From: Sonia Cardinale
To: webCityClerk
Subject: Fw: Anonymous letter
Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 3:09:17 PM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Greetings,
BEAMOD board received this anonymous letter from one of our members - can this be submitted under written public comment? Thank you
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members,
I want to start off by saying I love working and living in Brentwood. It has been my home since 2014 and my employer since 2016. It is a place I have loved raising my kids. With that, it was said perfectly last council meeting when an Alameda County employee mentioned the dysfunction within the city. I would add that the hypocrisy is becoming overwhelmingly frustrating. I see the belittling and berating behavior some council members show to each other and to Directors of the city, yet Customer Service training is mandated. You mandate DEI training. A training that has become a political ideology that creates more divide than actual inclusion. Then you hire a man who is ethically questionable based on past employment issues, yet You expect us to sit through these trainings while his personal and political opinions, not facts, are forced upon us.You created an Equity Analyst position; a position also recommended by Antioch City Council. The fact that Antioch City Council has recommended and embraced this position should be a red flag. We should not strive to align our values and services with those of Antioch City Council. They have been the subjects of several questionable policies and unethical behaviors. Our citizens deserve more and frankly expect more. You supporting these “initiatives” goes to show you how out of touch you are with the needs of Brentwood, its residents, and its employees. You approve a Compensation Study with a budget of just over $296,000. No other cities can compare and that is because of all of us city employees that help Brentwood stand out and who have created the Brentwood way. Freezing salaries will only cause high turnover and create an environment where our citizens will not get the level of service they have become accustomed too. My point for these examples, is you are spending money frivolously and spending it for your own personal agendas and not for your constituents, all the while telling us that there is no money to provide us with a fair raise. As Sonia Cardinale pointed out last council meeting, we were told during COVID to be supportive of the city and stand by through the uncertainty.That just shows how loyal we are and how much we do care about this city. Do not take our cooperation and understanding as an invitation to abuse the power and authority you have. It is the employees who go above and beyond to provide the care and customer service our residents are entitled to. Do what is right and give your employees what we are due and what we deserve! From: Fiza Gulrez
To: Wimberly, Margaret
Subject: City Council meeting for Aug 27th
Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 12:14:51 PM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Hi Margaret,
I hope this email finds you well, I would like for my email to be included into the public comments time for Aug 27th at 7PM city council meeting
I would like to voice my opinion that I am very disappointed with the way the city has taken responsibility for treating the leftover feces of cows.
The irresponsibility of not accounting for how to clean up the after effect of having livestock in our backyard.
My daughter was very happy to see some livestock upclose. However, now that they are gone, we are faced with the problem of not being able to go near our backyard in fear of the smell and any insects and bugs that might be living there now in the feces. I would like to request the city to do something about all feces left all over the area. I have added pictures of how much feces is in our backyard.
Sincerity,
Gulrez
Mayor and Council,
My name is Jaylene Walker and I am a 10+-year employee of the city, President of BEAMOD and a citizen. 2 weeks ago you heard 2 of my colleagues stand up here and speak on behalf the Brentwood Employee Associations. The information they shared about disheartening proposals for negotiations and class and comp are real and creating major morale issues and a sense of feeling as if the City and Council do not care about or trust employees. In fact it has been said on the Dias by a council member that there is no trust, why is that? We come to work every day ready to tackle all the additional work that is presented by the 5 of you and your asks. Do you see us?
Y rates for staff from the class and comp study, which for those here who may not know what a Y rate is, it freezes someone’s salary, are creating real concerns of our employees. Some were hired during the class and comp process and weren’t told one was going on and now we have new employees facing job changes and y rates when they were hired less than a year ago and accepted jobs with the city under different circumstances. WOW. How is that honest and fair? Do you see us? We will continue to see seasoned staff members leave for other opportunities or early retirement as working for Brentwood is no longer feasible for them to make ends meet and is no longer rewarding no matter how hard you work. Brentwood has never been like this. All of this coupled with the constant mandates for trainings, some that are not federal or state mandates, being scared of retaliation for speaking up and constantly feeling pressured to move outside their beliefs for ideologies is creating serious morale issues. I have never seen anything like it in the past 10 years. Do you see us? The amount of money the City spends on outside vendor contracts, for these trainings, the employee time away from serving the citizens of Brentwood and not to mention the lack of concern for how employees truly feel about these mandatory trainings are something you all approved. The total cost of not only the vendor, but city services being stopped for staff to attend despite the employees concerns and reluctance. Clearly, you don’t hear us and don’t want to hear us!
I attending a recent training where the vendor spoke about good leaders and emotional intelligence and knowing your audience and how as leaders, we should never be impulsive or immediately reactive before making decisions, and taking employees overall well being into consideration. Clearly, our leadership has not shown this quality. It appears the more we speak up the more hastily we have things forced upon us without fair, true and honest discussions about how decisions you all are making affect the vast majority of employees. Do you see us? You are making life-changing decisions for employees, which has a trickle effect on the services the citizens of Brentwood will see. You get to walk away in a few years and go about your life and move on. The only ones who will remember what you did today are the employees or at the least the ones who are left! How is it fair that you get to make these long lasting decisions for employees who will still be here when you are all long gone? Do you see us? Please take a moment and sit back and realize that Brentwood doesn’t become better in Brentwood again without us, the employees. Look at the comparison agencies and surrounding city’s wages and benefits packages and then tell us how in today’s economy you would make it work for your family if you were working for Brentwood. All we are asking is for fairness and consideration. We are not numbers on a spreadsheet; we are human beings, citizens, your community, and your constituents! We deserve more from our Council and City that we give so much to! Thank you.
From: Dipenra Rai
To: webCityClerk
Subject: Objection to Current Bridle Gate Project Proposal Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 9:22:54 AM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Hi City Staff,
Writing to voice our objection to the Current Bridle Gate Project Proposal due to certain concerns that I feel needs to be addressed.
My biggest concern has been the traffic. Traffic needs to be studied and the alternative road designs needs to explored. Example roundabouts at certain intersections, shaded multi-use paths to encourage walking, biking, scooter instead of cars.
They should build one big park instead of small parks. Hopefully they have re-designed the current design to address this.
Capped oil wells safety, needs to be addressed. Make sure parks nor homes are build on top of it to avoid future problems that the city will have to address.
There is a section near St Regis Ave & San Jose Ave where it floods every rainy season. How is that being addressed. If this is not addressed now it will be the cities and the tax payers problem later.
Also how is the city going to address the school density. We can't just build and build and ignore the fact that schools are getting crowded. This is going to hurt our kids education and our amazing education standard.
Thank you
Dipenra Rai
161981584.6
LEIGH PRINCE
Direct No: 704.384.2617
Email: [email protected]
345 California Street, Suite 2200
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.364.5540 415.391.4436
101 S. Tryon Street, Suite1700
Charlotte, NC 28280
704.384.2600 704.384.2800
www.foxrothschild.com
August 27, 2024
Via Email: [email protected]
City Council
City of Brentwood
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
Re: Bridle Gate Project – City Council Public Hearing Item F.1 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
This letter is written on behalf of Discovery Builders, Inc. in support of the Planning Commission’s unanimous denial of the Bridle Gate Project (“Project”) on the basis that the Project does not comply with either the City’s General Plan or the Municipal Code.
