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

 

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO.17

Meeting Date: October 24, 2006

Subject/Title: Appeals of a Planning Commission decision regarding the location of the trash enclosures for the City Block project (DR 05-27), generally located on the vacant land at the southwest corner of the intersection of Balfour Road and Griffith Lane, west of the In-Shape City fitness center.

Prepared by: Debbie Hill, Associate Planner

Submitted by: Howard Sword, Community Development Director

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
At the meeting of March 21, 2006, the Planning Commission approved (4-0 with Chairman Stirling having recused himself) a design review (DR 05-27) for a 49,112 square foot commercial project known as City Block, to be located along Balfour Road, west of the In-Shape City fitness center. This approval required that the trash enclosure locations be studied for possible relocation (from the back of the buildings to the front of the buildings in the parking lot area) to address the concerns of several adjacent homeowners.

Subsequently, on September 19, 2006, the Planning Commission considered a proposed amendment by the applicant, Matt Ellison of K & E Properties, to eliminate the condition of approval (Condition No. 22 of Planning Commission Resolution 06-17) regarding the relocation of the trash enclosures so that he could keep them in back of the buildings. The Commission again voted 4-0 to relocate the trash enclosures to the front parking lot in front of the buildings with the allowance that one of the four enclosures could be located at the rear of the buildings if an alternative front location could not be found for that one enclosure.

APPEALS
Two parties have each filed an appeal asking for changes to the Planning Commission’s September 19, 2006, decision.

Appeal by Matt Ellison
Mr. Ellison would like all the trash enclosures to be located behind the buildings. As an alternative to address the neighbor’s concerns regarding odor and vermin, Mr. Ellison is now proposing to install two compactors (one for trash and one for recyclables) behind the buildings.

Appeal by Bonnie Keeton
Ms. Keeton would like all the trash enclosures to be located in front of the buildings in the parking lot area. Additionally, use restrictions are requested for the area behind the buildings to minimize impacts on the adjacent residents. Ms. Keeton included a petition signed by 27 residents, including herself, from a total of 14 households supporting her appeal.

COUNCIL ALTERNATIVES
Staff is presenting the following options for Council consideration:

1) Locate the trash enclosures at the back of the building (as shown on Site Plan 1) thereby approving Matt Ellison’s appeal and denying Bonnie Keeton’s appeal.

2) Locate the trash enclosures in front of the buildings, thereby approving the neighbors’, Bonnie Keeton, appeal and denying Matt Ellison’s appeal. This would be consistent with the Planning Commission’s action with one exception; all trash enclosures would be located in the front parking lot, in front of the buildings (as shown on Site Plan 2).

3) Locate two trash compactors for the project at the back of the buildings as proposed by the developer (as shown on Site Plan 3), Matt Ellison, thereby approving Matt Ellison’s appeal and denying Bonnie Keeton’s appeal.

BACKGROUND

March 21, 2006, Planning Commission Meeting
The project presented to the Planning Commission for original design review approval on March 21, 2006, included four trash enclosure locations; three located behind the buildings on the project site and one located in the front parking lot near Balfour Road between building pad A-2 and the existing Chevron gas station (see Site Plan 1).

The main item of concern brought forward at the Planning Commission meeting was the location of the trash enclosures. Residents were concerned they would be potentially impacted by odors and noise generated by trash pick-ups. Both the residents and the Commission requested that City staff attempt to relocate the trash enclosures farther away from the adjacent homes.

Another concern mentioned was the limitation on the delivery hours and trash waste pick-up times, so a condition of approval was placed on the project which prohibited deliveries or trash pick-up for all businesses within the project between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. This condition was placed on the design review approval and was also included as part of the zoning development standards for this project.

In order to address the neighbors’ concerns about the trash enclosures, the design review was approved with the added condition (condition no. 22 of Planning Commission Resolution 06-17) that, “Prior to improvement plan approval, the developer shall work with the Community Development Department and the Public Works Department to study alternative trash enclosure locations in order to attempt to relocate all enclosures further away from the existing residential neighborhood to the south and west.”

