Brentwood City Council
July 25, 2023

JULY 25, 2023, 7:00 PM

CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 150 CITY PARK WAY
CAFÉ INTERNET CAFÉ VIDANTA RIVIERA MAYA, CARRETERA FEDERAL CANCÚN-PLAYA DEL CARMEN KM.48, 77710 RIVIERA MAYA, Q.R., MEXICO* (TELECONFERENCE LOCATION)
*IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT PUBLIC COMMENTS AND MEETING PARTICIPATION* UPDATED July 19, 2023
Council Member Mendoza will be participating remotely from a teleconference location at Café Internet Café Vidanta Riviera Maya Carretera Federal Cancún-Playa del Carmen Km. 48, 77710 Riviera Maya, Q.R., Mexico, the remaining City Council Members will be participating from the Council Chamber.

Members of the public are invited to attend and participate at: the Council Chambers, 150 City Park Way, Brentwood CA or at Café Internet Café Vidanta Riviera Maya Carretera Federal CancúnPlaya del Carmen Km. 48, 77710 Riviera Maya, Q.R., Mexico.

As a courtesy and technology permitting, members of the public may continue to provide live remote oral public comment via the City’s Zoom Platform. However, the City cannot guarantee that the public’s access to teleconferencing technology will be uninterrupted, and technical difficulties may occur from time to time. In those instances, so long as the public may still attend the meeting in person, the meeting will continue. Members of the public desiring to provide comments as a part of the meeting are encouraged to either submit written comments by 3:00 p.m. prior to the meeting or to attend the meeting in person.

HOW PARTICIPATE
The public is invited to participate in the City Council meeting using any of the following methods:

1. IN PERSON:
a. Members of the public can provide in-person comments in the Council Chambers or the teleconference location. Members of the public are encouraged, but not required, to fill out a speaker card. The Council Chambers and teleconference location will have seating available for members of the public to attend in person up to full seating capacity.

2. REMOTE:
a. Zoom: www.brentwoodca.gov/vcc or Zoom Webinar ID: 760 1397 0037 b. Zoom Phone Numbers. Dial Toll Free: (833) 548-0276 or (833) 548-0282 or (877) 853- 5247.
c. During the meeting, each period for public comment will be announced, and participants may use the “Raise Hand” feature on Zoom to request to speak. (If you need instructions on how to use this feature, please contact the City Clerk by noon of the meeting date at [email protected] or 925.516.5182.)

3. E-MAIL
a. Public comments can also be submitted via e-mail to [email protected]. Any public comments received up until 3:00 p.m. of the meeting date will be:

1. distributed to the Council via email before the meeting,

2. posted online for public inspection at www.brentwoodca.gov/meetings and

3. later summarized in the meeting minutes.
b. As e-mails containing public meeting comments are part of the official record, note that personal contact information may be published if it is included with your e-mail.

4. TO WATCH OR LISTEN ONLY:
a. The public may view the meeting via one-way video feed by selecting the video option at the City Council Agendas’ link on the City webpage at www.brentwoodca.gov or via the City’s YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofbrentwoodca

CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY AGENDA
City Council Chambers 150 City Park Way
*Teleconference Location
Zoom Webinar ID: 760 1397 0037

July 25, 2023, 7:00 p.m.

City Council Chambers
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
A. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
• City Council Chambers 150 City Park Way, Brentwood, CA 94513 Teleconference Location Café Internet Café Vidanta Riviera Maya Carretera Federal Cancún-Playa del Carmen Km. 48, 77710 Riviera Maya, Q.R., Mexico. •
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C. PUBLIC COMMENTS
The public is permitted to speak on items that are listed under Presentations; Informational Reports from Council Members, Committee, Liaisons, and Staff; on the Consent Calendar; Requests for Future Agenda Items, new items; or items not on the agenda. Public comments for scheduled agenda items should wait until that time. To accommodate those speaking in-person and via Zoom, we will call upon those in-person first, and then to Zoom. If necessary, we will repeat that process.

In Person: Please file a speaker’s card with the City Clerk on the form provided on the counter at the back of the Chambers.
• City Council Chambers 150 City Park Way, Brentwood, CA 94513 Teleconference Location Café Internet Café Vidanta Riviera Maya Carretera Federal Cancún-Playa del Carmen Km. 48, 77710 Riviera Maya, Q.R., Mexico. •
Zoom: Please use the Raise Your Hand feature in Zoom during this item to speak under Public Comments. Zoom Link
Persons are required to limit their remarks to five (5) minutes unless an extension of time is granted by the Mayor subject to approval of the City Council/Successor Agency. Speakers desiring answers to questions should direct them to the Council/Successor Agency and, if relevant, they may direct them to the appropriate staff member. Speakers can also follow up directly with staff during regular City business hours.

D. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS, COMMITTEES, LIAISONS, AND STAFF This portion of the agenda is to provide an opportunity for Council Members to report on attendance at events, subcommittee meetings, and entities on which the Council Member has been appointed as a liaison and for staff to provide brief updates and/or information to the City Council.

E. CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed on the consent calendar are considered routine in nature and will be enacted by one motion. If discussion is required, that particular item will be removed from the consent calendar and will be considered separately.

E.1 A Proclamation Recognizing August 2023, as Back to School Month.

Title/Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council Proclaim August 2023, as Back to School Month.

E.2 Cooperative Agreement with East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority for funding in the amount of $4,105,641 for the Sand Creek Road Extension.

Title/Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute Cooperative Agreement No. 27-23 with the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority (“ECCRFFA”) for funding in the amount of $4,105,641 for the Sand Creek Road Extension, CIP Project No. 336-31700 (“Project”).

E.3 Construction contract for the Creekside Park Pickleball Courts Project Title/Recommendation
Staff is requesting the City Council 1) approve the contract documents, award the bid, and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute a construction contract and necessary documents, including the use of contingency amounts for the Creekside Park Pickleball Courts Project, CIP Project No. 352-52441 to Luma Engineering Contractors Inc., as the lowest responsible and responsive bidder in the amount of $371,562.45, plus funding authorization for a 10% contingency amount of $37,156.24 for additional services for a total authorization not to exceed amount of $408,718.69, 2) amend the FY 2023/24 – 2026/27 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and 3) amend the 2023/24 Operating Budget for the associated project funding transfers.

E.4 Accept the Trilogy Vineyards, LLC, Subdivision No. 8796 masonry wall public improvement for maintenance
Title/Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution accepting a portion of Phase I public improvements (Masonry Wall) for maintenance; accepting the Maintenance Bond; releasing the Improvement Securities; and requesting the City Clerk to file this Resolution with the Recorder of Contra Costa County for these improvements, constructed as a part of Trilogy Vineyards, LLC, Subdivision No. 8796.

F. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Persons addressing the City Council using Zoom are asked to raise their hands using the Zoom feature. Those attending in person and wishing to address the Council may do so from the podium. The Council may adopt reasonable regulations at the onset of the public hearing to facilitate public testimony. These regulations may include time limits. In the absence of such regulations, the public hearing shall follow the protocol for Public Comments.

JULY 25, 2023, 7:00 PM

CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY

F.1 Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve Costco Title/Recommendation
Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt resolutions denying the appeal filed by WCHB, LLC, and affirming the Planning Commission approvals of the project 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), as conditioned. 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. 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 Priority Area 1 (PA-1) Specific Plan.

G. BUSINESS ITEMS
G.1 Streaming Options for Public City Meetings and Possible City Council Direction Title/Recommendation
Receive the report and provide direction, if any, to staff regarding the expansion of existing City streaming offerings for public meetings. Staff recommends the following:

Continue streaming/recording City Council meetings on the City’s website, YouTube, and Zoom.

1. Continue streaming/recording City Council Standing Committees, Arts Commission, Youth Commission and Parks & Recreation Commission to the City’s website and Zoom.

2. Add YouTube streaming for Planning Commission meetings after fully implementing the City’s new agenda management system this fall.

3. 4. Do not add additional streaming platforms at this time.

G.2 Compensation for Planning, Park & Recreation, Arts, and Youth Commissioners.

Title/Recommendation
Provide staff direction regarding compensation for Planning, Park & Recreation, Arts, and Youth Commissioners.

G.3 Fiscal Year 2023/2024 Pay Schedule
Title/Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council adopt a Resolution approving the Fiscal Year 2023/2024 Pay Schedule and authorizing the City Manager or Designee, in consultation with the City Attorney, to make ministerial revisions to it.

JULY 25, 2023, 7:00 PM

CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY

G.4 Consideration of amendments to the 2023 Proclamations list to include recognition of select military holidays
Title/Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council consider amendments to the 2023 Proclamations list to include recognition of select military holidays, as requested by the City Council.

H. REQUEST FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
H.1 NEW REQUEST(S)
Council Members wishing to have an agenda item placed on a future agenda shall make a request under this section of the agenda. These items will be included on the agenda for the next Council meeting
H.2 REQUESTED ITEM(S)
H.2.a Request from Council Member Pierson related to the preparation of a costbenefit analysis for the possible outsourcing of new non-essential budgeted positions at Public Works facilities when the Council is asked to consider those positions.

Title/Recommendation
That the City Council discuss the request from Council Member Pierson for City Council discussion of, and possible direction to staff, related to the preparation of a cost-benefit analysis for the possible outsourcing of new non-essential budgeted positions at the Wastewater and Public Works facilities when the Council is asked to consider those positions.

H.2.b Request from Council Member Pierson for City Council discussion of a discount program for residential utility customers.

Title/Recommendation
That the City Council consider and discuss the request from Council Member Pierson for City Council discussion of, and possible direction to staff, to research a funding source and budget implications for a discount program for residential utility customers.

H.2.c Request from Council Member Pierson regarding direction to research a funding source and any available budget implications for the reimbursement of residents who make home improvements to support water conservation Title/Recommendation
That the City Council consider and discuss the request from Council Member Pierson for City Council discussion of, and possible direction to staff, to research a funding source and any available budget implications for the reimbursement of residents who make home improvements to support water conservation.

I. ADJOURNMENT
JULY 25, 2023, 7:00 PM

CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY

J. NOTICE AND POSTING STATEMENT
Any disclosable public records related to an agenda item for the open session of this meeting distributed to all or a majority of the City Council less than 72 hours before this meeting is available for inspection at City Hall, located at 150 City Park Way, during normal business hours.

These writings will also be available for review at the City Council meeting in the public access binder in the entrance of the City Council Chambers.

Public comments received after 3:00 p.m. of the meeting date, but prior to the start of the meeting, will be emailed to the City Council, posted online at www.brentwoodca.gov/meetings within one day following the meeting, and will be summarized in the meeting minutes.

The Closed Captioning provided via Zoom is auto generated. It is not the official record and is provided as a convenience.

If you challenge the any of the matters listed under 'Public Hearings' in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Brentwood City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.

NOTICE
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the meeting room is wheelchair accessible and disabled parking is available at the City Hall parking lot. If you are a person with a disability and you need disability-related modifications or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (925) 516-5440 or fax (925) 516-5441. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. {28 CFR 35.102-35, 104 ADA Title II}

POSTING STATEMENT
On July 19, 2023, a true and correct copy of this agenda was posted on the City Hall Bulletin Board, outside City Hall, 150 City Park Way, Brentwood, CA 94513 and at our website www.brentwoodca.gov; and at the Teleconference Location Café Internet Café Vidanta Riviera Maya Carretera Federal Cancún-Playa del Carmen Km. 48, 77710 Riviera Maya, Q.R., Mexico.

A complete packet of information is available for public review at City Hall or on our website at www.brentwoodca.gov
JULY 25, 2023, 7:00 PM

CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. E.2
07/25/2023
SUBJECT: Cooperative Agreement with East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority for funding in the amount of $4,105,641 for the Sand Creek Road Extension.

DEPARTMENT: Public Works
STAFF: Casey Wichert, Interim Director of Public Works
Renee Payette, Project Services Specialist
Meghan Oliveira, Associate Engineer

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute Cooperative Agreement No. 27-23 with the East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority (“ECCRFFA”) for funding in the amount of $4,105,641 for the Sand Creek Road Extension, CIP Project No. 336-31700 (“Project”).

FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of the Cooperative Agreement with ECCRFFA will provide funding in the amount of $4,105,641 to the Project, which is included in the amended 2023/24 – 2027/28 Capital Improvement Program. The total approved Project budget of $12,800,000 includes funding from Roadway Development Impact Fees and ECCRFFA.

BACKGROUND
This Project consists of the extension of Sand Creek Road from its existing terminus, just west of SR 4, to the intersection of Sand Creek Road and Heidorn Ranch Road in Antioch. This project will facilitate the development of the Innovation Center @ Brentwood (formerly referred to as PA-1), as well as provide more efficient access to regional medical and emergency services to Brentwood residents. Lastly, the Project is consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan.

The Project currently includes the construction of two lanes of roadway, bike lanes, median islands, streetlights, utilities, a bridge across Sand Creek, and related work extending Sand Creek Road to Heidorn Ranch Road.

The purpose of ECCRFFA is to identify and prioritize regional transportation projects and establish a uniform regional development fee for project funding. In summer 2022, ECCRFFA approved the Project as the next priority project after the James Donlon Extension Project.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. E.2
07/25/2023
After the City Council awarded the construction contract on March 14, 2023, to Goodfellow Sequoia A JV and City staff provided ECCRFFA a cost breakdown, ECCRFFA determined that $4,105,641 was eligible for funding. ECCRFFA prepared and approved Cooperative Agreement No. 27-23 to reimburse the City for the Project.

Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached Cooperative Agreement and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute it.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Focus Area 1: Public Works, Goal 1.a: Construct Innovation Center infrastructure.

PREVIOUS ACTION
Previous Action by the City Council is included on Attachment 1.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Not Applicable.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Previous Action

2. Resolution

3. Cooperative Agreement No. 27-23

4. CIP Budget Sheet

Attachment 1

PREVIOUS ACTION
Previous actions related to this agenda item that were taken by the Council are listed below. To view prior actions and materials, and Brentwood Municipal Code references in the staff report, as applicable:
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/meetings, and select the meeting date(s) desired to see the reference materials and videos.
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/municipalcode to research references to the Brentwood Municipal Code and search by the code section(s) cited.

On January 12, 2021, by Resolution No 2021-05, the City Council adopted a Resolution (1) approving and authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to execute the Fourth Amendment to Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for ECCRFFA and (2) approving and adopting the East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update Report to include Sand Creek Road from State Route 4 (“SR 4”) to Deer Valley Road.

On June 28, 2022, by Resolution No. 2022-84, the City Council authorized the City Manager, or designee, to send a request, on behalf of the City of Brentwood as the project sponsor for the portion of the Sand Creek Road Extension Project located within Brentwood, to ECCRFFA to approve that Project as the next priority Project after the James Donlon Extension Project.

On March 14, 2023, by Resolution No. 2023-28, the City Council approved the contract documents, awarded the bid and authorized the City Manager or designee to execute a construction contract and necessary documents for the Sand Creek Road Extension, CIP Project No. 336-31700, with Goodfellow Sequoia A JV as the lowest responsible and responsive bidder in the amount of $6,992,765.00, plus a 10% contingency of $699,276.50, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $7,692,041.50.

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 27-23 AND ANY OTHER NECESSARY

DOCUMENTS WITH EAST CONTRA COSTA REGIONAL FEE AND

FINANCING AUTHORITY FOR FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF
$4,105,641 FOR THE SAND CREEK ROAD EXTENSION, CIP PROJECT NO. 336-31700.

WHEREAS, on January 12, 2021, by Resolution No 2021-05, the City Council adopted a Resolution (1) approving and authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to execute the Fourth Amendment to Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority (“ECCRFFA”) and (2) approving and adopting the East Contra Costa Regional Fee Program Update Report to include Sand Creek Road from State Route 4 (“SR 4”) to Deer Valley Road; and WHEREAS, on June 28, 2022, by Resolution No. 2022-84, the City Council authorized the City Manager, or designee, to send a request, on behalf of the City of Brentwood as the project sponsor for the portion of the Sand Creek Road Extension Project located within Brentwood, to ECCRFFA to approve that Project as the next priority Project after the James Donlon Extension Project; and WHEREAS, the Sand Creek Road Extension, CIP Project No. 336-31700, (“Project”) consists of the extension of Sand Creek Road from its existing terminus, just west of SR 4, to the intersection of Sand Creek Road and Heidorn Ranch Road in Antioch; and includes the construction of two lanes of roadway, bike lanes, median islands, streetlights, utilities, and a bridge across Sand Creek; and WHEREAS, after the City Council awarded the construction contract on March 14, 2023, to Goodfellow Sequoia A JV and City staff provided ECCRFFA a cost breakdown, ECCRFFA determined that $4,105,641 was eligible for funding; and WHEREAS, ECCRFFA prepared and approved Cooperative Agreement No. 27- 23 (the “Agreement”) to reimburse the City for the Project, subject to the terms in the Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood does hereby authorize the City Manager or designee to execute Cooperative Agreement No. 27-23 and any other necessary documents with East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority for funding in the amount of $4,105,641 for the Sand Creek Road Extension, CIP Project No. 336-31700 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at a regular meeting held on the 25th day of July 2023 by the following vote:

55 City of Brentwood 2023/24 – 2027/28 Capital Improvement Program Project Title: * MULTI-YEAR * Project #:

Sand Creek Road Extension 336-31700
Description/Justification:

This project is included in the City’s Strategic Plan for FY 2022/23 - FY 2023/24. The project scope includes extension of Sand Creek Road from westerly of the existing terminus at State Route 4 through the Bridle Gate project to Heidorn Ranch Road approximately 2,300 LF. The improvements include constructing the central 56’ of roadway (2 – 20’ roadway and a 16’ median), streetlights, wet and dry utilities, full width bridge (4-lane arterial) across Sand Creek, and related work linking State Route 4 to Heidorn Ranch Road. The costs shown below are for improvements described above. The remaining improvements, which consist of one lane in each direction and the landscaping of the median and parkways, will be constructed by the developers of the adjoining properties.

Project Status:

The construction phase of this project is anticipated to be completed in FY 2023/24.

Supplemental Information:

The westerly extension of Sand Creek Road is necessary for the successful development of the Innovation Center @ Brentwood.

It will ultimately provide improved access to regional medical and emergency services, and is specifically identified in the City’s General Plan to improve the City’s road network to facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods. A total of $8,694,359 will come from Roadway Development Impact Fees. East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Financing Authority (“ECCRFFA”) funding is in the amount of $4,105,641.

PROJECT EXPENDITURES Prior 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 TOTAL 70239 Legal 15,000 15,000 $ 30,000
90040 Planning and Design 913,000 $ 913,000
90050 Construction 3,000,000 7,791,968 $ 10,791,968
90070 Project Administration 500,000 565,000 $ 1,065,000 90100 Land/ROW/Acquisitions 32 $ 32
TOTAL 4,428,032 $ 8,371,968 $ 12,800,000 $
PROJECT FUNDING Prior 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 TOTAL 47251 Development Impact Fees 1,819,359 6,875,000 $ 8,694,359 Federal/State/Agency 4,105,641 $ 4,105,641
TOTAL 5,925,000 $ 6,875,000 $ 12,800,000 $

PROJECT FINANCING CURRENT PROPOSED
Project Category: Roadway Improvements
Location: Sand Creek Road from State Route 4
Off/On Ramp to Heidorn Ranch Road
Project Manager: A. Baquilar
Project Priority: 2C - Necessary
Est. Completion Date: 2023/24
Future Annual
O & M Impact: $10,000
Public Art
Requirement: Exempt
General Plan Policy: CIR 1-1, ED 1-7, IF 1-1, IF 2-1, IF 3-1, IF 4-1

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. E.3
07/25/2023
SUBJECT: Construction contract for the Creekside Park Pickleball Courts Project
DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation
STAFF: Bruce Mulder, Director of Parks and Recreation
Aaron Wanden, Parks Maintenance Manager
Janice Ellis, Parks Planner
Elaine McGurk, Project Services Specialist

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Staff is requesting the City Council 1) approve the contract documents, award the bid, and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute a construction contract and necessary documents, including the use of contingency amounts for the Creekside Park Pickleball Courts Project, CIP Project No. 352-52441 to Luma Engineering Contractors Inc., as the lowest responsible and responsive bidder in the amount of $371,562.45, plus funding authorization for a 10% contingency amount of $37,156.24 for additional services for a total authorization not to exceed amount of $408,718.69, 2) amend the FY 2023/24 – 2026/27 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and 3) amend the 2023/24 Operating Budget for the associated project funding transfers.

FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for the Creekside Park Pickleball Courts, CIP Project No. 352-52441 (“Project”), is currently included in the amended 2021/22 – 2025/26 CIP with an approved budget of $302,000. Although this Project was not included in the current CIP due to expectations that it would be completed prior to this fiscal year, the funding allocated in prior years remains available.

Council approval of this action to allow for the execution of a contract with Luma Engineering Contractors Inc. in the amount of $371,562.45 plus 10% contingency will require additional Project funding from the General Fund of $101,868 and $47,938 from the Parks and Trails Development Impact Fee Fund. The 2022/23- 2023/24 General Fund ongoing operations were expected to be appropriately breakeven before this additional funding request.

Staff recommends amending the 2023/24-2026/27 CIP to include a revised Project

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. E.3
07/25/2023
budget in the amount of $451,806 which accounts for increased costs in construction and amending the 2023/24 Operating budget to allow for the additional funding transfers in the amount of $101,868 from the General Fund and $47,938 from the Parks and Trails Development Impact Fee Fund. This project is funded by the General Fund (68%) and Parks and Trails Development Impact Fee Fund (32%).

Maintenance of the pickleball courts is anticipated to cost approximately $3,500 annually and is included in the current Citywide Park Assessment District operating budget.

CIP Budget Sheet Project Funding and Expenditure changes being recommended in this action are as follows:

Project Expenditures Original
Budget
2023/24
Amended Budget
Difference
Legal $2,000 $2,000 0
Planning and Design $41,087 $41,087
Construction $300,000 $408,719 $108,719
Total Project Budget $302,000 $451,806 $149,806
Project Funding Original
Budget
2023/24
Amended Budget
Difference
General Fund $205,360 $307,228 $101,868
Development Impact Fees $96,640 $144,578 $47,938
Total Project Budget $302,000 $451,806 $149,806

BACKGROUND
On February 26, 2019, City Council adopted the Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan Update that included pickleball courts at Creekside Park. The Project was later identified as a Strategic Initiative in the City of Brentwood Strategic Plan FY 2020/21 – FY 2021/22 that was adopted on February 25, 2020. With the COVID19 pandemic, City Council re-evaluated the Strategic Plan and numerous projects were placed on a Funding Deferred Projects Holding List due to unknown budget implications related to the pandemic. On July 14, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution 2020-96 amending the City of Brentwood Strategic Plan FY 2020/21 – FY 2021/22 that reflected the changes in the project list. On June 22, 2021, the Project

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. E.3
07/25/2023
had the funding reinstated in the action that adopted the amended Operating Budgets and the 2021/22 - 2025/26 Capital Improvement Program.

On July 28, 2022, the Park and Recreation Commission approved the initial conceptual plan with a four-court schematic and directed staff to proceed with the hiring of a project consultant for the design work. With assistance from the Engineering division of Public Works Department, Wood Rodgers was selected from the City’s civil/structural design services on-call list to assist with the Project. On October 11, 2022. Wood Rodgers held a kickoff meeting at Creekside Park with staff and Park and the Recreation Commission Ad-Hoc Committee. On December 22, 2022, the Park and Recreation Commission approved the Updated Pickleball Conceptual Plan.

Formal bid documents were made available to the public on June 13, 2023 and a mandatory bidder’s conference was held on June 27, 2023 at the Creekside Park tennis courts which was attended by three staff members along with four contractors.

The bid opening was held on July 5, 2023, and a total of three (3) bids were received on the date as follows:

In conformance with the Public Contract Code, staff recommends the award of the construction of the Creekside Park Pickleball Courts, CIP Project No. 352-52441 to Luma Engineering Contractors Inc. as being a responsible and responsive bidder for a contract amount of $371,562.45, plus funding authorization for a 10% contingency of $37,156.24, for a total funding authorization not to exceed amount of $408,718.69.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
The pursuit of this Project aligns with direction in the City Council’s goals and objectives in the Focus Area 5 - Parks & Recreation Services as follows:

1 There was a discrepancy in the itemized prices versus Luma’s Bid Proposal amount, and the actual total of itemized prices control the base bid price, which is reflected in this total.

Contractor Total of Bid
Luma Engineering
Contractors Inc.
$371,562.451
McNabb Construction, Inc. $498,498.00
Frontline Construction $634,094.00

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. E.3
07/25/2023

2. The short-term initiatives that included the Creekside Park Pickleball Courts were put on hold for a year due to the pandemic. They were reinstated with approval of the budget process in the summer of 2021.
g. In Progress: Staff is preparing a conceptual plan for these new courts to be located at Creekside Park and working to retain a design consultant to produce plans which will be used to go out to bid for construction services.

The pickleball program hours on the temporary courts at Creekside have been expanded.

PREVIOUS ACTION
Previous Action by the City Council is included on attachment 1.