A. The Project does not comply with the City’s General Plan.
The Planning Commission made findings that the Project does not comply with General Plan policies to protect Brentwood’s ridgelines or discourage cut-through traffic.
See General Plan Policy COS 7-1 and CIR 3-4. The City Council can also make these findings and deny the Project. It should be noted, however, that the City Council is not limited to these findings and may find that the Project does not comply with other General Plan policies. For example, by not including larger lot sizes as required in Subarea D, an objective zoning standard, the Project does not conform to Policy LU 2-8 to provide a variety of residential products through the Zoning Ordinance to accommodate the housing needs of all segments of the City’s population.
The courts defer to a local agency’s determination of consistency, or lack thereof:
“When we review an agency’s decision for consistency with its own general plan, we accord great deference to the agency’s determination. This is because the body which adopted the general plan policies in its legislative capacity has unique competence to interpret those policies when applying them in its adjudicatory capacity.” Save Our Peninsula Comm. v Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4 th 99, 142.
Thus, the Council’s decision to deny based on findings that the Project does not conform to the City’s General Plan policies would be given great deference.
August 27, 2024
161981584.6
B. The Project does not comply with the City’s Municipal Code.
The Planning Commission also found that the Project did not comply with the City’s Municipal Code by failing to conform to both Subarea C and Subarea D standards.
Attached is the letter submitted to the Planning Commission explaining that the land use regulations applicable to the Project are not limited to Subarea C standards, but also include Subarea D standards and Subarea E standards, even after the court decision.
The staff report is correct that the court did not address these other Subarea standards.
These standards are codified in the City’s Municipal Code remain applicable as to open space, ridgeline preservation and lot sizes.
C. The Environmental Impact Report should not be certified.
As outlined in the attached letter to the Planning Commission, there are inadequacies in the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”). Therefore, the City Council should not certify the EIR, and does not need to certify the EIR when it denies the Project.
For all the foregoing reasons, Discovery Builders urges the City Council to uphold the Planning Commission’s determination that the Project is not in compliance or conformance with both the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code and deny the appeal.
Sincerely,
Leigh Prince
Enclosure
cc: Anita Roberts ([email protected])
David Sparling ([email protected])
Gerald Johnson ([email protected])
Rod Flohr ([email protected])
Kristopher Brand ([email protected])
August 27, 2024
161981584.6
Erik Nolthenius ([email protected])
Katherine Wisinski ([email protected])
City Clerk ([email protected])
Clients
LEIGH PRINCE
Direct No: 704.384.2617
Email: [email protected]
345 California Street, Suite 2200
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.364.5540 415.391.4436
101 S. Tryon Street, Suite1700
Charlotte, NC 28280
704.384.2600 704.384.2800
www.foxrothschild.com
July 16, 2024
Via Email
Planning Commission
City of Brentwood
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
Re: Bridle Gate Housing Development Project - Planning Commission Hearing July 16, 2024 – Item E.1
Dear Planning Commission:
My firm represents Discovery Builders, Inc. and this letter pertains to the housing development project in the City of Brentwood known as Bridle Gate Project Subdivision 9586 (“Project”) and is submitted for the Planning Commission hearing regarding the Project on July 16, 2024.
In reviewing the staff report, it appears that City staff have determined only Subarea C standards in the PD-36 zoning district apply and therefore the Project meets applicable objective requirements of the City’s land use regulations. This conclusion is incorrect.
City staff submitted a comment letter on August 2, 2022 (attached) while reviewing this Project and summarized the land use regulations applicable to this Project. Applicable land use regulations, as indicated by staff, are not limited to Subarea C standards.
Furthermore, there is a final court ruling Superior Court ruling N22-1738 (attached) as a result of an April 27, 2023 hearing. The issue in the case was whether PD-36 was valid and whether lots less than 5,000 square feet were acceptable. The court did not find PD36 invalid and held that the minimum lot size in the PD-36 zoning district for Subarea C was 5,000 square feet (an objective standard). Although lots could not be smaller, nothing in the court’s ruling suggests larger 10,000 square foot lots (also an objective standard for Subarea D) were not appropriate. The court did not rule that only Subarea C requirements applied.
July 16, 2024
160675160.1
Following are some objective standards outlined in the City’s Municipal Code – PD-36 – that the current application does not comply with:
• Subarea D – requiring 10,000 sq ft lot minimums
• Subarea E – specifying open space preservation, specifically the sensitive topographic areas
• Maximum number of units: 124 in Subarea C and 42 in Subarea D for a total maximum allowable unit count of 166
Government Code section 65589.5(j) provides that the City may require the proposed housing development to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning that are consistent with the general plan; however, the standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan. Here, whether Subarea C standards only or standards consistent with City staff’s August 2nd letter are applied the Project would still be consistent with the general plan density of 1.1 to 5 units per acre. Applying only Subarea C results in approx. 4 units per acre and applying the Subareas as shown in the August 2nd letter results in approx. 3 units per acre. As argued by the City during the litigation, the Planning Commission (and if appealed, the City Council) will be the final decision maker regarding compliance with all applicable land use regulations.
In order to comply with the objective standards as outlined in the City’s August 2, 2022 letter that is consistent with the allowable general plan density and the final court order, the Project needs to be redesigned. Moving forward with approval of the application as presented will be in violation of the applicable objective standards and therefore the application would not be subject to the protections of the Housing Accountability Act.
In addition, upon reviewing the latest map, there is a future San Jose Road extension to the west in the Southwest portion of the Project site. This is not adequately addressed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project, and it should be further analyzed and addressed. This future San Jose Road extension will be crossing a jurisdictional wetland and also crossing and impacting a significant PG&E gas line.
Environmental impacts of this future road extension should be fully addressed and July 16, 2024
160675160.1
discussed in the EIR. Furthermore, if this road extension is completed, it will impact traffic patterns for this Project and the City. This extension is not adequately addressed is the City’s traffic studies for this Project.
In summary, Discovery Builders, Inc. urges the Planning Commission to request that the Project be revised to comply with the objective standards identified in City staff’s letter dated August 2, 2022 and for the EIR to be updated to adequately and comprehensively address the future San Jose Road extension.
Sincerely,
Leigh Prince
Enclosures
cc: Anita Roberts ([email protected])
David Sparling ([email protected])
Gerald Johnson ([email protected])
Rod Flohr ([email protected])
Kristopher Brand ([email protected])
Erik Nolthenius ([email protected])
Katherine Wisinski ([email protected])
City Clerk ([email protected])
Louis Parsons [email protected]
David Young [email protected]
MERITAGE• VISION• Of>l'OllTUNITY
August 2, 2022
Louis Parsons
Discovery Builders, Inc.
