City of Brentwood
Home PageContact Us!Back

City Administration

2010 Council Goals and Strategic Plan | City Council Members | Calendar of Events | Elections
eNotification | Sub-Committees| Pledge of Allegiance Sign Ups | Invocation Sign Up
Live Streaming Council Meeting | Streaming PC Help |
Streaming Mac Help |

Current Council Agenda and Past Meeting Information

Past Agendas

 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 29


Meeting Date: October 22, 2002

Subject/Title: Public Hearing: An appeal of the Tri-City Plaza project (MS 360-01 and CUP 01-24), which includes a gas station, a car wash, restaurant and café uses, to be located at the southeast corner of Lone Tree Way and the realigned Fairview Avenue (APN 019-060-053).

Submitted by: Mitch Oshinsky, Community Development Director/Erik Nolthenius, Associate Planner

Approved by: John Stevenson, City Manager



RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council pass a Resolution upholding the Planning Commission approval and denying the appeal of Minor Subdivision No. 360-01 and Conditional Use Permit No. 01-24.

PREVIOUS ACTION
The General Plan Land Use designation for the project site was changed from Ranchette Estate to General Commercial and rezoned from R-1-E (Single Family Residential Estate) to C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) as part of the General Plan Update, approved by the City Council on November 27, 2001. The proposed project was approved by the Planning Commission, subject to conditions, in accordance with Resolution No. 02-58 on September 3, 2002.

BACKGROUND
On September 3, 2002, the Planning Commission approved the above referenced Minor Subdivision and Conditional Use Permit for a proposed multi-tenant commercial project, known collectively as Tri-City Plaza, on 5.09 acres of undeveloped land consisting of three existing parcels of record. The project includes a parcel map to merge and re-subdivide the three parcels into four approximate one-acre parcels ('A' through 'D') and a conditional use permit to allow a gas station with a quick-serve café with accessory drive-thru, a car wash, and a maximum of 7,500 square feet of restaurant and café uses on the project site. Surrounding land uses include Lone Tree Way, undeveloped properties, and the Union Pacific Railroad tracks to the north, existing Fairview Avenue, undeveloped land designated for public facility use, and the Union Pacific Railroad tracks to the east, scattered single-family dwellings on large parcels and the realigned Fairview Avenue to the south, and the realigned Fairview Avenue and approved Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8281 for 130 single-family residential lots to the west.

The proposed gas station includes a convenience store (including indoor seating for a cafe and a drive-thru lane on the south and east sides of the store) on Parcel 'A', future retail, restaurant, and office uses on Parcel 'B', a full-service car wash and detailing facility with retail sales on Parcel 'C', and future retail and restaurant uses on Parcel 'D'. The project is proposed in two phases, with Phase I including the development of Parcels 'A' and 'C' (car wash and gas station), and Phase II including the development of Parcels 'B' and 'D'. The project, as originally submitted, has undergone significant revisions through comments from City Staff, the City's Economic Development Sub-Committee, and the City's Design Review Consultant.
Proposed Uses
The proposed gas station consists of a canopy with 6 fuel dispensers and a 4,460-square-foot convenience store. Proposed hours of operation for the gas station and convenience store are 5:00 am to 12:00 am Monday through Thursday and Sunday, and 5:00 am to 2:00 am on Friday and Saturday. The proposed full-service car wash includes a 3-bay detail shop, an indoor retail sales area, and an outdoor seating area with vending machines and snacks. There is also a small second floor office located above the detail shop. Proposed hours of operation for the car wash are 8:00 am to 8:00 pm. The applicant is requesting a total of 7,500 square feet for future restaurant and café uses in Phase II of the project, on Parcels 'B' and 'D'. The square footage could be used to accommodate several smaller uses such as sandwich shops, pizza places, coffee houses, and bakeries, or one smaller use and a large sit-down restaurant. Proposed hours of operation for restaurant and café uses are 5:30 am to 10:00 pm. Uses permitted by right proposed as part of the project include retail sales, office uses, and service uses. Proposed hours of operation for retail uses are 9:00 am to 9:00 pm, and for office and service uses from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.

Site Plan
The site plan shows the gas station and convenience store located in the northwest corner of the project on Parcel 'A', two two-story buildings for future retail, restaurant, and office use located in the northeast corner of the project on Parcel 'B', the car wash located in the center of the project on Parcel 'C', and a one-story building for future retail and restaurant use located in the southwest corner of the project on Parcel 'D'.

Circulation
Access to the site has been closely reviewed, and will be provided from five driveways, with one on Lone Tree Way just east of the realigned Fairview Avenue, one on Fairview Court near the end of the cul-de-sac, and three on the realigned Fairview Avenue (including one just south of Lone Tree Way, one aligned with the future access to the approved subdivision directly west of the project site, and one at the south end of the project site). The site plan shows a total of 229 off-street parking spaces located around the perimeter of the site as well as central to the site and around buildings.

Internal circulation will be facilitated by cross-access easements and reciprocal parking agreements, which will allow traffic to move freely within the project, despite the separate parcels to be created. Individuals utilizing the drive-thru lane adjacent to the convenience store will enter on the south side of the building to place orders and exit on the east side of the building to pick-up orders. Individuals utilizing the car wash and detailing facility will enter on the east side of the building and drop cars off in the designated drop-off area. Cars will proceed through the car wash on the north side of the building and exit on the west side of the building at the pick-up area. Cars could then proceed to the detailing area on the south side of the building.

Parking
The cover sheet of the project plans includes a summary table of the proposed buildings and their parking requirements, which demonstrates that there is a surplus of 8 parking spaces for the overall project. Since part of the project includes accommodating future restaurant uses, which are typically more parking intensive than retail or office uses, additional analysis is provided. With the recent approval of the Safeway project, the City Council and Planning Commission used a new rationale related to both sit-down and take-out/quick-serve restaurants. For that project, sit-down restaurants provided 1 space for each 100 square feet of gross floor area and take-out/quick-serve restaurants with 20 seats or less, provided 1 space for each 200 square feet of gross floor area (the same as standard retail). For the Albers project, assuming the worst-case scenario that all 7,500 square feet of requested restaurant and café space was devoted to sit-down facilities, the more restrictive parking requirement would result in a shortfall of approximately 30 spaces throughout the overall project.

The Zoning Ordinance provides a mechanism for the reduction of required parking spaces for eating and drinking places associated with shopping centers having a gross floor area exceeding 50,000 square feet through the conditional use permit process, based on certain factors. These factors include the mix of land uses within the shopping center and their projected parking demand, the hours of operation of the various land uses, and the floor area of the shopping center. The Planning Commission found that the project met the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and that a reduction was in fact warranted, and that the parking supply was adequate.

Design Review
The applicant has designed the buildings to match each other in terms of design, materials (stucco and clay tile) and colors (the exterior building finishes for the project include a combination of three distinct colors for contrast). The preliminary landscape plan includes significant areas along both Lone Tree Way and the realigned Fairview Avenue for a variety of trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. These areas will be bermed to help screen the project from the adjacent roadways and surrounding properties. Additional landscaping is shown around each of the proposed buildings, throughout the parking area, and at the end of the existing Fairview Avenue (future Fairview Court). The project includes an 8-foot high decorative masonry wall along the east boundary of the site to protect the three existing residences along the future Fairview Court. The wall will be primarily split face, with a smooth band of contrasting color near the top, a contrasting color cap, and split face pilasters approximately 15 feet on center.

Environmental Review
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared for this project by an independent, professional environmental consultant, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Several potentially significant impacts were identified, most notably those related to aesthetics, hazardous materials, noise, and traffic; however, mitigation measures have been included to reduce those impacts to less than significant levels. No impacts were identified that could not be reduced to less than significant levels through the implementation of mitigation measures. The MND includes a complete Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan to ensure compliance with the referenced mitigation measures. Written comments related to the MND were received from a number of surrounding property owners prior to the Planning Commission meeting. A comprehensive response to those comments was prepared by the City's environmental consultant (Dick Loewke) and considered by the Planning Commission as part of its review of the project.

Appeal
The Planning Commission action of September 3, 2002, was appealed by Council Members Annette Beckstrand and Bill Hill, on behalf of the residents of the area at Lone Tree Way and Fairview Avenue, within the 14-day appeal period. The attached appeal letter, received September 16, 2002, states the reasons that the appellants deem the Planning Commission was in error by approving Minor Subdivision No. 360-01 and Conditional Use Permit No. 01-24. The appeal is based on "unmitigated environmental impacts, loss of quiet enjoyment, zoning inconsistencies, and traffic impacts".

APPEAL POINTS
1. The first appeal point is that there are unmitigated environmental impacts associated with the project. Staff would like to reiterate that an MND has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. The document itself was prepared by Dick Loewke, a highly qualified independent consultant hired by the City, and subsequently reviewed by Staff prior to commencement of the public comment period. Three project-specific technical studies prepared for this project, including noise, traffic, and soil, were used in the preparation of the MND. As previously referenced, a number of potentially significant impacts are identified in the document; however, each of those impacts has been reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of specific mitigation measures. Mr. Loewke also prepared a comprehensive response to all written comments that were received related to the MND prior to the Planning Commission meeting. The response was distributed to the Commission and was part of its decision-making process related to this project. In the opinion of Staff and of the Planning Commission, the MND is not only comprehensive and consistent with CEQA requirements, but it also clearly identifies and evaluates all potential impacts related to this project, whether they require mitigation measures or not. The Planning Commission has concluded that there are no unmitigated environmental impacts as a result of this project.

2. The second appeal point is that the project would result in a loss of quiet enjoyment. There is no doubt that development of the project site with commercial uses in accordance with the General Plan will increase the existing noise levels in the vicinity. As previously referenced, a noise study was prepared for the project by Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, Inc. The study includes recommendations for the operation of the car wash, which are incorporated into the MND as mitigation measures. As the project plans show, the car wash exit is on the west side of the building, facing the realigned Fairview Avenue. The air dryer units associated with the car wash are located near the exit, away from the three existing single-family residences directly east and south of the project site. There is an 8-foot high block wall noise barrier between the 3 closest homes to the east and the commercial project. This wall exceeds the zoning requirement by 2 feet in height. In addition, a minimum 7-foot wide landscape buffer abuts the majority of the wall. This also exceeds the code, as no buffer is required. Again, mitigation measures are included to ensure that any potential impacts related to noise are reduced to less than significant levels. Aside from the operation of the car wash, the proposed uses are not anticipated to result in significant negative noise impacts.

3. The third appeal point is that there are zoning inconsistencies associated with the project. As previously referenced, the project site is zoned C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial). The Zoning Ordinance states that the C-1 Zone is intended to provide neighborhood convenience centers of 5 to 10 acres which are intended to serve the day to day needs of the surrounding neighbors within a one mile radius. The two main issues related to the zoning appear to be allowing a "mechanical" car wash, where only "non-mechanical" ones are conditionally permitted, and allowing a drive-thru food use, where "drive-in or drive-thru restaurants" are excluded from the C-1 Zone.

As it relates to the car wash, Staff knew when the application for this project was originally submitted that it could be a potential issue. It was discussed at that time between Staff, the Community Development Director, and the City Attorney, in order to eliminate any potential confusion during the actual processing of the project. It was considered that the City Council had established past policy of allowing mechanical car washes in the C-1 Zone subject to a CUP and noise study, by approving the Shanks Chevron car wash on Balfour and Griffith. It was also considered if the applicant should instead apply for a zone change to a PD Zone, which could be customized for the site to allow the mechanical car wash with a CUP. In order to be business friendly and comply with Council's direction to facilitate economic development, it was determined that the cost and time burden of a zone change could be avoided, and the protection of the adjacent residences could be equally well served by considering the car wash subject to a CUP with noticed public hearing, and complete independent environmental review including a noise study. The conclusion for the Albers application was that the only significant difference between "mechanical" and "non-mechanical" car washes is the generation of noise. Since the project was going to include the preparation of independent studies related to noise and traffic, and the appropriateness of the car wash use was going to be considered as part of a discretionary action for a conditional use permit at a noticed public hearing by the Planning Commission, Staff accepted the application for processing as a discretionary application. No guarantee of approval was made to the applicant. It should be noted that early on, the project was considered by the Economic Development Sub-Committee on more than one occasion, with Staff raising the issue of "mechanical" versus "non-mechanical" car wash, and there were no concerns with the car wash proposed as part of the project at that time.

Staff has conducted some research subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting through the League of California Cities to see how car washes are characterized, and whether or not there is a distinction between mechanical and non-mechanical types. Staff received 12 responses, and the majority of them indicate that there is no distinction made between mechanical and non-mechanical car washes. Most cities use the general term of "car wash", and require a conditional use permit in the respective zone. One response even indicates, "the distinction between mechanical and non-mechanical no longer applies". Staff also personally contacted a number of other cities within Contra Costa County, most notably the surrounding cities of Antioch, Oakley, Pittsburg, Concord, Walnut Creek, and Clayton. None of those cities differentiate between mechanical and non-mechanical car washes, with the exception of Pittsburg, whose zoning ordinance related to the issue is somewhat complicated. It is important to note that both Staff and the Planning Commission took a reasoned approach based on past Council policy to dealing with the issue of "mechanical" versus "non-mechanical" and that the language in the C-1 Zone was not simply ignored.

As it relates to the drive-thru use, Staff again realized that there was a potential issue with the requirements of the C-1 Zone, which lists drive-thru establishments relating to permitted uses in the zone as conditionally permitted, excluding drive-thru restaurants. Staff did not view the proposed drive-thru use associated with the convenience store as a restaurant, but rather as an accessory use to the primary permitted retail quick-serve use (bakery, ice cream parlor, pastry shop). It should be noted that Council has recently established the practice of treating quick-serve uses as retail rather than restaurant uses. Such quick-serve uses are allowed up to 20 seats, and are deemed less intense than standard restaurants and require half the parking of a restaurant. This gas station food use has a maximum of 20 seats and is therefore not considered a restaurant, but a less intense quick-serve use. Shanks Chevron has a quick-serve deli. There have been no parking or access problems in the 5 years the project has operated. Adding a drive-thru as an accessory use to the Albers quick-serve was not deemed to significantly intensify the use of the site and did not cause significant traffic impacts in the MND. Staff raised this issue of the drive-thru component to the Economic Development Sub-Committee in conjunction with the discussion of the overall project, and the Committee had no concerns at that time. The Planning Commission then found that the drive-thru use was appropriate and did not result in any significant impacts on adjacent properties.

4. The fourth appeal point is that the project results in traffic impacts. As is the case with noise, development of the project site with commercial uses will increase the number of vehicle trips in the vicinity, and this is unavoidable. An independent traffic study has been prepared for the project and has been incorporated in the MND. Four mitigation measures are required to reduce potential traffic impacts to less than significant levels. One issue that was not originally addressed in the MND is that of access to the project site from Fairview Court (existing Fairview Avenue). Staff had originally intended that access would not be allowed to or from the project site via Fairview Court. Prior to the Planning Commission meeting, however, the applicant requested that both ingress and egress be allowed. Staff felt that egress only would be sufficient and would also lessen the impact on those three residential property owners along Fairview Court. The egress only scenario was appropriately analyzed by Mr. Loewke and the traffic sub consultant, and the conclusion was that it would not result in any new significant impact. Staff therefore recommended approval of egress only, based on this additional analysis, which was also provided to the Commission for its review. The applicant still made the request to allow both ingress and egress at the meeting, and the Commission was generally in support of the request. As a result, the condition of approval was revised to allow full access onto Fairview Court. Mr. Loewke has subsequently analyzed the Planning Commission decision to allow full access and has concluded that it too would not result in any new significant traffic impact.

