assemblies uh for sound control has to do with the attachment of the drywall. But what I'd like for us to be cognizant of is that um those sound mats that go into this process that we really make sure that they're used appropriately uh because the thicker the sound mat um the more we will deflect. Um, and what they're doing is putting in these very thin and and so everybody can hear one another. And and if we're going to do this, we need to do it right. The developers is cost driven. So, he is not going to want to spend money in this area. But I would tell you and say to uh the planners that is a must. Folks don't know until they're moved in what they're now having to deal with. And that acoustic piece is very relevant. And what are you going to do?

Just abandon it? It It doesn't work that way. So I I would really like for us to make sure that that's in um the record and that it's understood that thin mats are not going to work. thick mats and that acoustic piece is very important. Um, it's all relevant to the installation. Um, in addition to that, just something that popped into my mind. I It doesn't sound like the standard uh with respect to the noise suppression or noise mitigation has any specifics to um like vibrational frequency because it's like a it's a noise that you may not necessarily hear, but you can feel. Um, and I think the comments that you're describing as far as, you know, footsteps and stuff, that's something that might be a much more of a a resonance versus an auditory um, thing. I Jennifer, do you know anything in terms of objectivity? Do we make any decisions? Are we able to make decisions with respect to the uh, material specific materials vibrational frequency as it relates to, I don't know, goofy noise wavelengths and stuff like that? I'll have to look into it. It would be my understanding that would more fall under the building code section and not necessarily the objective design standards. Um but I I can look into um what we can do regarding vibrations and so forth. I know right now our objective design standards um state that you know you have to meet all California building code requirements. Um, I do understand, you know, I I think I've talked to Commissioner Roberts um about some of the the older developments that we have.

They definitely did not have the same building standards back in the day that they currently do. Um, and so vibration and noise were definitely some of the things that they did not think of and they did not regulate in past uh cycles, building code cycles. Um, and then those are things that as as the state progresses is getting more stringent. Um, but I would have to look into that whether that is something we can actually regulate uh from the design perspective rather than the California building code perspective.

That seems fair. Yeah. If I could also just pop in real quickly, um whether or not a proposed project would expose people or a generation of people to ex excessive groundborn vibration or groundborn noise levels is also something that gets studied in the squa analysis. So it has it has a life of its own there too and that's part of the noise study that would be done. So it is also addressed elsewhere. So in that case it wouldn't necessarily need to be in the document. It would just be done through that.

Yeah. sort of piggybacking on what Jennifer said, since it already does get studied in another um location. I don't know that it would be necessary to replicate that here. Uh you know, I would defer to Jennifer and the consultant because I know I'm coming into this late and you all have been working on this for a while, but it it isn't something that escapes our attention and it does have um a place of its own for study. Okay,

sure. I I would just um I was about to add anyway uh there is a there is a different standard for um uh interfloor noise as opposed to side to side wall noise. Um and I I haven't really been in the code lately. So um if one thing you might do is just look in the code and see if there's a different um standard for uh for you know ceiling floor treatments as opposed to wall treatments. If there was something that you wanted to say something there, you could. But again, this design document, it's design standards and um the building code doesn't go away. If they build according to these standards, they still have to meet the building codes. And the building codes, I think, are um basically reflective of state law and they're updated to stay with state law. And uh so if there's areas where that's not being done, that's more for the um the the building inspectors should be taking care of that. And uh if they're not, then that needs to go back to them as a as a um have them to make sure.

Well, just an FYI so I can put it on the record through the chair, we have two new developments. um one over by Amber Lane and one over on um uh Sand Creek. And unfortunately that noise uh classification that we're talking about they did not they did not um and so that Florida ceiling as it is noted here in this packet 4.10 10 noise and order annuation. They failed miserably in both those areas. Our folks can hear one another. It's a big it's a big issue and these are the newest developments here in Brenwood. So, I I would beg to differ that if we're going to do this and we're we're looking to do mixed units, if we're going to put this language in this packet, that we make it very clear that what's already happened with these two new developments does not happen with newer developments because folks are stuck. That's mixed usage.

Okay. So, we'll we'll make a um a note on our list to try to include the um standards for uh sound installation between floor and ceiling. However, we want to I think that that's perfectly reasonable. It there should be something in code about it already. So, I don't know that we have to, but since we have the other one in there, just seems reasonable to have them both. Yeah. Alrighty. Um, chapter five. Do we want to do the whole chapter? Do we want to go through style by style?

Um, I I'm okay. Either way, style by style or whole chapter. Well, I I think we we if it's my turn, I think that we we went through this already and I think the the consensus was at least the the big discussion was around contemporary. Yeah, I have a bunch of notes that go through all the styles. So, um I would like to discuss all the styles. Sure. If I can. And um we'll get to contemporary. It's it's conveniently its last. So um

through the chair um just 5.1.2 which shows the map. Should we wait until we get to because I had something around contemporary which would be in relation to the map that starts off the chapter. Yeah we we can talk about that when we talk about contemporary if that sounds good. Yep. Thank you. West your brand. Do you have a preference for how we proceed? No. Fine. All right.

Going through each one. So, let's do it like this. Let's talk about the other styles other than contemporary and then we'll talk about contemporary on its own because um I think that's a it's kind of a of a horse of a different color or something. Is that is that work for you Roberts? Okay. Um and um uh Prer Roberts, you have any comments on the styles other than um contemporary? Contemporary. Other than other Yeah. All the other ones. I'm okay with everything uh that I've seen thus far. Okay. With the exception of uh what we will ultimately get to some point. All righty. Uh Commissioner Jones.

Uh same. Thank you. And Vice Chair Brand.

Um I think the main thing outside of the contemporary was that there was a variety of um roof type uh materials. And I know you and I talked about this as well. um with regards to a lot of the others and I realize that there's I think Sheriff Lord you described that as well as like we want materials chosen especially for roofs so that they're um they have a long lifetime and um I was hoping that there could be some degree of uniformity uh based off of the styles that we uh you know elect to uh codify in this document And I'm just still seeing stuff like the maybe not necessarily ash asphalt shingles, but um I I've seen a lot of stuff that is a you know marginal departure from a lot of the architecture we've seen or sorry the uh roof material choices um outside within the city limits. So um that was one main concern and the in terms of the decorative styles I know as we go through some of these we have different numbers associated with each style now is it and I'm not at all an expert with respect to uh the architectural design and such but uh I am curious as to why the there's a variety of um uh I'll call minimum criteria to sort of establish that that design uh those design characteristics are indicative of that particular style.

Drew or Tim, do you guys want to Yeah, I can respond to that.

Yeah. So, we basically I think you're talking about kind of the decorative elements and and we basically look to find, you know, as many options as possible for those decorative elements within a style. Uh, and you know, I think from our reading of the styles, just some styles have more decorative optionality than others. Uh, uh, you know, like a a Spanish style tends to have a lot of variety in types of decorative elements. Uh whereas um you know a um ranch may have fewer it has you know important elements uh but it may have fewer kind of embellishments than uh the Spanish style. And so then we tried to uh say, you know, if you're picking a richer style like Spanish, you need to do a little bit more to make sure that that you're kind of in you're not providing just a simple um uh stripped down version of what the style should really be. Uh whereas maybe ranch, there are some, you know, easier moves to get to some authenticity with that style.

Yeah, that totally makes sense. I I just I'm looking over here at Colonial and it says choose at least two versus the six I think on is it Spanish? It just seems like a big difference in terms of uh how we

are able to objectively define a particular style. So I I'm looking for a bit more uniformity so that I mean I I I just don't want to have a a project where it's like well we pick colonial because it's the easiest one to suffice the you know the two cu requirements. Ideally, they would pick something that matches the character. And I I wouldn't want the uh design elements to be the sort of lowhanging fruit for um these types of things to be for their decision to essentially be made or maybe it's easier. that that's just my cursory analysis of this but I it's just a a observation I made here uh with respect to the I guess the macro of the different uh stylistic choices that we have listed here. So, um, other than that, I think, yeah, we're going to talk about contemporary. Um, and then I think I think that's it. And then, yeah, I definitely want to get back to the map, but um, that's all for now. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, okay. So, I'm going to start with the uh the old objective design. Um, and I don't expect you to have it in front of you, but I can just read to you. In section 2102, they define roof materials. And the very first sentence, concrete or clay tile roofing shall be the primary roof covering. So, that's how it's always been here. And um, as I went through the the architectural styles, I didn't see any um necessarily concrete. There is some clay tile for the the Spanish and the Mediterranean, but um in the concrete and in in an offline meeting that I had with staff, I was mentioning um my house in in Deer Ridge has what was represented to me as a cement tile. We kind of don't in um chapter 4. So I was going to s suggest that we have a 4.13 I think would be an additional section where we um could define our materials and colors. And so, for example, for roof materials, we we have um different roof materials may want we might want to do in different styles, but we should have a a master index that describes each tile and give some characteristics so that not only can we say, hey, you can have this kind of tile, but it has to meet these particular characteristics or standards. Um, and again, they have things about wall materials and colors here. And um, so I just want you to know that I'm envisioning that there is this reference that we can go back to that and you'll see the use of it as I go through the styles. Would you have any objection to that being at the beginning of chapter 5? Um,

why did I think it would go in or I don't I don't like have a major objection as long as it's in the document. But, um, yeah, right. Okay.