Staff Efforts
Subsequent to the Planning Commission’s March 21, 2006, approval, Community Development Department and Public Works Department staff met to discuss alternatives regarding the placement of the trash enclosures. A concern was raised that locating the enclosures within the parking lot and also restricting the time of pick-up from 7:00 a.m. to 6 p.m. could create a public safety concern. Since the City’s refuse collection utilizes large trucks maneuvering around and backing up from enclosure locations, there would be conflicts with locating them in an area where cars are circulating and parking and pedestrians would be moving about.

Due to this safety concern, it was determined there were two options: 1) relocate the trash enclosures to the front of the buildings and interior of the site without any restrictions on the trash pick-up times, thereby allowing the trash and recycling pickups to occur early morning before the stores are open and the parking lot fills up; or 2) leave the trash enclosures at the backs of the buildings as they were originally proposed, but maintain the restriction on the pick-up times (no pick-ups before 7 a.m. or after 6 p.m.)

Under the first option (enclosures at the front of the buildings) trash pickups could begin as early as 3:00 a.m. Monday through Friday. The amount of trash and recycling generated from the site would determine the number of trash pickups each week.

In an effort to address the concerns of the adjoining neighbors, staff provided the twelve abutting property owners with the two options identified above in order to ascertain their preference. Of the six households that responded, five were in favor of locating the enclosures in the front parking lot area with no restriction on the pickup times, and one preferred to leave them in the locations at the back of the buildings as originally proposed.

However, the applicant opposed moving the trash enclosures to the front parking lot area and requested that the Planning Commission condition to move the enclosures be deleted. The applicant felt that relocating them to the interior of the site would be unattractive to patrons visiting the site.

September 19, 2006, Planning Commission Meeting
On September 19, 2006, the Planning Commission considered this request to remove the trash enclosure relocation requirement. Staff presented alternative trash enclosure locations within the front parking lot for the Commission’s consideration (see Attachment 11). The Commission ultimately decided to leave the enclosures within the front parking lot, however, due to the location of one of the enclosures between Buildings B and C in proximity to a prominent fountain feature, the decision was made to have the developer find another location for this one trash enclosure within the front parking lot with the caveat that if a better location could not be found, then it should be moved to the rear of the building at the southwest corner of the site.

As stated above, subsequent to this action, two appeals were filed—one by the applicant, Matt Ellison, requesting trash enclosure locations be permitted in the back of the buildings for aesthetic purposes, customer parking, traffic flow and odor minimization; and the other by Bonnie Keeton requesting that all enclosures be located within the front parking lot, away from the residential development due to odors, pest control, and noise. Other concerns raised by Ms. Keeton included parking, loitering, smoking, the consumption of alcohol on the site, music, car alarms, car noise, exhaust fumes and lighting in association with this commercial project, but these are not the subject of this hearing.

ANALYSIS
The developer has worked with staff to mitigate residents’ concerns by placing a landscape buffer of 17-19 feet in width, as well as employee parking and a service drive aisle (for a total distance of 50 feet) between the 8’ soundwall along the residents’ rear property lines and the nearest buildings on the project site. The two-story office component located in the southwest corner of the project was designed so that no windows would be directly overlooking the adjacent neighbors’ yards. The majority of the parking for the project is located at the interior of the site where noise impacts from vehicles (i.e., doors slamming, car alarms, exhaust, etc.) would be buffered by the buildings.

As previously mentioned, the main concern of the residents and the subject of this appeal is the proposed location of the trash enclosures behind Buildings A-1, B and C on the site plan (Site Plan 1). These enclosures would be located behind the landscape buffer and a minimum of 17 feet away from the property lines. The enclosures have been designed with an additional 6-foot block wall surrounding the trash containers. Trash enclosure roofs were discussed as a possible mitigation for odor and vermin, but were dismissed as not being feasible due to the design of the City’s refuse trucks, which would require a roof structure in excess of 20 feet in height (which is too high to mitigate any noise or odors) to accommodate the stabbing of the bins and overhead lifting motion into the holding bin of the truck.

Since the Planning Commission action on September 19, staff has again reviewed the enclosure locations on the site in order to identify an alternative location for the one trash enclosure which was located in front of the fountain feature. Site Plan 2 shows the possible locations for all of the trash enclosures within the parking lot.