Conclusion
If the City Council upholds the Planning Commission's decision and denies the appeal, the Tri-City Plaza project can proceed as conditioned by the Commission. If the City Council overrules the Planning Commission's decision and approves the appeal, Staff will return at the next City Council meeting with a resolution and appropriate findings to deny the proposed project.

FISCAL IMPACT
If approved, this project would generate retail sales tax and gas tax revenues, and increased property tax revenues to the City.

ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. ____, upholding the Planning Commission's decision
2. Appeal letter from Council Members Annette Beckstrand and Bill Hill, date stamp received September 16, 2002
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 02-58, with conditions of approval
4. Copy of the C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) Zone
5. Verbatim record of the September 3, 2002, Planning Commission meeting related to the Tri-City Plaza project
6. Mitigated Negative Declaration and addendums for the Tri-City Plaza project
7. Survey results














RESOLUTION NO. ___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL AND DENYING AN APPEAL OF MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 360-01 (MS 360-01) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-24 (CUP 01-24) FOR THE TRI-CITY PLAZA PROJECT, AN APPROXIMATE 5-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LONE TREE WAY AND THE REALIGNED FAIRVIEW AVENUE (APN 019-060-053).

WHEREAS, on September 3, 2002, the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing and considered all written and oral testimony, the staff report, and independent environmental studies, and approved via Resolution No. 02-58 a Minor Subdivision to create four parcels and a Conditional Use Permit to allow a gas station, a quick-serve food with accessory drive-thru, a full-service car wash, and restaurant and café uses for the Tri-City Plaza project, an approximate 5-acre site located at the southeast corner of Lone Tree Way and the realigned Fairview Avenue; and

WHEREAS, on September 16, 2002, an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve Minor Subdivision No. 360-01 and Conditional Use Permit No. 01-24 was filed; and

WHEREAS, the environmental effects of this proposed action have been addressed in a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and

WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration considered several potentially significant impacts and, with the inclusion of mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, all impacts will be reduced to a level of less than significant; and

WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing for this appeal was distributed to all property owners of record within 300 feet of the project site and published in the Ledger-Dispatch on October 11, 2002, in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has held a noticed public hearing and considered the appeal, the environmental documents, and all oral and written testimony presented at the October 22, 2002, City Council meeting; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood does hereby uphold the Planning Commission's approval of Minor Subdivision No. 360-01 and Conditional Use Permit No. 01-24 in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution No. 02-58, and denies the appeal, by making the following findings:

1. The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the City General Plan and City Zoning Ordinance in that the site was examined for commercial use in the 2001 General Plan Update; and

2. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use, as conditioned, will be compatible with and will not adversely affect abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhoods in that there will be a masonry wall, landscaping, and setbacks adjacent to abutting homes and the noise study concluded there would be no significant adverse noise impacts generated by the project; and

3. The architectural design, colors, building materials, screening, landscaping, and related improvements, as approved through Planning Commission Resolution No. 02-58, are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; and

4. The project site, as conditioned, will have adequate public facilities and utilities and pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular circulation and parking when the project is completed and will not have adverse environmental effects on adjacent developments in that parking has been thoroughly analyzed, and adequate parking will be available; and

5. The siting and internal arrangement of all structures and other facilities on the site, including the uses, internal circulation, off-street parking, lighting, and access to and from public rights-of-way, as approved through Planning Commission Resolution No. 02-58, will be conducive to an orderly, attractive, efficient, and harmonious development as described in findings 2, 3, and 4 above; and

6. The proposed project, as conditioned, will not create substantial noise impacts on surrounding properties as described in finding 2 above; and

7. The project will not result in violation of existing wastewater requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board; and

8. The project requires certain street improvements that are necessary for the protection of the public health and safety and are a necessary prerequisite to the orderly development of the surrounding area, in accordance with Section 66411.1(b) of the State Subdivision Map Act; and

9. The mix of land uses within the shopping center and their projected parking demand warrant a reduction of required parking spaces related to eating and drinking places; and

10. The hours of operation of the various land uses and the floor area of the shopping center warrant a reduction of required parking spaces related to eating and drinking places; and

11. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project has been prepared in accordance with all applicable provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and represents the independent judgment of the City of Brentwood; and

12. Pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15168 (c) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that the Project is within the scope of the development levels evaluated in the Program EIR prepared for the City of Brentwood General Plan. The Initial Study has further evaluated potential project-specific impacts to the environment. Based on this evidence and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, this City Council finds that the project will not have any significant environmental impacts that were not studied in the Program EIR. The Mitigated Negative Declaration applies all applicable mitigation measures to supplement and strengthen the Program EIR measures. Therefore, since the mitigation measures are incorporated as conditions to the approval of the project, the Mitigated Negative Declaration as well as the Program EIR for the General Plan are adequate for all approvals relating to the project; and

13. The City Council further finds that no significant new information within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 has been presented to the City that would necessitate re-circulation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for public review. The City Council has considered all verbal and written comments relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and finds no significant new information has arisen.

PASSED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at its regular meting on the 22nd day of October, 2002, by the following vote:










































PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 02-58

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD APPROVING MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 360-01 (MS 360-01) TO CREATE FOUR PARCELS ON A 5.09-ACRE SITE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-24 (CUP 01-24) TO ALLOW A GAS STATION ON PARCEL 'A', A FULL-SERVICE CAR WASH ON PARCEL 'C', AND RESTAURANT AND CAFÉ USES ON PARCELS 'B' AND 'D', LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LONE TREE WAY AND THE REALIGNED FAIRVIEW AVENUE (APN 019-060-053).

WHEREAS, Lucia Albers has requested City review and approval of a tentative parcel map to create four parcels and a conditional use permit for a gas station, a full-service car wash, and future restaurant and café uses for a master planned shopping center to be built at the southeast corner of Lone Tree Way and the realigned Fairview Avenue; and

WHEREAS, the environmental effects of this proposed action have been addressed in a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and

WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration considered a full range of potentially significant impacts and, with the inclusion of mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, all impacts will be reduced to a level of less than significant; and

WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was advertised in the Ledger-Dispatch on August 2, 2002, and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the site as required by City ordinance and Government Code Section 65090; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed tentative parcel map and conditional use permit on September 3, 2002, for the purpose of reviewing said requests and considering all comments made by the public with respect to this development; and

WHEREAS, after the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission considered all public comments received both before and during the public hearing, the presentation by City Staff, the Staff Report, and all other pertinent documents regarding the proposed development; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes the following findings with regard to Minor Subdivision No. 360-01 and Conditional Use Permit No. 01-24:

1. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with applicable goals and policies of the General Plan and with applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. 
2. The location, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed uses, as conditioned, will not adversely affect abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood.
3. Adequate public facilities, services, and utilities will be provided to the site in order to serve the proposed project, including all utilities, parking and loading, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, prior to completion of project construction.
4. The project will not result in violation of existing wastewater requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.
5. The project requires certain street improvements that are necessary for the protection of the public health and safety and are a necessary prerequisite to the orderly development of the surrounding area, in accordance with Section 66411.1(b) of the State Subdivision Map Act.
6. The requested architectural design and site improvements, as conditioned, are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 
7. The availability of public facilities and utilities, as conditioned, is adequate to serve the proposed uses.
8. The mix of land uses within the shopping center and their projected parking demand warrant a reduction of required parking spaces related to eating and drinking places.
9. The hours of operation of the various land uses and the floor area of the shopping center warrant a reduction of required parking spaces related to eating and drinking places.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood hereby finds and determines as follows:

1. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project has been prepared in accordance with all applicable provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and represents the independent judgment of the City of Brentwood; and 
2. Pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15168 (c) of the CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the Project is within the scope of the development levels evaluated in the Program EIR prepared for the City of Brentwood General Plan. The Initial Study has further evaluated potential project-specific impacts to the environment. Based on this evidence and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, this Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any significant environmental impacts that were not studied in the Program EIR. The Mitigated Negative Declaration applies all applicable mitigation measures to supplement and strengthen the Program EIR measures. Therefore, since the mitigation measures are incorporated as conditions to the approval of the project, the Mitigated Negative Declaration as well as the Program EIR for the General Plan are adequate for all approvals relating to the project; and
3. The Planning Commission further finds that no significant new information within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 has been presented to the City that would necessitate re-circulation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for public review. The Planning Commission has considered all verbal and written comments relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and finds no significant new information has arisen.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood does hereby take the following actions:

1. Approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration and directs Staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. 
2. Approves Minor Subdivision No. 360-01 and Conditional Use Permit No. 01-24 based on adherence to the conditions listed in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part of this resolution, and all City standards applicable to the project.

This approval shall terminate on September 3, 2004, two (2) years from the date of approval, unless construction under valid permits has begun within said period. However, such period of time may be extended by the Planning Commission upon application filed at any time before said period has expired.

This action is final unless an appeal is filed pursuant to Chapter 17.880 of the Brentwood Municipal Code within fourteen (14) calendar days following Planning Commission action.

PASSED by the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood at its regular meeting of September 3, 2002, by the following vote:

AYES: Vice-Chairman Brockman, Becnel, Shipley, and Chairman Kerchner

NOES: Padgett

ABSENT: None

ABSTAIN: None

APPROVED:


_______________________________
Michael J. Kerchner
Planning Commission Chairman

ATTEST:


________________________________________
Mitch Oshinsky
Community Development Director

EXHIBIT “A” TO
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 02-58
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 360-01 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-24


MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 360-01

1. Final maps shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. Maps shall be prepared, wet signed and sealed by a civil engineer or land surveyor, registered in the State of California and licensed to prepare final maps.

2. Underground utilities shall be installed in conformance with existing City policy including without limitation Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (Section 16.120.120).

3. The final map shall be as substantially shown on the tentative parcel map, prepared by P/A Design Resources, Inc., date stamp received July 22, 2002.

4. Each lot or parcel shall drain into a street or public drain to the approval of the City Engineer in such a manner that there will be no undrained depressions.

5. Any portion of the drainage system that conveys runoff from public streets shall be installed within a dedicated drainage easement or public street.

6. The developer shall provide joint trenching for telephone, gas, electric, cable TV and fiber optic service for every lot.

7. A reciprocal parking agreement, reflecting access and cross access easements among the 4 parcels shall be shown on and recorded with the Final Map.

8. All improvements, public and private, shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the most recent edition of the Standard Plans and Specifications and the Engineering Procedures Manual of the City of Brentwood and all applicable state and local ordinances, standards and requirements. Should a conflict arise, the governing specification shall be determined by the City Engineer.

9. In accordance with the Community Facilities Element of the City’s General Plan, the environmental review prepared for this map, and the regulations of the applicable school districts, the Developer shall demonstrate that adequate provision is made for school facilities. To the extent permitted by law, this may include the payment of school facility mitigation fees adopted by the applicable school districts, or alternative financial arrangements negotiated by agreement between the Developer and the applicable school districts.

10. Detailed plans reflecting the design and construction of all public infrastructure improvements for street, sewer, water, fiber optics and storm drain, both on- and off-site, shall be in conformance with the adopted Infrastructure Master Plans and as directed by the City Engineer. Developer shall have written approval from the City Engineer for any variations from the City’s Master Plans prior to any final map or plan approval.
11. In conjunction with the recordation of the map (or by separate instrument), the developer shall provide all necessary easements for streets, alleys, sewer and water facilities, utilities and drainage facilities, irrigation district facilities, fiber optics and other facilities as required by the City or serving utility. Utility easements shall be a minimum of a clear fifteen feet (15’) for one utility and a clear twenty feet (20’) for two or more utilities or as specified by basic engineering design guidelines. Easements shall not be split between property lines unless determined otherwise by the City Engineer. The easement widths identified are minimums and in certain circumstances, additional easement widths may be required as determined by the City Engineer.

12. Subsurface water rights shall be dedicated to the City of Brentwood on the final map.

13. The developer shall comply with Government Code Section 66436(a)(3) before approval of each final map, and shall provide “no objection” letters from the public entity or utility to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

14. To the extent applicable under the City’s laws, the developer shall participate in the City’s Capital Improvement Financing Plan to finance required infrastructure.

15. With respect to any claim, action of proceeding against the City, its officials, employees or agents relating to the action or inaction of the City in reviewing, approving or denying the tentative or final maps, the Developer shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the city, its officials, employees and agents from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void or annul an approval of the City concerning a subdivision. With respect to all other claims, actions or proceedings relating to or arising from this subdivision, including without limitation those concerning environmental review, subsequent permit decisions, personal injury, death, property damage or inverse condemnation, the Developer shall also defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officials, employees and agents. The City retains the option to employ independent defense counsel at Developer’s expense. The Developer shall bear the litigation expenses of defense, including attorneys’ fees, whether incurred by Developer or the City’s counsel, or awarded to any third party. The City must pre-approve any decision in the action, including settlement, in which the City’s participation or performance is required.

16. The City shall be given an 18” x 26” photo Mylar of the recorded map and an electronic file in a form which can be imported into AutoCAD, Version 14 and configured as specified in the City’s Engineering Procedures Manual prior to acceptance of public improvements.

17. All activities undertaken in accordance with this parcel map shall comply with the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code. In cases of conflict between the City’s Municipal Code or map-specific conditions of approval, the governing priority shall be, to the extent legally permitted, as follows: 1) map-specific conditions; 2) Municipal Code regulations.

18. Any Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R's) are subject to City review and approval. CC&Rs shall also contain language to provide for common area maintenance and shared costs for electricity for parking lot lights, utilities such as water and landscaping and repairs to the property such as asphalt and concrete.

19. Developer shall pay the Habitat Conservation Fee, as established by the City Council prior to issuance of any building permit for these lots.
20. Developer shall request the formation of a Habitat Conservation Maintenance District prior to issuance of building permit and/or shall include an annual assessment in the project LLD for this purpose which shall be initially set at $50.00 per lot, per year for residential lots or an equivalent amount based on lot size.

21. The final parcel map and all related documents shall comply with all regulations and requirements of the Brentwood Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance.

22. All buildings constructed on the 4 parcels shall be architecturally compatible in terms of design, materials, and colors.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 01-24

1. The developer shall comply with the Standard Conditions of Approval for Commercial and Industrial Projects, dated January 2001, hereby incorporated by reference, unless modified by any of the conditions below. 

2. The project shall be built substantially in conformance with the plans drawn by Atelier Design Group, date stamp received July 22, 2002, unless otherwise amended by the conditions of approval contained herein.

3. Prior to recordation of a final map, the Agricultural Mitigation fee shall be paid.

4. The final landscape plan shall include concrete planters at each of the fuel dispensers, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.

5. The developer shall submit a master sign program to the Planning Commission for review and approval prior to any building occupancy within the shopping center.

6. Hours of operation for the various uses within the shopping center shall be as listed in the Staff Report and in C Christopher Mosser's letter dated August 5, 2002.

7. All mitigation measures listed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for Tri-City Plaza shall be adhered to and are hereby incorporated by reference.

8. All abandoned wells and septic systems must be permitted and inspected by the Contra Costa County Health Services Department. All food facilities must submit plans and permits for approval to the Department prior to construction.

9. The developer shall provide an adequate and reliable water supply for fire protection with a minimum fire flow of 1,500 GPM. Required flow shall be delivered from not more than one (1) hydrant flowing simultaneously while maintaining 20 pounds residual pressure in the main.