Building design, uh, you know, like some of this other stuff seemed kind of material like, but yeah, I think four or five, wherever you want to put it. Um but I do think that having a description of particularly uh roof materials uh you know wall materials, colorways, things like that. Um and you know we have this whole sticky kind of um issue where um as Andrew has noted we we don't want to take away so much flexibility um that it kills creativity but at the same time we don't want to leave so much flexibility that it creates um uh the hazard of people just building whatever is cheapest and uh not really caring about how long things will last. And as I discuss roof materials, I think that'll come clearer and um I'll I'll start giving examples as I go through. So looking at the Spanish style. So um red fired clay tile roofs. That's pretty specific. And then it says common shapes include both Spanish Sshaped and mission half cylinder. But that's just common shapes. And if I'm reading this and I can think of some other shape I might want to put there, um it doesn't really say I can't use it, right? So, um I'd like to to tighten those kinds of things up a little bit. And so by having a definition of uh redfired clay tile roofs and um saying you know what an S-shaped one is and what a half cylinder is and then coming you just come back to this page and just say use that as defined um and

refer back to that. And again, the the optional elements. Um, I noticed here that they mentioned hipped roof towers or belvaders. And that's an that's an example of where you're calling out a specific roof type. Um, which is good and where it would be used. Um, and the same thing for required elements on the roof, a simple hip or gable roof with one intersecting gable. So, some of these are better than others. This is pretty good here. Um, and you do have a person doesn't have to wonder what a hipped roof is because you do have back in chapter 4 um an example of what a hipped roof is. And so this is this is why it's good to have um these these definitional things. I think that's why I was wanting to include the um the roof tile types and things in chapter 4 because that seemed to be a more definitional chapter. Um and uh yeah, so um there's language back in chapter 4 about um some things should complement certain styles. And I think one way to to resolve the ambiguity is to have a section in the styles which says okay here these are the styles of roof that camp that work with this. So um you wouldn't be reading something over in chapter 4 that says you know the roof has to complement the style. In this case you're saying specifically what style what what roof does complement the style. And I think that should be carried through all of the styles. Um

again, materials and colors. Light natural neutral color for the exterior stuckle. Such as. such as is another um term that sort of blows out objectivity. Um and again you in the next paragraph there's such as dark brown or natural dark stain. Um, and again, I don't know how picky we want to be about it, but it's really hard if we if we leave gap some, you know, we have so many great applicants, so many people come into this town because they love it and they love the way it looks and they and they want to do nice things, but, you know, human nature being what it is, we're going to have applicants that will um look for ways to do things that may not be in the best interest of the city. And so we have to be we're going to be objective. We have to always be objective. Um in the same way that the uh the accents here um decorative tiles uh there are a lot of tiles that could be described as decorative that you wouldn't want to necessarily see on a Spanish architected house. Um go into any hotel bathroom, you'll see some tiles you wouldn't want to see or especially if you're in Vegas. Uh, so I and this is I really struggle with how we can be specific about it. Um, having some definitions could help, but the accents is the thing that really styies me a lot. Like this rot iron railing, I just love the picture, but there's rot iron iron railing that's not Spanish at all. And

there's nothing in here that really requires that. Um, and I hate to say it, but we've had railing controversies in Brentwood before. Um, and so I think it's it's worth noting and trying to find a way to say something about the style of the decoration itself. And and I'm and I know that I'm I'm setting a quandry for staff because it's a quandry for me, but I just feel like that there is um a need for it. What are some of the other and again um I'm looking at Mediterranean now common shapes and they give more shapes paper admission or American Spanish um which weren't mentioned in the uh in the Spanish. So now I'm a a confused applicant trying to figure out well um would a would a tapered shape be okay in Spanish if it's okay in Mediterranean? I mean in Spanish they said common shape so they didn't mention it but here they mention it. So I think we need to be careful about things like that. And again, if we had um roofing material definitions in their own section and could refer back to them and could be as specific as we need to be, I think that would be super helpful. Um 534 uh still in Mediterranean materials and colors, earth tone colors, rustic materials. Um, I like that neutral color scheme has a

definition that's um at least uh says what they mean by it. Um again the optional elements stone faux stone brick on other descriptions of stone accents I've seen you know more specific things like river rock. Um, it just seems like we have a a smattering of different kinds of things that can be used and it it needs to always be clear as to what kind of thing, you know, is uh there's many kinds of stone. Um, and again I just on the um top of the the next page 535 I I just wrote that with all as with all architectural styles some of these items just need more definitive descriptions to match the style railings, light fixtures, um, you know, rod iron railing. Again, there's some that would work and some that wouldn't. And we Raw iron light fixtures. At least they're rot iron. Um, ranch. I decided to pick on the word like again. Architectural forms like barns, silos, sheds, and form the form. It's not so critical there, but um because you're just kind of describing a process. And yet um here is finally in a ranch style where we get into some some roof uh type materials that in the past we haven't seen in Brentwood and I think for good reason. Asphalt

shingles as asphalt shingles don't live up to um what we talked about quality materials and craftsmanship that maintain their appearance over the years uh over time convey a sense of pride reduce long-term capital assets. That's not really a good description of asphalt shingles. Um I might get some push back on that. Well, there's some that are that good, but if if we're bound and determined to have asphalt shingles, then there should be a um a definition somewhere of which kind. I personally, as far as asphalt shingles, I I strongly object to that. Um synthetic slate. So, I had to go look up synthetic slate. Turns out it's composite. Problem with composite is there's composite and there's composite and some composite is better than others. and some composite curls up at the edges after a few years and some doesn't. And uh um I would just not have synthetic slate shingles. On the other hand, there are other things that look like shingle shingles like um ceramic tiles that might work in here. And um right now we we we haven't even considered these kinds of roofing. So, um I guess I would like to have another pass at this after we have all of the potential types of roofing materials defined and say which ones go with which styles. It would it would be fun to to do that. And uh synthetic slate I don't think is going to make my list, but um it might, you know, pass. And again, materials and colors. We we just need a a section that provides um

definitions like unadorned materials, metal, wood, masonry. Would somebody read that and think that an unadorned piece of wood is untreated in any way? you know, it's like it's got to have uh at least some varnish or some paint or something on it. So, um stuck over it. You know, some of these things are fairly specific and some of them are not. Sorry, I'm kind of droning. I'm trying to work through them pretty quick. I thought I did note that I thought it was funny that um the eastern portion of Brentwood is where Craftsman is is because I live in Deer Riven and Ridge and there's plenty of that in the West Brentwood, trust me. Um again, Craftsman asphalt shingles, synthetic slate shingles. I don't like either of those and I don't have any um alternates to find yet to to suggest. um for craftsmen. But I I do think that, you know, the the more traditional shingle look is fine, but um asphalt and synthetic slate, which is really composite, may not be the best. Walls and windows, you mentioned vinyl and steel in here, and I don't know if vinyl and steel are are good for single family residential. They might be the steel might be okay in some people's eyes for a um you know a block of studio apartments or a you know I don't know but I would say that and then when you talk about wood again we need to have definitions around wood because there's wood and then there's wood and you know like it needs to be treated wood if it's going to be wood. um fiber cement. I think it's what I've been calling hardy board, but uh that's okay.

But yeah, I don't like the vinyl and steel on 553 Queen Anne. Um again, we've got for shingles, we've got asphalt and we've got synthetic slate. And I I do agree that Queen Anne likes to have a shingle, but those are not my favorite materials for shingles. And it does mention metal. I was kind of intrigued by that. I'm trying to think of a of a Queen Anne that I've seen anywhere that had, you know, the metal roof, the kind of flat metal roof. Anyway, there are metal shingles. Um, but the kind of flat metal roof, I don't know if I've ever seen that. So, I was really intrigued to see that as an option here. Um, optional elements, ornamental, metal patterns, a gable roof. Um, ornamental might not be specific enough. Decorative these things on the iron railings and things. Again, if we if we could have some stylistic definitions of some of these materials, uh, be very helpful. And I'm not being very helpful because I don't exactly know how to do that. But um working on italionet here we have red tone clay tiles. So that's pretty specific. Um again materials and colors. We need to make sure we're specific to the style for the accents colonial.

Um, here was something I thought was good. It does list a simple pitch roof, a hip roof, or a gabled roof. And, um, you can cross reference that to chapter 4. It's already there. Um, slate tile is good. Would like composite? No. Um, unless I see a a definition of composite that convinces me that it's not um an inferior composite, I'll never be convinced that that should be good. Um, the walls for colonial, it mentions horizontal wood sighting. Um, I would imagine that should be um hardy board cement sighting or um it should at least mention there should be a definition of wood sighting somewhere that sets some standards for it because there is some cheap stuff out there that you you don't really want to see after 10 years. Um, full brick facade. I don't know. Um, that's just a stylistic thing that I have is I don't really want to see a full brick based house anymore um amongst the the uh colonials. Um, exposed wood or woodlike materials. Again, there should be a definition somewhere of what constitutes wood that you could and couldn't use. Um, we just want to make sure that the materials again live up to that standard that they're quality materials and that that they'll look good um into the future. And I I think that's a if we if we state it then that's a defensible reasonable standard. And that brings me to um the end of the non-contemporary section.

And I I do apologize, some of that was droning and repetitive, but I I think that if we if we have a section that that provides some robust definitions of those things, then that makes it a lot easier to go back and and rework some of these things so that they make sense. Okay. Alrighty. Um, prior chair Roberts, do you want to talk about contemporary? Well, not really. Okay.

But uh but um in our last conversation as a commission, we we went back and forth a lot about contemporary and how that particular look didn't have um a place here in Brentwood. Um, based on what we have in Brentwood, I would I happen to agree with that. I I drove around quite a bit and but for maybe new developments that might be coming in, um, I just don't see how that is going to factor in with what we already have. So, I for one don't find that it is um a viable um style for Brentwood at all, you know. Uh and and I say that because I don't see vast land something like that something like contemporary would have uh acreage so that it would pop it would it would not be so it wouldn't take away from what's already here. um putting something contemporary next to the the homes here and and they're tight and there's not a lot of space between the homes and the developments that I've seen. Um and I've driven around quite a bit. It would just be it would be out of it'd be out of place. That that's just my feeling. it it would it would not be a compliment. Uh so for that I would um

I would say no to contemporary now with mixed usage coming our way maybe but I don't see it. That's all I have to say. All right. Um Commissioner John.

Yeah. Thank you. Um I I would agree. I know I I brought this up pretty strongly at the last meeting about the contemporary style and it was interesting. You know, I was I was uh recently out with my family. We went to my childhood hometown and um we were in my old neighborhood and um a couple blocks down there was a house that uh got, you know, basically they they tore it down and they built a new one and it was contemporary. and the the vast contrast, you know, was was it was just such an eyesore. I I couldn't believe it was allowed, honestly. Um, but to that point, I I'm I just the the the visual contrast of this look compared to what we have in Brentwood, I just don't think it fits. And so to Pastor Robert's point about, you know, targeted areas, um, I mean, sure, but ultimately like going back to the, uh, the the map, um, 5.1.2, to, you know, like I I I would say taking that off the the citywide map um and, you know, not not including that um as just a as a design to be considered uh especially when it comes to you know, building of homes. Um I just I just don't think it fits. So I I would like to see uh that removed. Um and I think you know uh chair floor did a very thorough and wonderful job going through the rest of the designs which I think you know ultimately have a fit but contemporary does not and I would absolutely support taking that off the citywide map and just not having that as something to be considered.