The applicant has requested that the Council consider an alternate option, which would use two trash compactors on the site instead of four trash enclosures. The advantages of using trash compactors are that they are fully enclosed and thereby odors are minimized and pests would not be able to access the enclosure. In addition, it would not need to be serviced as often and could be serviced during the day when it would be least disruptive to the neighbors.

Due to the long, rectangular footprint of a trash compactor, it could not be accommodated within the front parking lot area without the removal of a number of parking spaces, and the preferred location for the Public Works Department would be at the southwest corner of the project site, behind the buildings.

It should be noted that trash compactors generate noise due to the motor used to crush the contents and typically generate a noise level of 78 to 82 dB at a distance of 50 feet. Trash pickup levels range from 80 to 85 dB at 50 feet during the raising, lowering and compacting operations. A typical trash pickup takes approximately less than 5 minutes. The City’s noise ordinance limits exterior noise levels at the property line to a maximum of 60 dB during the day (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) and 45 dB at night (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). However, garbage collection activities are specifically exempted from this restriction and would not require additional mitigation measures that would need to be identified in the environmental document for the project.

If the trash enclosures and/or compactor were allowed to remain at the rear of the buildings, the nearest residence would be located approximately 47 feet away from the closest enclosure, with the remaining residences being in excess of 70 feet away from the closest enclosure. It should also be noted that an existing 8 foot high soundwall currently exists along the property lines.

One point the Council may wish to consider in their evaluation is that although the residential development adjacent to the project has already been constructed, the commercial zoning was in place prior to the residential units being approved and built. However, as mentioned above, the adjoining residents do have concerns regarding the impacts associated with the commercial development adjacent to their homes.

One of the appeal letters submitted by Bonnie Keeton cited other concerns of the neighbors in regard to the project, such as lighting, security, alcohol, etc. These items were discussed and addressed during the original design review before the Planning Commission on March 21, 2006, for which the appeal period has already expired. Staff has discussed this issue with the City Attorney, and it was determined these items can not be addressed at this time as the amendment to the design review heard by the Planning Commission was limited to the issue of the condition related to the trash enclosures locations.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
A mitigated negative declaration was prepared for this project and approved by the City Council at the April 11, 2006, meeting. All mitigation measures have been incorporated into the conditions of approval for the project. No further environmental documentation is required.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

ALTERNATIVES
1) Approve Resolution “A” locating three trash enclosures at the back of the building (Site Plan 1) thereby approving Matt Ellison’s appeal and denying the appeal by Bonnie Keeton.

2) Approve Resolution “B” locating all trash enclosures in front of the buildings, thereby approving the neighbor’s, Bonnie Keeton, appeal and denying Matt Ellison’s appeal. This would be consistent with the Planning Commission’s action with one exception; all trash enclosures would be located in the front parking lot, in front of the buildings (as shown on Site Plan 2). Note: This action would require a future amendment to the development standards for the Planned Development 69 (PD-69) zoning designation and the design review (DR 05-27) eliminating the restriction on trash pickup times to allow the servicing to occur during the day which staff would bring to the City Council at a future meeting for adoption.

3) Approve Resolution “C” locating two trash compactors for the project at the back of the building as proposed by the developer, Matt Ellison, thereby approving Matt Ellison’s appeal and denying the appeal by Bonnie Keeton.

Attachments:
1. Resolution “A” approving the appeal filed by Matt Ellison and allowing the trash enclosures to be located at the rear of the buildings.
2. Resolution “B” approving the appeal filed by Bonnie Keeton and allowing the trash enclosures to be located at the front the buildings within the parking lot.
3. Resolution “C” approving the appeal filed by Matt Ellison and allowing trash compactors to be located at the rear of the buildings.
4. Letter of appeal from Matt Ellison, K & E Properties, dated September 27, 2006
5. Letters of appeal from Bonnie Keeton, dated September 27, 2006, and attached petition
6. Vicinity map
7. Site Plan 1 showing the trash enclosure locations at the rear of the buildings
8. Site Plan 2 showing trash enclosures locations in front of the buildings in the parking lot
9. Site Plan 3 showing trash compactors at the rear of the buildings
10. Trash Compactor information submitted by K & E Properties date stamp received October 12, 2006
11. Exhibit showing enclosure locations presented to the Planning Commission on September 19, 2006
12. Planning Commission staff reports from the meetings of March 21, 2006, and September 19, 2006
13. Planning Commission minutes from the meetings of March 21, 2006, and September 19, 2006

CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. (“A”)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD APPROVING THE APPEAL FILED BY MATT ELLISON FOR THE CITY BLOCK PROJECT ALLOWING ALL TRASH ENCLOSURES TO BE LOCATED IN BACK OF THE BUILDINGS, THEREBY DENYING BONNIE KEETON’S APPEAL. THE PROJECT IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE VACANT LAND AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF BALFOUR ROAD AND GRIFFITH LAND, WEST OF THE IN-SHAPE CITY FITNESS CENTER (APN 010-110-014).

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission previously considered and approved Design Review 05-27 by a 4-0 vote for the City Block project on March 21, 2006, which included condition no. 22 as follows, “Prior to improvement plan approval, the developer shall work with the Community Development Department and the Public works Department to study alternative trash enclosure locations in order to attempt to relocate all enclosures further away from the existing residential neighborhood to the south and west.”; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered an amendment to Design Review 05-27 on September 19, 2006, regarding condition no. 22 and the location of the trash enclosures and voted 4-0 to locate the trash enclosures in the front parking lot in front of the buildings with the allowance that one of the four enclosures could be located at the rear of the buildings if an alternative front location could not be found; and

WHEREAS, Matt Ellison, the applicant, has appealed the Planning Commission decision regarding the location of trash enclosures within the City Block project (DR 05-27) and is requesting that three trash enclosures be located in the rear of the buildings; and

WHEREAS, Bonnie Keeton has appealed the Planning Commission decision regarding the location of trash enclosures within the City Block project (DR 05-27) and is requesting that all trash enclosures be located in the front of the buildings within the parking lot; and

WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was distributed to all property owners of record within 300 feet of the project site and published in the Brentwood Press on October 13, 2006, in accordance with City policies and Government code Section 65090; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brentwood held a public hearing on this appeal at its regular meeting of October 24, 2006; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff report, supporting documents, public testimony, and all appropriate information that has been submitted with the proposed project; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood:

A. Hereby finds that:

1. The location of the trash enclosures at the rear of the buildings as shown on Site Plan 1 will create a well-composed urban design, harmoniously related to other facilities in the immediate area and to the total setting as seen from key vantage points in the community.

2. Special consideration has been given to the trash enclosure locations at the rear of the buildings in regard to the exterior appearance on the site.

3. The proposed trash enclosures locations at the rear of the buildings will be of a quality and character appropriate to, and serving to protect the value of, private and public investments in the immediate area.

4. The design of the development conforms in all significant respects to the development standards adopted for Planned Development 69.

5. The proposed development conforms to all requirements for landscaping, screening, parking, usable open space and off-street loading as set forth in the Brentwood Municipal Code.

6. The development conforms to all site development criteria set forth in Section 17.820.008 of the Brentwood Municipal Code in that the siting and internal arrangement of all structures and other facilities on the site, including the land uses, internal circulation, off-street parking and loading facilities, lighting, signing and access to and from public rights-of-way are conducive to an orderly, attractive, efficient and harmonious development and that the proposed development will not have adverse environmental effects on adjacent developments, existing or potential, by reason of conflict in land use, topography or traffic.

7. The development conforms to the design criteria set forth in Title 17 of the Brentwood Municipal Code.

8. The development conforms to all applicable regulations of the zoning ordinance and other city ordinances, policies and resolutions.

B. Hereby approves the appeal filed by Matt Ellison on the City Block project (Design Review 05-27) allowing three trash enclosures to be located at the rear of the buildings on the project site as shown on Site Plan 1.

C. Hereby amends condition of approval no. 3 regarding trash enclosure locations for Design Review 05-27, as follows: “All trash enclosures locations shall be as shown on Site Plan 1 which is attached hereto and made a part of this resolution, with minor adjustments if needed to the satisfaction of the Community Development and Public Works Departments.”