10. The developer shall provide traffic signal preemption system (Opticom).

11. Any portion of the site graded, but not developed initially, shall be seeded with wildflowers and rye grass to the approval of the Community Development Director, the City Engineer, and the Parks & Recreation Director prior to any building occupancy.
12. This approval shall authorize a maximum of 7,500 square feet of restaurant and café uses on Parcels 'B' and 'D'. The convenience store on Parcel 'A' shall be limited to a maximum of 20 seats.

13. This approval shall apply only to the design and construction of the development on Parcels 'A' and 'C', shown on the site plan as Phase I. Phase II development will require additional Planning Commission review.

14. Phase I landscape improvements shall be as shown on the project plans, and shall include the construction of the decorative masonry wall along the east boundary of the site.

15. The driveway shown on Fairview Court shall be designed as an entrance and exit for the project, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

16. All trees will be selected and planted as per the City of Brentwood, Parks and Recreation Department's Urban Forest Guidelines.

17. If it is determined that project will impact existing agricultural uses, construction of necessary mitigation measures are the financial responsibility of the developer and the maintenance of these improvements will be the developer’s financial responsibility until the City formally accepts these improvements. Additionally, developer shall bear the financial responsibility of, and shall dedicate to the City, agricultural runoff control easements, as needed, and may be required to financially support the maintenance of said facilities.

18. If and as required, the developer shall relocate East Contra Costa Irrigation District (ECCID) facilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and ECCID. This relocation shall be the financial responsibility of the developer.

19. The developer shall provide a hydrology study and master drainage plan prepared by a registered Civil Engineer (State of California), including recommended drainage improvements consistent with the City’s Master Drainage Plan to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. As a part of, or in addition to, the developer shall also accept and address the drainage from upstream properties to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to any plan approvals. The subdivision’s master drainage plan shall show enough detail to address mitigation of impacts on existing agricultural uses or to conclusively show that there will be no impacts to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

20. The developer shall coordinate with property owners along the property lines of this project for any grading/fence work to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

21. If these improvements are not constructed by others, developer shall construct Storm Drain Line A-1 from the property frontage to DA-30C detention basin prior to any building occupancy to the satisfaction of Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the City Engineer.

22. If these improvements are not constructed by others, developer shall fund and construct their fair share of DA -30C detention basin (located on the East side of Fairview Avenue) prior to any building occupancy to the satisfaction of Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the City Engineer.

23. Developer shall annex into Community Facilities District #2 to fund fire, emergency medical and public safely personnel, open space maintenance and operations, and flood and storm drain services prior to final map approval.

24. A portion of the Master Plan Infrastructure to be constructed as a part of this development is fee creditable per the current Development Fee Program. Calculations of the exact fee credits will be prepared by the office of the City Engineer, credits will be based on the Development Fee Program as adopted by the City Council and in effect at the time of construction of this project.

25. Developer shall relinquish all access rights along Lone Tree Way and the proposed Fairview Avenue to the City of Brentwood, except for the locations as shown on the Minor Subdivision Map MS 360-01 page 3 of 3 prepared by P/A Design Resources, Inc. dated July 19, 2002 and as approved by the City Engineer.

26. Developer shall pay the regional drainage fees and the sub-regional drainage fees (equivalent to the regional drainage fees) as required by Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit.

27. Developer shall install oil/water separator (CDS system or equivalent) in the parking lot area immediately upstream of connection to City’s storm water system to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Developer will be responsible for maintaining this facility per manufacturer’s recommendations.

28. The developer shall pay to the City their fair share of the Lone Tree Way and the Proposed Fairview Avenue improvements pursuant to the City’s Development Fee Program prior to issuance of any building permits to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

29. All structures including supporting equipment shall be designed above 100-year flood plane and shall file necessary documentation with FEMA for LOMAR approval prior to any occupancy.

30. The developer shall design and construct the potable water and sanitary sewer lines across this project site to serve the northerly existing residence along the easterly property line. These lines shall be extended to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Any maintenance easements necessary for these lines will be dedicated at no cost to the City to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

31. Developer shall form or annex into a street lighting and landscape maintenance assessment district, or some other alternative financing mechanism acceptable to the City, for maintenance of all public street lights and landscaping adjacent to the project site prior to recordation of any final map.

32. The developer shall install a complete irrigation system and landscaping in the median and parkway area along the project’s entire Lone Tree Way frontage, excluding the portion of Lone Tree Way to be improved as a part of the Lone Tree Way / Union Pacific Railroad Underpass. However, this does not relieve the developer of its financial obligation for these frontage improvements. All improvements shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Parks and Recreation Director. The maintenance of these improvements and the costs associated with the street lighting shall be included in the Landscaping and Lighting District for this project. The developer shall install interim irrigation and landscaping until the ultimate improvements are completed. The cost for the installation and maintenance of these interim improvements shall be the financial responsibility of the developer.

33. The developer shall install a complete irrigation system and landscaping (including a 5-foot sidewalk) along the entire proposed Fairview Avenue frontage to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Parks and Recreation Director prior to issuance of any building occupancy for the project. The maintenance of these improvements and the costs associated with all street lighting shall be included into the Landscaping and Lighting District for this project.

34. The developer shall construct a driveway approach onto Lone Tree Way to provide interim access to the project until the ultimate improvements to Lone Tree Way are completed and usable by the public. These interim improvements shall be the developer’s financial responsibility, shall be constructed prior to the issuance of any building occupancy and shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

35. The proposed driveway into Lone Tree Way shall be a right in and right out only. The northerly proposed driveway onto the proposed Fairview Avenue shall be a right in and right out only. The southerly proposed driveway onto the proposed Fairview Avenue shall be right in only and right and left out only. All turning movements from the proposed driveways shall be to the satisfaction and approval of the City Engineer.

36. The developer shall provide the necessary sight distance at all proposed driveway locations to the satisfaction and approval of the City Engineer.

37. The City shall transfer the existing Fairview Avenue right-of-way as depicted on the Minor Subdivision Map (MS 360-01) Page 1 of 3, prepared by P/A Design Resources, Inc. dated July 19, 2002 to the developer after the improvements to the proposed Fairview Avenue are completed and open for traffic.

38. All necessary permits for the installation and use of the underground fuel storage tanks as well as operation of the convenience store shall be obtained from Contra Costa County prior to the start of construction.

39. The project shall comply with all Federal, State, and local laws. Material violations of any of those laws in connection with the use will be cause for revocation of the permit.

40. If the gas station is abandoned for a period of 6 months, the site shall be restored to its original condition by the removal of all gasoline paraphernalia (i.e. underground tanks, fuel island pumps, and overhead canopy).

41. This use permit may be modified or revoked by the City Council or Planning Commission, should either body determine that the proposed use, or conditions under which it is being operated or maintained, are detrimental to the public health or welfare, or are materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, or if the property is operated or maintained so as to constitute a public nuisance, or if any approved conditions are violated.

42. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall pay any and all outstanding peer review, environmental, and development review fees.