Thank you. Um Vice Chair Brand.

Yeah. So, uh I know I had echoed that sentiment in the last meeting about this and um as far as the contemporary design goes, yeah, does it I don't see it really having much of a place in in Brentwood from a residential standpoint um or mixed use? Um it it's more common now. I it seems to be very popular in a lot of up and cominging neighborhoods. I just I don't see this character uh having any continuity through the most of the neighborhoods within Brentwood. Now, I do I do agree when we look at the map um the applicabilities particularly in the in the majority of the city. We only have really three heat maps here, but it's it's uh I really struggled to find any neighborhood with the exception of I think it's Kindred and Balffor I think is it's like the only one uh that has any you know concentration of um houses that have a contemporary style. Um, and so, you know, when I'm looking at the map, it's like, well, maybe that's if we wanted to zone in on a couple of neighborhoods maybe fine, but for the most part, I I don't see its applicability. And it sounds like I have a I'm kind of preaching to the choir here, at least in this audience. But um the the other thing I I want to bring up too is with respect to um we haven't talked much about it but PA1 has its own designation here uh unique to the rest of the city no different than downtown. Um, and I went back and forth with this in my mind in particular because the idea here is that PA we want it to be

this open and new development that has a variety of, you know, residential projects as well as commercial and, you know, uh, long-term job opportunities. you I was listening to uh the Harold Duffy who's the you know proposed new city manager and um he had a lot of really interesting ideas as far as that's concerned and what I what got me thinking about it was that PA1 will effectively be our new basically most people's introduction to Brentwood you know you come south on Highway 4 or east I guess and um that'll be you know site like welcome to Brentwood and these are the going to be first things we see. So if we allow contemporary within from a residential uh context in PA1, how is that an appropriate introduction to uh Brentwood as a city? You know, I I went to the East Contraosta Historical Society and I I got the the book and I this uh 75th anniversary book and it it's great because it has all these old pictures of what Brentwood used to look like over the pastund I don't know 50 years or so. And um a lot of the architectural styles I see you can kind of see some of the these black and white pictures. I don't know if anyone can see this, but um it uh it complements a lot of the styles that we see here in this document. And and I thought it was fantastic because I could see the roots of Brentwood in some of these design styles um with respect to roofs and ornamentation and windows and and all that. And it felt I looked at this and it felt like Brentwood. And I I know sometimes these things are intangible and we attempt to define them from an objectivity standpoint, but um I just I looked at this and I said if I wanted to make an introduction to

a a new person to Brentwood, it probably wouldn't be contemporary. And so with that being said, I would suggest that if we were going to remove it from citywide that we would probably also remove it from PA1 and then replace it with one or more options that are more conducive to the character of Brentwood's uh citywide um architectural style. So that would be in at least the ones that popped out for me included Spanish Mediterranean um and ranch really u and you know this only does focus in particular on um residential project. We can't, this doesn't talk about any commercial things in that, but what it would do is that it would, it would at least allow us to have this uh we would help set the tone for what PA1 might look like from a residential standpoint and then have hopefully uh we don't know what's going to come first, obviously, but um we hope that there's going to be a kind of a a style that will define it uniquely, but also not make it feel like this annexed territory that's our, you know, big, you know, tech and development hub. We wanted to feel like Brentwood, not the, you know, little redheaded stepchild of the of the city. We wanted to be a part of it. And so the the way that I see us accomplishing that, at least through this residential standard, is that we go about it by applying a couple more of these um citywide architectural standards. So that's my rant. Thank you.

All right. Yeah, that's a a really good point that um I I tend to echo. I mean, when I when I see some of these renderings, I I think about um industrial, you know, the lofts that you see in some cities. And I think that they're fine there in those cities, but I don't think that this represents Bretwood in any way. Um, I want to say that as you you do come up for and you come through PA1, which is the innovation center site, um, what you see as you look off to your right is Mount Diablo. And, uh, Mount Diablo is a defining icon of Brentwood. It's in our it's in our, um,

our logo when you drive into town. It's in the arch that you see when you come into town. Um, people care about it a lot. And I think that to put um you know industrial looking buildings right there, especially residential um it's just too jarring of a justosition and it it really doesn't match the rest of Brentwood at all. And I know that probably um some of the creatives that that were thinking about what the innovation center would look like kind of liked it. I mean, I went back and I looked at the innovation center renderings and there there is some um you could call contemporary apartment in there, but then the um the office space that they uh envisioned was much more sweeping and organic and like nothing that's in any of these books. and certainly not like contemporary. Um, I don't have a lot of good to say about the contemporary. Um, I I just Yeah, I I think that um since Vice Chair Brand brought it up, do we want to um go around and and pull the rest of the commission about what might if if we had one of these styles, one of these other styles in PA1, what it might be or one or two. I think uh Vice Chair Bran mentioned three, but what what kind of styles we want or do we want to just strike contemporary and send them back to the drawing board or what do we want to do?

Well, if I may, I I think we should just strike it. Um the last thing that we want is to have a hodgepodge of of uh styles. I it it's it throws off what we have historically uh seen here in Brentwood and great for modern it's not for us and I think people appreciate what they have here. So to throw something like that in the mix it becomes an eyesore. Uh it's sending the wrong message. Um, and so to to just take it out completely would probably be the best approach and work with I mean there are quite a few styles here. So it's not like, you know, they're stuck with one or two. There's several of them that they can come back to that would fit in P1.

So would you suggest that um for PA1 that there be uh options for styles or and which ones would you put in those? I I would just leave it open. You know, I I I I'm comfortable with everything that I've seen, but contemporary. And so maybe at another time that would come to us and we could have a bigger conversation, but I wouldn't want to hone in on one or two for PA1. I would just say that what can't come into PA1 would be contemporary. That would be my my thought. All right. Um

I would agree with that. And Vice Chair Brand, you had mentioned some

Yeah. I mean, because if we're going to X out contemporary potentially that, um we would have to replace it with something at least. Yeah. Jennifer is nodding her head. Yeah. So, um there would have to be a architectural style that would fill its place. At least one as far as I'm aware. And that's so I've just threw out a few that I had uh specifically identified as being um maybe not necessarily most common, but uh a few that spoke to me most as far as Brentwood representative um type styles and maybe one, maybe three. But I do know that when it comes to particular architectural styles, if if developers have more options in terms of the styles available to them, um it does inspire a bit more um development. It it so in that regards maybe a healthy medium would be, you know, uh enabling several and particularly in residential uh single family home, right? DC typically developers offer a variety of um those uh styles like you know some there'll be a craftsman house there'll be sometimes a Mediterranean or you know Italian I I personally very much like that one when we talk and this is not to go too much more into the PA1 thing but when we talk about that as a transit what's the phrase we use it's like a village village transit center for most of that particular around the Highway 4 corridor. It's like, you know, all that use of uh stone and such in the road and all that, like it it speaks to being very um uh the images that I saw in terms of uh how to say other other developments that

sort of match that in terms of setting the tone uh in some of those areas. Uh the Italian AI also uh was pretty consistent with that. at least some of the design elements. Maybe I should be a bit more clear. Um, so I I would I'm I'm open to discussion as far as what may replace that contemporary, it sounds like we've got uh a growing consensus there.

Yeah. um as as I'm flipping through the book and looking at um the different styles and I'm trying to kind of look at the um multif family the most. I I mentioned previously that the neighborhoods that I that I live in, Deer Ridge and Shadow Lakes and um we sent we seem to have multiple styles like right next door to each other. I, you know, several of the houses, several of the models are like that first craftsman picture with the the wood sighting and the and the and the wood columns and everything. And then right next to it, you'll see uh something more craftsmany, I think, or ranch. Kind of hard to tell. Um, so having said that, I I don't know that I would necessarily say that it could only be one kind. Um, I think Mediterranean is always a nice choice for this part of California. Um, we do kind of share a Mediterranean climate and we have wineries around and um, we kind of uh, do have that sense of the area, but it's not so traditional here. Um, the Spanish obviously the ranch. The ranch could be good. Um, craftsman craftsman I could I could get into. Um, you know, the one style I probably wouldn't for sure put there is Queen Anne. It's just not the right spot for it. And I think we we have a district where Queen Anne is is um the thing and

it's cool, but it's, you know, it's not the the first thing about our city. So, I you know, I I think we have a lot of options here to work with. Um, the Italian um is uh Yeah. These usually look pretty great, the Italian8s. So, um, yeah, I I think we just have so many options that we don't really need contemporary there. I I think that if we if we put up things that are pretty nice there um and we we leave the space for the office building, I think that um when the time comes to build the office space that the uh interested parties would like to know they're putting it next to some nice housing that would attract, you know, um be attractive to potential employees. And so, yeah, that's kind of my take on it. So, I think we've uh we've got a a pretty strong um sentiment that the contemporary can go.

Great. And uh that leaves us with uh chapter six. I think it's the last chapter. Is everybody doing good? Chair, if I may, is just a for PA1. Are we landing on the just everything but contemporary and not queen in? Um we we I don't think we're we're quite there yet, but um I think we're going to um have to go back through the whole list one more time. It we've been making a kind of a brainstorming list. And so, um, I it's already nine o'clock, but I think we're gonna have to go back through the list and make sure that, um, we all agree on each item on the list and how it should look and do that. So,

all right. So, uh, one option there could be to, you know, we have a kind of list of citywide versus kind of what's more specifically downtown. Uh, and so it could be just applying that citywide list uh, to the PA1 area. That would be an option. All right. So, chapter six, uh, Esther Roberts, anything?

Okay. Well, on chapter six, um, we had a little chat and, uh, the chat had to do with the non-plant materials 6132 and 6133. And, um, that percentage shall be allowed up to 8%. I think we need to increase that. Um I'm looking at um all the materials similar non-plant materials where no plant material is present shall be allowed 8% of total required landscape area. I'd like to see that increase. Um um and one gallon uh containerized plant material size shall be a minimum ground level size at installation. I don't know what that means. Uh so maybe you can explain it. Um but that was my take on on the u the non-plant material. Initially, I thought that some folks might want to just stay away from plants alto together and just have rock gardens, but it came out in our discussion that they had to have some kind of foliage. Um, and that being said, I I keeping in in step with uh uh rock rock uh garden or rock landscape that that percentage be increased. Okay. Um, Jennifer, did did you want to answer uh Chair Robert's question?

