! "
! #
!
$%
! &
!
'
()"*
+
()*#**&
,
-
.
+
/
,
.
0
('$*1
.
+
/
0.+/1
2
/
('$*
.%"
-
-
345678539:5;
<
=
('$*
>
?
@
=
?
=
@
('$*
,
2
$
A
BCDEFGBHIAA Attachment 12
!"#$%&'(()*+'!*%,-.
/
0
11234
15
61
737
73789
:
;
<
/
=
8>36<44;
?
8 ?44<776;
@8 @ 44<774;
844<776;
<
6
:
<
:
A
A
(BC)*+,%!*+". =
5
5
>77
DE474>
=
F
F
",G*#%,$",!')H"!"#$*,'!*%,.
9
I
: 8 9I:;0
636J>4
F
0
K
89/@;
LMNOPQRRSTU
A
A
F <OVLWXYXWOXZSXYXWQSULYYLWUO[PXWPQ\LVLW]RXQ\UTUPLV\T^LWUT\XUOOXUL_` a
6>476J
5
:<6
:<6
9/@8
8 b;c476J724712;
:
F
:<6
9/@
/
4744
:<6
::
:<6
9/@
4744
/SUPXOWTSULdUeUPLNMLfLRTVgLSUMLSOXUh`TYUPLOXULXO]SML\OUTTMUTiLUPLYRTT\Q\LQ\QUXT_ /
Aj:@
7
1
F
7
4 6/
5
6k
J47
7666k
J7>
7716k
J>3
7718=
;
4:
636J>
l9
:
mnTOUWToQUVQZLOp6< 6>q
r
<9
:
s
tuvwxytz{s| Attachment 12
!
"#$%&'(&)&
*
+,
-.
/
0/ 1
+,
2/
*
+,
*
+,
2/
+,
2/
*3
+
2/4
5
2
6
4
57/
8
5
+,
9:;<==:>?@AB<>C
/
3DE+FDFDE+FD,DE+FDD
DE+FDE
6
4
505EG,+DD1
80 8DD+FF,17/
07/DD+FFD1
505DD+FF,1
H
I
I
J4
7
K
/
/
L 7/
3DE+FDF+5EG,+DD
3DE+FD,+ 8DD+FF,
3DE+FDD+7/DD+FFD
3DE+FDE+5DD+FF, *7
5
/
!
M
NOPQRSNTUMV Attachment 12
JUNE 20, 2023
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
BRENTWOOD CITY HALL, 150 CITY PARK WAY
PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED
Public comments that were received prior to the start of the Planning Commission meeting and any other disclosable public records related to an agenda item for the open session of this meeting were distributed to all or majority of the Planning Commission less than 72 hours before this meeting.
CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
Attendee Name Title Status Arrived
Kristopher Brand Commissioner Present 7:00 PM
Rod Flohr Commissioner Present 7:00 PM
David Sparling Vice Chairperson Present 7:00 PM
Dirk Zeigler Commissioner Present 7:00 PM
Anita Roberts Chairperson Present 7:00 PM
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairperson Roberts led the pledge of allegiance.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Brentwood Resident, Clifton Fagerquist, spoke regarding the Deer Ridge Clubhouse.
The Commission received 2 public comments that were sent via email or otherwise for the Commission’s consideration. Copies of these comments would be made available on the City’s website on the ‘Planning Commission Agendas’ page, if there were any.
CONSENT CALENDAR
RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kristopher Brand, Commissioner
SECONDER: David Sparling, Vice Chairperson
AYES: Brand, Flohr, Sparling, Zeigler, Roberts
1. Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of June 6, 2023. (Drummond) Moved/Seconded Brand/Sparling. Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
Attachment 13
JUNE 20, 2023
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
PAGE 2 OF 7
BUSINESS ITEMS
2. Public Hearing. An application for Costco, which includes two vacant parcels totaling approximately 19.04 acres located south of Lone Tree Plaza Drive and east of Heidorn Ranch Road (APNs 019-020-073 and 019-020-073). The project includes the following requested entitlements: (1) Tentative Parcel Map (MS 351-22) for the reconfiguration and subdivision of two vacant parcels into a total of four smaller parcels; (2) Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22-001) application to operate the proposed fuel facility; (3) Design Review (DR 22-002) application for the development of a 154,852-square-foot Costco Warehouse with a 5,368-square-foot entrance canopy, and a gas station fueling area with an 11,500 square foot canopy over 16 fueling dispensers, which allows for 32 fueling positions situated. Associated parking lot, landscaping, and access and circulation improvements will also be included on the two lots; and (4) Master Sign Program (MSP 22-001) consisting of building mounted signage for the Costco warehouse and Costco fueling station. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15183, the project is consistent with the development density established by a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning for which an environmental impact report (EIR) has been certified. Therefore, no further environmental analysis is required as the proposed Tentative Parcel Map and Design Review applications are consistent with the General Plan. (Hagen) Senior Planner, Jennifer Hagen, presented the staff report for this item.
The Commissioners asked questions of staff.
Chairperson Roberts opened the public hearing.
Real Estate Development Director for the Applicant, Perry Holiday, spoke regarding the project.
Architect for the Applicant, Joseph Welch of MG2, spoke regarding the project.
The Commission granted the Applicant more time to speak due to their time expiring.
Bruce Olson spoke regarding the project.
Brentwood Resident, JoAnn Klement, spoke regarding the project.
Brentwood Resident, Greg Robinson, spoke regarding the project.
Brentwood Resident, Bailey Grewal, spoke regarding the project.
Brentwood Resident, Danny Dohrmann, spoke regarding the project.
Andrew Becker spoke opposing the project.
Brentwood Resident, Sinziana Todor, spoke regarding the project.
Kinnon spoke regarding the project.
Attachment 13
JUNE 20, 2023
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
PAGE 3 OF 7
The City received 27 public comments regarding this item that were sent via email or otherwise for the Commission’s consideration after the packet was published. 7 were included in the packet publication. Total of 34 public comments received.
The Commissioners asked questions of the applicant and staff.
Moved/seconded by Flohr/Brand to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
The Commissioners discussed the project.
RESULT: CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Rod Flohr, Commissioner
SECONDER: Kristopher Brand, Commissioner
AYES: Brand, Flohr, Sparling, Zeigler, Roberts
Resolution No. 23-020 of the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood approving a Tentative Parcel Map (MS 351-22) to subdivide two parcels (19.04 acres, and 4.02 acres) into a total of four smaller parcels ranging in size from 1.368 acres to 17.79 acres located south of Lone Tree Plaza Drive and east of Heidorn Ranch Road (APNs 019-020-073 and 019-020-073 and making CEQA Findings of Exemption pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.
Moved/Seconded by Zeigler/Flohr to approve Resolution No. 23-020. Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Dirk Zeigler, Commissioner
SECONDER: Rod Flohr, Commissioner
AYES: Brand, Flohr, Sparling, Zeigler, Roberts
Resolution No. 23-021 of the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood approving a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22-001) to allow a Costco Fueling Facility with a 11,500 square foot canopy over 16 fueling dispensers, which allows for 32 fueling positions generally located south of Lone Tree Plaza Drive and east of Heidorn Ranch Road (APNs 016-170-032, 016-170-034, and 016- 170-035) and making CEQA Findings of Exemption pursuant to STATE CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.
Moved/Seconded by Flohr/Brand to approve Resolution No. 23-021. Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
Attachment 13
JUNE 20, 2023
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
PAGE 4 OF 7
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Rod Flohr, Commissioner
SECONDER: Kristopher Brand, Commissioner
AYES: Brand, Flohr, Sparling, Zeigler, Roberts
Resolution No. 23-022 of the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood approving a Design Review (DR 22-022) for the development of a 154,852-square foot Costco Warehouse, 5,368-squarefoot entrance canopy, gas station fueling area with 11,500 square foot canopy and associated parking lot, landscaping, and circulation improvements located south of Lone Tree Plaza Drive and east of Heidorn Ranch Road (APNs 019-020-073 and 019-020-073) and making CEQA Findings of Exemption pursuant to State CEQA
Moved/Seconded by Brand/ to approve Resolution No. 23-022 with the added condition that prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, Permittee shall construct a fence along the eastern property line of Parcel A of MS 351-22. Said fence shall conform with all requirements of the PA-1 Specific Plan Private Realm Development Design Guidelines.
Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Kristopher Brand, Commissioner
SECONDER: Dirk Zeigler, Commissioner
AYES: Brand, Flohr, Sparling, Zeigler, Roberts
Resolution No. 23-023 of the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood approving a Master Sign Program (MSP 22-001) for the Costco project generally located south of Lone Tree Plaza Drive and east of Heidorn Ranch Road (APNs 016-170-132, 016-170-034, and 016-170-035) and making CEQA Findings of Exemption pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.
Moved/Seconded by Sparling/Flohr to approve Resolution No. 23-023. Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
Chairperson Roberts requested a 5-minute recess. Seconded by Vice Chairperson Sparling. Motion carried unanimously 5-0
Attachment 13
JUNE 20, 2023
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
PAGE 5 OF 7
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: David Sparling, Vice Chairperson
SECONDER: Rod Flohr, Commissioner
AYES: Brand, Flohr, Sparling, Zeigler, Roberts
3. Public Hearing. An application for Trumark Trailside, which includes a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (VTSM 9610) to create 63 single-family residential lots, one bioretention basin, one open space lot adjacent to Sand Creek, and other related improvements. The project also includes a design review (DR 22-006) for the homes to be constructed on the 63 lots (including 57 single-family detached homes and six affordable duets). The project is located at 1777 Apricot Way (APNs 019-092-013 and 019-092-034). Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Section 15183, the project is consistent with the development density established by a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning for which an environmental impact report (EIR) has been certified. An EIR was prepared and certified by the City Council as part of the Brentwood General Plan (SCH# 2014022058) in 2014. Therefore, no further environmental analysis is required as the proposed Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map is consistent with the General Plan. (Hagen)
Senior Planner, Jennifer Hagen, presented the staff report for this item.
The Commissioners asked questions of staff.
Chairperson Roberts opened the public hearing.
Garret Hines, Vice President of Trumark Homes, spoke regarding the project.
Brentwood Resident, Joe Osterlund, spoke regarding the project.
Brentwood Resident, Mecea Padilla, spoke regarding the project.
Brentwood Resident, Danny Dorhmann, spoke regarding the project.
Brentwood Resident, Sinziana Todor, spoke regarding the project.
Architect for the Applicant, Jeff Potts of SDG Architects, spoke regarding the project.
The Commission granted the Applicant more time to speak due to their time expiring.
The City received 2 public comments regarding this item that were sent via email or otherwise for the Commission’s consideration after the packet was published.
The Commissioners asked questions of the applicant.
Moved/seconded by Zeigler/Sparling to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
The Commissioners discussed the project.
Attachment 13
JUNE 20, 2023
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
PAGE 6 OF 7
RESULT: CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Dirk Zeigler, Commissioner
SECONDER: David Sparling, Vice Chairperson
AYES: Brand, Flohr, Sparling, Zeigler, Roberts
Resolution No. 23-024 of the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood approving a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (VTSM 9610) to allow the subdivision of the two parcels totaling 20.90 acres into 63 single-family residential lots, one bio-retention basin, one open space lot adjacent to Sand Creek, and other related improvements for Trumark Trailside, located at 1777 Apricot Way (APNs 019-092-013 and 019-092-034) and making CEQA Findings of Exemption pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section
Moved/Seconded by Zeigler/Sparling to approve Resolution No. 23-024. Motion carried 4-1
RESULT: ADOPTED [4 TO 1]
MOVER: Dirk Zeigler, Commissioner
SECONDER: David Sparling, Vice Chairperson
AYES: Brand, Flohr, Sparling, Zeigler
NAYS: Roberts
Resolution No. 23-025 of the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood approving a Design Review (DR 22-006) for 63 homes (57 single-family detached units and six duet units) for Trumark Trailside, located at 1777 Apricot Way (APNs 019-092-013 and 019-092-034).
Moved/Seconded by Zeigler/Sparling to approve Resolution No. 23-025 with an additional condition of approval (#11) that specific changes be made and brought to the Design Review Subcommittee, including the following:
a) Enhance the Plan 3 left elevation.
b) Enhance the rear elevation of the duet units.
c) Provide clarification on the roof materials for each plan. d) Review side elevation transitions on the corners of all plans.
Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
RESULT: ADOPTED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Dirk Zeigler, Commissioner
SECONDER: David Sparling, Vice Chairperson
AYES: Brand, Flohr, Sparling, Zeigler, Roberts
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES AND UPCOMING MEETING
SCHEDULE
TRANSPLAN Committee (Brand) 2nd Thursday of every month Design Review Subcommittee (Flohr & Zeigler) 2nd and 4th Thursdays of every month Land Use and Development Committee (Roberts) 3rd Monday of every month
REQUEST FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
There was none.
Attachment 13
JUNE 20, 2023
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
PAGE 7 OF 7
4. Public Hearing. Future agenda item request from Commissioner Flohr regarding conditions of approval (COA) for conditional use permits. (Nolthenius) Planning Manager, Erik Nolthenius, gave a brief introduction of the item.
Commissioner Flohr explained his request.
Chairperson Roberts opened the public comment.
The Commission received 1 public comment regarding this item that were sent via email or otherwise for the Commission’s consideration.
Chairperson Roberts closed public comment.
The Commissioners discussed the item.
Commissioner Flohr made a motion to have staff spend time and resources preparing a future agenda item to discuss conditions of approval for conditional use permits. This includes how conditions are enforced and accessed by the public, the process for the Planning Commission or the public to ensure conditions are properly implemented, and how the Planning Commission might suggest improvements to the process.
Moved/Seconded Flohr/Brand. Motion carried 3-2.
RESULT: APPROVED [3 TO 2]
MOVER: Rod Flohr, Commissioner
AYES: Brand, Flohr, Roberts
NAYS: Sparling, Zeigler
ADJOURNMENT
Moved/Seconded Sparling/Zeigler Motion carried unanimously at 11:37 PM Attachment 13
1 Hagen, Jennifer
From: Mike Singh < >
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2023 5:53 AM
To: Web Planning Division
Subject: Concerns Regarding the Proposed Costco Store and Gas Station CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Dear Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood,
I am writing to express my concerns and share the sentiments of many residents in the area and nearby communities (like Cielo, Aviano etc) regarding the proposed Costco store and accompanying gas station in our neighborhood. While we recognize the potential benefits such an establishment can bring, there are several significant factors that need to be taken into consideration.
First and foremost, the issue of heavy traffic deserves careful attention. The introduction of a Costco store and gas station is likely to attract a substantial increase in vehicular activity, exacerbating the already congested roads in the area. This heightened traffic could negatively impact the daily lives of residents, hamper local businesses, and create safety concerns for pedestrians and cyclists. Measures must be implemented to mitigate these traffic‐related challenges and ensure the well‐being and accessibility of all community members.
Furthermore, the proposed gas station raises serious health concerns, particularly for young families residing in the area.
Toddlers and young children are particularly susceptible to the adverse effects of air pollution, and the emissions generated by a gas station in close proximity to residential areas could pose a threat to their well‐being. It is vital that comprehensive studies be conducted to assess the potential health risks and implement appropriate mitigation strategies to safeguard the youngest members of our community.
Additionally, the proposed Costco store and gas station would introduce a heavy footprint in close proximity to a quiet residential area. This would undoubtedly disrupt the tranquility and peaceful living environment enjoyed by those residing in the vicinity. It is crucial to consider the potential impact on property values, noise pollution, and the overall quality of life for the residents who have chosen this area for its peaceful ambiance.
In conclusion, while we acknowledge the potential economic benefits and convenience a Costco store may offer, we urge you to carefully evaluate and address the concerns raised by heavy traffic, the potential health impacts on young families, and the disturbance to the residential tranquility. It is essential that comprehensive measures be put in place to mitigate these concerns and ensure the well‐being and harmony of our community.
Thank you for your attention to these matters, and we trust that you will consider the best interests of the residents and the long‐term sustainability of our neighborhood in your decision‐making process.
Sincerely,
Mike
Attachment 14
1 Hagen, Jennifer
From: Sandi Norona < >
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 9:30 PM
To: Web Planning Division
Subject: Costco
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Please allow a Costco in Brentwood. It’s dangerous going to the one in Antioch. A man followed a woman to her car looking suspicious and luckily a gentleman saw him and went up to the woman and helped her put her merchandise in her car and waited for her to leave. Antioch’s crime is worse than it has ever been and it scares me to go there plus there’s so much traffic.
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 14
Attachment 14
Attachment 14
2 charging stations for half the automobile parking places that Costco is providing would be best in the long run.
Additionally, we'd like an entrance to the store's parking lot from the Mokelumne Aqueduct Regional Trail, which parallels the store property immediately to the south. We request that infrastructure for bicycles and pedestrians be constructed through the parking lot leading to the bicycle parking racks and to the front door in order to safely and conveniently serve people approaching the store on foot or by bicycle from the trail.
The Mokelumne Aqueduct Regional Trail crosses Heidorn Ranch Road on the west side of the Costco property. We would like to be assured that any segment of the sidewalk of Heidorn Ranch Road upon which the trail runs will be built to trail-width, (10 feet wide). The trail currently crosses Heidorn Ranch Road at the traffic signal with Lone Tree Plaza Drive, but if an additional traffic signal is added to the street as part of this project, please route the trail in a way that is most direct and convenient for the pedestrian or bicyclist remaining on the trail and continuing west. We will want to coordinate with the City of Antioch so that a matching 10 foot sidewalk is built on the Antioch side of Heidorn Ranch Road leading to the trail.
There are already bicycle lanes on Heidorn Ranch Road, but they don't go all the way to the limit line of the intersection with Lone Tree Way. We'd like to see the Heidorn Ranch Road intersection with Lone Tree Way restriped and standard-width bicycle lanes added approaching and departing the limit line. We want the northbound bicycle lane to be placed between the dedicated right-turn lane and the dedicated throughlane. There is space between the curb faces for this, but the existing generous-width traffic lanes will have to be narrowed a bit. Following Heidorn Ranch Road north and then continuing north on Fairside Way in Antioch to the connection with the existing path that runs east/west and eventually follows Country Hills Drive, which has marked bicycle lanes and a wide sidewalk that extends all the way to Laurel Road is an easy and safe connection between the Mokelumne Aqueduct Trail and the Delta de Anza Trail.
We want a connector trail built just along the east side of Highway 4 that will connect the Mokelumne Aqueduct Trail with the Sand Creek Trail.
Also in Brentwood, we want a connector trail built between the Mokelumne Aqueduct Trail and the existing trail that parallels the MoCoCo railroad line and eventually joins with the Marsh Creek Regional Trail. This couple of hundred-yard-long segment of trail will increase the connectivity of our network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in Brentwood.
Attachment 14
3 The above mitigations are located within the City of Brentwood. I will write up some suggested pedestrian and bicyclist mitigations for both Oakley and Antioch and send them to you under a separate cover.
Far from chasing Costco away, these few and inexpensive mitigations will give them an opportunity to emphasize what good corporate citizens they will be if we allow them to build the proposed store in our community.
Thank you for keeping the safety of our nonmotorized citizens and residents in the forefront of your planning for the new Costco superstore.
All best wishes,
~0le
Bruce "0le" Ohlson
Bike East Bay
Delta Pedalers Bicycle Club
Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee
CCTA Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee
Caltrans District 4 Bicycle Advisory Committee
TRANSPLAN appointee to Highway 4 Integrated Corridor Management Study Healthy and Livable Pittsburg Collaborative
Attachment 14
From: Marie Sullivan
To: Web Planning Division
Date: Monday, January 31, 2022 3:01:57 PM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
COSTCO
I’ve heard Costco wants to build next to Kohls.
If it is approved, I would like to see one of the conditions of approval be the extension of the road that leads into the shopping center over to Sand Creek Road. The intersection that feeds Home Depot, In and Out Burger, Lowes and Kohls, etc. is a night mare. Many a time you can not move as cars will pull into the intersection when there is no place to go blocking traffic. You may have a green light but you can’t go due to this blockage. With the addition of another commercial site that obviously draws large traffic it will only get worse. Hopefully with another entrance and exit point for these commercial businesses it would relieve some of this congestion.
Sent from Mail for Windows
Attachment 14
From: cindy basa
To: Web Planning Division
Subject: Costco
Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 11:07:12 AM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Thank you for looking at our growth and not just fast food or car wash! Great opportunity for jobs!
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 14
From: Peggy Adams
To: Web Planning Division
Subject: Costco
Date: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 2:38:24 PM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Great news about a Costco…and a great location for it! Yay!!! Peggy Adams
Mobile:
Attachment 14
1 Hagen, Jennifer
From: McVey, Amanda
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 6:34 PM
To: Brand, Kristopher; Flohr, Rod; Roberts, Anita; Sparling, David; Zeigler, Dirk Cc: Hagen, Jennifer; Nolthenius, Erik
Subject: Public Comment received for Business Item: Costco Good afternoon Chair and Planning Commissioners,
The City Clerk’s office received a call from Steve Navarro who wanted to submit his public comment for this evening’s Public Hearing related to Costco:
Steve expressed concerns related to the added traffic Costco will bring. “I love Costco, but I do not love additional traffic”.
Steve would like to know if there is any other potential location within the City of Brentwood.
Finally, he stated that if Costco is approved, the roads and road improvements must be done first.
Please let me know if you would like to distribute this comment to the Commission or if you would like me to.
Thank you,
Amanda
Amanda McVey, Assistant City Clerk
City Manager's Office
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513-1164
Phone: 925.516.5187
Fax: 925.516.5441
[email protected]
Attachment 14
1 Hagen, Jennifer
From: Timothy Stover < >
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2023 9:36 PM
To: Web Planning Division
Subject: Brentwood Costco
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Dear City of Brentwood Planning Commission Members,
My spouse and I have been residents of Brentwood, CA since 2017. I am writing you in support of building a Costco warehouse near the Home
Depot location off of Lone Tree way. I think it would be a great addition to the shopping in Brentwood, which is limited. I currently have to drive to Antioch or Concord to shop at Costco and I would prefer to shop closer to home in Brentwood. I hope the planning commission will support building the Costco in Brentwood.
Brentwood needs more shopping including department stores and restaurants. We travel to Concord, Walnut Creek and Livermore multiple times per week to do our shopping because of the lack of choice here in Brentwood. We avoid Antioch/Pittsburgh when possible because of safety concerns.
Regards,
Timothy Stover, Mary Stover
Attachment 14
1 Hagen, Jennifer
From: Dale < >
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2023 8:13 AM
To: Web Planning Division
Subject: Costco
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
We are in favor of the proposed Costco store in Brentwood. The company is an asset to the community and a store at that location would be more convenient than Pittsburg/Antioch or Tracy.
Thank you, Dale and Sue Jenlink.
Discovery Bay.
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 14
Attachment 14
Attachment 14
Attachment 14
Attachment 14
Attachment 14
Attachment 14
1 Hagen, Jennifer
From: Jim Stark
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2023 10:04 PM
To: Web Planning Division
Subject: Costco
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Dear Planning Commission,
Please accept this email a vote in favor for the new Costco in Brentwood. I understand that you will get plenty of complaining residents, but they will not benefit from the Costco as the rest of the city will. I also hope that it will have a gas station for us as well. Hopefully, Sand Creek will be extended to the location as well.
As a long time resident, I look forward to seeing this being built as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Jim Stark
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 14
Attachment 14
1 Hagen, Jennifer
From: Michael Towns >
Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2023 7:53 AM
To: Web Planning Division; =yCouncil Members
Subject: Costco - support
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Brentwood Planning department and City Council,
I want to express my support for the building of Costco in Brentwood.