VERBATIM RECORD

OF THE




Public Hearing Item
FOR



MS 360-01/CUP 01-24

Applicant: Lucia Albers 





BRENTWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 

OF

September 3, 2002















CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Okay, we're talking about our Item No. 8, it is a public hearing. And Mr. Nolthenius I believe this is your particular item to address with the Commission, if you would.
ASSOCIATE PLANNER ERIK NOLTHENIUS: Certainly. The applicant was during the break putting up the different color boards for this project and it's basically in front of you right now. I'm going to be using these, in particular the one on the upper right, which is the colored site plan for the project and the pointer. Again, in absence of the overhead. Just to start off with locating the site, the north boundary is here, this is Lone Tree Way. Directly north of that we have some undeveloped properties and then the railroad tracks continue northwesterly in this fashion. Approved projects north of this site include the Acorn Mini Storage facility, generally right here and then the Rose Garden subdivision, which is on the opposite side of the railroad tracks. On the east side of the site we have the existing Fairview Avenue which comes up generally like this. You have some undeveloped land that is designated for Public Facility use on the opposite side of the railroad tracks. South of this site we have some single family dwellings, in particular, three that are adjacent to the site. One here, a larger one here and then another one farther south. And then some scattered dwellings on larger parcels, these are zoned R-1-E, which is a limited Ranchette Estate designation. And then we have the realigned Fairview Avenue, which is going to come up in this fashion here. West of the site the west boundary is bordered by the realigned Fairview Avenue here to its intersection with Lone Tree Way. We have also an approved Tentative Map 8281 that's for one hundred and thirty lots, in this area here. Previous actions on the site include a redesignation and a rezoning as part of the General Plan update coming up on a year ago now by the City Council. Originally it was Ranchette Estate with an R-1-E zone. The redesignation was to General Commercial and the rezone to C-1 in the Neighborhood Commercial zone. As far as the environmental process that was conducted for this project, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with CEQA. A number of potentially significant impacts were identified, however mitigation measures have been included to reduce those impacts to less than significant levels. Staff did receive a number of letters from various property owners in the vicinity of the project site. Those have been responded to in the form of a very comprehensive memo that was prepared by the environmental consultant, Richard Loewke. He is here tonight to address any concerns that do come up from an environmental standpoint. And those were forwarded to the Commission late last week. As far as the project itself, we have two requests from the applicant. The first is a minor subdivision or a parcel map. This site as it's currently configured consists of three parcels of record. I'm going to point to the one with the aerial superimposed here. One parcel here, another here and then the balance being this large kind of jagged parcel. The total site is just over five acres. The parcel map is a proposal to merge and then resubdivide these three existing parcels into four different parcels, the acreage being 1.14, 1.75, 1.13 and 1.08. Parcel A - I'm going to go back to the colored site plan here - Parcel A is located at the northwest corner of the project site or the southeast corner of Lone Tree Way and realigned Fairview Avenue. That's 1.14 acres. Parcel B is located directly east of Parcel A, again south of Lone Tree and abutting the railroad tracks. Parcel C located directly south of Parcels A and B and fronting onto the realigned Fairview Avenue. That one is 1.13 acres. And then lastly is Parcel D, which again is adjacent to or fronting onto the realigned Fairview Avenue and also adjacent to these previously referenced residential properties. As far as the parcel map goes, staff believes that approval as conditioned will facilitate appropriate development of Parcels A and C. And that's A and C below it. And then also the future development of Parcels B and D. There is also a conditional use permit request as part of this project. The applicant, Lucia Albers is proposing to develop the site with a variety of commercial uses known collectively as Tri-City Plaza. Proposed uses include a gas station and convenience store. The convenience store would include some indoor seating for a deli or restaurant type use, also a drive-through lane on the south and east sides of the store, that would be on Parcel A. Future retail, restaurant and office uses on Parcel B. That's here. A full-service car wash and detailing facility with retail sales on Parcel C. And future retail and restaurant uses on Parcel D. The project is proposed in two phases. Phase I would be the development of Parcels A and C, and Phase II being the development of Parcels B and D. Specific uses requiring approval of a conditional use permit tonight include the gas station, the car wash and future restaurant and café uses. Real briefly as far as the specific proposed uses, the gas station does consist of six fuel dispensers and that's probably seen best on the colored elevation down here, and the convenience store being just under 4,500 square feet. Proposed hours of operation for the gas station and convenience store are 5:00 A.M. to midnight, Monday through Thursday and on Sunday 5:00 A.M. to 2:00 A.M. on Friday and Saturday. As far as the restaurant and café uses, the applicant is requesting approximately, I take that back, exactly 7,500 square feet for future restaurant and café uses, that would be for Phase II of the project in the two buildings proposed on Parcel B and the single story building on Parcel D. As far as the restaurant and café uses, potential combinations for the square footage include a number of smaller users, such as sandwich shops, coffee place, a pizza restaurant, or a smaller use and a larger sit down restaurant. Proposed hours of operation for those kinds of uses are 5:30 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. The proposed full service car wash includes a three bay detail shop and, I'm just going to point on the site plan approximately where that would be right here on the south side of the building. There is an indoor retail sales area and an outdoor seating area when you're waiting for your car to be dried off. There's also a second, I'm sorry, a small second floor office that's located above the detail shop. Proposed hours for this use are 8:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. There are a number of uses in addition to these that are permitted by right in the C-1 zone that are proposed by the project, and these include retail sales, office uses and different kinds of service uses. Proposed hours for retail uses are 9:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. and office and service uses from 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Getting back to the site plan in more detail for the current development proposed on Parcels A and C, the gas station and convenience store again located on Parcel A here in the northwest corner, this is the location of the canopy here and then the convenience store located slightly south and east of the canopy. Car wash and detail facility is more or less in the center of the site here, and again two, two story buildings proposed for Parcel B in the future and then a single story building on Parcel D here. As far as vehicular access to the site, there are four primary driveways. One here on Lone Tree and this would be basically leading into the gas station site, or gas station parcel. And then three different driveways along the realigned Fairview Avenue here. One again just south of the canopy, again taken into the gas station site, one more or less central of this site that would align with one of the streets coming out for this previously referenced subdivision, and then one at the very south end of the site just south of the future Building D there. Access from each of these driveways would be limited to right in and right out movements due to the presence of medians, with the exception of this central driveway here that would align with this street that would permit full turning movements. Parking on site has been provided in the amount of two hundred and twenty nine spaces located primarily around the perimeter of the site, but also adjacent to buildings and around the car wash building. The internal circulation would be facilitated by striping and signage as this project is conditioned by the parcel map that will include cross access easements and reciprocal parking agreements to allow traffic to move freely within the boundaries of the project. Individuals that utilize the drive-through lane adjacent to the convenience store would enter on the south side here, place an order and then pick up on the east side of the building and continue in this fashion. The car wash, again you would enter the car wash on the south side. This area right in here is the drop-off area. Cars would then proceed along the north side of the building through the actual car wash and then exit at the west end where the outdoor seating area is and the drying or pickup area is. Let me touch briefly on the parking on site. As currently laid out, there is a surplus of eight spaces for the overall project. Since part of this request includes accommodating future restaurant and café uses, which are typically, more intensive than retail or office uses, staff did some additional analysis. With the recent approval of the Safeway project, or also known as the Balfour Village Center Project, staff had presented some rationale to the Commission for parking requirements related both to sit down and to take out or quick serve restaurants. At that time, the Commission seemed agreeable to the analysis provided by staff wherein sit down restaurants would require one space for one hundred square feet of gross floor area and take out or quick serve restaurants would require one space for each two hundred square feet of gross floor area. Assuming the worst case scenario that all 7,500 square feet of requested restaurant and café space was devoted solely to sit down facilities, the more restricting parking requirement would result in approximately thirty spaces, in a shortfall of approximately thirty spaces throughout the overall project. The City Zoning Ordinance does provide for the reduction of required parking spaces for eating and drinking places associated with shopping centers having a gross floor area exceeding 50,000 square feet, which this does, based on certain factors. This includes the mix of land uses within the shopping center and the projected parking demand, hours of operation for various land uses and the floor area of the shopping center. Staff believes that when you look at all these factors, the project does meet the intent of the ordinance and the reduction is warranted based on findings in the attached resolution. We move now to proposed architecture, and again tonight we're focusing on Parcels A and C, which is the gas station, convenience store and the car wash facility. In designing the project, the applicant has attempted to match all three of these structures very closely in terms of their design and identically in terms of their materials and colors. And at this time I'm going to pass around the color and material board submitted by the applicant so that you can take a look at that. The gas station elevation, which is down here in the center on the floor, we're looking at the canopy first. It's your typical rectangular shaped canopy with support columns at each of the fuel dispensers. It's a stucco finish on the roof with a clay tile and the columns will be finished with stucco. The convenience store is shown below there and I also have, this was also just recently submitted by the applicant, a perspective, a color perspective of the gas station and convenience store. I'm going to pass that around as well. Again, identical materials. The convenience store itself is generally square with the exception of a rounded entrance and that's shown quite well on that second photograph that's coming around. Again, stucco finish with clay tile for the sloping portions of the roof. Additional features of the building include a series of arches, tile accents, and arch windows on both the north and west elevations. The car wash and detailing facility is generally rectangular in shape. The car wash is located on the north side of the building. The roof plan for this building includes a parapet wall around the perimeter to screen mechanical equipment. Again, materials would be stucco and clay tile. Additional features include arches, tile accents, roll up doors for the detail shop and a series of wood trellises along the rear or the north elevation that would be the elevation visible from Lone Tree Way. And again, the second floor office that was previously referenced, that's located above the detail shop. There is also a combination of three distinct colors for the exterior finishes for contrast, and that should be visible on those boards that are being passed around now. The colored site plan that's located on the upper right here that's on top of this chair also shows you the preliminary landscape plan. The one recommendation that staff had and this is reflected in the conditions of approval is the addition of some concrete planners at the fuel dispensers underneath the …[TAPE CHANGE/END OF TAPE 2] … to enhance the aesthetics a little bit and this would also be consistent with what the Commission did with the ARCO station that was approved last year west of this site. As far as screening, and most importantly for these three existing, or these three properties here with existing single family residences, there is an eight-foot high decorative masonry wall. And it's not readily visible. I can show you this in a minute, but it's basically a split face wall, a smooth band of contrasting color near the top, a contrasting color cap and then pilasters approximately fifteen feet on center. This wall would basically run along these property lines adjacent to those existing residences. The applicant has submitted, as far as signage goes, a preliminary elevation of a monument sign, however staff is recommending that a master sign program be submitted at a future date to the Planning Commission for review and approval and that would ensure that signage throughout the Tri-City Plaza project is coordinated and appropriate. Again, there was a number of written comments that were received prior to tonight's meeting. We believe that all those comments have been addressed and those responses were forwarded to you as part of the packet. I do want to mention one thing in closing here as far as the attached resolution. There were some changes made, just today, and I've laid out a copy of those on the dais. Some conditions we're recommending that they be deleted, recommending the modification of certain conditions, and then recommending that certain conditions be added. So you might want to take that into consideration when and if you make a motion on this project tonight. Staff's recommendation in conclusion is that the Commission pass Resolution 02-58 approving the parcel map and the conditional use permit as conditioned.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Thank you Erik. Any questions here for Erik and his presentation? 
COMMISSIONER BECNEL: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Chris, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER BECNEL: I'm sorry, when you were talking about the ingress and egress you mentioned, I believe, four. You didn't mention anything, at least I didn't hear it, regarding Fairview Court. I thought I saw on one of the maps that that was an exit only?
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Is Richard Loewke here? He can probably address that, I think he talked about that in his …
ASSOCIATE PLANNER NOLTHENIUS: Yeah, he could. Let me take a shot at it first and you're right Commissioner Becnel, I apologize for that. The area in question is right here. This is basically an opening that's being shown on the plans onto what will become Fairview Court. This is existing Fairview Avenue now. It will cul-de-sac here. The current plan shows this as an exit only, or an egress only. And Condition 16 of the use permit that's on Page 7 of 10 for the resolution addressing the driveway on Fairview Court. This is something that was recently analyzed by the environmental consultant because the original Initial Study had indicated that that would be, and this was staff's original understanding as well, that it would not be an access point. However, we've gone back and looked at it and from an environmental standpoint allowing egress onto Fairview Avenue, or Fairview Court I'm sorry, would not result in a significant environmental impact and no additional mitigation would be required. And that's why it's appropriately conditioned as No. 16. 
COMMISSIONER BECNEL: I had another question regarding the analysis of the parking between the four parcels. I understand that the analysis is being done in the aggregate but I wanted to make sure that I understood correctly that in fact, Parcel B is underparked by about twenty eight spaces with the other three parcels making up that differential, being nine from Parcel A, which is the gas station, and ten from Parcel C and seventeen from Parcel D.
ASSOCIATE PLANNER NOLTHENIUS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER BECNEL: Okay.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Any other questions for Erik here? If I could then, Erik continuing on that item that Chris touched on earlier, I believe it was Item 9 in Mr. Loewke's report. I guess I'm looking for some clarification here. This additional twenty-six peak P.M. project vehicles exiting onto the court, I mean there's been a lot of concern raised as far as access here from the court. This is less than significant what our understanding?
ASSOCIATE PLANNER NOLTHENIUS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: When we looked at this, did we have Mr. Loewke and his staff here take a look at analyzing this as ingress as well?
ASSOCIATE PLANNER NOLTHENIUS: No, he looked at it as egress only.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: If I could continue, one of the items in the Mitigated Negative Declaration talks about the widening for the underpass and the conditions set forth as far as putting sufficient sloping or project area in front, and maybe you can handle this, or Paul can address it. But looking back at that Lone Tree underpass improvement we talked about having a wall out front. This particular applicant, as far as what they are doing at Lone Tree or not doing at Lone Tree, they are not responsible for that underpass or its design? They're just providing sufficient, let's say, space for the actual improvements to be done by, at this point, what was the Rose Garden project? We're not doing any improvements like this retaining wall or any of the undercut or the undercrossing itself? Is that correct?
ASSOCIATE PLANNER NOLTHENIUS: I believe so. Paul might want to expand on that.
ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER PAUL ELDREDGE: That statement is correct. They're not going to be performing or providing the actual improvements. They'll be providing the necessary right of way and paying their fees, their fair share to the roadway fees.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Okay, thank you. Any other questions for staff here? And if we could, if the applicant is present or your representative, if you would like to step forward.
COMMISSIONER SHIPLEY: Just one more question please.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Real quickly, Ray?
COMMISSIONER SHIPLEY: Erik, I just wanted to confirm, the six-lane/three lanes per side goes to the middle of the new Fairview? Is that correct? In other words, where the alignment is and from there on over across the road it goes two lanes per side, four lanes total until such time as you widen to six lanes down to O'Hara?
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: But the undercross itself, we went through this before. It will be, in fact, built for six lanes of traffic. We may not improve it to all six lanes right now but we're going to get the underpass underneath the railroad tracks for six lanes.
ASSOCIATE PLANNER NOLTHENIUS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Okay. 
COMMISSIONER SHIPLEY: I mean, that's great, but you're talking about two hundred feet difference? It's going to be from six lanes to four lanes to back to six lanes underpass?
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Actually, if I'm not, if I could overstep my bounds a little bit, the anticipation is four lanes from this intersection down to O'Hara?
COMMISSIONER SHIPLEY: No, four lanes from this, from Fairview to the underpass then six lanes and then back to four lanes down.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: All right, then I'll defer to Paul for the projection here.
ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER ELDREDGE: Lone Tree Way is going to be widened as you mentioned right now to the approximately the easterly curb return of the realigned Fairview Avenue to six lanes, then it will transition down to two. We will then do the undercross, or the underpass, and it will be six lanes. And it will be six lanes all the way to O'Hara. From O'Hara east, it will be four lanes ultimately. That's how it's currently planned.
COMMISSIONER SHIPLEY: I mean, I can't see why we're doing - and I'm just saying, this is just my point right now is - if we're going to build an underpass at six lanes in the near distant future, we need to build the road all the way to that underpass at least the same consistency instead of having a bottleneck, you know, from the new realigned Fairview to the intersection of the underpass.
ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER ELDREDGE: Well, the reason …
COMMISSIONER SHIPLEY: We're not talking that far.
ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER ELDREDGE: Well, the reason why, maybe I was unclear. We're doing the six lanes and then we're necking it down back to the original two until the undercross is done and then we will pick up where we stopped the six lane widening and continue that easterly. So, when it's all said and done with the widening that we're going to do this fall, the underpass, and then the widening to the east of the railroad tracks, it will be six lanes all the way through consistently, and then at O'Hara it transitions from the six lanes to the two ultimate configuration. 
COMMISSIONER SHIPLEY: Yeah, to four total.
ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER ELDREDGE: So yeah, the transition is just transitioning back to the existing pavement section until the design and utilities and all of that fun stuff is done as part of the underpass.
COMMISSIONER SHIPLEY: I just hate to see us doing two steps when we could one step and do it right the first time.
ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER ELDREDGE: The difficulty is, is we are certainly not ready to do the underpass now. We don't have the design done, there's a lot of footwork that needs to be done as far as coordination with the existing utilities, the design, so forth and so on, letting the bid out and constructing it. There's really no way that - we need to get these improvements to Lone Tree done now and while we're doing those improvements we'll continue to work on the undercrossing. There will be some things done out there once these improvements are done. We will transition back to the two lanes and we will do temporary curb returns on the northeast side of the roadway from the asphalt to the concrete. And there will be a dip, you will come down Lone Tree, you'll dip down and then you'll come back up. The reason for that dip is you have to start that transition to get that transition past the intersection and past some of these driveways from the intersection in its ultimate configuration. We're trying to build as much as we can ultimate without having to come back and rip up a lot of stuff or rip up a lot of the improvements that we did now. That's the reason for these curb returns on the …
CITY ATTORNEY DENNIS BEOUGHER: Lest you forget that there's a lawsuit and a referendum pending on the project that is supposed to do the undercrossing.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: I don't think we've forgotten that yet.
ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER ELDREDGE: And if I may add to that note, staff is, there is a portion of work that staff is continuing to do even though there is that pending lawsuit. So progress on this job has not stopped because of that. There are things that we continue to do.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Okay.
ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER ELDREDGE: So I hope that answers your questions? 
COMMISSIONER SHIPLEY: I just want to make sure there are six lanes, that's the only thing that I care about right now.
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY ELDREDGE: Six lanes.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Very good. 
COMMISSIONER SHIPLEY: Not from me.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Any other questions? Thank you, Paul.
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY ELDREDGE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Then once again, the applicant. For the record, your name and address please?
CHRIS MOSSER: Good evening Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Chris Mosser, Management Ready to Go Incorporated, Consultant and Broker for the landowner, Mrs. Lucia Albers. With me tonight is David Mana, architect from Atielier Design, Mike Awley, the proposed owner/operator of the gas station and Bill Guild from Carwash Technology, the car wash equipment provider. Please bear with me, without an overhead, I have several that I was going to use. I will refer to them here in my presentation and they are available for your review, if you like. I wanted to start by very much thanking staff for all their efforts, they had been tremendous in working with us on this project and we truly respect them for this. Tonight I want to focus my presentation on three points. First, the intended uses and the conditional use request before you this evening. Second, the architecture of the project, and it will be very brief. And third a discussion on some points that have been surfaced by others who oppose the project, as well as requests on a couple of conditions. First the intended uses and the history of the land use. The first overhead that I have this evening was an original design for this project that basically dates back to May of 2000. That's when Mrs. Albers began working to bring forward the corner parcel for development. If the overhead was up, you could see that the intended uses at that time were for a gas station, a car wash, an auto oil changer, and about 25,000 square foot of proposed retail. Basically for reasons from the realignment of Fairview to meetings at the Economic Development Subcommittee, the project has changed to the current site map before you tonight. The second overhead I was going to use was Sheet SP-1 in your packet, very similar to what Erik was referring to in the landscape plan. The proposed use for Parcel A is a 76 brand gas station with a convenience store. The owner/operator has many other gas stations throughout Northern California under the trade name Fast and Easy Mart. At this time, we feel the demographics of this highly traveled corner location will make for an excellent gas station providing a very high level of sales tax for the City. The third overhead I was going to use was the actual site plan layout of the gas station and convenience store, Sheet GS-P-1. Here you can see that this convenience store also shows a drive-through use. For the past several months I have been discussing this project and its use with everyone as a deli and that the drive through would be that of the deli providing sandwiches and sodas and coffee in the drive through. It came to my attention today, great news from the proposed owner. He is actually licensed to franchise Togo's and TCBY Frozen Yogurt. He intends that to be his interior food use with those same items available on the drive-through menu. As staff has mentioned in the revisions to conditions, we will limit the number of interior seats to twenty ensuring that there is more than enough adequate parking. For Parcel C, we are seeking a CUP for a mechanicalized detailed car wash. Mrs. Albers is purchasing some of the most state of the art equipment for this facility. The actual flow process of filtration, and here again I had a couple of diagrams for you to view, not only shows the very detailed flow that we are proposing for this car wash, but also a picture that was available for you to review showing the high level of the filtration equipment that is going to be used. Some points of note, all the water used to clean the cars is a combination of fresh water and recycled water based on the level of car cleaning service that is purchased. Not only is all of the water recycled, but also double filtered and ozone treated to ensure fresh smelling water. Some of the water is eventually, even after filtration, unusable and it flows back directly into the City's sewer system. But point to note, that it's already been filtered before it flows back. We truly feel not only will the detailed car wash provide a superior service for the surrounding community, but also has been designed very environmentally conscious and all the steps have been made to have it be as quiet as possible, even going as far as to ensuring that we limit the hours of operation, as Erik has mentioned tonight. For Parcels B and D, again I would refer back to the drawings in front of you, we intend a ranged mix of professional office use, services, retail, take out, sit down restaurant, with other examples that Erik had mentioned. Our current thoughts are to bring these buildings before you on design review once we secure adequate enough tenants to ensure construction financing. One CUP that we are requesting relates to the parcels, these two in particular, B and D, for 7,500 square foot of sit down restaurants. Erik outlined the two potential scenarios that we seek. I would like to make note that Parcel B has been specifically designed for a very nice outdoor café type experience, including no parking in the storefronts but rather an open air, heavily landscaped environment with a barrel type arbor overhang used as a patio enclosure, which we feel will allow natural light and fresh breezes throughout. I have provided for you in your packet as well a parking analysis based on the aggregate which Commissioner Becnel has brought up showing the mixed uses, reciprocal parking, defining hours of operations, and current designs. Some of the other users in the City. I also thank staff for their different view, which was to use the standard that was just set for the Safeway project. And even their analysis concluded, on the whole, the project is adequately parked. For the second part of my presentation I want to just talk about the architecture and I was actually going to have David come up here and give you a few words. I think Erik did a great job. David will be available if you have any questions on the architecture throughout the evening. For part III, let's briefly discuss opposition letters and conditions of approval. For all of the comment letters that have come in, the Planning Consultant, Mr. Loewke has prepared responses. We feel all of Mr. Loewke's comments are spot on addressing the concerns that have been raised. In fact, we have been working and meeting with several of the neighbors to talk through the issues that they've had. Many of their ideas and comments we have incorporated, such as raising the masonry wall to eight feet, relocating trash enclosures, limiting the hours of operation for both the car wash and the gas station. In fact, as staff mentioned in the revised conditions, we are even going to pay for the installation of the water and sewer lines for the most northeastern side residents. As for some of the other requests, all we can do is try to answer them. Many are citing MTBEs flowing into the ground wells. Well the truth is, 76 gas stations are on the cutting edge and do not have MTBEs in their fuel. Chemicals from the car wash. Again, all water is collected and recycled through the filtration process with any water no longer usable disposed directly into the City sewer system, not into any runoff areas. Lighting from the development. We will be providing a photometric study, which in fact we just completed, showing the lighting pattern and spread associated with the uses and will ensure that all final fixtures are using the necessary players and shields. Additional traffic congestion. We feel as designed the current Fairview Avenue will be greatly improved and the traffic slowed by its new design and construction. In fact, in the cul-de-sac area, current vehicle trips per day of over ten thousand currently, will be reduced to less than one hundred twenty eight vehicle trips per PM peak usage. Other issues raised have been PG&E gas pipelines running to the far northeast corner of the project. This project was circulated to PG&E. We have a copy of a letter back from their representative not even mention this as an issue. Again, almost every other comment has been addressed or spoken to in one way or another by staff, the planning consultants, or us. As for the conditions, I am pleased to say that through great work with staff, we don't have a lot that we want to discuss, but we do want to bring a couple of points to your attention. The first is the fees and payments for improvements. As you read through the sixty three conditions, I am sure you know how many of these are just flat out fees, revenue gathering items for the City or other agencies. For many large shopping centers over twenty acres, it is very easy for them to absorb these fees. But for a five acre site, it becomes very tough. To give you an example, if a condition such as No. 29 under the CUP request will cost this development about three hundred seventy five thousand dollars. And that is tough to have to pay that much up front when the true benefit from Lone Tree Way that this project will ultimately receive is three years away. At this point, after meeting with staff, I would just like you to know that in efforts to ensure we can financially make the project viable, we're going to work with staff and City Council to draft a Development Agreement. Conditions such as 29, 4, 35, 37 and 8 all have a high level of fees with them and we hope yourself, staff and Council will be open to negotiations The second condition is particularly No. 8. Some of the mitigation measures we want to ensure that if another finding is brought up by the Planning Consultant for the MND and we have the ability to implement his recommendation, that the original item that was called out in the MND we will not be held accountable to complete. For example, we do not agree with the additional sound attenuation wall for the west end of the car wash. And if the Planning Consultant concurs, which he has provided you a letter today providing us two options, we would want to be able to chose the option that as long as he said is okay, we don't have to go back and do the original condition. Another example would be in the mitigations, No. 15C on front setbacks. At this point it calls out that a retaining wall needs to be designed by us for Lone Tree Way up to a maximum of ten foot. However, in our conversations with staff, we feel staff will be the ultimate designer of the new Lone Tree Way and we will already be paying our fair share for its improvement. We hope the cost of this retaining wall is included in our fair share payment and not an additional cost that we estimate could be over a hundred thousand dollars. But the mitigation measure does not clearly state who is responsible. The last example of conditions that I would like to bring up is Condition 35. We have discussed this with staff and perhaps we just did not clearly understand the final results. We would ask that on Condition 35 that wording be added that we are responsible for our fair share of the Lone Tree Way improvements. And I just believe the word fair share has not been inserted. I ask that this evening you approve the parcel map and the conditional use permits as recommended be staff. My team and myself are available to answer any additional questions that you may have. And at this time Mrs. Albers would also like the opportunity to address the Commission. Do you have any questions, or may I …?
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Go ahead. Hold on for a second, please. Go ahead, Bob.
COMMISSIONER BROCKMAN: Just one question real quick, on item No. 32, you guys had worked out a change, it said to serve the northerly existing residents. Is that correct?
CHRIS MOSSER: Yes, oh, I'm sorry.
ASSOCIATE PLANNER NOLTHENIUS: Yes it is.
COMMISSIONER BROCKMAN: There is a northerly resident?
ASSOCIATE PLANNER NOLTHENIUS: Yeah. It's better shown on this one right here, this parcel here. The northerly of the three existing along Fairview right here.
COMMISSIONER BROCKMAN: Oh, okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: I guess while you're both there, I have the question that you brought up Chris and Erik, changes to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. You've seen this letter he spoke of earlier?
ASSOCIATE PLANNER NOLTHENIUS: Yeah, I'm glad Chris brought this up I neglected to mention this in my presentation. Mr. Loewke had looked at this issue just today, in fact, and had gotten something into Community Development just before the end of today. I did not circulate it to you. That's my fault. I apologize for that. Basically what Mr. Loewke has concluded is that the mitigation measure that Mr. Mosser is referencing is No. 11C, it's part of the Monitoring and Reporting Plan, could in fact be refined or revised. The proposed wording is this, if I could read this 'Potential noise impacts from the blow dryer equipment to be located near the exit, or the west end of the car wash, shall be mitigated as verified during the plan check process either by a) construction of a sound attenuation wall strategically placed near the car wash exit to deflect noise to the north or b) placement of the blower equipment at a recessed location behind the exit opening such that the equipment is not directly visible from any adjoining residential property.' So the intent of this mitigation measure is basically from a noise standpoint to reduce any potential noise impacts to a less than significant level. And I believe what Mr. Mosser had indicated earlier is that the, in fact, option b) would be doable and preferable from a design standpoint. So this would be, any action you take tonight, if you took the action to approve the environmental document, we could substitute this mitigation measure for the one proposed in the bound copy.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Thank you. That sufficed for what you were trying to address there as far as those items, Chris?
CHRIS MOSSER: Absolutely, thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Any other comments to Erik as far as the issues that he's brought up? I think we've covered the other, to some degree, if there is any other discussion about that wall, I think Paul can clarify that once again, I think if it's necessary. Any other questions then for the applicant, being Ms. Albers?
CHRIS MOSSER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Thank you.
LUCIA ALBERS: Good evening, my name is Lucia Albers. I would like to start with thanking the staff for the hard work that they had put into this project. I also like to thank the Commissioners for the time that you are dedicating this evening to hear my project. As Chris gave the presentation, it's going to be a good project for the City of Brentwood. We have tried to comply with the concerns of our neighbors. We have tried to mitigate any impact that this project may cause with them, especially we are building an eight foot wall as they requested when we met with them. We are also, we have removed the garbage cans. We also are going to be working with the staff in providing the sewer on up, you know, to their homes. And I'm sorry there is opposition. I wish I could do something more to please them. But I think we have tried everything, you know, that is possible on our side. And that's all I want to say, if you have any questions I would be glad to answer them.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Albers? Thank you.
LUCIA ALBERS: Thank you very much. 
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: With that then, this is a public meeting and we have a couple of speaker cards that have come forth. And if we would we would like to go ahead and start that. And we have Donald Wheat.
DONALD WHEAT: My name is Donald Wheat, I live at 2461 Fairview, which is the northmost parcel along the current Fairview Avenue, the one I think was just referred to as the northmost property owner. It concerns me that there seems to be talk that they were going to do something for the other two property owners and they weren't going to do it for me and I was sort of a last resort, or something like that. I don't know if that refers to the sewage, because that's one of the questions I have here, is were they going to furnish sewage with this. But the primary thing that bothers me about my property, which on this parcel map doesn't show any buildings. The others it shows buildings for it. But on that piece of property there is a house, a pump house for my well, and a small storage building, and that's my home. It's not a vacant piece of property and I want the Commission to know that. I hope that you would go out to that neighborhood and see what's going on. But, the proposed egress onto Fairview Court is very very close to my property line and I can see carloads of people coming out of the fast food restaurant and throwing trash down that street. They do it every Saturday night now on the current Fairview, and that really bothers me. I'd like to see that egress shut. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Very good. Thank you. Next we have Karen Rogge.
KAREN ROGGE: My name is Karen Rogge and I live at 2321 Windy Springs. My first issue, I know you've all gotten letters, plenty of letters from us, anyway and you should have gotten the copies tonight of the petition that was signed. My first issues are the C-1 zoning for this development. First before I start, I want to thank Chris for addressing all of the issues that he has addressed. I was really glad. I gave him a copy of my e-mail the other day and talked to him. Anyway, these are things that have come up. Other things. So, I got a copy of the C-1 zoning and I have some questions about it regarding the conditionally permitted uses. I gave you guys all a copy of it attached to my letter just for your information. I've also talked to Mitch about it, but I wasn't happy with his answer so I was going to bring it here and I told him I was going to. Anyway. It states under the CUP, non-mechanical car wash and my question was, is this a mechanical car wash? The other thing states restaurant or café restricted to sit down facility only, drive-in or drive through establishments relating to permitted uses in the zone, and this is a CUP use. And excluding a drive-in or drive through restaurant. And in the staff report it says these are all compatible with the zoning, but the Zoning Chapter 17.250 does not state this. I asked Mitch, 'Why don't we change this?' And he said that it just hasn't been done yet, but you've talked about it a year and a half ago. I was just surprised because I had the C-2 zoning when I read all of this stuff. And last week I went to tell Erik after I'd read the EIS report that it's C-1. And anyway, so I'd never brought this up before. It's just something. After reading the traffic report and the environmental Initial Study I don't agree with the following resolutions, and excuse me, and the staff report for this project. I don't agree with the following resolutions in the staff report. As stated in No. 2, this development will adversely affect the abutting property owners and surrounding neighbors even with all the mitigation measures. And it says that it's not going to. Anyway, I know the rest of the property owners will bring that up. Also as stated in No. 8 and 9, the projected parking should not warrant a reduction in parking spaces. Even with Mr. Mosser's extensive parking analysis for the revised restaurant and café proposal, all uses will overlay at dinner time except the office space, which will just be closed. But I'm sure all the employees will not be leaving at exactly 6:00 P.M. Also the gas station and convenience store, which I just heard tonight, was changed to twenty seats instead of thirty two seats. I didn't know that. My question was to either make it smaller or to eliminate it. The increases required parking and I don't see how the averages can work out the way they're working out on the report. I know Chris has worked them out excellent, but the restaurant was a thing that I had a problem about and the overlay of the business hours. Anyway, I just think it needs to be looked at again. I have the following questions regarding the traffic study. I've talked to Paul Eldredge about these. Some he's already addressed. And I'm just going to read them. The problem I had was the grade separation for the railroad track in Page 13 number one paragraph states 'That the grade separation will be constructed with Lone Tree Way being elevated over the roadway.' My question was, is this correct? Page 11, Table IV, why wasn't the intersection with Paul Martin's subdivision TSM 8281 included in this? Everything else was included. Intersections that don't even exist now were included, but this intersection wasn't and my concern is are the hundred and thirty homes that are going to be proposed here going to have an effect on the traffic for this intersection and commercial development? All it stated was in the report was that they were going to have a pedestrian walkway across the way. And my concern is that when the subdivision gets built maybe that is going to be where the overflow parking is going to go for the restaurant. Anyway, Lone Tree. In reviewing the proposed Lone Tree map, and I know Paul just went over all this. I still have a concern that when Lone Tree comes to in front of this project it's only going to be one lane, and I know it's going to be just temporary until the underpass gets built, but of course we all know that it's in litigation or they're being sued, so that's going to be for awhile. Anyway, so is it only going to be one lane going in front of the driveway for the Albers gas station and will this be a traffic hazard with the fuel trucks turning onto the driveway off of Lone Tree, especially when the grade gets built, because they're going to be going up the grade and when the underpass gets done, I think it's going to be a problem. I know that they're going to look at it, but I think it needs to be addressed. Also the possibility of someone rear-ending the fuel trucks or coming around to the corner. I know after I read the report that Paul Martin addressed this issue in his letter and I'm sure he's going to talk about it. My initial question regarding the two pipelines, I really expected those to be addressed in the EIS report and I was really surprised that they weren't addressed in there specifically. It had a general statement regarding pipelines and grading and, you know, I wanted to know if PG&E had a concern about this. I know that they sent in their letter but I didn't have a copy of it so I didn't know what they said, so I'm asking that. And in regards to the petition, I know I don't need to read it, Chris has addressed most of the issues. My first issue was the cul-de-sac and you have addressed that with No. 16. I know that we don't agree. And also the hours of operation for the gas station, convenience store and the drive through. And I think that the property owners that are around this should be able to have some kind of input in the hours of operation. The lighting. The only lighting concern I had was the pumps. I'm hoping that Union 76 does not have lighted pumps because there's a big difference between the Chevron station on Balfour and the ARCO gas station and the ARCO gas station has a lot dimmer light because the pumps are not lighted, and Chevron has lighted pumps. And so I wanted to know if Union 76 had lighted pumps. And we're requesting that they don't have lighted pumps. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Thank you, Karen. Wayne Swisher.
