Brentwood City Council Denies Bridle Gate Project

On Tuesday, the Brentwood City Council unanimously agreed to uphold a Planning Commission denial of the Bridle Gate project in the City of Brentwood.

With a combination of general plan, zoning, municipal codes, and planning commission concerns, the council had a thoughtful and detailed discussion where they found seven reasons to deny the project, even after what was called a “curve ball” was provided by the applicant on additional low income housing and density bonus. The reason for denial included:

Public Safety
Insufficient reduction of VMT (vehicle-miles traveled)
Park – prefer 1 large park vs. 2 small parks
Poor circulation (two exits on Sand Creek and close off San Jose)
Municipal Code stating 166 homes
Deterioration of ridgelines
Noise concerns

The Council heard the appeal on the 272 single-family home Bridle Gate Project in the City of Brentwood.

The item was before the city council after a July 16, 2024 Planning Commission hearing on project. The planning commission spent 7-hours discussing the item but ultimately voted 4-0 to deny the project (Anita Roberts absent). The planning commission made the denial against the recommendation of city staff and consultants due to traffic concerns, park locations, design flaws and ridge line protections.

On July 24, 2024, WCHB Development filed an appear of the Planning Commission action.

With the appeal, the City Council had 2 options:

Deny the appeal, upholding the Planning Commission’s action to deny the project by adopting a resolution supported by factual finds; or
Approve the appeal, reversing the Planning Commission’s action to deny the project by adopting three resolutions: (1) certifying the Revised EIR (REIR) and making CEQA findings, (2) approving the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (VTSM 9586), and (3) approving the Design Review (DR 21-010).

The proposed project would include subdivision of the site for development of 272 single-family detached residences, as well as associated improvements within the project site, including two parks, open space, stormwater detention and treatment areas, utility connections, and construction of an internal roadway network on approximately 92.96 acres.

The 36.82 acres of land located north of the future Sand Creek Road extension are on a separate legal parcel shown as a designated remainder on the vesting tentative subdivision map (VTSM), and are therefore not proposed to be developed as part of this application.

The project site is bounded by Old Sand Creek Road to the north, State Route (SR) 4 to the east, a single-family residential development (Brentwood Hills) to the south, and the edge of the Brentwood Planning Area and the City of Antioch’s city limits to the west (APNs: 019-082-009 and 019-082-00).

Brentwood

Discussion

Doug Chin, Corporate Engineer for the applicant, West Coast Home Builders, provided more background sharing the applicant has owned the parcel for over 30-years. He added its now an SB 330 project and the applicable housing laws apply. He noted the land use designation allows up to 5 houses per acre, they were at 4. If they were to go to 5, it would increase by 272 to 340 units.

“If we were to apply density bonus on top of that, we would be at 408,” stated Chin. “We don’t always pursue the maximum density, in this case, we are not. Other projects we have.”

Ryan Patterson, of Patterson and O’Neal, was legal representation for West Coast Home Builders, shared the state laws have made it easier for developers to build housing including the Housing Accountability Act—if it meets code standards, the city must approve the project and cannot reduce its density, noting objective standards vs. subjective standards.

Mayor Joel Bryant asked if the council approved the project, what would the timeline looks like.

Chin responded, they have already begun engineering work on widening Sand Creek Road and started a grading design. He said they hope for approval but admitted they have a lot of upfront work needing to be done which could take a year-and-a-half.

City Attorney Katherine Wisinski explained to the council that while the applicants attorney discussed the State Density Bonus, but it came as a surprise because it was not until today staff has been advised the applicant is seeking to make 5% of its units affordable income to very low income families—there, making it qualify for the bonus, waivers, and concessions.

She called it “new issue” and that standard was not addressed in the Planning Commission or in previous meetings because the applicant has not applied for it.

After public comments Bryant asked for a clarification on number of meetings on the project and the process from here–because after 5 meetings, the project is approved.

Winsinki stated this was meeting 3 of 5 (2 planning commission meetings count towards 5 meeting). She said with the density bonus being sought after, the applicant has not yet been applied for as part of the project currently in front of council. What is in front of the council only includes affordable housing to satisfy city previous affordable housing obligations of 3% very low, 4% low, 3% moderate units—does not make it eligible for density bonus. If applicant wants density bonus, they need to go through the application process to do that. Confirmed they were in meeting number 3.