4061 Port Chicago Highway
Concord, CA 94520
Subject: Review of the Bridle Gate project consistency with PD-36 Zone Development Standards and Brentwood General Plan Land Use Policies (APN 019-082- 007)
Mr. Louis Parsons:
Thank you for your recent submittals proposing the development of 286 single family residences, two parks, a commercial area, and open space on 135.31 acres located at the west end of Sand Creek Road and west of State Route 4. Based on a review of the application submittal materials, staff has determined that the project, as proposed, is inconsistent with the Development Standards for the PD-36 zone (pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section 17.486), the Brentwood General Plan, and the City's Residential Design Guidelines.
As you know, the proposed project includes development within subareas C, D, and E of the PD36 zone as approved by City Council in 2006. The subarea map is included as an attachment to this letter. The subareas should be clearly delineated on the proposed vesting tentative map.
Consistency with Zoning Regulations
Chapter 17.486 PD-36 Zone of the Brentwood Municipal Code includes the permitted uses, conditionally permitted uses, and general development standards within each subarea of the PD36 zone.
Subarea C is located between Bridle Gate Drive, State Route 4, Sand Creek Road, and the southern boundary of the project site. The following are the applicable development standards required for subarea C. Inconsistencies or unmet requirements are noted under the sections in italics.
Section 17.486.004 (C)
1. Minimum lot size: Five thousand square feet;
• Proposed minimum lot size is 4,500, and does not meet this requirement.
2. Minimum lot width: Fifty feet;
• Many proposed lots have a width of 45 feet, and do not meet his requirement.
3. Minimum lot frontage: Thirty-five feet at the front property line for lots on culs-de-sac, knuckles, or curvilinear streets;
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
150 City Park Way • Brentwood, California 94513
Phone: 925-516-5405 • Fax: 925-5115-5407
e-mail: dept-comdev@brentwoodca
Parsons
August 2, 2022
Page2
• Requirement met.
4. Minimum front yard setback: Twenty feet for front-facing garages; fifteen feet for building walls and porches;
• Proposed setback requirement to garage is 20 feet, and requirement is met. • Proposed setback to living and porch is 10 feet, and requirement is not met.
5. Minimum side yard setback: Five feet, with the sum of both sides twelve feet; corner lots shall maintain a minimum setback of ten feet on the streetside yard; • Proposed minimum side yard setback is 5 feet, but the sum of both sides does not equal 12 feet, and the requirement is not met.
• Proposed streetside yard setbacks for corners lots maintains a minimum of 10 feet and the requirement is met.
6. Minimum rear yard setback: Fifteen feet, with an average of twenty feet; • Proposed minimum rear yard setback is 15 feet, but does not average 20 feet and the requirement is not met.
7. Maximum building height: Two stories, not to exceed thirty feet; • Building heights for single- and two-story homes are not included in the proposed vesting tentative map and must meet this requirement.
8. Corner lot fence setback: Five feet from the street side property line; all other fence regulations shall adhere to the requirements of Chapter 17.660 of [Title 17 of the Brentwood Municipal Code];
• Fence setbacks are not included in the proposed vesting tentative map and must meet this requirement.
9. Lots adjacent to open space shall utilize a six-foot high open space fence along the common property line(s), as approved through VTSM 8506;
• Fence heights for these lots are not included in the proposed vesting tentative map and must meet this requirement.
10. Accessory structures shall be prohibited in side or rear yards for areas exceeding a 3: 1 slope;
• No accessory structures are shown on the proposed vesting tentative map.
Insomuch as none are proposed, this requirement is met.
11. Maximum lot coverage: Forty percent for two-story homes and forty-five percent for singlestory homes; · • The proposed 40% lot coverage for two-story homes meets the requirement. • The proposed 50% lot coverage for single-story homes does not meet the requirement.
12. Maximum number of primary dwelling units: One hundred twenty-four. (Ord. 857 § 2, 2008) • The proposed vesting tentative map exceeds the maximum number of lots allowed within subarea C.
Subarea D is located between Cottonwood Avenue and Heatherwood Drive. The general development standards for subarea D are found in Section 17.486.005 of the Brentwood Parsons
August 2, 2022
Page3
Municipal Code.
Section 17.486.005 (C)
1. Minimum lot size: Ten thousand square feet;
• Proposed minimum lot size is 4,500, and does not meet this requirement.
2. Minimum lot width: Ninety feet;
• Many proposed lots have a width of 45 feet, and do not meet his requirement.
3. Minimum lot frontage: Forty-five feet at the front property line for lots on culs-de-sac, knuckles, or curvilinear streets;
• No proposed cul-de-sacs within subarea D.
4. Minimum front yard setback: Twenty feet for front-facing garages; fifteen feet for building walls and porches;
• Proposed setback requirement to garage is 20 feet, and requirement is met. • Proposed setback to living and porch is 1 O feet, and requirement is not met.
5. Minimum side yard setback: Five feet, with the sum of both sides fifteen feet; corner lots shall maintain a minimum setback of ten feet on the street side yard. • Proposed minimum side yard setback is 5 feet, but the sum of both sides does not equal 15 feet, and the requirement is not met.
• Proposed streetside yard setbacks for corners lots maintains a minimum of 1 O feet and the requirement is met.
6. Minimum rear yard setback: Fifteen feet, with an average of twenty feet. • Proposed minimum rear yard setback is 15 feet, but does not average 20 feet for every lot within subarea D and the requirement is not met.
7. Maximum building height: Two stories, not to exceed thirty feet; except that the ten lots referenced on the approved residential site plan with Model 11 shall not exceed thirty-three and one-half feet;
• Building heights for single- and two-story homes are not included in the proposed vesting tentative map and must meet this requirement.
8. Corner lot fence setback: five feet from the street side property line; all other fence regulations shall adhere to the requirements of Chapter 17.660 of this title; • Fence setbacks are not included in the proposed vesting tentative map and must meet this requirement.
9. Lots adjacent to open space shall utilize a six-foot-high open space fence along the common property line(s), as approved through VTSM 8506;
• Fence heights for these lots are not included in the proposed vesting tentative map and must meet this requirement.
10. Accessory structures shall be prohibited in side or rear yards for areas exceeding a 3: 1 slope; • No accessory structures are shown on the proposed vesting tentative map.
Insomuch as none are proposed, this requirement is met.
Parsons
August 2, 2022
Page4
11. Maximum lot coverage: Forty percent for two-story homes and forty-five percent for singlestory homes; • The proposed 40% lot coverage for two-story homes meets the requirement. • The proposed 50% lot coverage for single-story homes does not meet the requirement.
12. Maximum number of primary dwelling units: Forty-two. (Ord. 857 § 2, 2008) • The proposed vesting tentative map exceeds the maximum number of lots allowed within subarea D.