WAYNE SWISHER: My name is Wayne Swisher, I live on Fairview Avenue, 2231 Fairview Avenue, approximately two to three hundred yards down the road from the project. We just got over a huge help from the Bypass to get rid of traffic, it's been a great help on Fairview. I think this project is congesting us again. I also see the groundwater problem. They say they'll contain and take care of everything, I don't see that quite that way, but we all have wells up and down Fairview so we totally support, live on our wells, we have no public water. The intersection on Fairview and Lone Tree seems to be still undeveloped. I can't believe this project's going forward without more planning and stuff in this intersection with the way it is. I just feel that having this station that close, within three months we just finished the other project on the corner of Empire and Lone Tree, and now three months later we have another large gas station/car wash type thing going in. I've lived there thirty five years, it seems like awful quick that all this is happening. Not opposed to progress, absolutely, think it's a part of our area and we've got to except that. But, when we moved in they annexed us into the City out on Fairview, they told us water, sewer, storm drain. Storm drain things would be happening. And so far, you know, we're getting gas stations and car washes. And I just feel that the project should be really looked at in the aspect that, you know is the area ready for it, does it need another gas station? We just finished one on Balfour, you finished one on Highway 4 and this other one on Empire, and now another one on Lone Tree. It just seems like an awful lot in a short period of time for our area. Anyway, I would like to thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Thank you. The floor is still open for public comment. If there's anyone else wishing to come forth and if you would for the record, your name and address for the record.
CLARENCE JUNEAU: I'm Clarence Juneau at 2431 Fairview. I'm the middle lot of those three lots that are right next to this development. I'm sorry I didn't get here in time to fill out one of these cards. It's kind of interesting. It seems like every time we turned around there was a new development going on with this project and now I've come in here tonight and understand, I'm not sure I got it right, there's five or six more changes and I hope somewhere that he said on the dais, he said they were somewhere, those changes. Anyway, I would like to know what they are but I hope they'll come out at some point tonight because we have no way to respond to those changes because we don't know what they are, and this is the way it's been all along. It started out that it would follow the C-1, that it would be a hand wash car wash, a detail shop. So that's fine, so that got us all quieted down. We go away and we look the other way for awhile and all of a sudden something comes out it's turned into a mechanical car wash. Now it's specifically denied that you, in the C-1 regulations, you can't even have a mechanical car wash. Now unless this has been changed by the City Council, then I say we would have to go by the rules. As far as the egress onto the new Fairview Court, we were told all along by the City that it wouldn't be in the best interest to have a way to take a shortcut through there. In fact, in the developer's own report that she paid for, by her own person that she hired to do a traffic study, he recommended that it be closed there. The City told us it would be closed there. Now, all of a sudden there's this big push to have it open so that the people, there's already four entrances to this shopping center and they want one more. They've got to have one more on our side. My take on it is that that is nothing more than overflow parking. The people that work in there are going to be told: 'Don't park in front of the store, go out on Fairview and park, that's what that cul-de-sac is for.' And it'll make a nice little neat place for them to add some parking to their development. I'm not really interested in having people park all up and down in front of my house, throwing their trash out when they've got four perfectly good entrances to this development on the new Fairview Avenue. We appreciate the fact that the developer has listened to some of our requirements and some of our desires. We appreciate the eight foot wall, this was one of the things we really wanted to have. As far as the water and sewer stub outs, she agreed to give the one to that one property because the City had no other good way to get it to that property. And they promised that they will somehow gerrymander it to the rest of us from some other direction. And I presume that they will. We have a tremendous problem with flooding at that end of Fairview and if that cul-de-sac is circled in there and filled in without proper drainage being a part of it, then we'll all be under water there. I don't suppose any of you lived here when it used to fill up there and the water would go over Fairview, but it did and we now have a drain there, but if they put that cul-de-sac in, it could close that drain off. So this is something that we have to keep in mind. Those are some of my concerns. And once again, I would hope that at some point tonight those new changes would come out because I would be interested in knowing what they were and knowing whether we need to react to them. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Thank you, Clarence. Elizabeth Iannaccone? I'll get it right one of these days. If you would for the record, your name and address please.
ELIZABETH IANNACCONE: Hi, my name is Elizabeth Iannaccone, and I live at 1765 Duchess Terrace here in Brentwood. I just wanted to thank the Planning Commission for taking the time to hear and for all your consideration for our project. I believe that this is really a beneficial project for all of the citizens of Brentwood. Not only would the neighbors be benefiting in lots of ways, but I think that all of us people in Brentwood would benefit. I know that we have to go a long ways to get our cars detailed, you know, at a nice service station with full detail service. And I think that this will be a great opportunity for the City to have jobs, more jobs, and also good tax revenues that we could all benefit from. I also want to emphasize that the exit would be an exit only onto Fairview. You know, I think that this would be a good way to kind of decrease the congestion on Lone Tree, you know, we've emphasized it as an exit only and we certainly, you know, there would be no, no way to enter on there. It wouldn't be any place for people to park on Fairview or so on, it's just really a way to decrease the congestion onto Lone Tree and allow people just to exit at that point. I again want to ask you for your consideration for this project. We've been working on this for almost three years now, you know, we've been putting in a lot of work, and we want to thank the City for all of their good work from the staff. So again, I just want to ask, you know, for you to please consider the approval of this project. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Thank you;. Monte Albers.
MONTE ALBERS, JR.: Hi, Monte Albers, Jr., 9601 Deer Valley Road. I would like to thank the Commission for giving me the opportunity to speak tonight. This is my first time ever speaking to a body like this, so I hope you will bear with me. I was listening to all the commentary back here, especially from people who have lived in this town for awhile, and I started thinking back that I also grew up in Brentwood. And I have to share some of their sentiment in that it's been astonishing to see the amount of changes that this area has gone through, but I have to say that it's been with a little bit of pride that I've also seen it done. Especially in Brentwood, because unlike some of the other towns, especially along the Highway 4 corridor, I've seen in the development, especially the changes from coming back from schools and on visits, how different it is. Rather than simply being resigned in this development as being in the form of a cul-de-sac through Concord and beyond. I've seen a lot of innovation in Brentwood, especially with its usage of Vasco Road and especially with the Bypass being built on this side of the City lines. This project, I think, is in keeping with a vision that I see happening through Brentwood in going beyond being simply a set of developments, but a real City. One that is more of a point of destination rather than simply one of departure. And I think that in doing so, a lot of work has to be done and I can only be impressed by the work I've seen through this Commission and certainly from staff. In approving this project, I think this would only go further in establishing more responsible development within Brentwood. As was stated earlier by previous speakers, it is environmentally sound. It is demographically in demand. And it is an aesthetic contribution to the community. Specifically, one thing that this will provide to Brentwood that a simple development in other cities do not is a sizable amount of tax revenue for the City. In particular, studies have shown that annually the City will receive in net sales taxes approximately a hundred and twenty thousand dollars in tax revenue. Its location on the corner of a major thorough way in Brentwood and a major artery for the entire area with the new designed Lone Tree Way, would mean that not only would this tax revenue be coming to the City but more importantly it would be coming from not just Brentwood residents, but from people in transit from Oakley, Discovery Bay, Byron and even Antioch. That is a source of revenue that would not have been available in other locations that this location does, in fact, provide. Taking that consideration with all of the material that you have before you, I am confident that a contribution of this project will provide and only aid to the vision that this Commission has to the development of this City and I would encourage you to approve it in keeping with that vision. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Thank you. The floor remains open. Anyone else wishing to come forward? 
PAUL MARTIN: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Paul Martin, address 805 Fletcher Lane in Hayward. I'm the individual that owns the subdivision directly to the west and I did provide a letter in the packet which I know that you had received. I'm not going to waste your time going over that, I'm sure you've read it. I am not, I don't have a copy of Mr. Loewke's responses to my issues I raised in the letter. And to be honest with you and not to again waste your time further, I would defer on many of those issues, on lighting issues, the noise issue, the ingress and egress on Fairview, I would defer to the people that live there. You've heard from Mr. Wheat and Mr. Juneau, Karen Rogge. The only issue that I would want to emphasize tonight, well two issues really. Number one, I'm not opposed to this project. You know, as you all know I have two projects out there, the subdivision as well as the Lone Tree Center, and to be quite frank with you we need to get a critical mass out there of development to make it all work well together. And this is part of it. However, as the project is proposed, I really see one issue that just keeps jumping out, and I don't know if it's been addressed properly. That is the safety issue with traffic at the Lone Tree, the entrance to the project off of Lone Tree at the ultimate buildout with the grade separation. And I raised it in my letter. I urge you to take a very close look at that because at ultimate buildout that could end up being a very big problem for the folks that live in town, people coming through. You know, with a little luck and some work here, I'll be providing some homes for about a hundred and thirty families, they're going to deal with that. And so I'd urge you to take a look at that. As again on the other issues, I urge you to listen to the people that are there now. I empathize with Mrs. Albers, I know what it's like to be in a precarious position on a project on Lone Tree Way, but again, I don't oppose the project, I just think that it needs all the safety issues and also the neighbor comments need to be listened to and incorporated into this plan. That's it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Very good. Thank you. Lillian Pierce Navarette. Excuse me.
LIL NAVARETTE: My name is Lil Navarette, I live at 2610 Empire Avenue in Brentwood and I also operate a business at that same address. I have no problem with development in the area. It is zoned commercial and with commercial you get traffic and isn't that the point, you want people to come there and do business with you. However, there is a gas station about, that's less than a half a mile from there which I can see from my front yard and I can tell you that is not a busy business, there is nobody there. You also have an empty, vacant gas station and car wash on a major State highway less than two miles away. There's not enough people to support this. I've had a business next to a detail shop and believe me, if you lived in the neighborhood you don't want a detail shop in your backyard. I think that's all I had to say.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Very good.
LIL NAVARETTE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Thank you. Go ahead, come forth.
JULIAN ESCAMILLO: Julian Escamillo and I reside 2157 Fairview Avenue. In looking at this project since the initial development and consideration by the Planning Commission of the northwest annexation, there's been a lot of good work done. There's been a lot of development with both with developers and the Planning Commission in trying to appease both the neighborhood and trying to satisfy the future growth of Brentwood. In this case, I think we really have to take a look at the question which comes to mind immediately, is do we need another gas station about an eighth of a mile down from an existing one? As you mentioned earlier this evening, the expansion of both the Lone Tree corridor lane there, with regard to the railroad and the undercrossing, it's going to be sometime in the future before that really gets finalized. In part of the growth of this community, it really would be to all of our best interests to really try to plan and consider what is being requested and to take these initial steps as necessary to satisfy this growth. The issue with congestion right along that, the Fairview cul-de-sac and the egress that is planned now, I would venture to say that I'm not really sure that any of us really believe that if that is supposed to be an egress only, that there will not be people taking that egress when they shouldn't be and taking the shortcut down Fairview Avenue once the congestion and buildup starts collecting there at that point. The service station and the office buildings or the other development that's going to be in the area certainly are going to, they're going to collect a lot of business, traffic, congestion. And people are going to exercise an expedient way to get out of there when they see that traffic backed up there, right there at Fairview and that entrance. So I urge the Commission to really consider this. Again, my deepest concern is the fact that we already have a gas station an eighth of a mile down the road. The Subway sandwich shops and other shops I think are very appropriate for the area, but I'm not sure I'd want to be eating a sandwich there with all of the fumes and the gas and everything else that's going to be occurring there. So please give that consideration. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forth tonight?
JOE BOSMAN: Good evening, my name is Joe Bosman. I live a few homes away at 2281 Fairview, within about a quarter mile. I'm all for development. This is, I think, in my terms the gateway to Brentwood from Antioch, and I think there's a tremendous amount of importance to this development that comes off well. It seems to be there's a lot of uses going on here, the car wash, a restaurant, possible offices. There's quite a bit going on and put in here. I know this lot is capable of making money down the line if it's built out right. I think almost to some extent you can lose one of these uses and perhaps put a nice restaurant in there and exploit this one corner since it is the gateway to Brentwood. I'm a little bit concerned about the well water. That's all we have out there. If we had some kind of contamination for one reason or another, it's going to be a major problem. I'm sure you guys can imagine what would, I don't know what we'd do for water. I think the exit onto Fairview Court doesn't work very well. Personally, I'd probably use those as an entrance. I can see this being very busy. I just don't see any real benefit for that exit. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I'm concerned about the blow dryer from the car wash. They're quite loud and I think that's quite important. It sounds like it's being addressed, that we minimize that sound. I have a couple of young kids and I have a blind corner which hasn't been addressed by the City. I've talked to Sam once about that, actually twice about it. And it's not addressed. I think this development as dense as it is, is going to increase the traffic there with people coming out of the gas station. And it's a blind corner and my neighbor, they're going to have to take their whole yard out. And it's a problem. They say traffic will go twenty five miles an hour, but I doubt that and this will only add traffic to that blind corner. Let's see. That's pretty much it. I'm all for developing the property and building construction, but this is the gateway to Brentwood and I hope you guys listen to what people have to say tonight and carefully consider it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Thank you. Bill Guild.
BILL GUILD: Hi, good evening, my name is Bill Guild and I'm with Carwash Technology. I represent the company that will be doing the actual equipment for the car wash. There's been some concerns about the dryer. We have switched out the dryer and actually moved it back farther in the tunnel. It will actually, with your dBA ratings that we have addressed, will actually be lower than what I'm talking now, basically for the way it is set up. It is a touchless wash. There are no big moving brushes or anything like that in the conveyer itself. So it is state of the art equipment. As far as reclaiming the water, we are doing a twenty five thousand dollar reclaim system, which has been approved by the State of California Water Resources Board on other car washes we have done. So, this is the top of the line equipment that Mrs. Albers is putting in for this project. That's all I would like to say, if you have any questions towards it.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Thank you. The floor is still open for any other public comment and those wishing to come forth. Seeing no one, the pleasure of the Commission.
COMMISSIONE BECNEL: Move to close.
COMMISSIONER BROCKMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: It's been moved and seconded by Mr. … [TAPE CHANGE, END OF TAPE 3] … all those in favor say aye.
COMMISSIONER BECNEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SHIPLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BROCKMAN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER PADGETT: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Aye. Commission discussion. Commissioner Shipley are you prepared to move forth?