D. Hereby denies the appeal filed by Bonnie Keeton.

PASSED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at its regular meeting of October 24, 2006, by the following vote:

CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. (“B”)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD APPROVING THE APPEAL FILED BY BONNIE KEETON FOR THE CITY BLOCK PROJECT REQUIRING ALL TRASH ENCLOSURES TO BE LOCATED IN FRONT OF THE BUILDINGS, THEREBY DENYING MATT ELLISON’S APPEAL. THE PROJECT IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE VACANT LAND AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF BALFOUR ROAD AND GRIFFITH LAND, WEST OF THE IN-SHAPE CITY FITNESS CENTER (APN 010-110-014).

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission previously considered and approved Design Review 05-27 by a 4-0 vote for the City Block project on March 21, 2006, which included condition no. 22 as follows, “Prior to improvement plan approval, the developer shall work with the Community Development Department and the Public works Department to study alternative trash enclosure locations in order to attempt to relocate all enclosures further away from the existing residential neighborhood to the south and west.”; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered an amendment to Design Review 05-27 on September 19, 2006, regarding condition no. 22 and the location of the trash enclosures and voted 4-0 to locate the trash enclosures in the front parking lot in front of the buildings with the allowance that one of the four enclosures could be located at the rear of the buildings if an alternative front location could not be found; and

WHEREAS, Matt Ellison, the applicant, has appealed the Planning Commission decision regarding the location of trash enclosures within the City Block project (DR 05-27) and is requesting that three trash enclosures be located in the rear of the buildings; and

WHEREAS, Bonnie Keeton has appealed the Planning Commission decision regarding the location of trash enclosures within the City Block project (DR 05-27) and is requesting that all trash enclosures be located in the front of the buildings within the parking lot; and

WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was distributed to all property owners of record within 300 feet of the project site and published in the Brentwood Press on October 13, 2006, in accordance with City policies and Government code Section 65090; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brentwood held a public hearing on this appeal at its regular meeting of October 24, 2006; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff report, supporting documents, public testimony, and all appropriate information that has been submitted with the proposed project; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood:

A. Hereby finds that:

1. The location of the trash enclosures in front of the buildings within the parking lot as shown on Site Plan 2 will create a well-composed urban design, harmoniously related to other facilities in the immediate area and to the total setting as seen from key vantage points in the community.

2. Special consideration has been given to the trash enclosure locations at the front of the buildings in regard to the exterior appearance on the site.

3. The proposed trash enclosures locations at the front of the buildings will be of a quality and character appropriate to, and serving to protect the value of, private and public investments in the immediate area.

4. The design of the development conforms in all significant respects to the development standards adopted for Planned Development 69.

5. The proposed development conforms to all requirements for landscaping, screening, parking, usable open space and off-street loading as set forth in the Brentwood Municipal Code.

6. The development conforms to all site development criteria set forth in Section 17.820.008 of the Brentwood Municipal Code in that the siting and internal arrangement of all structures and other facilities on the site, including the land uses, internal circulation, off-street parking and loading facilities, lighting, signing and access to and from public rights-of-way are conducive to an orderly, attractive, efficient and harmonious development and that the proposed development will not have adverse environmental effects on adjacent developments, existing or potential, by reason of conflict in land use, topography or traffic.

7. The development conforms to the design criteria set forth in Title 17 of the Brentwood Municipal Code.

8. The development conforms to all applicable regulations of the zoning ordinance and other city ordinances, policies and resolutions.

B. Hereby approves the appeal filed by Bonnie Keeton on the City Block project (Design Review 05-27) requiring all trash enclosures to be located at the front of the buildings within the parking lot as shown on Site Plan 2.

C. Hereby amends condition of approval no. 3 regarding trash enclosure locations for Design Review 05-27, as follows: “All trash enclosures locations shall be as shown on Site Plan 2 which is attached hereto and made a part of this resolution, with minor adjustments if needed to the satisfaction of the Community Development and Public Works Departments.”