Thanks,
Mike Towns
Resident since 1992
Attachment 14
1 Hagen, Jennifer
From: Kay E Nelson >
Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2023 9:52 AM
To: Web Planning Division
Subject: Possible Costco store
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
I would like to voice my opinion on the possible building of a Costco store in Brentwood. I live in one of the over 55 communities and would welcome a Costco store close by. As a senior in my 70s, I am driving less far and the speeders on Hwy. 4 make it undesirable to drive to Antioch. Please approve the building of this store which would bring several jobs to Brentwood and increase convenience in shopping for seniors and younger residents alike.
Kay Nelson
Summerset II
Attachment 14
1 Hagen, Jennifer
From: Lai Woudstra < >
Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2023 6:21 PM
To: Web Planning Division
Subject: Costco
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Dear Planning Commission,
I am writing in support of Costco coming to Brentwood. It would be foolish for the City to miss the tax revenues ($1 million/ yr.) generated by Costco sales (like you did with Chick‐fil‐A)! Second, the Lone Tree corridor has gotten too crowded. This project will open up Sand Creek Road. Please do not listen to the vocal minority (NIMBYs). Brentwood already made the mistake with Chick‐fil‐A, and all the revenues that restaurant could have brought into the City.
Sincerely,
Lai Woudstra
Resident
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 14
Attachment 14
Attachment 14
Attachment 14
Attachment 14
1 Hagen, Jennifer
From: jane garcia < >
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 9:41 AM
To: Web Planning Division
Subject: Costco
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
I am definitely in favor of Costco coming to Brentwood. It will be a nice to have the Tax revenue for Brentwood ….many years ago I saw San Ramon neighbors fight a Costco and Costco built a store across the street in Danville and SR still got all the traffic & Danville the revenue. Let’s not let that happen here! J. Garcia in SSlV
Sent from my iPad
Attachment 14
1 Hagen, Jennifer
From:
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 10:19 AM
To: Web Planning Division
Subject: Costco
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Dear Planning Commissioner,
I want to voice how excited I am about Costco coming to our town Brentwood! It would be wonderful to have it in our city.
It seems it would also create a lot of job opportunities for residents.
Brentwood would benefit so much from the tax dollars it would generate also for our city.
Thank you
Kim Henson
Brentwood resident
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 14
Attachment 14
Attachment 14
Attachment 14
Attachment 14
1 Hagen, Jennifer
From: Cathy Richardson >
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 1:46 PM
To: Web Planning Division
Subject: Costco
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Hello,
I would just like to let you know that I’m fully in support of Costco coming to Brentwood. It would be wonderful for our city! Please don’t let this opportunity pass us by!
Thanks,
Cathy Richardson
Aim for the moon, if you miss, you may hit a star 🌟
W. Clement Stone
Attachment 14
Attachment 14
Attachment 14
Attachment 14
Attachment 14
Attachment 14
Attachment 14
Attachment 14
Attachment 14
Attachment 14
Attachment 14
Attachment 14
Attachment 14
Attachment 14
Attachment 14
1 Hagen, Jennifer
From: Renee Reed < >
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 5:01 PM
To: Web Planning Division
Subject: Costco
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Please build it! It’s a win for all!
Thank you,
Renee Reed
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 14
1 Hagen, Jennifer
From: SHEILA REED < >
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2023 5:02 PM
To: Web Planning Division
Subject: COSTCO
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
I really can’t believe you are still arguing over this subject, since the business was supposed to be up and running by the end of the year. If you can dictate the terms of the entry road,, and avoid the hot mess that is the TJ’s/In and Out parking lot why wouldn’t you?
This would be a huge tax base for our city. We did a write in campaign for TJ’s. Please don’t keep the community waiting, put something up other than housing. Thanks a bunch Sheila Reed Attachment 14
Tim Ogden June 27, 2023
Brentwood City Manager
City of Brentwood
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
Re: Costco’s Commitment to Renewable Energy Interests
Dear Mr. Ogden,
Costco is eager to be a member of the City of Brentwood community, and we are passionate about meeting the needs of our members. As part of our application process, Costco spoke with community members, received letters relating to the project, and considered all community input provided. Our team understands the community’s desire for solar panels and electric vehicle charging stations to be installed as part of the proposed Warehouse located at Lone Tree Plaza Drive and Heidorn Ranch Road. As explained in this letter, Costco has committed to the future use of renewable energy by designing the buildings to be solar panel ready and installing EV conduit throughout the site.
As part of our project, we are investing in PG&E’s ongoing efforts to provide sustainable energy by contracting with PG&E under its Solar Choice program to supply the project with 100% renewable energy as available. PG&E are experts in the energy and sustainability fields and have the ability to provide the most efficient, sustainable energy for everyone. They understand the regulations and maintenance required for solar to make it an efficient power source.
In order to augment PG&E’s efforts and future sustainability efforts on our site, Costco is proposing to build our Warehouse building roof and electrical system to be solar-ready.
Permitting and constructing the solar system can be a long process that could lead to delays, but planning to add solar after opening when consultation with PG&E indicates that is warranted allows Costco to maintain the earliest possible Warehouse opening date while keeping the option to add solar after opening.
Attachment 15
Costco has committed to the installation of EV charging conduit to 10% of the parking stalls on site. As the use of electric vehicles increases in California, Costco continues to explore the addition of EV charging stations to serve our members. Permitting of the EV Charging Stations is done independently of the Warehouse and Fuel Station after opening to limit potential schedule delays related to the energy providers.
To reiterate, Costco is committed to the use of renewable energy through designing the buildings to be solar panel-ready and installing EV conduit throughout the site. As with every Costco warehouse, should further feasibility analyses support the need for solar panels and the local need for EV charging stations, Costco has the ability to install this equipment at a future date after opening. The permitting and installation of solar panels and EV charging stations after opening allow Costco to maintain the schedule of opening by Summer 2024 and begin serving the community as quickly as possible.
Sincerely,
Pari Holliday
Real Estate Development Director
Attachment 15
Twenty Eighth Floor
633 West Fifth Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
O 213-291-0758
F 213-921-4303
C 213-718-3468
[email protected]
June 30, 2023
VIA EMAIL ONLY
[email protected]
[email protected]
Honorable Joel R. Bryant, Mayor
Honorable Jovita Mendoza
Honorable Pa'tanisha Pierson
Honorable Susannah Meyer, Vice Mayor
Honorable Tony Oerlemans
City of Brentwood City Council
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
RE: Appeal Approvals of MS 351-22, CUP 22-001, DR 22-002 and MSP 22-001 Dear Honorable Councilmember:
Our firm represents the Contra Costa Climate Action Coalition, an unincorporated association of concerned Brentwood residents and business owners (“Association”) that wishes to appeal to the Brentwood City Council (“City Council”) the erroneous decision made by the Brentwood Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”), at a regularly scheduled hearing held on June 21, 2023, whereby the Planning Commission granted certain project approvals related to the approximately 152,000-square-foot wholesale Costco warehouse, a gasoline fueling station, and other site improvements proposed to be constructed in the City of Brentwood, at Lone Tree Plaza Drive within the Lone Tree Plaza shopping center (“Project”).
The Project approvals include: (i) a Tentative Parcel Map (“MS 351-22”) for the reconfiguration and subdivision of two vacant parcels, including Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 019-020-073 and 019-020-055, into a total of four smaller parcels; (ii) a Conditional Use Permit, CUP 22-001, to operate the proposed gas station facility; (iii) a Design Review Application, DR 22-002, for the development of a 154,852-square-foot Costco Warehouse with a 5,368-square-foot entrance canopy, and a gas station fueling area with an 11,500 square foot canopy over 16 fueling dispensers, which allows for 32 fuel pumps. Associated parking lot, landscaping, and access and Attachment 15
City of Brentwood City Councilmembers
June 30, 2023
circulation improvements will also be included on the two lots; and (iv) a Master Sign Program, MSP 22-001, which consists of building-mounted signage for the Costco warehouse and Costco fueling station (“Approvals”). This comment letter was submitted as an appeal based on the Association’s concerns about unmitigated adverse air quality, noise and health impacts to the community caused Project construction and traffic, as these impacts may exacerbate existing conditions, as well as urban decay conditions that can be created in Brentwood because of the Project. The appeal and proffered filing fee were rejected by the City Clerk because there is already another appeal of the Approvals pending. Thus, this appeal is being submitted as public comments instead. The Association intends to attend the City Council meeting at which time the appeal is expected to be heard.
Increased Traffic Makes Brentwood Less Livable
Costco warehouses are huge and draw a lot of traffic. Brentwood is already a very congested city. The environmental analysis underlying the Approvals does not adequately account for adverse impacts to Brentwood’s air quality from increased greenhouse gas emissions and toxic air contaminants caused by Project traffic. The existing area traffic conditions can only exacerbate the Project traffic impacts. The additional gas station will only make things worse due to emissions from the pumps and from the additional cars that stand idling, waiting to fuel up.
The Gas Station Will Impact Sensitive Receptors
The proposed gas station is poorly situated so close to residential areas. Its location raises serious health concerns, particularly for families residing in the area that have toddlers, young children and retired adults. These vulnerable members of our community are particularly susceptible to the adverse effects of air pollution and other toxic air contaminants and emissions generated by a gas station located close to residential areas. It is concerning that more comprehensive studies have not been conducted to assess these potential health risks and to implement appropriate mitigation measures to safeguard vulnerable populations.
Urban Decay is Likely to Occur
The planned Project is likely to cause urban decay in Brentwood. The Priority Area -1 (“PA-1”) Specific Plan is intended to foster a next generation employment hub in the city.
Unfortunately, the opposite is likely to result because of an unhealthy concentration of big box stores in the community. Another Costco is located just 15 minutes away. Together, they will exert undue economic pressure on nearby existing small businesses, causing many of them to fail.
Furthermore, while the Association is in favor of growing the local Brentwood economy, such growth must be sustainable – and it must be measurable, rather than speculative. In reality, the anticipated 250-300 jobs forecasted to be created will go to people who simply can’t afford to live in Brentwood. This will lead to more traffic and greater commute times for workers – exactly the opposite of what PA-1 is supposed to accomplish. Additionally, in recent years Attachment 15
City of Brentwood City Councilmembers
June 30, 2023
Brentwood has become a crowded metropolis. This Project worsens that condition without sufficient reciprocal landscaping to replace the precious lost open space that this Project will cause.
Ambient Noise and Light Levels Will Unduly Disturb the Community Construction and operations noise will also adversely impact nearby residential areas.
Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 decibels (“dBA”). Exposure to high noise levels affects the entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, thereby affecting blood pressure and functions of the heart and the nervous system. Extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA results in permanent cell damage, which is the main driver for employee hearing protection regulations in the workplace. For community environments, the ambient or background noise problem is widespread, though generally worse in urban areas than in outlying, less developed areas. Elevated ambient noise levels can result in noise interference (e.g., speech interruption/masking, sleep disturbance, disturbance of concentration) and cause annoyance.
Mitigation measures must be mandated to ensure construction and operations cumulative ambient noise levels are within acceptable levels.
The proposed Costco store and gas station would introduce a heavy footprint in close proximity to a quiet residential area. The increased noise, traffic, air quality and other detrimental impacts will disrupt the tranquility and peaceful living environment enjoyed by these residents. The perceived quality of life (and, perhaps, property values) will be negatively impacted by the traffic, noise and air pollution the Project will create.
Furthermore, the light to be emitted from this proposed Project will negatively impact the community at night. In addition to pointing the lights downward, blinders should be installed on the light fixtures to prevent lateral light pollution from reaching nearby residents and from increasing Brentwood’s nighttime ambient light levels.
Several More Stringent Mitigation Measures are Necessary to Ensure Citizen Safety The recent federal infrastructure legislation will invest heavily in the electric vehicle market nationwide. At a minimum, the Project should be required to install an adequate number of charging stations for electric vehicles and electronic bicycles. Indeed, in order to safely and conveniently serve people approaching the store on foot or via bicycle from the Mokelumne Aqueduct Regional Trail (“Mokelumne Trail", additional bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure must be constructed throughout the parking lot from the street to the bicycle parking racks and on to the front door of the store.
Traffic at the intersection that feeds Home Depot, In-and-Out Burger, Lowes and Kohls, etc. is often congested because cars will pull into the intersection when there is no place to go and block traffic. Traffic lights in the area need to be better coordinated to alleviate this problem as the additional Costco will only make this problem worse.
Attachment 15
City of Brentwood City Councilmembers
June 30, 2023
Once more comprehensive studies have been conducted to assess the potential health risks and air quality impacts caused by greenhouse gas emissions and toxic air contaminants, appropriate mitigation measures must be implemented to safeguard sensitive receptors.
Several mitigation measures are necessary to ensure bicycle and pedestrian safety, including:
• Provide a safe route for pedestrians and bicyclists from the Mokelumne Trail to the main entrance of the store.
• Install bicycle parking near the front door of the store, no farther away from the main entrance than the closest non-handicapped automobile parking place. • The bicycle parking should include both lockers and racks that accommodate cargo bikes and trailers as well as normal bicycles. This generally means that the bicycle racks should be spaced farther apart than racks for regular bicycles. • The number of bicycle parking places should be in a ratio with the automobile parking places. One bicycle space per 15-20 car parking spaces would be appropriate. • At least half of the bicycle parking spaces should have an electric power receptacle so that electric bicycles and scooters can be charged while the owner is inside the store shopping.
Due to the proximity of Antioch and Oakley, additional mitigation measures are needed in those communities. Brentwood and the Developer should work together to achieve these goals:
Mitigations Needed in Brentwood:
• Remove the single curb cut that serves both crosswalks from the southeast corner of Heidorn Ranch Road and Lone Tree Plaza Drive and reconstruct the sidewalk so that individual curb-cuts lead to each crosswalk.
• Install a sidewalk that is at least 10 feet wide on the east side of Heidorn Ranch Road, leading from the corner of Lone Tree Plaza Drive to the Mokelumne Trail, which is located on the East Bay MUD utility corridor.
• All crosswalks, especially those associated with the Mokelumne Trail, in the vicinity of the new Costco store should be zebra striped in bright yellow paint. • All crosswalks, especially those associated with the Mokelumne Trail, in the vicinity of the new Costco store should have shark tooth limit lines in the appropriate traffic lanes Attachment 15
City of Brentwood City Councilmembers
June 30, 2023
and a sign telling motorists to "stop here when crosswalk is occupied." (Use the standard MUTCD sign.)
• All crossings of uncontrolled intersections by the Mokelumne Trail must have rectangular rapidly flashing beacons.
• Build a connecting trail along the MoCoCo railroad line between the Mokelumne Trail and the City of Brentwood's existing Minnesota Trail, which parallels the railroad line and extends to Central Boulevard. Along the way, this trail intersects with and crosses the Marsh Creek Regional Trail. The segment of trail that needs to be built is less than a quarter of a mile long. Minnesota Drive may have to moved approximately 15-feet to the west to accommodate the construction of this trail segment. Railroad companies are notoriously difficult to deal with, so we undoubtedly will not be able to build this segment of trail on the railroad’s property. The land to the west of the needed segment of trail is currently undeveloped, so moving Minnesota Drive and constructing this short segment of trail should be no problem. A member of Brentwood’s staff has indicated that it would be easier to build the new segment of trail on the west side of Minnesota Drive and have the trail users cross Minnesota Drive at each end of the new segment of trail.
That would certainly be a lesser desired option, but if that is the one selected, we must have full-blown vehicle traffic signals at each end of the new segment of trail.
Mitigations Needed in Antioch:
• Widen the sidewalk on the west side of Heidorn Ranch Road between the signalized intersection with Lone Tree Plaza Drive where the Mokelumne Trail crosses Heidorn Ranch Road and then heads back to the East Bay MUD utility corridor where the Mokelumne Trail resumes. This sidewalk segment is around 50-feet long. Currently the sidewalk is ADA minimum width. The sidewalk should be increased to 10-feet wide. The location of the gate and entrance to the utility corridor/trail will need to be adjusted to accommodate the widened sidewalk.
• Install a bike lane on northbound Heidorn Ranch Road as it approaches the Lone Tree Way intersection. There is sufficient space between the existing curb faces to retain the existing motor-vehicle lanes when installing this short segment of bike lane; we’ll just have to narrow the (currently generous) vehicle-traffic lanes a little bit.
Note: Heidorn Ranch Road has bike lanes on both sides of the street over most of its length and currently extends to the south to Sand Creek Road. • Add bike lanes to both sides of Fairside Way between Lone Tree Way and the entrance to the existing City of Antioch trail that goes behind the Bella Rose Apartments and connects to Country Hills Drive at Canada Valley Road. These bike lanes should extend to/from the limit line for the crosswalk at Lone Tree Way.
Note 1: The southbound side of Fairside Way might present a width problem for the Attachment 15
City of Brentwood City Councilmembers
June 30, 2023
addition of a bike lane. Bicyclists would prefer a narrower marked bike lane and narrower traffic lanes over the use of sharrows. Fairside Way is a quiet residential street, so this should pose no problem.
Note 2: Heidorn Ranch Road seamlessly changes name to Fairside Way as it crosses Lone Tree Way.
• Ensure the traffic signal of Heidorn Ranch Road/Fairside Way responds to the presence of bicyclists waiting to cross Lone Tree Way.
Note: These two small additions to the city's bike lanes will create a marked, on-street route on the west side of Highway 4 between the Mokelumne Trail and the Delta de Anza Regional Trail using the bike lanes on Country Hills Drive and Laurel Road. • Install rapidly flashing rectangular beacons at the crossing of Vista Grande Drive by the Mokelumne Trail. In addition to push-buttons, these rapidly flashing rectangular beacons should automatically activate when the presence of an approaching bicyclist is detected. • The existing single curb-cut in the middle of the curve of each corner serving two crosswalks must be removed and curb-cuts for the sidewalks at each corner of the north side Vista Grande Drive should be installed so that one curb-cut leads to each crosswalk. • Install zebra-painted crosswalks, yellow in color, at every street that the Mokelumne Trail crosses in the City of Antioch. Each crosswalk needs an appropriately placed shark-tooth limit line in each traffic lane. Uncontrolled, midblock intersections should have rapidly flashing rectangular beacons installed.
• Install a scramble phase for pedestrians and bicyclists at the traffic signal at Lone Tree Way/Hillcrest Avenue where the Mokelumne Trail crosses both streets. • Widen the sidewalk of Hillcrest Avenue on the east side of the street to 10-feet where the Mokelumne Trail is on the sidewalk for about 100 feet as it goes to the intersection with Lone Tree Way from the East Bay MUD right-of-way. Currently the sidewalk is ADA minimum width. This widening will require that the fence and gate of the East Bay MUD utility corridor be moved to accommodate the new sidewalk width. Note: there is a small entrance sign/plaza on the southeast corner of Hillcrest Avenue and Lone Tree Way that includes decorative concrete flat-work close to the corner. This existing concrete sidewalk must not be damaged when the concrete for the widened sidewalk is poured. • Ensure that continuous bicycle lanes exist on both sides of Empire Avenue between the border with Oakley and the border with Brentwood. Marked bicycle lanes must be included up to and away from the limit lines/crosswalks of each intersection. This is especially important at the crossing of Lone Tree Way.
Note: With judicious adjustment of vehicle-traffic lane-width, there should be sufficient Attachment 15
City of Brentwood City Councilmembers
June 30, 2023
space between the curb faces to fit in all the needed lanes. Follow the standards listed in the CCTA's Countywide Bicycle Plan for designing and installing these bicycle lanes. • Connect the current western end of the Mokelumne Trail near Stapleton Drive to Somersville Road. This will connect the Mokelumne Trail with the Delta de Anza Regional Trail, which passes the corner of Somersville Road and Buchanan Road. This connection can be easily made by widening the sidewalk on the south side of Buchanan Road to 10-feet between the appropriate points.
Note: This trail connection is several miles from the Costco site, so it might be placed fairly low on the required-projects list. However, this connection is needed to connect the separate bicycle paths into a continuous network and it is part of the Mokelumne Trail.
Mitigations Needed in Oakley:
• Widen Empire Avenue as it crosses the MoCoCo railroad line. Empire Avenue extends from Brentwood through a corner of Antioch and deep into Oakley. Except for the railroad crossing, Empire Avenue currently consists of four vehicle traffic lanes, two sidewalks, two bicycle lanes, and a landscaped median over the entire distance between the railroad tracks and Laurel Road. The railroad crossing consists of two 11-foot vehicle traffic lanes and nothing else. It is a death trap for anyone not in an automobile. Empire Avenue will be a major access route for Oakley residents to get to the new Costco store and is a major access point for Oakley citizens accessing the shopping opportunities along Lone Tree Way.
Note: By widening the railroad crossing we will complete a marked, on-street route between the Mokelumne Trail and the Delta de Anza Regional Trail on the east side of the freeway. • Add bicycle lanes to Neroli Road/Bridgehead Road between Live Oak Avenue and Wilbur Avenue.
Note: Neroli Road seamlessly changes names to Bridgehead Road as it crosses Main Street.
This project would create a marked, on-street connection between the Delta de Anza Regional Trail and the west end of the Big Break Regional Trail.
Note: The California Delta Trail is temporarily on the Delta de Anza Trail and uses this segment of road to get over to the Antioch Bridge as it continues its trek up to Locke and then to Sacramento. This project would require the widening of Neroli Road/Bridgehead Road in order to fit the bike lanes. These bike lanes would be added to over about a two or two-and-a-half-mile segment of road.
Note: There is space between the abutments under the BNSF railroad, so we won’t have to rebuild this crossing to fit in the bike lanes. This route would closely parallel Highway 4 for part of the way and Highway 160 for the remainder of the way.
As these Public Comments demonstrate, the Project Approvals cannot be granted until the Public has been provided with enough time and information to review the Project, to provide Brentwood with detailed information about the effect which the proposed Project is likely to have on Attachment 15
City of Brentwood City Councilmembers
June 30, 2023
the environment, and to provide ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be mitigated.
For the reasons stated herein, the Association requests a hearing on the Project Approvals before the City Council so the Association can provide additional, well-informed comments on the Project prior to its final Approval.
Sincerely,
Tal C. Finney, Esq., Of
FINNEY ARNOLD, LLP
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Bill Zuroff
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 7:17 AM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: In Support of Brentwood Costco
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Good morning,
I was reading that there might be pressure to stop the plans for Costco to open in Brentwood. I live here in Brentwood and fully support Costco coming to Brentwood. For several reasons, this would be a great benefit.
From all of my research, Costco is a great community partner. They bring higher paying jobs to the area and invest in employees and the community. Selfishly, it would be great not to have to drive to Antioch or Tracy for my shopping.
Having Costco here in Brentwood really makes sense and I hope that it can move forward.
I don’t know all the details about the pressure to stop the development, but as a resident here, I think this is a very sound decision by the city to have it move forward and am 100% behind it! It would be very sad to have that area become (or pay for) another private safari building where the rich can flaunt their wealth in front of hard working residents…
Thank you!
Bill Zuroff
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Nick King
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 7:12 AM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Please build the new Costco in Brentwood it would greatly benefit Brentwood with all of the new revenue and jobs.
Nick King
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Jeannine Sullivan
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 5:23 AM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco project
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
I am writing to voice my support to move forward on the approved Costco project. Stand strong against Seeno and their questionable tactics.
Jeannine Sullivan
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Jeremy Jones
Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2023 9:10 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco Project ‐ Please Approve
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Good evening,
I’m writing to express my support of the Costco project recently approved by the Planning Commission. With the number of Brentwood residents already Costco members (me being one of them🙂), the number of solid jobs that will be created, and the additional sales tax revenue that will be generated for Brentwood, this is a great opportunity for our city.
Thank you.