Yeah. The one gallon containerized plant material size.

I can also speak to that. Yeah.

So, that's a kind of typical uh planting size. So typically plants come in they'll come in uh uh you can get them very small you know herbs you can get in uh 3 in or 6 in cups one gallon is if you imagine you know a one gallon gallon of milk that's about the size of the um container that the plant is in when when it's taken to the site and installed. Um and then you know you can have one gallon five gallon usually starts to get into bigger shrubs uh you know even trees and then you know trees go into box sizes after that uh you know 24in box 36in box uh etc. Uh, and so what we're trying to do here is make sure that the size of the planting is of a, you know, minimum caliber, minimum size planting, that it's going to, um, fill in, you know, fairly quickly, uh, and not be just, you know, little 3-in sprigs of ground cover.

Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you for that explanation. Um Um, so yeah, that that's my take. That's the only thing that I really have is that increasing the um 8% of the total required landscaping area. Thank you. Um Commissioner Jones, no other ads. Thank you. And Vice Chair Brand,

uh 6.1.4 with regards to trees. I know they talk about it in chapter 3 as well, but um do we have anything as far because we say street trees shall require approved street tree from city of Brentwood for forest guidelines or urban forest guidelines, excuse me. And um is there anything that we want to say here about to like maintain our arbor city status or anything like that? because tree I know it's a cost thing. It's not so much what we do physically with our trees, but I I don't know if that's something symbolic. It's just what we talked about at the beginning of the meeting where we said like are there areas that we want to emphasize uh a bit more effectively. And I I would say, you know, a big part of Brentwood is our trees. And I I don't know how we could do that potentially in this section or back in the chapter 3, but it just kind of came to me here as far as uh looking here through chapter six.

So So that could be something good to add to the purpose area of chapter six.

Yeah, just just as a call out even if it's not something we can, you know, objectively measure subjectively, but um yeah, that'd be great to see. Um, and then yeah, as far as the um, you know, for folks that opt to do a I'll call it a low moisture landscaping design, we definitely want to encourage that just from a water conservation standpoint. Um, I just don't I don't know what the the pushpull might be as far as upping that 8%, but I it'd be good to have that as an option. uh for folks and not for everybody but but certainly. Um yeah.

All right. Thank you. Yeah, I think that would be a lovely option since um full transparency, I have a front yard full of rocks. So, um and very nice trees and uh shrubs and uh widespreading flowering things. Um, so I kind of have an a more expanded take on it. I think we need to allow for the these low water styles. Um, don't like the like the the rocks with shrubs and trees or zero escaping, not zero, but x ic scaping. Um the fact is if if for no other reason than people's water bills are insane and um and we've we've gone through several bouts of in the last few years of where we had drought restrictions. Um I think that these can be done in a way that is attractive and it it does match most of the the housing styles that we have. Um just depends on your plan selection really. Uh but I I I just think that uh we need to see the um the possibility or the desiraability of this kind of landscaping and and you know done right. It can be beautiful done wrong. It can be terrible. Um, but I uh yeah, I sold my lawn mower, put in some rocks and uh drip system and some trees and some bushes and uh I think it looks pretty nice. So, I I just think that um people should have that option and I think that uh new neighborhoods going in should have the option to make all the lawns match. So if they wanted to do

something like that, we definitely have um you know the landscaping talent here in Batwood to make that happen for us. So, um I do want to call out a like something I saw that that was very positive here that I I think is um a good example of when they talk about drought tolerant plant species. Um there's a a nice definition by reference that takes you over to the water use classification of landscape species for region two gives you a link um so that if a person was wondering you know like what kind of plants would I need to put in my project to be drought drought tolerant there's a nice reference for them and I I I just I love that that's in there and I I encourage that all throughout this document. Um and uh we had a a caller earlier wanting to know know about fire hazard. And this is where finally we get to the fire hazard section 63. And um the ember resistant zone that we had talked about and I think Jennifer mentioned it as well as the caller is that we have a 5-ft water resistance zone. Right now, we're we're only putting it into the very high fire severity zone. And my understanding from a former chairperson in this body who is a also an insurance um representative that uh the insurance companies have a real high preference for that. Um that it can affect people's rates. Um I've kind of mostly done this at my house. I do still have a couple shrubs that are close to the house, but um we

could consider making that uh citywide if it's just something that I I want to put on the list for discussion. See how the uh rest of the commission feels about that. Um walls and fencing. Uh here's another example of um uh objectivity um under materials and color uh 6521 one is a little better. It says walls and fencing shall be complimementaryary of the architecture. So complimentary what does that mean? Oh it says here by incorporating building colors and materials. So that's tells you what you got to do to make it complimentary. So it's it stops being um subjective at that point. And but number two says walls and fencing shall complement and be compatible with the overall landscape material palette and design theme which is a little bit less good because um one person's idea of what's what two colors are compatible may be very different from another. Um, if you've ever taken a walk through Berkeley, you know what I'm talking about. Um, view fencing definition uh is is good. And I know that chain link fences are excluded elsewhere in code, but I I just want to make sure that when we define uh view fencing and we use a term such as that a person doesn't get in their head that um a chain link fence. Gosh, you can see through it. It's such as. Um so we want to be careful about that kind of language. And that's kind of what I have. So,

how's everybody doing? Want me to keep going? Okay. All right. So, that was um every chapter. What we would like to do now, I suppose, is just go back through um the notes that Jennifer has and um look at each note and see if we have consensus or if anybody wants to change anything or feels um uncomfortable with it um before we decide what to do with um our recommendations. Jennifer, when you're ready, but take your time. Okay. Um, yeah, April, if you can share my screen. Okay, we will start with my notes here. Um, and then I'm going to go back once we get through this because I did have some questions on the roofing section. Um but here so um the contemporary architectural style recommended it be removed as an option citywide and PA1 um and moved and replaced with um from what I had heard was Spanish Mediterranean Ranch and Craftsmen. Um as you can see that is relatively close to what we currently have for the citywide. Um it

includes all of those types except for colonial. So, um, we can maintain those four as a recommendation. Um, if you just want to make it more streamlined, we could say that there's only going to be two areas within the city. Downtown is going to be very specific. And then everywhere else in the city, you can have Spanish, Mediterranean, Craftsman, Ranch, and Colonial. Um, or if you do want to have PA1 be a little bit more refined and have, you know, a smaller amount, we could stick with the four or even less. All right, let's let's discuss that. Um, Anita, I mean, SP,

I'm I'm fine with the way it's pre presented. Um, you've got four choices though for PA1. Um, so you've left out the colonial and uh the Italian for PA1. I I mean, as long as Queen Anne is not in it and Contemporary is not in it, I guess it's okay. Uh, so I'm I'm fine with the way it stacks. Commissioner Jones.

Yeah, I I'm in agreement. I'm in agreement with Pastor Roberts. Thank you. Vice Chair Brand. Yeah. I mean, it was kind of my idea. So, I'm I I like the I like that variety. I think it's a good mix. I I think it would be appropriate for PA1. Okay. Um I would add Italian if uh if the rest of the commission is agreeable. Italian it.

All right. So, with Italian Next, uh we had talked about in the agenda report increasing the objectivity. Um we've heard much uh on that tonight and so a lot of these are just going to be general directions um in which staff is going to have to go back and obviously do some work. Uh but these are are the bullets um in which I heard tonight was try to eliminate areas that say such as um and instead have it better defined. Um add stylistic definitions where appropriate um including suggestions of decorative tile, decorative rail, ornamental. Um, add roofing detail definitions and add a section in either chapter 4 or five that defines roof materials uh or that defines materials such as roofing materials, wall materials, and colors. Um, and better define the types and tiles of tiles and materials.

I' I'd like to jump on that. Um, just because the the second one is that I'd like to refine stylistic definitions like where we say things like decorative tile. I'd like it to be um instead of decorative something more specific to the style where it's presented. And I by by far consider this the most difficult thing we're asking you to do.

Okay. So yes, it's not just going to be what is a decorative tile, but it is what is a Spanish architectural decorative tile? What is a Mediterranean decorative tile? So it's going to be not general. It's going to be more specific to each architectural style. So it's going to be a different definition within each architectural style. Yeah. Or Yes. Or when we add the chapter and we define then in the architectural style we can say these are the types that are appropriate within this. But perfect. Thank you. Yeah. Um any anybody else have comments on this list? No, we're good. Thank you.

Okay. Um I'm now going to go into where we talked about each of the chapters. Um, we'll go back to the roofing section in a little bit. Um, okay. So, under the introduction, under the purpose, add context of Brentwood. Um, similar to what was in the existing guidelines. Um, and similar within the goals. Um, you like the goals to say why we are doing this. Um, to help strengthen um, our defensibility of reasonable. Just a thought here on this one. Do we want to explicitly reference the first generation of the design standard to just say this was a not a point of origin, but but certainly it it came into consideration when we made these standards for the ODS. Just, you know, I I like breadcrumbs. I like being able to reference another document that kind of inspired another one, you know, so

it's appropriate.

Yeah. Okay. So add context uh specific to Brentwood uh from the existing guidelines and reference the origin of the Brentwood guidelines and her historic character. Um and then uh add to goals uh to say why are we doing this? Uh this will help strengthen our defensibility of reasonable standards.

Yeah. and and these are the reasons other than you know the state made. Yes. Okay. Um that's pretty good everybody. Yes.

Okay. For chapter 2 um specifically 2.51 and 2.52 clarify our parks definition. Um potentially add clarifying language or goals and refer to specific code sections instead of just referencing the code. Um and then in seven or 2.7 refer to SB9 or government code sections. Um, actually, I'm going to highlight this and table this as well for a second. Um, because I think this is all going to go back into the planning commission section that I would like to refer back to. Um, okay. 4.11.1 says, uh, oh, just clarify. It says um entries may be located on the side of the building, but what is this an exception to? Uh why couldn't it face the side anyways? Um

I I can help you with that. I I would just um after you you make the statement in 411.1 just say otherwise must um conform to all standards for the particular entrance style that it is. Um, I forget what we call those. Um, the frontage style.