DATE OF NOTICE
Legal notice for Notice Inviting Bids were published in The Press on June 16, 2023 and June 23, 2023.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Not Applicable.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Previous Actions

2. Resolution

3. CIP Sheet

4. Construction Contract

ATTACHMENT “1”
Previous actions related to this agenda item that were taken by the Council are listed below. To view prior actions and materials, and Brentwood Municipal Code references in the staff report, as applicable:
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/meetings, and select the meeting date(s) desired to see the reference materials and videos.
 On February 26, 2019, City Council adopted Resolution No. 2019-21 adopting the Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan Update.
 On July 14, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution 2020-96 to amend the City of Brentwood Strategic Plan FY 2020/21 – FY 2021/22.  On February 9, 2021, the City Council received an update on the Amended City of Brentwood Strategic Plan FY 2020/21 – FY 2021/22 and Funding Deferred Projects Holding List.
 On June 22, 2021, by Resolution 2021-76, City Council amended the 2021/22 – 2025/26 Capital Improvement Program (CIP), to add the Creekside Park Pickleball Courts Project, CIP Project No. 352-52441 in the amount of $302,000.

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION 1) APPROVING THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, AWARDING

THE BID, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO

EXECUTE A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AND NECESSARY DOCUMENTS,

INCLUDING THE USE OF CONTINGENCY AMOUNTS, FOR THE CREEKSIDE PARK PICKLEBALL COURTS PROJECT, CIP PROJECT NO. 352-52441 TO LUMA ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS INC., AS THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE AND RESPONSIVE BIDDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $371,562.45, PLUS FUNDING AUTHORIZATION FOR A 10% CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $37,156.24 FOR

ADDITIONAL SERVICES, FOR A TOTAL AUTHORIZATION NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $408,718.69, 2) AMENDING THE FY 2023/24 – 2026/27 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP), AND 3) AMENDING THE 2023/24 OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE ASSOCIATED PROJECT FUNDING TRANSFERS.

WHEREAS, on February 26, 2019, City Council adopted Resolution No. 2019-21 adopting the Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan Update; and WHEREAS, on July 14, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution 2020-96 to amend the City of Brentwood Strategic Plan FY 2020/21 – FY 2021/22; and WHEREAS, on December 22, 2022, the Park and Recreation Commission approved the Updated Pickleball Conceptual Plan; and
WHEREAS, staff solicited for bids on June 13, 2023, and three (3) bids were received on July 5, 2023; and
WHEREAS, Luma Engineering Contractors Inc. submitted the lowest responsible and responsive bid in the amount of $371,562.45;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood hereby approves the contract documents, awarding the bid and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute a construction contract and necessary documents, including the use of contingency amounts, for Creekside Park Pickleball Courts Project, CIP Project No. 352-52441 to Luma Engineering Contractors Inc., as the lowest responsible and responsive bidder in the amount of $371,562.45, plus funding authorization for a 10% contingency amount of $37,156.24 for additional services, for a total funding authorization not to exceed amount of $408,718.69, 2) amending the FY 2023/24 – 2026/27 Capital Improvement Program (CIP), and 3) amending the 2023/24 Operating Budget for the associated project funding transfers.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at a regular meeting held on July 25, 2023 by the following vote:

1 City of Brentwood 2022/23 – 2026/27 Capital Improvement Program Project Title: -MULTI YEAR- Project #:

Creekside Park Pickleball Courts 352-52441
Description/Justification:

This project will construct up to four permanent pickleball courts at Creekside Park near the existing tennis courts. The project will include painted and striped asphalt surfacing, perimeter fencing and permanently installed pickleball nets. The City’s current Pickleball Pilot Program has limited days/hours and with the addition of these permanent courts this will be expanded to anytime daylight play. The possibility for City sponsored league play and instruction can also be realized with this project. This project was on the Funding Deferred Projects Holding List in the City’s Strategic Plan for FY 2020/21 - FY 2021/22 but was later reinstated.

Supplemental Information:

Adding pickleball courts to City parks was a top priority item brought to the City’s attention in the 2019 Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan Update. The future O & M impact consists of net maintenance/replacement, annual court striping depending on volume of play and court resurfacing every 4-8 years, also depending on volume of play.

PROJECT EXPENDITURES Prior 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 TOTAL Legal 2,000 $ 2,000
Planning and Design 41,087 $ 41,087
Construction 408,719 $ 408,719
Project Administration
Land/ROW/Acquisitions
$ 41,087 $ 410,719 $ 451,806
PROJECT FUNDING Prior 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 TOTAL General Fund 205,360 101,868 $ 307,228
Development Impact Fees 96,640 47,938 $ 144,578
Enterprise
Federal/State Funding
Development Contributions
Replacement
Other
Unfunded
$ 302,000 $ 149,806 $ 451,806

PROJECT FINANCING CURRENT PROPOSED
Project Category: Parks & Trail Improvements
Location: Claremont Drive
Project Manager: J Ellis
Project Priority: 1E – Mandatory
Project Phase: New
Est. Completion Date: 2023/24
Future Annual
O&M Impact: $3,500
Public Art
Requirement: Exempt

Contract
This public works contract (“Contract”) is entered into by and between City of Brentwood (“City”) and Luma Engineering Contractors Inc. (“Contractor”), for work on the Creekside Park Pickleball Courts, CIP Project #352-52441 (“Project”).

The parties agree as follows:

1. Award of Contract. In response to the Notice Inviting Bids, Contractor has submitted a Bid Proposal to perform the Work to construct the Project. On July 25, 2023, City authorized award of this Contract to Contractor for the amount set forth in Section 4, below.

2. Contract Documents. The Contract Documents incorporated into this Contract include and are comprised of all of the documents listed below. The definitions provided in Article 1 of the General Conditions apply to all of the Contract Documents, including this Contract.

2.1 Notice Inviting Bids;

2.2 Instructions to Bidders;

2.3 Addenda, if any;

2.4 Bid Proposal and attachments thereto;

2.5 Contract;

2.6 Payment and Performance Bonds;

2.7 General Conditions;

2.8 Special Conditions;

2.9 Project Plans and Specifications;

2.10 Change Orders, if any;

2.11 Notice of Potential Award;

2.12 Notice to Proceed; and

2.13 The following: No other Documents

3. Contractor’s Obligations. Contractor will perform all of the Work required for the Project, as specified in the Contract Documents. Contractor must provide, furnish, and supply all things necessary and incidental for the timely performance and completion of the Work, including all necessary labor, materials, supplies, tools, equipment, transportation, onsite facilities, and utilities, unless otherwise specified in the Contract Documents. Contractor must use its best efforts to diligently prosecute and complete the Work in a professional and expeditious manner and to meet or exceed the performance standards required by the Contract Documents.

4. Payment. As full and complete compensation for Contractor’s timely performance and completion of the Work in strict accordance with the terms and conditions of the Contract Documents, City will pay Contractor $371,562.45 (“Contract Price”) for all of Contractor’s direct and indirect costs to perform the Work, including all labor, materials, supplies, equipment, taxes, insurance, bonds and all overhead costs, in accordance with the payment provisions in the General Conditions.

5. Time for Completion. Contractor will fully complete the Work for the Project, meeting all requirements for Final Completion, within sixty (60) calendar days from the commencement date given in the Notice to Proceed (“Contract Time”). By signing below, Contractor expressly waives any claim for delayed early completion.

6. Liquidated Damages. If Contractor fails to complete the Work within the Contract Time, City will assess liquidated damages in the amount of $500 per day for each day of unexcused delay in achieving Final Completion, and such liquidated damages may be deducted from City’s payments due or to become due to Contractor under this Contract.

7. Labor Code Compliance.

7.1 General. This Contract is subject to all applicable requirements of Chapter 1 of Part 7 of Division 2 of the Labor Code, including requirements pertaining to wages, working hours and workers’ compensation insurance, as further specified in Article 9 of the General Conditions.

7.2 Prevailing Wages. This Project is subject to the prevailing wage requirements applicable to the locality in which the Work is to be performed for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to perform the Work, including employer payments for health and welfare, pension, vacation, apprenticeship and similar purposes. Copies of these prevailing rates are available online at http://www.dir.ca.gov/DLSR.

7.3 DIR Registration. City may not enter into the Contract with a bidder without proof that the bidder and its Subcontractors are registered with the California Department of Industrial Relations to perform public work pursuant to Labor Code § 1725.5, subject to limited legal exceptions.

8. Workers’ Compensation Certification. Pursuant to Labor Code § 1861, by signing this Contract, Contractor certifies as follows: “I am aware of the provisions of Labor Code § 3700 which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake selfinsurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work on this Contract.”

9. Conflicts of Interest. Contractor, its employees, Subcontractors and agents, may not have, maintain or acquire a conflict of interest in relation to this Contract in violation of any City ordinance or requirement, or in violation of any California law, including Government Code § 1090 et seq., or the Political Reform Act, as set forth in Government Code § 81000 et seq. and its accompanying regulations. Any violation of this Section constitutes a material breach of the Contract.

10. Independent Contractor. Contractor is an independent contractor under this Contract and will have control of the Work and the means and methods by which it is performed. Contractor and its Subcontractors are not employees of City and are not entitled to participate in any health, retirement, or any other employee benefits from City.

11. Notice. Any notice, billing, or payment required by or pursuant to the Contract Documents must be made in writing, signed, dated and sent to the other party by personal delivery, U.S. Mail, a reliable overnight delivery service, or by email as a PDF file. Notice is deemed effective upon delivery, except that service by U.S. Mail is deemed effective on the second working day after deposit for delivery. Notice for each party must be given as follows:

City:
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
(925) 516-5444
Attn: Janice Ellis, Parks Planner
[email protected]
Copy to: Tammy Homan, Management Analyst at [email protected] Contractor:

Luma Engineering Contractors Inc.
370 Myrtle Lane
Oakley, CA 94561
(707) 266-4402
Attn: Brian Pfaff, VP of Project Management
Email: [email protected]

12. General Provisions.

12.1 Assignment and Successors. Contractor may not assign its rights or obligations under this Contract, in part or in whole, without City’s written consent. This Contract is binding on Contractor’s and City’s lawful heirs, successors and permitted assigns.

12.2 Third Party Beneficiaries. There are no intended third party beneficiaries to this Contract.

12.3 Governing Law and Venue. This Contract will be governed by California law and venue will be in the Contra Costa County Superior Court, and no other place. Contractor waives any right it may have pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 394, to file a motion to transfer any action arising from or relating to this Contract to a venue outside of Contra Costa County, California.

12.4 Amendment. No amendment or modification of this Contract will be binding unless it is in a writing duly authorized and signed by the parties to this Contract.

12.5 Integration. This Contract and the Contract Documents incorporated herein, including authorized amendments or Change Orders thereto, constitute the final, complete, and exclusive terms of the agreement between City and Contractor.

12.6 Severability. If any provision of the Contract Documents is determined to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, in whole or in part, the remaining provisions of the Contract Documents will remain in full force and effect.

12.7 Iran Contracting Act. If the Contract Price exceeds $1,000,000, Contractor certifies, by signing below, that it is not identified on a list created under the Iran Contracting Act, Public Contract Code § 2200 et seq. (the “Act”), as a person engaging in investment activities in Iran, as defined in the Act, or is otherwise expressly exempt under the Act.

12.8 Authorization. Each individual signing below warrants that he or she is authorized to do so by the party that he or she represents, and that this Contract is legally binding on that party. If Contractor is a corporation, signatures from two officers of the corporation are required pursuant to California Corporation Code § 313.

The parties agree to this Contract as witnessed by the signatures below:

CITY: Approved as to form:
s/_______________________________ s/__________________________________ Tim Y. Ogden, City Manager Damien B. Brower, City Attorney Date: ___________________________ Date: ______________________________ Attest:
s/_______________________________
Margaret Wimberly, City Clerk
Date: ___________________________
CONTRACTOR: Luma Engineering Contractors Inc.
s/_______________________________
Fernando Lopez, President/CEO
Date: ____________________________
Second Signature (See Section 12.8):
s/_______________________________
Brian Pfaff, VP of Project Management
Date: ____________________________
___________________________________________________
Contractor’s California License Number(s) and Expiration Date(s)

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. E.4
07/25/2023
SUBJECT: Accept the Trilogy Vineyards, LLC, Subdivision No. 8796 masonry wall public improvement for maintenance
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
STAFF: Casey Wichert, Interim Director of Public Works
Heather Silfies, Engineering Services Specialist

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution accepting a portion of Phase I public improvements (Masonry Wall) for maintenance; accepting the Maintenance Bond; releasing the Improvement Securities; and requesting the City Clerk to file this Resolution with the Recorder of Contra Costa County for these improvements, constructed as a part of Trilogy Vineyards, LLC, Subdivision No. 8796.

FISCAL IMPACT
Upon acceptance of improvements, the City will incur costs associated with necessary repairs, if needed, which are included in the 2023/2024 Operating Budget. Any repairs will be funded by the Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts (“LLADs”) formed to cover the costs.

BACKGROUND
This project is located at the current terminus of Fairview Avenue and Concord Avenue, west of State Route 4 (“SR 4”), and north of Marsh Creek Road. It is being developed by Trilogy Vineyards, LLC (“Developer”) and the Vesting Tentative Map Subdivision No. 8796 was approved for 1,100 active adult units, 132 single-family executive lots, and approximately 35 acres of additional amenities on 481 acres. A portion of the public improvements required by the project’s Conditions of Approval have been constructed and inspected for conformance with the approved improvement plans.

As part of this project, the Developer constructed a masonry wall. This scope of improvements consisted of 3,785 Lineal Feet (“LF”) of 7 ft masonry wall along SR 4 and 3,785 LF of 6 ft masonry wall along Vineyards Parkway, per recommendations from a 2004 sound study by MSW Consulting. In 2014, after the walls along SR 4 were constructed, a subsequent noise assessment was performed by Bollard

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. E.4
07/25/2023
Acoustical Consultants, Inc. confirming compliance with the General Plan Noise Element standards. The Developer has provided Maintenance Bonds to cover the twelve-month warranty period for these improvements. With the improvements now installed, it is the appropriate time to accept these improvements and begin the warranty period.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Not Applicable.

PREVIOUS ACTION
Previous Action by the City Council is included on Attachment 1.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Not Applicable.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Previous Action

2. Resolution

3. Site Map

4. Acceptance Photographs

PREVIOUS ACTION
Previous actions related to this agenda item that were taken by the Council are listed below. To view prior actions and materials, and Brentwood Municipal Code references in the staff report, as applicable:
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/meetings, and select the meeting date(s) desired to see the reference materials and videos.
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/municipalcode to research references to the Brentwood Municipal Code and search by the code section(s) cited.

On March 16, 2004, by Resolution No. 04-20, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8796, with conditions.

On April 27, 2004, by Ordinance No. 777, the City Council approved the pre-zone for the Vineyards at Marsh Creek project.

On April 27, 2004, by Ordinance No. 778, the City Council approved the Development Agreement for the Vineyards at Marsh Creek project.

On May 9, 2006, the City Council was notified through an Informational Report of the City Manager’s approval of Final Subdivision Map No. 8796 and associated Subdivision Improvement Agreement.

On November 18, 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-262, the City Council accepted the Zone 2.3 Booster Pump Station, Zone 2.3 Reservoir and Zone 3.3 Hydropneumatic Pump Station Master Planned Water Facilities.

On December 13, 2011, by Resolution No. 2011-181, the City Council accepted the streetscape landscape improvements along a portion of Fairview Avenue.

On February 13, 2013, by Resolution No. 2013-17, the City Council accepted a portion of Phase I public improvements (Vineyards Parkway from Fairview Avenue to Sacred Mountain Lane adjacent to Clubhouse; John Muir Parkway between Fairview Avenue and Briones Valley Road; and off-site Fairview Avenue between Baldwin Drive and John Muir Parkway), excluding landscaping, golf cart pathway and Concord Avenue realignment.

On June 25, 2013, by Resolution No. 2013-86, the City Council accepted a portion of Phase II public improvements (Vineyards Parkway from Sacred Mountain Lane to Marsh Creek Road, Marsh Creek Road from southerly City limit to State Route 4 (“SR 4”) and a portion of off-site sewer along SR 4; excluding landscaping and Concord Avenue Widening).

On April 26, 2016, by Resolution No. 2016-43, the City Council accepted the golf cart path along west side of Fairview Avenue.

On April 9, 2019, by Resolution No. 2019-39, the City Council accepted Phase 1 intract improvements.

On November 16, 2021, by Resolution No. 2021-145, the City Council accepted Concord Avenue Widening.

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD

ACCEPTING A PORTION OF PHASE I PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
MASONRY WALL FOR MAINTENANCE; ACCEPTING THE MAINTENANCE BOND; RELEASING THE IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES; AND

REQUESTING THE CITY CLERK TO FILE THIS RESOLUTION WITH THE

RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FOR THESE IMPROVEMENTS,

CONSTRUCTED AS A PART OF TRILOGY VINEYARDS, LLC,
SUBDIVISION NO. 8796.

WHEREAS, on March 16, 2004, by Resolution No. 04-20, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8796, with conditions; and WHEREAS, on April 27, 2004, by Ordinance No. 777, the City Council approved the pre-zone for the Vineyards at Marsh Creek project; and WHEREAS, on April 27, 2004, by Ordinance No. 778, the City Council approved the Development Agreement for the Vineyards at Marsh Creek project; and WHEREAS, on May 9, 2006, the City Council was notified through an Informational Report of the City Manager’s approval of Final Subdivision Map No. 8796 and associated Subdivision Improvement Agreement; and WHEREAS, on November 18, 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-262, the City Council accepted the Zone 2.3 Booster Pump Station, Zone 2.3 Reservoir and Zone

3.3 Hydropneumatic Pump Station Master Planned Water Facilities; and WHEREAS on December 13, 2011, by Resolution No. 2011-181, the City Council accepted the streetscape landscape improvements along a portion of Fairview Avenue; and
WHEREAS on February 13, 2013, by Resolution No. 2013-17, the City Council accepted a portion of Phase I public improvements (Vineyards Parkway from Fairview Avenue to Sacred Mountain Lane adjacent to Clubhouse; John Muir Parkway between Fairview Avenue and Briones Valley Road; and off-site Fairview Avenue between Baldwin Drive and John Muir Parkway), excluding landscaping, golf cart pathway and Concord Avenue realignment; and
WHEREAS on June 25, 2013, by Resolution No. 2013-86, the City Council accepted a portion of Phase II public improvements (Vineyards Parkway from Sacred Mountain Lane to Marsh Creek Road, Marsh Creek Road from southerly City limit to State Route 4 (“SR4”) and a portion of off-site sewer along SR4; excluding landscaping and Concord Avenue Widening); and
WHEREAS on April 26, 2016, by Resolution No. 2016-43, the City Council accepted the golf cart path along west side of Fairview Avenue; and

WHEREAS on April 9, 2019, by Resolution No. 2019-39, the City Council accepted Phase 1 in-tract improvements; and
WHEREAS on November 16, 2021, by Resolution No. 2021-145, the City Council accepted Concord Avenue Widening; and
WHEREAS, the required public improvements, have been completed and constructed in substantial conformance with the approved improvement plans; and WHEREAS, Trilogy Vineyards, LLC. has posted a Maintenance Bond, guaranteeing materials and workmanship, for a period of one year following acceptance of improvements.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood with respect to a portion of Phase I public improvements (Masonry Wall) for Subdivision No. 8796 developed by Trilogy Vineyards, LLC that:

1. The Maintenance Bond is hereby accepted.

2. The Improvement Securities will be released within sixty (60) days of the passage of this Resolution.

3. The City Clerk is hereby requested to file this Resolution with the Recorder of Contra Costa County.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at a regular meeting held on the 25th day of July 2023 by the following vote:

BRIX LN

RIOJA WAY

HAGAN LN

PINOT PL

SANGR AI ST

REGENT D R

CHIANTI LN

BISMARCK LN

PEARL W AY

CONCORD AVE

BACCHINI L N

BUR GUNDY LN

SOLERA ST

BOUNTIFUL WAY

ALDERMAN LN

BURGHLEY LN

LATO U R AVE

MCPRINCE LN

REGENT D R

FRASCATI WAY
MOS

CATO PL
R
E M

LO T CIR
FI A N
O LN
BIS

MARCK TER

SANTORINI ST
MARS
H
C
REEK
RD

ANDALUCIA LN

TRILOGY PKWY
MIW
OK AVE

OLD MARSH CREEK RD

VINEYARDS PKWY

SACRE D MO U NTA N L I N

BARBARESCO LN

VINTAGE CIR
CREEK
RD

TEMPRANILLO LN

JONAGOLD WAY

PIONEER SQ
VE

NETO LN

SUNTAN LN

FAIRVIEW
AVE
C

ENTENNIAL
DR

CO NCORD AVE
CREEK
RD

BRIONES VALLEY RD
STATE ROUTE 4
STATE RO UTE 4
Vineyards Soundwall Acceptance
Subdivison No. 8796
The Vineyards at Marsh Creek

CITY LIMIT
Soundwall Location:

Attachment 3

Acceptance of Masonry Wall Improvements
TRILOGY VINEYARDS, LLC, Subdivision No. 8796
Attachment 4

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.1
07/25/2023
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve Costco DEPARTMENT: Community Development Department
STAFF: Alexis Morris, Director of Community Development Jennifer Hagen, Senior Planner

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt resolutions denying the appeal filed by WCHB, LLC, and affirming the Planning Commission approvals of the project 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), as conditioned. 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. 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 Priority Area 1 (PA-1) Specific Plan.

FISCAL IMPACT
The project proponent, Arcadia Development Co., has paid a total of $107,661.67 for application fees and CEQA consultation for this project. The appellant, has paid $411 in application fees for the appeal.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.1
07/25/2023

BACKGROUND
The item before the Council is an appeal by WCHB, LLC, of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the subject application.

The proposed project includes a Tentative Parcel Map (MS 351-22), Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22-001), Design Review (DR 22-002), and Master Sign Program (MSP 22-001) to construct a Costco Wholesale warehouse and fuel facility located south of Lone Tree Plaza Drive and east of Heidorn Ranch Road.

The proposed Tentative Parcel Map (MS 351-22) includes the reconfiguration and subdivision of two vacant parcels (19.04-acre Parcel A and 4.02-acre Parcel D) into a total of four smaller parcels. The final configuration is summarized as follows:

Parcel A: 17.79 acres (Costco retail warehouse)
Parcel B: 1.66 acres (Costco fuel station)
Parcel C: 1.38 acres (to presently remain unimproved and zoned TV/MU) Parcel D: 2.23 acres (to presently remain unimproved and zoned TV/MU) The proposed Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22-001) application is to operate the fuel facility. The proposed Design Review (DR 22-002) application is for the development of a 154,852-square-foot Costco retail warehouse with a 5,368-square-foot entrance canopy on Parcel A, and a fueling facility with an 11,500 square foot canopy over 16 fueling dispensers, which allows for 32 fueling positions situated on Parcel B.

Associated parking lot, landscaping, and access and circulation improvements will also be included on the two parcels. Finally, a Master Sign Program (MSP 22-001) is proposed for Parcel A and Parcel B, consisting of building-mounted signage for the Costco retail warehouse and Costco fueling station.

A detailed analysis of the project is included as part of the June 20, 2023, Planning Commission staff report, which is attached for the City Council’s review and reference (see Attachment 12).

Planning Commission Meeting of June 20, 2023
On June 20, 2023, the Planning Commission considered the Tentative Parcel Map, Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, and Master Sign Program for the Costco retail warehouse and fuel facility. Prior to the meeting, staff received a total of 37 public comments that were distributed to the Planning Commission for consideration. After presentation of the staff report and comments from the applicant, the Planning Commission opened public comment and took testimony from eight members of the public. After the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission discussed whether the project would include installation of EV charging stations or solar panels with the original construction of the site or whether it would only be constructed ready for future potential installation. The applicant stated that at this time, they plan to provide the general infrastructure for both chargers and solar panels and as part of their site development would look into installation but could not confirm whether

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.1
07/25/2023
installation would happen. The applicant has since provided further clarification to these questions, which is included in the public comments attached for reference (see Attachment 15).

After the Planning Commission’s deliberation, the Planning Commission discussed adding a condition to the Design Review application requiring the applicant to construct a fence along the eastern property line of Parcel A of MS 351-22, adjacent to Highway 4. With that condition formally added, motions were made to adopt Resolution Nos. 23-020, 23-021, 23-022, and 23-023 to approve the requested Tentative Parcel Map, Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, and Master Sign Program, respectively. All motions passed by a 5-0 vote. These actions started the 10-day appeal period.

On June 28, 2023, Hanson Bridgett LLP on behalf of WCHB, LLC (the appellant), filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Tentative Parcel Map, Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, and Master Sign Program for Costco (see Attachment 3). The applicant has also provided a detailed response to the appeal included in Attachment 4.

On June 30, 2023, Tal C. Finney, Esq., of Finney Arnold, LLP on behalf of Contra Costa Climate Action Coalition also attempted to file an appeal of the subject applications. Since the subject application had already been appealed, per City policy this request was denied and was submitted as a public comment that has been attached for reference (see Attachment 15).

Per BMC Section 17.880.030, an appeal is required to be heard before the appellate body within 45 days of being filed, unless both the applicant and appellant consent in writing to a later date. In this case, the appeal is being considered 27 days from when it was received, within the required timeframe.

ANALYSIS
The June 20, 2023, Planning Commission staff report, draft meeting minutes, and public comments received via email before and after the publication of the Planning Commission packet are attached for the City Council’s review and reference (see Attachments 12, 13, and 14). The attached staff report explains in detail how the project is consistent and complies with the City’s General Plan, PA-1 Specific Plan, and zoning requirements. Additionally, the adopted Planning Commission resolutions approving the Tentative Parcel Map, Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, and Master Sign Program are also attached. Each resolution details the manner in which the project meets all findings required for approval.