Jeremy Jones
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Susan Travis <
Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2023 9:09 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco project
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Please keep the Costco project moving ahead. This is what Brentwood needs! Susan Travis
Brentwood
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Tammie Macdonald <
Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2023 8:44 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Seeno and Costco
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
I’m writing to ask that the city of Brentwood move forward with building the approved Costco. Not only does the city benefit from all the sales tax revenue, but the citizens of the city have the opportunity to earn a good living wage. These types of jobs are something the people have been wanting and needing.
Thank you,
Tammie Macdonald
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Mohib Raza <
Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2023 7:25 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco Approval ‐Seeno Resistance
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Dear city council members,
Our family applaud you for approving the Costco project in our city. Thank you very much.
We have learned through Nextdoor application that an organization by the name of Seeno homes has petitioned you to stop the Costco project. We want you to know that the Costco project is extremely important to this community. We do not want you to give in to the challenges presented by Seeno homes! While Seeno homes is known for their low quality products and doubtful business practices, but that is not my point here. We want to extend our full support to you to continue with the Costco project. If you need anything in terms of support, please do let us know. The last thing our city needs is a lost opportunity like Costco business that can benefit us for a very long time.
Thanks again and stay strong.
Thanks
Syed Mohibbe Raza
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Michelle Guerrero <
Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2023 6:47 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
City Council,
I’m not sure what Seeno will gain if Costco does not go into Brentwood and really don’t care. Costco will provide jobs, tax dollars and convenience to Brentwood and surrounding area. Please ignore the glutinous builder and proceed as planned.
Thank you,
Michelle Guerrero
(32 year resident)
Sent from my iPad
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Adrian Torres <
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 8:53 AM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Good morning,
It has come to my attention that there are some that are opposing the new Costco. It is obvious that this project is a great benefit to the city of Brentwood and its residents. Please do all in your power to fast track this project for tge residents of Brentwood.
Sincerely,
Adrian
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Renee Swanson
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 9:12 AM
To: Web ComDev Dist <[email protected]> Subject: Costco
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Please move forward with Costco development.
Thank you
R. Swanson
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Don Stidham <
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 9:04 AM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco Project
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Hi City Council,
Just wanted to thank you for approving the Costco expansion into Brentwood.
Before retiring I had the privilege of dealing with Costco in my business for a number of years. They are first class operators and a great community neighbor.
They also go out of their way to feature local products to their members which will be good for Brentwood vendors.
They integrate themselves into the community.
This will be a big advantage for Brentwood citizens.
Please don’t allow any dissenters to stop or slow down this important project. You’ve made a great decision and I’m sure you will work hard to manage traffic issues.
Again, congratulations and thank all of you who support this project.
Kind regards,
Don Stidham
Brentwood, CA 94513
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Tracey Thomas
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 9:44 AM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco Project
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Costco is good for our community. They are a good employer and will provide jobs to our area! We should not let intimidation by a crooked builder speak for our community. Please do what you can to keep this project moving! Tracey Salazar
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Danielle K
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 10:04 AM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco Brentwood
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
As a Brentwood resident, I am very excited for the new Costco. We’d like the project to continue.
Thank you,
Danielle Kralj
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Robert Kimball
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 10:25 AM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Allow the Costco Project to continue
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Please allow the Costco project to become reality for Brentwood!!! It will bring many jobs and revenue to the city.
Sent from my phone. Please excuse any spelling errors.
Robert Kimball
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From:
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 10:31 AM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco project
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Please go forward with the Costco project and don’t give in to Seeno homes threats. This city needs a project like this to provide jobs and give the community something that will be appreciated.
Thank you,
Bezhan
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Shannon <
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 11:30 AM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Want to send my support for having a Costco in Brentwood. Antioch is not safe to drive too and Tracy/Livermore are too far to go to on a regular basis. We have nothing like Costco here. We need less housing and fast food restaurants.
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: JACQUELINE Calica
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 12:17 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Brentwood Resident in Brentwood Hills
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
To whom it may concern,
I want to thank our city’s good office in providing the best place to live and nurture our kids. As a resident of Brentwood here in Brentwood Hills, I support the moving forward of Costco project and reject Seeno Developer. We wish to have safe, spacious yet progressive Brentwood City.
Thank you
Calica Family
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: duyichu duyichu <
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 12:18 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco Brentwood approval
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Hello,
I am writing to you in support of moving forward with the Costco project in Brentwood. On behalf of the Kaiser Permanente Antioch staff physicians, particularly those of us who reside in Brentwood and Antioch, we feel that having a Brentwood Costco location will greatly enhance the quality of life for both our colleagues and patients. I hope that the city council will do their utmost to make sure this project sees its completion. Thank you! Sincerely,
Ray Zhang, MD
Kaiser Permanente Antioch physician and proud Brentwood resident Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Marcia Davis <
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 1:10 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
I am totally in agreement to have a Brentwood Costco. As a Brentwood resident I find the current trip to Costco long.
And that store is always so busy
Marcia Davis
Trilogy
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Margaret Taylor <
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 1:16 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Please support and expedite the Costco project it’s a great benefit for our city and its citizens. I am very excited for this project to be completed!
Sent from my iPad
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Raja Tadi
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 1:41 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco and Seeno
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Hi Brentwood CityCouncil,
I am Raja Tadi resident of Brentwood, CA.Please don’t get intimidated by Seeno homes regarding the Costco construction. Please support Costco and help our Brentwood neighborhood grow. Good luck.
Sent from my iPhone
Raja Tadi.
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Jesus Gonzales
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 2:31 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Please allow Costco to proceed
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Hello,
Please allow Costco to be built and the project to proceed. I am a local resident and agree with the majority of the community that Costco would be beneficial and a great addition to the community and quality of life of our fellow Brentwood residents.
Thank you!
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Alfredo Remorin
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 3:04 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
We need Costco in our area!
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Cathlyn White Guerra <
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 3:17 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Stand Firm against Seeno
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
I’m so happy the Costco project has been approved! Glad to hear the Sand Creek extension will be completed before Costco opens! That was my only concern!
Please stand firm against the self interests of Seeno. The Costco project is good for our City! Thank you!
Cathlyn White Guerra
BWD
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Lydia Moon
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 3:45 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Brentwood Costco Project
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Dear City Council Members,
I have read that the proposed Costco project was approved and is now being appealed by Seeno. Please do what you can to make this project move forward. We need a Costco in our area, and the jobs and tax revenue will both benefit our city.
Thank you for doing your best to keep our city growing in a positive direction.
Sincerely,
Lydia Moon
Brentwood resident
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: RALPH COLE <
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 4:57 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Support for the building of the Brentwood Costco CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Brentwood City Council:
As a residents of Trilogy at the Vineyard my wife and I fully support the building of the Brentwood Costco. Please do not let Seeno’s bullying tactics influence your decisions.
Thank you,
Ralph and Cheri Cole
Brentwood, CA. 94513
Sent from my iPad
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Shoaib Siddiqi
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 4:59 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Please move forward with Costco
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
We as a resident of Brentwood highly support Costco in our neighborhood.
Shoaib Siddiqi
Brentwood, CA 94513
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Dennis Linsmeier
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 5:55 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Seeno interference
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
This guy. Should not be allowed to do business in Brentwood, we don’t need this type of character here. City council please don’t let this guy strongarm us!
Dennis Linsmeier
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Derrick Lewis
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 7:20 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco store in Brentwood.
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
To whom it may concern,
As a homeowner and resident of Brentwood. I am in support of the Costco Project to move forward. As a resident I feel it would create jobs, more money for the city of Brentwood and overall better experience. Please keep the project moving forward.
Kind regards
Derrick Lewis.
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Dawn O’Sullivan <
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 9:19 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Cc:
Subject: Costco
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
To whom it may concern,
Our family recently moved to Brentwood and we are excited that our new community has their priorities aligned with the best interest of the residents. Please continue the great work you do! Our family is very grateful that the Costco project is underway and we hope nothing changes with the plan. We fully support the Costco project. Thank you for considering our input.
Dawn & Michael O’Sullivan
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Yun Shen
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2023 12:14 AM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: support Costco 100%!!!
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Sent from my iPad
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: SOLO VELO <
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 4:07 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: WE WANT COSTCO IN BRENTWOOD
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Thank you…
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Alison Overzet <
Sent: Sunday, July 9, 2023 7:22 AM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Please move forward with Costco!
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
I would like to add my voice to the numerous voices that want you to move forward with the Costco project. People in this community are tired of having to go all the way to Tracy to go to Costco because no one wants to go to the Antioch Costco because it’s in a horrible area. We actually travel all the way to Tracy just so we can go to a nice Costco, and we are so excited, as are everyone that I talk to that I know in our community, to have a Costco here where we can access it easily. Please do not allow Seeno development to take this from us and just develop more homes in that area. They are greedy developers who want the land for themselves. We want businesses here that offer opportunities for employment and offer us a place to go buy things where we can save money. Please move forward with this project Alison Overzet
Brentwood, CA 94513
“Love is that condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own”. ‐ Robert Heinlen Sent from my iPhone
Alison Overzet
“Love is that condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own”. ‐ Robert Heinlen Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Alora Martinez <
Sent: Saturday, July 8, 2023 8:02 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Support Costco in Brentwood
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Dear City Council:
I would like to give my support for Costco to build and support our community. I hope that you continue to keep in good standing with the higher‐ups with Costco corporate so they do not give up on this project due to delays caused by frivolous lawsuits.
Please continue to look toward the residents of our great community and their support for this amazing project.
Thank you,
Alora Martinez
Brentwood CA 94513
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Elissa Welch <
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 11:31 AM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Seeno/Costco
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Hello,
I am a resident of Brentwood and was taken back when I heard that Seeno was trying to stop the City of Brentwood from moving forward with a unanimous decision to bring Costco to Brentwood.
The Brentwood city residents who have elected you and pay your salary want Costco. The city doesn’t want Seeno development.
Please put the city residents/tax payers first, and not Seeno, a special interest developer.
Thank you for your continued partnership and support.
Elissa Welch
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Carol Ramsey
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2023 10:13 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: I support the Costco project.
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
I’m in support of the Costco project, respectfully, C. Ramsey Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Liz Harris
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2023 11:46 AM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: We support the new Costco project
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
This is to notify Brentwood city council that my husband and I are in full support of the new Costco project planned near Kohl’s in Brentwood.
Please do NOT let this project fall through.
Thank you!
David and Elizabeth Harris
Apple Hill Estates
Brentwood
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
From: +
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 3:58 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco
YES ON COSTCO ‐PLEASE
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From:
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 12:07 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
I live very close to wear the new Costco is hoping to be built and I can’t wait! We will literally be able to walk to the store.
I am hearing there could be opposition to this being built by a builder named Seeno? I really don’t think they should have any say with the reputation they have in the community.
This project will bring many jobs and opportunities to the area and I am excited for this to come into our neighborhood.
Thank you
Tracy DeLucia
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
CEQA ANALYSIS - COSTCO
JUNE 2023
Prepared for:
City of Brentwood
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
(925) 516-5400
Prepared by:
De Novo Planning Group
1020 Suncast Lane, Suite 106
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
(916) 949-3231
De Novo Planning Group
A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental Firm
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 1
INTRODUCTION
This document provides an analysis of the proposed Brentwood Costco (Project) with respect to the project’s consistency with the Priority Area 1 (PA-1) Specific Plan, the analysis contained in the PA-1 Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and any site-specific environmental impacts or cumulative impacts that may result from project implementation.
As explained in the following pages, the proposed project is consistent with the City’s PA-1 Specific Plan, for which an EIR was prepared and certified, and there are no site-specific or cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project that have not been fully addressed in a previous environmental document, or that cannot be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of uniformly applied development policies and/or standards. The findings presented below demonstrate that no additional environmental analysis/review is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) prior to approval of the proposed project.
STUDIES AND REPORTS.
This document includes references to several reports that were prepared for the proposed project, and are provided in the following reference materials (included as attachments):
Attachment A. Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report Prepared by: Ramboll US Consulting, Inc. Irvine, California. Project Number 1690022489. April 2023. Attachment B. Geotechnical Study Prepared by: Kleinfelder Project No. 20220773.001A.
February 22, 2022
Attachment C. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report. Prepared by: Ramboll US Consulting, Inc. Project Number 1690022489, January 2023. Attachment D. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Prepared by: Kleinfelder Project No. 20220783.001A. June 22, 2021.
Attachment E. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report Prepared by:
Kleinfelder Project No. 20220783.001A. September 28, 2021. Attachment F. Acoustical Assessment Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
May 2023
Attachment G. Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Prepared by: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Project Number 26600. March 21, 2023.
PROJECTOVERVIEW
PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located within the Lone Tree Plaza shopping center in west Brentwood near the Antioch/Brentwood city limits. The project’s regional location is shown on Figure 1. The project site is composed of approximately 23.06 acres (1,004,494 square feet) and includes two Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 2
parcels: assessor’s parcels numbers (APNs) 019-020-073 and 019-020-055, both of which are located directly south of Lone Tree Plaza Drive and to the east of Heidorn Ranch Road.
The Costco Site and the majority of Costco’s associated facilities and site improvements would be located exclusively on APN 019-020-073 on the eastern half of the project site (referred to as the “Costco Site”). The parcel to the west, APN 019-020-055, would include some roadway improvements to improve access to the Costco Site (referred to as the “out parcel”). The two parcels described above are shown on Figure 3.
EXISTING SITE AND SURROUNDING LAND USES
The existing project site is currently undeveloped and largely covered in bare dirt, with sparse growths of grasses and shrubs. An existing PG&E overhead power transmission line traverses the site in a northeastern-southwestern direction, and one large tower is located in the southern portion of the project site. The alignment of the PG&E overhead lines traverses the proposed parking lot. The project site is surrounded by commercial uses (the entirety of the Lone Tree Plaza shopping center) to the north, residential uses to the west (west of Heidorn Ranch Road in the City of Antioch), agricultural uses to the south, and Highway 4 to the east.
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS
As shown on Figure 4, the City of Brentwood General Plan designates the site as Priority Area 1 (PA-1) Specific Plan and does not include a use-specific land use designation with more specificity than the Specific Plan designation. Instead, the General Plan defers to the PA-1 Specific Plan and its associated land use designations. Within the PA-1 Specific Plan, the project site is designated Regional Commercial (RC), which allows uses including, but not limited to, retail, institutional, utilities, automobile-related, and a wide array of commercial uses. The proposed project is an allowed use within the RC Land Use designation in the PA-1 Specific Plan. The PA-1 Specific Plan also serves as the applicable zoning document for the project site. The PA-1 Specific Plan was adopted on November 13, 2018 and amended in October 2022.
The out parcel is designated Transit Village (TV) and would include roadway improvements to improve access to the Costco Site. No other development is proposed on this parcel.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project would include the development of a new 152,000-square-foot Costco Wholesale warehouse and various site circulation, surface parking, and landscaping improvements, as shown on Figure 3. The following commercial activities are proposed:
warehouse retail center
tire sales and installation
optical exams and optical sales
hearing aid testing and sales
food service prep and sales
meat preparation and sales
bakery and sales of baked goods
alcohol sales
fuel facility
It should be noted that although Costco controls both the project site and the out parcel, development of the out parcel is not proposed at this time and would require a separate development and environmental review process(es) should development be proposed in the future.
Fuel Facility
The project includes a members-only Costco fuel facility, which includes a +/-11,500 square-foot canopy and a +/-125 square-foot controller enclosure located at the northwestern portion of the Costco Site. The controller enclosure would be built with steel walls and finished with paint to match the warehouse building colors. There would be four covered fueling bays, each with four two-sided fuel dispensers so as to provide for the fueling of eight vehicles at each island for a total of 32 fueling positions. The fuel station would have eight stacking lanes, allowing up to approximately 40 vehicles to wait in queue, in addition to the 32 vehicles at the dispensers. The dispensers would be fully automated and self-service. A trained Costco employee would be present at all times of operation to oversee operations and assist members. Four underground fuel tanks would also be installed at the southern edge of the fuel station. Lights would be recessed into the canopy to provide both lighting during operating hours and a lower level of security lighting after hours.
Site Access
The Costco Site will have a total of five vehicle access points. The main access point will be the existing intersection at Lone Tree Plaza Drive and Cañada Valley Road. Four additional driveways will be provided along Lone Tree Plaza Drive. The driveway to the west of the main access and two to the east will primarily be used for delivery trucks. The fifth access point will also be Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 4
constructed along Lone Tree Plaza Drive and traverse through the out parcel to provide access to the southwest of the Costco Site.
The project applicant is working with the City of Antioch to potentially implement improvements to the intersection at Heidorn Ranch Road and Lone Tree Plaza Drive.
Consistent with the vision of the PA-1 Specific Plan, and specifically Goal LU-5, the project would provide a 10-foot wide multi-use trail connecting the Mokelumne Trail to the project site, as well as the northwestern portion of the Specific Plan area.
Parking
The Costco Site will provide a total of 850 parking stalls, all of which would be surface parking and located to the west and south of the warehouse.
Loading & Truck Circulation
The receiving docks for the warehouse are located on the north side of the warehouse, which has been designed to accommodate truck movements and meet setback requirements. The bay doors will be equipped with sealed gaskets to limit noise impacts. A transformer and two trash compactors will be located to the north of the warehouse.
General Operations
General elements of Costco’s operations are listed below:
Approximately 250 to 300 employees.
Customers are members as Costco is a member-only retail/wholesale business. Hours for the warehouse are anticipated to be Monday through Friday from 9:00 am to 8:30 pm, and Saturday and Sunday from 9:00 am to 7:00 pm. The fuel station will operate from 5:00 am to 10:00 pm daily.
Deliveries
The receiving docks for Costco are at the northwest corner of the building. Costco anticipates approximately 10 large trucks with double-axle trailers and approximately 15-20 smaller box trucks or trucks with single-axle trailers delivering goods on a typical weekday. The trucks range in size from 26 feet long for single-axle trailers to 70 feet long for double-axle trailers. Receiving time is from 2:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., averaging 2 to 3 trucks per hour, with most of the deliveries completed before the warehouse opens.
The tire center, located on the south side of the building, typically will receive shipments of tires one to two times per week in single or double-axle trailer trucks of up to 70 feet in length. The Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 5
same delivery truck will pick up old tires for recycling. Deliveries to and pickups from the tire center will be scheduled before the warehouse opens, typically around 6:00 a.m.
Building Design
The warehouse entrance is located at the southwest of the warehouse. The building orientation and design avoids any operations being along the rear of the building adjacent to Highway 4’s 60- foot no build zone. The receiving area faces west. The tire center will be located along the southern elevation of the warehouse.
As noted above, the proposed fuel facility includes a +/-11,500 square-foot canopy and a +/-125 square-foot controller enclosure located at the northwestern portion of the Costco Site. The controller enclosure would be built with steel walls and finished with paint to match the warehouse building colors. There would be four covered fueling bays, each with four two-sided fuel dispensers so as to provide for the fueling of eight vehicles at each island for a total of 32 fueling positions. The canopy over the fuel bays would be built with metal columns and vertical ribbed panels along the facia edge, both painted to match the warehouse building colors.
Costco Sustainability Features
The Costco Site will incorporate sustainability features per the California Title 24 energy requirements. In addition, to reduce energy consumption and promote sustainability, according to Costco the building and site plan would incorporate many energy saving measures. Below are some of the significant practices that Costco currently incorporates into new buildings that help conserve energy and other natural resources that are expected to be used in connection with the development of the site. It is noted that these proposed conservation measures have not been guaranteed by the City of Brentwood and have not been assumed to be implemented in the following CEQA analysis.
Parking lot light standards will be designed to provide even light distribution, and utilize less energy compared to a greater number of fixtures at lower heights. The use of LED lamps can provide a higher level of perceived brightness with less energy than other lamps such as high-pressure sodium. Additionally, the LED fixtures that Costco will be using on the light poles are full cutoff to eliminate light being aimed skyward. New and renewable building materials are typically extracted and manufactured within the region. When masonry and concrete are used, the materials purchased are local to the project, minimizing the transportation distances and impact to local road networks. The use of pre-manufactured building components, including structural framing and metal panels, helps to minimize waste during construction. Pre-manufactured metal wall panels with insulation carry a higher R-Value and greater solar reflectivity to help conserve energy as compared to other materials. Building heat Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 6
absorption is further reduced by a decrease in the thermal mass of the metal wall when compared to a typical masonry block wall.
A substantial amount of the proposed plant material for the project site is climate adapted to the region and will use less water than other common species. The irrigation system includes the use of deep root watering bubblers for parking lot trees to minimize usage and ensure that water goes directly to the intended planting areas.
Storm water management plans are designed to maintain quality control and storm water discharge rates based on the County requirements.
High-efficiency restroom fixtures can achieve a 40% decrease and water savings over U.S. standards.
Commissioning of mechanical systems will occur to ensure that the HVAC systems are preforming as designed. HVAC comfort systems can be controlled by a computerized building management system to maximize efficiency HVAC units planned for the site are high efficiency direct ducted units, which have phased out the use of HCFC’s completely, long before the Montreal Protocol timeline.
Parking lot and exterior lights can be controlled by a photo sensor and time clock. Lighting is controlled by the overall project energy management system. Energy efficient Transformers (i.e., Square D Type EE transformers) are planned to be used.
Variable speed motors will be used on make-up air units and booster pumps. Gas water heaters are direct vent and 94% efficient or greater. Reclaim tanks are used to capture heat released by refrigeration equipment to heat domestic water in lieu of venting heat to the outside.
The Main Building structure is a pre-engineered system that uses 100% recycled steel materials and is designed to minimize the amount of material used. Construction waste is recycled whenever possible.
Floor sealant is No-VOC and represents over 80% of the floor area. CO2 is monitored throughout the warehouse.
Extensive recycling/reuse program is implemented for warehouse and office space including tires, cardboard, grease, plastics, and electronic waste. Use of plastic shopping bags is avoided.
Suppliers are required to reduce packaging and consider alternative packaging solutions. Distribution facilities are strategically located to minimize miles traveled for delivery. Deliveries are made in full trucks.
All Costco trucks are equipped with an engine idle shut off timers.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 7
Signage
The Costco Site’s proposed signage includes the Costco warehouse typical signage that consists of the signature Costco red and blue corporate colors. The signage is scaled appropriately to the mass of the building elevation. The project is proposing a Master Sign Program that includes specific details about the project’s sign plan.
Landscaping
The proposed landscape design at the Costco Site features a planting layout consisting of colorful accent trees, diverse shade tree species and sweeping drifts (massing) of understory plant species at vehicular and pedestrian entryways, parking lot islands, and street frontages. The overall intent is to create a unifying landscape appearance to the site, as well as achieving a supportive relationship between building and landscape. In addition, the proposed landscape design will comply with the City’s approved plant list.
Selective plant materials will enhance pedestrian wayfinding and scale, while trees and understory plant selections feature year-long interest and seasonal color. Plant materials with neutral and vivid bloom colors, and various leaf textures and patterns provide harmony through variety. Large canopied deciduous and broadleaf evergreen trees are integrated into parking lots, pedestrian walkways and along the street frontages. These trees will, in time, provide shade and reduce ambient heat during times of the year when solar exposure is intense.
Selected plant species provide reliable screening at above grade utility locations, and to soften the northern building facade.
The planting design consists predominantly of sustainable drought-tolerant species adapted to both local and regional climate conditions. Once established, the majority of selected plant species will require low water and landscape maintenance. In addition, understory plant materials are spaced to allow plants to grow and pleat together naturally, minimizing the need for extensive pruning maintenance such as shearing and hedging, thus reducing long-term landscape waste.