Say that one more time. Um, yeah. Instead of trying to say why why it couldn't otherwise, just say, you know, otherwise um the entrance must conform to the um gosh, what are the styles in 411? Okay. Yeah, I'm almost in it.

Yeah. Uh yeah, the the building entry type. Okay. So, 412 uh.1.2 is just make sure the utilities are accurately defined. Um then under noise attenuation potentially reiterate building code and SQL requirements or investigate whether we can regulate through design standards and check if there are ceiling floor standards that can be added. Perfect. Yeah. Yeah. Perfect.

Okay. Uh chapter five. Uh clon colonial detail should be more uniform in the number of details. that currently requires two while others require four to six. Um add a section in um I'm going to add this to the top part. Add a section to um chapter four or five uh defining room materials uh roof wall and colors better defined types and materials. This was also up in the previous one when we talked about the um definitions. An example of that is Spanish breadired clay tile roofs. Common shapes um possibly define a new section. I think that was what we had above in the roof as well. Under each type style under each style, the types of roofs allowed um instead of just saying that they complement. I want to add that to a previous section. and then better define standards and durability um so that all materials need to be specified so that not all materials need to be specified. This is um in relationship to the wood siding um not just roofs you know but porch materials, railing details, sighting. Um so standards for durability.

Sure. Things like uh the wood needs to be treated and things like that. Okay. And then chapter six, um increase non-plant material minimum percentage, um which is currently 8%. Um consider allowing zerocape with less plants. Um add to the purpose our goal is to maintain our arburous tree characteristics. Consider ember resistant zones for all areas within the city. Um I have to go back at 6521. Why I have compatible one of the last ones.

Well, I was just um talking about how um when you said in in sec in the first paragraph you said you define what complimentary is and then in the second paragraph it doesn't so clearly define what compliment and compatible is. Okay. So better define compatible. So this is an example, you know, of things that you can look through in the document to say this is how it would be and this is how it would. It's just an example. Okay. So we good with chapter six. Yeah. Did we did we talk about um roofing materials like asphalt and composite? That is what I am going to go to now.

Oh, okay. Sorry. So, I'm going to add these highlighted sections really quick. All the way to the top. Sorry if you're going to get dizzy. Really quick, make sure Okay. Okay. So, in the staff report, um, I included a table that had all of the roof elements. Um, there's multiple options that we haven't gotten into detail in what direction specifically you wanted to go. Um, we could recommend certain types of roofing material, um, such as asphalt shingles be removed, um, within certain types, recommend that only tile materials on architectural styles be allowed altogether. um would that would be a pretty straightforward and easy way to clean up if we only want to tile in all materials. Um but some of suggestions that we heard um in the discussion was adding a section in chapter four and five to define the roof materials um and the tiles. Um example better define red fired clay roof tiles. the common shapes maybe have illustrations of the shapes um that we can refer to um under each of the styles um and the type for the roof types I think yeah at each under each style the roof types that are allowed so in certain ones we don't allow flat um in other ones you know we don't allow certain shed roofs and so forth um you're concerned specifically with shed and flat roofs um and then possibly

tie roof types into specific architectural styles. I think um those last three are very similar.

I would um as far as the shed and the flat roof um I think that the concern was that like the whole house doesn't have that. But I I think that having that definition there is good for um uses is like I said like a porch truth could be a shed roofer. So as long as you know it that type could probably remain defined as long as it's not used as a you know if we said something if we like limited the if we had an upper threshold for as like less than you know 10% of the roof can be flat to suffice the patio cover or the you know whatever but yeah some something like that Jennifer can probably

yeah we can definitely add some things like that has to be complimentary and not the primary um roof form. Um specifically with flat roofs though, the one um just food for thought is that I I believe the majority of you are considering single family residential homes. Um and the other aspect is highdensity multif family. There are probably the majority of highdensity residential developments once you start getting into four and five stories are going to have parapits and flat roofs. Um they have

accents, you know, tower treatments that have gabled roofs or accents. Um, but I I do believe that a lot of them are going to have flat roofs that are probably over 50% of um the type of roof. Um, so prohibiting them altogether I think might be difficult. It can definitely be done. Um, but that's just food for thought to consider. Um,

but you could you could clarify in each style definition where a flat roof, you know, would be okay and where it wouldn't. Yes, we can. And we can now also clarify that we don't want it at all in single family homes. And we only allow it on stories three, four, and five if you know, something like that. So, we don't get a two-story home that has a flat roof. You're only ever going to see it, you know, maybe if it's three, four on the fifth floor. You know, those are where the areas where it's not going to have as much of a visual appearance because that's where you're really not seeing what's behind that parapit. So, we can definitely look into those aspects. We just need to get kind of a consensus on what your goal is. And if we put the goal in here, then I think we can work with the architect to come up with with language to fit your goal.

Yeah. Perfect. Perfect.

Yeah. So, I think this is the last thing is we just need clarification from the planning commission on um the certain types of roofing materials um that you would like to be removed. If there are certain ones that you want to be removed such as asphalt shingles or the composite, you know, we can strike composite from any of the roofing materials. We could strike asphalt shingles. Um so, that might be one area. Um or if if you want to dive down into we can strike it from certain ones um and still allow it in others. Um but this is where we need the the last bit of direction. Um with with the permission of that.

Well, I I think that you were spot on about the shingles and that synthetic piece. I I I just would like to see that go away alto together. I don't know if it has a place in in any of of this. I I've I I think that you open up yourself when we're talking about cost to especially with with things like shingles where things will be uh placed on a low budget and uh it could really do a disservice to the overall project. So to just remove it entirely uh would would have the developer work with other types of um u items aside from something synthetic which I I still don't know what that is and um the shingle piece. I've seen those and uh they they low budget it can really do a disservice to the project. That's just my That's just my observation.

Okay. I'd rather not have it than to have it and have an and have a developer have access to it. Okay. Commissioner Jones. Agreed. Okay. And your brain? Yeah. The only thing I'd add to that is that um yeah, our original design standard also called out that we want these roofs and we see it categorically as the most common uh roof type m roof material type. And so I I think that just adds more evidence here that um that's probably the way to go.

Yeah, I especially for asphalt shingles. Um, what I what I would like to see is um additional uh roofing tiles that we that were mentioned in the um original design document that kind of got lost. The um the concrete and uh what was the other one? um ceramic and uh well I lost the other word but um yeah I I I just I want to definitely look at the uh materials there that um have traditionally been used in Brentwood and uh we might need another go around once we see the list of of roofing tiles available to us to to really nail down what we want to see in each style. So I you know you can write the whole list but just because it's on the list if it's not allowed in any style you know then we can take things off the list. It's the same thing with the roof shapes. I mean you can have all the roof shapes you want in the list of roof shapes as long as each style specifically says which roof shapes you can use for what. Um which we don't have right now. We have sort of some of that. Did we Did we get that on the list that we wanted to to to say which roof shapes you can use in each style? Okay, I'm starting to lose track myself. It's uh it's a lot. So that's pretty comprehensive um what you provided us. Uh thanks Jennifer.

All right. Um if if is there anything else we'd like to any other chapter we need to go through again or should we I mean I see a very comprehensive series of edits that we've made in addition to um some kind of options as far as how I think staff will probably interpret based off of our wishes here. Um, I'm ready to make a motion if we Okay. Um, before we make a motion, I um

I just wanted to have a quick discussion about how we want to approach this. Um, my my suggestion was would be that we don't make a resolution on approval at this time. they would instead we would make a motion asking staff to come back with um the revision and then we would um have the opportunity to um do a resolution at that time. Is that kind of where you were going? So everybody like that?

Yeah. the um because I don't think we've quite defined in completion the what the text amendments are as I'm reading the the motion that we have on the redlined agenda. Um, so maybe Katie can help guide us here as far as the uh how we how we should proceed.

So I think you have a couple of options here. Um, the first and most expeditious might be to have Jennifer capture all of this uh direction as as you've just provided consensus on and package that all and send it on to the city council with everything that's here so that staff has the benefit of council's direction on these items as well. Because if staff goes back and works with a consultant to make all of these changes, but then the council decides they want to keep some of the original language, then then we've kind of gone back and forth. So, one idea would be to bundle all of this up and say the planning commission recommends um approval of the design guidelines with the following changes. And then if the city council concurs, then staff has, you know, clear direction from the ultimate decision maker as to how to go back and work within the confines of the consultant's existing budget to get all that done. Um, another option would be to ask staff to go back and work with the consultant and make all of these changes. Um, the only thing I'm not sure of there is whether the council will concur with with all of these. And if they don't, then we've, you know, driven down the consultants budget even more. Um, and those are the sort of tensions at work here. So, you've got a couple of options and we're happy to help you craft a motion in either direction.

I have um a comment. Uh so we are the planning commission and um kind of the planning commission is a subset of the city council and part of our mandate is to um take some of the work off of the city council and do it. And so my feeling is that we should present them with a document that we support. Um they can they they can certainly refer back and and see what was done. Um but I think that the planning commission is kind of obligated to do the work and um present the the city council with a product and then and then they can further refine it if they wish. But we need to we need to do the work so that they don't have to. Um I mean the city council their meetings they have so many things that they do and um I I think that it would be appreciated if we um did the the lion's share. and uh um presented them with something that that is that they know that we've as a as a body have approved and hopefully will be fully attended next time. And um that would just be my perspective on it. I I I understand the the uh the opposing thought that well if they wanted to go back to how it originally was, but um they that could be done because I'm sure that these documents are digital and um if they wanted to undo anything, then the original pages could just be substituted back in. I don't know how much the consultants charge, but it doesn't seem like that it would be a a major effort to replace a page back with an original page. So, um, that that would be my

thought of it. So, with that, um, I'll I'll leave you to make a motion. Well, I'd like to see the document, uh, with, uh, the recommendations that we've given, Jennifer, come back to us, um, so that we can take, uh, a final look at it and approve it and then send it on to city council. That would be my recommendation. Oh, well that's we had a motion. Well, I I'm not making a motion. You want to make the I can make the motion. You want to make the motion? Are you concerned with that? Somebody make the motion. A quick rebuttal. Uh

yeah, go ahead. I'll go if you want to go first.