On June 28, 2023, the City received the attached appeal letter from Hanson Bridgett LLP on behalf of WCHB, LLC, the owner and developer of the Bridle Gate residential development project located immediately south of the PA-1 Specific Plan area. Their

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.1
07/25/2023
appeal letter, included as Attachment 3, was the same June 20, 2023 letter sent to the Planning Commission as public comment on the night of the Planning Commission hearing. In sum, the appellant’s contention is that the project does not qualify for an exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15183 and that the project findings cannot be supported.

In response to the appeal letter, the City has provided a thorough and comprehensive response to each of the appellant’s claims which is attached (Attachment 1) for reference. The applicant has also provided a detailed response to the appeal included in Attachment 4. A summary of the appellant’s assertions as well as the City’s responses are as follows:

1. CEQA. The appellant asserts that the project does not qualify for an exemption from further review under CEQA. Based on the assertion, the applicant believes that further environmental review is required when projects will have environmental effects that were not studied in a Program EIR. Among other things, the appellant states that additional environmental review is required to evaluate aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, geology and soils, GHG emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, population and housing, public services, transportation and traffic, and wildfire hazards. The appellant also asserts that the project is not Consistent with the PA-1 Specific Plan and would result in project-specific significant effects that are peculiar to the project site and which require further environmental review.

Staff response: 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 intensities established by the PA-1 Specific Plan, for which an EIR was certified. The provisions contained in Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines are linked above and included in the attached Environmental Analysis.

The attached Environmental Analysis includes a discussion and analysis of any peculiar or site-specific 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 also 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

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.1
07/25/2023
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).

As described in the Environmental Analysis, the proposed 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. As the Addendum was not challenged, and the statute of limitations for challenge has run, the analysis in the Addendum is presumed valid and further reexamination of the redesignation of the project site is time barred. Therefore, any challenges made by the appellant related to the previous EIR or Addendum cannot be challenged as part of this project since the statute of limitations to challenge the analysis has expired.

The analysis in the attached Environmental Analysis and CEQA Environmental Checklist demonstrates that there are no site-specific 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 sitespecific impacts or construction-related impacts are not significant. All project requirements identified in the attached Environmental Checklist have been included as conditions 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.

2. Findings. The appellant asserts that the proposed findings under all four applications are not supported by substantial evidence.

Staff response: As demonstrated in the attached response to the appeal, the Environmental Analysis and supporting technical studies that were prepared for the project analyzed any project-specific impacts and affirmed that the project findings were supported by substantial evidence. In addition, the

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.1
07/25/2023
Appellant provided broad assertions that the findings were not supported without specifying any particular fault with the findings in all cases and therefore no response can be provided.

In addition, the City has also prepared a response to the June 30, 2023 letter prepared by Tal C. Finney, Esq., of Finney Arnold, LLP on behalf of Contra Costa Climate Action Coalition (see Attachment 17). As noted in the response, the contentions in the letter are not supported by substantial evidence, and the City’s CEQA analysis evaluates each of the areas identified by the letter writer.

CONCLUSION
According to the Municipal Code, an appeal results in a ‘de novo’ or new hearing. The City Council, sitting as the appellate body, is thus required to make specific findings supporting its decision, be it upholding the lower body’s decision, modifying it, or reversing it.

The following outlines the options for Council when considering the appeal:
1) If the appeal is denied, it would result in a project approval. The existing entitlements would be affirmed, as they were originally approved by the Planning Commission on June 20, 2023. The Council would formally approve the project by adopting the Council resolution as attached. 2) If the appeal is denied, it would result in a project approval. However, additional or revised conditions may be imposed by the Council. The Council could formally approve the project by adopting the Council resolution with additional or revised conditions.
3) If the appeal is upheld, it would result in a project denial. The Council would provide findings for the denial and the item would return to the Council at a subsequent meeting to adopt resolutions formally denying the project.

Staff has evaluated the requested approval for Costco and has prepared findings determining that the proposal meets all of the requirements of Brentwood Municipal Code and has been adequately analyzed consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). These findings are included in the attached draft resolutions for the Council’s consideration reaffirming staff’s recommendation that the City Council adopt resolutions denying the appeal filed by WCHB, LLC and affirming the Planning Commission approvals and approve Tentative Parcel Map (MS 351-22), Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22-001), Design Review (DR 22-002), and Master Sign Program (MSP 22-001) to allow for the Costco retail warehouse and fuel facility, as conditioned.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.1
07/25/2023

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Not Applicable.

PREVIOUS ACTION
Previous Action by the City Council is included in Attachment 2.

DATE OF NOTICE
The City of Brentwood published a public hearing notice in the Brentwood Press and mailed it to all property owners within 300 feet of the site on July 14, 2023. The applicant also posted the project site with the required signage. On June 30, 2023, Tal C. Finney, Esq., of Finney Arnold, LLP on behalf of Contra Costa Climate Action Coalition attempted to file an appeal of the subject applications. Since the subject application had already been appealed, this request was denied and was submitted as a public comment that has been attached for reference. In addition, prior to publication of the agenda report, staff received the attached emails within Attachment 15, both in favor and in opposition of the project, which are attached for reference. In addition to the new comments received after the Planning Commission hearing, staff has attached all previous public comments received for this project within Attachment 14.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 provides that projects that are consistent with the development density established by a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning for which an environmental impact report (EIR) has been 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.” 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 PA1 Specific Plan and completed additional environmental review of the update. An Addendum to the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR was adopted by the City Council in October 2022.

In this context, the “development density” of the site is understood to be the floor area ratio. Insomuch as the maximum FAR allowed at the site is 0.6, and the project proposes to build 0.2, it is consistent with the development density established by the General Plan, Specific Plan, and Zoning applicable to the site.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.1
07/25/2023
As is more fully analyzed in the CEQA document that is included as Attachment 16 for reference, as well as the associated appendices that are linked here, 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.

Compliance with these PA-1 Specific Plan EIR has been included in the conditions of approval for the Project. No additional impacts to on-site resources have been identified beyond what was envisioned in the EIR. Therefore, no further environmental analysis beyond the Modified Initial Study is required as the proposed Tentative Parcel Map, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Master Sign Program are consistent with the PA-1 Specific Plan and the General Plan.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Response to Appellant’s Contentions

2. Previous Action

3. Appeal Letter

4. Applicants Response to Appeal

5. Draft Resolution - MS 351-22

6. Draft Resolution - CUP 22-001

7. Draft Resolution - DR 22-002

8. Draft Resolution - MSP 22-001

9. Costco Project Description

10.Costco Plans

11.Costco Master Sign Program

12.Planning Commission Staff Report w/o attachments

13.June 20, 2023 Planning Commission Draft Minutes

14.Public Comments received prior to Planning Commission

15.Public Comments received after Planning Commission

16.Costco CEQA Analysis

17.Response to Climate Action Coalition Comments

Response to Comments in Hanson Bridgett Appeal
These response address Appellant’s contentions in support of their appeal of the Project, which are contained in Sections 2 through 6 of the letter dated June 20, 2023 and attached to the June 28, 2023 appeal application.

Section 2
Appellant claims the Project does not qualify for an exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 because it is not consistent with the development standards in the amended PA-1 Specific Plan and there are Project-specific significant effects peculiar to the Project and Project site.

Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, subdivision (a)—“Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan Update, or Zoning”—additional environmental review is not required for projects “which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified,” except as might be necessary to determine whether there are project-specific significant effects. Section 15183 was promulgated on the authority of Public Resources Code Section 21083.3, which provides a public agency need examine only those environmental effects that are peculiar to the project and were not addressed or were insufficiently analyzed as significant effects in the prior EIR. (Pub. Res. Code § 21083.3, subds. (a), (b).) Here, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the City prepared a sitespecific CEQA analysis for the Project (“Environmental Analysis”). The Environmental Analysis, which is supported by numerous Project-specific technical studies, demonstrates that there are no site-specific or peculiar impacts associated with the Project, and identifies uniformly applied standards and policies that would be applied to the Project. 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. Accordingly, the City has satisfied the requirements of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 and no further CEQA review is required.

Section 2(a)
This comment provides Appellant’s interpretation of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and related case law, but does not allege any issues with the Environmental Analysis performed for the Project. As such, the comment is noted and no further response is required.

Section 2(b)
The comment provides the Appellant’s interpretation of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and related case law, related to program EIRs, but fails to address Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, which apply to the Project.

Attachment 1

Public Resources Code Section 20183.3 and corresponding State 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. Here, the PA-1 Specific Plan has also been adopted as the zoning for the Plan area, and therefore serves as the zoning designation for purposes of Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. As such, the application of CEQA to the approval of development projects, such as the proposed Costco Project, shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the Project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report. (Pub. Res. Code § 21083.3.) Further, an effect of a project on the environment is not considered peculiar to the parcel or the project, if uniformly applied development policies or standards have been adopted by the local agency with a finding that they will substantially mitigate that effect when applied to future projects. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15183(f).)
The lead agency must make a finding at a public hearing that any mitigation measures in the prior EIR that apply to the project’s specific effects, and that the lead agency found to be feasible, will be undertaken. (Pub. Res. Code § 21083.3(c); State CEQA Guidelines § 15183(e).) The City has done that here, by incorporating the mitigation measures in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR as Project Requirements. Such a finding is not required for potentially significant environmental effects that are not considered peculiar to the parcel or the project if uniformly applied development policies or standards were previously adopted by the agency with a finding that the policies or standards would substantially mitigate the environmental effect when applied to future projects. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15183(f).) When the agency has failed to make such a finding previously, it can do so when it approves the later project.

Often, such certified prior EIRs are Program EIRs and, in fact, the factual questions as to whether project impacts fall within the scope of the prior EIR are very similar. As to reliance on a Program EIR, later activities are examined to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. (State CEQA Guidelines § 15168(c).) As appellant notes, if a later activity would result in environmental effects that were not examined in the Program EIR, the agency must prepare an initial study to determine whether an EIR or negative declaration is required to address those effects. (Id.) However, as is the case here, if a later activity would not have any effects that were not examined in the Program EIR (including any new or more severe impacts), the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the Program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required. (Id.)
Factors that an agency may consider in determining whether a later activity is within the scope of a Program EIR include “consistency of the later activity with the type of allowable land use, overall planned density and building intensity, geographic area analyzed for environmental impacts, and covered infrastructure as described in the program EIR.” (State CEQA Guidelines § 15168(c).) An agency must incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the Program EIR into later activities in the program. (Id.) “Where the later activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document Attachment 1

the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were within the scope of the program EIR.” (Id.) The City’s Environmental Analysis complies with both Section 15183 and Section 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Appellant claims an initial study and either an EIR or negative declaration are required for the Project. While the applicability of the exemption provided by State CEQA Guidelines 15183 does not turn on whether the City completes some form of preliminary review, here the City did use an environmental checklist which 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. (Environmental Analysis (“EA”), p. 14.) The Appellant further claims the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR never evaluated the specific components of the Project, including the warehouse retail center, tire center, and fuel center.

The Appellant also claims the fuel center was not analyzed as service stations are prohibited in the Transit Village portion of the PA-1 Specific Plan.

The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR analyzed impacts related to the Transit Village designation, which is defined to provide “for an integrated mix of high-intensity uses in the area surrounding the planned transit/eBART station, and encourages the development of a high-quality, pedestrian and bicycle friendly mixed-use district that will define the Specific Plan area’s core. Allowed uses include professional and medical offices, personal services, retail and restaurants, entertainment- and hospitality-related uses, and upper floor multiple-family residences.” (PA-1 Specific Plan EIR, p. 2.0-8.) Costco’s warehouse retail center, including the tire center, is a retail use permitted in the Transit Village zone, and analyzed in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR. The site-specific Environmental Analysis prepared for the Project confirms that any impacts related to the proposed use of the Project site were adequately addressed in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.

As relates to the fuel station, the City amended the PA-1 Specific Plan and adopted an Addendum to the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR on October 25, 2022 (“Addendum”). The most relevant changes related to subject properties included changing the Specific Plan designation of the 19.04-acre Costco site from Transit Village/Mixed Use (“TV/MU”) to Regional Commercial (“RC”). The 4.02-outparcel site maintained its original designation of TV/MU. The Addendum analyzed changes to the permitted uses in the RC zone. Specifically, large format retail no longer required a CUP, and fuel stations are permitted with approval of a CUP in the RC zone. (Addendum, pp. 4-9 – 4-10.) The Addendum found that none of the minor changes associated with the modified project, such as alternating the location of permitted uses, have the potential to result in new or more severe environmental impacts than those that were analyzed and disclosed in the Certified EIR, for which Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations were adopted by the City Council. (Addendum, p. 9.) Accordingly, the Addendum analyzed Attachment 1

changes to the TV/MU and RC zones. The statute of limitations to challenge the analysis in the Addendum has expired, and as such, the Addendum cannot be challenged now.

The Appellant further alleges that the site-specific studies related to traffic, GHG, and air quality that were prepared for the Project show Project-specific changes that were not analyzed in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR. The Appellant does not describe what changes were not analyzed in a way that would enable the City to respond. However, it should be noted that the Environmental Analysis, supported by the referenced technical studies, found all impacts of the Project were adequately addressed in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR and Addendum. To the extent the Appellant makes specific allegations regarding these topics, they are addressed in the corresponding responses below.

Section 2(b)(i) (Aesthetics)
Appellant contends that the Project will contribute to direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts regarding light and glare, and that there is no evidence the Project will comply with the design guidelines set forth in Section 3.1 of the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.

Initially, and as noted above, the Addendum analyzed any potential impacts from changing the Project site’s designation from TV/MU to RC. The statute of limitations to challenge the analysis in the Addendum has expired, and as such, the Addendum is presumed valid and can no longer be challenged. The Environmental Analysis for the Project examined the Project’s potential impacts regarding light and glare. As discussed in the Environmental Analysis, 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. Further, parking and site lighting will incorporate the use of cutoff lenses to keep light from overflowing beyond the Costco site boundaries. (EA, p. 26.)
The Environmental Analysis also provides that the Project is subject to the PA-1 Specific Plan lighting and design guidelines. 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. (EA, p.

26.) The Project’s compliance with the PA-1 Specific Plan lighting and design guidelines is exactly the type of compliance with design standards contemplated in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183. As such, light and glare impacts are not peculiar to the Project with compliance with the uniform PA-1 Specific Plan lighting and design guidelines.

Attachment 1

Section 2(b)(ii) (Air Quality)
Appellant contends that a volumetric analysis of land uses does not provide a complete picture of how change in uses can lead to more significant air quality (and GHG) impacts, the mobile traffic patterns of the RC zone are different than those analyzed for the TV zone, which was studied in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR, and impacts related to the fuel station have not been evaluated in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR or Addendum and must be evaluated in further CEQA review.

The Appellant correctly cites the conclusion on Page 38 of the Environmental Analysis.

Namely, 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.

Further, 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 Project would further the fundamental goals of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) in reducing emissions of criteria pollutants associated with vehicle miles traveled, and would be required to comply with all District Rules and Regulations and included in Requirement AQ-2 to further limit criteria pollutants.

These conclusions are supported by site-specific analysis, which addresses Appellant’s concerns. As stated in the Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report, the report quantifies the Project’s emissions during construction and operations and compares those results to the applicable BAAQMD thresholds. This report also summarizes results of the health risk assessments which assess the potential health risk impacts to sensitive receptors from construction and operation. Additionally, because the Project is located within the PA-1 Specific Plan area, consistency with the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR was also analyzed.

The Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report found that Project emissions were significantly less than those analyzed for the PA-1 Specific Plan (See Table 5, EA p. 36).

Additionally, as shown in Tables 3 and 4, 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. (EA, pp. 35-36.) Thus, the Project is consistent with BAAQMD thresholds and the PA-1 Specific Plan, even as the proposed use is consistent with the RC zone. The service station emissions were also specifically analyzed. To the extent Appellant is arguing RC uses require more analysis, such issues should have been raised during the Addendum process. The statute of limitations has run on that approval and the Addendum’s analysis is thus presumed valid.

Attachment 1

Section 2(b)(iii) (Biological Resources)
Appellant alleges that given the amount of traffic and outdoor lighting associated with the Project, further CEQA analysis is needed to mitigate impacts on wildlife habitat and movement, including edge-effects on wildlife movement near the Project site.

As noted in the Environmental Analysis prepared for the Project, 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 and imposed mitigation measures 3.4.1 through 3.4.10 to reduce this impact to less than significant. (EA, pp. 46-51.) As addressed above in Section 2(b)(i), there is nothing unique or impactful regarding the Project lighting that was not already addressed in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR and design guidelines. Similarly, as addressed in Section 2(b)(xi) regarding traffic below, the Project’s traffic would not be more impactful than that analyzed in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR, and in fact, would result in net negative VMT. Thus, there is nothing peculiar to the Project regarding outdoor lighting or traffic that would necessitate additional mitigation regarding wildlife habitat or movement. Further, the Project is required to implement PA-1 Specific Plan EIR mitigation measures 3.4.1 through 3.4.10 to ensure any impacts regarding habitat remain less than significant. (EA, p. 51.)
Additionally, the California Natural Diversity Database (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. (EA, p. 53.) Section 2(b)(iv) (Geology and Soils)
Appellant states that the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR requires the submission of geologic and soils reports for all new developments. Appellant further alleges that the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR never anticipated a fuel service station at the Project site and there is no analysis of the risks proposed by the Project fuel service station.

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b)(2) provides that for projects meeting the requirements of Section 15183, the public agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines through analysis “were not analyzed as significant Attachment 1

effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent.” That is exactly what the City did here.

A Project-specific geotechnical report, prepared by Kleinfelder, was included in the Environmental Analysis as Attachment B. (EA, p. 62.) The project description included in the geotechnical report includes the following: “The fuel facility will contain three 40,000-gallon underground storage tanks (USTs), a fuel additive UST, four fueling islands, and a premanufactured metal canopy.” (Geotechnical Report, p. 5.) Accordingly, the Project-specific geotechnical report, submitted in compliance with PA-1 Specific Plan EIR requirements, does include analysis of the fuel service station use.

Specifically, Section 5.4 of the geotechnical report addresses impacts to groundwater during construction, including due to placement of the underground storage tanks for the fuel service station and provides recommendations to ensure impacts are less than significant. (Geotechnical Report, pp. 42-43.) Accordingly, any Project-specific impacts related to the fuel station were analyzed in the Project-specific geotechnical report and Environmental Analysis, which includes Requirement GEO-1 (“Implement recommendations presented in the Geotechnical Study Prepared by Kleinfelder during the project design and construction”), ensuring the recommendations of the Kleinfelder geotechnical report are implemented. (EA, p.

66.)
Section 2(b)(v) (GHG Emissions)
Appellant alleges the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR did not evaluate site-specific impacts associated with the transportation and sale of gasoline and whether these impacts are consistent with the State’s GHG reduction goals and strategies in the MTC/ABAG’s Plan Bay Area 2050.

As noted above, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b)(2) provides that for projects meeting the requirements of Section 15183, the public agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines through analysis “were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent.” The site-specific GHG report prepared for the Project by Ramboll US Consulting, Inc., and included in the Environmental Analysis as Attachment C satisfies the requirements of Section 15183(b)(2). Specifically, as demonstrated in Table C-2 of the GHG technical report included as Attachment C, the Project would be consistent with applicable MTC/ABAG strategies for the reduction of GHG emissions. (EA, p. 75.) Additionally, Appellant argues the new uses proposed by the Project are different than those analyzed in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR and analysis is required regarding emissions related to customer traffic, deliveries, and idling at the fuel service station. 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 PA-1 Specific Plan EIR, nor significantly change previously identified impacts. (EA, p. 74.)

Attachment 1

Section 2(b)(vi) (Hazards and Hazardous Materials)
Appellant alleges that Project Requirements related to hazards and hazardous materials should be considered mitigation measures and therefore the Project does not qualify for the exemption found in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

Compliance with relevant regulatory standards can provide a basis for determining that the project will not have a significant environmental impact. Tracy First v. City of Tracy (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 912. 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.

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 discussed below oblige 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). (EA, p. 78.) The Project Requirement HAZ-1 that the Project prepare a HMBP is done pursuant to uniformly applied development policies and standards, and as such additional environmental review is not required. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15183(c).) Section 2(b)(vii) (Hydrology and Water Quality)
Appellant alleges that there is no analysis of potentially significant impacts related to changes in the area’s surface cover, the new fuel service station, or any potential contamination from automobile related uses, including potential spills at the service station.

Please refer to the response to Section 2(b)(vi) regarding any accidental upset regarding the proposed fuel service station.

The Environmental Analysis discusses the Project’s increase in impervious area, noting that buildings, roads, and parking lots introduce relatively impervious asphalt, concrete, and Attachment 1

roofing materials to the landscape. These materials are relatively impervious, which means that they absorb less rainwater. (EA, p. 85.) The Environmental Analysis then explains that there are no rivers, streams, or water courses located on or immediately adjacent to the Project site. As such, there is no potential for the Project to alter a water course, which could lead to on or offsite flooding. Drainage improvements associated with the Project site would be located on the Project site, and the Project would not alter or impact offsite drainage facilities. Development of the Project site would potentially increase local runoff production, and would introduce constituents into storm water that are typically associated with urban runoff. These constituents include heavy metals (such as lead, zinc, and copper) and petroleum hydrocarbons. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be applied to the proposed site development to limit the concentrations of these constituents in any site runoff that is discharged into downstream facilities to acceptable levels. (EA, pp. 85-86.)
The Project would be subject to all relevant General Plan policies and actions that aim to reduce water pollution from construction and new development, and protect and enhance natural storm drainage and water quality features. The policies include numerous requirements that would reduce the potential for implementation of the proposed Project to result in increased water quality impacts. In addition, compliance with the Clean Water Act and regulations enforced by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) would ensure that construction-related impacts to water quality are minimized and projects comply with all applicable laws and regulations. Additionally, all municipalities within Contra Costa County (and the County itself) are required to develop more restrictive surface water control standards for new development projects as part of the renewal 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 bioretention areas to treat stormwater runoff before allowing it to proceed into the public storm drain system. In order to ensure that stormwater runoff from the Project site does not adversely increase pollutant levels in adjacent surface waters and stormwater conveyance infrastructure, Project Requirement Hydro 1 requires the preparation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP would require the application of BMPs to effectively reduce pollutants from stormwater leaving the site during both the construction and operational phases of the Project. Additionally, the Project is subject to the Project Requirement Hydro 2 that requires the Project applicant to prepare and submit a Stormwater Control Plan that meets the criteria in the most recent version of the Contra Costa Clean Water Program Stormwater C.3.

Guidebook.

New development projects in the City of Brentwood are required to provide site-specific storm drainage solutions and improvements that are consistent with the overall storm drainage infrastructure approach presented in Contra Costa County Flood Control District Drainage Area maps. The Project applicant is required to submit a detailed storm drainage infrastructure plan to the City for review and approval. The Project’s storm drainage infrastructure plans must demonstrate adequate infrastructure capacity to collect and direct all stormwater generated on the Project site within the on-site retention and detention facility to the City’s existing stormwater Attachment 1

conveyance system and demonstrate that the Project would not result in on- or offsite flooding impacts. The development of an onsite storm drainage system, the payment of all applicable development fees, and the implementation of Requirements Hydro 1 and Hydro 2 would ensure that this impact is less than significant. Accordingly, with compliance with uniformly applied development standards, the Project would not result in a new or more severe impact than what was previously analyzed. (EA, pp. 86-87.)
Section 2(b)(viii) (Noise)
Appellant claims the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR and Addendum do not analyze or mitigate potential noise impacts associated with changing mobile traffic patterns and operational uses associated with the Project, and that direct, indirect and cumulative noise impacts associated with such changed land uses and traffic patterns must be evaluated in an appropriate CEQA analysis.

As stated above, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(b)(2) provides that for projects meeting the requirements of Section 15183, the public agency shall limit its examination of environmental effects to those which the agency determines through analysis “were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR on the zoning action, general plan, or community plan, with which the project is consistent.” The Project-specific Acoustical Assessment prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc., included in the Environmental Analysis as Attachment F, analyzed the major noise sources associated with the Project that would potentially impact existing nearby sensitive receptors. These include the following:
• Off‐site traffic noise;
• Mechanical equipment (e.g., trash compactors, air conditioners, tire center/vehicle maintenance equipment, etc.);
• Activities at the loading areas (e.g., maneuvering and idling trucks, loading/unloading, and equipment noise);
• Parking and fueling station areas (e.g., car door slamming, car radios, engine start‐up, and car pass‐by);
• Landscape maintenance activities; and
• Trash/Recycling pickups.

As shown in Table 11 of the Environmental Analysis, receptors near the Project site would either remain below the allowable noise threshold of 55 dBA for residential uses or 72 dBA for commercial uses and would not increase ambient noise levels by more than 3 dBA when the existing ambient noise levels are already in exceedance of the City’s noise standards.

Therefore, the Project’s operational noise levels would not result in a significant increase over existing ambient noise levels at the nearest noise‐sensitive uses in the City of Brentwood.

Impacts would be less than significant in this regard. (EA, pp. 94-95.) Further, as indicated in Table 12: Composite Project Operational Noise for Antioch Receptors, the ambient plus Project’s on‐site operational noise levels would be at 65.9 dBA Ldn at Heritage Baptist Academy, and between 49.4 dBA Ldn and 54.2 dBA Ldn at the residential uses to the southwest of the Project site located within the City of Antioch. As such, noise levels from on‐site operations at the Project site would not exceed the City of Antioch’s noise standards of 60 dBA Attachment 1

CNEL for residential uses. Noise levels at Heritage Baptist Academy are expected to be similar to existing ambient levels with implementation of the Project, and a noticeable change would not occur. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard. (EA, p. 98.) Cumulative impacts were also analyzed in the Project-specific analysis and impacts were less than significant. (EA, p. 99.)
Section 2(b)(ix) (Population and Housing)
Appellant argues further CEQA review is needed to address population and housing needs as the Project fits within the RC zone, while the Project site was originally designated as TV/MU in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.