COMMISSIONER SHIPLEY: Yes. I would just like to say that it has been about two and a half years that I've worked with this project and I have seen it evolve over time. I think one clarification I do need, I know what touchless is as far as power, but some of the pictures in the Mitigated Negative Declaration show hand car wash. Is this a hand car wash or not? BILL GUILD: Ours is going to be a touchless car wash. The pictures that are in there is a car wash down in Dublin which might have people in the bay, I can't see it.
COMMISSIONER SHIPLEY: It has people in the bay.
BILL GUILD: It has people in the bay? That is a hand car wash.
COMMISSIONER SHIPLEY: And this is not.
BILL GUILD: Ours is a touchless car wash that has …
COMMISSIONER SHIPLEY: Just like the one over on Hillcrest?
BILL GUILD: I'm not familiar with that one, sir.
COMMISSIONER SHIPLEY: That's a touchless thing, just sprays.
BILL GUILD: Yeah, this one just sprays.
COMMISSIONER SHIPLEY: Back and forth.
BILL GUILD: Yup.
COMMISSIONER SHIPLEY: Thank you. With regards to the site plan, I would like to say first of all, the exit onto Fairview Court, it's my understanding from the drawing that I see here on the floor that on the opposite side of Fairview that is going to be a detention pond, looks like, and there is a, looks like there is a drain that empties into that. So on that side on the water that you're concerned about and the flooding should be taken care of because it looks to me like that's going to be improved as a detention pond. Is that correct? The exit onto Fairview Court I agree is not sufficient in that it will be an entrance if someone wants to go in. If it's an exit you can enter because there's nothing there to stop it unless you put, you know, like you go to Budget or someplace where you put the things that shred people's tires if they go in the wrong way.
UNIDENTIFIED: Tiger teeth.
COMMISSIONER SHIPLEY: Tiger teeth, I guess, that's right. So I think that, you know, that's not really an important exit out onto that court and with four entrances and exits, I think that that one could be closed off without much of a problem. I think the entrance, the primary entrance to this should be opposite the entrance to Mr. Martin's development, and that entrance should be a full left turn in, left turn out, whatever the case might be. That gives traffic enough room to clear Lone Tree onto Fairview Avenue then come down. The right turns in before you get to the restaurant, I guess that's a proposed restaurant at the bottom, to my way of thinking if I were redesigning this, I would kind of make that entrance my focal in my entry and make everything kind of flow toward that, all of the buildings and that go around that. I think it would show much better. It would show better use, and you would have everybody that would have a point to focus on to go in and out of the place. If you need the right turns in and right turns out for the service station I can understand that, and those work, they work as well. I don't see the right turn in off of Fairview being a problem or right turn out onto, excuse me, right turn in off of Lone Tree, that northerly. I don't see that as a major problem. And I don't think that you're going to end up with fuel trucks stuck as they make the turn in coming through there to fill the tanks depending upon where the tanks are located. Or at least where the filler caps are located. I think with regards to parking, I spent quite a bit of time trying to figure out where twenty-nine parking places were for the car wash, that parcel. And after a great amount of time I guess I kind of figured that out. I think you've got a requirement to have cross easements and parking sharing and I think that the site will work based upon the timeframes. I think the drive through kind of troubled me because I think that that's kind of, if you're going to have a Togo's, or you're going to have a Baskin Robbins, or TCBY Yogurt, or whatever it's going to be, the drive through to that is going to take a lot of time, especially the amount of time it takes to do some of the sandwiches and that. And I think you're going to end up with a large queue. Most of the things that you need to have for a drive through are something where there is access from the street and people are in and out very quickly. And generally food is prepared pretty much in advance so you don't have a long wait. And even if you go to Starbuck's and go through their drive through the people get more than four or five cars, they get pretty antsy about sitting there for five minutes while they're making their coffee. And in some cases sandwiches, especially if you get three or four sandwiches, it takes longer than that to make, so that may present a problem from a queuing standpoint around that particular site. With regards to the architecture that was presented to us, one of the things I keep saying over and over and over again is 'Let's use less lighting and let's open up things and make things so that light can get in.' Here is a great opportunity to use some block on this one wall where you have your three, I guess your three, I can't think of the name …
UNIDENTIFIED: Trellis?
COMMISSIONER SHIPLEY: … trellises on the back. You have a solid wall there with no decoration and nothing except three trellises. I would suggest that you put some block wall in there, open it up so that the light goes in naturally that, you know, it's not dark inside. However, having said that and now being told that it's not a hand car wash where people are going to be working in there, it may not be as important because you're going to have a machine doing that since it's a touchless car wash. So you may not, you know, you may not need that. But, you know, if you have to work in that area, you have to repair the equipment or whatever, you have no light in there to do that. So you can do things naturally that would enhance the project as opposed to having to have lights and those kinds of things. The flow through the car wash seems to be pretty appropriate. I don't see that it's going to create large queuing lines. It was difficult again to tell how many cars could be in there waiting to be vacuumed, it looks like there's four, three or four rows, so I'm assuming that you can have twelve or fifteen cars at a time. I think from a standpoint of moving those cars through there, if people are going to get out of the car, the car's going to go through on a conveyer as it's washed, or are they going to stay in the car? That was not covered clearly enough for me to see what the operation was, but I assume they're getting out of the car. They'll go through the gift shop, etcetera, and have an opportunity to buy things in there and then they'll come out with the car and come out the other end and someone will move it to an area where it will be wiped off if it's not completely dry. I think the architecture kind of was very interesting. Some of the questions I had initially, it took me a while to figure out the corners of the building of the views that were in the pamphlet that were handed out. And the picture that you passed around, I'm not sure, was that supposed to be exactly what was depicted here? Okay. Because it seemed like it was higher. It was almost like a three story building in the front where the turf was around the front, whereas in the picture that I see here it doesn't seem to be quite that high. It seems to be two story only. So, this corner is a tough corner. It's been a corner that we've kind of vacillated back and forth about how we were going to do the extension. The lawsuit is going to be there, so we'll have to see what happens with that. And I think the underpass is going to change the complexity, but I think overall it's getting much, much better. That's all that I have at this time.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Thank you. Bob, do you want to go next?
COMMISSIONER BROCKMAN: Yeah, actually I like the architecture on this. I think it looks pretty nice. I can see on the trellises on the back side of the car wash that they could be embellished with plants and something like that because I believe there is a drive through for the gas station on the opposite side. Something to dress it up would be nice, although it's going to be hidden from the street anyway. The egress issue, I really just don't understand why it's such an issue. Those cars, or those houses there have always had, I guess the traffic count was ten thousand cars per day. I realize that it's been dropped down. I'm been looking for this cul-de-sac to drop down and for this to be a cul-de-sac for a long time. I mean, I don't know who it was mentioned, I'm sorry, but the egress seems to me not to be an issue. I think having that as an extra out would be nice because it gives somebody else the ability to go down to an area where they can turn left a little more safe, I think, onto Fairview Avenue. From reading the report from Loewke, it appears that it's not going to be very significant on the traffic flow there. I'm hearing what you guys are saying about the traffic but, you know, I don't see people actually using that for ingress other than the property owners that live there because they don't want to go all the way around. I really can't see the need for someone to turn right on that street when all they've got to do is go another hundred feet and they can turn right into the parking lot itself. And I think it's a safety issue there to allow a little bit of extra activity. I think one of the things that you're going to come up with on an end cul-de-sac like that without activity there, at least of some sort, is an area that's going to become blighted, where you will get trash, and I think it will be a mess. If there is a concern with parking, I don't know that I would have an issue with posting it as No Parking. That's amicable to me. So that's my opinion on that. The storm drainage system, there's an extensive storm drainage system, Page 3 of this book here is available for whoever wants to see that. It is adequately addressed there. The gas station. The hours of operation haven't been discussed yet, but that was one of the concerns and it was addressed in the review, or in our letter on Page 4 of 7, let me look that back up. Because I believe, if I remember right, the gas station was looking to be open till, it was either midnight or two o'clock. Five A.M. to 2:00 A.M. on Friday and Saturday. You know, for a gas station, I don't seem to have a problem with that. It's a service station and we've got quite a distance away from any of these houses that are on the southerly section, or the southeast section of this property. Fairview running through, there's nothing across the street. You're going to have commercial development across Lone Tree so I don't know who that will be affecting as far as sound or anything and I do think that you're going to have people coming there who would want to have a use there. I honestly think that the car wash dryer area is pretty well shielded from the residences that are existing. I think there will be some noise that will be accentuated towards Fairview that will probably be taken care of with landscaping by the time it's grown, or by the time development occurs across that way. And landscaping and probably sound walls will be implemented on that subdivision anyway. I do have one question and it's something I noticed here on Page 4, I believe it was. This is actually probably for Erik, only because I saw this, the southerly most exit? I don't remember what page it was on. The southerly most exit showed a left turn arrow. I thought that was a right turn in, right turn out. And is there a median at that point? I'm trying to find the page, oh here it is on page, well it's called Tri-City, let me see what page do they call it, site development plan SP-1?
UNIDENTIFIED: SP-1.
COMMISSIONER BROCKMAN: SP-1? I just happened to see it.
ASSOCIATE PLANNER NOLTHENIUS: You're looking through the environmental document?
COMMISSIONER BROCKMAN: In this book, it's the fourth, fifth page.
ASSOCIATE PLANNER NOLTHENIUS: Oh, that one there. Okay.
COMMISSIONER BROCKMAN: The only reason I bring it up is I just happened to see it. I haven't seen it anywhere else and I'm just curious about that because I thought it was right in, right out.
ASSOCIATE PLANNER NOLTHENIUS: Okay, again we're talking about the …
COMMISSIONER BROCKMAN: Southerly most exit.
ASSOCIATE PLANNER NOLTHENIUS: … entrance off of Fairview Avenue, right? I believe, and Paul can correct me on this, but I believe that's a right in, right out.
COMMISSIONER BROCKMAN: Okay, well it looks to me like it's got a left turn arrow there. So, either way, that needs to be corrected if that is, well that is what's there, so that needs to be corrected if that's the case.
ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER ELDREDGE: Actually, if I could point your attention to Condition 38, that addresses that driveway. That driveway is actually set up to be right in only and right and left out when you make an entry movement there. There is no median. 
COMMISSIONER BROCKMAN: So that is left turn as well.
ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER ELDREDGE: There's a left turn out on that.
COMMISSIONER BROCKMAN: So the main entrance is going to be signalized, is that correct? Not signalized?
ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER ELDREDGE: No, it's not going to be signalized. No.
COMMISSIONER BROCKMAN: There's not enough active traffic.
ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER ELDREDGE: At least not at the present time it won't be signalized.
COMMISSOINER BROCKMAN: Okay. But by the time the subdivision comes in, is it possible that it might be at that time?
ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER ELDREDGE: No, we would probably take a look at the traffic at that time to see if a traffic signal is warranted. You'll certainly have stop signs coming from the subdivision and this development, but you won't have stop signs north and south on Fairview. It depends on the traffic flow whether or not they're warranted.
COMMISSIONER BROCKMAN: Okay that's good enough. Thank you.
ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER ELDREDGE: Very good.
COMMISSIONER BROCKMAN: And then on the Parcels B-1, B-2, I did like what I saw. The courtyard aspect of it. I mean, that's a real nice walking courtyard, which is one of the kinds of things that we've been asking for with the developments that come through. And I realize it's proposed, but that's what I see there. The parking, I don't know that it's really an issue. You do have overflow parking in other areas. And, you know, I don't want to beat it up anymore. I just think it's fine. I really do. As far as, there was one other thing that was brought up, the truck and a concern that several people mentioned, and I've heard about the possibility of the fuel truck coming in there being an issue. And again, I would go back to, again as I've said before, we hire professionals to do these things. I believe this is for the City of Brentwood. The Loewke Report that specifically addresses the entrances of trucks with a five-percent slope grading, or grade, into the parking lot and that it is not a potential issue. And so I'd go with that basis. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Thank you, Bob. Chris.
COMMISSIONER BECNEL: Yeah, first let me get past some of the design issues. I think the design is fine, the buildings look nice. I have a fundamental problem with this design and it has to do with the interrelationship of the car wash, the B-parcel and the Fairview Court exit. B-parcel is fundamentally underparked. That underparking is to be made up essentially nine spaces over here, and then the balance of the spaces over here. The problem that I have is that you have the car wash queuing right here, and I don't know when the last time you guys went to a car wash, but there's a, just seems to me, a fundamental law of nature that however much queuing they put there for the car wash is not enough at many times during the day. The problem that that's going to create is cars are going to queue here, they're going to queue here, and probably for those scalawags who try and sneak in the back way, they're going to queue there. The problem with that is, is that the access to Building B if you do not allow ingress here, comes from Lone Tree through the gas station back that way. Or it comes through this entrance right past the car wash queuing, or it comes from this entrance along the side past the car wash queuing or past this parking area to get back to Building B. And that is going to be a problem. Now, the only way to solve that problem with regard to Parcel B, is to allow ingress and egress off of Fairview Court. Otherwise, you're just looking at a mess here. And I'm not sure you necessarily want all these people who are going back here to this building to be going through the gas station or driving through the car wash area. The next issue, someone raised the issue, 'Well if people don't have parking here on Parcel B, they're going to use Fairview Court as parking.' I think that that's a possibility certainly with regard to people who are in this building here. They will probably want to go out there, so if you're going to allow ingress and egress here, which I think is very necessary, you're probably going to have to post No Parking signs out there. The people who are going here are probably going to have to walk all the way over here to do their parking. And you know parking is one of those things where people are fundamentally lazy and they're not going to want to walk that distance. So that's why I asked the question regarding the parking being underparked for Parcel B and overparked for the other parcels, because I think that that's a real issue given that you're not allowing ingress into Parcel B off of Fairview Court. Now, that creates a Hobson's choice, because if you want to satisfy the ingress and egress for Parcel B, you're going to have to allow access on Fairview Court and I'm sensitive to the concerns of the people who live along Fairview Court. They're already getting a major commercial development on the back of their property when they didn't have one before. But on the other side of that, that's really being traded for the fact that even, I think, with ingress and egress off of Fairview Court, they're likely going to have substantially less traffic than they've had before. And I think that that's, I think that this creates a real problem for this development, that whole section right in there. Now, having said that, Ms. Rogge brought up the issue of the C-1 zoning and I'd like an answer to that in terms of 17.250.003, Item A, which allows conditionally permitted uses Auto Service Station comma, Non-Mechanical Car Wash, and I think that this is clearly a mechanical car wash, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. How do we get around that? Mitch? Erik?
ASSOCIATE PLANNER NOLTHENIUS: I think the way that staff had looked at this as far as the car wash goes and the non-mechanical listing in the ordinance, the difference between non-mechanical and mechanical is basically from a noise standpoint. In the C-1 zone you're looking at Neighborhood Commercial where you would be either abutting or near existing future single family residential. The way this project has been designed, especially with the noise impacts and tonight what we we're talking about the recessing of the blower units, there really is minimal noise impact on the adjacent properties.
COMMISSIONER BECNEL: That doesn't make it a non-mechanical car wash and this is clearly a mechanical car wash, and I …
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR MITCH OSHINSKY: I think that I would add to that that when the application came in, we immediately saw that this posed a question and so we looked back historically at what had been done and we had looked at the - there was a proposed car wash to go into the Chevron station downtown originally and that had been approved by the Planning Commission. And that ran into the same snafu and that was discussed and I think the determination at that time was that there really wasn't a clear reason as to why mechanical versus non-mechanical. And as Erik said, noise is an issue but if it's addressed and mitigated then there would be no outstanding issue with noise with mechanical versus a non-mechanical car wash. But when it did come up we also at a staff level spoke to the City Attorney about it to determine whether this was an issue that would prevent them from filing their application. Since the conditional use permit is required for it, it is within the Planning Commission's purview to consider whether they would allow this to go in. And staff did not see it that it was going to hang it up, especially based on the way that the Commission had looked at mechanical versus non-mechanical in the past. I hope that provides some background information. It's an issue for the Commission to determine but the Commission had already taken action on one in the past.
COMMISSIONER BECNEL: I appreciate that. I guess my concern is, is that whether you accept or don't accept the justification of mechanical versus non-mechanical, it seems to me that the Zoning Ordinance here is clear and that it only speaks to non-mechanical car washes, and this is a mechanical car wash and I'm not sure that we can just willy nilly overturn the zoning without going through a proper process.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OSHINSKY: I think that's what the CUP process is for in this case.
COMMISSIONER BECNEL: Well, except that the conditionally permitted uses only speak to non-mechanical car washes, not mechanical car washes. So it seems to me that the CUP process wouldn't allow a mechanical car wash but if this were a non-mechanical car wash we could do a CUP. Am I misreading the ordinance?
COMMISSIONER BROCKMAN: Can I interject something because I forgot to bring that up and I feel remiss in that. But, I mean, you might as well continue reading the next statement. I mean, I don't know where that goes with that and that was something I would be concerned about as well.
COMMISSIONER BECNEL: Oh, the restaurant or café restricted to sit down facility only.
COMMISSIONER BROCKMAN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BECNEL: Also not allowing a drive through which is what's in the gas station. And my only, I mean my concern here is, is that I don't know that the Planning Commission, based on my reading of this, would have the authority to grant this because it seems to me directly contravenes the conditionally permitted uses.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OSHINSKY: Well again, because the question did come up, it was discussed with the City Attorney, I believe there is a note on the application in the file from back then that noted the discussion we had with the City Attorney at the time, which was that we're not, in addition to everything I said, we're not really aware of any other place or reference of any other code we've ever seen that differentiates between a mechanical and a non-mechanical car wash. This section in the code is old, as is most of the Zoning Code. And it seems like if the noise issue can be dealt with that would be the one differentiation. If you try and analyze the difference between a mechanical and a non-mechanical car wash, it's noise. And really the only noise is from, in a car wash, is from the blower. That's where the noise comes from and whether a blower is even mechanical or not, I suppose you could say it is. It sort of gets down to splitting hairs and we thought that this was an issue that the Planning Commission could consider under the conditional use permit provisions, which generally allow the Commission to review things not listed as specific uses to determine whether they're okay with the CUP or not.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Dennis, I think this goes back to some of our earlier - excuse me, if I can interject a little bit - our earlier previews of this submittal. In fact, this was addressed and I thought that you had covered this adequately. Are we barking down the wrong path here, or not?