Subarea E is located west of Heatherwood Drive, and extends to the northern, western, and southern boundaries of the project site. Permitted uses within subarea E are:
•
•
•
•
•
Public recreational areas;
Public or quasi-public rights-of-way for utility, irrigation, drainage, or similar areas utilized for or having the potential to be utilized for trials or similar uses; Open space as a reserve for fire protection, seismic safety, water conservation, protection of view, or similar appropriate purposes;
Parks, playgrounds, and recreational trails;
Conservation easements for wetland and habitat preservation and mitigation related to development of SPA E.
Conditionally permitted uses with subarea E include:
• An addition to an existing structure which will increase the coverage of the structure by five hundred square feet, or any new structure in excess of five hundred square feet, except minor recreational structures such as playground equipment, trellises, and similar uses;
• Any commercial use which may be conducted on open space land without substantially detracting from its value as open space such as golf courses, riding academies or stables, tennis or swim clubs, and similar recreational-related uses of a predominantly open nature.
All uses in subarea E are subject to the design and site development review procedures established in Chapter 17.820. The setback, building height, parking, and other design and performance criteria shall be established at the time of the proposed development and in accordance with any development standards established by resolution for the type of use proposed.
The proposed vesting tentative map shows single-family lots within subarea E, which is neither a permitted or conditionally permitted use per Section 17. 486. 006 of the Brentwood Municipal Code.
Consistency with General Plan Policies
Policy LU 2-1 states: Maintain Brentwood's predominant land use of single family residential, while providing for a mix of housing types throughout the community, in accordance with the Housing Element. Consistent with this policy, the PD-36 zone included a subarea with a 5,000- square-foot (sf) lot minimum, and a subarea with a 10,000-sf lot minimum, in order to achieve a mix in housing and lot sizes. However, the proposed project includes a 4,500-sf lot minimum throughout the development, and therefore does not achieve a mix of housing types.
Parsons
August 2, 2022
Page5
Consistency with City of Brentwood Residential Design Guidelines Section 2.4 Landscaping - 2.4.1 Street Trees
• Street trees are required along all public and private streets at a minimum of 1 tree per lot, plus 2 additional trees on the side of corner lots.
Not all comer Jots within the proposed development map include 2 additional trees on the side yard.
Project Comments Unrelated to Consistency with Objective Standards In addition to the foregoing. staff also notes:
Section 1.6 Basic Design Principles - 4.
• Minimize the impact of garages and driveways along street frontages.
The proposed Vesting Tentative Map shows many of the lot frontages being 45 feet. Having narrow lot widths makes minimizing the impact of garages and driveways difficult. Additionally, the layout of the lots in a linear design without curves or breaks only emphasizes garages and driveways further.
Section 2.1 Subdivision Layout - 2.1.1 Neighborhoods:
• Incorporates natural features into the site design to enhance the subdivisions' visual links to their unique location.
PD-36 subarea E maintained open space around the onsite hills, however the project includes development on a portion of subarea E.
Section 2.2 Streets - 2.2.1 Internal Streets:
• Interior streets should have visual interest with street trees, parks trips, decorative street lights, and landscape bulbs to reduce apparent street width. • Internal streets should be faced by no more than a maximum of 1 O uninterrupted parking spaces or garages. Significant landscaped areas, including trees and with a minimum width of 5 feet, should separate blocks of garages and/or parking spaces.
While the minimum 5-foot side yard setback may meet the minimum required in the guidelines, the length of Cottonwood Avenue and Heatherwood Drive do not meet the intent of the guideline. For example, Heatherwood Drive has over 1,600 feet of lots that are very similar in size in a straight line, with one street tree each.
This layout will not minimize driveways or create a streetscape with visual interest.
In order to proceed with the proposed project, project plans must be revised to be compliant with all applicable regulations and guidelines or a rezone application to modify the development standards is required.
Staff will provide additional project comments, which are not related to inconsistencies with objective standards, in separate correspondence. Please note that as the City continues processing of your application, it may identify additional information that is necessary to clarify, amplify, correct, or supplement your application.
Parsons
August 2, 2022
Page6
If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact Erik Nolthenius by email at [email protected].
Sincerely,
C+--
Alexis Morris
Community Development Director, City of Brentwood
(925) 516-5405
Parsons
August 2, 2022
17.486.08
Attachment: Subarea Map for PD-36
SUBAREA MAP FOR PD-36
(subarea D:)10,000 sq ft
min lots
-- ' . • :.,11,
*iii n:r: . !
Km ·;r jnJ ,,. -......
:r·
(Subarea C:). ·, ____ ---- ---- _______ /
5,000 sq ft
min lots
Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County
Department 12
925-608-1000
www.cc-courts.org
K. Bieker
Court Executive Officer
MINUTE ORDER
DISCOVERY BUILDERS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS.
CITY OF BRENTWOOD, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL-LAW CITY
N22-1738
HEARING DATE: 04/27/2023
PROCEEDINGS: *HEARING ON MOTION IN RE: JUDGMENT ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE (CONTINUED FROM 3/30/23 CALENDAR)
DEPARTMENT 12
JUDICIAL OFFICER: CHARLES S TREAT
CLERK: DENESE JOHNSON
COURT REPORTER: RAQUEL SHARP, #10619
JOURNAL ENTRIES:
Counsel: Ellis Raskin & Andrew Bassak, for petitioner, are present in person.
Counsel: Kevin Siegel & Deepa Sharma, for respondent, appear via Zoom.
The Court issued the following tentative ruling:
Petitioners, Discovery Builders, Inc. and WCHB Development, LLC, request judgment on the pleadings. Among other items, their petition seeks a writ of mandate compelling Respondent and Defendant City of Brentwood to “proceed with processing” the Bridle Gate Project consistent with various applicable laws. They also seek a determination from this Court that the Project is consistent with the City’s standards, and that the City cannot require a zoning amendment.
The Court previously requested supplemental briefing to address several questions concerning Chapter 17.486 of the City’s Municipal Code, the “blank map” located at section 17.486.008 of that Chapter, ripeness and the issues before the Planning Commission, and timelines for further Project review. Parties have provided responsive supplemental briefs.
Having reviewed these materials, the motion is denied. As discussed below, Petitioners fail to meet their burden to demonstrate the requirements for a writ of mandate: a clear and present duty on the part of the City, and their entitlement to the City’s performance of any duty.
Requests for Judicial Notice
Both the City and Petitioners request judicial notice.
Petitioner requests notice of various provisions from the City’s Municipal Code (Exs 1-2, 6-7), a 2014 map from a draft EIR, not ultimately adopted (Ex 3); a City staff report regarding the 2014 General Plan Update agenda item for City Council (Ex 4); the Land Use Element of the City’s 2014 General Plan (Ex 5); Ordinance No. 960, adopted in 2015, as well as the attached blank map showing PD-36 (Ex 8); and the Department of Housing and Community Development’s Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory (Ex. 9).
Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County
Department 12
925-608-1000
www.cc-courts.org
K. Bieker
Court Executive Officer
In support of its Opposition, the City requests notice of the judgment in a previous lawsuit between the parties (Ex. A); various provisions from the City’s municipal code (Exs. B-C); and provisions from other cities’ municipal codes, including Antioch, Danville, El Cerrito, Hercules, Lafayette, Moraga, Orinda, Pittsburg, Richmond, and Walnut Creek (Exs. D-M).