D. Hereby denies the appeal filed by Matt Ellison.

E. Hereby directs staff to process an amendment to Planned Development 69 (PD-69) and Design Review 05-27 to eliminate the restriction on trash pickup times.

PASSED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at its regular meeting of October 24, 2006, by the following vote:

CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. (“C”)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD APPROVING THE APPEAL FILED BY MATT ELLISON FOR THE CITY BLOCK PROJECT ALLOWING TRASH COMPACTORS TO BE LOCATED AT THE BACK OF THE BUILDINGS, THEREBY DENYING BONNIE KEETON’S APPEAL. THE PROJECT IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE VACANT LAND AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF BALFOUR ROAD AND GRIFFITH LAND, WEST OF THE IN-SHAPE CITY FITNESS CENTER (APN 010-110-014).

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission previously considered and approved Design Review 05-27 by a 4-0 vote for the City Block project on March 21, 2006, which included condition no. 22 as follows, “Prior to improvement plan approval, the developer shall work with the Community Development Department and the Public works Department to study alternative trash enclosure locations in order to attempt to relocate all enclosures further away from the existing residential neighborhood to the south and west.”; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered an amendment to Design Review 05-27 on September 19, 2006, regarding condition no. 22 and the location of the trash enclosures and voted 4-0 to locate the trash enclosures in the front parking lot in front of the buildings with the allowance that one of the four enclosures could be located at the rear of the buildings if an alternative front location could not be found; and

WHEREAS, Matt Ellison, the applicant, has appealed the Planning Commission decision regarding the location of trash enclosures within the City Block project (DR 05-27) and is requesting that three trash enclosures be located in the rear of the buildings; and

WHEREAS, Bonnie Keeton has appealed the Planning Commission decision regarding the location of trash enclosures within the City Block project (DR 05-27) and is requesting that all trash enclosures be located in the front of the buildings within the parking lot; and

WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was distributed to all property owners of record within 300 feet of the project site and published in the Brentwood Press on October 13, 2006, in accordance with City policies and Government code Section 65090; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brentwood held a public hearing on this appeal at its regular meeting of October 24, 2006; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff report, supporting documents, public testimony, and all appropriate information that has been submitted with the proposed project; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood:

A. Hereby finds that:

1. The location of the trash compactors at the rear of the buildings as shown on Site Plan 3 will create a well-composed urban design, harmoniously related to other facilities in the immediate area and to the total setting as seen from key vantage points in the community.

2. Special consideration has been given to the trash compactor locations at the rear of the buildings in regard to the exterior appearance on the site.

3. The proposed trash enclosures compactors at the rear of the buildings will be of a quality and character appropriate to, and serving to protect the value of, private and public investments in the immediate area.

4. The design of the development conforms in all significant respects to the development standards adopted for Planned Development 69.

5. The proposed development conforms to all requirements for landscaping, screening, parking, usable open space and off-street loading as set forth in the Brentwood Municipal Code.

6. The development conforms to all site development criteria set forth in Section 17.820.008 of the Brentwood Municipal Code in that the siting and internal arrangement of all structures and other facilities on the site, including the land uses, internal circulation, off-street parking and loading facilities, lighting, signing and access to and from public rights-of-way are conducive to an orderly, attractive, efficient and harmonious development and that the proposed development will not have adverse environmental effects on adjacent developments, existing or potential, by reason of conflict in land use, topography or traffic.

7. The development conforms to the design criteria set forth in Title 17 of the Brentwood Municipal Code.

8. The development conforms to all applicable regulations of the zoning ordinance and other city ordinances, policies and resolutions.

B. Hereby approves the appeal filed by Matt Ellison on the City Block project (Design Review 05-27) allowing for the location of trash compactors at the rear of the buildings on the project site as shown on Site Plan 3.

C. Hereby amends condition of approval no. 3 regarding trash enclosure locations for Design Review 05-27, as follows: “All trash enclosures locations shall be as shown on Site Plan 3 which is attached hereto and made a part of this resolution, with minor adjustments if needed to the satisfaction of the Community Development and Public Works Departments.”

D. Hereby denies the appeal filed by Bonnie Keeton.

PASSED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at its regular meeting of October 24, 2006, by the following vote:
 

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