The site irrigation design will consist of an efficient low flow, point of source system designed to provide adequate watering to support plant growth and ensure deeply rooted plant material while avoiding excess water application. The system will be programmable, allowing operation during late night and/or early morning hours, with multiple start times and cycles.
Lighting
The site’s parking lot will be illuminated with standard downward LED fixtures affixed to a 36.5- foot-tall light pole. The lighting fixtures are of a “shoe-box” style. The use of LED lamps can provide a higher level of perceived brightness with less energy than other lamps such as highAttachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 8
pressure sodium. Parking lot light standards are designed to provide even light distribution for vehicle and pedestrian safety. The parking lot lights will be timer controlled to limit lighting after the warehouse has closed and most employees are gone from the warehouse. Parking lot lighting will only remain on to provide security and emergency lighting only along the main driveways.
Downward facing security lighting will be located on the exterior of the building on all sides.
Lighting fixtures will also be located on the building approximately every 40 feet around the exterior of the building to provide safety and security. Parking and site lighting will incorporate the use of cutoff lenses to keep light from overflowing beyond the Costco site boundaries.
Utility Infrastructure
Costco will construct utility improvements within the site to service the proposed uses and connect to existing available utilities adjacent to the project site. Water and sewer service will be provided by the City of Brentwood via existing facilities.
No utilities connections are currently proposed at the out parcel.
Storm Drainage
The Project will comply with City, State, and Federal stormwater runoff mandates. The City operates under the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP). The MRP provisions set for development projects will be implemented through a combination of site design (quantity control), source control, and water quality treatment.
Site design measures will include protecting existing trees where possible, planting trees adjacent to and in parking areas, and reducing existing impervious surfaces. Source control measures will include beneficial landscaping, labeling storm drains, and routine maintenance.
Water quality treatment for the site will be provided through multiple bioretention cells around the site. The design and sizing guidelines for the bioretention areas are based off the Santa Clara Valley Stormwater Handbook. A Stormwater Control Plan (SCP) will be included with the Grading and Drainage Plans.
The proposed project is subject to the requirements of the countywide NPDES permit. Known as the “C.3 Standards,” new development and redevelopment projects that create or replace an acre or more of impervious surface area must contain and treat stormwater runoff from the site. The proposed project is a C.3 regulated project and is required to include appropriate site design measures, source controls, features and facilities for hydromodification management (HM) and hydraulically-sized stormwater treatment measures. These measures would include underground storage facilities for HM and biorention areas to treat stormwater runoff before allowing it to proceed into the public storm drain system.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 9
Other Out Parcel Site Improvements
The project includes minor improvements to the out parcel to the west on APN 019-020-055.
These improvements include installation of one driveway access point along the boundary of the two parcels that runs North/South. No other development is currently proposed on this portion of the site. Future development of the out parcel beyond these improvements is speculative at this time. If any development is proposed in the future it will be submitted to the City as a separate independent development application.
PROJECTOBJECTIVES
The following are the objectives for the project:
Construct and operate a new Costco warehouse that serves the local community with competitively priced goods and services from both nationally known businesses as well as regional and local businesses.
Provide a state-of-the-art Costco warehouse to better serve the membership in the greater East Contra Costa County area in a location that is convenient for its members, the community, and employees to travel to shop and work. Provide a Costco warehouse in a location that is serviced by adequate existing infrastructure including roadways and utilities.
Improve the Lone Tree Plaza shopping center to support the development and operation of the Costco Site.
Enhance the area with a warehouse that is architecturally designed to be responsive to the City of Brentwood area design context and sensitive to the adjacent community, future development(s) and compatible with the need for a new warehouse in this market area.
o Develop a high-quality planned commercial development. o Employ architectural and landscaping designs that soften the scale and mass of the buildings, create a pleasant and attractive appearance, and complement the surrounding area.
o Reduce energy consumption by incorporating sustainable design features and systems with enhanced energy efficiencies meeting State and federal code requirements.
o Minimize potential site access and on-site circulation conflicts between drivers and pedestrians.
Promote economic growth and diverse new employment and retail/service opportunities for Brentwood residents.
o Increase the number of jobs in Brentwood and contribute to the local job/housing balance.
o Contribute to the City’s sales tax base.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 10
Develop a Costco warehouse that is large enough to accommodate all the uses and services Costco provides to its members elsewhere.
REQUESTED ENTITLEMENTS AND OTHER APPROVALS
Conditional Use Permit (CUP): The PA-1 Specific Plan RC land use designation allows for RetailGeneral, Large format uses as a permitted use (the proposed Costco Warehouse). A CUP is required for a Service Station, Accessory to a Retail-General, Large format use (the proposed fuel facility).
Tentative Parcel Map: The project is requesting to divide the existing two parcels into four separate parcels.
The first parcel would contain the Costco warehouse, surface parking lot, and access road (labeled as “Parcel A” on the tentative parcel map).
The second parcel would contain the fuel facility (labeled as “Parcel B” on the tentative parcel map).
The third parcel would contain the portion of the out parcel between the newly created access road and the area between the fuel facility (labeled as “Parcel C” on the tentative parcel map).
The fourth parcel would include the remainder of the out parcel (labeled as “Parcel D” on the tentative parcel map).
Master Sign Program: The project is submitting a Master Sign Program which establishes guidelines to ensure a consistent design is achieved at the site and is architecturally compatible with the surrounding area.
Design Review: The project is subject to design review by the Brentwood Planning Commission to ensure consistency with the applicable guidelines and standards for design contained in the PA-1 Specific Plan.
Adoption of the CEQA Exemption (Guidelines Section 15183).
The following agencies are considered Responsible or Trustee Agencies for this project, and may be required to issue permits or approve certain aspects of the project; California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW);
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB); East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD);
East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy;
Contra Costa Water District (CCWD).
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 11
PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Previous environmental analysis has been prepared and certified which is applicable to the proposed project. On November 13, 2018, the City of Brentwood adopted the PA-1 Specific Plan and certified the associated PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (State Clearinghouse (SCH) #2018042064). Cumulative impacts associated with full development and buildout of the Specific Plan Area, including the proposed project site, were fully addressed in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR. In October 2022 the City approved an update to the PA-1 Specific Plan and completed additional environmental review of the update. An Addendum to the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR was adopted by the City in October 2022 (State Clearinghouse (SCH) #2018042064).
The proposed project would be consistent with the PA-1 Specific Plan’s designation of Regional Commercial (RC) for the Costco site. Additionally, the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR assumed full development and buildout of the Specific Plan Area with the types of uses and development standards proposed by the project. As such the cumulative impacts associated with buildout of the PA-1 Specific Plan, including the project site, were fully addressed in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.
CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183 EXEMPTIONS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 allows a streamlined environmental review process for projects that are consistent with the densities established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified. As noted above, the proposed project is consistent with the land use designation and densities established by the PA-1 Specific Plan, for which an EIR was certified. The provisions contained in Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines are presented below.
15183. Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning (a) CEQA mandates that projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project‐specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. This streamlines the review of such projects and reduces the need to prepare repetitive environmental studies. (b) In approving a project meeting the requirements of this section, a public agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines, in an initial study or other analysis:
(1) Are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located, (2) Were not analyzed assignificant effectsin a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent, Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 12
(3) Are potentially significant off‐site impacts and cumulative impacts which were not discussed in the prior EIR prepared for the general plan, community plan or zoning action, or
(4) Are previously identified significant effects which, as a result of substantial new information which was not known at the time the EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR. (c) If an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, has been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or standards, as contemplated by subdivision (e) below, then an additional EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact. (d) This section shall apply only to projects which meet the following conditions:
(1) The project is consistent with:
(A) A community plan adopted as part of a general plan, (B) A zoning action which zoned or designated the parcel on which the project would be located to accommodate a particular density of development, or (C) A general plan of a local agency, and
(2) An EIR was certified by the lead agency for the zoning action, the community plan, or the general plan.
(e) This section shall limit the analysis of only those significant environmental effects for which:
(1) Each public agency with authority to mitigate any of the significant effects on the environment identified in the planning or zoning action undertakes or requires others to undertake mitigation measures specified in the EIR which the lead agency found to be feasible, and
(2) The lead agency makes a finding at a public hearing asto whether the feasible mitigation measures will be undertaken.
(f) An effect of a project on the environment shall not be considered peculiar to the project or the parcel for the purposes of this section if uniformly applied development policies or standards have been previously adopted by the City or county with a finding that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards will not substantially mitigate the environmental effect. The finding shall be based on substantial evidence which need not include an EIR. Such development policies or standards need not apply throughout the entire City or county, but can apply only within the zoning district in which the project is located, or within the area subject to the community plan on which the lead agency is relying. Moreover, such policies or standards need not be part of the general plan or any community plan, but can be found within another pertinent planning document such as a zoning ordinance. Where a City or county, in Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 13
previously adopting uniformly applied development policies or standards for imposition on future projects, failed to make a finding as to whether such policies or standards would substantially mitigate the effects of future projects, the decision‐making body of the City or county, prior to approving such a future project pursuant to this section, may hold a public hearing for the purpose of considering whether, as applied to the project, such standards or policies would substantially mitigate the effects of the project. Such a public hearing need only be held if the City or county decides to apply the standards or policies as permitted in this section. (g) Examples of uniformly applied development policies or standards include, but are not limited to:
(1) Parking ordinances.
(2) Public access requirements.
(3) Grading ordinances.
(4) Hillside development ordinances.
(5) Flood plain ordinances.
(6) Habitat protection or conservation ordinances.
(7) View protection ordinances.
(8) Requirements for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as set forth in adopted land use plans, policies, or regulations.
(h) An environmental effect shall not be considered peculiar to the project or parcel solely because no uniformly applied development policy or standard is applicable to it. (i) Where the prior EIR relied upon by the lead agency was prepared for a general plan or community plan that meetsthe requirements of thissection, any rezoning action consistent with the general plan or community plan shall be treated as a project subject to this section. (1) “Community plan” is defined as a part of the general plan of a City or county which applies to a defined geographic portion of the total area included in the general plan, includes or references each of the mandatory elements specified in Section 65302 of the Government Code, and containsspecific development policies and implementation measures which will apply those policies to each involved parcel. (2) For purposes of this section, “consistent” means that the density of the proposed project is the same or less than the standard expressed for the involved parcel in the general plan, community plan or zoning action for which an EIR has been certified, and that the project complies with the density‐related standards contained in that plan or zoning. Where the zoning ordinance refers to the general plan or community plan for its density standard, the project shall be consistent with the applicable plan.
(j) This section does not affect any requirement to analyze potentially significant offsite or cumulative impacts if those impacts were not adequately discussed in the prior EIR. If a significant offsite or cumulative impact was adequately discussed in the prior EIR, then thissection may be used as a basis for excluding further analysis of that offsite or cumulative impact.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 14
PROJECT‐SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The attached Environmental Analysis includes a discussion and analysis of any peculiar or sitespecific environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project. The Environmental Analysis identifies whether or not each CEQA Appendix G environmental checklist question, and its corresponding impacts, were adequately addressed in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR, if there is a significant impact due to new information, or if the project would result in a significant impact peculiar to the project site that was not adequately addressed in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR. The Environmental Analysis identifies the applicable City of Brentwood development standards and policies that would apply to the proposed project during both the construction and operational phases, identifies applicable mitigation measures from the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR that must be implemented, identifies applicable state-level standards and requirements, and explains how the application of these uniformly applied standards and policies would ensure that no peculiar or site-specific environmental impacts would occur. Examples of uniformly applied standards and requirements include, but are not limited to, compliance with the California Building Code (to reduce impacts associated with seismic hazards) and preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (to reduce impacts associated with surface water pollution during construction activities).
CONCLUSION
As described above, the proposed Project (project) is consistent with the land uses and development intensities assigned to the project site by the PA-1 Specific Plan. Impacts from buildout of the PA-1 Specific Plan including cumulative impacts associated with development and buildout of the project site, as proposed, were fully addressed in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR, inclusive of all Specific Plan updates and Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Priority Area 1 Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse No. 2018042064), and implementation of the proposed project would not result in any new or altered impacts beyond those addressed in the Specific Plan EIR.
The analysis in the attached CEQA Environmental Checklist demonstrates that there are no sitespecific or peculiar impacts associated with the project, and identifies uniformly applied standards and policies that would be applied to the project. The Project Requirements identified in the attached environmental analysis include requirements that must be implemented by the proposed project in order to ensure that any site-specific impacts or construction-related impacts are not significant. All Project Requirements identified in the attached Environmental Checklist shall be made a condition of project approval and shall be implemented within the timeframes identified. In addition, the project would also be subject to all applicable requirements identified under the PA-1 Specific Plan and EIR.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 15
Figure 1 - Regional Location Map
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 16
This page left intentionally blank.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 17
Figure 2 - Site Plan (TPM)
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 18
This page left intentionally blank.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 19
Figure 3 - Aerial View of Project Site
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 20
This page left intentionally blank.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 21
Figure 4 - Land Use and Zoning Designations
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 22
This page left intentionally blank.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 23
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
I. AESTHETICS ‐‐ WOULD THE PROJECT:
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
the Project
or the
Project Site
Significant
Impact due to
New Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in the
Specific Plan EIR
Impact
not
Previously
Addressed
in Specific
Plan EIR
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
X
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are experienced from publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict with the
applicable zoning and other regulations governing
scenic quality?
X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
X
RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS
Response a): Adequately addressed in Specific Plan EIR. A scenic vista is an area that is designated, signed, and accessible to the public for the express purposes of viewing and sightseeing. This includes any such areas designated by a federal, State, or local agency. Federal and State agencies have not designated any such locations within the City of Brentwood for viewing and sightseeing.
While Brentwood contains numerous areas and viewsheds with relatively high scenic value, there are no officially designated scenic vista points in Brentwood. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse effects on a scenic vista.
Implementation of the proposed project would introduce new commercial development to the project area, and would be consistent with the surrounding uses anticipated by the PA-1 Specific plan and EIR. As such, the proposed project is consistent with the adopted vision and uses identified within the PA-1 Specific Plan, and would not result in any new or increased impacts beyond those that were already addressed in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 24
The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (EIR) determined that this impact was less than significant. This impact was adequately addressed in the EIR. The proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact than what was previously analyzed.
Response b): Adequately addressed in Specific Plan EIR. As described in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR, there are no officially designated scenic highways located in the vicinity of Brentwood.
There is, however, one Eligible State Scenic Highway Corridor that runs through the Specific Plan Area that has not yet been officially designated. State Route 4, west of the junction with Byron Highway to the junction with State Route 160 in Antioch is designated as an Eligible State Scenic Highway Corridor.
There are no locally identified scenic resources adjacent to the project site nor is the project site within a special planning area protected for its scenic resources. The City of Brentwood General Plan does outline a policy to preserve and protect scenic vistas (Policy COS-7-3) that specifically identifies Mount Diablo and local hills and ridgelines as potential scenic resources. The PA-1 Specific Plan does not designate scenic vistas. With implementation of the proposed project, the project site would be converted from vacant undeveloped land to a commercial development with building heights at 36’ 6’’ at the entrance cornice coping. The proposed building heights are consistent with existing commercial development located immediately north of the project site.
Mount Diablo and prominent local hillsides are located at a fair distance to the west of the project.
According to the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR and the California Scenic Highway Mapping System, administered by Caltrans, the City of Brentwood does not contain officially designated State Scenic Highways. However, it should be noted that the segment of State Route 4 (SR 4) located to the east of the project site is listed as an Eligible State Scenic Highway, but has not yet been officially designated. The project site and proposed development would be visible from this location.
As described in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR, implementation of the PA-1 Specific Plan would facilitate future urban development within the Plan Area, consistent with the assumptions and analysis contained in the Brentwood General Plan EIR (SCH #2014022058). When the Brentwood City Council certified the General Plan EIR, the Council also adopted Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Conditions related to significant impacts associated with visual and scenic resources.
As described in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR, the PA-1 Specific Plan would not result in any new or increased impacts associated with visual resources, beyond those that were already addressed in the General Plan EIR. Additionally, the proposed project would not remove trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
As such, the proposed project is consistent with the adopted vision and uses identified within the PA-1 Specific Plan, and would not result in any new or increased impacts associated with visual resources, beyond those that were already addressed in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 25
The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (EIR) determined that this impact was less than significant. This impact was adequately addressed in the EIR. The proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact than what was previously analyzed.
Response c): Adequately addressed in Specific Plan EIR.
The project site is located in an area predominately containing commercial, residential, public, and agricultural uses. The proposed project would be consistent with all building design guidelines for the design review process established by the PA-1 Specific Plan. The proposed structures and building architectural theme (elevations, materials, building form, and color) would be related to adjacent development and Brentwood’s community character.
While development of the proposed project would change and alter the existing visual character of the project site, these changes would not degrade the visual quality of the site or the surrounding areas. The proposed building incorporates a mix of materials, architectural features, and landscaping, and would be consistent with Brentwood design standards. Development of the site would also be subject to the PA-1 Specific Plan Design Guidelines.
Various temporary visual impacts could occur as a result of construction activities as the project develops, including grading, equipment and material storage, and staging. Though temporary, some of these impacts could last for several weeks or months during any single construction phase. Because impacts would be temporary and viewer sensitivity in the majority of cases would be slight to moderate, significant impacts are not anticipated.
The final project design would be approved by the City through its design review process.
Through this process, the Planning Commission would ensure the design meets the criteria set forth in the PA-1 Specific Plan. As a result, development of the project site would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
The project is consistent with the Regional Commercial zoning designation and will comply with City standards, including, but not limited to, the City’s Design Goals the PA-1 Specific Plan Design Guidelines, which would ensure that the exterior facades of the proposed commercial structures, streetscape improvements and exterior lighting improvements are compatible with the surrounding land uses.
As such, the proposed project is consistent with the adopted vision and uses identified within the PA-1 Specific Plan, and would not result in any new or increased impacts associated with visual resources, beyond those that were already addressed in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.
The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (EIR) determined that this impact was less than significant. This impact was adequately addressed in the EIR. The proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact than what was previously analyzed.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 26
Response d): Adequately addressed in Specific Plan EIR.
The proposed project will create new sources of light and glare. Examples of lighting would include construction lighting, exterior building lighting, interior building lighting, and automobile and parking lighting. Examples of glare would include reflective building materials and automobiles. Development of the project site would be subject to all applicable local regulations and standards related to lighting.
The site’s parking lot will be illuminated with standard downward LED fixtures affixed to a 36.5- foot-tall light pole. The lighting fixtures are of a “shoe-box” style. The use of LED lamps can provide a higher level of perceived brightness with less energy than other lamps such as highpressure sodium. Parking lot light standards are designed to provide even light distribution for vehicle and pedestrian safety. The parking lot lights will be timer controlled to limit lighting after the warehouse has closed and most employees are gone from the warehouse. Parking lot lighting will only remain on to provide security and emergency lighting along the main driveways.
Downward facing security lighting will be located on the exterior of the building on all sides.
Lighting fixtures will also be located on the building approximately every 40 feet around the exterior of the building to provide safety and security. Parking and site lighting will incorporate the use of cutoff lenses to keep light from overflowing beyond the Costco site boundaries.
The PA-1 Specific Plan includes lighting and design guidelines that would reduce potential adverse impacts associated with light and glare. The lighting guidelines require the use of nonreflective building materials, and light shielding fixtures. The project would be subject to the lighting and design guidelines, which are verified via the City’s design review and approval process. As stated in the Specific Plan:
“Future development projects proposed within Priority Area 1 shall be reviewed for consistency with the design and policy standards established by this Specific Plan. Future projects shall also be reviewed for consistency with the adopted Brentwood General Plan, as the General Plan includes numerous policies and actions to ensure that future development within Brentwood minimizes potential environmental impacts and contributes to the quality of life envisioned by the General Plan.” Implementation of the lighting and design standards in the Specific Plan would ensure that project lighting features do not result in light spillage onto adjacent properties and do not significantly impact views of the night sky. Adherence to the design requirements would ensure that excessively reflective building materials are not used, and that the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to daytime glare.
The proposed project is consistent with the adopted vision and uses identified within the PA-1 Specific Plan, and would not result in any new or increased impacts beyond those that were already addressed in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 27
The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (EIR) determined that this impact was less than significant. This impact was adequately addressed in the EIR. The proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact than what was previously analyzed.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 28
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: WOULD THE PROJECT:
Significant Impact Peculiar
to the Project or the Project
Site
Significant
Impact due to
New Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the Specific
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed
in Specific
Plan EIR
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 1222(g)) or timberland (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 4526)?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use? X
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
X
RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS
Response a): Adequately addressed in Specific Plan EIR. According to the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program the project site is designated as Farmland of Local Importance. The project site has been previously used for agricultural production. However, the site is not currently used for agricultural purposes.
Development of the site for urban uses and the subsequent removal of Farmland of Local Importance was taken into consideration in the PA-1 Specific Plan and PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.
Additionally, Section 17.730.020 of the City of Brentwood’s Agricultural Preservation Program states that, “agricultural land” requiring mitigation, includes: “those land areas of Contra Costa County specifically designated as agricultural core (AC) or agricultural lands (AL) as defined in the Contra Costa County general plan; those land areas near the city designated as agricultural conservation (AC) as defined in the Brentwood general plan; and/or other lands upon which agricultural activities, uses, operations or facilities exist or could exist that contain Class I, II, III or IV soils as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service.”
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 29
The proposed project is identified for urban land uses in the PA-1 Specific Plan. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not create new impacts over and above those identified in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR, nor significantly change previously identified impacts.
However, the site currently consists of land previously used for agricultural purposes, and contains Farmland of Local Importance. The proposed project is therefore subject to compliance with Chapter 17.730, Agricultural Preservation Program, of the Brentwood Municipal Code, as required by Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.
Project Requirement(s)
Requirement AG‐1: Implement PA‐1 Specific Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 3.2‐1:
As future development projects within the PA‐1 Specific Plan Area are approved by the City, the Project applicant(s) must preserve agricultural lands by one of the following mechanisms, consistent with Chapter 17.730 ofthe Brentwood Municipal Code (Ord. 877 § 2, 2010):
1. Granting an agricultural conservation easement to or for the benefit of the city and/or a qualified land trust approved by the city on agricultural land deemed acceptable by the city. The easement shall encumber the exact acreage of the proposed entitlement, including any land used for park and recreation purposes and may encumber land acquired by the city and/or qualified land trust in fee; or
2. Payment of an in‐lieu fee established by city council resolution. The fee may be adjusted annually but may not be increased by more than ten percent during any twelve‐month period.
The proposed project is consistent with the adopted vision and uses identified within the PA-1 Specific Plan and zoning code, and would not result in any new or increased impacts beyond those that were already addressed in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.
The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (EIR) determined that this impact was potentially significant, but would be reduced to a less than significant level following implementation of EIR mitigation measure 3.2-1. As noted above, the project is required to implement mitigation measure 3.2-1 from the EIR. This impact was adequately addressed in the EIR. The proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact than what was previously analyzed.
Response b): Adequately addressed in Specific Plan EIR. The project site is not under a Williamson Act Contract, nor are any of the parcels immediately adjacent to the project site under a Williamson Act Contract, or designated by the General Plan or Zoning Maps for agricultural uses. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with a Williamson Act Contract, and would not conflict with any agricultural zoning.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 30
The proposed project is consistent with the adopted vision and uses identified within the PA-1 Specific Plan, and would not result in any new or increased impacts beyond those that were already addressed in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.
The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (EIR) determined that this impact was less than significant. This impact was adequately addressed in the EIR. The proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact than what was previously analyzed.
Responses c) and d): Adequately addressed in Specific Plan EIR. The project site is located in a vacant urban area. There are no forest resources on the project site or in the immediate vicinity of the project site.