Yeah. So, um, I do realize that, you know, we have a a balance of expediency as well as thoroughess. And I I applaud us for this evening as far as our our thoroughess because I mean, you especially, Chair Flor, your details on the uh on the architectural styles are pretty impressive. So, um, you know, that being said, I I in looking at the revisions that we provided to Jennifer, um, I don't see a lot of, uh, and maybe this is just my perspective is I don't see a lot of variation, much deviation from our intent that could come as a result of the um, uh, proposed um, revisions. And so I in an effort to, you know, continue the ball ruling, I I I feel comfortable um just essentially making these recommendations and then saying, you know, um you know, council to uh make that. And I would hope that last part here is I I would hope that uh council has the perspective to you know watch both meetings and understand that we're uh the uh amendments that we've made or proposed amendments that we've made uh had its origins from a variety of sources. uh whether it be us individual commissioners or um from other reference documents and things like that. So that way at least the you know the continuity through our uh amend uh proposals are are pretty clear. So, um, yeah. So, um, yeah, I want to give Sorry, Commissioner John Jones, sorry. Why don't you sh

No, I I just want to say I I I am inclined to agree. I completely understand um where Chair Flor is coming from. Um I think it is our due diligence to make sure that we're taking the workload as much as possible off of our city council. On the flip side, what I would say is, you know, I think we've done a lot of that tonight. Um, I think the notes are very thorough. Um, I think all of that will be brought. Uh, and then, um,

you know, the council will ultimately decide if they're going to keep the notes that we we the changes that we've we've recommended or or they will not. Um, and I think staff will do a good job with that and we'll bring that to the council. So, I think just from the spirit of being a little bit more expeditious, keeping this ball moving, um, thinking about some potentially budgetary concerns from from our consultants, I just I I feel comfortable taking this to the next step and um allowing this to to to continue. Um, with complete respect of what you're saying and I understand that. Um, I just I think we've we've we've done the work. So, now I think we can we can move it forward. That that's my thoughts

and and for clarity um what if that is the direction that we ultimately go I I can we can go through this one more time if you want to see the language but staff can actually add this word for word verbatim what is here tonight as an attachment to the resolution as your adopted approval consistent with exhibit this would be exhibit

okay then we need to um finish the work tonight we haven't yet identified which tiles we want to put on which buildings um I I'll say one more thing um and that is that having not gone through the thought process that we went through and the debate and um discussion and multiple t you know meetings going through this material um I'm not sure that all members of the city council will look at the list of things that we're recommending and will understand necessarily the the um impetus behind them. Um certainly I didn't I didn't um approve those those notes uh without with the understanding that um they were going to be presented to the city council raw as is. I I don't think that's appropriate. I don't think that they're explanatory enough of the thought process behind them. And um I believe that once we have the list of materials at least um then we can go through the styles and apply those those materials and once we see um the stylistic descriptions that would give us something that we could really resolve on. That's my thinking on it. Um, again, I I just don't I don't see the city council just going through that list the way it's written and understanding, you know, what the thought process was behind each of those items. And, yeah, they could watch the meeting, but it's, you know, hours of material and why not just present them with um an ODS that they could uh look at and decide if it's uh worthwhile. That that's just my thought process. But during the presentation to the city council, would those incorporation would that all be given step by step or would it just

be expected for the city council to read?

Um there there are multiple options. Um what um well staff would would provide them with this comprehensive um attachment within a staff report. Most likely what will happen is staff will go through potential changes uh within each chapter and we would most likely create a staff report that goes chapter by chapter. Um we also would most likely have the three main contentious topics summarized in its own section similar in a lot more detail than what we'd provided in the staff report tonight, but that would go into detail. um some of the easier straightforward um sections like you know adding the Brentwood context and the goals, things like that that that might be pretty straightforward and streamlined. Staff would most likely provide examples of red lines of what that would look like. Um, but there are a lot of areas in here that I think um, staff may require direction before going and making all of these. So, it would I I would most likely guess would be more than a one-stop process at the city council. Um, it would most likely entail because of how substantial these recommended changes are that we provide these to council, get directions in which areas they want us to spend staff time and resources to move forward with and then

we would provide them with a comprehensive red line at probably a second hearing. um because okay there are some substantial putting together just even the definitions chapter

and the examples um is probably something that you know I mean in reality could be a whole chapter on its own that that could be substantial um and so some of these things um are going to take some time and I think we might request additional direction before moving forward but maybe Eric can go further into Yeah, good evening everyone. Um, I was just going to say I I think it really comes down to at this point it sounds like there's a little bit of a divide might not might not be the right word, but a level of comfort, right, with the comments you've made tonight? So, is the commission overall comfortable with this list that's been generated and then having staff present that in whatever format to the council? And as Jennifer said, we could go a lot of different routes with that. Um, how staff reports get crafted, it's it's kind of an art, not really a science. Uh, or is the level of comfort such that you would want to see, and this is what I'm getting from chairperson floor, to see the document back with the changes, so you can actually see the changes. That's really kind of up to the commission at this point. Um,

okay. Oh, and the other thing I just wanted to mention real quick is that um if indeed you want to see it again and you're not comfortable actually making a recommendation tonight, one thing we should talk about is when it does come back. Uh because this is a public hearing that was continued once. Um it's certainly going to require a level of work both on the consultant side and the staff side. So on the one hand, I'd love to if it does get continued, I to be able to pick a date. Um but I don't want to uh tie us down either. So, we might need to renotice it, which is okay. But, um, so you can continue it to a date certain, which makes me a little nervous, or you could just continue it to an unspecified date, and when we're ready, we'll bring it back. So, hopefully that makes sense.

All right. I Well, I I do want to jump in here. Um the last time that we said, "Okay, we'll um um we'll have you put a list um in the staff report. I it it didn't seem satisfactory to me." and um we had to go back and have it put the language put into the um the proposal and then it slid right through city council. They didn't have any problem with it. So I think that we would do a better service to our city council by doing the work and presenting them with an objective design standard that is truly objective and um has the improvements that we've suggested for it. Um I don't think it's more expeditious to make them go back and approve all those changes one by one. And uh um again like Jennifer said, you you'll have to bring it to them. They'll have to approve the changes. Then you'll have to do the work anyway if they do approve them. And frankly for the city council, there is just this factor that it's just easier to approve the document as it is. So, um I feel pretty strongly that um we need to have one more round of this and see the document with the changes and uh that's kind of where I'm at on it right now.

Um very good point and it sounded like the we do need an extra meeting regardless if it's us or if it's council. So someone has to look at this first revision again before it then goes for you know a final approval. So what I'm hearing from chair floor is that we would like to be able to and I'm paraphrasing of course we would like to be able to put a like a finished product kind of stamp on this document to say like this is our formal recommendation from and it's just with a nice little bow on it. Um, I absolutely support that and especially if we've got if it it has to be another meeting and yeah, I I think we, you know, we're a special we're a specialty arm of council's uh purview to, you know, with respect to planning and so it makes sense that we have the uh brain power and space to go go through a document with uh quite a fine tooth comb. So, um yeah, that um I'm Yeah, I I think you've I think you've shifted my mind.

Um I get it. I'm I'm still not there. Um again, I I I think we've done it and we we're providing a recommendation. They have they will have our recommendations with the revisions. I get the concern about it potentially being missed or not looked at. Um, but I mean I I I I think staff will do their due diligence to to to ensure that these these recommendations we're making, which is what they are, uh, to uh to to the city council for for them to decide whether they will take what we are recommending is changed or they will not. Um, and I think if it's kind of done in that step-by-step space, it allows the city council to be able to ultimately decide whether they're going to take our changes or not take our changes. So, I I'm I'm more inclined to go down the ex to more the expeditious route because I think the work has been done tonight. Um, and yeah, I'm just still not there. So,

um, I'd like to ask a question then just on a a more general kind of appear basis. Why is it important that the city council consider our changes separate from the rest of the document? What what does that accomplish, you know, for the city or for moving our goals forward? It's why why does it matter whether they consider a document um that was done by staff and then some revisions that were made by us rather than just a document that was made by um staff and the planning commission in um collaboration. Is that for me?

It is.

Oh, okay. Um, so yeah, how how I'm how I'm viewing this as is we we were given a document by staff and consultants. We were asked to look at that document and to say either we like it as is or we want to make changes. Tonight we gave, I think, a very thorough breakdown of what we think should be changed within the document. presenting it to the city council in that format that says this was the original document that was made. Here's what we have. Here's what we're asking to change versus just presenting them with just something that was just changed. I would like them to know what we are recommending to be changed from the original document. So that's why I think if if it's being presented more in that format, we're giving them the step by step of exactly what was done. That that's how I would want to see it. And I could be I could be wrong, but that's how I I see it,

right? Is I would like to know, okay, you had this document, these were the changes that the planning commission recommended changed because this is what it was. This is what they like it to be. Do we want it to be the way it was or do we want it to be the way that they they changed it to? So I would I would like to personally see that in that format versus in just a finished document that just came from staff consultant planning commission. I would like to to know what was changed personally for me. So that that's why I I stay where where I I just I I don't see the value um what difference it makes to the city council who made what revisions to that document. If I may, we'll agree to disagree then.