CITY ATTORNEY BEOUGHER: Well, Chris is right in his interpretation as to how the Zoning Code should be read. It says non-mechanical and means non-mechanical. Now what your interpretation what the plans have before you as to meeting the conditional use permit is what, I think Mitch is suggesting is, has it met the intent of the ordinance. In a strict reading of it you can say that it does not, it is not a, it is a mechanical car wash, but you can also consider it as meeting the qualifications of a non-mechanical. And that's what Mitch is suggesting. There's a strict interpretation and then there's a liberal interpretation. We have judges who have to do the same thing every day and you guys are discretionary review.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Well, our …
CITY ATTORNEY BEOUGHER: And you sit as the judges in this particular situation, particularly when it's pointed out to you as to what that situation is in trying to meet. And if it doesn't meet those conditions, the conditional use permit allows you to withdraw that use if it doesn't meet a standard that you set. So, I think in this case that's what Mitch is referring to is the standard when we reviewed it, that's what the Chevron station in downtown was looking at. Does it meet a certain noise standard? Is it going to have some impacts off site? Those are the things that you have to consider and I think that's what you hire experts to tell you and to give you a good opinion as to the possible impacts on noise. So you're both right.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: So that precedence that we set in our earlier review efforts as aesthetic, you're saying that's how we determine this would be all right to move forward with as far as in our own minds here within the City?
CITY ATTORNEY BEOUGHER: I mean, I think Chris is absolutely right. It should have been redrafted, but as Mitch points out some of these ordinances are so old that they don't really, they make a distinction about things that we just should have as a standard issue.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OSHINSKY: This is a similar issue as what we dealt with last meeting with Safeway on the parking for restaurants. We were dealing with some antiquated standards and the Commission took the liberty to look at those in a different way with information before them. And that's your purview if you want to do that or not. It's the same here.
CITY ATTORNEY BEOUGHER: And you sit as judges and say 'It is mechanical and therefore it does not meet the standard.' I mean, that's your choice.
COMMISSIONER BECNEL: I appreciate your rather interesting interpretation of a mechanical car wash, give me a mechanical car wash unless we decide that it's not a mechanical car wash. 
CITY ATTORNEY BEOUGHER: You've never read Judges opinions that say the same thing.
COMMISSIONER BECNEL: I've had my share of them. I'm just sincerely concerned about that and I appreciate that the Zoning Ordinance is very old and I understand the issue. I mean, I can see why non-mechanical was put in there because it was a noise issue and that was created long ago when blowers were blowers and they blew loud. But the problem is, I don't think that we as a Commission, you know, can just fly in the face of what I think is a fairly clearly worded Zoning Ordinance and say that mechanical is not mechanical. That's my comments.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Ken, did you have something to interject?
POLICE LT. KING: From now a layman's standpoint but someone who spent fifteen years in this industry, there is a difference beyond that of noise with a mechanical car wash versus a non-mechanical car wash and some of that goes to resource use. The amount of water utilized in a mechanical type car wash, especially like a touchless and the need for filtering and refiltering of water and the impact it's going to have potentially on sewers. Now I don't profess to be an expert in this field any more, but those are other factors that need to be considered in the decision making of a definition of a mechanical versus a non-mechanical car wash.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Thank you. Steve, would you like to interject your comments and discussion?
COMMISSIONER PADGETT: Thank you. While we're on that touchless equals mechanical, so. Before we get to that part, I have some questions concerning a Lone Tree Specific Plan, if, I know it had been mentioned in the past, I'm not sure exactly when, General Plan Update, some time since then. Is there any work put forward on a Lone Tree Specific Plan? I know there was that mentioned, there was also mentioned a Brentwood Boulevard Specific Plan. Is there anything concerning that?
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OSHINSKY: At this point the work has not started on either one of those projects.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: We did talk about our last meeting though Mitch, to work towards that on the Lone Tree Specific Plan from Brentwood Boulevard back to O'Hara. So nothing's been actually started, but in fact we have begun some of those efforts.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OSHINSKY: Well, we have looked at, we have proposals, and we've been talking with consultants about beginning with that now and I think we're, actually we had interviews today for some Downtown Specific plan consultants on it, which would probably be moving forward before the Lone Tree or the Brentwood Boulevard ones. But those should be coming in the next few months I would think at least.
COMMISSIONER PADGETT: Thanks. If we look at Brentwood Boulevard, my guess is there never was a Brentwood Boulevard Specific Plan, and you've got a hodgepodge of fast food places and gas stations and it's been mentioned tonight, one of those gas stations for whatever reason, is closed. Actually, it's one of the nicer gas stations on that street. Maybe it's because gas is too high there to pay for it, I don't know. If you cite, most of us have been down Vasco Road to 580. My guess is Livermore has no master plan because there used to be one gas station there and now there's five, and it doesn't look good. I think we need to evaluate this area, all of Lone Tree. As was mentioned, we have one down the road, very close. I'm not sure this is a good spot for a gas station. I'm not sure it isn't. That's why we need to look into it. So overall, before we get into specifics I think we need to look into that issue. Getting past that and getting into specifics, if no one agrees with me on that assessment. We'll start with access onto Fairview Court. Five acres and five access points? I don't see the need for that. I don't even see a need for an EVA at that point. I'm not sure what PD's standpoint is, but from a fire standpoint, something I can talk about, where is the fire engine coming from? We just talked about where a location's going to be, they're going to come, they're going to come one of two ways. Either they're going to go out of that intersection assuming that it's at one of those corners. They're going to go up Shady Willow down Lone Tree and come in the top. And if they go over Grant Street, they're going to come in, they're going to right by that Fairview Court and go in that first entrance. If I'm driving a fire engine or fire truck, that's what I would do. If PD has a different idea and PD wants an EVA there, I would have to defer to PD and let them do that if they feel that's necessary, but that's all I would put in there. Like I said five acres, three access points, I would even consider looking at all three of those access points on Fairview. Naturally, you're going to want one on Lone Tree and the location of that one, you can't move it any farther east, but the picture showed, you know, the truck coming in off of the first, the northernmost driveway right by the gas pumps, which means they came up Fairview. Or they came in through the Martin project, which isn't a good idea, which isn't something we want to encourage. Those gas trucks are about seventy feet long and that entrance, there wasn't a specific, I didn't see how far it was but its not much farther than that. And hopefully they're going to slow down for that to turn in there because they're going to pretty much have to make a hairpin turn to get back over to those tanks. I didn't see that as a good idea, especially since there's no - I mean, they're right at that intersection. Fairview Av. comes right up to where they're going to be crossing right in front there. It didn't look safe. Overall, the circulation, Parcels B1 and B2 it does appear that there would be a problem, not due to parking, not in my opinion, due to circulation with a one way street right there in the middle. It didn't look like that whole area is going to flow nice with the way it's laid out. The car wash has been mentioned, touchless equals mechanical. However you interpret that I think you have to call it mechanical, it's pretty simple there. How it got, what the decibel ratings are, and how to mitigate those, there were a couple options mentioned. If it is even a bigger issue, doors are a possibility. We have two gas stations now with doors on them. I was actually in one for the first time a couple of weeks ago and they are pretty noisy. Those fans are pretty loud. Signage, I know that's going to come back with a sign program. The main entrance sign of twelve feet is higher than we've approved in the past. I'm sorry, back to Fairview Court, it shows after you make the right turn onto Fairview Court, I forgot what the actual sign said, Not a Through Street. Well, it's too late now because I'm going all the way up to that cul-de-sac to make a U-turn. I would put a sign before the turn For Local Traffic Only. Landscaping, on the southeast portion of the project landscaping, it didn't seem adequate. There's parking, at least it didn't appear adequate in the picture we have here. The parking is right up to the wall and then as far as right there and along Lone Tree and on Fairview, there didn't seem to be many trees. It's kind of hard to tell with the plan here, which ones are trees and which ones are shrubs. But my guess was the small circles were shrubs and the big circles were trees though. It was kind of hard to tell. I would need to see more of that, more landscaping like I said in the southeast, along that wall there for the second resident for attenuation there. There were two differing opinions on what the slope of the entrance onto, from the Fairview, I'm sorry, from the Lone Tree access. It mentioned a 2:1 slope at one point. Somewhere in there it mentioned 2:1. I'm not sure what the angle of 2:1 is, if it's a roof, it's pretty steep.
COMMISSIONER BROCKMAN: Someone mentioned twenty six percent I think it was, and then it was in the Martin letter.
COMMISSIONER PADGETT: Well, yeah in one of the letters it mentioned twenty six percent and in one of the reports it mentioned five percent. One of those is right or somewhere in between, I don't know. But a 2:1 pitch on a roof and two feet of run for a foot of rise, you know, what's the percentage of that, I don't know. I'm sorry. That's all for now. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Thank you. Ray, did you have any more comments you wanted off?
COMMISSIONER SHIPLEY: No.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Then I will go ahead, if I may. I'll go back to when we first started talking about this particular project many years ago. Again, it came up in our General Plan, this was one of the changes that we looked at making it commercial. I've read all of the letters from the residents and Karen I read yours as well. Something stuck in the back of my mind at that point in time that, and I think I read it in one of your letters where that comment came up with Mitch and I talked to Mitch about it as well as this being a gasoline station or a potential gasoline station it would require a conditional use permit. I kind of looked forward to that thought in my mind years ago when we were looking at that corner up there as a gasoline station as it might be a good place for me to get some gas someday. As far as where we start looking at this whole development with the Economic Development Committee review, we looked at this early on as a gasoline station, as a car wash, we looked at the Fairview Court, it's nice to see that we actually have a court once. At one point in time it was supposed to go all the way through, but the court with access in and out. I've heard some of the Commission talk about the access as a positive thing. I see in the report where initially the traffic study or the analysis for the Mitigated Dec was silent on that issue. The consultants had come back and said that there would be a very minimal flow of traffic through on an egress. I think Chris has pointed out to make this project work, a viable project with Parcel B, ingress and egress both should be granted. Frankly, I'm going to be one of those people that was, if you're only going to have the egress, I'm going to cheat coming in the back end, the back door. At least that's the way I would look at it at this point. I think we need to have access there. I think it would be appropriate for the development. I'm stuck on the code and zoning issues. I know we talked about it early on when this development first came forward and where it ended up, frankly I left those meetings and it was left up to some of my other fellow Commissioners and City Councilmen and folks with reviewing of that with the applicant. I believe that we have that opportunity now as Dennis spoke to proceed forth with this. It is before us. Is it mechanical? Is it non-mechanical? Is it tied to the noise? Is it not tied to the noise? I think it's been pointed out that we used that same basis before here in the City of Brentwood and there's no reason why we couldn't do that today if we so felt inclined to. I like some of the ideas of the residents that they had some needs that were being fulfilled by the applicant. Like, I think the applicant said she would like to take care of everyone but there's only so much she can do. I think Mr. Martin brought up the idea of one of the things we looked at up in this northwest area was making the whole area flow together. And we looked at that as a City trying to, in fact, tie together his property to the adjacent parcels, to the parcels across the street there, to, in fact, give the City some flow there. With this development here, we thought that was a good plan and we moved it forward and this is where we're at today. I think as far as the in and out of the Lone Tree, I think the consultants had addressed that as far as the slope. I don't think that to be an issue. The possibility certainly exists that it could be at some point in time in the future. The Engineering Department here has assured us time and time again that if indeed, when and if indeed we move forward with the undercrossing here, it won't be an issue. We're already starting our plan right now with the slope of that particular, or the setback for the slope of the underpass to be accommodated in some of our pavement work now so indeed what you see there will, in fact, as he said, as Paul stated earlier, we're trying to retain as much as we install right today. With the other conditions here, or other issues as far as parking, I think the shared agreement with the use between the different facilities will help accommodate that. The access, the number of accesses that Steve brought up, again I would probably agree that five sounds like a lot but I see that we're going to have a lot of traffic in and out of this and it may or may not be appropriate at this point. I think what we have before us is a good flowing site. I would like to see all the submittal come before us both for Parcel D and Parcel B. I would like to see that as well. But right now, with the way it's going to be phased, I'm happy with what we have right now. As far as the rest of the issues being brought up, I think we're still going to be stuck if we don't get over the idea of the code and the zoning issues here as a Commission. And we can talk about everything else that's been brought up but I think we need to get over that as a Commission first. So I guess I'm looking for some type of consensus here on where we stand with our code and zoning issues. Ray, do you have an opinion on that? You didn't mention that, I think initially.
COMMISSIONER SHIPLEY: Again, to me a hand car wash is for people to wash it and it flows through there. In most mechanical, or excuse me, in most hand car washes today, in this area and I use them and I use one in Dublin almost every Sunday after church, they have two or three gentlemen that spray the car, wash it by hand and then it goes through the same kind of equipment that you're talking about having here. The difference is that one man drives it through that and it has a blower at the other end it goes around to the other side and two or three people continue to towel it off and do the tires and clean the windows and do those kinds of things. So from a truly hand car wash like you do in your driveway, that's not what you're going to get at any car wash today because you're going to use labor saving devices to do that. This car wash by being touchless is going to take away some of the problems that you have with people because it's a machine that's doing that and that machine will work as fast as you can put them in there, whereas people will take time and you get a larger queue. So, you know, I think we can sit here and debate back and forth whether it's mechanical or non-mechanical, the point is, it's a car wash. If it's done correctly, it can be an asset. If it's, you know, I don't see it's going to keep us from passing it, in my opinion. 
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Okay. Chris any other feedback on our zoning or code issue?
COMMISSIONER BECNEL: I think I've said what I had to say.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: All right. Any other discussion or Commission. Is there then anyone wanting to move this project forward with a motion?
CITY ATTORNEY BEOUGHER: You can certainly recommend that staff bring back a change to that Zoning Ordinance at the next, you know, after proper public hearing to amend it to do it correctly and that can certainly trail and certainly be in, you know, in effect by the time they pull a building permit, and I think everybody would feel a lot …
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: I think that's a …
CITY ATTORNEY BEOUGHER: … better about this.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: It is, it would be appropriate and I know that Mitch has talked about doing that, not necessarily just for this one but let's say a lot of, if not all of the old codes as you would say, somewhat like Steve's work session that he wants to have for the forty percent lot coverage. It's one of those minor things that we need to work on here as we progress forward. So with that being said here.
COMMISSIONER BROCKMAN: Dennis, if we made a motion on this can that be incorporated as part of the motion, is that what your suggestion is?
CITY ATTORNEY BEOUGHER: You can't, to do a change you have to first have a public hearing. It's an ordinance, so for a zoning change, it first goes to the Planning Commission for recommendation so before we could take action on a recommendation to change the Zoning Code, we'd have to have a public hearing at the next, or whenever, there's a timing problem with getting public notices in and the time required.
COMISSIONER BROCKMAN: Well, I understand that, but my question though is, do we need to make a separate motion for that?
CITY ATTORNEY BEOUGHER: You can simply recommend a second motion that directs staff to do that and bring it back at the earliest time to make that change, to just make it car washes.
COMMISSIONER BROCKMAN: Well, I'll take a stab at it, I'll make a motion that we approve this with the following, as conditioned, including the added conditions that we were given by e-mail this morning and in hard copy today, which is dated September 3, and the additional conditions on Page 2, with the addition that egress and ingress be added to the cul-de-sac at Fairview Court. And I think that was it.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Do we need to make this code request provision part of this motion, or not?
COMMISSIONER BROCKMAN: I was going to make that as a second motion.
CITY ATTORNEY BEOUGHER: You can make that as - as long as Chris understands that it can be a separate one and it's not necessarily tied. You can do it as part of this one or as two separate ones. I think it's better to be part of this one.
COMMISSIONER BROCKMAN: Okay, I'll also amend that to add that staff comes back to us at the earliest convenience with a workshop or a - no workshop, or then with a …
CITY ATTORNEY BEOUGHER: A Zoning Code amendment.
COMMISSIONER BROCKMAN: A Zoning Code amendment, there you go.
COMMISSIONER BECNEL: At the next meeting.
CHIEF OF PLANNING MICHAEL LEANA: We can't make the next meeting because of the public advertising. It will have to be the meeting after that.
COMMISSIONER BROCKMAN: Yeah, all right. Whatever date that meeting is. Do we have a date? 
CHIEF OF PLANNING LEANA: The first meeting in October.
COMMISSIONER BROCKMAN: The first meeting in October, okay.
CITY ATTORNEY BEOUGHER: That would be October 2 or something.
COMMISSIONER BECNEL: Second.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor say aye.
COMMISSIONER BROCKMAN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER BECNEL: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SHIPLEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Aye. All opposed.
COMMISSIONER PADGETT: No.
CHAIRMAN KERCHNER: Four one. Motion passes. If we could then let's move into Commission and staff reports.

Prepared by Anita Tucci-Smith (925) 673-1720
September 27, 2002
City Administration
City of Brentwood City Council
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
(925) 516-5440
Fax (925) 516-5441
E-mail allcouncil@brentwoodca.gov