The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (EIR) determined that there was no impact related to this environmental topic. This impact was adequately addressed in the EIR. The proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact than what was previously analyzed.
Response e): Adequately addressed in Specific Plan EIR. As described under Responses (a) above, the project site is designated as Farmland of Local Importance. The project site has been previously used for agricultural. However, the site is not currently used for agricultural purposes.
Development of the site for urban uses and the subsequent removal of Farmland was taken into consideration in the PA-1 Specific Plan and PA-1 Specific Plan EIR. Additionally, Section
17.730.020 of the City of Brentwood’s Agricultural Preservation Program states that, “agricultural land” requiring mitigation, includes: “those land areas of Contra Costa County specifically designated as agricultural core (AC) or agricultural lands (AL) as defined in the Contra Costa County general plan; those land areas near the city designated as agricultural conservation (AC) as defined in the Brentwood general plan; and/or other lands upon which agricultural activities, uses, operations or facilities exist or could exist that contain Class I, II, III or IV soils as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service.” The proposed project is identified for urban land uses in the PA-1 Specific Plan. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not create new impacts over and above those identified in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR, nor significantly change previously identified impacts.
However, the site currently consists of land previously used for agricultural purposes, and contains Farmland of Local Importance. The proposed project is therefore subject to compliance with Chapter 17.730, Agricultural Preservation Program, of the Brentwood Municipal Code, as described in greater detail above.
The proposed project is consistent with the adopted vision and uses identified within the PA-1 Specific Plan, and would not result in any new or increased impacts beyond those that were already addressed in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 31
The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (EIR) determined that this impact was less than significant. This impact was adequately addressed in the EIR. The proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact than what was previously analyzed.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 32
III. AIR QUALITY ‐‐ WOULD THE PROJECT:
Significant Impact
Peculiar to the Project or
the Project Site
Significant
Impact due to
New Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the Specific
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed
in Specific
Plan EIR
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? X
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project region
is non-attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? X
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading
to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
X
EXISTING SETTING
The project site is located within the boundaries of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). This agency is responsible for monitoring air pollution levels and ensuring compliance with federal and state air quality regulations within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) and has jurisdiction over most air quality matters within its borders.
Information included in the section is further detailed in Attachment A. Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report Prepared by: Ramboll US Consulting, Inc. May 2023.
Response a): Adequately addressed in Specific Plan EIR. The SFBAAB is currently designated as a nonattainment area for State and federal ozone, State and federal particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and State particulate matter 10 microns in diameter (PM10) standards. The BAAQMD, in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), prepared the 2005 Ozone Strategy, which is a roadmap depicting how the Bay Area will achieve compliance with the State one-hour air quality standard for ozone as expeditiously as practicable and how the region will reduce transport of ozone and ozone precursors to neighboring air basins. The most recent State ozone plan is the 2017 Clean Air Plan (CAP), adopted on April 19, 2017. The 2017 CAP was developed as a multi-pollutant plan that provides an integrated control strategy to reduce ozone, PM, toxic air contaminants (TACs), and greenhouse gases (GHGs). Although the California Clean Air Act does not require the region to submit a plan for achieving the State PM10 standard, the 2005 Ozone Strategy and 2017 CAP are expected to also reduce PM10 emissions. In addition, the BAAQMD has prioritized measures to reduce PM in developing the control strategy for the 2017 Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 33
CAP. The control strategy serves as the backbone of the BAAQMD’s current PM control program.
To fulfill federal air quality planning requirements, the BAAQMD adopted a PM2.5 emissions inventory for year 2010, which was submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) on January 14, 2013 for inclusion in the State Implementation Plan (SIP).
The current plan in place to achieve progress toward attainment of the federal ozone standards is the Revised San Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan for the 1‐Hour National Ozone Standard. The USEPA recently revoked the 1-hour federal ozone standard; however, the region is designated nonattainment for the new 8-hour standard that replaced the older one-hour standard. Until the region either adopts an approved attainment plan or attains the standard and adopts a maintenance plan, the Revised San Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan for the 1‐ Hour National Ozone Standard remains the currently applicable federally-approved plan.
The aforementioned applicable air quality plans contain mobile source controls, stationary source controls, and transportation control measures (TCMs) to be implemented in the region to attain the State and federal ozone standards within the SFBAAB. The plans are based on population and employment projections provided by local governments, usually developed as part of the General Plan update process. The proposed project would be considered to conflict with, or obstruct implementation of, an applicable air quality plan if the project would be inconsistent with the Ozone Attainment Plan’s growth assumptions, in terms of population, employment, or regional growth in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The growth assumptions are based on ABAG projections that are, in turn, based on the City’s General Plan. The proposed project is designated as PA-1 Specific Plan in the Brentwood General Plan, and is specifically identified for regional commercial uses by the PA-1 Specific Plan. As described in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR the Specific Plan does not cause the disruption, delay, or otherwise hinder the implementation of any air quality plan or control measure.
As described in detail in the transportation and circulation portion of this report the proposed Project would not result in growth in or impacts related to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation, and the PA-1 Specific Plan’s land use designations. Therefore, the project would be considered consistent with the growth assumptions identified by the General plan and specific plan. As a result, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans.
The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (EIR) determined that this impact was less than significant. This impact was adequately addressed in the EIR. The proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact than what was previously analyzed.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 34
Response b): Adequately addressed in Specific Plan EIR.
Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions ‐ Construction
Grading, leveling, earthmoving and excavation are the activities that generate the most particulate emissions. Impacts would be localized and variable. The initial phase of project construction would involve grading the project site and installation of supporting underground infrastructure, such as water, sewer, storm drain, and electrical lines. The Brentwood General Plan includes Policy COS 8-5 which requires all construction projects and ground disturbing activities to implement BAAQMD dust control and abatement measures.
A quantification of the project’s construction emissions has been performed using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEModTM). Table 1 presents the average daily criteria air pollutant (CAP) emission estimates from Project construction for calendar year 2023. As shown in this table, the construction emissions for the proposed Project are less than the BAAQMD mass daily significance thresholds for all pollutants.
Table 1: Average Daily Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Estimates for Project Construction Scenario
Average Daily Criteria Air Pollutant
Emission Estimates
VOC NOx CO SOX Exhaust
PM10
Exhaust
PM2.5
(lbs/day)
Project 12.2 22.1 23.3 0.0 1.0 0.9
BAAQMD Mass Daily
Significance Thresholds4 54 54 None None 82 54
Exceeds Threshold for
any Year of
Construction?
NO NO NO NO NO NO
SOURCES: AIR QUALITY/HEALTH RISK TECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED BY: RAMBOLL US CONSULTING, INC. MAY 2023; BAAQMD AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS. AVAILABLE AT HTTPS://WWW.BAAQMD.GOV/~/MEDIA/FILES/PLANNING‐AND‐ RESEARCH/CEQA/CEQA_GUIDELINES_MAY2017‐PDF.PDF?LA=EN. ACCESSED: DECEMBER 2022.
Table 2 presents a maximum annual CAP emission comparison between Project construction and the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR construction. Construction emissions for the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR represent the maximum year of construction activity as provided in Appendix B of the PA-1 Specific Plan. Maximum annual construction emissions for the Project include construction of the fuel station, warehouse, and parking lot. As shown in Table 4, the construction emissions for the proposed Project are less than the construction emissions outlined in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 35
Table 2: Maximum Annual Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Comparison to PA‐1 Specific Plan Construction
Scenario
Maximum Annual
Criteria Air Pollutant
Emission Estimates
VOC NOx CO
SOX
Total
PM10
Total
PM2.5
(tons/yr)
Specific Plan 19.7 11.2 11.7 0.1 4.0 1.2
Project 1.2 2.2 2.3 0.0 0.2 0.1
SOURCES: AIR QUALITY/HEALTH RISK TECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED BY: RAMBOLL US CONSULTING, INC. JANUARY 2023; BAAQMD AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS.
Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions ‐ Operation
Tables 3 and 4 present the average daily and annual CAP emission estimates from Project operation. As shown in the tables, the operational emissions for the Project are less than the BAAQMD mass daily and annual significance thresholds for all pollutants. Furthermore, the Brentwood Costco Transportation Analysis prepared by Kittelson shows that the overall change in total regional daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is net negative. The emissions calculations were performed on a per mile basis and trip basis to determine the project mobile emissions consistent with the methodology applied in the Transportation Analysis. Thus, this analysis of criteria air pollutant emissions is conservative.
Table 3: Average Annual Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Estimates for Project Operation Emission Category
Annual Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Estimates
VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
(tons/year)
Area 0.86 0.01 0.65 0.01 0.01 0.01
Energy 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01
Mobile 1.8 1.5 4.7 0.0 -1.6 -0.2
Gasoline Dispensing Facility 6.4 -- -- -- -- --
Total Emissions 9.1 1.6 5.4 0.0 -1.6 -0.2
BAAQMD Significance Thresholds 10 10 None None 15 10
Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO
SOURCES: AIR QUALITY/HEALTH RISK TECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED BY: RAMBOLL US CONSULTING, INC. MAY 2023; BAAQMD AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 36
Table 4: Average Daily Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Estimates for Project Operation Emission Category
Average Daily Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Estimates VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
(lbs/day)
Area 4.7 0.1 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Energy 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mobile 10.0 8.4 25.6 0.0 -8.8 -1.2
Gasoline Dispensing Facility 35.1 -- -- -- -- --
Total Emissions 49.8 8.7 29.5 0.0 -8.8 -1.2
BAAQMD Significance Thresholds 54 54 None None 82 54
Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO
SOURCES: AIR QUALITY/HEALTH RISK TECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED BY: RAMBOLL US CONSULTING, INC. MAY 2023; BAAQMD AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS.
Table 5 presents an annual CAP emission comparison between Project operation and the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR operation.
Table 5: Annual Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Comparison to PA‐1 Specific Plan Operation Emission Category
Annual Criteria Air Pollutant
Emission Estimates1
VOC NOx CO SOX3 PM10 PM
(tons/year)
Specific Plan - Overall Operational
Area 31.6 0.3 21.6 0.0 1.0 1.0
Energy 0.5 4.8 3.6 0.0 0.4 0.4
Mobile 7.6 40.2 85.6 0.4 50.7 13.7
Total Emissions 39.7 45.3 110.8 0.5 52.1 15.1
Project
Area 0.86 0.01 0.65 0.01 0.01 0.01
Energy 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01
Mobile 1.1 1.1 2.6 0.0 -1.6 -0.2
Gasoline Dispensing Facility 6.4 -- -- -- -- --
Total Emissions 8.4 1.2 3.3 0.0 -1.6 -0.2
SOURCES: AIR QUALITY/HEALTH RISK TECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED BY: RAMBOLL US CONSULTING, INC. MAY 2023; BAAQMD AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS.
Total operational emissions for the Project were estimated using CalEEMod and compared to the sum of all operational activity as provided in Appendix B of the PA-1 Specific Plan. As shown in Table 5, the operational emissions for the Project are less than the operational emissions outlined in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.
The BAAQMD is responsible for planning, implementing, and enforcing federal and state ambient standards in the SFBAAB. Below is a list of key BAAQMD rules relevant to the Project:
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 37
Regulation I: General Provisions and Definitions
Regulation I (Rules 1-2) covers emission standard requirements within the BAAQMD.
BAAQMD regulations require any person that is subject to more than one emission standard for the same air contaminant to comply with the most stringent standard.
Regulation II: Permits
Regulation II contains a series of rules (Rules 1-10) covering permitting requirements within the BAAQMD. BAAQMD regulations require any person constructing, altering, replacing, or operating any source which emits, may emit, or may reduce emissions to obtain an Authority to Construct or a Permit to Operate.
Regulation III: Fees
This regulation requires the applicant to submit an environmental documentation fee in addition to the fees required for new and modified sources (Rule 3-302) and the applicable fee schedules (Rule 3-600). The purpose of this fee is to recover the BAAQMD's cost for reviewing these plans and conducting compliance inspections.
Regulation VI: Particulate Matter
Regulation VI contains a series of rules (Rules 1-6) to reduce emissions of particulate matter from commercial and industrial sources. This regulation limits the quantity of particulate matter in the atmosphere by controlling emission rates, emission concentrations, visible emissions, and opacity.
Rule 6: Visible Particles
This rule applies to any source operation that emits or may emit air contaminants. The purpose of this rule is to prohibit the emissions of visible air contaminants to the atmosphere. In the event that the Project or construction of the Project creates a public nuisance, it could be in violation and be subject to BAAQMD enforcement action.
Regulation VIII: Organic Compounds
Regulation VIII contains a series of rules (Rules 1 through 53) that limits the release of organic pollutants into the atmosphere.
Rule 3: Architectural Coatings
This rule limits VOC content in architectural coatings supplied, sold, applied, or manufactured for use within the BAAQMD. This rule also contains requirements for architectural coatings storage, clean up and labeling.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 38
Rule 7: Gasoline Dispensing Facilities
This rule applies to any gasoline storage and dispensing operation or mobile fueler from which gasoline is transferred into motor vehicle fuel tanks. The purpose of this rule is to limit emissions of organic compounds from gasoline dispensing facilities.
Rule 15: Emulsified and Liquid Asphalts
The purpose of this rule is to limit the emissions of volatile organic compounds caused by using emulsified and liquid asphalt in paving materials and paving and maintenance operations.
The land uses assumed for development of the proposed Project are consistent to those assumed in the PA-1 Specific Plan in terms of potential mobile source emissions that may be generated by these land uses. The mobile emissions are the dominant source of emissions. The square footage of the proposed Project would be less than the corresponding square footage assumed for retail development for this portion of the PA-1 Specific Plan, and thus, it is expected that the proposed Project would have similar if not lower emissions for this portion of the PA-1 Specific Plan. The construction activities for the proposed Project is also expected to be similar for the land uses as assumed in the PA-1 Specific Plan given that similar site preparation and building construction is expected to occur.
Additionally, the proposed project would further the fundamental goals of the BAAQMD in reducing emissions of criteria pollutants associated with vehicle miles traveled, and would be required to comply with all District Rules and Regulations (as describe above) and included in Requirement AQ-2 to further limit criteria pollutants.
Project Requirement(s)
Requirement AQ‐1: Implement General Plan Policy COS 8‐5:
Continue to require all construction projects and ground disturbing activities to implement BAAQMD dust control and abatement measures.
Requirement AQ‐2: Implement and comply with BAAQMD district rules and regulations including but not limited to: Regulation II: Permits; Regulation III: Fees; Regulation VI:
Particulate Matter; Rule 6: Visible Particles; Regulation VIII: Organic Compounds, Rule 3:
Architectural Coatings; Rule 7: Gasoline Dispensing Facilities; Rule 15: Emulsified and Liquid Asphalts.
The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (EIR) determined that this impact was less than significant. This impact was adequately addressed in the EIR. The proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact than what was previously analyzed.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 39
Response c): Adequately addressed in Specific Plan EIR. A substance is considered toxic if it has the potential to cause adverse health effects in humans, including increasing the risk of cancer upon exposure, or acute and/or chronic non-cancer health effects. A toxic substance released into the air is considered a toxic air contaminant (TAC). Examples include certain aromatic and chlorinated hydrocarbons, certain metals, and asbestos. TACs are generated by a number of sources, including stationary sources such as dry cleaners, gas stations, combustion sources, waste processing facilities and laboratories; mobile sources such as automobiles; and area sources such as landfills. Adverse health effects associated with exposure to TACs may include carcinogenic (i.e., cancer-causing) and non-carcinogenic effects. Non-carcinogenic effects typically affect one or more target organ systems and may be experienced either on short-term (acute) or long-term (chronic) exposure to a given TAC. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is part of a complex mixture that makes up diesel exhaust. Diesel exhaust is composed of two phases, gas and particle, both of which contribute to health risks. CARB classified “particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines” (DPM;17 CCR 93000) as a TAC in August 1998. DPM is emitted from a broad range of diesel engines: on-road diesel engines of trucks, buses, and cars, and off-road diesel engines including locomotives, marine vessels, and heavy-duty construction equipment, among others. Approximately 70% of all airborne cancer risk in California is associated with DPM. To reduce the cancer risk associated with DPM, CARB adopted a diesel risk reduction plan in 2000.
The proposed project would introduce a new a commercial facility which includes a gasoline service station that would have associated toxic air contaminants (TACs) emissions. Particulate matter PM2.5 and Benzene are primary TACs associated with gasoline storage and refueling at gasoline stations. The land uses surrounding the Project site are primarily a mix of developed residential and commercial areas. The Brentwood General Plan Action COS 8a requires the review of all new industrial and commercial development projects for potential air quality impacts to residences and other sensitive receptors.
The BAAQMD has established thresholds of significance to which proposed project emissions are compared to determine the level of significance. The BAAQMD has established TAC-related emissions thresholds of significance as follows: < 10 per million for Cancer Risk, < 100 per million for cumulative Cancer Risk, and less than 1 per million for Chronic (non-cancer) and Acute (noncancer) Risk. If the proposed project’s emissions will exceed the BAAQMD’s threshold of significance for TAC emissions, the proposed project will have a significant impact on sensitive receptors by exposing them to substantial pollutant concentrations.
A summary of the maximum health risk impacts and annual PM2.5 concentration increases for the Project is shown in Table 6 for project construction and Table 7 for project operation. Health risk results for all receptors are shown and further detailed in Attachment A.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 40
As shown in Table 6, the maximum estimated cancer risk is less than the BAAQMD significance threshold, and the acute and chronic hazard index, and annual PM2.5 concentration increases are less than the BAAQMD significance thresholds.
Table 6: Construction Health Risk Assessment Results
Receptor Type
Maximum
Estimated
Cancer
Risk (in a
million)
Maximum
Estimated
Chronic
Hazard
Index
Maximum
Estimated
Acute
Hazard
Index
Annual PM2.5
Concentration
(µg/m3)
Residential 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01
Sensitive 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00
Worker 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02
Daycare 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01
BAAQMD
Threshold
10.0 1.0 1.0 0.3
SOURCES: AIR QUALITY/HEALTH RISK TECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED BY: RAMBOLL US CONSULTING, INC. MAY 2023; BAAQMD AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS.
As shown in Table 7, the health risks and chronic and acute hazard index, and annual PM2.5 concentration increases associated with Project operation are less than the BAAQMD significance thresholds.
Table 7: Operational Health Risk Assessment Results
Receptor Type
Maximum
Estimated
Cancer
Risk (in a
million)
Maximum
Estimated
Chronic
Hazard
Index
Maximum
Estimated
Acute
Hazard
Index
Annual
PM2.5
Concentrati
on
(µg/m3)
Residential 2.7 0.0 0.2 0.04
Sensitive 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.02
Worker 2.6 0.0 0.6 0.10
Daycare 7.1 0.0 0.5 0.11
BAAQMD
Threshold
10.0 1.0 1.0 0.3
SOURCES: AIR QUALITY/HEALTH RISK TECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED BY: RAMBOLL US CONSULTING, INC. MAY 2023; BAAQMD AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS.
A summary of the cumulative health risk impacts to the maximally impacted receptors is presented in Table 8. As shown in the table, the cumulative health risk impacts are less than significant for cancer and the non-cancer chronic hazard index. The cumulative annual PM2.5 concentration is also less than the cumulative threshold.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 41
Table‐8: Cumulative Health Risk Assessment Results
Emission Source
Cancer
Risk
Impact
(in one
million)
Chronic
NonCancer
Hazard
Index
Acute NonCancer
Hazard
Index
Annual
PM2.5
Concent
ration
(ug/m3)
Project Construction Impacts1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01
Project Operational Impacts1 7.1 0.0 0.5 0.11
Subtotal, Project Impacts 7.1 0.0 0.5 0.12
Existing Stationary Sources2 -- -- -- --
Major Roadways3 0.4 NA NA 0.01
Major Highways3 0.8 NA NA 0.02
Railways3 0.3 NA NA 0.00
Subtotal, Background Sources 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.02
Total Cumulative Impact 9 0.0 0.5 0.15
BAAQMD Significance
Threshold
100 10.0 10.0 0.8
SOURCES: AIR QUALITY/HEALTH RISK TECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED BY: RAMBOLL US CONSULTING, INC. MAY 2023; BAAQMD AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS.
The BAAQMD is responsible for planning, implementing, and enforcing federal and state ambient standards in the SFBAAB. Key BAAQMD rules relevant fuel dispensing facilities to the project include:
Rule 7: Gasoline Dispensing Facilities: This rule applies to any gasoline storage and dispensing operation or mobile fueler from which gasoline is transferred into motor vehicle fuel tanks. The purpose of this rule is to limit emissions of organic compounds from gasoline dispensing facilities. This rule requires compliance with numerous best practices and requirements related to fuel storage, equipment, monitoring, inspection, and vapor recovery system requirements.
Additionally, the Brentwood General Plan includes Policy COS 8-2 which aims to minimize exposure of sensitive receptors to concentrations of air pollutant emissions and toxic air contaminants. This is implemented through General Plan Action COS 8b, which requires the review of development, infrastructure, and planning projects for consistency with BAAQMD requirements during the CEQA review process, and requires project applicants to prepare air quality analyses to address BAAQMD and General Plan requirements, which include analysis and identification of:
1. Air pollutant emissions associated with the project during construction, project operation, and cumulative conditions;
2. Potential exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants;
3. Significant air quality impacts associated with the project for construction, project operation, and cumulative conditions; and
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 42
4. Mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts to less than significant or the maximum extent feasible where impacts cannot be mitigated to less than significant.
As described above, the proposed project would not generate significant emissions of toxic air contaminates and would not result in substantial pollutant concentrations. Future development, infrastructure, and planning projects would also require review for TACs consistent with Action COS 8b. Additionally the project would be subject to BAAQMS Rules and Regulations related to Gasoline Dispensing Facilities as required by Requirement AQ-2.
The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (EIR) determined that this impact was less than significant. This impact was adequately addressed in the EIR. The proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact than what was previously analyzed.
Response d): Adequately addressed in Specific Plan EIR. Offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm; however, they still can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the public, and often generate citizen complaints to local governments and regulatory agencies.
Major sources of odor-related complaints by the general public commonly include wastewater treatment facilities, landfill disposal facilities, food processing facilities, agricultural activities, and various industrial activities (e.g., petroleum refineries, chemical and fiberglass manufacturing, painting/ coating operations, landfills, and transfer stations).
According to the CARB’s Handbook, some of the most common sources of odor complaints received by local air districts are sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling facilities, waste transfer stations, petroleum refineries, biomass operations, auto body shops, coating operations, fiberglass manufacturing, foundries, rendering plants, and livestock operations. The project does not propose any of the aforementioned uses.
The proposed project would include a gasoline refueling station. Gasoline refueling is unlikely to cause a substantial odor issue for nearby areas. The BAAQMD significance threshold for odor impacts are qualitative in nature. An odor source with five or more confirmed complaints per year averaged over three years is considered to have a significant impact. Additionally, BAAQMD presents odor screening distances recommended for a variety of land uses, however this list provides guidance for uses that are likely to have odor impacts and doesn’t not provide guidance related to gas stations and retail facilities. The project does not propose any of the uses which require screening distances to be met. As described previously, the project would also be subject to BAAQMD Rule 7 which aims to limit emissions of organic compounds from gasoline dispensing facilities.
Additionally, the California Air Resources Control Board has stringent requirements for the control of gasoline vapor emissions from gasoline-dispensing facilities through its Vapor Recovery Program. This program controls vapor emissions from gasoline marketing operations (gasoline dispensing facilities or service stations, tanker trucks (cargo tanks), bulk plants, and Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 43
terminals), where gasoline vapor is a precursor to the formation of ozone and contains benzene, a constituent of gasoline vapor that has been identified as a toxic air contaminant.
Compliance with these rules would ensure that potential odors generated at the project site result in a less than significant impact.
Project Requirement(s)
Requirement AQ‐3: Compliance with the California Air Resources Control Board Vapor Recovery Program requirements for fuel dispensing facilities.
The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (EIR) determined that this impact was less than significant. This impact was adequately addressed in the EIR. The proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact than what was previously analyzed.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 44
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ‐‐ WOULD THE PROJECT:
Significant
Impact
Peculiar to the
Project or the
Project Site
Significant
Impact due to
New Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the Specific
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed
in Specific
Plan EIR
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional,
or state habitat conservation plan?
X
RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS
Responses a, e): Adequately addressed in Specific Plan EIR.
The project site consists of Dryland Grain Crops, Deciduous Orchard and Urban cover types. As described in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR the following describes the Specific Plan area and the special-status species known to occur within the region.
INVERTEBRATES
Special-status invertebrates that occur within the 9-quad region (which includes the following USGS quadrangles: Antioch North, Jersey Island, Bouldin Island, Antioch South, Brentwood, Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 45
Woodward Island, Tassajara, Byron Hot Springs, and Clifton Court Forebay) for the Specific Plan Area include: Conservancy fairy shrimp, longhorn fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp. As described in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR the Specific Plan Area does not contain suitable habitat for these special-status invertebrate species. As a result, subsequent development under the proposed PA-1 Specific Plan would not result in any substantial adverse effects to these species. Therefore, impacts associated with special-status invertebrate species would be less than significant.
AMPHIBIANS & REPTILES
Special-status reptiles and amphibians that occur within the 9-quad region for the Specific Plan Area include: Alameda whipsnake, California glossy snake, California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, coast horned lizard, foothill yellow-legged frog, giant garter snake, northern California legless lizard, San Joaquin coachwhip, and western pond turtle.
An infrastructure canal is located along the project site that could provide limited habitat.
FISH
Special-status fish that occur within the 9-quad region for the Specific Plan Area include: Delta smelt, eulachon, longfin smelt, Sacramento perch, and steelhead - Central Valley DPS. The project site does not contain suitable habitat for these special-status fish species. As such development would not result in any substantial adverse effects to these species. Therefore, impacts associated with special-status fish species would be less than significant.
BIRDS
Special-status birds that occur within the 9-quad region for the Specific Plan Area include:
American peregrine falcon, bank swallow, burrowing owl, California black rail, California horned lark, double-crested cormorant, ferruginous hawk, golden eagle, grasshopper sparrow, great blue heron, loggerhead shrike, northern harrier, prairie falcon, saltmarsh common yellowthroat, song sparrow ("Modesto" population), Suisun song sparrow, Swainson’s hawk, tricolored blackbird, and white-tailed kite. Because of the high mobility of these species, most of them have the potential to pass through the site from time to time. Burrowing owls have been documented within the OPA-1 Specific Plan Area. Additionally, it is anticipated that the raptor species would frequent the site for foraging. There is limited to no potential for nesting in the undeveloped site.
Indirect impacts to special-status bird species could occur from increased human presence, and the loss of foraging habitat. The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR determined this was a potentially significant impact.
MAMMALS
Special-status mammals that occur within the 9-quad region for the Specific Plan Area include:
American badger, pallid bat, salt-marsh harvest mouse, San Francisco dusty-footed woodrat, San Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 46
Joaquin kit fox, and western red bat. Of these species, the following have the potential to occur on-site: American badger, pallid bat, San Joaquin kit fox and western red bat.
The undeveloped project site provides very limited to no potential for special status species mammals, except for movement and foraging. As described in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR subsequent development under the proposed PA-1 Specific Plan could result in the direct loss of habitat areas associated with these special-status mammal species, since suitable habitat for these species does occur in the region. Additionally, indirect impacts to special-status mammal species could occur with implementation of the PA-1 Specific Plan. Indirect impacts could include habitat degradation, increased human presence, and the loss of foraging habitat. The PA1 Specific Plan determined this is a potentially significant impact.
PLANTS
The CNDDB search included in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR identified 37 documented specialstatus plant species within the 9-quad region for the Specific Plan Area. The developed and agricultural areas within the Specific Plan Area provide very limited to no potential for special status species reptile and amphibians. The tilled lands are regularly disturbed and do not have the potential for these plants. The drainage/irrigation ditches are the only areas within that have some potential for presence of native plants, although the potential for presence is very low. The portion of the project site with the highest potential for presence of any special status plant species is along the drainage feature along the eastern portion of the project site.
The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR includes the following mitigation requirements to reduce impacts to special status species:
Mitigation Measure 3.4‐1: Future project proponent(s) of development projects within the Specific Plan Area shall implement the following measure to avoid or minimize impacts on special‐status species:
Preconstruction surveys for Alameda whipsnake, giant garter snake, San Joaquin coachwhip, and western pond turtle shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in all areas of suitable habitat within 500 feet of project disturbance. Surveys shall be conducted within 24 hours before project disturbance.
If Alameda whipsnake or San Joaquin coachwhip are found during preconstruction surveys, activities within 200 feet of the find shall cease until appropriate corrective measures have been completed or it is determined by the qualified biologist and City staff, in coordination with USFWS and CDFW, that the species will not be harmed by the continuation of activities. Any sightings or incidental take shall be reported to USFWS and CDFW immediately. If giant garter snake is found during preconstruction surveys, activities within 200 feet of the find shall cease until appropriate corrective measures have been completed or it is determined by the qualified biologist and City staff, in coordination with USFWS and CDFW, that the giant garter snake will not be harmed by the continuation of activities. Any sightings or incidental take shall be reported to USFWS and CDFW immediately.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 47
If western pond turtles are found during preconstruction surveys, a qualified biologist, with approval from CDFW, shall move the turtles to the nearest suitable habitat outside the area subject to project disturbance. The construction area shall be reinspected whenever a lapse in construction activity of 2 weeks or more has occurred.
Construction personnel performing activities within aquatic habitats and adjacent suitable uplands to be disturbed by project activities shall receive worker environmental awareness training from a qualified biologist to instruct workers to recognize western pond turtle, their habitats, and measures being implemented for its protection.
Construction personnel shall observe a 15‐miles‐per‐hour speed limit on unpaved roads.
Mitigation Measure 3.4‐2: Prior to any ground disturbance, a preconstruction survey of the parcel(s) to be developed shall be completed for burrowing owl in accordance with CDFW survey guidelines (California Department of Fish and Game 1995). On the parcel where the activity is proposed, the biologist shall survey the proposed disturbance footprint and a 500‐foot radius from the perimeter of the proposed footprint to identify burrows and owls. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership need not be surveyed. Surveys shall take place near sunrise or sunset in accordance with CDFW guidelines. All burrows or burrowing owls shall be identified and mapped. Surveys shall take place no earlier than 30 days prior to construction. During the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), surveys shall document whether burrowing owls are nesting in or directly adjacent to disturbance areas. During the nonbreeding season (September 1 to January 31), surveys shall document whether burrowing owls are using habitat in or directly adjacent to any disturbance area. Survey results shall be valid only for the season (breeding or nonbreeding) during which the survey is conducted. If burrowing owls and/or suitable burrows are not discovered, then further mitigation is not necessary. If burrowing owls and/or burrows are identified in the survey area, Mitigation Measure 3.4‐3 shall be implemented.
Mitigation Measure 3.4‐3: If burrowing owls are found during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), the project proponent(s) shall avoid all nest sites that could be disturbed by project construction during the remainder of the breeding season or while the nest is occupied by adults or young. Avoidance shall include establishment of a non‐disturbance buffer zone (described below). Construction may occur during the breeding season if a qualified biologist monitors the nest and determines that the birds have not begun egg‐laying and incubation or that the juveniles from the occupied burrows have fledged. During the nonbreeding season (September 1 to January 31), the project proponent(s) shall avoid the owls and the burrows they are using, if possible. Avoidance shall include the establishment of a buffer zone (described below). During the breeding season, buffer zones of at least 250 feet in which no construction activities can occur shall be established around each occupied burrow (nest site). Buffer zones of 160 feet shall be established around each burrow being used during the nonbreeding season. The buffers shall be delineated by highly visible, temporary construction fencing.
If occupied burrows for burrowing owls cannot be avoided, passive relocation shall be implemented. Owls shall be excluded from burrows in the immediate impact zone and within a 160‐foot buffer zone by installing one‐way doors in burrow entrances. These doors shall be in place for 48 hours prior to excavation. The project area shall be monitored daily for 1 week to confirm that the owl has abandoned the burrow. Whenever possible, burrows shall be excavated using hand tools and refilled to prevent reoccupation (California Department of Fish and Game 1995). Plastic tubing or a similar structure shall be inserted in the tunnels during excavation to maintain an escape route for any owls inside the burrow.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 48
Mitigation Measure 3.4‐4: Prior to any ground disturbance conducted during the Swainson’s hawk nesting season (March 15 to September 15), a USFWS/CDFW‐approved biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for Swainson’s hawk no earlier than 30 days prior to construction in order to establish whether occupied Swainson’s hawk nests are located within 1,000 feet of the parcel(s) to be developed. If any potentially‐occupied nests within 1,000 feet are off the project site, then their occupancy shall be determined by observation from public roads or by observations of Swainson’s hawk activity (e.g. foraging) near the project site. A written summary of the survey results shall be submitted to the City of Brentwood Community Development Department.
If occupied nests occur on‐ site or within 1,000 feet of the project site, then Mitigation Measure 3.4‐5 shall be implemented. If occupied nests are not found, further mitigation is not necessary.
Mitigation Measure 3.4‐5: During the Swainson’s hawk nesting season (March 15 to September 15), construction activities within 1,000 feet of occupied nests or nests under construction shall be prohibited to prevent nest abandonment. If site‐specific conditions, or the nature of the covered activity (e.g., steep topography, dense vegetation, and limited activities) indicate that a smaller buffer could be used, the City of Brentwood may coordinate with CDFW/USFWS to determine the appropriate buffer size. If young fledge prior to September 15, construction activities could proceed normally. If the active nest site is shielded from view and noise from the project site by other development, topography, or other features, the project applicant can apply to the City of Brentwood for a waiver of this avoidance measure. Any waiver must also be approved by USFWS and CDFW. While nest is occupied, activities outside the buffer can take place.
All active nest trees shall be preserved on site, if feasible. Feasibility shall be determined in conjunction with the City of Brentwood. Nest trees, including non‐native trees, lost to construction activities shall be mitigated by the project proponent according to the requirements of Mitigation Measure 3.4‐6.
Mitigation Measure 3.4‐6: The loss of non‐riparian Swainson’s hawk nest trees shall be mitigated by the project proponent(s) by:
Planting 15 saplings onsite for every tree lost with the objective of having at least 5 mature trees established for every tree lost according to the requirements below. The project proponent shall plant, maintain, and monitor 15 saplings for every tree lost at a site to be approved by the City of Brentwood, according to the requirements listed below. If onsite planting is not feasible, the applicant shall work with the City of Brentwood to provide a combination of on‐ and off‐site plantings.
The following requirements shall be met for all planting options:
o Tree survival shall be monitored at least annually for 5 years, then every other year until year 12. All trees lost during the first 5 years shall be replaced. Success shall be reached at the end of 12 years if at least 5 trees per tree lost survive without supplemental irrigation or protection from herbivory. Trees must also survive for at least 3 years without irrigation. o As determined by an arborist, irrigation and fencing to protect from deer and other herbivores may be needed for the first several years to ensure maximum tree survival. o Native trees suitable for this site shall be planted. When site conditions permit, a variety of native trees shall be planted for each tree lost to provide trees with different growth Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 49
rates, maturation, and life span, and to provide a variety of tree canopy structures for Swainson’s hawk. This variety will help to ensure that nest trees will be available in the short term (5 to 10 years for cottonwoods and willows) and in the long term (e.g., Valley oak, sycamore). This will also minimize the temporal loss of nest trees. o Riparian woodland restoration conducted as a result of construction activities (i.e., loss of riparian woodland) can be used to offset the nest tree planting requirement above, if the nest trees are riparian species, with City approval.
o As determined by the City, whenever feasible and when site conditions permit, trees shall be planted in clumps together or with existing trees to provide larger areas of suitable nesting habitat and to create a natural buffer between nest trees and adjacent development (if plantings occur on the development site). o As determined by the City, whenever feasible, plantings on the site shall occur closest to suitable foraging habitat outside the Urban Development Area (UDA). o Trees planted in the HCP/NCCP preserves or other approved offsite location shall occur within the known range of Swainson’s hawk in the inventory area and as close as possible to high‐quality foraging habitat.
Mitigation Measure 3.4‐7: Future project proponent(s) of development projects within the Specific Plan Area shall implement the following measure to avoid or minimize impacts to California horned lark, grasshopper sparrow, tricolored blackbird, and white‐tailed kite that may occur on the site:
o Preconstruction surveys for active nests of California horned lark, grasshopper sparrow, tricolored blackbird, and white‐tailed kite shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in all areas of suitable habitat within 500 feet of project disturbance. Surveys shall be conducted within 14 days before commencement of any construction activities that occur during the nesting season (February 15 to August 31) in a given area. o If any active nests, or behaviors indicating that active nests are present, are observed, appropriate buffers around the nest sites shall be determined by a qualified biologist to avoid nest failure resulting from project activities. The size of the buffer shall depend on the species, nest location, nest stage, and specific construction activities to be performed while the nest is active. The buffers may be adjusted if a qualified biologist determines it would not be likely to adversely affect the nest. If buffers are adjusted, monitoring will be conducted to confirm that project activity is not resulting in detectable adverse effects on nesting birds or their young. No project activity shall commence within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged or the nest site is otherwise no longer in use.
Mitigation Measure 3.4‐8: Prior to any ground disturbance related to construction activities, a biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey in areas which may support suitable breeding or denning habitat for San Joaquin kit fox. The survey shall establish the presence or absence of San Joaquin kit fox and/or suitable dens and evaluate use by kit foxes in accordance with USFWS survey guidelines (USFWS, 1999).
Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted not earlier than 30 days from commencing ground Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 50
disturbance. On the parcel where activity is proposed, the biologist shall survey the proposed disturbance footprint and a 250‐foot radius from the perimeter of the proposed footprint to identify San Joaquin kit fox and/or suitable dens. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership need not be surveyed. The status of all dens shall be determined and mapped. Written result of preconstruction surveys shall be submitted to the USFWS within 5 working days after survey completion and before start of ground disturbance. Concurrence by the USFWS is not required prior to initiation of construction activities. If San Joaquin kit fox and/or suitable dens are not discovered, then further mitigation is not necessary. If San Joaquin kit fox and/or suitable dens are identified in the survey area, Mitigation Measure 3.4‐9 shall be implemented.
Mitigation Measure 3.4‐9: If a San Joaquin kit fox den is discovered in the proposed development footprint, the den shall be monitored for 3 days by a CDFW/USFWS‐approved biologist using a tracking medium or an infrared beam camera to determine if the den is currently being used. Unoccupied dens shall be destroyed immediately to prevent subsequent use. If a natal or pupping den is found, the USFWS and CDFW shall be notified immediately. The den shall not be destroyed until the pups and adults have vacated and then only after further consultation with USFWS and CDFW. If kit fox activity is observed at the den during the initial monitoring period, the den shall be monitored for an additional 5 consecutive days from the time of the first observation to allow any resident animals to move to another den while den use is actively discouraged. For dens other than natal or pupping dens, use of the den can be discouraged by partially plugging the entrance with soil such that any resident animal can easily escape. Once the den is determined to be unoccupied, it may be excavated under the direction of the biologist. Alternatively, if the animal is still present after 5 or more consecutive days of plugging and monitoring, the den may have to be excavated when, in the judgement of a biologist, it is temporarily vacant (i.e., during the animal’s normal foraging activities).
Mitigation Measure 3.4‐10: Future project proponent(s) of development projects within the Specific Plan Area shall implement the following measures to avoid or minimize impacts on bats:
If removal of suitable roosting areas (i.e. buildings, trees, shrubs, bridges, etc.) must occur during the bat pupping season (April 1 through July 31), surveys for active maternity roosts shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The surveys shall be conducted from dusk until dark. If a special‐status bat maternity roost is located, appropriate buffers around the roost sites shall be determined by a qualified biologist and implemented to avoid destruction or abandonment of the roost resulting from habitat removal or other project activities. The size of the buffer shall depend on the species, roost location, and specific construction activities to be performed in the vicinity.
No project activity shall commence within the buffer areas until the end of the pupping season (August 1) or until a qualified biologist conforms the maternity roost is no longer active.
The Project will be required to comply with the City’s General Plan and adopted Federal, State, and local regulations for the protection of special‐status plants and animals, including habitat. The City of Brentwood General Plan includes numerous policies and actions intended to protect special‐status plants and animals, including habitat, from adverse effects associated with future development and improvement projects. Additionally, future development projects within the Specific Plan Area would be subject to the mitigation requirements included within the PA‐1 Specific Plan EIR (listed above) and Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 51
those set forth by the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP. While future development of the Specific Plan Area has the potential to result in significant impacts to protected special‐status plants and animals, including habitat (as identified in the PA‐1 Specific Plan EIR), the implementation of the policies and actions listed below, as well as Federal and State regulations, and those included in the PA‐1 Specific Plan EIR, would ensure impacts to these resources are reduced to less than significant levels.
As such, the proposed project is consistent with the adopted vision and uses identified within the PA‐ 1 Specific Plan, General Plan, and zoning code, and would not result in any new or increased impacts associated with biological resources, beyond those that were already addressed in the PA‐1 Specific Plan EIR.
Project Requirement(s)
Requirement BIO‐1: Compliance with the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP and preconstruction survey requirements.
Requirement BIO‐2: Compliance with the following PA‐1 Specific Plan Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure 3.4‐1
Mitigation Measure 3.4‐2
Mitigation Measure 3.4‐3
Mitigation Measure 3.4‐4
Mitigation Measure 3.4‐5
Mitigation Measure 3.4‐6
Mitigation Measure 3.4‐7
Mitigation Measure 3.4‐8
Mitigation Measure 3.4‐9
Mitigation Measure 3.4‐10
The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (EIR) determined that this impact was potentially significant, but would be reduced to a less than significant level following implementation of EIR mitigation measures 3.4-1 thru 3.4-10. As noted above, the project is required to implement mitigation measures 3.4-1 thru 3.4-10 from the EIR. This impact was adequately addressed in the EIR. The proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact than what was previously analyzed.
Response b): Adequately addressed in Specific Plan EIR. Riparian natural communities support woody vegetation found along rivers, creeks and streams. Riparian habitat can range from a dense thicket of shrubs to a closed canopy of large mature trees covered by vines. Riparian systems are considered one of the most important natural resources. While small in total area when compared to the state’s size, they provide a special value for wildlife habitat.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 52
Over 135 California bird species either completely depend upon riparian habitats or use them preferentially at some stage of their life history. Riparian habitat provides food, nesting habitat, cover, and migration corridors. Another 90 species of mammals, reptiles, invertebrates and amphibians depend on riparian habitat. Riparian habitat also provides riverbank protection, erosion control and improved water quality, as well as numerous recreational and aesthetic values.
As described in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR, the CNDDB record search did not reveal any documented occurrences of sensitive habitat within the Specific Plan Area. Delineated aquatic habitat or riparian habitat is not located on the site. A small drainage feature is present on the eastern portion of the project site area, however this is a concrete structure and does not provide aquatic habitat.
The proposed project is consistent with the adopted vision and uses identified within the PA-1 Specific Plan, General Plan, and zoning code, and would not result in any new or increased impacts associated with riparian resources.
The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (EIR) determined that this impact was less than significant. This impact was adequately addressed in the EIR. The proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact than what was previously analyzed.
Response c): Adequately addressed in Specific Plan EIR. A wetland is an area that is inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
Wetlands are defined by regulatory agencies as having special vegetation, soil, and hydrology characteristics. Hydrology, or water inundation, is a catalyst for the formation of wetlands.
Frequent inundation and low oxygen causes chemical changes to the soil properties resulting in what is known as hydric soils. The prevalent vegetation in wetland communities consists of hydrophytic plants, which are adapted to areas that are frequently inundated with water.
Hydrophytic plant species have the ability to grow, effectively compete, reproduce, and persist in low oxygen soil conditions. Vernal pools are seasonal depressional wetlands that are covered by shallow water for variable periods from winter to spring, but may be completely dry for most of the summer and fall. Vernal pools range in size from small puddles to shallow lakes and are usually found in a gently sloping plain of grassland.
Aquatic habitat and wetlands are not located on the site. The project site does not contain and would not affect a protected wetland. A developed drainage ditch is located within the project site, however this is a concrete structure and does not provide aquatic habitat. There are no wetlands located on the project site.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 53
The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (EIR) determined that this impact was less than significant. This impact was adequately addressed in the EIR. The proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact than what was previously analyzed.
Response d): Adequately addressed in Specific Plan EIR. The CNDDB record search did not reveal any documented wildlife corridors or wildlife nursery sites on or adjacent to the Specific Plan Area. According to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife BIOS Viewer, no wildlife corridors or wildlife nursery sites exist on or adjacent to the project site. The nearest wildlife corridor is located approximately 3.0 miles southeast of the project site.
The proposed project is consistent with the adopted vision and uses identified within the PA-1 Specific Plan, and would not result in any new or increased impacts associated with biological resources, beyond those that were already addressed in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.
The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (EIR) determined that this impact was less than significant. This impact was adequately addressed in the EIR. The proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact than what was previously analyzed.
Response e): Adequately addressed in Specific Plan EIR. The site is within the boundaries of the ECCC HCP/NCCP. In July 2007 the ECCC HCP/NCCP was adopted by Contra Costa County, the City of Brentwood, other member cities, the USFWS and the CDFW. The ECCC HCP/NCCP provides guidance for the mitigation of impacts to covered species. Mitigation of impacts is accomplished through the payment of a Development Fee. The Development Fee requires payment based on a cost per acre for all acres converted to non-habitat with the cost per acre based on the quality of the habitat converted. The fees are used to acquire higher value habitats in preserved areas and to fund their restoration and management. Because the City of Brentwood is a signatory to the ECCC HCP/NCCP, the proposed project would comply with the ECCC HCP/NCCP requirements regarding special-status species, land conversion, development fees as applicable, per Requirement Bio‐1. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (EIR) determined that this impact was less than significant. This impact was adequately addressed in the EIR. The proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact than what was previously analyzed.
Response f): Adequately addressed in Specific Plan EIR. As described in Response a, e, above the Project will be required to comply with the City’s General Plan and adopted Federal, State, and local regulations for the protection of special-status plants and animals, including habitat.
Additionally, future development projects within the Specific Plan Area would be subject to the mitigation requirements included within the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR, and those set forth by the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 54
As such, the proposed project is consistent with the adopted vision and uses identified within the PA-1 Specific Plan and General Plan, would be required to be in compliance with the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP, and would not result in any new or increased impacts beyond impacts identified in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.
The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (EIR) determined that this impact was less than significant. This impact was adequately addressed in the EIR. The proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact than what was previously analyzed.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 55
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES ‐‐ WOULD THE PROJECT:
Significant Impact
Peculiar to the Project
or the Project Site
Significant Impact
due to New
Information
Impact Adequately
Addressed in the
Specific Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
Specific Plan
EIR
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as
defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X
RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS
Responses a), b), c): Adequately addressed in Specific Plan EIR.