So what I'm hearing and I see it. City council can take a final document, bypass all of the details that went into that document and say yay or nay, and that would just be the end of it. or city council can actually look at the notes and see the changes that were made in the document prior to its finality and have a discussion about that. And so there's there's the variances right there. Sending them with a final document kind of it doesn't prohibit them from tearing it apart, but it's done. So why spend time undoing it to redo it? Or they're going to be presented with notes and adjustments and edits and now comes a discussion which kind of forces them to take a look at well why are they excluding i.e. um contemporary. So now is a discussion and now it'll go back and forth as Jennifer has communicated possibly in two sessions. So, it really does come down to it being expeditious and here's the final document. Okay, it's done. Approve it or here is our here are our notes and um this is what we're rendering here. This is this is our thought behind. We don't want contemporary there. There's a note there and there's going to be a discussion about that. It's not going to be expeditious. they're going to take the time to wonder, well, what was why did the planning commission say they don't want contemporary and PA1? So, there's the variant. That's the difference. And I don't know that I want to think for city

council. Okay? They're going to do what they want to do however they want to do it. Um, I don't want to get in the weeds like that. Um, I do hear both sides of this and I'm inclined. I don't want to see this thing come back. Frankly, I don't want to tear this thing apart again. That's my feeling. I think like I'm with Mr. Jones here, uh, Commissioner Jones. I uh we've done the work, but on the other hand, I don't want city council to take our efforts and tear it apart and it come back completely different from the work that we did tonight. So, I'm I'm kind of conflicted

and I appreciate all those thoughts. Um I'm just mindful of what the planning commission is and how it's defined in code what our job is and these are our decisions to make. Um we make them an advisory but we are expected to do the work and um I don't want to turn in half a piece of work and make my boss finish it. I don't I I feel very strongly about what we do here. I I think that we provide value to the city and to the to the city council

and I think that um the work we do here has weight and it's not it's not like we were tinkering with it. No,

you know, I mean it it is our job to look at these things and to make recommendations and to collaborate with staff and to do all of these things. We're not here to um rubber stamp anything. We're not here to uh we're not in competition with staff. Um we're just making the document better. And I I think that that's what our job actually is. And I feel like if we turn in, you know, like a half-done document, then we create this this false concept that staff and the planning commission are, you know, like not working together on planning when what's actually happening is we're collaborating together with staff and staff has done an amazing job tonight. And I think that we just need to finish the work and turn it in. And they can do what they want with it, but at least they've got something that they can just up or down on. And it's, uh, it's complete. The way it is now, it's not ready to go. So, um, if we send it to them with just a bunch of recommendations, then they have to do all the work of putting in picking out what recommendations they want to do, put it all in, blah, blah, blah. It's not their job. It's ours.

But don't we want them to know what we recommended changed?

They have the video. They all watch it. They know what was changed. And it can be documented by staff what we what we did here tonight. There's going to be minutes. There's going to be notes. There's going to be all kinds of ways that they can um determine if they want to what we changed or they can just accept the work of the planning commission that they appointed to do this job and say okay this is the job they did you know I I don't see any I don't see any difference in um sending them a completed document that is fully objective from us. I I just don't get the point of making them go back through and do it again and have to decide all of those things

and and look at the whole document as it is and then decide if on top of that if the changes are appropriate. Let them let them see what we've done. Let them have the document and let them go through it. But um again, we're here to do a job. If we're not if we're not going to do the job, if we're gonna say, "Oh, this is what we we thought and you know, not turn in the document, why are we

I don't know if it's fair to say we didn't do the job though because we we did do the job. We did it tonight. We we laid out all the notes. We showed them every we're laying out exactly what it is that we want to see changed and then those changes are being presented." So my point more is is why do we why not just present that doc document with the changes for them to decide what they're going to keep and what they're not going to keep because it's up to us to make sure those changes were implemented as we intended.

Could I offer a middle course for consideration? because I think what we've talked about so far is sending on the document with the list that Jennifer has has noted and and you have signed off on um or having the consultant make all these changes and bring you back sort of a 2.0 version. Right? Those have been sort of the two options. What about a middle option whereby the consultant and staff work together to develop a red line that shows all the changes and that red line moved forward to council so that they could see the original work but also see all the work that you had done and they could choose yes we like everything that planning commission suggested you know keep all the red lines or they could say we like some of these red lines and some of it we want to revert to the original or we like some of it and we don't like others and we're going to make further changes all on our own because then that would capture all of your direction tonight and they could see what had been changed between the original and what you had recommended um and it would still be a more complete document as I think you're envisioning chair floor uh for them to look at comprehensively and not be comparing to a list of changes that was attached to the staff report.

I I don't want to get in your way but it just might be another way to think about it. That that's an interesting idea and um I don't object to a red line at all, but I still want to see it before it goes to city council because I want to make sure that changes that are in there are the changes that this body envisioned. You know, we we want to see that the work that is done matches what we asked for. And the city council would feel the same way if they sent something back. I I don't I don't see um any any point in making the city council go through all that. It's just um I think it's our job and then we return we return a finished product to them and then they can do what they want with it. That's that's how I see it.

Okay. So, I if I'm hearing um Chair Floyd, we're going to go ahead and um um if if we're in agreement, we're not going to make a recommendation tonight. We're going to ask staff to um bring this back to us at some point. And I guess because it's gone on for so long and there's no time limit on this, we can see this come back to us in February or March. Um, I mean, not putting a a time limit on it, but uh not putting a date on it, but you say that it would be tough to to give a date certain. So, just to kind of leave it open, and I figure it's been years, at least a year or two. Um, so there's no real hurry uh in in in getting this box checked. Um but it would come back with all the recommendations um in a packet for us to take a look at and make sure that everything that we worked on and we do do the work. Just to be very clear, I want it on the record. We did the work tonight and we do work when we come here. We don't rubber stamp anything. Um we don't do anything halfbaked. At least not not on my watch. I haven't done it and I don't do it. So, that being said, it would come back sometime in February or March or whenever as a packet for us to take a look at to ensure that everything we talked about this evening is in the packet and it would also give us another opportunity to make more changes. So, this is a very fluid document. This is something when we talk about doing the work, we could go on for

some time with this document. This is not a document when it comes back to us that we might be satisfied or we might see something that we didn't catch in this work and then do exactly what we're doing tonight and bring it back yet another time. And so I want the on the record that this is a fluid document. It is not going to find its way back to council anytime soon if we go this route. And I happen to be in agreement that um we probably will keep this going for some time. But we've got the work. We've begun the work. And that's that's my my take on on this evening session is that we've begun the work and that is the key word begun. And that's my thought. I I'll add one more thing. Um this document originally was supposed to go through LED before it came to us. Um and through no fault of mine, uh lead hasn't met all summer long. And uh so we're tasked with doing Led's job and our job. And so I want to make sure it's done. And uh again, I I feel strongly that this is the right way to proceed. So what's your recommendation? Um I I I sense that this is not going to council in a nice packet. So, how do we move forward to move on to the next item? How do

I'm ready to make I'm ready to make a motion. Yeah. The only thing I would say before you make a motion, chair floor, is that if you do want to continue the item again Yeah. and have it come back with showing the changes, right, in a redline format that you just don't do it to a specified date because we really can't commit to that right now. Understood.

Understood. Uh, with that, um, I'm not sure that I have it, but, um, I'm going to go ahead and make a motion, uh, because we be here all night. Um, I'd like to move that we instruct staff to, um, come back with a redline document with the changes as we've as we've um, recommended for our final approval. And um we can do that uh at a date uncertain. Can I get a second? Um I I don't know about that being um may I say I don't know that it's a final approval because it could come back and there could be some other changes we want to make in that document. So I would take that word final out and find another word

come back to us and for review. Yeah, I think that's understood. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, understood. And can I get a second? I'll second that. All in favor? I I opposed. No.

Eyes have it. Ah. Wow. Okay. Um, we have one more item tonight. Uh, E3 to amend chapter 17.725 affordable housing of the Brentwood Municipal Code to increase the affordable housing obligation for projects from 13% to 18% as directed by the city council. And we have Sylvia with us tonight. Hi.

Good evening, Ping commissioners. Um, tonight I'd like to uh provide a brief presentation on the city council's direction of staff regarding the amendment to the city's affordable housing ordinance. At the March 12th city council meeting, the council directed staff to bring forth a future agenda item to discuss options to increase the affordable housing ordinance 13% requirement. The city council directed staff to provide information related to an increase in the affordability requirement to 15% or 20% and information on possible impacts on the city's housing development and state and federal housing loss. At the May 27th city council meeting, staff presented anformational report regarding the affordable housing ordinance, including impacts to housing development and state and federal laws as requested by the city council. Staff'sformational report included information on the current affordable housing ordinance at 13% including allocation of affordability percentages and other policies in place. information on the regional housing needs allocation or arena for Brentwood. Information on active housing developments and their affordability requirements and on current state and federal housing laws. Information on what an increase to 15% or 20% would yield in affordable units hypothetically. and information on conducting an economic feasibility study to support an increase in affordability requirement above 15%. And its timeline and cost. Upon conclusion of staff'sformational report, staff request staff requests direction from the city council on amending the affordable housing

ordinance and whether to increase the affordability percentage requirement of 13% and if so, by how much and if an increase is recommended, how to allocate the new affordability percentage requirement to the affordable income categories and whether to conduct an economic feasibility study to support an increase in the affordability percentage requirement above 15%. At the same meeting, the city council held a discussion regarding the amendment of the affordable housing ordinance and directed staff to prepare a draft amendment to the affordable housing ordinance amending the affordability requirement to 18%. and the allocation of affordability percentages to 9% moderate income, 5% to low income, and 4% to very low income. Do not prepare a feasibility study as one was recommended but not required for the proposed amendments. and keep all of the requirements and alternatives of the existing ordinance in place and move forward to with the amendment process and present the draft um amendment of the affordable housing ordinance to the planning commission for review and recommendation. This slide shows a side-by-side comparison of the council's direction to increase the affordability requirement. The current affordable housing ordinance requires a 13% obligation which applies to affordable ownership and rental units. The proposed 18% amendment will apply to affordable ownership and rental units and keeping all other sections requirements and alternatives of the existing ordinance in place. This concludes the presentation. Staff would like to answer any questions. The

NASA planning commission for the recommendation regarding the amendment to the affordable housing ordinance. Council Erin Laparoli from the law office of Garb and Litman is also in attendance via Zoom to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Sylvia. Um, does the planning commission have any clarifying questions for staff? Uh, we'll start with uh not at this time. No.

Okay. um other the call out where it indicated the difference um between owner and rental uh type affordability um allocation is there's no specific this is a question excuse me is there a specific uh division amongst those income brackets that denote owner versus rental or are they just all kind of mixed together in regards to the incomes is what defines very low, low and moderate and that applies to rental and ownership if if I'm understanding your question.

I guess what I'm saying is uh let's let's take moderate for example is that there's no specific distinction between owner versus uh rental percentage within that 9% as as presented here. No, this is both ownership and rental would be the moderate percentage for ownership and rental because we're not I guess what I'm saying is we're not saying that 48% of that 9% is an ownerbased um property versus you know 52% is a rental allocation. No.

No. Okay. Just wanted to clear that up. Thank you. And I have no questions. Um, at this time the public is permitted to address the planning commission. Remarks are limited to five minutes per person. April, do we have any? At this time, we have no speakers in person. We'll go to Zoom. If you have any questions, please raise your hand for this item. Excuse me. Comments. There are no hands raised in Zoom. Um, all right. Okay. Uh, do I have a motion to close the public hearing? Motion to close the public hearing. Second.