Both these requests are unopposed and granted.
On reply, Petitioners additionally request notice of an agenda for a meeting of the City of San Ramon Planning Commission for the purpose of showing statements by counsel for the City in this case. The request is denied based on relevance. Further, the argument of counsel is not evidence. (Fuller v. Tucker (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1163, 1173.)
In support of its supplemental brief, the City requests judicial notice of its Notice of Preparation of a Revised Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Bridle Gate Project. The request is granted.
Standard
The parties appear unsure about which sort of mandate controls our analysis. The court in Bunnett v. Regents of University of California (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 843, 848, provides the basic rules by which we may determine the applicable standard here:
The proper method of obtaining judicial review of most public agency decisions is by instituting a proceeding for a writ of mandate. Statutes provide for two types of review by mandate: ordinary mandate and administrative mandate. (Code Civ.Proc., §§ 1085 [ordinary], 1094.5 [administrative].) The nature of the administrative action or decision to be reviewed determines the applicable type of mandate. In general, quasi-legislative acts are reviewed by ordinary mandate and quasi-judicial acts are reviewed by administrative mandate. But judicial review via administrative mandate is available "only if the decision[ ] resulted from a 'proceeding in which by law: 1) a hearing is required to be given, 2) evidence is required to be taken, and 3) discretion in the determination of facts is vested in the agency." Thus, ordinary mandate is used to review adjudicatory actions or decisions when the agency was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing. (Citations omitted.)
Because no one has argued that an evidentiary hearing should have occurred in this matter, we proceed under the standard for ordinary mandate, Code of Civil Procedure § 1085. Section 1085 (a) provides that a writ of mandate may be issued “to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the party is entitled, and from which the party is unlawfully precluded by that inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person.” This has been read to require the showing of a (1) clear, present and usually ministerial duty on the part of the respondent and (2) a clear, present and beneficial right in the petitioner to the performance of that duty. (CV Amalgamated LLC v. City of Chula Vista (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 265, Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County
Department 12
925-608-1000
www.cc-courts.org
K. Bieker
Court Executive Officer
278, citing Santa Clara County Counsel Attys. Assn. v. Woodside (1994) 7 Cal.4th 525, 539-40.) The petitioner bears the burden of pleading and proving the facts on which the claim for relief is based. (California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. State Personnel Bd. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1133, 1153.) Discussion
1. The Consistency Determination
Petitioners contend the Planning Commission was required to make the relevant consistency determination, that it did not, and this means the Project must be deemed to conform with any objective criteria. They contend the Court must order the City to “proceed with processing” the Project consistent with applicable laws and deem the Project compliant with all objective standards.
In support of their position, Petitioners urge the Court to examine the Legislative purposes of Government Code § 65589.5. Government Code, section 65589.5(j)(2) states (emphasis added):
(A) If the local agency considers a proposed housing development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision as specified in this subdivision, it shall provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity as follows:
[…]
(ii) Within 60 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains more than 150 units.
(B) If the local agency fails to provide the required documentation pursuant to subparagraph (A), the housing development project shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision.
Nothing in the statute itself refers to a meeting or determination by the Planning Commission.
Further, it is only where an applicant is not informed of an inconsistency within the relevant time period, that the housing project is "deemed consistent […] with the applicable plan, program," etc. (See Gov. Code, § 65589.5(j)(2)(B).)
In this case, the triggering event for deeming a project compliant did not occur. Petitioners were timely informed of the alleged inconsistency.
Parties here agree that the application was complete on June 3, 2022. Then, within 60 days, the City (staff) sent a letter (“written documentation”) on August 2, explaining the issues with the application (“an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity”). This is all the statute requires.
Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County
Department 12
925-608-1000
www.cc-courts.org
K. Bieker
Court Executive Officer
The Court is not permitted to read additional requirements into the law, be it an implication that the Planning Commission make the consistency determination, or redefining the term “considers” to include a requirement that the agency opinion is correct.
A court's role in construing a statute is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law. (Merced Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 916, 924.) Courts look first at the words themselves, giving them their usual and ordinary meaning because statutory language is generally the most reliable indicator of that intent. (Ibid.) When the statutory language is clear, courts usually adopt the plain meaning of that language unless it would (1) produce absurd consequences that the Legislature clearly did not intend or (2) frustrate the manifest purposes that appear from the provisions of the legislation when considered as a whole in light of its legislative history. (Ibid.)
Petitioners argue that there are absurd consequences in construing the City’s August 2 letter as a valid consistency determination. The Housing Accountability Act must be “interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.” (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(a)(2)(L).) But requiring a local agency to convene a properly noticed Planning Commission meeting within the timelines mentioned in the statute (30 or 60 days) could also be an absurd consequence of the interpretation urged by Petitioners, as the City contends.
Because (1) the August 2 letter was sent, and (2) no one contends additional standards (beyond what was mentioned in the letter) should apply, there is no clear, present duty on the part of the City pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(j)(2)(B).
2. Zoning for PD-36
Petitioners argue they are entitled to an Order that their Project is consistent with all objective criteria—a determination premised on a finding that the zoning for PD-36—the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 17.486—is wholly invalid (see Petitioner Supplemental Brief, 10:20-22.) That premise is not sufficiently supported here.
The City’s Chapter 17.486 of its Municipal Code is titled “PD-36 (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT THIRTYSIX) ZONE.” It contains seven sections of text in addition to the attached map.
As reflected in the City’s August 2 letter, the text of section 17.486.004 provides that lot sizes for single-family residential areas within PD-36 must be a minimum of five thousand square feet. (See Raskin Decl., Ex. 3 [“1. Minimum lot size: Five thousand square feet; Proposed minimum lot size is 4,500, and does not meet this requirement.].)
This minimum is unambiguous and this section is the most permissive residential lot size that exists within Chapter 17.486 (the other minimum residential lot size being 10,000 square feet). One can derive, from this, the minimum lot size for residential lots within the area designated as PD-36.
That means any residential lot that measures less than this violates the Code provisions. No subjective judgment is necessary to determine whether residential lots can be less than 5,000 square feet. This is a standard that is “objective” pursuant to Government Code, § 65589.5(h)(8) Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County
Department 12
925-608-1000
www.cc-courts.org
K. Bieker
Court Executive Officer
[“involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official”].) A similar construction is possible with respect to lot widths. The unambiguous and most permissive width for residential lots is 50 feet. The City’s August 2 letter states the Petitioners’ application includes lots that only measure 45 feet.
As the Court’s previous order mentioned, Petitioners make no argument that the lots in their Project comply with the standards of the text.
Although not mentioned by the parties, the Court notes that the City’s Municipal Code provides for inconsistencies in its rules of construction. The rules, listed in Chapter 1.01, state, in relevant part:
J. Severability. The titles, chapters, sections, subsections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses and phrases of this code are severable. If any is declared unconstitutional, invalid or unenforceable by a court, that determination shall not affect the remaining provisions.