As described in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR, the Specific Plan Area is located in an area known to have historical and tribal cultural resources. However, the detailed field surveys completed within the Plan area did not reveal any significant historical resources, historical sites, or tribal cultural resources within the Plan area. Additionally, records of previously recorded cultural resources and cultural resource investigations were examined by the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System on November 8, 2016 for the Specific Plan Area (NWIC File # 16-0575), and surrounding 500-foot radius. Their report indicates that several portions of the Specific Plan Area have been subject to a number of small surveys related to development projects and larger scale linear cultural resource surveys, as well as several cultural resource overviews.
Despite the number of surveys in the Plan area, no prehistoric sites, historic sites, or historic buildings have been recorded. The only resource reported in the Plan area is a culvert under Sand Creek Road that appears to have been covered by the construction of SR 4.
As with most projects in the region that involve ground-disturbing activities, there is the potential for discovery of a previously unknown historical and/or tribal cultural resource.
Additionally, there always exists the potential for buried prehistoric archaeological sites. As such, there remains a possibility that unrecorded cultural resources are present beneath the ground surface and that such resources could be exposed during project construction. Both CEQA and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) require the Lead Agency to address any unanticipated cultural resource discoveries during project construction.
The Brentwood General Plan includes policies and actions that would reduce impacts to cultural, historic, and archaeological resources, as well as policies and actions for the conservation of cultural, historic, and archaeological resources. General Plan Policies COS 6-7 and COS 6-9 Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 56
encourage the protection and preservation of cultural and historic resources and consultation with Native American tribal representatives to identify and appropriately address cultural resources and sacred sites during the development review process. Actions COS 6d and COS 6e address the discovery of significant archaeological and historic resources during construction and grading activities, requiring that development work be stopped in the event of a discovery and that appropriate measures be implemented to protect the resource. The proposed project would be subject to all relevant General Plan policies and actions that provide protections for cultural, historical, and tribal resources.
The General Plan policies and actions provide a robust framework for ensuring that effects on significant unknown historic, archaeological and tribal cultural resources are reduced to the extent feasible. Additionally, Mitigation Measures, included in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR, requires additional site-specific measures and sensitivity training for future projects within the Specific Plan Area. These included the following measure as identified in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR:
Mitigation Measure 3.5‐1: All construction workers shall receive a sensitivity training session before they begin site work within the Plan Area. The sensitivity training shall inform the workers of their responsibility to identify and protect any cultural resources, including prehistoric or historic artifacts, or other indications of archaeological resources, within the project site. The sensitivity training shall cover laws pertaining to cultural resources, examples of cultural resources that may be discovered in the project site, and what to do if a cultural resource, or anything that may be a cultural resource, is discovered.
If any subsurface historic remains, prehistoric or historic artifacts, paleontological resources, other indications of archaeological resources, or cultural and/or tribal resources are found during grading and construction activities, all work within 100 feet of the find shall cease, the City of Brentwood shall be notified, and the applicant shall retain an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards in prehistoric or historical archaeology, as appropriate, to evaluate the find(s). If tribal resources are found during grading and construction activities, the applicant shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission. If paleontological resources are found during grading and construction activities, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to determine the significance of the discovery.
The archaeologist and/or paleontologist shall define the physical extent and the nature of any built features or artifact‐bearing deposits. The investigation shall proceed immediately into a formal evaluation to determine the eligibility of the feature(s) for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources. The formal evaluation shall include, at a minimum, additional exposure of the feature(s), photo‐documentation and recordation, and analysis of the artifact assemblage(s). If the evaluation determines that the feature(s) and artifact(s) do not have sufficient data potential to be eligible for the California Register, additional work shall not be required. However, if data potential exists (e.g., an intact feature is identified with a large and varied artifact assemblage), further mitigation would be necessary, which might include avoidance of further disturbance to the resource(s) through project redesign. If avoidance is determined to be infeasible, additional data recovery Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 57
excavations shall be conducted for the resource(s), to collect enough information to exhaust the data potential of those resources.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C), a data recovery plan, which makes provisions for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential information from and about the resource, shall be prepared and adopted prior to any excavation being undertaken. Such studies shall be deposited with the California Historical Resources Regional Information Center. Data recovery efforts can range from rapid photographic documentation to extensive excavation depending upon the physical nature of the resource. The degree of effort shall be determined at the discretion of a qualified archaeologist and should be sufficient to recover data considered important to the area’s history and/or prehistory.
Significance determinations for tribal cultural resources shall be measured in terms of criteria for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources (Title 14 CCR, §4852[a]), and the definition of tribal cultural resources set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21074 and 5020.1 (k). The evaluation of the tribal cultural resource(s) shall include culturally appropriate temporary and permanent treatment, which may include avoidance of tribal cultural resources, in‐place preservation, and/or re‐burial on project property so the resource(s) are not subject to further disturbance in perpetuity. Any re‐burial shall occur at a location predetermined between the landowner and the Native American Heritage Commission. The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all sacred items, burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area to the Native American Heritage Commission for proper treatment and disposition. If an artifact must be removed during project excavation or testing, curation may be an appropriate mitigation.
The language of this mitigation measure shall be included on any future grading plans, utility plans, and subdivision improvement drawings approved by the City for the future development of the Plan Area.
Mitigation Measure 3.5‐3: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15.64.5(e) if human remains are discovered during the course of construction, work shall be halted at the site and any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the Contra Costa County Coroner has been informed and has determined that no investigation of the cause of death is required.
If the Contra Costa County Coroner determines that the remains are of Native American origin, either of the following steps shall be taken:
• The Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours in order to identify the person or persons the Commission believes to be the most likely descended from the decreased individual. The most likely descendent shall make a recommendation to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, which may include obtaining a qualified archaeologist or team of archaeologists to properly excavate the human remains.
• The landowner shall retain a Native American monitor, and an archaeologist, if recommended by the Native American monitor, and rebury the Native American human remains and any associated grave goods, with appropriate dignity, on the property and in a location that is not subject to further subsurface disturbance when any of the following conditions occurs:
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 58
o The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most likely descendent; o The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the Commission; or
o The City of Brentwood or its authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
The project would be required to implement all policies and actions included in the General Plan and all recommendations and mitigation strategies included within the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.
The implementation of these project requirements would require appropriate steps to preserve and/or document any previously undiscovered resources that may be encountered during construction activities, including human remains, and paleontological resources, and would be consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The project would be subject to mitigation strategies included in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.
Project Requirement(s)
Requirement CUL‐1: Implement PA‐1 Specific Plan MM 3.5‐1 and 3.5‐3 The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (EIR) determined that this impact was potentially significant, but would be reduced to a less than significant level following implementation of EIR mitigation measures 3.5-1 and 3.5-3. As noted above, the project is required to implement mitigation measures 3.5-1 and 3.5-3 from the EIR. This impact was adequately addressed in the EIR. The proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact than what was previously analyzed.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 59
VI. ENERGY
Would the project:
Significant Impact
Peculiar to the
Project or the
Project Site
Significant Impact
due to New
Information
Impact Adequately
Addressed in the
Specific Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed
in Specific
Plan EIR
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency? X
Responses to Checklist Questions
Responses a), b): Impact not Previously Addressed in EIR.
Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines requires consideration of the potentially significant energy implications of a project. CEQA requires mitigation measures to reduce “wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary” energy usage (Public Resources Code Section 21100, subdivision [b][3]). According to Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, the means to achieve the goal of conserving energy include decreasing overall energy consumption, decreasing reliance on natural gas and oil, and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. In particular, the proposed project would be considered “wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary” if it were to violate state and federal energy standards and/or result in significant adverse impacts related to project energy requirements, energy inefficiencies, energy intensiveness of materials, cause significant impacts on local and regional energy supplies or generate requirements for additional capacity, fail to comply with existing energy standards, otherwise result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources, or conflict or create an inconsistency with applicable plan, policy, or regulation.
As most recently amended by SB 100 (2018), California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard requires retail sellers of electric services and local publicly-owned electric utilities to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 50 percent of total retail sales by 2026, and 60 percent of total retail sales by 2030. SB 100 also established a State policy goal to achieve 100 percent renewables by 2045.
In March 2021, CEC, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and CARB released a jointagency report evaluating the current feasibility of achieving the energy resource and GHG reductions goals of SB 100. The report finds that SB 100 is technically feasible when analyzed under scenarios of varying timelines, advancements in energy generation technology, and energy source portfolios. Under the SB 100 Core Scenario, it is anticipated that California will need to triple its current electricity power capacity.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 60
Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations regulates the design of building shells and building components. The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.
The CEC’s 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (2019 Building Standards), which became effective January 1, 2020, are the currently applicable version of these standards. In general, single-family homes built to the 2019 standards are anticipated to use about 7% less energy due to energy efficiency measures than those built to the 2016 standards, and nonresidential buildings built to the 2019 standards will use an estimated 30% less energy than those built to the 2016 standards.
In addition to the CEC’s efforts, in 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11 of Title 24), commonly referred to as CalGreen Building Standard (CalGreen), establishes voluntary and mandatory standards pertaining to the planning and design of sustainable site development, energy efficiency, water conservation, material conservation, and interior air quality. Like Part 6 of Title 24, the CalGreen standards are periodically updated, with increasing energy savings and efficiencies associated with each code update.
As of January 1, 2023, the CEC adopted the 2022 Energy Code, which improves upon the 2019 standards for construction of residential and non-residential buildings. The CEC periodically amends and enforces Appliance Efficiency Regulations contained in Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations. The regulations establish water and energy efficiency standards for both federally-regulated appliances and non-federally regulated appliances. The regulations cover numerous categories of appliances (e.g., refrigerators; plumbing fixtures; dishwashers; clothes washer and dryers; televisions) and apply to appliances offered for sale in California.
Conclusion
The proposed project includes the construction of a commercial warehouse, fuel facility and associated infrastructure improvements to serve the project. Other sources of proposed project energy consumption during construction include fuel used by vehicle trips generated during project construction, and fuel used by off-road construction vehicles during construction activities.
The proposed project would use energy resources for the operation of project buildings (electricity and natural gas), for on-road vehicle trips (e.g. gasoline and diesel fuel) generated by the proposed project, and from off-road construction activities associated with the proposed project (e.g. diesel fuel). Each of these activities would require the use of energy resources. The proposed project would be responsible for conserving energy, to the extent feasible, and relies heavily on reducing per capita energy consumption to achieve this goal, including through Statewide and local measures.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 61
The proposed project would be in compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations regulating energy usage. Project-related electricity use results in indirect emissions, due to electricity generation activities occurring at off-site power plant locations. For the Project, electrical power will be supplied by PG&E. PG&E is in the process of implementing the Statewide Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to increase the proportion of renewable energy (e.g. solar and wind) within its energy portfolio. PG&E achieved at least a 33% mix of renewable energy resources by 2020, and is expected to achieve 50% by 2030. Additionally, energy-saving regulations, including the latest State Title 24 building energy efficiency standards (“part 6”), would be applicable to the proposed project. Other Statewide measures, including those intended to improve the energy efficiency of the statewide passenger and heavy-duty truck vehicle fleet (e.g. the Pavley Bill and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard), would improve vehicle fuel economies, thereby conserving gasoline and diesel fuel. These energy savings would continue to accrue over time. Furthermore, as described in greater detail in the transportation section of this report the project would result in a reduction in VMT further reducing energy requirements.
As a result, the proposed project would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to project energy requirements, energy use inefficiencies, and/or the energy intensiveness of materials by amount and fuel type for each stage of the project including construction, operations, maintenance, and/or removal. PG&E, the electricity and natural gas provider to the site, maintains sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project. The proposed project would comply with all existing energy standards, including those established by the City of Brentwood, and would not result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources. For these reasons, the proposed project would not be expected cause an inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy resources nor cause a significant impact on any of the threshold as described by Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines.
The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR did not include an energy impact analysis, as this was not a required topic under CEQA at the time the Specific Plan EIR was prepared. However, as demonstrated in the analysis above, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact related to this environmental topic.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 62
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ‐ WOULD THE PROJECT:
Significant Impact
Peculiar to the
Project or the
Project Site
Significant Impact
due to New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in the
Specific Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed in
Specific Plan
EIR
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a result
of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
X
BACKGROUND
Information included in the section is further detailed in Attachment B. Geotechnical Study Prepared by: Kleinfelder.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 63
RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS
Responses a.i), a.ii), a.iii: Adequately addressed in Specific Plan EIR.
As described in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR there are no known active or potentially active faults, or Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, located within the Specific Plan Area. However, there are numerous faults located in the region. These include the Antioch Fault, Calaveras Fault, Coast Range-Sierran Block Boundary Zone, Concord-Green Valley Fault, Greenville-Marsh Creek Fault, Hayward Fault, Mount Diablo Thrust Fault, Pittsburg-Kirby Hills Fault, Rodgers Creek Fault, and the San Andreas Fault. Rupture of any of these faults, or of an unknown fault in the region, could cause seismic ground shaking. As a result, future development in the Specific Plan Area may expose people or structures to potential adverse effects associated with a seismic event, including strong ground shaking and seismic-related ground failure.
There are no seismic hazard zones currently mapped in the Specific Plan Area; however, the California Geological Survey estimates a 10 percent probability of exceeding 30-50 percent of gravity at peak ground acceleration over the next 50 years in the Brentwood Planning Area, as well as other communities within eastern Contra Costa County. Moving west toward the Hayward fault, the estimates increase up to 70 percent or more of gravity at peak ground acceleration.
While there are no known active faults located within Brentwood, the area could experience considerable ground shaking generated by faults outside the city. For example, Brentwood could experience intensities of MM VII to VIII generated by seismic events occurring along the Greenville-Marsh Creek Fault or Mount Diablo Thrust Fault (ABAG, 2013). The effect of this intensity level includes: VII) Difficulty standing; Vehicle shaking felt by drivers; some furniture breaks; and VIII) Difficulty steering vehicles; Houses may shift on foundations.
The proposed project would be required to comply with the provisions of the California Building Standards Code (CBSC), which requires development projects to: perform geotechnical investigations in accordance with State law, engineer improvements to address potential seismic and ground failure issues, and use earthquake-resistant construction techniques to address potential earthquake loads when constructing buildings and improvements.
The Project will be consistent with and in conformance with the CBSC, General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and other regulations. In addition to the requirements associated with the CBSC and the Municipal Code, the General Plan includes policies and actions to address potential impacts associated with seismic activity.
All development and construction proposals must be reviewed by the City to ensure conformance with applicable building standards. Development on soils sensitive to seismic activity is only allowed after adequate site analysis, including appropriate siting, design of structure, and foundation integrity.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 64
As required by the General Plan, a Geotechnical Study for the Proposed Project was completed by Kleinfelder (Project No. 20220773.001A) and in included as Attachment B of this report. The purpose of this geotechnical study was to evaluate soil and groundwater conditions at the site and provide geotechnical recommendations for project design and construction.
Based on the results of field exploration, Kleinfelder found the proposed project is geotechnically feasible, and provided the following observations and recommendations in the geotechnical report, which are to be incorporated into the project design and construction. The potential for liquefaction was evaluated at the site. Based on the CPT and boring data and engineering analyses, it is our opinion that isolated, thin layers of saturated sands from approximately 30 to 40 feet bgs may be subject to liquefaction in the event of a major earthquake occurring on a nearby fault. Based on our analyses, we estimate that seismically-induced settlement of saturated sandy soils due to strong ground shaking during a design-level seismic event to be up to about 1 inch based on a design groundwater depth of 20 feet bgs. Differential settlement at this site is anticipated to be less than 1 inch over a horizontal distance 50 feet.
The proposed Costco warehouse building and fuel facility may be supported on a conventional shallow foundation system. Overexcavation and recompaction of the on-site soils is recommended to mitigate loose shallow soils and provide relatively uniform support for the proposed warehouse and other improvements. Organic matter in the topsoil varied across the site based on laboratory testing. It was found that organic content samples taken west of the diagonal concrete channel had organic contents between approximately 1 to 2. percent while the samples taken east of the channel were higher 3 to 4. percent to the depths explored (6-12 inches). It was noted during our field exploration that the land east of the concrete channel was more overgrown with smaller shrubs and trees. It is recommended that at least the upper 12 inches of topsoil be stripped in the area east of the channel. It may be possible to blend the topsoil in deeper fills outside of the warehouse building pad. Stripping is not required in the area west of the channel. Any roots and vegetative matter in excess of one inch should be removed by screening or raking prior to reuse as structural fill. After screening, raking, and required stripping is completed the surface soils can be moisture conditioned and used as structural fill.
Soils within 10 feet of the warehouse pad (including the entrance canopy, building aprons, utility pads, stairs, ramps, stoops, and the loading dock) should be overexcavated to a depth of at least 5 feet below existing grade or 3 feet below the bottom of the footings and floor slabs, whichever is deeper, and replaced as structural fill. If fill soils are encountered at the base of the overexcavation within the warehouse pad, the overexcavation should continue until the fill is removed. Prior to placing fill, the base of the overexcavation should be scarified a depth of 6 to 8 inches below grade, moisture conditioned, and recompacted. The on-site soils can be moisture conditioned and reused as structural fill.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 65
Following overexcavation and prior to replacing soils, the exposed subgrade should be compacted with at least a 10-ton roller, fully-loaded tandem-axle dump truck or water truck. Areas identified as being soft or yielding may require additional compaction or overexcavation, as determined by Kleinfelder.
Soils in pavement, sidewalk, and other flatwork areas should be overexcavated to a depth of at least 12 inches below existing grade or 12 inches below the finished subgrade elevation, whichever is deeper. The overexcavated soils can be moisture conditioned and recompacted as structural fill. The overexcavation should extend beyond the proposed improvements a horizontal distance of at least 2 feet.
As an alternative to overexcavating below pavements, sidewalks and other flatwork areas, the upper 12 inches of the subgrade may be stabilized with lime. The treatment area should extend beyond the proposed improvements a horizontal distance of at least 2 feet. Lime percentages should be determined construction in consultation with Kleinfelder. Lime treatment should be performed by a specialty contractor experienced in this work and should be performed in accordance with Caltrans Standard Specifications. Lime treated areas will have a high pH level (pH over 10) that will need to be removed from landscape areas.
The site soils are fine-grained, moisture sensitive, and susceptible to disturbance, rutting, and pumping during construction. The contractor should plan to repair subgrade conditions that become unstable/disturbed and should develop a plan to manage subgrade trafficability across the site throughout the construction period. Features of this plan may include temporary surface haul roads, limited traffic routes, etc. The on-site clays should not be used as retaining wall backfill. The granular backfill, which should meet the requirements for imported fill as defined in Section 5.2.4, should extend behind walls a horizontal distance of at least one-half the height of the wall. Due to compaction difficulties, we do not recommend compacting the onsite clayey soils to 95 percent of the maximum dry unit weight (ASTM D1557), as required in the CWDRs.
Onsite clayey soils should be compacted between 92 percent of the soil’s maximum dry unit weight (ASTM D1557) at moisture contents between 0 and 3 percent above optimum moisture content. Compacting the onsite soils between 92 percent relative compaction will achieve the necessary strength assumed in our design recommendations. Due to poor draining subgrade, we recommend installation of radial finger drains below new pavement sections. Additionally, planters should be detailed such that water exiting from them will not seep into the foundation areas or beneath slabs and pavement. If landscaping is proposed to be placed adjacent to the proposed warehouse buildings, we recommend that perimeter foundation drains be implemented in these areas. The minimum resistivity values found for the samples tested indicate that the soil may be extremely corrosive to ferrous metals. The concentrations of soluble sulfates indicate that the subsurface soils represent a Class S0 exposure to sulfate attack on concrete in contact with the soil based on ACI 318-14 Table 19.3.1.1 (ACI, 2014). Therefore, in accordance with ACI Building Code 318-14, no special provisions for selection of cement type are required.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 66
Based on the results of the infiltration testing and laboratory testing, the project site is not considered suitable for infiltration Best Management Practices (BMPs). Given the low infiltration capacity of the site soils, alternative infiltration BMPs, such as biofiltration/bioretention systems (bio-swales and planter boxes) may be considered at the project site.
The Brentwood General Plan policies and project review requirements require geotechnical investigations to be completed prior to approval of any buildings as a means to ensure that these facilities are constructed in a way that mitigates site-specific seismic and/or geological hazards.
As described previously, a geotechnical study has been prepared to explore, assess, and recommend site planning requirements to address seismic safety issues and provide adequate recommendations for potential hazards identified. With the implementation of the recommendations required by the geotechnical study, as well as applicable State and City codes, potential impacts associated with a seismic event, including rupture of an earthquake fault, seismic ground shaking, and liquefaction would be less than significant.
Project Requirement(s)
Requirement GEO‐1: Implement recommendations presented in the Geotechnical Study Prepared by Kleinfelder during the project design and construction.
The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (EIR) determined that this impact was less than significant. This impact was adequately addressed in the EIR. The proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact than what was previously analyzed.
Responses c), d): Adequately addressed in Specific Plan EIR.
The geologic conditions conducive to lateral spreading include gentle surface slope (0.3-5% slope), and liquefiable soils. As identified under Response a), portions of the site are at risk for liquefaction, however the site is essentially flat and the geotechnical report notes that lateral spreading was not anticipated on the site.
Expansive soils are characterized by their ability to undergo significant volume changes (shrink or swell) due to variations in moisture content. Changes in soil moisture content can result from precipitation, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, roof drainage, perched groundwater, drought, or other factors, and may result in unacceptable settlement or heave of structures or concrete slabs supported on grade. The surficial soils are generally lean clays with low to medium plasticity which are known to exhibit low to moderate expansion characteristics.
The geotechnical report identifies a low to medium risk for expansive soils on the site.
Recommendations for mitigating expansive soils are provided in the geotechnical report, and include measures such as the use of lime-stabilized soil treatments. Lime treatment is commonly used to stabilize near surface expansive soils under concrete building slabs and pavements for Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 67
many of the large commercial developments in the project area. Requirement GEO-1 requires the recommendations presented in the geotechnical report to be incorporated into the project design and construction. Final lime percentage and stabilization techniques would be determined during construction in consultation with Kleinfelder. Additionally, the California Building Code Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 18, Section 1803.1.1.2 requires specific geotechnical evaluation when a preliminary geotechnical evaluation determines that expansive or other special soil conditions are present, which, if not corrected, would lead to structural defects. As noted above, a geotechnical report has been prepared for the project site, and the project is required to adhere to the engineering requirements contained in the geotechnical report.
The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (EIR) determined that this impact was less than significant. This impact was adequately addressed in the EIR. The proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact than what was previously analyzed.
Response a.iv): Adequately addressed in Specific Plan EIR. The project site is essentially flat and there are no major slopes in the vicinity of the project site. As such, the project site is exposed to little or no risk associated with landslides.
The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (EIR) determined that this impact was less than significant. This impact was adequately addressed in the EIR. The proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact than what was previously analyzed.
Response b): Adequately addressed in Specific Plan EIR. Construction and site preparation activities associated with development of the project site include grading for the construction of the proposed project. During the construction preparation process, existing vegetation would be removed to grade and compact the project site, as necessary. As construction occurs, these exposed surfaces could be susceptible to erosion from wind and water. Effects from erosion include impacts on water quality and air quality. Exposed soils that are not properly contained or capped increase the potential for increased airborne dust and increased discharge of sediment and other pollutants into nearby stormwater drainage facilities. Risks associated with erosive surface soils can be reduced by using appropriate controls during construction and properly revegetating exposed areas. Project Requirement HYDRO 1 would require the implementation of a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) which includes various best management practices (BMPs) that would reduce the potential for disturbed soils and ground surfaces to result in erosion and sediment discharge into adjacent surface waters during construction activities.
The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (EIR) determined that this impact was less than significant. This impact was adequately addressed in the EIR. The proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact than what was previously analyzed.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 68
Response e): Adequately addressed in Specific Plan EIR. The project site would be served by public wastewater facilities and does not require an alternative wastewater system such as septic tanks.