Councilmember Pa’Tanisah Pierson called it frustrating where people come to the city and appear to “operate in good faith only to throw curve balls.”

Councilmember Jovita Mendoza stated one of the mains reasons she has concerns over the project is the traffic it will create and is the number one complaint in the city.

“This is the number one reason I cannot support this project,” stated Mendoza. “It is way to much traffic, it does exactly what the State of California says we should not be doing.”

She also argued the maximum units on the project should be 166 units per the municipal code.

“You bring in 166 units, I wont balk at all,” stated Mendoza. “That is in black and white. You can get this on our municipal code, so no one hid this from you.”

She continued, stating they were sued over the park in 2021 where the judge agreed with the city recommendation of turning two small parks into one large park—she wanted 1 large park.

In terms of circulation, she stated they need two entrances on Sand Creek and remove the entrance from San Jose Drive. She added the ridge lines, that was addressed in 2006 which the company was already aware of.

“I am not okay with this development the way it is, I am proposing we deny the development and let it see what happens after that,” said Mendoza.

Vice Mayor Susannah Meyer expressed multiple concerns including traffic and impact on schools. She also wanted the two parks to be combined into a larger single park for more usable space where she later said they have basketball courts doubling up as pickle ball courts.

“I don’t want to operate from a place of fear and think about what happens if we don’t do this. It is our job as elected officials to do the very best we can for residents,” said Meyer who advocated for a better project.

Councilmember Tony Oerlemans said he didn’t do well with people showing up at the last minute and changing things, noting how the applicant says the city will have to consider a density bonus.

“Its probably not the best way to come at a group of people who you are trying to get to approve a project,” said Oerlemans. He said he would focus on the project presented to them in the packet and staff report where he expressed concerns over the cut through traffic in Shadow Lakes.

The council highlighted more concerns over cut-through traffic and under the plan it would further encourage cut throughs in residential neighborhoods along with impact to emergency traffic and increases danger.

Pierson called it difficult when SB 330 is hanging over them. However, there were safety concerns they had to account for along with traffic circulation and traffic congestion.

Bryant shared his concerns have been spoken about tonight by other members of the city council. He did caution about new laws and regulations.

“There are things we have to consider that we never had to consider before,” said Bryant. “From local control aspect of it, I don’t know of any city that has not expressed the feeling of being held hostage when it comes to loss of local control regarding some of these new laws, regardless if we can do something to about those laws, they are now laws. Every mayor I’ve spoken to, every council feel that the tremendous loss of local control we have experiences from 2020 to now is something that is a source of great frustration is the least of the words.”

Bryant, playing devils advocate, questions what happens if they go to court with all their denials and they do not win. He wanted the community to understand what is at risk.

Mendoza said she spoke to a lot of people in the community about it.

“Every single person said we should take on the risk,” stated Mendoza. “There is not one person who said don’t take the risk.”

Bryant agree, noting similar feedback, but said he had concerns many in the community are unaware of what some of the risks were and what it means. He said the residents need to be aware this is more than a support or deny a project, but the approach had to be with great detail and much thought due to state laws.

Oerlemans challenged the applicant over the park stating they have been told multiple times they want one large park but they keep coming back to one park—noting it was stated in a planning commission meeting.

“It makes me a very suspicious person,” stated Oerlemans. “Are you going to continue to bring items before us knowing we don’t want it so we can get to meeting 5 and they we have to approve your project. Its frustrating to sit here and hear you say I didn’t know when I watched you being told. I am having a hard time… the curve ball in the middle probably didn’t help much either.”

Mendoza finally made the motion to deny the application for Bridle Gate for multiple reasons which included:

Public Safety
Insufficient reduction of VMT (vehicle-miles traveled)
Park – prefer 1 large park vs. 2 small parks
Poor circulation (two exits on Sand Creek and close off San Jose)
Municipal Code stating 166 homes
Deterioration of ridge lines
Noise concerns

The motion passed in a 5-0 vote to uphold the planning commission denial based on findings the council dictated to staff—staff will now plug it into the resolution for review, consideration at a future meeting.