K. If there is an inconsistency, the stricter regulation applies. (Ord. 999 § 1, 2018; Ord. 978 § 2, 2016)
Petitioner ignores the specifics of its Project, not presenting “substantial evidence” showing compliance with the relevant standards, relying instead on the invalidity of the zoning chapter. (See Gov. Code, § 65589.5(f)(4) discussing substantial evidence standard for consistency determination.) Petitioners do claim the zoning in PD-36 is inconsistent with the General Plan, but do not provide specifics as to how. Whether or not the Chapter is inconsistent with the General Plan may ultimately need to be determined in the course of this litigation, but the issue is not necessary to reach at this time.
Conclusion
Petitioners’ requested relief (the duty) is not particularly precise. An order of compliance with several broad statutory schemes, as well as “all applicable laws and regulations” does not sufficiently articulate a ministerial duty appropriate for a writ of mandate. (See Proposed Order on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment.) Petitioners fail to meet their burden to articulate a duty.
They also cannot show entitlement to the City’s performance as the City appears to already be granting the relief requested by continuing to process the application. (See RJN in Support of Supplemental Brief [draft revised EIR].) Parties agree there are still timelines (mandated by CEQA) applicable to the processing of the application. (See City’s Supplemental Brief, 3:16-28 and Petitioners’ Supplemental Brief, 12:10-13:8.)
Because the burden falls on Petitioners to show the existence of a clear and present duty, and their entitlement to the City’s performance, the motion must be denied.
Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County
Department 12
925-608-1000
www.cc-courts.org
K. Bieker
Court Executive Officer
The Court, having considered the pleadings and oral argument of counsel, adopts the above tentative ruling as the ruling of the Court.
A case management conference is set for 8/2/23 at 8;30 a.m.
FUTURE HEARING(S):
AUGUST 02, 2023 8:30 AM *CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
TREAT, CHARLES S
JOHNSON, DENESE
DEPARTMENT 12
DATED: 4/27/2023 BY:__________________________________
D. JOHNSON, DEPUTY CLERK
PATTERSON & O’NEILL, PC
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 950
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 907-9110
Facsimile: (415) 907-7704
www.pattersononeill.com
August 23, 2024
VIA E-MAIL
Brentwood City Council
City Hall, 150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
Re: Bridle Gate Project Appeal
Dear Mayor Bryant and Councilmembers:
Our office represents WCHB Development, LLC, the applicant and appellant of the Planning Commission’s denial of this housing development project, including a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (VTSM 9586) to create 272 single-family residential parcels, 25 acres of permanent open space, two parks totaling 4.35 acres, an approximately 36-acre remainder parcel, and other related improvements on a 135.31-acre site located directly north of the Shadow Lakes neighborhood, also known as the Bridle Gate Project.
The applicant has worked collaboratively with City staff and the community to design a project that is sensitive to the community’s needs and consistent with all code requirements. The current iteration of the project eliminated the 258-unit multi-family complex that was part of a 2020 proposal for this site, and the current project has been reduced to only include a vesting map and design review for 272 single-family residential parcels, ten percent of which will be restricted as affordable. An environmental impact report (EIR) completed for the larger 2020 iteration of the project has been revised to evaluate the current proposal.
Although City staff had recommended approval, ultimately the Planning Commission denied the project due to concerns regarding traffic and protecting ridgelines. The applicant worked with City staff to identify five different roadway options to address congestion concerns, and the project provides a significant amount of open space – nearly half the site – including a 25-acre open space parcel along the western property line that was provided to protect the ridgeline and views of Mount Diablo. Although the applicant remains open to alternatives to further alleviate these concerns, the current project is entirely consistent with all objective general plan and zoning standards. As such, the City is required under state law to approve the project.
Traffic Congestion
As City staff acknowledged, state law requires potential environmental impacts from traffic to be evaluated utilizing vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”), which generally quantitatively measures the amount of vehicle trips that a project would produce as compared to the citywide average.
Traffic is no longer evaluated utilizing a “level of service” analysis, which generally qualitatively Brentwood City Council
August 23, 2024
measures levels of traffic congestion on specific roadways. When there are existing underlying traffic congestion issues, any addition of more vehicles from a proposed project is identified as a traffic impact when utilizing a level of service analysis. One reason state law now requires VMT analysis is because this method better reflects the impacts of the actual project rather than preexisting roadway issues, which would essentially prohibit in-fill development. As the traffic analysis that was conducted for this project demonstrates, the proposed project will create less than 85% of the VMT as compared to the city-wide average, and therefore the traffic impacts of the project are deemed to be less than significant.
The Planning Commission was primarily concerned with existing traffic issues related to school drop-offs and pick-ups from Heritage High and Adams Middle School. Specifically, residents of the Brentwood Hills Subdivision have concerns that many cars already cut through their neighborhood to reach the school and that traffic can be impacted along San Jose Avenue and St.
Regis Avenue. The applicant proposed a project with a complete connection to the St. Regis Avenue/San Jose Avenue intersection, including because this would allow residents to the south to access Sand Creek Road and regional destinations, and this is the design included in the City’s General Plan. City staff continues to support this option.
However, at the direction of the Planning Commission, the applicant and City staff evaluated five different options with various levels of connectivity to the St. Regis Avenue/San Jose Avenue intersection, ranging from curb extensions and turn restrictions to completely disconnecting the proposed subdivision from the Shadow Lakes neighborhood. As City staff explained and the Planning Commission acknowledged, the pre-existing traffic issues cannot be resolved by this project. A larger solution to the ongoing school traffic problem should be explored, but this issue cannot be used to halt all new housing development. While the applicant agrees with staff that a full connection with the residential areas to the south as envisioned by the General Plan is still the best option, the applicant is open to including any of the proposed roadway design options.
The Planning Commission erroneously found that the project is inconsistent with General Plan Policy CIR 3-4. Policy CIR 3-4 states: “Provide an interconnected street network that provides multiple points of access, discouraging cutthrough traffic, while maintaining neighborhood connectivity.” The project proposes an interconnected street network, including by connecting the Shadow Lakes neighborhood to Sand Creek Road. As explained above, the existing traffic patterns already lead cars to drive through the Shadow Lakes neighborhood to get to the schools, and there is nothing that this project can do to discourage existing traffic patterns. However, this project would not lead to a new cut-through traffic problem. The project could limit future residents of the proposed subdivision from accessing the St. Regis Avenue/San Jose Avenue intersection through turn or directional restrictions, or by completely disconnecting the subdivision from the southern neighborhoods, but the existing cut-through traffic will remain – regardless of the project.
The Planning Commission’s findings indicate that any project that would add cars to the existing traffic trying to reach Heritage High and Adams Middle School would be inconsistent with Brentwood City Council
August 23, 2024
Policy CIR 3-4. The Planning Commission’s interpretation of Policy CIR 3-4, that any addition to traffic violates the policy, would halt all development on this side of the City. Again, the applicant is willing to explore options, but the Planning Commission’s decision is the equivalent of a complete development moratorium.