Appellant argues that the RC zone results in different population and housing needs than the TV/MU zone, but does not elaborate on what those different needs entail. The Environmental Analysis states that employment growth attributable to the proposed Project would not result in any significant site-specific environmental impacts related to other environmental topics. There are no aspects of the Project as compared to the PA‐1 Specific Plan EIR that would result in a new significant impact or an impact that is more severe than disclosed in the EIR. (EA, p. 103.) To the extent Appellant is arguing population and housing should have been analyzed when the Project site was redesignated as RC from TV/MU, such arguments should have been raised when the Addendum was adopted in October 2022. As the Addendum was not challenged, and the statute of limitations for challenge has run, the analysis in the Addendum is presumed valid and further reexamination of the redesignation of the Project site is time barred.

Section 2(b)(x) (Public Services)
Appellant claims additional CEQA analysis is needed to determine whether the Project’s proposed uses, including the service station, will require new or additional fire or other emergency services in the City.

The Environmental Analysis at page 104 states that the buildout of the PA-1 Specific Plan will not create new impacts over and above those identified in the General Plan Final EIR, nor significantly change previously identified impacts. The Project is consistent with the uses proposed in the PA-1 Specific Plan, as amended. To the extent Appellant finds fault with the environmental analysis regarding public services related to the designation of the Project site as RC, which permits gas stations with a CUP if accessory to large format retail, such concerns should have been raised prior to the adoption of the Addendum in October 2022. As no challenges to the Addendum were made, the finding in the Addendum that “none of the minor changes associated with the Modified Project have the potential to result in new or more severe environmental impacts than those that were analyzed and disclosed in the Certified EIR, for which Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations were adopted by the City Council” remains valid.

Section 2(b)(xi) (Transportation and Traffic)
Appellant first contends that mobile traffic patterns are different for RC uses than TV/MU uses and that such changes should be analyzed. Further, the Appellant suggests that the Attachment 1

proposed fuel station creates potential for idling and TAC emissions. Please refer to the response to Section 2(b)(ii) and 2(b)(v) regarding air quality and GHG emissions.

Appellant next argues the Addendum did not contain detailed analysis regarding the changes in the land use map approved in 2022. For the adequacy of the 2022 Addendum analysis, see Response 2(b). Appellant also alleges there is no analysis regarding proposed truck routes for delivery trucks serving the Project. Appellant ignores the site-specific analysis prepared regarding air quality and GHG emissions. For instance, Figure 02 of the Air Quality technical report depicts the truck routes for the warehouse, tire center and fuel service center.

Idling for these Project components is also depicted. Such site-specific analysis comports with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 and additional CEQA review is not required.

Appellant then argues that neither the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR nor the Addendum evaluate whether the Project complies with the revised circulation plan adopted as part of the 2022 amendments to the PA-1 Specific Plan. Appellant specifically claims there is a conflict with Specific Plan Policy C.11 and Specific Plan Circulation Design Guideline No. 10.

Policy C.11 was formerly numbered C.10. Other than the change to the numbering, the language of the Policy is unchanged from that analyzed in the original PA-1 Specific Plan EIR. (Addendum, Circulation Plan 5-21.) To the extent Policy C.11 requires new developments that generate over 50 employees to implement Traffic Demand Management (TDM) programs, the Project will implement TDM strategies. As provided in Table C-2, Consistency with MTC/ABAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, and as conditioned, the Project will implement the following employee TDM-reducing strategies:
maintain safe and efficient pedestrian, bike, and transit networks; support a transportation system that facilitates the efficient movement of people and goods, and promote the use of alternatives to the single-occupant vehicles. The Project thus complies with Policy C.11.

Circulation Design Guideline No. 10 requires curbside pick-up and drop-off. The Project complies with Circulation Design Guideline No. 10 by providing a pick-up/drop-off area at the front apron of the Costco warehouse building.

Finally, Appellant contends that CEQA analysis is necessary to evaluate the adequacy of emergency ingress and egress for the uses proposed by the Project. Emergency ingress and egress is addressed in the Environmental Analysis. Emergency vehicles access to the Project site is accommodated at the access points on Lone Tree Way/Canada Valley Road and Heidorn Ranch Road/Lone Tree Plaza Drive. To address emergency and fire access needs, the site improvements would be required to be designed in accordance with all applicable Contra Costa County Fire Protection District design standards for emergency access. Adequate emergency access is required per the local fire code and site plans will be reviewed by local fire officials as part of the design review. (EA, p. 113.) As such, with uniformly applied development policies and standards, there are no impacts regarding emergency access peculiar to the Project and no further environmental review is required.

Attachment 1

Section 2(b)(xii) (Wildfire Hazards)
Appellant contends additional analysis is required to evaluate wildfire risks associated with the proposed uses on the Project site, including the service station, and that analysis is also needed to determine whether changes in patterns of vehicle trips would result in increased wildfire risk.

The City is a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) and is not characterized as a “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone” (VHFSZ). The Project site is not located within a State Responsibility Area or an area identified with wildland fire risks. As such, while the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR did not analyze wildfire impacts, there would be no impacts as a result of the Project, as it would not place people or structures in areas with significant risk of wildland fire. (EA, p. 120.) To the extent Appellant is concerned about the proposed fuel station use, the Environmental Analysis found that the Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

Development allowed under the proposed Project would not place people and/or structures in areas at significant risk of wildland fires. Additionally, the proposed Project will be required to demonstrate consistency with all applicable building and fire safety code sections that reduce fire risks. Thus, with application of uniformly applied standards, any impact related to the gas station would be less than significant, consistent with the finding in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR. (EA, p. 81.)
Section 2(c)
The Appellant summarizes their prior contentions regarding the applicability of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 to the Project. Please refer to responses above for contentions related to specific topic areas. Appellant also claims that the City cannot make the requisite CUP findings for the gas station and that because it is only permitted as a conditional use if accessory to large format retailers, the Project is inconsistent with PA-1 development standards. Please refer to the response to Section 3 below.

Section 3
Appellant contends the Tentative Parcel Map findings cannot be made for the Project because the CUP findings for the Project cannot be made and the proposed development is therefore not consistent with PA-1 Specific Plan policies and development standards. Appellant has only cited two policies with which Appellant claims the Project conflicts, but as explained in response to Section 2(b)(xi) above, the Project is in fact consistent with Policy C.11 and Design Guideline No. 10.

The Environmental Analysis prepared for the Project analyzes any Project-specific impacts of the Project and substantiates that the Project site is suitable for the proposed use.

Appellant also claims the “inherent risks associated with the operation of gasoline service stations” shows the Project is likely to cause substantial environmental damage, injure fish or wildlife, or crease potential public health hazards. Responses to these concerns regarding the gasoline service station have been addressed in the responses above. The City’s findings for CUP 22-001 and MS 351-22 are thus supported by substantial evidence.

Attachment 1

Section 4
Appellant claims the finding that the location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed development will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood is not supported because of undisclosed and unmitigated Project-specific environmental effects. As evidenced in the Environmental Analysis and supporting technical studies, and affirmed in these Responses to Comments, there are no Project-specific environmental effects which were not already addressed by the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR and Addendum. Accordingly, the proposed Conditional Use Permit findings are supported by substantial evidence.

Section 5
Appellant claims the City’s findings for Design Review DR 22-002 are not supported by substantial evidence and further environmental analysis is needed. Appellant has not specified the exact fault the Appellant sees with the City’s findings that would enable a response.

However, please refer to the response to Section 4 regarding substantial evidence to support the City’s findings.

Section 6
Appellant claims there is no evidence the proposed sign program will comply with applicable code requirements. Please refer to the City’s findings regarding MSP 22-001, which substantiate the master sign program’s compliance with Brentwood Municipal Code requirements.

Section 7
Appellant provides a conclusion restating their opposition to the Project based on the comments addressed above. No further response is warranted.

Attachment 1

PREVIOUS ACTIONS
Previous actions related to this agenda item that were taken by the Council are listed below. To view prior actions and materials, and Brentwood Municipal Code references in the staff report, as applicable:
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/meetings, and select the meeting date(s) desired to see the reference materials and videos.
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/municipalcode to research references to the Brentwood Municipal Code and search by the code section(s) cited.

On October 16, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing in regard to the Priority Area 1 (PA-1) Specific Plan, and recommended that the City Council approve 1) certification of an Environmental Impact Report (PA-1 EIR), 2) adoption of a General Plan amendment (GPA 18-002), 3) adoption of the PA-1Specific Plan (SPA 18-001), and 4) adoption of a rezone (RZ 18-003) to implement a zoning text amendment and map amendments within the PA-1 Specific Plan and adopting Chapter 17.295 (PA-1 Zone).

On November 13, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2018- 159, 1) certifying the PA-1 EIR, 2) adopting the General Plan amendment (GPA 18-002), 3) approving the PA-1Specific Plan, and 4) adopting a rezone (RZ 18-003) to implement a zoning text amendment and map amendments within the PA-1 Specific Plan and adopting Chapter 17.295 (PA-1 (Priority Area One) Zone).

On September 20, 2022, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 22-023 recommending the City Council approve 1) an Addendum to the PA-1 EIR; 2) a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA 22-001) for the PA-1 Specific Plan; and 3) a Rezone (RZ 22-001) to amend Brentwood Municipal Code Chapter 17.295 (PA-1 [Priority Area One] Zone), as recommended to be amended by the Planning Commission for future City Council consideration.

On October 11, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2022- 126, approving 1) an Addendum to the PA-1 EIR; 2) a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA 22-001) for the PA-1 Specific Plan; and hearing the first reading of an Ordinance - 1048 for a Rezone (RZ 22-001) to amend Brentwood Municipal Code Chapter 17.295 (PA-1 [Priority Area One] Zone) and amend the zoning map.

On October 25, 2022, the City Council adopted the second reading of Ordinance No. 1048 approving a Rezone (RZ 22-001) to amend Brentwood Municipal Code Chapter 17.295 (PA-1 [Priority Area One] Zone) and amend the zoning map.

Attachment 2

On June 20, 2023, the Planning Commission adopted Resolutions Nos. 23-020, 23-021, 23-022, and 23-023 approving the requested Tentative Parcel Map (MS 351-22), Conditional Use Permit (CUP 22- 001), Design Review (DR 22-002), and Master Sign Program (MSP 22- 001) for the Costco retail warehouse and fuel facility.

On June 28, 2023, Hanson Bridgett LLP on behalf of WCHB, LLC filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the subject applications.

Attachment 2

Attachment 3

Attachment 3

Attachment 3

Attachment 3

Attachment 3

Attachment 3

Attachment 3

Attachment 3

Attachment 3

Attachment 3

Attachment 3

1 California Street - Suite 3050
San Francisco, California 94111
voice 415.655.8100 - fax 415.655.8099
www.bwslaw.com
Direct No.: 415.655.8115
[email protected]
July 19, 2023
Mayor Joel R. Bryant and Members of the City Council
City of Brentwood
Brentwood City Hall
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
Re: July 25, 2023 City Council Hearing on Appeal of Planning Commission Decisions Regarding Costco Project (MS 351-22, DR 22-002, CUP 22-001, MSP 22-001)
Dear Mayor Bryant and Honorable City Councilmembers:

Our firm represents Costco Wholesale (“Costco”) in connection with its application to the City of Brentwood (“City”) for approval to develop an approximately 154,000-square-foot wholesale Costco warehouse, a fuel facility (classified as a “service station” in City regulations), and other site improvements (collectively, the “Project”) at Lone Tree Plaza Drive within the Lone Tree Plaza shopping center in the City (“Project Site”).1 On June 20, 2023, the Planning Commission approved a Tentative Parcel Map, Design Review, a Conditional Use Permit, and a Master Sign Program for the Project, subject to specified conditions (the “Project Approvals”). On June 28, 2023, WCHB, LLC filed an appeal of the Project Approvals (the “Appeal”).2
Accordingly, on July 25, 2023, the City Council will
hold a public hearing to consider the Appeal.

As you review the Project, we ask that you consider the following framework and context:
• The Project is entirely consistent with the Priority Area 1 Specific Plan (“PA-1 Specific Plan”), the City’s primary regulatory document governing development of the Project Site.
1 Note that the Project includes a Tentative Parcel Map to create four parcels from two existing vacant parcels. The Project Site includes the easternmost two resultant parcels, which cover approximately 19.04 acres and are proposed to include the Costco Warehouse and the fuel facility.
2 The Appeal comprises a resubmittal of a letter sent to the Planning Commission the evening of the Planning Commission hearing on the Project.

Attachment 4

City of Brentwood City Council
July 19, 2023

• The City prepared and certified a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the PA-1 Specific Plan in full compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).3
• The City and Costco commissioned multiple technical experts to analyze any potential Project-specific environmental effects and to gauge whether the Project would result in significant effects not already analyzed in and mitigated through the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR. Because the studies found that the Project would not result in any new or more severe environmental effects than the EIR identified, Section 21083.3 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines (collectively, the “Community Plan Exemption”) provide that the Project is exempt from further CEQA review.

Each of these points is discussed further below. As explained in detail, the Appeal is entirely without merit, as are the assertions in the June 30, 2023 Project opposition letter from the Contra Costa Climate Action Coalition (the “CCCAC Letter”). We urge you to reject the Appeal in its entirety and uphold the Project Approvals so that Costco may proceed to bring the Project to the City, providing Costco members within Brentwood the wide array of reasonablypriced, high quality goods and services offered by Costco and desired by the community.

I. The Project is Consistent with the PA-1 Specific Plan.

The Planning Commission’s unanimous decision to adopt the Project Approvals followed years of City planning efforts to encourage economic development within the PA-1 Specific Plan area. The City Council adopted the PA-1 Specific Plan on November 13, 2018 to create one of the City’s primary future employment centers, offering individuals and businesses access and opportunities to create high-quality jobs across a diverse array of industries.

Under the 2018 version of the Specific Plan, the Project Site was designated “Transit Village” (“TV”). The TV designation allowed development of large format commercial retail uses such as a Costco Warehouse, but service station uses were not permitted. However, in 2022, the City amended the PA-1 Specific Plan. Among other changes, the City redesignated the Project Site from TV to “Regional Commercial” (“RC”), a designation that allows both large format commercial retail and service stations. (PA-1 Specific Plan, Table 4.2.) 3 The statutory elements of CEQA are found at Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq. and the adopted regulations pertaining to CEQA implementation (“CEQA Guidelines”) are located at 14 Cal. Code Regs § 15000 et seq.

Attachment 4

City of Brentwood City Council
July 19, 2023

The RC designation allows commercial development up to a maximum floor area ratio of

0.6, with a maximum 40% lot coverage and a maximum height of 45 feet. The Project floor area ratio is 0.2, with 20% lot coverage and a maximum height of 36 feet, 6 inches. (PA-1 Specific Plan, p. 4-1; Table 6.3.) The Project is therefore well within the development limitations established in the PA-1 Specific Plan.

Prior to the 2022 amendments, the RC zone allowed an unlimited number of service stations without a use permit, but under the amendments, future service stations are permitted only with a conditional use permit and as an accessory to a large format retail business. (PA-1 Specific Plan, Table 4.2.) In other words, the amendments narrowed the circumstances under which service stations are allowed in the PA-1 Specific Plan area, likely reducing the number of potential service stations within the Specific Plan area.4 The Project is fully consistent with the
uses and development intensities allowed on the Project Site under the PA-1 Specific Plan.

II. The City Prepared and Recently Updated an EIR for the PA-1 Specific Plan.

Prior to adopting the PA-1 Specific Plan, the City Council certified an EIR (the “PA-1 Specific Plan EIR”) (State Clearinghouse (SCH) #2018042064) in accordance with CEQA. The EIR comprehensively analyzed the environmental effects of developing in accordance with the PA-1 Specific Plan, and included mitigation measures to reduce those effects to the extent feasible. The City Council adopted a mitigation monitoring and reporting program to ensure that the EIR’s mitigation measures would be enforced against subsequent development. In addition, the City Council adopted detailed findings, including a statement of overriding considerations concluding that while it was not feasible to reduce all environmental impacts to less than significant levels, the benefits of development pursuant to the PA-1 Specific Plan would outweigh the significant and unavoidable environmental effects.

On October 11, 2022, prior to adopting the PA-1 Specific Plan amendments discussed above, the City Council approved an Addendum to the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (“Addendum”).

The Addendum analyzed the effects of the PA-1 Specific Plan amendments and concluded that no new or more severe environmental effects would occur as a result of (among other amendments) redesignating the Project Site from TV to RC or from allowing service stations with a use permit as an accessory use to large format retail on RC lands.

No one opposed the PA-1 Specific Plan amendments or the Addendum, and the time to challenge those actions has long since passed. These amendments and Addendum are therefore 4 With one exception, the RC-designated lands within the Specific Plan area are now developed with commercial uses, making it unlikely that another large format retail user with associated service station would seek approval to locate within the area covered by the EIR.

Attachment 4

City of Brentwood City Council
July 19, 2023

final and conclusively valid. For the remainder of this letter, references to the PA-1 Specific Plan shall mean the 2018 Specific Plan as amended in 2022, and references to the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR shall mean the EIR as certified in 2018 and updated via the Addendum in 2022.

III. The City’s Project-Specific Analysis Complies with CEQA.

CEQA includes a mandate to avoid “repetitive discussions of the same issues in successive environmental impact reports” and to “exclude duplicative analysis of environmental effects examined in previous environmental impact reports.” (Pub. Res. Code, § 21093(a).) The Community Plan Exemption implements this requirement by reducing environmental review at the project level if an agency has already prepared an EIR for a community plan (such as the Specific Plan). (See, e.g., Pub. Res. Code § 21080.3; CEQA Guidelines § 15183.) Specifically, the Community Plan Exemption provides:

If a parcel has been zoned to accommodate a particular density of development . . . and an environmental impact report was certified for that zoning or planning action, the application of [CEQA] to the approval of any subdivision map or other project that is consistent with the zoning or community plan shall be limited to effects upon the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report. (Pub. Res. Code § 21083.3(a).) Further, “if an impact is not peculiar to the parcel or to the proposed 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…, then an EIR need not be prepared for the project solely on the basis of that impact.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15183(c).) The Court of Appeal recently considered the Community Plan Exemption’s application and held that if a project “falls within one of several statutory exemptions to CEQA — [including] Guidelines section 15183,” then such a project does “not require additional environmental review” and is exempt from CEQA. (Lucas v. City of Pomona (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 508, 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 605, 623.) Moreover, “[a]n agency’s finding that a statutory exemption [such as the Community Plan Exemption] applies to a project will be upheld if substantial evidence supports the finding of exemption.” (Id. at 626.) A mere fair argument that a project may result in a significant impact is not sufficient to require an EIR – or any further CEQA review – when the project qualifies for the Community Plan Exemption. (Id.) Attachment 4

City of Brentwood City Council
July 19, 2023

To be eligible for the Community Plan Exemption, a project must be “consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15183(a).) “Consistent” is defined as “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.” (Id. at § 15183(i)(2).) Density regulations applicable to non-residential uses can include metrics related to development intensity, such as floor area ratio limitations. (See, e.g., Lucas, 309 Cal.Rptr.3d at 628-629.)
As discussed in Section I above, the PA-1 Specific Plan serves as the Project Site’s zoning, and the proposed Project is well within the established floor area limitation that establishes the Project Site’s maximum “development density.” As discussed in Section II above, the City certified an EIR for the PA-1 Specific Plan. Therefore, the Project plainly is eligible for the Community Plan Exemption. Accordingly, any subsequent environmental review is limited to those impacts that the City, through an “initial study or other analysis, determines” are peculiar to the project or the parcel on which the project would be located and that were not analyzed as significant effects in a prior EIR or that are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the prior EIR. (Lucas, 309 Cal.Rptr.3d at 625; see also Pub.

Res. Code § 21080.3(a); CEQA Guidelines § 15183(b).)
Here, the City hired an expert environmental planning firm, De Novo Planning Group,5 to prepare the necessary CEQA analysis for the Project (the “Costco CEQA Analysis”). The Costco CEQA Analysis analyzes whether the Project would result in any impacts peculiar to it or the Project Site that were not previously analyzed as significant or that would be more severe than shown in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR. The Costco CEQA Analysis concludes that the Project would not result in any new or more severe environmental effects than were disclosed in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR, and therefore no additional CEQA review is required or even allowed.

Prior to reaching its conclusions, the City required Costco to provide a series of technical studies analyzing the Project’s potential impacts. The technical studies (each of which supplies the same level of detail and scientific analysis as they would had they been prepared for a new EIR) include: an Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report (prepared by Ramboll US Consulting, Inc.); a Geotechnical Study (prepared by Kleinfelder); a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report (prepared by Ramboll US Consulting, Inc.); a Phase I Environmental Site 5 Note that De Novo Planning Group also prepared the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR and the 2022 Addendum. It is therefore extremely familiar with the environmental impacts associated with development allowed in accordance with the PA-1 Specific Plan.

Attachment 4

City of Brentwood City Council
July 19, 2023

Assessment (prepared by Kleinfelder); a Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report (prepared by Kleinfelder); an Acoustical Assessment (prepared by Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.); and a Traffic Impact Analysis (prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc.).6 Following the completion of the reports, City staff and the De Novo Planning Group peerreviewed each study to confirm the results’ validity and requested certain changes in the reports before they were made final. As confirmed by two sets of technical experts, these reports provide substantial evidence in the record that fully supports the City’s conclusion presented in the Costco CEQA Analysis that the Project is eligible for the Community Plan Exemption and would not result in any impacts peculiar to the Project or the Project Site that were not addressed in PA-1 Specific Plan EIR or that impacts would be more significant than analyzed in that EIR.

Therefore, no further environmental review is warranted.

IV. The Appeal and CCCAC’s Project Opposition Are Entirely Without Merit.

The Appeal claims that there are significant project-specific effects that are peculiar to the project and its site, and that “substantial evidence shows that further environmental review is necessary.” (Appeal, p. 2.) Likewise, the CCCAC Letter claims the Project would result in new significant impacts necessitating further mitigation. Both claims are incorrect for multiple reasons.

First, neither the Appeal nor the CCCAC Letter identify any impacts that are peculiar to the Project or the Project Site. The claimed impacts are all commonly associated with any commercial development that would be permitted to occur under the PA-1 Specific Plan.

Likewise, the claims fail to identify any peculiar effects that result from the Project’s location on the Project Site, in comparison with a hypothetical situation where the same Project is located on a different site.

Second, the claims fail to overcome the substantial evidence in the record that supports the City’s CEQA conclusions. As discussed in Section III above, the City’s determination that the Community Plan Exemption applies and that further review is not required will be upheld “if substantial evidence supports the finding of exemption.” (Lucas, 309 Cal.Rptr.3d at 626.) Here, the record is replete with evidence supporting the City’s conclusion that the Project is exempt.

Therefore, there is no basis to overturn the City’s reliance on the Community Plan Exemption.

Moreover, the claims themselves are not correct, and neither the Appeal nor the CCCAC Letter provide evidence of any circumstance that precludes use of the Community Plan Exemption. A point-by-point response to each claim in the Appeal and the CCCAC Letter is included as Attachment B to this letter.
6 Professional resumes summarizing the qualifications of the technical experts who prepared the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Transportation studies are included with this letter as Attachment A.

Attachment 4

City of Brentwood City Council
July 19, 2023

Finally, we note that courts are unkind to plaintiffs who subvert CEQA into an “instrument for the oppression and delay of social, economic, or recreational development and advancement.” (Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 253 (citations omitted).) Admonishing a city that had used CEQA litigation to delay a project for years, the First District Court of Appeal recognized that “CEQA was meant to serve noble purposes, but it can be manipulated to be a formidable tool of obstruction.” (Tiburon Open Space Committee v. County of Marin (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 700, 782.) The Court of Appeal has observed that something is “very wrong” when CEQA is used to prevent beneficial development while completely divorced from any actual concerns about protecting the environment. (Id.) Here, the Appeal has been brought by a developer that appears to be weaponizing CEQA as a delay tactic to injure the City’s interests and exert leverage for an unrelated development sponsored by the group’s principals. A summary of this developer’s history of litigation and claims against the City is included as Attachment C to this letter.

V. Conclusion
In sum, the decision before the City Council on July 25 is straightforward. The City has designated the Project Site to allow for large-format retail uses, and it permits a service station in conjunction with large-format retail and approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The Project fully complies with the PA-1 Specific Plan, and it is consistent with the designated use, density, and design standards applicable to the Project Site. As the Costco CEQA Analysis specifies on an impact-by-impact basis and per the Project Approvals, all pertinent mitigation measures from the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR have been imposed upon and required of the Project. The Costco CEQA Analysis, prepared by the City’s expert environmental consultant and supported by peerreviewed expert technical studies, demonstrate that the Project would not result in any impacts peculiar to the Project or the Project Site that were not addressed in the previous EIR, nor would any more severe impacts occur. Therefore, the Project is eligible for the Community Plan Exemption, and no further CEQA review is required or permitted.

We respectfully request that you uphold the action of the Planning Commission, deny the Appeal, and approve the Project on July 25.