All in favor? I I motion carries. And um, is there any discussion? Um, we'll start with uh, pasture Roberts. We've been doing it all night.

Sure. Um, well, I'm really happy uh that we are doing this, keeping up with u some of our neighbors like Lafayette and Berkeley. Um, I think it's it's it's needed and I I appreciate it. I really do appreciate it. I know we've been talking about it for some time and it's finally here. I did want to just make a note and I don't know um maybe one of you can answer this question. So I'm looking at the approved and active residential projects. How embarrassing. Um I'm looking at Bridalgate 272 and they've got 10%. Um, am I reading that incorrectly? In terms of their percentage of of um of this effort, affordable housing, they're only giving 10% of the affordable housing. Is am I reading that correctly?

When the project was approved, um, it was approved under the, um, previous ordinance at 10%. [Music] Um, so that that's why their um affordability is at 10%.

I see. And then I'm looking at the development applications in review. So these 13%s, are they grandfathered or are they going to go into if if this is approved, if this goes all the way to a final 18, will these now become 18% or they are grandfathered in at 13? um they're they're grandfathered in um where when the project was approved under that specific ordinance um at 13% they will be at 13%. And that is the ordinance reads currently that when the um the application has been um completed and approved.

Let me ask you a question and maybe this is a legal question. So if an application for somehow and one way or another um expires, they haven't, you know, they've got to go back and reapply. Okay. Then then what happens now is applicable. In other words, they they might have 13% because their application is active, but no building, no shovel to the dirt and it expires. So when they go back and do a reapplication, if this passes, they will be held at 18%. Or are they grandfathered in just because I'll go ahead and have Eric help me with that one?

Yeah. whether that project lapses if they come back. Do they get to keep the old affordable housing percentage or if they would be subject to the new affordable housing percentage that would now pertain to applications that were coming in? They would be required to meet the new requirements. Um and we've got Erin Lapoery on the phone here um as well. But there is a difference between that and projects um that have a long lead time but have extensions granted to them say under the state subdivision map act that prolong the life of the project. Um so we are mindful of those things as well.

Okay. All right. That's that's that's my question and thank you for answering it. And um so yeah, I'm really happy that we've come into the real world here. Um I hate to use the word affordable when nothing is affordable. And so um this really does um bring us closer to what affordability should look like. So, I'm grateful. That's all I have. Commissioner Jones.

No, well said. Um, I would I would agree with that completely and um it's it's it's good to see the percentage increase. So, that's it. And Vice Brand.

Yeah, especially from when it was 10% um just a few years ago. I mean, and now that we're nearly double that with a proposal like this, it's it's uh admirable. And I I do like especially the now that we've divided the very low and low incomes into their own categories. It's nice to see the um four and 5% according uh on that. So definitely giving access to um a lot of our community that has uh Commissioner Roberts described uh as nothing is affordable. So it's uh yeah it's a it's a great idea. Thank you.

Yeah. I I just want to um congratulate Brentwood City Council on finally accomp accomplishing this. I know that um when they went to 13% that there were a lot of obstacles to going higher and they seem to have overcome them. And uh unlike um some theoretical benefit to possibly increasing the supply several years down the road just doing build baby build the way to make affordable housing is to make affordable housing and that's what we're doing here in Brentwood. Um I so proud of my city my city council for doing this and um uh I want to thank you too Sylvia for um your contribution in this and um with that I'll hear a motion

oh I'd like to make a motion that the planning commission um um well resolution 2517 the resolution of of the planning commission recommending that city council adopt the ordinance approving a zoning text amendment to um the Brentwood Municipal Code RZ 25 uh uh 003 amending chapter 17.725 of the city of Brentwood municipal code affordable housing a Did we Did we do something wrong?

Did we want to include the 13 to 18%? I don't know if I heard that. Oh, I thought it was already in there, but I can do that. No problem. Um, the 13 to 18% is directed by city council. Okay, I'll second. All in favor? I I I motion carries

informationational reports. Um trans plan Mr. Brown.

Um so the uh there was a budget discussion as far as um some of the allocation for East County uh public transit. Um there was a quick discussion regarding um whether those those funds should go into the um the try my ride. If any of you have had it before, it's it's it's quite good. uh versus a a burgeoning I'll call it uh program in which schools will could potentially um have some funds to inspire the um elementary schools in particular to have kids walk, bike and carpool to school as a means of alleviating congestion on the roads. So we all know how around here that elementary schools can be a little bit tricky in terms of uh morning traffic. I do it every day. So, understand. Um, and uh in addition to that, just a few updates in terms of some bit more ambitious uh long-term projects uh that uh aren't funded at this time, but um a bit more um uh adventurous thinking in terms of how we uh continue to add value in the transportation sector to East County residents. So, that's it.

Thank you. Um, we have design review. Uh, Commissioner Jones, uh, we have not met. We have land use and development committee and we also have not met. And Brentwood Municipal Code Review Committee have not met and we have kind of a trifecta there. Oh, moving on. Do we have any future agenda item requests?

None on my part. Seeing none, um G2 requested items. Uh future agenda item requests from chairperson floor regarding staff's process for evaluating applications and formulating recommendations and the planning commission's role in reviewing them. That the planning commission consider the request from chairperson floor regarding staff's process for evaluating applications and formulating recommendations and the planning commission's role in reviewing them. I think that tonight was kind of a um a little bit of an an interesting uh exposition as to why this is needed. Um is this was my request. I'll explain it. So what I haven't seen too much of we we go to the the commissionermies and we get a lot of training. We, you know, um, what I haven't really gotten out of all of this training is a good feel for how planning processes an application. They see an application that, the applicant comes in, uh, they help the applicant um, understand what they need to do. they they process the application somehow and they they bring the application to us and there's a there's a a recommendation, there's a bunch of documentation. Um, and I'm curious about how all of that works. And I'm particularly curious about the criteria they that they use for making a recommendation. I should talk to you directly, Eric, about this. Um for example uh to what level of completeness does the application have to be completely perfectly conformant or can you make a will you make a recommendation to us where there are are things that are not

conformant um that nonetheless that there's some value in the application. And I just want I just want to hear from staff um what the process is to make recommendations on on applications. Um so that is my ex explanation of my request and um I certainly would work with staff um with any kind of clarification if this item moves forward. Uh at this time the public is permitted to address the planning commission. Remarks are limited to five minutes per person. April, if we got anybody,

we have no speakers in person. We'll go ahead and go to Zoom. And it looks like I just have two commissioners in there, so there is no hands raised. Thank you. Um, is there any discussion by the commission? None for me. None for me. Thank you. I mean, I'm honestly curious, too. It's I almost I would no disrespect it made me think of the um the walkthroughs that Mr. Rogers used to do where he puts it on the painting and you get to see how a can of soup is made. Like it's it's very intriguing. So very interesting. Anyway, that's my thought.

You're a little younger than I am. I Mr. Rogers an American icon, but uh a little bit after my time. Um okay. Uh and yeah, the discussion for me is just as as I said, I just don't don't always perceive when I look at um a staff report and I go through all the items and I find things and and and we know this, right, that I'll find things other other planning commissioners will find things that seem non-conformant to us and and there will be a staff recommendation to accept the application. And um I want to know if we're doing it wrong or if there are extenduating circumstances, if there's a there's opinions. Um I just I just want to know what goes into the sauce to make the the the application come to us and with a recommendation. And um I think this is a mysterious process for people. I know that Eric, you and I have been um interacting about staff decisions since 2017 with no reason zone and deer ridge. And so I think we have a lot of trust between us and I trust you and I I value the work that you do. Um and we have we just have these mismatches and I'm really interested in in figuring out where they come from and how we can work together better on things. And so, um, I would leave the format to you, but I just would love to have some sort of a a presentation. Um, but we Yeah. Um, would you like to make a comment before we go to a vote? I see.

I would actually. Okay.

Thank you. Um, yeah, the staff report for tonight was pretty generic, right? It follows the format for other future agenda item requests that the commission's brought up. Uh but there was a line at the um at the very end of the background section was on page two uh which reads as described the request should involve only minimal time and resources but a more timeintensive or expensive request would need to be referred to the city council for consideration. So, as you might recall, there have been certain items that staff has brought to the commission. The commission has then decided, yes, we'd like to move forward with this, and we're going to do so um by pushing it to the council for their consideration to then direct to then direct staff time and resources. As I heard the request last time and further explained tonight, excuse me, I don't see that being the case for this particular one. I think what we can do is craft uh probably a short staff report, right? Summarizing what's happened in the last couple of meetings and then kind of giving an overview of how the process works, making a presentation, and then just having kind of a back and forth discussion, uh, and then just seeing where that leads. I I think it might satisfy the chair and the rest of the commission at that point, but we're happy to discuss further as that meeting occurs. Does that kind of sound like what you were asking for?

It sounds exactly like what I was asking for. I appreciate that very much. Thank you. Okay. No problem. All right. And with that, um, do we have a motion? Uh, I guess I could make a motion. Uh, I make a motion to request that the city council or actually um it does the motion references the city council and given your comment just now. Um, how should I phrase that? What city council got to do with it?

Yeah, I could I could just make a motion to Sorry. Yeah, I would just make a motion to direct staff to bring the item back for a future planning commission meeting. And you can just get a motion on that. All right. Thank you. Um yes, I'd like to make a motion to request that staff bring the item back to a future um planning commission meeting. I'll second. All in favor? I I

Motion carries. Thank you so much. I really appreciate that. Um let's see. What do we got? Uh the next regular planning commission meeting is scheduled for November 4th, 2025 at 7 p.m. and will be held here at the council chambers located at 150 City Parkway. Um I need one more motion. I motion to adjurnn. Second. All in favor? I I Okay. [Music]

Okay. Okay. Good night. Always. Okay. I got to get out of here.

Likewise. We miss you when you're not here. She's great.

This is an audio test. Please remain silent for the best results. This test is designed to ensure the best audio quality experience during your Zoom meetings. Once the test is completed, you will see the results on the screen. Thank you. This is an audio test. Please remain silent for the best results. This test is designed to ensure the best audio quality experience during your Zoom meetings. Once the test is completed, you will see the results on the screen. Thank you.