Ridgeline Development
The proposed project provides a significant amount of open space, including two parks totaling six acres and 25 acres of permanent open space, all of which is located along the western property line corresponding to hillside ridgelines. In all, only 67.96 acres of the 135.31-acre project site would be developed with residential uses. The project proposes to reduce the elevation of the higher portions of the project site, and visual simulations demonstrate that the project will maintain views of Mount Diablo.
The Planning Commission’s findings erroneously state that the project is inconsistent with General Plan Policy COS 7-1. Policy COS 7-1 states: “Protect Brentwood’s ridgelines (hilltops and steep hillsides) from erosion, slope failure, and development.” The project is consistent with this policy, including because the project avoids ridgeline development by dedicating 25 acres of permanent open space along the western property line. The Planning Commission’s findings that the project will be developed atop the ridgeline are simply incorrect.
Moreover, Policy COS 7-1 does not include an absolute prohibition on ridgeline development as the Planning Commission seems to suggest, and only contains a general statement to “protect” ridgelines, which this project accomplished. Policy COS 7-1 cannot possibly be read as an absolute prohibition, including because Policy COS 7-4 merely states that development on hillsides and ridgelines where structures would interrupt the skyline should be “discouraged,” confirming that some amount of ridgeline development is allowable. Here, the project largely avoids the ridgeline and protects the recognized views of Mount Diablo, and is therefore consistent with Policy COS 7-1.
Municipal Code Consistency
The zoning for the project site in BMC Chapter 17.486 is PD-36, but the corresponding map does not show any subarea boundaries. In a prior lawsuit, the City asserted in court that the appropriate residential development standards for the project site are those in BMC Section
17.486.004, referring to Subarea C, because Subarea C was consistent with the property’s General Plan designation of Residential Low Density. Regardless of the applicant’s position on whether the Subarea C standards are the appropriate standards, the applicant relied on the City’s statements in court that the property is subject to Subarea C standards and developed a project that is entirely consistent with those standards.
The City is prohibited from changing the applicable subarea standards under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, which states that “[w]hen a party has, by his own statement or conduct, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true and to act upon such belief, he is not, in any litigation arising out of such statement or conduct, permitted to contradict it.” (Evidence Code § 623.) The City intentionally led the applicant to believe that the Subarea C Brentwood City Council
August 23, 2024
standards applied to this property, and the applicant acted upon those statements. The Planning Commission’s findings state that the project is inconsistent with the Subarea D Standards.
However, the Commission is equitably estopped from contradicting its prior statements and conduct.
State Law Requires Approval of the Project
The proposed project clearly meet the definition of a “housing development project” under the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) and is therefore entitled to the HAA’s protections. (See Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(2)(A).) The HAA prohibits the disapproval of any housing development project that complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria. (Gov’t. Code § 65589.5(j)(1).)
The HAA also sets strict timelines for local agencies to determine whether a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with any applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, or other requirement. Gov’t. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(A) states that a local agency must provide written documentation identifying and explaining any inconsistencies within 60 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains more than 150 units. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(B) further states that if an agency fails to provide the required written inconsistency documentation within the specified timeframe, “the housing development project shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision.” As City staff has stated, the proposed project is consistent with all applicable code standards. The application for this project was submitted nearly three years ago, and since that time the City had not identified any code inconsistency until the Planning Commission last month – well after the 60-day deadline to do so. As a result, the project has been deemed compliant with all applicable standards by operation of law. As such, the project must be approved.
In addition, the HAA only allows a local government to base a project disapproval on applicable objective code standards. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(A)-(B); see also Cal. Renters Legal Advocacy & Educ. Fund v. City of San Mateo (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 820, 844.) The HAA defines “objective” as “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(8).)
The Planning Commission’s findings argue that Policy CIR 3-4, which “discourages” cutthrough traffic, and Policy COS 7-1, which “protects” ridgelines, are objective standards – despite the fact that neither of these standards contains uniform benchmarks or criteria on which to determine compliance. The only way that these policies could be considered “objective” is if these policies were interpreted as absolute prohibitions on any project that would lead to additions in traffic or development of ridgelines. Any other interpretation would require personal interpretation or subjective judgment that may vary from one situation to the next, which is Brentwood City Council
August 23, 2024
precisely what the HAA prohibits. (See Cal. Renters Legal Advocacy & Educ. Fund, supra, 68 Cal.App.5th at 840.) The City has never interpreted these policies to contain strict prohibitions, which as explained above would be the equivalent of a complete moratorium on new development. The fact that this result requires an interpretation of these general statements of policy demonstrates their subjective nature. In short, Policy CIR 3-4 and COS 7-1 are both subjective, and therefore cannot form the basis of a disapproval. The City has not identified any other purported inconsistency, and therefore the City must approve the project.
HAA cases such as this one are governed by a “reasonable person” standard that favors project approval, under which the question is merely whether “substantial evidence . . . would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project” complies with applicable standards. (§ 65589.5(f)(4).) Additionally, the City, rather than the project sponsor, bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that its decision conformed to the HAA. (§ 65589.6.) And even if there were some question as to the meaning of the law or the project’s compliance with Code, the HAA directs decision makers to resolve questions in favor of housing: the HAA must “be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.” (§ 65589.5(a)(2)(L).) Conclusion
The proposed project is consistent in law and in fact with all City Code requirements, and therefore the Planning Commission’s disapproval of the project must be reversed. The applicant has demonstrated a willingness to work collaboratively with the City and has modified the project throughout the years to finalize a design that meets the needs of both the applicant and the community. We urge the Council to grant the appeal and approve the project.
Very truly yours,
PATTERSON & O’NEILL, PC
__________________________
Ryan J. Patterson
Attorneys for WCHB Development, LLC
From: Robert Juracich
To: webCityClerk
Subject: Fwd: Bridle Gate Denial
Date: Monday, August 26, 2024 11:41:38 AM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Hello Mayor Bryant and City Council members,
Please deny the appeal, upholding the Planning Commission’s action to deny the project by adopting a resolution supported by factual finds of the Planning Commission.
I consider myself a realist and believe in smart planned growth that is in alignment with the general plan. The Bridle Gate development should not be up-zoned, as there are too many non-mitigable impacts.
TrafficThe traffic study from 2017 is completely outdated as the city has grown so much since then. There are numerous new developments since then and much more traffic throughout the city. Especially more traffic to the near the schools.
The Bridle Gate development should not have a direct exit onto San Jose & St Regis that enters into the Brentwood Hills and Shadow Lake neighborhoods. That additional traffic should be routed via Sand Creek. It is way too impactful to the Shadow Lakes residents to add that much traffic to and from the schools on a daily basis.
ParksLast night, my wife and I walked our dog through shadow Lakes, starting at the shops on West Country club and Balfour. We walked through the Balfour-Guthrie Park, and saw kids playing basketball, teams practice baseball on the baseball fields, kids playing tennis, volleyball, yourh soccer teams practicing in the fields , and there were lots of kids having fun at the playground.