Very truly yours,
Anna C. Shimko
cc: Pari Holliday, Costco Wholesale Real Estate Development Director Attachment 4

City of Brentwood City Council
July 19, 2023

Attachment A Professional Resumes
Attachment B Applicant Response to Project Objections
Attachment C Project Opposition Overview
Attachment D Costco Wholesale Fueling Facility Program General Information Attachment 4

Attachment A
Professional Resumes
A-1
The following pages include professional resumes for the following technical experts that contributed to the preparation of technical studies in support of the Costco CEQA Analysis:
• Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Noemi Wyss and Ryan Chiene) • Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (Amy Lopez)
• Ramboll US Consulting, Inc. (Eric Lu and Gwen Pelletier) Attachment 4

Page | 1
Ryan Chiene
Ryan Chiene has over 10 years of experience as an environmental analyst with a specialty in acoustics, air quality, and climate change. Ryan is responsible for preparing and managing environmental and planning studies for public and private sector clients, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for a variety of environmental planning projects involving redevelopment, infrastructure, residential, mixed use, institutional, industrial, and commercial uses. Mr. Chiene also has experience preparing Visual Impact Assessments and Hazardous Materials analyses for various environmental planning projects.

Ryan is experienced in applying a full analysis methodology per EPA, CARB, Air Pollution Control District/Air Quality Management District, and Caltrans/FHWA guidelines. His expertise in Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Assessments includes technical modeling experience using various state and federally approved programs including the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), AERMOD, CALINE4, EMFAC, and RCEM. He also provides a full range of noise impact analyses for public and private sector clients. Ryan utilizes his experience with noise monitoring using Type I rated instruments, as well as sophisticated noise modeling using FHWA-RD-77-108, Traffic Noise Model 2.5, and SoundPLAN to develop noise attenuation recommendations where necessary.

Relevant Experience (* = prior to joining Kimley-Horn)
• University of California, Irvine, Center for Child Health Project, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Assessments, Irvine, CA – Technical Studies Manager. • 995 South Fair Oaks Residential Care Facility Project, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Assessments Pasadena, California – Technical Studies Manager • 845 El Centro Mixed Use Project, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Assessments South Pasadena, California – Technical Studies Manager • Berry DLV4 Delivery Station, Henderson, Nevada, Noise Assessment – Technical Studies Manager
• Southern California Hospital at Culver City – Emergency Department Relocation Noise Analysis, Culver City, CA – Technical Studies Manager
• Rockefeller Heritage Industrial Center, Chula Vista, CA, Noise Assessment – Technical Studies Manager
• Sobrato Residential Development Project, Fontana, CA, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Health Risk, Energy, and Noise Assessments – Technical Studies Manager • Palm Villas at Millennium Project, Palm Desert, CA, Noise Assessment – Technical Studies Manager
• Bellflower Convenience Center Project, Bellflower, CA, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Assessments – Technical Studies Manager • 14201 Paxton Street Self-Storage Project, Los Angeles, CA, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Assessments – Technical Studies Manager • 1560 E Grand Avenue 7-Eleven, Escondido, CA, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Health Risk, Energy, and Noise Assessments – Technical Studies Manager • Thrifty 84 Lumber Project, La Mirada, CA, Noise Assessment – Technical Studies Manager • Speedway Commerce Center II Specific Plan Project, San Bernardino County, CA, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Health Risk, Energy, and Noise Assessments – Technical Studies Manager
Professional
Credentials
• B.S., City and
Regional Planning,
California Polytechnic
State University, San
Luis Obispo
• A.A., General
Education, Cuesta
College
Attachment 4

NOEMI WYSS, AICP | NOISE
Noemi has over eight years of experience in preparing numerous environmental documents in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). She has project managed some of the largest industrial projects in the City of San Jose. Additionally, she provides subject matter expertise for Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, Health Risk Assessments, Noise and Vibration, and Energy as part of environmental documents for private and public improvement projects. Her expertise in Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Assessments includes technical modeling experience using various state and federally approved programs including the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), AERMOD, and EMFAC. She also provides a full range of noise impact analyses for public and private sector clients, in accordance with local, State, and federal impact assessment criteria.

She is an experienced project and program manager with a keen ability to lead multidisciplinary teams, track multiple activities concurrently, and ensure contract compliance by employing exceptional technical, organizational, and interpersonal communication skills.

Relevant Experience
• Bridge Industrial, Qume and Commerce Environmental Impact Report (EIR), San Jose, CA – Project Manager and Air Quality/Noise (AQN) Manager
• Prologis, 6750 Central Avenue Noise Study, Newark, CA – Noise Manager • Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), BATA, I-580 HOV Lane Extension, Oakland, CA – AQ Manager
• Xebec, 469 Piercy Warehouse IS/MND (Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration), San Jose, CA – AQN Manager
• Server Farm, 444 North Nash Street Data Center Project, El Segundo, CA – AQN Manager • Prologis, 5977 & 6001 Silver Creek Valley Road Warehouse, San Jose, CA - AQN Manager • Costco, Westgate Costco EIR, San Jose, CA – Noise Manager • Prologis, 880 Doolittle ISMND, San Leandro, CA - AQN Manager • Link Logistics, Kato Road Development Warehouse, Fremont, CA - AQN Manager • Maverik, The Crossings ISMND, Manteca, CA - AQN Manager • Monterey-Salinas Transit, SURF! Busway and BRT EIR, Monterey, CA – AQN Manager • City of Pacific Grove, American Tin Cannery Hotel and Commercial Project EIR, Pacific Grove, CA – AQN Manager
• Fortinet, Fortinet Industrial, Sunnyvale, CA – AQN analyst • Panattoni, Citation Business Park, Hollister, CA - AQN planner • Artesia Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan Amendment, Artesia, CA – Air Quality Planner • City of Fontana, Almond Truck Parking Project, Fontana, CA - AQN analyst • GBN Partners LLC., Vineyards at Deer Creek Specific Plan and EIR, Brentwood, CA – Project Planner
Education
Master of Science in
Urban and Regional
Planning, University of
California Irvine
Bachelor of Arts,
International Relations,
Boston University
Professional Credentials
American Institute of
Certified Planners, No.
31863
Member, American
Planning Association
Attachment 4

AMY LOPEZ | ASSOCIATE PLANNER

EDUCATION
 MS Engineering and
Transportation Planning,
California Polytechnic State
University, SLO
 Master of City and Regional
Planning, California
Polytechnic State University,
San Luis Obispo
 BA Architectural Studies,
University of Kansas

YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
10 Amy Lopez is an associate planner managing traffic operations, planning, and design projects that improve safety, mobility, and access for all roadway users, especially more vulnerable users. The cross section of Amy’s projects center on CEQA and transportation impact analysis, complete streets planning, designing facilities to improve safety for all users, and identifying neighborhood traffic solutions. She brings expertise in the thoughtful analysis of project issues, using an approach that considers owner and stakeholder needs, and community engagement objectives—with the goal of achieving consensus around proposed transportation improvements. Amy is skilled at conveying technical information clearly to different audiences. She is adept at collaborating with organizations and agencies to determine the questions that need to be answered through analysis and listening to community members’ experiences.

PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Transportation Impact Analysis and Traffic Engineering. Amy has led transportation impact analysis and/or CEQA analysis for public and private developments in California. She has performed and overseen analysis of vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) and multimodal impacts for projects in several California cities, working with agency staff to implement CEQA standards and evaluate the tradeoffs between making improvements and potentially causing secondary impacts to other modes. She also peer reviews transportation impact analyses prepared by other organizations. Such projects include:
 Costco Wholesale Warehouses in:
 Brentwood, CA
 Fresno, CA
 Newark, CA
 San Jose, CA
 Costco Wholesale Fuel Station Additions/Expansions in:
 Fremont, CA
 Hayward, CA
 Novato, CA
 La Habra, CA
 Laguna Niguel, CA
 Livermore, CA
 San Jose, CA
 San Ramon, CA
 Sand City, CA
 Torrance, CA
 Tracy, CA
 Costco Wholesale Distribution Warehouses in:
 Fresno, CA
 Torrance, CA
 Alameda Point Redevelopment TIA & EIR Circulation Section; Alameda, CA  Hayward General Plan EIR Circulation Section, Hayward, CA  Summit Charter School TIA, El Cerrito, CA
 Hayward High School TIA, Hayward, CA
 Cherryland Elementary School TIA, Hayward, CA
 Harder Elementary School TIA, Hayward, CA
 Lighthouse School TIA, Oakland, CA
 Making Waves Academy TIA, Richmond, CA
 Richmond Charter Elementary School TIA, Richmond, CA
 Mollie Stone’s Market TIA, San Francisco, CA
 Whole Foods 365 TIA, San Francisco, CA
Attachment 4

AMY LOPEZ | Associate Planner

City of Oakland Traffic Engineering and Planning On-Call Services; Oakland, CA Grand Avenue Corridor Conceptual Design. Amy is project manager for the development of conceptual design plans and supporting traffic operations analyses to reconfigure 1.7 miles of Grand Avenue. Improvements to the corridor include constructing parking-protected bike lanes, a two-way cycle-track, transit boarding islands, ADA access upgrades, commercial loading zones, slip-lane closures, and signing and striping. The Kittelson team developed the design plans and conducted traffic operations analysis to inform decisions regarding trade-offs between improvements to meet City of Oakland priorities and community interests. 14th Street Safe Routes in the City. Amy was project manager for a complete street concept design and implementation plan for 14th Street from Brush Street to Lake Merritt. Project concepts addressed commercial and passenger loading to meet the demands of businesses along the corridor, and pedestrian/bicyclist safety and comfort and transit performance to contribute to greater corridor mobility. The Kittelson team prepared an existing conditions analysis of transit and traffic operations, pedestrian "walkability," parking and loading activity, and equity/disparity, and then worked with the City to develop a final corridor concept with planning-level cost estimates and a phasing plan. Kittelson also supported the City in community outreach.

Foothill Blvd Pedestrian Safety Study. Amy led a study of pedestrian safety along 1.5 miles of this priority multimodal corridor in Oakland. Kittelson analyzed existing conditions and identified near-term improvements to address uncontrolled crossings and lighting conditions. This involved analyzing crash data; field evaluations of sightlines, lighting, and driver behavior; feasibility of pedestrian hybrid beacon and rectangular rapid-flashing beacon treatments; recommending different street cross sections; prioritizing recommended improvements; and supporting City staff in community outreach activities.

Active Transportation Program + Safe Routes to School Grant Applications. Amy has led and currently is leading the development of Active Transportation Program funding applications for OakDOT. Amy collaborates with engineers and planners to identify candidate project locations, screen the locations and projects to identify the most competitive SRTS projects. She leads the development of conceptual design plans and cost estimates. Under her leadership, the Kittelson team prepares the full application, incorporating key information from City staff to prepare competitive benefit-cost ratios and compelling applications.

Road Diet Feasibility Studies. Amy was previously part of the Kittelson team that developed Oakland’s methodology for evaluating road diets and roadway reconfigurations and created the City’s report templates for roadway reconfiguration studies to increase efficiency in producing and reviewing the studies. Since then, Amy has led a team applying the methodology for nine road diet feasibility studies in Oakland. Her team analyzed crash patterns and bicyclist and pedestrian comfort. The team also provided design guidance for restriping the streets with bicycle facilities and pedestrian safety improvements.

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) On-Call Services; San Francisco Area, CA.

Traffic Calming Evaluation. Amy led the team analyzing and evaluating over 100 traffic calming devices installed throughout San Francisco to provide a framework for evaluating traffic calming projects and weighing benefits and tradeoffs. Factors under consideration included speeds, daily volumes, and environmental data related to traffic calming devices through the city (speed humps, speed cushions, rubber speed humps, speed tables, raised crosswalks, and intersection “thumbnail” islands). The evaluation also included development and analysis of a survey of residents who have traffic calming devices on their street.

Safe Streets Project Evaluation Handbook. Kittelson developed the Safe Streets Project Evaluation Handbook for the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA). Amy coordinated directly with SFMTA staff to identify data types and methods for data collection, specialized analysis methodologies, and visualization of results for evaluating multimodal projects. Amy also led interviews with several agencies across the country to identify best practices and develop SFMTA’s standard operating procedures and technical materials to evaluate projects going forward.

Tenderloin High-Injury Network Planning Gap Analysis and Corridor Pre-Development. Amy was project manager for an analysis of gaps in the Tenderloin high-injury network. Tasks included feasibility and low-cost treatment selection for enhancing safety throughout the neighborhood.

Attachment 4

AMY LOPEZ | Associate Planner

Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) East 14th Street/Mission Boulevard and Fremont Boulevard Multimodal Corridor; Alameda County, CA. Amy served as a technical lead for this effort for the Alameda CTC to identify implementable near-term, mid-term, and long-term improvements to regional mobility along a 25- mile corridor through five jurisdictions, including the cities of San Leandro, Hayward, and Fremont. The corridor connects to multiple Priority Development Areas around downtown neighborhoods and BART stations. The project combined analyses of transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and traffic circulation systems with stakeholder engagement that led to the development of improvement concepts to address anticipated projected growth along the entire corridor.

San Luis Ranch Development; San Luis Obispo, CA. In coordination with a partner civil engineering firm, Kittelson provided transportation engineering services for the San Luis Ranch development in San Luis Obispo. Amy managed Kittelson design team, coordinating technical work, which included: 1) intersection analysis of alternatives to support biking facilities along a mile-long stretch of Madonna Road; 2) roundabout design; 3) intersection geometry improvements; 4) pedestrian hybrid beacon signal design; and 5) protected intersection design.

Attachment 4

1/2

ERIC CHEN LU
Managing Principal
Eric Lu has more than 20 years of experience in air quality management and climate change issues. He has expertise with air quality and GHG emissions inventory and reporting, permitting, health risk assessment, climate action plan development, CEQA, and agency/public stakeholder outreach and communication. He has assisted a variety of clients and entities on complex air quality, GHG, and energy issues including, municipal entities, utilities, and regulatory agencies (e.g., SCAQMD, CARB). He has worked with many private sector clients including oil and gas, manufacturing, landfills, commercial and residential land use development, and renewable energy facilities. Mr. Lu’s experience highlights include numerous projects to perform health risk assessments to assess mobile and stationary sources. Mr. Lu is a Registered Professional Engineer (PE), a Certified Permitting Professional (CPP), and an Accredited Greenhouse Gas Lead Verifier in California. He has a Bachelor’s degree in Chemical Engineering from Brown University and a Master’s degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of California, Berkeley.

COURSES/CERTIFICATIONS
Professional Engineer (Chemical) - California (CH6248), 2015 Certified Permitting Professional - South Coast Air Quality Management District (M6053), 2015
Accredited Greenhouse Gas Lead Verifier with sector specialty in Oil and Gas and Process (ARB Executive Order H-18-087), 2018

MEMBERSHIPS
Air and Waste Management Association (AWMA)

PROJECTS
 Evaluated air quality and climate change impacts including the preparation of complex air emissions inventories (criteria pollutant, toxics, GHGs), air dispersion models and health risk assessments in support of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. Projects have included mixed-use
developments, warehouses, oil and gas production facilities, commercial developments, and airports. This has included evaluation of construction and operational conditions.
 Evaluated the air quality and GHG emissions from a landfill in support of technical studies for CEQA. This included the development of emissions inventories for all sources at the landfill and related operations, air dispersion modelling to evaluate near site impacts, and health risk assessment from facility operations.

CONTACT INFORMATION
Eric Chen Lu
[email protected]
+1 (949) 7983650
Ramboll
5 Park Plaza
Suite 500
Irvine, 92614
United States of America

EDUCATION
1996-1999
MS, Chemical Engineering
University of California
Berkeley, Berkeley
1992-1996
BS, Chemical Engineering
(Honors)
Brown University, Providence
Attachment 4

2/2
Supported the project in the development of the EIR from the technical reports, assisted with responses to public comments on the EIR.
 Prepared and reviewed air quality and greenhouse gas CEQA evaluations as required by various air districts, including, but not limited to, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVACPD), Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
 Directed the efforts to prepare technical reports as required by CEQA for an oil and gas production facility and a renewable energy facility. This included the preparation of geology/soils, biological resources, cultural resources, air quality, greenhouse gas, noise, hazards, hydrology and water quality, and traffic analyses. Provided strategic assistance and coordinated with lead agency and lead agency consultants in the preparation of the EIRs based on our technical reports.  Prepared health risk assessments to evaluate the cancer and noncancer impacts from construction, operational, and freeway emission sources in support of CEQA requirements.  Studied California’s Scoping Plan and research evaluating how California can achieve the GHG reduction goals to evaluate and develop significance thresholds for GHG evaluations as required for CEQA. Incorporated evaluation of the Newhall Ranch Supreme Court Decision to inform the pros and cons of potential significance thresholds.
 Assisted various manufacturing and industrial facilities to assess potential air quality emissions including criteria pollutants and toxic air emissions. Assisted various facilities in maintaining compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) Rule and Regulations. These facilities have included pet food manufacturers, airport/airline facilities, gas production facilities, universities, coatings manufacturers, compost and waste transfer facilities, and pharmaceutical companies. These facilities have encountered issues related to the Regional Clean Air Incentives Market rules (RECLAIM) and Title V. Assisted with annual emissions reporting and permitting.
 Evaluated the odor impacts and SCAQMD air permitting requirements for a plastics recovery and recycling process and an organic waste recycling process. The scope of work included evaluating the process for rule applicability and emission evaluation, emissions evaluation, health risk assessment.

Worked with the project engineers to evaluate process design changes to identify emission reduction approaches. Performed odor sampling to assess odor impacts based on a test facility.  Designed and implemented ambient air monitors for inorganics and organic compounds. The monitoring was in support of various applications including perimeter monitoring during remediation, operational impact evaluation, air permit compliance requirements, as well as for litigation support.  Directed the ongoing compliance work at a hazardous waste management facility. This includes the maintain of an ambient air monitoring program, health risk assessment preparation, and other compliance evaluations. Assisting with responses to DTSC comments regarding an ambient air monitoring plan and human health risk assessment workplan.  Managed and participated in large litigation support teams to complete complex technical analysis including source testing, emissions estimation, health risk assessment, meteorological data evaluation and air dispersion modeling. Provided litigation support in regards to toxic court cases involving oil and gas production facilities, hydrogen sulfide emissions in a city-wide area, mining facilities, paint burnoff ovens, RECLAIM requirements, indoor air quality and cooling tower emissions.

Attachment 4

1/2 CV, GWEN PELLETIERI
Gwen Pelletier
Managing Consultant
Ms. Pelletier has over 20 years of experience with air dispersion modeling (including odor studies), emission inventories, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses, general conformity, transportation conformity, permitting, and risk assessment. She is experienced in numerous emissions inventory and air dispersion models including AEDT, AERMOD, EMFAC, MOVES, OFFROAD, CalEEMod, CALINE4, and CAL3QHC; she also experience with legacy models EDMS, NONROAD, and URBEMIS. She has prepared various air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) assessments for a multitude of public and private industries and agencies including, airports, light rail transit, bus rapid transit, wastewater treatment plants, and water resources (e.g., dam safety projects and river restoration). She is a current member of the FAA’s User Review Group for AEDT, allowing her to beta test future improvements to the model and to recommend new model features. She is also an appointed member and Committee Research Coordinator with the Transportation Research Board’s Environmental Issues in Aviation (AV030) Committee.

CAREER
2003-2022
Principal Environmental Scientist, CDM Smith
Senior air quality specialist responsible for preparing or overseeing technical work related to air quality, greenhouse gases (GHGs), and energy. Experienced with various CEQA/NEPA studies for aviation, dam safety, river restoration, land use development, and others. Responsible for completing general conformity and transportation conformity evaluations for projects located in nonattainment or maintenance areas.

Air permitting experience primarily in the SCAQMD.
2000-2003
Associate, JE Compliance Services, Inc.

Program manager for the USEPA Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI) program, SCAQMD Emissions Reporting, and RECLAIM. Primarily responsible for air dispersion modeling using ISCST3 and other models, which were used for the preparation of health risk or air emissions exposure assessments.

COURSES/CERTIFICATIONS
HMMH Airport Noise Course, 2021
U.S. EPA Completing Quantitative PM Hot-Spots Analyses, 2018 FAA Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) Databases and Data Input, 2017 FHWA Traffic Noise Model 2.5 and Traffic Noise Fundamentals, 2016 AEDT 2b Hands-On Training, 2016
U.S. EPA MOVES2014 Hands-On Training, 2014

CONTACT INFORMATION
Gwen Pelletier
[email protected]
+1 510-420-2513

EDUCATION
2002-2005
MS, Environmental
Studies
California State University,
Fullerton, California, USA
1997-2000
BS, Biochemistry (Cum
Laude)
California State University,
Fullerton, California, USA
Attachment 4

2/2 CV, GWEN PELLETIERI

SELECT EXPERIENCE
− NEPA and CEQA Impact Assessments: Completed the technical air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) analyses for several large environmental projects, including those for aviation, land use development, light rail transit, dam safety and removal, and river restoration. Developed criteria pollutant and GHG emission inventories using a variety of tools for aircraft and auxiliary power unit emissions (AEDT and EDMS), on-road motor vehicles (MOVES and EMFAC), and offroad construction equipment and ground support equipment (OFFROAD, NONROAD, and ACEIT).

Completed carbon monoxide (CO) hot spots evaluations using CALINE4 or CAL3QHC(R).

Completed air dispersion modeling using AERMOD and subsequently compared results to the NAAQS and CAAQS to determine if a project could cause or contribute to the nonattainment of a criteria air pollutant. When applicable, compared project emissions to quantitative thresholds to determine significance.
− AEDT Software Beta Testing: Served a lead beta tester during development of the FAA’s Aviation Environmental Design Tool Version 2b (AEDT 2b) software. Worked closely with the FAA and Volpe to test the emissions inventory and dispersion modeling subroutines in AEDT 2b.

Various scenarios were tested, including importing previous modeling efforts from EDMS, and identified bugs were communicated to the FAA for correction in subsequent software “sprints.” Ms. Pelletier also formally presented the team’s beta testing results to the FAA in April 2015. She is currently continuing work as a beta tester for the development future iterations of AEDT, including AEDT 4, to be released later in 2023.
− General Conformity Evaluations: Evaluated combined indirect and direct emission inventories to the de minimis thresholds in the general conformity regulation (40 CFR 93, Subpart B) for multiple airports located in areas designated nonattainment or maintenance for a NAAQS to evaluate applicability. Assisted with the preparation of general conformity determinations for projects with emissions that exceeded the de minimis thresholds. − Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories: Prepared GHG emission inventories for major airports using protocols and methods from the California Climate Action Registry and The Climate Registry. Developed GHG emission inventories for reporting to ACI’s Airport Carbon Accreditation (ACA) Program and recently began assisting with ACA verification reports.

MEMBERSHIPS
Transportation Research Board (TRB) Environmental Issues in Aviation (AV030) Committee Air & Waste Management Association
ACI-NA Environmental Affairs Committee
Attachment 4

Attachment B
Applicant Response to Project Opposition
B-1
As discussed in our letter, WCHB, LLC filed an appeal of the Project Approvals and the Contra Costa Climate Action Coalition submitted a letter dated June 30, 2023 opposing the Project. The Appeal and the CCCAC Letter are mistaken on the facts and the law applicable to the Project. Both claim that CEQA requires the City to conduct additional environmental review prior to approving the Project, when in fact the City has already conducted the necessary CEQA review. The following Section A responds to each point in the Appeal, and Section B responds to each point in the CCCAC Letter.

A. Responses to Appeal.

The Appeal opens with a summary of the Project’s background and the PA-1 Specific Plan. As described in Sections I and II of our letter above, the PA-1 Specific Plan designates the Project Site for Regional Commercial uses, which allows large format retail uses, and, with approval of a conditional use permit, service stations as accessory to such uses. The City prepared and certified an EIR for the PA-1 Specific Plan, which includes the 2022 Addendum analyzing the effects of PA-1 Specific Plan amendments to, among other changes, update the Project Site’s zoning designation from Transit Village to Regional Commercial. The Project includes a 154,000-square-foot wholesale Costco warehouse, a fuel facility (classified as a “service station” in City regulations), and other site improvements, which is consistent with the PA-1 Specific Plan’s use and density requirements applicable to the Project Site.

The Appeal incorrectly asserts that the Project does not qualify for the Community Plan Exemption because it is not consistent with the PA-1 Specific Plan’s development standards. As discussed in Section III of our letter above, the Community Plan Exemption requires that the Project be “consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15183(a).) The PA-1 Specific Plan designates a maximum 0.6 floor area ratio for projects in the Regional Commercial zone, and the Project represents a floor area ratio of approximately 0.2, well within the PA-1 Specific Plan’s development density. Therefore, the Project is eligible for the Community Plan Exemption.

Further, the Appeal claims that because the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR is a “program EIR,” CEQA Guidelines § 15168 requires that later activities must be examined in the light of the program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared.

However, the Appeal ignores the fact that the Costco CEQA Analysis serves precisely this function. The Costco CEQA Analysis examines the Project’s potential environmental effects for each topic area addressed in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR, compares the Project’s specific impacts to the impacts analyzed in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR, and concludes that no further CEQA review is required. Therefore, the Costco CEQA Analysis not only demonstrates the Project’s eligibility for the Community Plan Exemption, but it also provides the analysis contemplated in CEQA Guidelines § 15168.

Throughout its analysis, the Appeal incorrectly asserts that the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR never evaluated the site-specific or use-specific impacts of developing large format retail stores and service stations at the Project Site. The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR, as updated by the 2022 Addendum, analyzed the environmental effects associated with zoning the Project Site as Regional Commercial, which allows both large format retail uses and, with approval of a Attachment 4

Attachment B
Applicant Response to Project Opposition
B-2
conditional use permit, a service station. Therefore, contrary to the Appeal’s claim, the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR did address the specific impacts associated with the Project’s zoningcompliant buildings and uses. Moreover, the City’s Costco CEQA Analysis includes additional Project-specific technical analyses (performed at an EIR level of detail) that confirmed the Project would not result in any significant impacts not already analyzed by the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.