The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (EIR) determined that there was no impact related to this environmental topic. This impact was adequately addressed in the EIR. The proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact than what was previously analyzed.
Response f): Adequately addressed in Specific Plan EIR. Known paleontological resources or sites have not been identified on the project site. Additionally, unique geologic features are not located on the site. The site is currently undeveloped and surrounded by existing or future urban development. Should paleontological resources artifacts, such as fossils, or unusual amounts of bones or shells be uncovered during construction activities, a paleontologist should be consulted for an evaluation.
Additionally, Mitigation Measures, included in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR, requires additional sitespecific measures and sensitivity training for future projects within the Specific Plan Area. These included the following measure as identified in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.
Mitigation Measure 3.5‐2: If paleontological resources are discovered during the course of construction, work shall be halted immediately within 50 meters (165 feet) of the discovery, the City of Brentwood shall be notified, and a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to determine the significance of the discovery. If the paleontological resource is considered significant, it should be excavated by a qualified paleontologist and given to a local agency, State University, or other applicable institution, where they could be curated and displayed for public education purposes.
The project would be required to implement all policies and actions included in the General Plan and all recommendations and mitigation strategies included within the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.
The implementation of these project requirements would require appropriate steps to preserve and/or document any previously undiscovered resources that may be encountered during construction activities, including paleontological resources. The project would be subject to mitigation strategies included in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.
Project Requirement(s)
Requirement GEO‐2: Implement PA‐1 Specific Plan MM 3.5‐2 The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (EIR) determined that this impact was potentially significant, but would be reduced to a less than significant level following implementation of EIR mitigation measure 3.5-2. As noted above, the project is required to implement mitigation measures 3.5-2 from the EIR. This impact was adequately addressed in the EIR. The proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact than what was previously analyzed.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 69
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – WOULD THE PROJECT:
Significant Impact
Peculiar to the
Project or the Project
Site
Significant Impact
due to New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in
the Specific
Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed
in Specific
Plan EIR
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gasses?
X
BACKGROUND DISCUSSION
Information and analysis in this section is bases on the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report prepared by: Ramboll US Consulting, Inc. January 2023. This report and associated GHG data is included as Attachment C.
Various gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, classified as atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in determining the Earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters Earth’s atmosphere from space, and a portion of the radiation is absorbed by the Earth’s surface. The Earth emits this radiation back toward space, but the properties of the radiation change from high-frequency solar radiation to lower-frequency infrared radiation.
Naturally occurring greenhouse gases include water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone (O3). Several classes of halogenated substances that contain fluorine, chlorine, or bromine are also greenhouse gases, but they are, for the most part, solely a product of industrial activities. Although the direct greenhouse gases CO2, CH4, and N2O occur naturally in the atmosphere, human activities have changed their atmospheric concentrations. From the pre-industrial era (i.e., ending about 1750) to 2011, concentrations of these three greenhouse gases have increased globally by 40, 150, and 20 percent, respectively (IPCC 2013)1.
Greenhouse gases, which are transparent to solar radiation, are effective in absorbing infrared radiation. As a result, this radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is now retained, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. Among the prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon
1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2013. “Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers.” Available:
<http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf>.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 70
dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), ozone (O3), water vapor, nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors (California Energy Commission 2014) 2. In California, the transportation sector is the largest emitter of GHGs, followed by electricity generation (California Energy Commission 2014).
Carbon dioxide equivalents are a measurement used to account for the fact that different GHGs have different potential to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. This potential, known as the global warming potential of a GHG, is also dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Expressing GHG emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents takes the contribution of all GHG emissions to the greenhouse effect and converts them to a single unit equivalent to the effect that would occur if only CO2 were being emitted.
Consumption of fossil fuels in the transportation sector was the single largest source of California’s GHG emissions in 2017, accounting for 41% of total GHG emissions in the state. This category was followed by the industrial sector (24%), the electricity generation sector (including both in-state and out of-state sources) (15%), the agriculture sector (8%), the residential energy consumption sector (7%), and the commercial energy consumption sector (5%) (California Energy Commission, 2019).
EFFECTS OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
The effects of increasing global temperature are far-reaching and extremely difficult to quantify.
The scientific community continues to study the effects of global climate change. In general, increases in the ambient global temperature as a result of increased GHGs are anticipated to result in rising sea levels, which could threaten coastal areas through accelerated coastal erosion, threats to levees and inland water systems and disruption to coastal wetlands and habitat.
If the temperature of the ocean warms, it is anticipated that the winter snow season would be shortened. Snowpack in the Sierra Nevada provides both water supply (runoff) and storage (within the snowpack before melting), which is a major source of supply for the state. The snowpack portion of the supply could potentially decline by 70% to 90% by the end of the 21st century (Cal EPA 2006)3. This phenomenon could lead to significant challenges securing an adequate water supply for a growing state population. Further, the increased ocean temperature
2 California Energy Commission. 2014. California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory. Available:
<http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/inventory_current.htm>. 3 California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team. 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. Available:
<http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/>.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 71
could result in increased moisture flux into the state; however, since this would likely increasingly come in the form of rain rather than snow in the high elevations, increased precipitation could lead to increased potential and severity of flood events, placing more pressure on California’s levee/flood control system.
Sea level has risen approximately seven inches during the last century and it is predicted to rise an additional 22 to 35 inches by 2100, depending on the future GHG emissions levels (Cal EPA 2006). If this occurs, resultant effects could include increased coastal flooding, saltwater intrusion and disruption of wetlands (Cal EPA 2006). As the existing climate throughout California changes over time, mass migration of species, or failure of species to migrate in time to adapt to the perturbations in climate, could also result. Under the emissions scenarios of the Climate Scenarios report (California Environmental Protection Agency, 2010), the impacts of global warming in California are anticipated to include, but are not limited to, the following.
Public Health
Higher temperatures are expected to increase the frequency, duration, and intensity of conditions conducive to air pollution formation. For example, days with weather conducive to ozone formation are projected to increase from 25% to 35% under the lower warming range and to 75% to 85% under the medium warming range. In addition, if global background ozone levels increase as predicted in some scenarios, it may become impossible to meet local air quality standards. Air quality could be further compromised by increases in wildfires, which emit fine particulate matter that can travel long distances depending on wind conditions. The Climate Scenarios report indicates that large wildfires could become up to 55% more frequent if GHG emissions are not significantly reduced.
In addition, under the higher warming scenario, there could be up to 100 more days per year with temperatures above 90oF in Los Angeles and 95oF in Sacramento by 2100. This is a large increase over historical patterns and approximately twice the increase projected if temperatures remain within or below the lower warming range. Rising temperatures will increase the risk of death from dehydration, heat stroke/exhaustion, heart attack, stroke, and respiratory distress caused by extreme heat.
Water Resources
A vast network of man-made reservoirs and aqueducts capture and transport water throughout the state from Northern California rivers and the Colorado River. The current distribution system relies on Sierra Nevada snow pack to supply water during the dry spring and summer months.
Rising temperatures, potentially compounded by decreases in precipitation, could severely reduce spring snow pack, increasing the risk of summer water shortages.
The state’s water supplies are also at risk from rising sea levels. An influx of saltwater would degrade California’s estuaries, wetlands, and groundwater aquifers. Saltwater intrusion caused by rising sea levels is a major threat to the quality and reliability of water within the southern Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 72
edge of the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta, a major state fresh water supply. Global warming is also projected to seriously affect agricultural areas, with California farmers projected to lose as much as 25% of the water supply they need; decrease the potential for hydropower production within the state (although the effects on hydropower are uncertain); and seriously harm winter tourism. Under the lower warming range, the snow dependent winter recreational season at lower elevations could be reduced by as much as one month. If temperatures reach the higher warming range and precipitation declines, there might be many years with insufficient snow for skiing, snowboarding, and other snow dependent recreational activities.
If GHG emissions continue unabated, more precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow, and the snow that does fall will melt earlier, reducing the Sierra Nevada spring snow pack by as much as 70% to 90%. Under the lower warming scenario, snow pack losses are expected to be only half as large as those expected if temperatures were to rise to the higher warming range. How much snow pack will be lost depends in part on future precipitation patterns, the projections for which remain uncertain. However, even under the wetter climate projections, the loss of snow pack would pose challenges to water managers, hamper hydropower generation, and nearly eliminate all skiing and other snow-related recreational activities.
Agriculture
Increased GHG emissions are expected to cause widespread changes to the agriculture industry reducing the quantity and quality of agricultural products statewide. Although higher carbon dioxide levels can stimulate plant production and increase plant water-use efficiency, California’s farmers will face greater water demand for crops and a less reliable water supply as temperatures rise.
Plant growth tends to be slow at low temperatures, increasing with rising temperatures up to a threshold. However, faster growth can result in less-than-optimal development for many crops, so rising temperatures are likely to worsen the quantity and quality of yield for a number of California’s agricultural products. Products likely to be most affected include wine grapes, fruits and nuts, and milk.
Crop growth and development will be affected, as will the intensity and frequency of pest and disease outbreaks. Rising temperatures will likely aggravate ozone pollution, which makes plants more susceptible to disease and pests and interferes with plant growth.
In addition, continued global warming will likely shift the ranges of existing invasive plants and weeds and alter competition patterns with native plants. Range expansion is expected in many species while range contractions are less likely in rapidly evolving species with significant populations already established. Should range contractions occur, it is likely that new or different weed species will fill the emerging gaps. Continued global warming is also likely to alter the abundance and types of many pests, lengthen pests’ breeding season, and increase pathogen growth rates.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 73
Forests and Landscapes
Global warming is expected to alter the distribution and character of natural vegetation thereby resulting in a possible increased risk of large wildfires. If temperatures rise into the medium warming range, the risk of large wildfires in California could increase by as much as 55%, which is almost twice the increase expected if temperatures stay in the lower warming range. However, since wildfire risk is determined by a combination of factors, including precipitation, winds, temperature, and landscape and vegetation conditions, future risks will not be uniform throughout the state. For example, if precipitation increases as temperatures rise, wildfires in southern California are expected to increase by approximately 30% toward the end of the century. In contrast, precipitation decreases could increase wildfires in northern California by up to 90%.
Moreover, continued global warming will alter natural ecosystems and biological diversity within the state. For example, alpine and sub-alpine ecosystems are expected to decline by as much as 60% to 80% by the end of the century as a result of increasing temperatures. The productivity of the state’s forests is also expected to decrease as a result of global warming.
Rising Sea Levels
Rising sea levels, more intense coastal storms, and warmer water temperatures will increasingly threaten the state’s coastal regions. Under the higher warming scenario, sea level is anticipated to rise 22 to 35 inches by 2100. Elevations of this magnitude would inundate coastal areas with saltwater, accelerate coastal erosion, threaten vital levees and inland water systems, and disrupt wetlands and natural habitats.
RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS
Response a): Adequately addressed in Specific Plan EIR. The proposed wholesale retail facility would be approximately 152,000 square feet (sq. ft.), of which approximately 5,125 sq. ft. would be reserved for storage and receiving at the northwest corner of the warehouse. The Costco members-only gas station on the northwestern portion of the project site adjacent to Lone Tree Plaza Drive would include an approximately 11,500 square-foot canopy and a 125 squarefoot controller enclosure. There would be four covered fueling islands, each with four two-sided fuel dispensers to provide for the fueling of eight cars at each island, for a total of 32 fueling positions. The project would have its main access points along Lone Tree Plaza Drive and include approximately 850 parking stalls.
Ramboll Consulting, Inc. prepared a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Technical Report for the proposed Costco warehouse and gasoline dispensing facility. This report (included as Attachment C of this Report) analyzes the project’s impacts related to GHGs from construction and operations.
As described in the GHG report, development of the site for urban uses and the corresponding generation of GHG emissions associated with buildout of the PA-1 Specific Plan area, including the project site, was taken into consideration in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR. The project’s GHG Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 74
emissions were calculated using CalEEMod® and compared to the GHG emissions inventory of the PA-1 Specific Plan. As shown in Table 9, the Project’s GHG emissions are below those presented in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.
Table 9: Summary of GHG Emissions Comparison to PA‐1 Specific Plan Emissions Category
Specific Plan - Overall
Operational
(MT CO2e/year)
Project (MT
CO2e/year)
Area Sources 162 2
Energy Usage 24,557 224
Mobile 39,146 -20
Water 2,786 24
Waste Disposed 3,316 221
Operational Sub-Total 69,967 451
Construction Amortized4 162 14
Total 70,129 465
SOURCE: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS TECHNICAL REPORT. PREPARED BY: RAMBOLL US CONSULTING, INC. JANUARY 2023.
The total project GHG emissions for Project construction and operation were calculated to be 465 MT CO2e/year. The Brentwood PA-1 Specific Plan EIR provides an emissions inventory for the buildout of the entire PA-1 Specific Plan consisting of 70,129 MT CO2e/year.
The land uses assumed for development of the proposed Project are similar in nature to those assumed in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR in terms of potential mobile source emissions that may be generated by these land uses. Additionally, construction footprints would be substantially similar to like uses allowed under commercial land use designations. The mobile emissions are the dominant source of emissions. The square footage of the proposed Project would be less than the corresponding square footage for retail development for this portion of the PA-1 Specific Plan assumed in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR, and thus, it is expected that the proposed Project would have similar if not lower emissions for this portion of the PA-1 Specific Plan. The construction activities for the proposed Project is also expected to be similar for the land uses as assumed in the PA-1 Specific Plan given that similar site preparation and building construction is expected to occur.
As shown in Table 9, the GHG emissions for the Project are less than the GHG emissions outlined in the PA- 1 Specific Plan EIR. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not create new impacts over and above those identified in the General Plan EIR, nor significantly change previously identified impacts.
The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (EIR) determined that this impact was less than significant. This impact was adequately addressed in the EIR. The proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact than what was previously analyzed.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 75
Response b): Adequately addressed in Specific Plan EIR.
This section evaluates the project potential to conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
Statewide Emissions Reduction Targets
The Project will be consistent with the state’s GHG reduction goals as discussed in the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan. As demonstrated in the Consistency Analysis with 2022 Scoping Plan Technical Memorandum (Ramboll, June 2023- Attachment 24 to the Staff Report). the Project would be consistent with applicable California Scoping Plan strategies for the reduction of GHG emissions.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission/Association of Bay Area The Project will be consistent with the state’s GHG reduction goals and strategies as discussed in the MTC/ABAG’s Plan Bay Area 2050 (the current RTP/SCS for the region).
The RTP is based on an analysis that considers the entire San Francisco Bay Area and includes all projects involving changes in regional growth and land use in Contra Costa County, as well as the countywide vehicle traffic projections. Cumulative GHG emissions analyzed in the RTP were compared to regional GHG thresholds and analyzed under statewide plans and regulations. This analysis concluded that the projected increase in GHG emissions as a result of the Project would primarily be due to changes in regional growth/land use; however, the RTP achieves GHG emissions reduction targets from mobile sources from 2005 levels by implementing a mix of land use strategies, transportation management, economic factors, and road projects. Furthermore, the Brentwood Costco Transportation Analysis prepared by Kittelson shows that the overall change in total regional daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is net negative. As shown in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report (Attachment C of this report) Table C-2, the Project would be consistent with applicable MTC/ABAG strategies for the reduction of GHG emissions.
California CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5
The City of Brentwood does not have a Climate Action Plan or similar GHG reduction plan.
However, Section 15183.5 of the State’s CEQA Guidelines allows project-specific environmental documents to tier from and incorporate by reference an existing programmatic review for certain planning documents, such as Specific Plans. Therefore, this project’s environmental document tiers from the existing PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.
The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR states that development within the specific plan area, which includes the proposed Project, would follow BAAQMD guidance for construction activities. The BAAQMD recommends Basic Construction Mitigation Measures for all projects, whether or not construction-related emissions exceed the thresholds of significance. The BAAQMD also encourages lead agencies to incorporate best management practices to reduce GHG emissions Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 76
during construction, as applicable. Best management practices may include, but are not limited to: using alternative fuels (e.g. biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment of at least 15 percent of the fleet; using local building materials of at least 10 percent; and recycling or reusing at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials. Compliance with the BAAQMD construction-related mitigation requirements are considered to reduce GHG impacts at both the local and basin-wide levels. The PA-1 Specific Plan was determined to be consistent with and reliant upon these goals and policies.
As described above under Response a), the Project’s GHG emissions are below those presented in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR. The Project would not conflict with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission or the 2022 Scoping Plan. Additionally, the Project’s less than significant VMT impact, as concluded in Kittelson’s Brentwood Costco Transportation Impact Analysis supports the City of Brentwood’s General Plan and PA-1 Specific Plan goals to reduce GHG emissions.
Because the Project emissions from construction and operation of the proposed project are less than those evaluated in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR and the Project is consistent with the 2022 Scoping plan, MTC/ABAG’s Plan Bay Area 2050, and the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR, the project would result in a less than significant impact relative to this topic.
The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (EIR) determined that this impact was less than significant. This impact was adequately addressed in the EIR. The proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact than what was previously analyzed.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 77
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ‐‐ WOULD THE PROJECT:
Significant Impact
Peculiar to the
Project or the
Project Site
Significant Impact
due to New
Information
Impact
Adequately
Addressed in the
Specific Plan EIR
Impact not
Previously
Addressed
in Specific
Plan EIR
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in a safety hazard
or excessive noise for people residing or working
in the project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
X
RESPONSES TO CHECKLIST QUESTIONS
Responses a), b): Adequately addressed in Specific Plan EIR. The proposed project would place a new commercial warehouse and fueling station in an area of the City that contains residential and commercial uses. The proposed project would include underground fuel tanks (USTs), which would dispense fuels as described in the Project Description. The underground storage of hazardous materials is subject to the provisions of the California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.95 and Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 78
The proposed fueling station would require the routine transport and use of hazardous materials as part of the operation. The transport of fuels to the project site would be required to adhere to the Hazardous Materials Regulations stipulated in the Code of Federal Regulation, Title 49, Parts 100-185, which regulates the transportation of hazardous material and hazardous waste.
Therefore, the operational phase of the proposed project does not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
Construction equipment and materials would likely require the use of petroleum-based products (oil, gasoline, diesel fuel), and a variety of common chemicals including paints, cleaners, and solvents. Transportation, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction activities would be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations. Compliance would ensure that human health and the environment are not exposed to hazardous materials. In addition, Project Requirements included in the Hydrology Section of this Report (Hydrology and Water Quality) requires the project applicant to implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) during construction activities, which would prevent contaminated runoff from leaving the project site during construction.
In addition to the requirements associated with Federal and State regulations and the Municipal Code, the City’s General Plan includes policies and actions to address potential impacts associated with hazardous materials among other issues. Policy SA 4-2 requires hazardous waste generated within the city limits to be disposed of in a safe manner, consistent with all applicable local, State, and Federal laws. Policy SA 4-3 requires materials be stored in a safe manner, consistent with all applicable local, State, and Federal laws, and Policy SA 4-4 requires coordination with the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District (which has since become part of the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District) to ensure that businesses in Brentwood which handle hazardous materials prepare and file a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP).
A Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment were prepared to for the proposed site. These are included as Attachments D and E of this report.
Kleinfelder’s Phase I ESA of the Site revealed the following potential recognized environmental conditions RECs:
A potential presence of residual pesticides (specifically OCPs, as well as arsenic and lead based on the possibility that lead arsenate pesticides were used) due to the Site’s historical use for agriculture.
A potential presence of ADL from the use of historic leaded gasoline in vehicles travelling on the highway adjoining to the east of the Site.
The presence of two observed small soil and debris piles of unidentified origin on the Site. A potential for methane and associated oilfield gases to be present in the subsurface due to the Site’s location within the Brentwood Oil and Gas Field.
Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 79
Given the above findings, Kleinfelder recommended the performance of the Limited Phase II ESA at the Site. In summary, Kleinfelder performed the field activities of the Limited Phase II ESA between August 26 and September 3, 2021. A summary of the results of the laboratory analyses of the soil samples collected by Kleinfelder and its field measurements collected at the Site follows:
Residual organochlorine pesticide concentrations in the Site’s surface soil due to the Site’s historical use for agriculture do not appear to warrant concern. Arsenic and lead concentrations in sampled Site soil suggest that potential historical lead arsenate pesticide use on the Site is similarly not a concern. Aerially-deposited lead (ADL) associated with use of historic leaded gasoline in vehicles travelling on the highway adjoining to the east of the Site does not appear to represent a concern for the Site.
The analytical results of sampled Site soil and results of the sampled material in the two stockpiles that Kleinfelder observed on the Site appear to be representative of nonhazardous waste. The methane concentration results obtained during Kleinfelder’s monitoring of soil vapor beneath the Site suggest there is a low potential for methane to be present despite the Site’s location within the Brentwood Oil and Gas Field.
Given the laboratory results and field measurements, Kleinfelder no longer considers the initial RECs discussed in its June 22, 2021 draft Phase I ESA report concerning the Site to represent environmental hazards or conditions requiring further analysis or remediation. No further Site assessment is recommended. Overall, compliance with applicable federal, state, local statutes and regulations and preparation of the SWPPP provided in Project Requirement Hydro-1, would result in the project having a less-than-significant impact relative to this issue.
Project Requirement(s)
Requirement HAZ‐1: Prepare and file a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP).
The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (EIR) determined that this impact was less than significant. This impact was adequately addressed in the EIR. The proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact than what was previously analyzed.
Response c): Adequately addressed in Specific Plan EIR. The proposed project has limited potential for the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials as discussed above.
The project does include a fuel dispensing facility that would require the transport and storage of gasoline for fuel dispensing activities. One school, Heritage Baptist Academy is located within one-quarter mile of the project site. The proposed commercial site uses do not propose business activities that will result in hazardous emissions or require handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Potential impacts from fuel dispensing emissions and Attachment 16
City of Brentwood PAGE 80
TACs are discussed in detail in the Air Quality portion of this report and were found to be less than significant.
All hazardous materials would be handled in accordance with Federal, State, local, and County requirements, which would limit the potential for a project to expose nearby uses, including schools, to hazardous emissions or an accidental release. Hazardous emissions are monitored by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Department of Toxic Substances Control, and the local CUPA. In the event of a hazardous materials spill or release, notification and cleanup operations would be performed in compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local regulations and policies, including hazard mitigation plans. Additionally, as described previously, General Plan Policy SA 4-4 ensures that businesses in Brentwood which handle hazardous materials prepare and file a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP).
The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (EIR) determined that this impact was less than significant. This impact was adequately addressed in the EIR. The proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact than what was previously analyzed.
Response d): Adequately addressed in Specific Plan EIR. According the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) there are no Federal Superfund Sites, State Response Sites, or Voluntary Cleanup Sites on, or adjacent to the project site. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5.
The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (EIR) determined that this impact was less than significant. This impact was adequately addressed in the EIR. The proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact than what was previously analyzed.
Responses e): Adequately addressed in Specific Plan EIR. As discussed in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR, the Plan Area is not located within two miles of a public airport or private airstrip. The nearest airport, Byron Airport, is located approximately 9.7 miles southeast of the Plan Area. This airport is a County-owned facility that occupies approximately 1,307 acres. Brentwood does not lie within the Runway Protection Zone, Inner/Outer Safety Zones, Inner Turning Zone, Sideline Safety Zone, or Traffic Pattern Zone for this airport. According to the City’s General Plan EIR, none of the Planning Area (which includes the Specific Plan Area) lies within the land use compatibility zones for the Byron Airport.
The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (EIR) determined that there was no impact related to this topic. This impact was adequately addressed in the EIR. The proposed project would not result in a new or more severe impact than what was previously analyzed.
Attachment 16