As we continued through Shadow Lakes, we walked past numerous pocket parks, which were not being utilized by anyone at that time.
A development the size of Bridle Gate needs large parks for their residents to enjoy and to be able to play in. There should be new basketball courts, playgrounds, tennis courts and or pickle ball courts for the residents to use.
All the existing big parks in Brentwood are already crowded during these peak periods. Try to find an open tennis court or basketball court, it’s next to impossible.
Without the addition of a big new park in that development, the surrounding big parks will be busting the seems and way too overcrowded. There won’t be sufficient space for everyone to enjoy their outdoor activities.
Please don’t sacrifice the quality of life in Brentwood for any development. Keep the general plan intact and make them install a bigger park with activities for the residents.
Sincerely,
Bobby Juracich
Sent from my iPhone
YIMBY Law
2261 Market Street STE 10416
San Francisco, CA 94114
[email protected]
8/27/2024
Brentwood City Council
City Hall, 150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
[email protected]
Via Email
Re: Appeal for the Bridle Gate Project
Dear Brentwood City Council,
YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. YIMBY Law sues municipalities when they fail to comply with state housing laws, including the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). As you know, City Council has an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the above captioned proposal, including the HAA. Should the City fail to follow the law, YIMBY Law will not hesitate to file suit to ensure that the law is enforced.
The approximately 92.96 acre-project consists of constructing 272 single-family detached residences along with improvements within the project, such as two parks, open space, stormwater detention and treatment areas, utility connections and construction of an internal roadway network. The residential area would include lot sizes ranging from 5,000 to 15,930 square feet and would use around 68 acres of the project site, resulting in a density of approximately 4.0 dwelling units per acre. One six-acre parcel of land northwest of the project site and a 2.49-acre parcel of land southeast of the project site would be used as public parks.
At the time of project’s application submission, the affordable housing ordinance in place (Ordinance No. 1014) required 10% of the total units to be affordable, and as such, the project applicant has entered into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City to provide a minimum of 27 affordable units at the requisite affordability levels.
Planning Commission
On July 16, 2024, the City of Brentwood’s Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the project and voted unanimously to deny the project despite the City staff recommending approval. Among various factors, the Planning Commission seemed particularly concerned with the project possibly exacerbating traffic congestion. The Planning Commission deduced that none of the options meant to tackle traffic concerns would reduce existing traffic, even though City staff rightly explained that the options were designed to reduce traffic resulting from the project and that the Applicant does not bear responsibility for solving traffic problems that would exist regardless of the project’s existence. 1 In addition, the Planning Commission expressed concerns with the number of potentially significant impacts identified in the EIR. However, City staff explained that the Planning Commission was actually referring to the initial study, which only served to identify what areas needed further analysis in the EIR. In truth, the EIR did not identify any significant and unavoidable impacts and instead presented mitigation measures to ensure impact would be at a less-than-significant level.
Zoning Standards
The General Plan designates the majority of the project site as Residential Low Density (R-LD), allowing for development between 1.1 and 5.0 dwelling units per gross acre. The proposed project would have a density around 4.0 dwelling units per acre. The zoning for the project site is PD-36, set forth in Brentwood Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 17.486. In the lawsuit concerning this project application, the City itself took the position that the appropriate residential development standards are those for Subarea C, which is consistent with the property’s General Plan designation of Residential Low Density. The project complies with the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet for PD-36, Subarea C as well as development standards for open space and recreation. Lastly, the City cannot impose the development standards of the only other residential subarea–Subarea D–as its minimum lot size requirement of 10,000 square feet would substantially decrease the density of the project in a way that conflicts with State law.
Additionally, because the project provides 5% of the units as affordable to very-low-income households, Government Code § 65915 requires that the City waive any development standards that would physically preclude construction of the project at the density proposed. The City must provide an unlimited number of waivers of development standards, regardless of whether the applicant has requested such waivers. Importantly, the use of waivers does not render the project noncompliant for purposes of California Government Code § 65589.5, the Housing Accountability Act, which states, “For purposes of this section, the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or reduction of development standards pursuant to Section 65915 shall not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision . . . .” (Government Code § 65589.5(j)(3).) Lastly, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has found that a city may not require an applicant to redesign a § 65915 project to avoid the need for waivers. (See Department of Housing and Community Development, 3832 18th Street Project – Notice of Violation, December 29, 2022.) The proposed project is consistent with the City’s general plan and complies with the PD-36 development standards. As such, the Housing Accountability Act prohibits localities from reducing the density of or denying housing development projects that are compliant with the locality’s zoning ordinance or general plan at the time the application was deemed complete, unless the locality can make specific findings that the proposed housing development would be a threat to public health and safety.
Therefore, your local agency must approve the project, or else make findings to the effect that the proposed project would have an unmitigable adverse impact on public health and safety, as 2261 Market Street STE 10416, San Francisco, CA 94114
2 described above. Should the City fail to comply with the law, YIMBY Law will not hesitate to take legal action to ensure that the law is enforced.
Sincerely,
Angela Tiangco
Research Attorney at YIMBY Law
2261 Market Street STE 10416, San Francisco, CA 94114
3 From: Nicole R. Xavier
To: =yCouncil Members; webCityClerk
Subject: Deny the Bridle Gate Appeal
Date: Tuesday, August 27, 2024 4:08:01 PM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
City Council,
Apologies for the late email. I understand that there is an appeal being heard tonight on Bridle Gate. Please watch this section of the planning commission from 2006:
Bridle Gate 2006
Bridle Gate was denied twice and appealed twice in the years before the 2006 approval that included 166 single-family residences. That approval placed a heavy focus on preservation of ridgelines and mitigation of sound impacts as acknowledged by staff and the applicant.
Below is a side-by-side comparison of the project then and now. You can see that the north-south ridgeline that was intentionally preserved in 2006 is no longer being preserved in the plans.
Our general plan continues to focus on the production of hillsides and ridgelines:
Goal COS 7 Protect hillsides and ridgelines from visual impacts and erosion Policy COS 7-1: Protect Brentwood’s ridgelines (hilltops and steep hillsides) from erosion, slope failure, and development.
Policy COS 7-2: Preserve the topography of Brentwood’s hills by discouraging unnecessary leveling/grading activities prior to site-building on hillsides where development is permitted.
Policy COS 7-3: Preserve and protect prominent community views of scenic resources, including Mount Diablo, local hills and ridgelines, and open space areas surrounding Brentwood, and consider community visual access and view corridors when reviewing development proposals.
Policy COS 7-4: Discourage development on hillsides and ridgelines where structures would interrupt the skyline.
The applicant is repeating the process that the planning commission and city council went through from 2001 - 2006 and is insisting on an approval result that ignores our long-range planning.
In 2006 the applicant also mentioned that the design had single story homes fronting San Jose Avenue and on the corner lots. I don’t recall this in the current application.
It’s simple, please stick to the General Plan and deny the appeal.
Thank you,
Nicole Xavier