Sections III and IV of our letter above provide additional information about the Project’s eligibility for the Community Plan Exemption and explain why CEQA dictates that no further environmental review be undertaken to support Project approval.

1. Aesthetics.

The Appeal asserts that a change from Transit Village to Regional Commercial zoning would result in new impacts, particularly in connection with the lighting used in the Project’s parking lot. The Appeal is fundamentally flawed in that it treats the Project as changing the Specific Plan designation of the Project Site, and chooses to ignore the applicable Regional Commercial designation for the Project Site. The Project requires no zone changes. The Project is consistent with the PA-1 Specific Plan’s land use designations, which were fully analyzed in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR. To the extent the Appeal believes the 2022 Addendum employed to redesignate the Project Site to Regional Commercial was inadequate, such claims are untimely and thus wholly impermissible.

Moreover, the record demonstrates the Project would comply with Section 3.1 of the PA1 Specific Plan. Pages 26 and 27 of the Costco CEQA Analysis discuss the Project’s lighting plans in detail and describe how the Project complies with applicable lighting standards.

Therefore, there is substantial evidence to support the City’s conclusion that the Project would not result in new or increased aesthetics impacts as compared with the conclusions in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.

2. Air Quality.

The Appeal claims that the Project Site’s change in presumed use from Transit Village to Regional Commercial would result in new air quality impacts because the mobile traffic patterns for the two uses are different. Again, the Project does not require any zone changes. The Project is consistent with the PA-1 Specific Plan’s land use designations, which were fully analyzed in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR. To the extent the Appeal believes the 2022 Addendum did not capture the effects of the 2022 designation change, such claims are untimely. In any event, the Appeal ignores the fact that the Transit Village designation allowed large format retail uses such as the proposed Costco warehouse store on the Project Site prior to the 2022 amendments. Thus, the claim that the introduction of large format retail uses would affect the traffic patterns and associated air quality emissions is patently incorrect.

Putting firmly to rest the Appeal’s critique of the Project with respect to air quality and health risk effects, the air quality experts from Ramboll completed a thorough and comprehensive Project-specific analysis of the Project’s potential construction and operation air quality impacts. Such analysis not only evaluated consistency between the Project effects and Attachment 4

Attachment B
Applicant Response to Project Opposition
B-3
those studied in the EIR, but it quantified the effects of the Project as set against the existing environment, overlaying all Project effects on the vacant Project Site and judging them by Bay Area Air Quality Management District (“BAAQMD”) suggested CEQA significance criteria.

The air quality technical report thereby contained all information as if no prior CEQA review had been conducted and the Project were being judged from scratch. Hence, nothing more could be done, and the complaints within the Appeal ring hollow.

The Appeal’s claim that a “volumetric analysis” that compares the square footage of the proposed Project to the corresponding square footage for retail development in the PA-1 Specific Plan is inadequate is thus flawed because the Appeal ignores the separate air quality impact technical analysis that is part of the Costco CEQA Analysis. This comprehensive air quality analysis estimated the mass emissions from motor vehicles that would occur during operation of the proposed Project, including any emissions associated with truck hauling and deliveries.

As shown in Table B-1 of the Air Quality Technical Report, emissions from member vehicles, employee trips, and fuel, warehouse, and tire center delivery trucks were estimated. The analysis captured all phases of vehicle operation, including exhaust emissions (including running, startup, and idling), evaporative emissions, and fugitive dust emissions from tires, brakes, and roads.

As shown in the analysis, regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) would decrease because some trips to the Antioch or Tracy Costco warehouses would be replaced with trips to the new Brentwood warehouse. As such, criteria air pollutant emissions would decrease compared to existing conditions (see Table B-7 of the Air Quality Technical Report). The net emissions difference (i.e., the difference between the proposed Project and existing conditions) was then compared to the BAAQMD suggested CEQA significance thresholds; all Project pollutant emissions were found to be less than significant.

The Appeal also claims that the fuel station creates new air quality impacts associated with vehicle idling, venting fumes, and potential spills. The Air Quality Technical Report includes a full health risk assessment (HRA) to analyze impacts associated with operation of the proposed Project, including the fuel facility. As shown in Appendix E of the Air Quality Technical Report, emission sources associated with the proposed fuel facility (including tank loading and breathing, refueling and hose permeation, and spillage) were specifically evaluated in the HRA (see Tables E-1 and E-2). Idling emissions from fuel, warehouse, and tire delivery trucks, as well as fuel station passenger vehicles (see Table E-3) and truck and passenger vehicle travel (see Table E-4) were also included in the HRA. Table 5-4 of the Air Quality Technical Report shows that health risk impacts from operation of the proposed warehouse would not exceed the BAAQMD recommended CEQA significance thresholds.

Furthermore, Costco employs myriad operational and design features to prevent environmental impacts from and ensure safe operations of its fuel facilities. Specific and proven technological, regulatory, design, and operational measures that are part of the Project are described in detail in Attachment D to this letter.

Attachment 4

Attachment B
Applicant Response to Project Opposition
B-4
Therefore, substantial evidence amply supports the City’s conclusion that the Project would not result in new or increased air quality impacts as compared with those found in the PA1 Specific Plan EIR.

3. Biological Resources.

The Appeal claims that the existing CEQA analysis does not address the project-specific direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts that could result from operating a fuel station or other proposed uses on site, in particular that increased traffic and lighting would affect wildlife habitat and movement. As noted in Section A.2 above, VMT associated with the Project would decrease, meaning there would be reduced impacts overall from traffic to wildlife movement. As discussed in Section A.1 above, the Project would comply with lighting requirements and minimize light and glare impacts, avoiding spill beyond the Project Site and preserving dark skies. The Appeal’s comments are simply speculation, and do not provide evidence of an impact. Therefore, there is substantial evidence to support the City’s conclusion that the Project would not result in new or increased biological resource impacts as compared with impacts identified in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.

4. Geology and Soils.

The Appeal points out that the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR requires all future projects within the Specific Plan Area to prepare geotechnical soils investigations to address seismic safety issues and implement adequate mitigation strategies to offset potential hazards identified. Here, the expert consultant Kleinfelder prepared a geotechnical study for the Project that includes recommendations that have been incorporated into the Project’s design. Furthermore, Costco employs a considerable number of operational and design features to prevent any environmental impacts associated with the fuel facility, including impacts from geological events. Specific technological, regulatory, design, and operational measures that are included within the Project are described in detail in Attachment D to this letter. Therefore, there is substantial evidence to support the City’s conclusion that the Project would not result in new or increased geology and soils impacts as compared with the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR’s findings.

5. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

The Appeal claims that additional environmental review is required because of sitespecific impacts associated with the transportation and sale of gasoline, but it fails to name a single site-specific impact. The Appeal incorrectly assumes that the Project would result in greenhouse gas (“GHG”) impacts due to new uses as compared with uses studied in the Specific Plan EIR. The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (which includes the 2022 Addendum) already addressed the potential impacts of allowing fuel stations in the Regional Commercial zone within the PA-1 Specific Plan, so additional review is not required. Furthermore, as pointed out in our letter above, the possibility of new fuel facilities locating within the PA-1 Specific Plan area likely diminished with the 2022 changes to the PA-1 Specific Plan.

In addition, the Costco CEQA Analysis does indeed include Project-specific determinations regarding the impacts from the proposed large format retail store and the associated fuel facility. As described for air quality impacts in Section A.2 above, impacts from Attachment 4

Attachment B
Applicant Response to Project Opposition
B-5
mobile sources, including idling from the fuel facility, were analyzed for the Project consistent with BAAQMD recommendations and CEQA standards.

Mass emissions from the proposed Project were compared to existing conditions to evaluate how motor vehicle traffic patterns associated with the Project would affect the region.

Specific emission sources analyzed in the GHG assessment include landscaping equipment, electricity usage, natural gas combustion, motor vehicle emissions, water usage and solid waste disposal (Table 4-4 and Appendix A of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report).

Appendix B of the GHG Technical Report specifically estimates GHG emissions from motor vehicles, including member vehicles, employee trips, and fuel, warehouse, and tire center delivery trucks (Table B-1 of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report). In addition to GHG emissions from idling, as requested in the Appeal, exhaust emissions from running and starting were also estimated (Tables B-3 through B-5 of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report). Table B-6 shows that net GHG emissions would decrease compared to existing conditions because of decreased VMT as Costco members change their shopping habits to visit the proposed Brentwood warehouse instead of the Antioch or Tracy warehouses.

Furthermore, Appendix C of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report shows that the Project would be consistent with the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan and the MTC/ABAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy.

As described above in Section A.1 with respect to air quality analysis, the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report evaluated both consistency between the Project effects and those studied in the EIR as well as the effects of the Project as set against the existing environment. Accordingly, the GHG analysis demonstrates that the Project would result in a less than significant impact even if no prior CEQA review had been conducted and the Project were being judged from scratch. Therefore, substantial evidence supports the City’s conclusion that the Project would not result in new or increased impacts associated with GHG emissions as compared with the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.

6. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

The Appeal claims that the City has “essentially [made] an admission of significant impacts” regarding hazards and hazardous materials by acknowledging that the Project would be subject to a number of specific regulatory requirements that address the transport and use of gasoline. The Appeal incorrectly asserts that these regulatory requirements are mitigation measures that should be imposed via an EIR; however, the Appeal ignores the Community Plan Exemption’s provisions stating that an impact “shall not be considered peculiar to the project or the parcel” if “uniformly applied development policies or standards” will substantially mitigate environmental effects. (CEQA Guidelines § 15183(f).) The Costco CEQA Analysis’s discussion of uniform regulatory requirements that apply to the Project to minimize potential impacts is therefore consistent with reliance on the Community Plan Exemption.

Furthermore, Costco employs myriad operational and design features to prevent environmental impacts associated with the fuel facility, each of which are designed to minimize hazardous conditions. Such specific technological, regulatory, design, and operational measures (all of which are part of the Project) are described in detail in Attachment D to our letter.

Plainly, substantial evidence fully supports the City’s conclusion that the Project would not result Attachment 4

Attachment B
Applicant Response to Project Opposition
B-6
in new or increased hazards or hazardous materials impacts as compared with impacts identified in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.

7. Hydrology and Water Quality.

The Appeal claims that there is no analysis of potential new significant impacts associated with changes to the area’s surface cover, including paved surfaces, and no analysis or acknowledgement of potential contamination from automobile-related uses, including potential spills at the fuel station. This assertion ignores the fact that the Costco CEQA Analysis includes a Hydrology and Water Quality Report that specifically acknowledged that the development of the Project would “potentially increase local runoff production, and would introduce constituents into storm water that are typically associated with urban runoff,” including “heavy metals (such as lead, zinc, and copper) and petroleum hydrocarbons” typical of fuel stations. (Costco CEQA Analysis, p. 85.) The report concluded that the impacts from developments like the Project were adequately addressed in the Specific Plan EIR, and that complying with the mitigation measures in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR and Addendum would result in no new or more severe impacts than those that were previously analyzed. No evidence undermines this conclusion.

8. Noise.

The Appeal claims that the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR does not analyze or mitigate the potential noise impacts associated with changing mobile traffic patterns and operational uses associated with the Project. This is not correct. As described above, the Project is consistent with the PA-1 Specific Plan, and no land use changes are proposed. Therefore, the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR’s analysis is applicable to the Project. Moreover, the Costco CEQA Analysis includes an Acoustical Assessment prepared for the Project by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

The Acoustical Assessment demonstrates that noise associated with Project construction and operation, including noise from traffic coming to and from the Project Site, would be below the City’s noise standards. Therefore, the record contains substantial evidence to support the City’s conclusion that the Project would not result in new or increased noise impacts as compared with impacts studied in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.

9. Population and Housing.

The Appeal claims that the PA-1 Specific Plan’s Regional Commercial designation applicable to the Project Site would have different effects than the Project Site’s former Transit Village designation. As an initial matter, the Project does not propose any change in permissible land uses, and to the extent the Appeal objects to the PA-1 Specific Plan designations and analysis in the associated EIR as modified by the 2022 Addendum, such claims are untimely and barred.

Moreover, the 2022 Addendum did address this specific change; it specified that the estimated population under the original Specific Plan was 4,569 persons, while the estimated population under the modified Specific Plan is 4,579 persons – a total increase of only 10 persons. (2022 Addendum, p. 6.) The Costco CEQA Analysis demonstrates how the Project is consistent with this assumption. Furthermore, the prior TV designation allowed development of the Costco warehouse; the change to the RC designation only facilitated approval of the fuel Attachment 4

Attachment B
Applicant Response to Project Opposition
B-7
facility, which is staffed by a single employee at any time. Therefore, there is substantial evidence to support the City’s conclusion that the Project would not result in new or increased population and housing impacts as compared with those analyzed in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.

10. Public Services.

The Appeal claims that the Costco CEQA Analysis “assumes that the Project “would not require the development of a new facility or modifications of an existing facility at this time,” and that additional analysis is needed to determine whether the Project’s proposed uses would require new or additional fire or emergency services in the City. (Appeal, p. 7.) This mischaracterizes the level of analysis included on pages 104 through 107 of the Costco CEQA Analysis. As discussed therein, the General Plan EIR policies and actions, which apply to this project, require the Brentwood Police Department and the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District to evaluate proposed projects’ impacts on services and requires the City to impose conditions of approval, if needed. The City reviewed the Project in accordance with these General Plan policies and actions; neither the Police Department nor the Fire Protection District determined that additional facilities are needed. Therefore, substantial evidence supports the City’s conclusion that the Project would not result in new or increased public services impacts as compared with impacts shown in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.

11. Transportation and Traffic.

The Appeal claims that mobile vehicle traffic patterns for uses allowed under the Regional Commercial designation are different than what would have occurred under the Transit Village designation. As noted above, the Project does not propose any land uses changes, and to the extent the Appeal’s comment relates to the adequacy of the 2022 Addendum adopted in connection with PA-1 Specific Plan amendments, such comments are submitted far too late. In any event, as also explained above, the Costco warehouse could have been constructed consistent with the prior TV designation. The Appeal also ignores the fact that the Costco CEQA Analysis relies on a Project-specific Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Kittelson & Associates, Inc. The TIA analyzed all traffic associated with the Project, including truck traffic, and this analysis was used to support the Project-specific air quality analysis discussed in Section A.2 above.

The Appeal claims that the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR did not adequately analyze truck and other traffic that would be generated by the Project. In fact, the TIA includes the very analysis that the Appeal claims is lacking. The TIA evaluates the difference in travel patterns with the Project as compared to travel patterns envisioned at the time the PA-1 Specific Plan was developed. The TIA specifically analyzes Project-related truck traffic and truck access to the Project site. Moreover, the City's design review process involves evaluating site access and circulation (including emergency ingress and egress) for all anticipated vehicle types to ensure access is feasible and well-designed. The City will further require that the Project construct transportation infrastructure improvements near the Project site based on the findings of the TIA.

Accordingly, the TIA provides evidence in support of the conclusions presented in the Costco CEQA Analysis that documents there are no site-specific or cumulative impacts associated with the Project that have not been fully addressed in the prior EIR or that cannot be reduced to a lessAttachment 4

Attachment B
Applicant Response to Project Opposition
B-8
than-significant level through the application of uniformly applied development polices and/or standards.

Notably, the Costco CEQA Analysis concludes that the vehicle miles traveled (the current measure of transportation impacts under CEQA) will decrease with the Project, representing an environmental benefit not envisioned when the EIR was prepared and the Specific Plan approved.

The Appeal also incorrectly claims that the Project is inconsistent with two policies in the PA-1 Specific Plan. In particular, PA-1 Specific Plan Policy C.11 requires new development projects that generate more than 50 employees to implement a Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) program. The City requires all Projects to comply with Specific Plan policies, and Costco is prepared to demonstrate its full compliance with this measure prior to commencing operations. Costco has experience implementing TDM Plans at other warehouses.

Costco understands that here the City will need to sign off on a TDM Plan before Project operations commence and Costco will be obligated thereafter to implement such plan.

Accordingly, Costco will prepare and submit a TDM Plan in coordination with the Planning Department as part of its on-going work with the City to secure permits for construction and occupancy. The Appeal further claims that the Project is inconsistent with PA-1 Specific Plan Circulation Design Guideline No. 10, which requires commercial projects to incorporate curbside drop-off and pick-up areas. As is the common practice at other Costco warehouses, the perimeter of the building entrance area is available for drop-off and pick-up. Sheet A-002 of the Project Plans depicts a curbside pick-up and drop-off area that wraps around the entrance area, satisfying this standard. (Project Plans, Sheet A-002.) Therefore, the Project complies with both cited policies.

Finally, the Appeal claims that additional CEQA review is required to study the Project’s emergency ingress and egress. Evaluation of emergency access is a standard step in the City's design review process. This Project site plan has been evaluated for emergency access and meets City standards.

In light of the above, the City’s conclusion that the Project would not result in new or increased transportation impacts as compared with impacts identified in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR is supported by substantial evidence.

12. Wildfire Hazards.

The Appeal incorrectly asserts that the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR did not contemplate the uses proposed by the Project. As discussed above, the Project is consistent with the uses allowed by the PA-1 Specific Plan, and challenges to that document or its associated environmental review are time-barred. Moreover, the Costco CEQA Analysis found that the project would have no impacts related to wildfire risks because the Project Site is not located in or near any state responsibility areas or any lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. Therefore, there is substantial evidence to support the City’s conclusion that the Project would not result in new or increased wildfire hazard impacts as compared impacts studied in with the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.

Attachment 4

Attachment B
Applicant Response to Project Opposition
B-9
With regard to all of the environmental topics addressed above, the Appeal contains mere suppositions, argument, speculation and notions, but is devoid of any evidence that the Project will actually result in significant impacts peculiar to the Project or the Project Site that were not addressed in the EIR or that the Project will result in more severe impacts than identified in the EIR. On the other side of the scale, the Costco CEQA Analysis addresses every CEQA impact topic and employs detailed and thorough Project-specific technical reports to demonstrate that the Community Plan Exemption criteria are met.

13. The Project is Consistent with the PA-1 Specific Plan and Further CEQA Review is Not Required.

The Appeal incorrectly asserts that the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR inadequately addressed impacts associated with the uses allowed by the Specific Plan. See Sections A.1 through A.12 above for an explanation of why those claims are incorrect. Sections III and IV of our letter further explain how and why the Project is consistent with the PA-1 Specific Plan for purposes of the Community Plan Exemption and that further CEQA review is not required.

14. The Proposed Tentative Parcel Map Findings Required by Brentwood Municipal Code Section 16.050.040 and Government Code Section 66474 Are Supported by Substantial Evidence.

Substantial evidence supports the City’s findings made in connection with Tentative Parcel Map approval as explained in Resolution 23-020. Brentwood Municipal Code Section

16.050.040 and Government Code Section 66474 require denial of a tentative parcel map application under certain conditions. The Appeal claims that the City was required to deny the tentative parcel map application because (1) the Project does not comply with Specific Plan policies, (2) the Project is not consistent with the Specific Plan, and (3) there is not evidence that the site is suitable for the proposed uses. Regarding (1) and (2), as described above, the record is replete with substantial evidence that the Project complies with Specific Plan policies and is consistent with the Specific Plan. Regarding (3), the Appeal misstates the law. Brentwood Municipal Code Section 16.050.040 and Government Code Section 66474 require denial of a tentative parcel map if the site is not physically suitable for the proposed type of development.

No part of the Municipal or Government Code addresses general suitability for a site’s proposed purposes. Physical suitability has to do with the characteristics of a particular piece of land. For example, a parcel fully covered by a tar pit would not be physically suitable for development of a building, and a parcel with a particularly steep grade would not be physically suitable for development of a public school. Nothing about the Project Site makes it physically unsuitable for the proposed Project. The City was not required to deny the tentative parcel map application, and approval was proper.

15. The Proposed Conditional Use Permit Findings Required by Brentwood Municipal Code Section 17.830.005 Are Supported by Substantial Evidence.

The Planning Staff Report for the June 20, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting outlines the many reasons that the location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the Project fuel facility will be compatible with and will not adversely affect the livability of abutting properties Attachment 4

Attachment B
Applicant Response to Project Opposition
B-10
and the surrounding neighborhood. (June 20, 2023 Staff Report, “Conditional Use Permit Analysis”.) This explanation was incorporated by reference into Resolution 23-021, which further sets forth the basis for the City’s actions with specific findings consistent with Brentwood Municipal Code section 18.830.005. Collectively, this constitutes substantial evidence in support of the City’s conclusion that the conditions to approve a conditional use permit for the fuel center have been satisfied.

16. The Proposed Design Review Findings Required Pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section 17.820.007 Are Supported by Substantial Evidence.

The Planning Staff Report for the June 20, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting outlines the reasons that the project will be harmonious with surrounding development and meet the required design review findings. (June 20, 2023 Staff Report, “Design Review Analysis”.) This explanation was incorporated by reference into Resolution 21-022, which further sets forth the basis for the City’s actions with specific findings consistent with Brentwood Municipal Code section 17.820.007. Collectively, this constitutes substantial evidence in support of the City’s conclusion that the conditions to approve design review have been satisfied.

17. The Proposed Master Sign Program Findings Required Pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section 17.640.008.B Are Supported by Substantial Evidence
The Planning Staff Report for the June 20, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting outlines the evidence demonstrating that the proposed sign program will comply with applicable code requirements. (June 20, 2023 Staff Report, “Master Sign Program Analysis”.) This reasoning was incorporated by reference into Resolution 21-023, which further sets forth the basis for the City’s actions with specific findings consistent with Brentwood Municipal Code section

17.650.008.B. Collectively, this constitutes substantial evidence in support of the City’s conclusion that the conditions to approve the master sign program have been satisfied.

B. Responses to CCCAC Letter.

The CCCAC Letter makes unsubstantiated assertions with respect to the Project’s effect on air quality, noise and health impacts caused by Project construction and traffic, and urban decay. As explained above, the Costco CEQA Analysis includes Project-specific evaluations of applicable environmental topics and provides substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the Project would not result in impacts that differ from those analyzed in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR. Specific responses to the CCCAC Letter’s claims follow below.

1. The PA-1 Specific Plan EIR and Costco CEQA Analysis Fully Address the Project’s Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impacts.

The CCCAC Letter asserts that because the Project will generate traffic and idling cars waiting to use the fuel facility, additional environmental analysis is required related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and toxic air contaminants caused by Project traffic.

Attachment 4

Attachment B
Applicant Response to Project Opposition
B-11
See responses provided above in Sections A.2 (Air Quality), A.4 (GHG Emissions), and A.11 (Transportation and Traffic). As explained above, increased GHG and toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions were thoroughly analyzed in the GHG and Air Quality Technical Reports prepared by Ramboll in support of the Costco CEQA Analysis. The analysis captured all phases of vehicle operation, including exhaust emissions (including running, startup, and idling), evaporative emissions, and fugitive dust emissions from tires, brakes, and roads. Additionally, all facets of the fuel facility operation, including loading, breathing, refueling, hose permeation, and spillage, were included in the air quality and TAC assessment (Table 4-3 of Air Quality Technical Report). Consistent with BAAQMD recommendations and CEQA standards, criteria pollutant, GHG, and TAC emissions from the construction and operation from the Project were compared to existing conditions to determine whether the Project would generate significant impacts. Project emissions were compared to CEQA significance thresholds developed by the BAAQMD. All impacts associated with criteria pollutants, GHG emissions and TAC emissions were found to be below significance thresholds.

Specifically, a health risk assessment was undertaken to assess potential impacts to nearby sensitive receptors from operational and construction emissions, including those from the fuel facility. The technical analysis concluded that the Project will not cause health risks of concern. Furthermore, the fuel facility would operate in compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 7 and state regulations, further ensuring that the local community would not experience health risks due to operation of the fuel station.

As shown in Table B-6 of the GHG Technical Report, there would be a net negative of GHG emissions due to reduced VMT as Costco members would travel fewer miles to shop at the Brentwood warehouse instead of Tracy and/or Antioch. The BAAQMD does not have a mass emissions significance threshold for GHG emissions; however, significance was determined by evaluating consistency with the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR. As shown in Table 5-1 of the GHG Technical Report, mass emissions from the proposed warehouse would be less than those estimated for the PA-1 Specific Plan. Therefore, all proposed Project impacts were found to be less than significant.

Finally, as discussed in Section A.11, the TIA analyzed both VMT, a factor for evaluating GHG emissions, and traffic operations for projected Project traffic. The analysis found that the Project would result in a reduction in overall VMT and identified infrastructure improvements to reduce the effects of Project traffic on traffic operations on the surrounding roadway network. Therefore, it is clear that substantial evidence supports the City’s conclusion that the Project would not result in new or increased air quality, greenhouse gas, or transportation impacts as compared with the analysis in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.

2. The Fuel Facility will not Significantly Impact Sensitive Receptors.

The CCCAC Letter asserts that the Project’s fuel facility is located too close to residential areas and that it would result in health impacts to nearby residents. The CCCAC Letter ignores the Project-specific analysis in the record that was prepared to evaluate these precise concerns.

As demonstrated in the technical studies prepared by Ramboll Consulting and peer reviewed by De Novo Planning Group, the fuel facility would not result in significant impacts to any sensitive receptors, including nearby residences.

Attachment 4

Attachment B
Applicant Response to Project Opposition
B-12
The air quality, GHG, and TAC assessments followed guidance from BAAQMD and CEQA for determining project significance. Emissions of the afore-mentioned pollutants from operation and construction of the proposed Project were compared to existing conditions to determine Project impacts. As explained above, all impacts would fall below significance thresholds.

In addition, a comprehensive HRA was completed to evaluate potential impacts from operation of the proposed Costco warehouse, including the fuel facility. Figure 4 of the Air Quality Technical Report shows the extensive receptor grid that covers surrounding residential, sensitive, and commercial land uses up to 2,000 meters from the Project property line. This coverage meets BAAQMD recommendations and would capture all nearby potential sensitive receptors. The HRA was prepared in a manner consistent with the scientific and regulatory guidelines developed by the BAAQMD and the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). Detailed information concerning the HRA methodology is provided in Chapter 5 and Appendices C through F of the Air Quality Technical Report. All impacts to nearby sensitive receptors were found to be less than significant and thus no additional mitigation measures are required.

As described in the Costco CEQA Analysis, the Project would incorporate many sustainability features that would reduce impacts. Key features that would directly or indirectly reduce criteria pollutant, GHG, or TAC emissions include:
• LED fixtures in parking lots
• High-efficiency restroom fixtures
• No-VOC floor sealants
• Deliveries made in full trucks
• All Costco trucks equipped with engine idle shutoff timers This list of measures does not preclude additional project design features that could be used by Costco to reduce emissions during warehouse operation. Beyond Costco’s corporate sustainability initiatives, the Project would also comply with all rules and regulations of the BAAQMD, including best available control technology for the fuel facility and any other stationary sources.

Plainly, there is substantial evidence to support the City’s conclusion that the Project would not result in new or increased health risk impacts to sensitive receptors as compared with impacts studied in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.

3. There is No Evidence of Urban Decay Impacts.

The CCCAC Letter asserts without evidence that the Project would result in urban decay impacts in Brentwood. There is nothing in the record to support the CCCAC Letter’s bald assertion that local businesses would fail as a result of the Project, nor does the CCCAC Letter make any effort to link this speculative outcome to any physical environmental effects. Costco is expected to generate economic benefits for the City, including a new shopping destination in a location where existing Costco members are underserved.

Attachment 4

Attachment B
Applicant Response to Project Opposition
B-13
In addition, the Project would generate up to 300 new high-quality jobs, further creating economic opportunity. The CCAC Letter asserts, again without evidence, that such workers would not live in the City, which would lead to increased commute times. The data simply does not support this claim. The Project’s TIA analyzed both VMT, a factor for evaluating GHG emissions, and traffic operations for projected Project traffic. The analysis found a less than significant VMT impact and identified infrastructure improvements to reduce the effects of Project traffic on traffic operations on the surrounding roadway network. Therefore, the claim that commuting workers would cause significant traffic impacts is incorrect.

4. Project Noise and Light Levels Would Not Result in Significant Impacts.

The CCCAC Letter asserts that that “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” with “extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA result[ing] in permanent cell damage [. . .]” It claims that the Project’s construction will result in new significant noise impacts. As an initial matter, once construction is complete and Costco operations begin, noise levels will remain below the allowable noise threshold of 55 dBA in residential areas and below 72 dBA in commercial areas. (Costco CEQA Analysis, p. 91-95.) During construction, there would be periods of time that noise levels exceed 75 dBA; however, such exceedances are consistent with City noise standards and would not be peculiar to the Project or the Project Site. Noise impacts would not deviate from the conclusions presented in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.

For additional discussion of Project noise and light impacts, see Sections A.1 and A.8, above.

5. The Project Does Not Trigger the Need for Additional Mitigation Measures or Traffic Improvements.

The CCCAC Letter asserts that Project traffic would create unsafe conditions triggering the need for additional bicycle and pedestrian improvements in Brentwood, Antioch, and Oakley.

As an initial matter, the CCCAC Letter fails to establish a nexus between any of the Project’s impacts and the requested improvements. Therefore, there is no legal basis to require the improvements outlined in the CCCAC Letter. The Project’s TIA analyzed the transportation impacts associated with the Project. The report identifies infrastructure improvements that would minimize the effect of the Project on the circulation network. The Project is a regional commercial development, specifically a Costco warehouse. Due to Costco's business model to sell bulk goods and large, bulky goods, its warehouses do not attract or generate substantial bicycle or pedestrian traffic, beyond pedestrian activity within the parking lot. Therefore, the bicycling and walking circulation improvements described in the CCCAC Letter do not address any Project effects on the circulation network.

Regardless, Costco has worked with the City (and the neighboring City of Antioch) to identify and implement transportation system improvements, some of which align with comments in the CCCAC Letter. For example, the TIA analyzed traffic operations at the intersection of Cañada Valley Road and Lone Tree Way. The TIA provided suggested signal timing and infrastructure improvements. The Project applicant has agreed with the City of Attachment 4

Attachment B
Applicant Response to Project Opposition
B-14
Antioch to make improvements at this intersection, including modifying the signal timing as informed by the TIA, and extending the westbound left-turn lanes within the road segment between Cañada Valley Rd and the southbound SR 4 ramp terminals to provide more queue storage. For additional discussion of Project transportation impacts, see Section A.11, above.

As explained throughout this letter, the City has fully complied with CEQA, and the Costco CEQA Analysis demonstrates that the Project would not result in new or more severe impacts as compared with the conclusions in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR. Therefore, no further analysis is required to comply with CEQA, and the CCCAC Letter’s claims do not provide a basis to deny, delay, or further condition the Project.

Attachment 4

Attachment C
Project Opposition Overview
C-1
On June 28, 2023, the City received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s unanimous adoption of the Costco Project Approvals from Ellis Raskin of the law firm Hanson Bridgett on behalf of WCHB, LLC. The Appeal represents that WCHB, LLC is the “owner and developer of the Bridle Gate residential development project” located south of the PA-1 Specific Plan area that includes the Project Site.

As the owner of the Bridle Gate project, WCHB, LLC and affiliated entities under common ownership and control (e.g. West Coast Home Builders, Inc., WCHB Development, LLC and Discovery Builders, Inc. and collectively, “WCHB”) have a long and contentious history with the City regarding the Bridle Gate project. WCHB has in the past challenged the City’s actions related to the Bridle Gate project and other unrelated projects in an apparent effort to persuade the City to approve the Bridle Gate project. WCHB’s late-breaking and current interest in the Costco Project may reflect a similar tactic, appealing the City’s approval of Costco in anticipation of upcoming City actions related to the Bridle Gate project.

As summarized below, WCHB has been attempting to secure City approval of its Bridle Gate project since 2001. Although the City approved a version of the Bridle Gate project in 2006, WCHB substantially revised its proposal and reapplied for new approvals. Due to the perception that the City’s review was moving too slowly, WCHB filed a lawsuit against the City regarding the pace of the City’s preparation of the EIR for the Bridle Gate project. WCHB filed a second lawsuit against the City challenging the City’s approval of an unrelated residential project on the grounds that the City had not complied with CEQA in approving such project.

The City and WCHB entered into a settlement agreement under which the City agreed to complete processing WCHB’s Bridle Gate project and WCHB agreed to abandon its claim against the unrelated project. The City subsequently denied WCHB’s revised Bridle Gate project application in 2021, and WCHB sued the City a third time to challenge the denial.

WCHB submitted a third application for a version of the Bridle Gate project in late 2021.

WCHB filed a fourth lawsuit against the City, again alleging that the City’s review of the Bridle Gate project was not progressing quickly enough. The City prepared a Revised EIR for this version of the project, which it circulated for public review earlier in 2023. The City Planning Commission is scheduled to review and act on WCHB’s revised Bridle Gate application in August of 2023, with Council action expected to follow later in the year.

In the meantime, WCHB has appealed to the City Council the Planning Commission’s approval of the Costco Project. WCHB has not asserted that the Costco Project would impact its property or its Bridle Gate project.

A specific timeline of these events follows below.

Attachment 4

Attachment C
Project Opposition Overview
C-2
Date Action

1. March 2001 WCHB submits first application to develop Bridle Gate residential project (Bridle Gate I)

2. June 6, 2006 City approves Bridle Gate I subdivision map and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

3. June 12, 2017 WCHB submits revised Bridle Gate application (Bridle Gate II)

4. September 2, 2019 City releases Notice of Preparation for Bridle Gate II EIR

5. January 31, 2020 WCHB files lawsuit against the City alleging that the City violated CEQA by failing to timely process the Bridle Gate II EIR (Contra Costa Superior Court, case no. N20-0210)

6. February 26, 2020 WCHB files lawsuit against the City alleging that the City failed to comply with CEQA prior to approving unrelated residential development project (Contra Costa Superior Court, case no. N20- 0357)

7. May 21, 2020 WCHB and City enter into Settlement Agreement for City to process and act on Bridle Gate II application in exchange for WCHB staying and ultimately dismissing its two lawsuits

8. Late 2019 - 2020 City prepares EIR for Bridle Gate II

9. March 9, 2021 City Council denies Bridle Gate II application and declines to certify EIR

10. June 7, 2021 WCHB files lawsuit against the City challenging the City’s denial of Bridle Gate II project (Contra Costa Superior Court, case no.

N21-0980)

11. October 2021 WCHB submits another revised Bridle Gate application (Bridle Gate III)

12. August 31, 2022 WCHB files lawsuit against the City alleging that the City violated the Permit Streamlining Act and various state housing laws by failing to timely process the Bridle Gate III application (Contra Costa Superior Court, case no. N22-1738)

13. December 29, 2022 City releases Notice of Preparation for Bridle Gate III Revised EIR

14. Early 2023 City prepares Revised EIR for Bridle Gate III

15. August 2023 Expected Planning Commission action on Bridle Gate III Revised EIR and application

16. Fall 2023 Expected City Council action on Bridle Gate III Revised EIR and application
Attachment 4

Attachment D
D-1
Attachment 4

General Information -1- July 2023
Introduction
The Costco Gasoline fueling facility component to this Costco Wholesale development will include equipment of the latest technology, with many safety features to prevent potential environmental impacts, designed in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements, and will be installed by State Certified Installation Contractors according to specific construction guidelines and requirements. Below are some of the operational and design features that provide exceptional environmental safeguards.

Operational Features

1. The Costco Gasoline fueling facility is designed to operate as an unattended self-serve facility.

However, Costco Wholesale's policy is to provide a Costco Gasoline Program trained employee and supervisor at the site during all hours of operation. The Costco Gasoline training program includes an interactive test that all gasoline employees must pass before working at a Costco Gasoline facility.

2. In addition to the above-mentioned employee, the facility is supported by senior management in the Warehouse during all gasoline station operation hours. The supervisor will be equipped with a roam telephone programmed to receive calls from the fueling facility and Warehouse.

Every gasoline facility is equipped with a "911" telephone that automatically contacts emergency dispatch in addition to a regular telephone line and roam phones.

3. Employees are trained to identify maintenance requirements and physically inspect the fuel islands regularly during operating hours. Their training includes the proper spill clean up and emergency response procedures. Trained employees check for leaking hoses, malfunctioning nozzles, fuel spills, and physical damage to the dispensers and controller enclosure. During non-operating hours, the power to the dispensers is turned off and each nozzle pad is locked.

Should the system require attention beyond what the trained site person could handle, the local authorized and certified service contractor would be contacted and dispatched to repair the equipment.

4. Emergency shutoff switches are installed next to the controller enclosure and in locations near the dispensers, as dictated by the fire code.

5. Closed circuit television monitor cameras aimed to show all fueling positions, the tank slab, and equipment enclosure are mounted on canopy columns adjacent to the fuel islands. A split screen monitor located in the Costco Warehouse allows for full-time monitoring of the fueling operation. All images are recorded by the camera system.

6. The tank and piping monitoring system is programmed to activate visual/audible alarms in the event of an alarm condition. A visual/audible alarm is also located on the outside of the controller enclosure. Further, the monitoring system is designed so that if power is lost to the monitoring console the facility is shut down and will not operate.

7. An independent security company monitors the Costco Warehouse alarm system. The alarm system acknowledges an alarm condition at the fueling facility and notifies Costco Wholesale management staff of an alarm condition should it occur after operating hours.

Design Features

1. Costco Wholesale's tank and piping system is certified to meet the Federal UST leak detection standards of 95 percent probability of detection and five percent probability of false alarm.

California State Water Resources Control Board also certifies the system under LG-113.

Attachment 4

General Information -2- July 2023

2. Costco Wholesale utilizes one of the most durable joint sealers available today to seal the concrete control joints. PTi sealer is a petroleum-resistant sealant developed by Prevention Technologies, Inc (PTi). The sealer is used to prevent petroleum products from entering the underlying soil at the concrete joints. This product is used for its superior elasticity and userfriendly application. The elasticity allows the product to maintain a tight seal even with concrete expansion. The easy application ensures a proper seal whether it is applied by a contractor or maintenance personnel. Costco Wholesale is one of the few, if not only companies, to have a nationwide standard to seal control joints and other areas to prevent product spills from reaching the soil.

3. The storm drainage system for the fueling facility area will be designed in accordance with State of California Best Management Practices for water quality treatment standards.

Stormwater from the fueling area will be isolated and will be directed to a catch basin and processed through an oil/water separator prior to discharge to the downstream system.

4. The underground tank and piping control units are housed inside the controller enclosure. The enclosure will contain the power console, the dispenser interface unit, the submersible pump variable speed controllers, and the monitoring system console. An air conditioner mounted on the side of the enclosure will have a preset thermostat to maintain a safe operating temperature.

5. The USTs and all containment sumps, including the dispenser sumps are all double-walled fiberglass. Fiberglass is used for its corrosion resistance and plasticity. The double-walled storage tank system includes a hydrostatic interstitial space sensor that monitors the primary and secondary tank walls. If a tank wall is compromised, the interstitial sensor will immediately shut down the product delivery system and activate a visual/audible alarm.

6. The tanks are secured in place with anchoring straps (tie-downs) connected to concrete hold down deadmen. The entire tank excavation hole is backfilled with pea gravel and capped with an 8-inch-thick reinforced concrete slab (overburden). The tie-downs, together with the overburden, overcome any possible buoyancy factors and resist buckling under hydrostatic pressures. Please see the attached exhibit illustrating the anchoring system.

7. All product, vapor and vent piping is non-corrosive and provides three levels of protection. First, all product piping is monitored with pressure line leak detection. Second, all piping is double wall to provide secondary containment. Third, all fiberglass piping is additionally monitored under vacuum per California 2481 regulations such that if a breach is detected in the vacuum, the product delivery system will shut down and system will sound audible alarm.

8. All piping connections to the tanks and dispensers are flexible. Flexible connectors are used to prevent rupture from any form of ground movement.

9. All piping slopes to the sumps at the USTs. If a piping leak occurs, the gasoline will flow through the secondary pipe to the sump, where a sensor is triggered to immediately shut down the system and activate an audible/visual alarm.

10. All tanks and dispensers are equipped with latest Phase I and Phase II Enhanced Vapor Recovery (EVR) vapor recovery air pollution control equipment technology per CARB regulations and associated Executive Orders. The Phase I EVR equipment controls the vapors in the return path from the tanks back to the tanker truck during offloading filling operations.

The Stage I EVR systems are 98 percent effective in controlling fugitive emissions from escaping into the environment. The Phase II EVR equipment controls the vapors in the return path from the vehicles back to the tanks and are 95 percent effective in controlling fugitive emissions from escaping into the environment.

Attachment 4

General Information -3- July 2023

11. The UST monitoring system incorporates automatic shutoffs. If gasoline is detected in the sump at the fuel dispenser, the dispenser shuts down automatically and an alarm is sounded.

If a problem is detected with a tank, the tank is automatically shut down and an alarm is sounded. If the product piping system detects a failure of the 0.1 gallons per hour (GPH) test, the line is automatically shut down and the alarm is sounded. Pursuant to federal requirements, monitoring equipment must be able to detect a minimum leak of 3 GPH (equivalent to the accuracy of a mechanical leak detector). By providing monitoring to a higher standard (0.1 vs. 3), Costco maintains a higher degree of safety than required by current federal requirements.

12. Each fuel dispenser includes several safety devices. Specifically, each dispenser sump is equipped with an automatic shutoff valve to protect against vehicle impact. In addition, each fuel hose includes a poppeted breakaway device that will stop the flow of fuel at both ends of the hose in the event of an accidental drive-off. Also, each dispenser is equipped with internal fire extinguishers. Lastly, all dispensers include leak detection sensors connected to the alarm console inside the controller enclosure.

Regulatory Agencies and Regulations
As described above, the Costco Wholesale retail fueling facility provides a significant number of features to reduce and control the potential for environmental health hazards. All systems to be installed are of the latest technology and meet or exceed all local, state, and federal regulations.

The following is a list of regulations and agencies that govern gasoline facilities and require specific permits or approvals. This list shows the magnitude of the regulatory environment that governs this industry.

1. California Fire Code, Chapters 22 and 34

2. California Code of Regulations Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 16 ("California Underground Storage Tank Regulations")

3. California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.7 ("Underground Storage of Hazardous Substances")

4. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Underground Storage Tank Regulations (Subpart D, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 280)

5. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL)

6. National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) Articles 30 and 30A, regarding Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code

7. American Petroleum Institute (API) Recommended Practices for Installation of Underground Storage Systems

8. California Air Resources Board (CARB) Executive Orders and Procedures and Local Air Quality Management District Regulations

9. Local County Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Division, CUPA, which provides enforcement of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Regulations Attachment 4

Attachment 5

CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD

DENYING AN APPEAL FILED BY WCHB, LLC OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF 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 1.38 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.

WHEREAS, Arcadia Development Co (the “Applicant”) has submitted an application for a tentative parcel map for the Costco development located south of Lone Tree Plaza Drive and east of Heidorn Ranch Road; and WHEREAS, the Applicant concurrently submitted a request for a design review (DR 22-002) to allow the construction of the Costco retail warehouse, fuel facility and associated site improvements, conditional use permit (CUP 22-001) for fueling facility use, and a master sign program (MSP 22-001) for the Costco signage within the project; and
WHEREAS, collectively, MS 351-22, DR 22-002, CUP 22-001, and MSP 22- 001 constitute the “Project;” and
WHEREAS, the City referred the Project to various departments and agencies for review and recommendations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood has considered Minor Subdivision No. 351-22 to allow the subdivision of two parcels (19.04 acres, and 4.02 acres) into a total of four smaller parcels, 1.38 acres, 1.66 acres, 2.23 acres, and 17.79 acres respectively; and
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2018, the City Council adopted the PA-1 Specific Plan and certified the associated PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (State Clearinghouse (SCH) #2018042064) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), codified at Public Resources Code §§ 15000, et seq., and as further governed by the State CEQA Guidelines, found at 14 CCR 21000, et seq. 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; and WHEREAS, on October 11, 2022, the City Council approved an Addendum to the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR to amend the PA-1 Specific Plan and completed additional environmental review; and
WHEREAS, the Project is consistent with the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (EIR) and subsequent Addendum and would not result in any Project-specific significant effects to the environment, and is therefore determined to be exempt per California

Attachment 5

Environmental Quality Act Section 15183 (‘Consistent with Community Plan, General Plan, and Zoning Code’); and
WHEREAS, the City distributed a Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners of record within 300 feet of the Project Site and published it in the Brentwood Press on June 9, 2023, in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090, and a public hearing notice sign was posted on the site during this same timeframe for the June 20, 2023 Planning Commission hearing; and WHEREAS, on June 20, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood held a public hearing, reviewed said tentative parcel map request, and studied the compatibility of this request with adjacent land uses, and considered this request in accordance with the tentative parcel map criteria established in Section

16.050 of the Brentwood Municipal Code, as well as the State Subdivision Map Act; and
WHEREAS, on June 20, 2023, the Planning Commission approved the requested Minor Subdivision No. 351-22 for the Costco project, by Planning Commission Resolution No. 23-020; and
WHEREAS, on June 28, 2023, WCHB, LLC filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Tentative Parcel Map MS 351-22, Conditional Use Permit CUP 22-001, Design Review DR 22-002, and Master Sign Program MSP 22-001 for the Costco project; and
WHEREAS, the City distributed a Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners of record within 300 feet of the Project Site and published it in the Brentwood Press on July 21, 2023, in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090, and a public hearing notice sign was posted on the site during this same timeframe; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered an appeal of the Project at its regular meeting of July 25, 2023, and considered the staff report, all accompanying information, and testimony received from the Permittee and other interested parties.

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

A. Hereby finds that, in accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, and based on the entirety of the record of proceedings, including the Environmental Checklist for Streamlined Review prepared for this Project, that the Project is consistent with the land use designation and densities established by the PA-1 Specific Plan, for which an EIR was certified. In particular, the Project would not result in any significant impacts that: (1) are peculiar to the project or project site; (2) were not identified as significant project-level, cumulative, or off- site effects in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR; or (3) were previously identified significant effects, which as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the

Attachment 5

time that the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR was certified, are determined to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR. As a result, the Project is exempt from further environmental review under CEQA.

The City Council directs staff to file a Notice of Exemption for this Project with the County Clerk within five working days of the project approval.

B. With respect to the tentative parcel map findings required pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code section 16.05.040 and Government Code section 66474:
a. That the proposed map is consistent with the community development plan and any applicable specific plans;
The proposed subdivision is in conformance with the City of Brentwood General Plan and the PA-1 Specific Plan, insomuch as the project will help to establish a land use pattern in Brentwood that provides for a diverse, self-sufficient community that offers a broad spectrum of job opportunities, housing types, community facilities, and commercial services (Goal LU 1) while also providing a diversified mix of service commercial activities and employment opportunities that contribute to Brentwood’s economic well-being (Goal LU 3). The project complies with the Land Use Element in that the proposed retail warehouse and fueling facility will support the continued development and intensification of employment centers within the city by establishing 250-300 new job opportunities (Policy LU 3-1 and 3-3). Lastly, the development of the warehouse use will also attract economic growth, by encouraging employment opportunities, and by providing needed services for the community (Goal ED 1 and 2).
b. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the community development plan and any applicable specific plans;
The proposed design and improvements are in conformance with the City of Brentwood General Plan and the PA-1 Specific Plan, insomuch as the subdivision will allow development of the Project Site for commercial uses, provides for vehicular and pedestrian circulation and infrastructure improvements designed to facilitate the efficient movement of people and goods (Goal CIR 1), requires payment of impact fees to mitigate the effects of the development on infrastructure and potential habitat (Action COS 3a), and will adhere to noise restrictions during construction (Action N 1e). The project will also ensure that the City’s circulation network is a well-connected system of streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, and paths that effectively accommodates vehicular and nonvehicular traffic in a manner that considers the context of surrounding land uses and the needs of all roadway users (Policy CIR 1-2), while designed in a logical and orderly manner, focusing growth on infill locations and areas designated for urbanization on the Land Use Map

Attachment 5

(Policy LU 1-4). Additional the project complies with other elements of the General Plan as described in finding B(a) above.
c. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development; The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed by MS 351-22 insomuch as the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision will not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board because the Permittee will be required to make the necessary improvements to tie in to the City’s stormwater and sewer facilities, as well as treat all stormwater runoff, and the design of the subdivision and the associated improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems due to the fact that this project will be required to construct all of the necessary improvements needed to ensure a safe and healthy development, including all Federal, State, and local regulations. d. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development in that in this context, the “development density” of the site is understood to be the floor area ratio. Insomuch as the maximum FAR allowed at the site is 0.6, and the project proposes to build 0.2, it is consistent with the development density established by the General Plan, Specific Plan, and Zoning applicable to the site. In addition, the lots exceed the minimum lot size required by the development standards contained in the PA-1 Specific Plan and the lots are relatively flat. e. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat unless an Environmental Impact Report (‘EIR’) was prepared with respect to the project and a finding was made pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(C) that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measure or project alternatives identified in the EIR.

The design of the subdivision and the associated proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, nor is it likely to unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitats, as all potential impacts have been analyzed in the associate environmental analysis for the project consistent with the previous EIR prepared for the Project site and addressed through the mitigation measures and the conditions of approval.

In addition, the City amended the PA-1 Specific Plan and adopted an Addendum to the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR on October 25, 2022

Attachment 5

(“Addendum”). The most relevant changes related to Project Site included changing the Specific Plan designation of the 19.04-acre Costco site from Transit Village/Mixed Use (“TV/MU”) to Regional Commercial (“RC”). The 4.02-outparcel site maintained its original designation of TV/MU. The Addendum analyzed changes to the permitted uses in the RC zone. Specifically, large format retail no longer required a CUP, and fuel stations are permitted with approval of a CUP in the RC zone. (Addendum, pp. 4-9 – 4-10.) The Addendum found that none of the minor changes associated with the modified project, such as allowing a fuel station, have the potential to result in new or more severe environmental impacts than those that were analyzed and disclosed in the Certified EIR, for which Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations were adopted by the City Council. (Addendum, p. 9.) Accordingly, the Addendum analyzed changes to the TV/MU and RC zones, and the Project complies with the standards of said zones.
f. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems.

The design of the subdivision and the associated improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems due to the fact that the design and improvements allow for adequate emergency vehicle access, and do not include the use or transport of any hazardous materials. In addition, the project includes proposed improvements necessary to ensure a safe and healthy development, including adequate wastewater and potable water infrastructure, streets that meet the City’s specifications, street lighting, and compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations designed to protect public health.

In addition, as noted above, development of the Project Site was previously studied through the preparation of the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2018042064) and a subsequent Addendum to said EIR. The Project itself has also been analyzed through the preparation of a site specific CEQA analysis per State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. None of these analyses have given rise to evidence that the Project will create serious public health problems. g. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.

The design of the subdivision and the associated improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision as an access and cross-access easement will be recorded with this project.

Attachment 5

C. Hereby approves Minor Subdivision No. 351-22 subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and made a part of this resolution, and all City standards applicable to this project.

D. The documents and materials associated with this Resolution that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at 150 City Park Way in Brentwood, California. Planning Manager Erik Nolthenius is the custodian of records for the record of proceedings
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this tentative parcel map is valid for two years and will expire on July 25, 2025, unless a final map is recorded prior to that date, or written extension application request and application fees are submitted by the applicant and approved by the Planning Commission prior to the expiration date.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at its regular meeting on July 25, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

RECUSE:

APPROVED:
_______________________________
Joel R. Bryant
Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Margaret Wimberly, MMC
City Clerk

Attachment 5

EXHIBIT “A” TO
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 351-22

1. The Permittee, including all successors in interest (collectively, “Permittee”) shall comply with each and every condition set forth in the Permit. Minor Subdivision Map No. 351-22 (the “Permit”) shall have no force or effect and no building permit shall be issued unless and until all things required by the below-enumerated precedent conditions have been performed. The Permittee shall develop the site in accordance with the approved attachments and as modified by these Conditions of Approval.

2. All applicable Standard Conditions of Approval for Tentative Parcels Maps, dated May 2005, are hereby incorporated by reference and shall be complied with by the Permittee, unless modified by any of the conditions herein.

3. The Parcel Map shall be in substantial compliance with the Tentative Parcel Map prepared by Kimley Horn, dated “Received June 8, 2023,” unless modified by the Planning Commission or other conditions herein.

4. Prior to approval of a final parcel map, the Permittee shall establish easements for reciprocal access, parking, emergency vehicle access, landscaping and public utilities over private driveways and parking lots on the map or by separate instrument to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

5. The Permittee shall establish utility easements for water and sewer mains and landscape irrigation and maintenance throughout the project site to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. These easements shall be recorded in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer prior to the recordation of a final map for this project.

6. The Permittee shall indemnify, defend with counsel of the City’s reasonable choosing, and hold harmless City and its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents (the “Indemnified Parties”) from and against any third party claim, action, or proceeding against City and/or the Indemnified Parties to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the City’s approval of the project approved herein, including adoption of MS 351-22, and any environmental determination made with regard thereto. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, reasonable attorneys' fees, and other reasonable expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding. The Permittee shall pay to the City upon demand or, as applicable, on a monthly basis to counsel of City’s reasonable choosing, amounts owed pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. City shall promptly notify the Permittee of any claim, action, or proceeding and shall engage in reasonable efforts to cooperate in the defense.

Attachment 5

7. The Project shall be consistent with all applicable City’s General Plan Policies.

8. All improvements shall be designed and constructed; all permits issued; all fees paid; and all securities submitted pursuant to applicable Federal and state laws, the Subdivision Map Act, the Brentwood Municipal Code, the City Engineering Department’s Standard Plans and Specifications, and the City Engineering Department’s Engineering Procedures Manual.

9. Permittee and all construction plans and maps shall comply with Brentwood Municipal Code Title 8 “Health and Safety,” Title 9 “Public Peace and Welfare,” Title 12 “Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places,” Title 13 “Sewers,” Title 14 “Water,” Title 15 “Building and Construction,” and Title 16 “Subdivision and Land Development.” In particular:
a. Solid waste service shall comply with Brentwood Municipal Code Chapter

8.16 “Solid Waste.”
b. Construction and demolition work shall comply with Brentwood Municipal Code Chapter 8.40 “Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling.” c. Permittee shall comply with Brentwood Municipal Code Chapter 9.32 “Noise Regulations.”
d. Permittee shall comply with the encroachment permit requirements pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Chapter 12.08 “Street Encroachments.”
e. Sewer backflow prevention, interceptors, and other health and safety requirements shall be incorporated into the project pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Chapter 13.04 “Sewer System – Rules and Regulations.” f. Brine-discharging self-regenerating water softener systems are prohibited pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section 13.04.022.B. g. Recycled water services shall comply with Brentwood Municipal Code Chapter 13.06 “Recycled Water Regulations.”
h. Water service shall comply with Brentwood Municipal Code Chapters 14.01 “Municipal Water System” and Chapter 14.10 “Cross-Connection Control.” In addition and to comply with both health and safety requirements as well as the City’s Engineering Design Standards, all projects serving more than 25 units shall design and construct at least two independent points of potable water supply to the Project.
i. Contractors requiring construction water shall obtain a temporary water permit and shall only take water metered at a location specified by the City

Attachment 5

Engineer pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section 14.01.340 “Contractors.”
j. Permittee shall comply with the Federal Clean Water Act, the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit, and Brentwood Municipal Code Chapter 14.20 “Stormwater Management and Discharge Control.”
k. Fire access and aerial apparatus access shall comply with the requirements of the Fire District and Brentwood Municipal Code Chapter 15.06 “Fire Code.”
l. Grading shall comply with Brentwood Municipal Code Chapter 15.52 “Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control.”
m. All grading and noise generating activities shall be limited to the days and hours defined in Brentwood Municipal Code Section 15.52.060 “Grading Regulations.”
n. In addition to the indemnification obligation set forth above, Permittee shall indemnify the City pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section

15.52.160 “City Held Harmless.”
o. Permittee shall obtain all required permits including, but are not limited to:
buildings; sewer connections; encroachment; grading; use; business license; water connection; Army Corps of Engineers; Contra Costa County Flood Control; California Department of Fish and Wildlife pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section 16.120.050 “Procedures.” p. All storm drain, sewer, water and street systems shall be designed and sized to accommodate such additional flows, volumes or loads as may be contributed by the most intensive developed land use of the lands adjacent to or beyond the limits of the subdivision pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section 16.120.080.
q. All public facilities shall be constructed and any existing deficiencies shall be corrected. This includes both required on- and off-site public facilities and any deficiencies on-site, abutting the parcel or parcels involved or required off-site to provide service to the proposed development or for the continued safety, health and well-being of the public upon completion of the development pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section

16.120.090 “Public Facilities Installation.”
r. Utilities shall be installed underground pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section 16.120.120 “Undergrounding – Electric, Communication, Street Lighting and Advanced Technology Systems.”
s. All landscaping installed by the project shall be from trees and plants selected from the City Approved Drought Tolerant and Native Plant List and

Attachment 5

Appendix B of the Contra Costa Clean Water Program C.3 Guidelines for bioretention facilities to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation and City Engineer.

10.Prior to issuance of a grading permit:
a. Permittee shall coordinate the review of grading plans and obtain approval from PG&E for all proposed grading within the PG&E easement. b. The height and location of all proposed retaining walls, including deepened curbs and bioretention walls, shall be shown on the Grading Plans.

Retaining walls over three feet in height shall be structurally engineered, and shall require separate building permits.
c. Construction Plans shall demonstrate with plans, analysis, or other documentation signed and stamped by a licensed Civil Engineer that there is adequate overland drainage release to an adequate public drainage facility to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Permittee shall acquire drainage easements, if necessary.
d. Permittee shall provide approved hydrology and hydraulic calculations signed by a licensed engineer demonstrating that the Project will adequately collect and convey all runoff within the Project as well as the entire developed watershed upstream of the Project pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code 16.120.080C.

11.Prior to issuance of an encroachment permit or approval of Improvement Plans:
a. Permittee shall coordinate the review of construction plans and obtain approval from PG&E for all proposed improvements within the PG&E easement.
b. Construction Plans shall include all utilities, including, but not limited to, meters, hydrants, poles, signs, clean-outs and boxes to be located clear of all trails, sidewalks and driveways or as determined by the City Engineer. c. Construction Plans shall include all utilities with seismic considerations to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Construction Plans shall note that construction all gravity utilities (i.e. storm drain, sewer) to always commence at the downstream connection and proceed to the upstream terminus.
e. Construction Plans shall include cathodic protection measures for all buried metallic infrastructure pursuant to City Standards or as approved by the City Engineer.

Attachment 5

f. Construction Plans shall include all proposed storm drain inlets to include and update existing storm drain inlets along the project frontage with “No Dumping – Drains to Creek” thermoplastic stencils to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g. Permittee shall obtain approval from the City Engineer on the Project Operation and Maintenance Manual for all stormwater control systems.

Said Manual shall comply with all applicable Municipal Regional NPDES Permit requirements including, but not limited to, maintenance, sediment removal, weed and trash abatement, and the use of chemicals. h. Construction Plans shall include all landscaping with adequate root barriers to protect all City facilities, including but not limited to sidewalks, utilities, meters, ramps, and driveways.
i. Permittee shall have a licensed Land Surveyor locate all existing survey monuments on or adjacent to the project, and show said monuments as protected on all construction plans.
j. Construction Plans shall include a Traffic Control Plan in conformance with the latest edition of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices issued by Caltrans and as required by the City Engineer.
k. Construction Plans shall include Emergency Vehicle Access areas to comply with the requirements of the Fire District, and that ingress and egress is provided to all neighboring properties during construction. l. Construction Plans shall incorporate roadways and driveways that provide adequate sight distance pursuant to City and Caltrans design requirements.

All landscape areas required to have restrictions to comply with sight distance requirements shall be shown on applicable Construction and Plot Plans.
m. Construction Plans shall incorporate all-weather vehicular access from a public road to all proposed and existing public storm drain, sewer, water, and non-potable water mains, appurtenances, and easements subject to approval of the City Engineer.
n. Permittee shall provide approved hydrology and hydraulic calculations signed by a licensed engineer demonstrating that the Project will adequately collect and convey all runoff within the Project as well as the entire developed watershed upstream of the Project pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code 16.120.080C.

12.Prior to approving the Parcel Map:
a. Parcel Map shall comply with the current Subdivision Map Act.

Attachment 5

b. The Project shall annex into the most current City Community Facilities District, and annex into, or form a street lighting and landscape maintenance assessment district, or provide and execute an alternative funding mechanism acceptable to the City for the maintenance of City improvements.
c. The Project shall annex into the most current Emergency Medical and Fire Protection Serving Funding Community Facilities District as required by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District.
d. All applicable City fees shall be paid including, but not limited to, the Agricultural Mitigation Fee, the Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District Fee.

13.Prior to issuance of any Building Permits:
a. Permittee shall provide adequate emergency vehicle access from between the public right of way and around building footprint(s) the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
b. Permittee shall provide an approval signed and sealed by a geotechnical or structural engineer of the location, nature and proximity of stormwater features near or adjacent to buildings as determined by the City Engineer.

Locations and design of any mitigating structural design feature (i.e. foundations) shall be shown on the appropriate construction plans. c. Permittee shall pay all Development Impact Fees pursuant to, or otherwise comply with the latest City of Brentwood Development Impact Fee Program. d. Permittee shall provide documents signed by a licensed engineer on building pad elevation, compaction, and appropriate remediation from unsuitable soils.
e. Permittee shall demonstrate that all acoustic mitigations have been incorporated into applicable plans.

Attachment 6
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD

DENYING AN APPEAL FILED BY WCHB, LLC OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF 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.

WHEREAS, Arcadia Development Co (the “Applicant”) submitted an application to the City of Brentwood, requesting approval of a conditional use permit application (CUP 22-001) for the development of a Costco fueling facility with a 11,500 square foot canopy over 16 fueling dispensers, which allows for 32 fueling positions. The project 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 WHEREAS, the Applicant concurrently submitted requests for a tentative parcel map (MS 351-11), design review (DR 22-002) to allow the construction of the Costco retail warehouse, fuel facility and associated site improvements, and a master sign program (MSP 22-001) for the Costco signage within the project; and WHEREAS, collectively, MS 351-22, CUP 22-001, DR 22-002, and MSP 22- 001 constitute the “Project;” and
WHEREAS, the City referred the Project to various departments and agencies for review and recommendations; and
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2018, the City Council adopted the PA-1 Specific Plan and certified the associated PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (State Clearinghouse (SCH) #2018042064) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), codified at Public Resources Code §§ 15000, et seq., and as further governed by the State CEQA Guidelines, found at 14 CCR 21000, et seq. 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; and WHEREAS, on October 11, 2022 the City Council approved an Addendum to the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR to amend the PA-1 Specific Plan and completed additional environmental review; and
WHEREAS, the Project is consistent with the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (EIR) and subsequent Addendum and would not result in any Project-specific significant effects to the environment, and is therefore determined to be exempt per California Environmental Quality Act Section 15183 (‘Consistent with Community Plan, General Plan, and Zoning Code’); and

Attachment 6
WHEREAS, the City distributed a Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners of record within 300 feet of the Project Site and published it in the Brentwood Press on June 9, 2023, in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090, and a public hearing notice sign was posted on the site during this same timeframe for the June 20, 2023 Planning Commission hearing; and WHEREAS, on June 20, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, reviewed said conditional use permit request, studied the compatibility of this request with adjacent land uses, and considered this request in accordance with the conditional use permit criteria established in Chapter 17.830.005 of the Brentwood Municipal Code, as well as considered the staff report, all accompanying information, and testimony received from the Applicant and other interested parties; and WHEREAS, on June 20, 2023, the Planning Commission approved the requested conditional use permit application (CUP 22-001) for the Costco project, by Planning Commission Resolution No. 23-021; and
WHEREAS, on June 28, 2023, WCHB, LLC filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Tentative Parcel Map MS 351-22, Conditional Use Permit CUP 22-001, Design Review DR 22-002, and Master Sign Program MSP 22-001 for the Costco project; and
WHEREAS, the City distributed a Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners of record within 300 feet of the Project Site and published it in the Brentwood Press on July 21, 2023, in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090, and a public hearing notice sign was posted on the site during this same timeframe; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered an appeal of the Project at its regular meeting of July 25, 2023, and considered the staff report, all accompanying information, and testimony received from the Permittee and other interested parties.

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

A. Hereby finds that, in accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, and based on the entirety of the record of proceedings, including the Environmental Checklist for Streamlined Review prepared for this Project, that the Project is consistent with the land use designation and densities established by the PA-1 Specific Plan, for which an EIR was certified. In particular, the Project would not result in any significant impacts that:
(1) are peculiar to the project or project site; (2) were not identified as significant project-level, cumulative, or off- site effects in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR; or (3) were previously identified significant effects, which as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the time that the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR was certified, are determined

Attachment 6
to have a more severe adverse impact than discussed in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR. In addition, the project would also be subject to all applicable requirements identified under the PA-1 Specific Plan and EIR.

As a result, the Project is exempt from further environmental review under CEQA. The City Council directs staff to file a Notice of Exemption for this Project with the County Clerk within five working days of the project approval.

B. With respect to the conditional use permit findings pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section 17.830.005, hereby finds that:
i. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed development must be compatible with and must not adversely affect the livability of appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood.

Consideration shall be given, but shall not be limited to:

1. The harmony in scale, bulk, coverage, and density.

One of the primary concerns in reviewing a conditional use permit application is the effect of the proposed use on surrounding properties, such as compatibility with the
scale, bulk, coverage, and density of both existing and proposed land uses on surrounding lots. The Project is
designed in a manner that is sensitive to nearby
developments in that the fueling facility is positioned internal to the site and does not take direct access onto Lone Tree Plaza Drive, which serves the adjacent
commercial center and is positioned away from Heidorn
Ranch Road which serves more sensitive residential
receptors. The fueling station footprint is minor and the scale of the canopy is proportional to nearby commercial buildings. Finally, the canopy and parking lot
improvements maintain substantial setbacks from all
property lines, thereby accommodating significant
common open space and landscape screening through the
depth of the site.

2. The availability of public facilities and utilities.

The site is served by the appropriate public facilities and utilities. Potable and non-potable water, as well as sewer services are available in adjacent roadways, and storm
drain improvements will be extended along the property
frontages. Electricity and communication cables are
available along the project frontage as well. Solid waste service will be provided by the City of Brentwood and solid waste facilities are included in the Project designs.

Attachment 6

3. The harmful effect, if any, upon desirable neighborhood character or the planned specialization of retail,
commercial, or community service areas.

The proposed fueling facility will be located on a site designated and zoned for commercial retail warehouse use that is being reviewed concurrently with this conditional use permit application and conform to the requirements of the General Plan, the Municipal Code, the PA-1 Specific Plan, and the Commercial and Industrial Design
Guidelines; therefore, there would be no harmful effect upon the desirable neighborhood character. The fueling
facility is a secondary use on the site and will not negatively affect the character of the area, given that it is
harmoniously incorporated into the site, and will operate within the hours of 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., so as to
respect the City’s noise regulations, which is typical for fueling facility uses. Fuel stations were added as a
conditional use in the Regional Commercial zone within the PA-1 Specific Plan plan area in 2022. At that time, an
Addendum to the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR was prepared to
analyze this modification. As noted above, a Projectspecific environmental analysis was likewise conducted per State CEQA Guidelines section 15183. Per that analysis, the construction and operational criteria air pollutant emissions for the proposed Project are less than the
emissions outlined in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR and do not exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District daily significance thresholds (see Tables 1-5, pages 34-36). The Project-specific environmental analysis also determined that the potential construction noise, operational noise, and vibration levels of the Project (including the fuel station) would not exceed either the daytime or nighttime standards established in the General Plan for either the nearby residential or commercial uses (see pages 91-95).

It has thus been determined that the fuel station use will not have a harmful effect on desirable neighborhood
character or the planned specialization of retail,
commercial, or community service areas.

4. Generation of traffic and the capacity of surrounding streets.

The proposed Project will be located on a vacant site which will be improved with access and parking lot improvements that meet minimum requirements per the Municipal Code
and the PA-1 Specific Plan. In addition, the Project site is

Attachment 6
served by a north-south roadway, Heidorn Ranch Road, as well as near a major east-west arterial roadway, Lone Tree Way. Together, these provide adequate access to the
development.

5. Any other relevant impact of the development.

The Project has the potential to create new sources of light, glare, and noise within the community. A noise analysis was prepared in conjunction with the overall project. The analysis looked at potential construction noise, operational noise, and vibration levels, and determined that the noise levels associated with the overall project will not exceed either the daytime or nighttime standards established in the General Plan for either the nearby residential uses or commercial uses. The project is also designed so as to
mitigate such impacts, but submittal of a final photometric plan is required prior to permit issuance to determine
adherence to City lighting standards.

6. The criteria set forth in Chapter 17.820 for design and site development review if applicable.

All findings and criteria set forth in Chapter 17.820 for design and site development can be found as part design review application (DR 22-002) and Resolution No. 23-022. ii. The location, design, landscaping and screening, and overall site planning of the proposed development will provide an attractive, useful and convenient living, working, shopping or communityservice area.

The Project is designed in a manner that is sensitive to nearby developments in that the development is surrounded by
commercial uses or land designated for commercial uses to the north, south, and west, and positioned deep into the site, away from the more sensitive residential receptors across Heidorn Ranch Road, and landscaping and screening will be installed along the perimeter of the site. The proposed building and fueling facility is an acceptable design with approaches identified in the City’s Commercial and Industrial Design Guidelines and
architectural theme (elevations, materials, building form, and color) that is compatible with adjacent developments and Brentwood’s community character as envisioned in the Specific Plan. Finally, the buildings and parking lot improvements maintain substantial setbacks from property lines, thereby accommodating significant common open space and landscape screening through the depth of the site, therefore the proposed

Attachment 6
use will provide an attractive, useful and convenient working, shopping and community-service area.

C. Hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 22-001, subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and made a part of this resolution, and all City standards applicable to this project.

D. The documents and materials associated with this Resolution that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at 150 City Park Way in Brentwood, California. Planning Manager Erik Nolthenius is the custodian of records for the record of proceedings.

This permit shall terminate on July 25, 2025, unless actual construction or alteration under valid permits begins prior to that date. However, such period of time may be extended by the Planning Commission upon the filing of an extension request at any time before said date.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at its regular meeting on July 25, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

RECUSE:

APPROVED:

Joel R. Bryant
Mayor
ATTEST:

Margaret Wimberly, MMC
City Clerk

Attachment 6
EXHIBIT "A" TO
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 22-001

1. The Permittee and Applicant, including all successors in interest (collectively, “Permittee”) shall comply with each and every condition set forth in the Permit.

Conditional Use Permit No. 22-001 (the “Permit”) shall have no force or effect and no building permit shall be issued unless and until (a) all things required by the below-enumerated precedent conditions have been performed, and (b) Minor Subdivision No. 351-22 has been approved. The Permittee shall develop the site in accordance with the approved attachments and as modified by these Conditions of Approval.

2. The use shall be operated in substantial conformance with the project plans submitted by the Permittee dated “Received June 8, 2023,” unless otherwise amended by the Planning Commission or the conditions of approval contained herein. Minor changes to plans and operation may be allowed subject to the approval of the Community Development Director, if found to be in substantial conformance with the approved exhibits.

3. All applicable Standard Conditions of Approval for Commercial and Industrial Projects, dated May 2005, are hereby incorporated by reference and shall be complied with, unless modified by any of the conditions below.

4. Any future signage proposed for the project shall require approval of an administrative sign permit by the Community Development Department or approval of a master sign program by the Planning Commission and shall be regulated by the Brentwood Municipal Code.

5. In the event the Permittee proposes to modify the hours of operation of 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., other aspects of the business, or modify the exterior of the building or site, the modification shall be subject to the review of the Community Development Director. The Director may approve the modification or refer it back to the Planning Commission if judged to be substantial.

6. The Permittee shall maintain the area surrounding the use, including but not limited to the building in which the use is located, sidewalk and parking areas in a clean and orderly manner at all times.

7. The Permittee shall indemnify, defend with counsel of the City’s reasonable choosing, and hold harmless City and its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents (the “Indemnified Parties”) from and against any third party claim, action, or proceeding against City and/or the Indemnified Parties to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the City’s approval of the project approved herein, including adoption of CUP 22-001, and any environmental determination made with regard thereto. This

Attachment 6
indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, reasonable attorneys' fees, and other reasonable expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding. The Permittee shall pay to the City upon demand or, as applicable, on a monthly basis to counsel of City’s reasonable choosing, amounts owed pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. City shall promptly notify the Permittee of any claim, action, or proceeding and shall engage in reasonable efforts to cooperate in the defense.

8. If operation of this use results in conflicts pertaining to parking, noise, traffic, or other impacts, at the discretion of the Community Development Director, this conditional use permit may be referred to the Planning Commission for subsequent review at a public hearing. If necessary, the Commission may modify or add conditions to mitigate such impacts, or may revoke said conditional use permit bound upon applicable findings.

Attachment 7
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD

DENYING AN APPEAL FILED BY WCHB, LLC OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW (DR 22-022) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 154,852-SQUARE-FOOT COSTCO WAREHOUSE,
5,368-SQUARE-FOOT 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
GUIDELINES SECTION 15183.

WHEREAS, Arcadia Development Co (the “Applicant”) submitted an application to the City of Brentwood, requesting approval of a design review application (DR 22-002) for the development of a 154,852-square-foot Costco retail warehouse with a 5,368-square-foot entrance canopy on Parcel A, and a fueling facility with a 11,500 square foot canopy over 16 fueling dispensers, which allows for 32 fueling positions situated on Parcel B. Associated parking lot, landscaping, and access and circulation improvements will also be included on the two lots. The project 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
WHEREAS, the Applicant concurrently submitted requests for a tentative parcel map (MS 351-11), conditional use permit (CUP 22-001) for fueling facility use, and a master sign program (MSP 22-001) for the Costco signage within the project; and
WHEREAS, collectively, MS 351-22, CUP 22-001, DR 22-002, and MSP 22- 001 constitute the “Project;” and
WHEREAS, the City referred the Project to various departments and agencies for review and recommendations; and
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2018, the City Council adopted the PA-1 Specific Plan and certified the associated PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (State Clearinghouse (SCH) #2018042064) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), codified at Public Resources Code §§ 15000, et seq., and as further governed by the State CEQA Guidelines, found at 14 CCR 21000, et seq. 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; and

WHEREAS, on October 11, 2022 the City Council approved an Addendum to the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR to amend the PA-1 Specific Plan and completed additional environmental review; and

Attachment 7
WHEREAS, the Project is consistent with the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR (EIR) and subsequent Addendum and would not result in any Project-specific significant effects to the environment, and is therefore determined to be exempt per California Environmental Quality Act Section 15183 (‘Consistent with Community Plan, General Plan, and Zoning Code’); and
WHEREAS, the City distributed a Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners of record within 300 feet of the Project Site and published it in the Brentwood Press on June 9, 2023, in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090, and a public hearing notice sign was posted on the site during this same timeframe for the June 20, 2023 Planning Commission hearing; and WHEREAS, on June 20, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, reviewed said design review request, studied the compatibility of this request with adjacent land uses, and considered this request in accordance with the design review criteria established in Chapter 17.820 of the Brentwood Municipal Code, as well as considered the staff report, all accompanying information, and testimony received from the Applicant and other interested parties; and
WHEREAS, on June 20, 2023, the Planning Commission approved the requested design review application (DR 22-002) for the Costco project, by Planning Commission Resolution No. 23-022; and
WHEREAS, on June 28, 2023, WCHB, LLC filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Tentative Parcel Map MS 351-22, Conditional Use Permit CUP 22-001, Design Review DR 22-002, and Master Sign Program MSP 22-001 for the Costco project; and
WHEREAS, the City distributed a Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners of record within 300 feet of the Project Site and published it in the Brentwood Press on July 21, 2023, in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090, and a public hearing notice sign was posted on the site during this same timeframe; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered an appeal of the Project at its regular meeting of July 25, 2023, and considered the staff report, all accompanying information, and testimony received from the Permittee and other interested parties.

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

A. Hereby finds that, in accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, and based on the entirety of the record of proceedings, including the Environmental Checklist for Streamlined Review prepared for this project, that the Project is consistent with the land use designation and densities established by the PA-1 Specific Plan, for which an EIR was certified. In particular, the Project would not result in any significant impacts that: