From: LN
To: =yCouncil Members; webCityClerk
Subject: RE: Costco Appeal....please deny!!!!
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 3:07:40 PM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Attention Brentwood City Council,
I am writing in regards to the Costco project. I urged council to do as your excellent Staff recommends...
"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 Costc0."
Here are my reasons for wanting the Costco project to proceed.
As always, nothing is perfect. There are pros and cons but the pros outweigh the cons. The main con will be the possible increase traffic but there will be another access street opening up soon from San Creek to Heidorn...to alleviate the traffic....take traffic off of Lone Tree.
The many pros are that many people will not have to drive to Antioch or Tracy to go to Costco. Save on pollution to air and cost of gas.
Costco will bring jobs (excellent pay and benefits) and lots of sales tax income to city.
Costco is a major desirable business for Brentwood. They have excellent partnership with cities. Their clientele is middle and upper class. Would not have same problems in store/parking lot like Walmart.
Many cities want a Costco. If we don't take it, Antioch or Oakley will.
That Lone Tree area has a lot of crime because of retail thefts and vehicle break ins and homeless living nearby on Lone Tree.
This Costco will make a neutral low crime/no homeless camps barrier between Antioch and Brentwood. Costco is very responsible keeping their place/parking lot secure.
The area across from Costco are Antioch's. All areas East of Heidorn belongs to Antioch. So a business like Costco is an ideal barrier.
My support or non-support for businesses depends on many factors. Most important is the reputation of the business owners. Costco...Yes!!! I welcome a business that attracts higher end shoppers and that cares about quality and security.
Thank you for you dedicated hard work on the city council.
Regards,
Linda Nakaji
From: Sinziana Todor
To: =yCouncil Members
Subject: F.1 Appeal of the Planning Commission"s decision to approve Costco - public comment Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 2:56:55 PM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Hello,
Please consider rejecting the appeal of the Planning Commission decision to approve Brentwood Costco Warehouse. Our city finally has the opportunity to provide good paying jobs for its residents, and a meaningful and strong tax revenue stream for our city budget.
Also, by opening this store in Brentwood it will contribute to significant reduction of green house gas emissions since residents from far east Contra Costa County do not have to drive to the Livermore, Tracy or Antioch locations. Also, considering the high percentage of senior citizens in our area, this will create an much more accessible location for them at a Brentwood location.
Please allow for this project to move forward!
Thank you for your consideration!
Sinziana Todor
Brentwood Resident
From: Karla and Mark Rafferty
To: =yCouncil Members
Subject: Costco vs Seeno
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 2:41:56 PM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Please allow Costco to build on the unanimous voted property and reject Seeno’s proposal.
Thank you,
Karla Rafferty
From: Bernadette Buchanan
To: =yCouncil Members
Subject: We support Costco
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 1:49:05 PM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
We vote 100% for Costco. Your Planning Commission has already unanimously approved it. We travel to Tracy Costco as Antioch Costco is a pain to find parking and Hiway 4 is dangerous. Seeno has a disgraceful reputation and Brentwood should not do business with them. Robert and Bernadette Buchanan, Brentwood Sent from my iPad
From: Robert Chuck
To: =yCouncil Members
Cc: Robert Chuck
Subject: City Council Meeting - 7/25/2023
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 11:40:58 AM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Hello,
City Council Meeting - 7/25/2023
Item F.1
After reading the agenda packet, I do not see any reason for this action.
I would like to see the council deny this appeal and go forward with the Costco project.
Thank you,
Robert Chuck
Sent from Outlook
From: Wisinski, Katherine
To: Wimberly, Margaret; McVey, Amanda
Cc: Brower, Damien; Ogden, Tim
Subject: FW: Brentwood Costco - CCCAC lawyer history
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 12:02:06 PM
Attachments: Big Bear appeal of Grocery Outlet.pdf
Taft Planning Commission meeting re Grocery Outlet.pdf
PROTECT TUSTIN RANCH.pdf
Margaret,
Can you please include this in the packet of public comments for City Council consideration? Thank you,
Katy
From: Michael Fletcher
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 11:57 AM
To: Wisinski, Katherine <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Brentwood Costco - CCCAC lawyer history
CAUTION � EXTERNAL SENDER
Jennifer and Katy
I wanted to make you aware before tonight’s Council meeting that it appears that Tal Finney, the lawyer for the Contra Costa Climate Action Coalition (CCCAC), opposing the Costco project, has a history of challenging grocery projects throughout California. See links below and attachments. Thanks!
2020 appeal of Costco in Santa Clarita:
https://signalscv.com/2020/02/patios-connection-officials-nearby-residents-unaware-ofsanta-clarita-safe-and-strong-members/ 2021 lawsuit challenging Costco gas station: attached
2021 appeal of approval for Grocery Outlet in Big Bear, CA: attached 2019 appeal of approval for Grocery Outlet in Lake County:
https://www.record-bee.com/2019/12/05/appeal-filed-opposing-planned-hidden-valley-lake-
to lead the movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website.
CITY OF TAFT PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
JANUARY 08, 2020
REGULAR MEETING 4:00 P.M.
The January 8, 2020 regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Taft, held in the City of Taft Council Chamber at 209 E. Kern Street, Taft, CA 93268, was opened by Ron Orrin at 4:04:38 PM. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Ron Orrin, invocation given by Scott Pearson.
Present: Chairman Ron Orrin, Vice Chairman Jerry Livingston Commissioners Robert Leikam, and Susan Banner
Planning and Development Services Director Mark Staples City Attorney Jason Epperson and Recording Secretary Mireya Rodriguez
Absent: Commissioner Shannon Miller
1. CITIZEN REQUESTS/PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were none.
2. MINUTES
December 4, 2019 Regular
Motion: Moved by Livingston, seconded by Banner to approve Minutes as submitted.
AYES: Livingston, Banner, Leikam, Orrin
PASSED: 4-0
3. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING – SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2019-21 Director Staples presented the Staff Report for approval of Site Plan Review No. 2019-21.
He recommended to the commissioners that condition number 4 of the site plan review complete the remediation dirt work. Capital Rivers submitted a supplemental review that was done in late 2019 by a third party geologist, who is registered with the state, providing documentation that concluded that no further remediation work was needed.
Staples added that it still needed to be reviewed by the city engineer and public works.
Director Staples and City Attorney Epperson recommended an amendment to condition number 4 of the resolution that the city shall review and accept the documentation pending review by the city engineer, public works director, and or qualified professional chosen by the city.
Applicant, Greg Aguirre, from Capital Rivers thanked the commissioners for the opportunity for the proposed project. He explained the benefits that a Grocery Outlet would bring to Taft and also shared statements from local citizens asking for a new grocery store in town. Aguirre then addressed the claims made by attorney Tal Finney, who represents “Keep Taft Great”, in an opposition letter submitted to the planning commission prior to the December meeting. Aguirre stated that the group disagrees with the conclusion that any aspect of this development should require a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. Aguirre stated that phase 1 and phase 2 soil testing had already been done for the Dollar General project. He expressed that he is skeptical of the motives for the letter of objection. He also shared that Tal Finney has represented three other groups similar to “Keep Taft Great”, and challenged the Taft Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes
January 8, 2020
developers with CEQA challenges and all are less than a mile away from an Albertsons/Safeway. He’s excited to bring a big opportunity to Taft where they will bring more jobs, tax revenue and cleaning up a site that needs cleaning. He finds it very disappointing that there are people who try to use CEQA challenges for something that it’s not intended for.
This Public Hearing was opened and continued on December 4, 2019 and was re-opened at 4:28:39 PM to receive testimony from proponents and opponents.
Tal Finney, from Finney Arnold LLP, who stated he represents “Keep Taft Great”, shared that he is not the person that is at issue, the project is. He shared his professional experience with the commissioners, read the prepared supplemental opposition letter (provided as a supplemental attachment), as well as responded to the claims of Aguirre. He stated that his law firm is virtual and not only based in Los Angeles. CEQA is not about keeping trees and bushes in place but making sure the public is aware of potential contaminants that they might be exposed to. The reason that they brought up the rail and the possibility of former oil exploration in the area is because contaminants have changed over the past decade. The planning commission has the power to be able to figure out a solution. He stated they believe a new full environmental impact report should be completed so that the public is aware of what they can be exposed to. Attorney Finney stated that they represent real people and that a few of his clients were present at the meeting.
Livingston asked Finney to please have his clients stand to give them the chance to address any concern they may have, but no one stood up.
Orrin asked Finney if his clients, “Keep Taft Great”, had an office and he responded that they are an unincorporated association.
Livingston stated that he researched the law firm and it appeared to be an “eat what you kill” law firm. Finney’s response was yes that it is. They feel they can better serve their clients as a low overhead firm.
Tyson Harlan expressed his concerns regarding the access point of the proposed project.
He asked the developer to please keep the access on Supply Row to prevent accidents.
Harlan also shared that the rails were never located on the proposed property, but that it was located beyond 10th Street. He also stated that he had no other objection and that he supports the development of the proposed Grocery Outlet.
James Kell, a resident of Bakersfield, expressed his concerns regarding the CEQA process for the proposed project and requested answers as to what the public can be exposed to.
Commissioner Livingston asked Kell who his employer was but Kell declined to answer.
Commissioner Banner asked Kell if he was affiliated with any other grocery outlet but he did not answer.
Taft Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes
January 8, 2020
Aguirre added that there are numerous stacks of environmental documents from the soil testing that the city has conducted. He informed the audience that there was proper soil testing and remediation of any contaminated soil, per state and local standards, for the Dollar General project. Orrin asked Aguirre if there was contaminated soil in the previous testing for the Dollar General project. Aguirre responded that there was. Orrin asked if it was disposed of according to state standards. Aguirre responded that it was.
Orrin asked Director Staples what more can the city expect of anyone who wants to develop properties into adherence of state laws. Staples responded that the follow up report that was provided was sufficient.
Banner asked Finney if the people that he represents are employed by Albertson’s. Finney responded that he didn’t know. He mentioned that they are an unincorporated association of residents. Banner stated that the planning commission’s job is to take into consideration what the residents need, and residents need another grocery store.
The public hearing was closed at 4:47:23 PM.
Livingston shared that he has experience with development and with this town. His experience has been when there is a problem, people make a point to show up and not hide.
Motion: Moved by Livingston, seconded by Banner to adopt a Resolution entitled A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TAFT APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2019-21 FOR AN APPROXIMATE 18,000 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY OUTLET STORE AND APPROXIMATE 4,214 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL PAD ON A 3.13 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED IN
THE MIXED USE (MU) ZONE DISTRICT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SUPPLY ROW, APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET EAST OF 10TH STREET (Resolution No. 2020-01)
AYES: Leikam, Banner, Livingston, Orrin
PASSED: 4-0
4. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-22 Director Staples presented the Staff Report for Conditional Use Permit No. 2019-22.
The commissioners had no questions.
The Public Hearing was opened at 5:05:45 PM to receive testimony from proponents and opponents. Seeing none the public hearing was closed.
Motion: Moved by Livingston, seconded by Leikam to adopt a Resolution entitled A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TAFT APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2019-22 TO PERMIT
Taft Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes
January 8, 2020
GROCERY OUTLET TO ACQUIRE A TYPE 20 ABC OFF SALE LICENSE FOR
THE SALE OF BEER AND WINE, WITHIN A COMMERCIAL BUILDING, LOCATED ON A 3.13 ACRE LOT, WITHIN THE MIXED USE (MU) ZONE DISTRICT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SUPPLY ROW, 200 FEET EAST OF 10TH STREET (Resolution No. 2020-02)
AYES: Leikam, Banner, Livingston, Orrin
PASSED: 4-0
5. PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT
Director Staples shared that there are some projects in the pipeline but will also get back to minor amendments to the zoning code from signs to other subjects.
6. CITY ATTORNEY STATEMENTS
There were none.
7. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Orrin expressed that the Christmas parade was a success.
8. IDENTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE TO THE CITY COUNCIL Jerry Livingston volunteered to be the representative at the next City Council Meeting on January 21, 2020.
ADJOURNMENT – with no further business to conduct the Meeting was adjourned at 5:09:12 PM.
Mireya Rodriguez Ron Orrin
Recording Secretary Chairman
FINDLAW (HTTPS://LP.FINDLAW.COM/) CASELAW (HTTPS://CASELAW.F NDLAW.COM/) CALIFORNIA (HTTPS://CASELAW.F NDLAW.COM/COURTS/CALIFORNIA) CA CT. APP. (HTTPS://CASELAW.F NDLAW.COM/COURT/CA-COURT-OF-APPEAL) PROTECT TUSTIN RANCH V. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, REAL PARTY N NTEREST AND RESPONDENT. ...
PROTECT TUSTIN RANCH v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. (2021)
Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 3, California.
PROTECT TUSTIN RANCH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF TUSTIN et al., Defendants and Respondents; Costco Wholesale Corporation, Real Party in Interest and Respondent.
G059709
Decided: September 28, 2021
Finney Arnold, Tal C. Finney, Shaune B. Arnold; R. Bruce Tepper and R. Bruce Tepper, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart, and Ricia R. Hager, Costa Mesa, for Defendants and Respondents. Armbruster Goldsmith & Delvac, and Damon P. Mamalakis, Los Angeles, for Real Party in Interest and Respondent.
OPINION
This case involves the proposed construction of a new gas station and ancillary facilities (project) in an existing shopping center surrounded by commercial and residential uses. Respondent City of Tustin (City) reviewed the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. (CEQA), and concluded the project was exempt from CEQA under the categorical exemption for “in-fill development” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15332; infill exemption). After the City approved the project and filed a notice of exemption, appellant Protect Tustin Ranch (Protect) sought a writ of mandate to set aside the City's approvals due to what it claimed was an erroneous finding by the City that the project was exempt from CEQA. The trial court denied Protect's petition.
Protect contends the trial court should have issued a writ of mandate because the administrative record evidences the project site is too large for the project to qualify for the infill exemption and there were “unusual circumstances” which precluded the City from relying on the exemption. We find no error and affirm the judgment.
FACTS
Real Party in Interest Costco Wholesale Corporation (Costco) wants to build a gas station next to an existing Costco warehouse located in an area of the City known as Tustin Ranch. The project site is within an already built shopping center located along a major commercial thoroughfare. It is adjacent to the Tustin Auto Center and the Tustin Marketplace, a large retail center, as well as some residential neighborhoods. Other existing buildings in the shopping center include a McDonald's restaurant, a vacant major retail store, a Goodyear Tire Center and two multi-tenant buildings.
The project has two components: (1) construction of a 16-pump (32-fuel position) gas station with a canopy, related equipment and landscaping; and (2) demolition of an existing Goodyear Tire Center and adjacent surface parking, all to be replaced with 56 new surface parking stalls. The gas station portion of the project will replace a portion of an existing surface parking lot.
Costco applied to the City for a conditional use permit (CUP) and design review approval. Its original development application included, among other information, the address of the project, the present and proposed uses, the existing and proposed building sizes, and the “[l]ot [s]ize”—listed by Costco as 11.97 acres. Likewise, the original environmental assessment form submitted by Costco listed the “[s]ite size” as 11.97 acres. (https://www findlaw com/)
For Legal Professionals (https://lp.findlaw.com/)
/ /
/ /
1 Find a
Lawyer
(https://lawyers.findlaw.com)
Legal
Forms &
Services
Learn
About
the
Law
Laws and
Court
Decisions
(https://caselaw.findlaw.com/) Blogs(https://w
With City staff believing the project was exempt from review under CEQA, the City planning commission held a public hearing concerning the CUP and considered adopting a notice of exemption for the project. Regarding CEQA, the City staff report stated the following: “This project is Categorically Exempt from further environmental review pursuant to the CEQA Class 32, ‘In-Fill Development Projects’ in that the project is consistent with the City's General Plan and [the East Tustin Specific Plan] and occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five (5) acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. The project can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.” It thereafter included a paragraph addressing each of the latter subjects.
After receiving public comments, the planning commission chose to continue the public hearing so City staff could address concerns raised by the public and planning commission questions.
Ultimately, the planning commission approved the project, adopting a resolution which found the project categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15332 (Class 32, In-Fill Development Projects) (infill exemption).
Members of the public appealed the planning commission's decision to the city council which considered the matter anew. The City staff report presented to the city council included a more detailed analysis of the CEQA infill exemption the planning commission had found applicable. With respect to the size of the project site, it stated, in relevant part:
“The project site (consisting of the area where the fueling station and landscape screening will be constructed and the area where the existing Goodyear Tire Center building will be demolished and restriped with surface parking) has a total area of approximately 2.38 acres. No new development or construction activity related to the proposed project will occur in the other portions of the shopping center, including the existing Costco Warehouse, former K-mart/Ansar Gallery retail space, and other pad parcels, nor will the existing operations at these uses change as a result of the proposed project.” The staff report also addressed potential exceptions to the exemption, concluding none of the exceptions applied.
After receiving public comments, the city council adopted a resolution finding the project categorically exempt from CEQA review under the infill exemption, with no applicable exceptions, and granting the requested approvals. In doing so, it expressly found the project did not present any unusual circumstances as compared to other projects that would qualify for the infill exemption. The City filed a notice of exemption pursuant to CEQA. An attachment to the notice of exemption explained the reasons for the exemption, with the explanation being the same as was provided in the city council staff report and city council resolution concerning the project.
Protect filed a petition for writ of mandate against the City, the city council and the planning commission, challenging the City's finding that the project was exempt from CEQA review, among other matters. In its briefing prior to the hearing on the petition, Protect argued one of the criteria for the claimed infill exemption—that the project site be no more than five acres in size—was not met because documents described the project site as occupying nearly 12 acres.
It also asserted the City erroneously relied on the exemption because the project fell within the scope of the “unusual circumstances” exception set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2, subdivision (c).
The trial court heard the matter, rejected Protect's arguments and denied the writ petition. It entered judgment accordingly.
Protect timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Protect contends the trial court's conclusion was error for two reasons. First, it argues the project does not qualify for the infill exemption claimed by the City because the project is too large. Second, it asserts the City improperly relied on the exemption because the project falls within the scope of the “unusual circumstances” exception. We find no error.
CEQA and general standard of review
“CEQA is a comprehensive scheme designed to provide long-term protection to the environment.” (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 112, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 580, 939 P.2d 1280.) It applies to “discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies.” (§ 21080, subd. (a).) “In enacting CEQA, the Legislature declared its intention that all public agencies responsible for regulating activities affecting the environment give prime consideration to preventing environmental damage when carrying out their duties. [Citations.] CEQA is to be interpreted ‘to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.’ ” (Mountain Lion Foundation, at p. 112, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 580, 939 P.2d 1280.) 2 3
There are three fundamental steps in the CEQA review process. “ ‘The first step is jurisdictional and requires a public agency to determine whether a proposed activity is a “project.” ․ If a proposed activity is a project, the agency proceeds to the second step of the CEQA process. [¶] At the second step, the agency must “decide whether the project is exempt from the CEQA review process under either a statutory exemption [citation] or a categorical exemption set forth in the ․ [CEQA] Guidelines [citations].” ․ [¶] Unlike statutory [exemptions], categorical exemptions are subject to exceptions․ [¶] If a project is categorically exempt and does not fall within an exception, “ ‘it is not subject to CEQA requirements and “may be implemented without any CEQA compliance whatsoever.” ’ ” ’ ” (Holden v. City of San Diego (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 404, 409, 255 Cal.Rptr.3d 873 (Holden).) The third step is reached if a project is not exempt or if an exemption may not be relied on due to an applicable exception. (See ibid.) Under such circumstances, the agency must decide whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Depending on the answer to that question, the agency then prepares a negative declaration, a mitigated negative declaration or an environmental impact report. (See § 21080, subds. (c) & (d); Citizens for Responsible & Open Government v. City of Grand Terrace (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1323, 1331-1332, 73 Cal.Rptr.3d 202.) “[In] an appeal challenging a trial court's denial of a petition for a writ of mandate in a CEQA case, our task is the same as the trial court's. [Citation.] We conduct our review of the agency's action independently of the trial court's findings. [Citation.] Accordingly, in this appeal we review [the] City's decision and not the trial court's.” (Holden, supra, 43 Cal.App.5th at p. 409, 255 Cal.Rptr.3d 873.)
Class 32 infill exemption
The City concluded the project was categorically exempt from CEQA under the infill exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15332. In order for a project to qualify for the infill exemption, five criteria must be met: “(a) [t]he project [must be] consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations[;] [¶] (b) [t]he proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses[;] [¶] (c) [t]he project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species[;] [¶] (d) [a]pproval of the project [must] not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality[; and] [¶] (e) [t]he site [must be able to] be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15332.) Protect challenges the City's determination concerning only one of the five criteria for the exemption—the size of the project site. It claims the project site is not less than five acres. “A public agency's ‘determination that [a particular] project [is] exempt from compliance with CEQA requirements ․ is subject to judicial review under the abuse of discretion standard in ․ section 21168.5. [Citations.] ․ Abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence.’ ” (Holden, supra, 43 Cal.App.5th at p. 410, 255 Cal.Rptr.3d 873.) “[W]here[, as here,] a public agency makes a factual determination that a project falls within a ․ categorical exemption, we apply the substantial evidence standard in reviewing the agency's finding.” (Holden, supra, 43 Cal.App.5th at p. 410, 255 Cal.Rptr.3d 873.) We do not weigh conflicting evidence, as that is the role of the public agency. (See Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 576, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 139, 888 P.2d 1268 (Western States).) Rather, we review the administrative record to see if it contains evidence of ponderable legal significance that is reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value, to support the agency's decision. (Holden, supra, at p. 410, 255 Cal.Rptr.3d 873.)
Here, the administrative record contains substantial evidence indicating the project site is less than five acres in size.
Multiple documents confirm the size of the project site is approximately 2.38 acres. A revised development application form submitted by Costco specifies: “Area of work—2.38 Acres inclusive of new gas station and parking at demolished Goodyear site area.” Identical language appears in a revised environmental assessment form completed by Costco.
Technical documents, including a water quality management plan, also refer to a 2.38 acre area as that which will be disturbed as part of the project. And maps, along with City staff comments during the city council's consideration of the matter, clarify the total project site acreage was calculated by adding together the acreage of the project's two components—1.74 acres where the gas station and ancillary facilities will be built, and 0.64 acres which will include demolition of the existing Goodyear Tire Center and development of the new surface parking spaces.
Protect notes original planning and environmental assessment documents prepared by Costco “described the [p]roject size as 12 acres.” Although it appears some initial documents specified a “site size” of almost 12 acres, the City and Costco representatives explained the discrepancy. The total size of the existing shopping center is approximately 12 acres, but only 2.38 acres is being altered by the project. “No new development or construction activity related to the proposed project will occur in the other portions of the shopping center ․” In sum, substantial evidence supports the City's factual determination concerning the project site size. Because that is the only infill exemption criteria challenged by Protect, it has failed to show the City abused its discretion in concluding the project fell within the scope of the exemption.
Unusual circumstances exception
Protect contends it was improper for the City to rely on the infill exemption because the “unusual circumstances” exception applies. The City disagrees, arguing Protect has not met its burden of demonstrating the exception applies under the circumstances. We agree with the City.
CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2, subdivision (c), provides: “Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.”
The Supreme Court clarified the meaning of the language, the relative burdens and the applicable standards of review in Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 643, 343 P.3d 834 (Berkeley Hillside). “As to projects that meet the requirements of a categorical exemption, a party challenging the exemption has the burden of producing evidence supporting an exception.” (Id. at p. 1105, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 643, 343 P.3d 834.) For the unusual circumstances exception, this may be done in one of two ways. One may identify “evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.” (Ibid.) Alternatively, one may show evidence (1) the project is unusual because it “has some feature that distinguishes it from others in the exempt class, such as its size or location”; and (2) there is “a reasonable possibility of a significant effect due to that unusual circumstance.” (Ibid.) A couple of different standards of review are applied to an agency's determination the unusual circumstances exception is inapplicable, both of which stem from section 21168.5. (Berkeley Hillside, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 1114, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 643, 343 P.3d 834.)
“Whether a particular project presents circumstances that are unusual for projects in an exempt class is an essentially factual inquiry, ‘ “founded ‘on the application of the fact-finding tribunal's experience with the mainsprings of human conduct.’ ” ’ [Citation.] Accordingly, as to this question, the agency serves as ‘the finder of fact’ [citation], and a reviewing court should apply the traditional substantial evidence standard ․ [A]fter resolving all evidentiary conflicts in the agency's favor and indulging in all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the agency's finding, [the court] must affirm [the agency's] finding if there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, to support it.” (Berkeley Hillside, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 1114, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 643, 343 P.3d 834.) “As to whether there is ‘a reasonable possibility’ that an unusual circumstance will produce ‘a significant effect on the environment’ [citation], a different approach is appropriate, both by the agency making the determination and by reviewing courts.” (Berkeley Hillside, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 1115, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 643, 343 P.3d 834.) The agency applies a fair argument standard, meaning it reviews the evidence to see if there is a fair argument of a reasonable possibility the project will have a significant effect on the environment. (Ibid.) If there is substantial evidence of a reasonable possibility the project will have such an effect, the agency may not rely on the exemption even if there is evidence to the contrary. (Id. at p. 1112, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 643, 343 P.3d 834.) A reviewing court “ ‘determine[s] whether substantial evidence support[s] the agency's conclusion as to whether the prescribed “fair argument” could be made.’ ” (Berkeley Hillside, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 1115, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 643, 343 P.3d 834.) If it “ ‘ “perceives substantial evidence” ’ ” that there is a reasonable possibility the project will have a significant environmental impact, but the agency relied on the exemption, “ ‘ “the agency's action is to be set aside because the agency abused its discretion by failing to proceeding “in a manner required by law.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 1112, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 643, 343 P.3d 834; see Protect Telegraph Hill v. City and County of San Francisco (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 261, 270, 223 Cal.Rptr.3d 846.)
Because Protect does not argue there is evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment, we focus on the two-prong test prescribed in Berkeley Hillside.
Protect claims “unusual circumstances apply to the [p]roject due to: (i) the former operations of the Goodyear Service Center wherein tires were installed and oil and other fluid changes were performed; (ii) the unusually large configuration of the Costco gasoline fueling station with 32 individual fueling pumps; and (iii) the planned use of retractable bollards and additional Costco employees to re-route [t]raffic during peak usage.” But it does not explain why these features distinguish the project from others that would qualify for the infill exemption, and it does not cite any evidence from the record demonstrating a distinction. As the party challenging the City's reliance on the infill exemption, Protect bears the burden of producing evidence to support the claimed exception. (Berkeley Hillside, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 1105, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 643, 343 P.3d 834; Citizens for Environmental Responsibility v. State ex. rel. 14th Dist. Ag. Assn. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 555, 578, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 168 (Citizens).) And, as appellant, it bears the burden of providing reasoned argument, supported by citation to the law and facts in evidence, demonstrating trial court error. (Holden, supra, 43 Cal.App.5th at p. 418, 255 Cal.Rptr.3d 873; Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 467, 555, 264 Cal.Rptr.3d 309.) It has not met those burdens.
Assuming arguendo Protect articulated and supported an argument of unusual circumstances, substantial evidence supports the City's conclusion the project is not unusual in relation to other infill development which would qualify for the exemption. As for the size of the project, although the proposed gas station will have 16 pumps (32 fuel positions), evidence in the record shows that size is not remarkably different than other Costco gas stations in California. Further, the infill exemption is not limited to gas stations. Many types of development may qualify so long as the other criteria are met, including the size limitation of less than five acres. Because the infill exemption is expressly limited to projects under a certain size, it's questionable whether the size of a project can be a characteristic that makes an otherwise exempt project unusual.
“Courts may also look to conditions in the immediate vicinity of a proposed project to determine whether a circumstance is unusual. [Citation.] This includes whether the project is consistent with the surrounding zoning and land uses.” (Citizens, supra, 242 Cal.App.4th at p. 586, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 168.) As part of the exemption determination, the City concluded the project was consistent with the City's general plan, the applicable specific plan, the applicable zoning designation, and development and design standards. Protect does not challenge that conclusion. Additionally, the record shows the project is within an existing shopping center, located “along a major commercial thoroughfare,” and adjacent to the Tustin Marketplace, an expansive retail center, and the Tustin Auto Center. Substantial evidence in the record shows the proposed gas station is in line with the characteristics of the surrounding setting.
Protect's true concern appears to be what might be uncovered if the City were to engage in further environmental review. It asserts “[c]ommon sense” necessitates looking further at what it characterizes as potential soil contamination. Additionally, it claims there is “a fair argument of the inference of [project] [s]ite contamination.” But unsupported concerns, presumptions or conjectures are not enough to force the City to proceed further down the CEQA road. A categorically exempt project, by definition, is deemed by law to not have a potentially significant impact on the environment unless the project's administrative record sufficiently demonstrates applicability of an exception to the claimed exemption. (Berkeley Hillside, supra, 60 Cal.4th at pp. 1104-1105, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 643, 343 P.3d 834; World Business Academy v. State Lands Com. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 476, 491, 234 Cal.Rptr.3d 277.) And in a situation such as this, where the claimed exception is the “unusual circumstances” exception, one does not reach the question of whether there is a fair argument of a reasonable possibility of a significant environmental effect unless there is an adequate showing of an unusual circumstance. (Walters v. City of Redondo Beach (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 809, 822, fn. 5, 205 Cal.Rptr.3d 157; Citizens, supra, 242 Cal.App.4th at p. 588, fn. 24, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 168; see Berkeley Hillside, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 1105, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 643, 343 P.3d 834 [“it is not enough for a challenger merely to provide substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, because that is the inquiry CEQA requires absent an exemption”].) Protect has not made that showing.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondents are entitled to costs on appeal.
FOOTNOTES
FOOTNOTE.
1. All statutory references are to the Public Resources Code unless otherwise specified.
2. All references to the “CEQA Guidelines” are to the state regulations which implement the provisions of CEQA. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.)
3. For the first time in its reply brief, Protect also argues the City's traffic technical analysis was not supported by substantial evidence. “ ‘Obvious reasons of fairness militate against consideration of an issue raised initially in the reply brief of an appellant.’ ” (Reichardt v. Hoffman (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 754, 764, 60 Cal.Rptr.2d 770.)
4. After appellate briefing was complete, Protect filed a request for judicial notice of certain letters and reports related to the Goodyear Tire Center site. At oral argument, it requested we remand the case to allow the trial court to consider the additional documents. We deny the requests. First, we do not consider matters raised for the first time at oral argument without proper presentation and due notice to the other parties. (See Burchett v. City of Newport Beach (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1472, 1483, 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 1.) Second, the documents post-date the City's consideration and approval of the project. As the Supreme Court has made clear, except in unusual circumstances not applicable here, extra-record evidence which comes into existence after an agency's final CEQA determination on a project may not be considered by the courts. (Western States, supra, 9 Cal.4th at pp. 573-574, 578, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 139, 888 P.2d 1268; see 4 From: Bruce 0le Ohlson
To: webCityClerk
Cc: Bike East Bay Advocacy Robert Prinz; Delta Pedalers Advocacy Dave Stoeffler; [email protected] Subject: Costco appeal comments
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 10:16:11 AM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Good evening, Mayor Bryant and City Council members.
I am Bruce Ohlson, here tonight expressing the concerns of our local bicycle and pedestrian community about infrastructure at and in the vicinity of the new Costco superstore.
This new store is planned to be built at the western terminus of our new $13,000,000 pedestrian and bicycle bridge that conducts the Mokelumne Aqueduct Regional Trail over Highway 4. The next eBART expansion station is slated to be in the median of Highway 4 at this bridge so that people can get to it from either side of the freeway. Lots more pedestrians and bicyclists will be frequenting this area in the near future.
We need additional
mitigations from the Costco project because this new superstore promises to bring over 15,000 automobile trips to the area EACH DAY.
First, a couple of comments about the store plans. You guys need to nudge Costco into the Twenty First Century. As it currently stands, Costco is not going to provide any charging stations for electric vehicles in its 865-space parking lot. The State of California is planning to prohibit the sale of new fossilfueled vehicles starting in 2035. That's only 12 years in the future. At least 10 percent of the parking spaces should include these charging stations. Not just conduit for a someday installation, but actual charging stations.
The store roof and fuel island canopy cover two-thirds of an acre. Costco has no plans to include solar panels. Not even conduit. In sunny Brentwood, this is an abomination. These solar panels will provide sufficient power for all the EV charging stations and there will be no net increase in the store's electric bill. This is a no-brainer.
Now, the bicycle parking racks. At least half of these racks should have an electric receptacle so that an electric bicycle can be plugged in to be charged while the owner is in the store shopping. When I testified at the Planning Commission meeting last month, representatives of Costco claimed that having these receptacles available would attract the homeless. An easy way to solve this would be to set up each receptacle box so it requires a swipe of your Costco card to activate the outlet. Costco could also set up the system so that they can switch these receptacles off from inside the store when the store is closed. Problem solved.
Also, at the Planning Commission meeting, incredulity was expressed at the ability of any normal human to use a bicycle for shopping at Costco. A normal cargo bike can carry 150 pounds of cargo in addition to the rider. 150 pounds is more than a standard Costco shopping cart can carry, so this is a specious argument. The bike racks need to be spaced sufficiently far apart to be able to fit standard utility bicycles and cargo bikes between. These bikes are a bit wider than standard road bikes.
Remember, Brentwood is a certified BICYCLE FRIENDLY
COMMUNITY. Let's live up to our name. The bike path is right next to the new store. Brentwood has lots of miles of bicycle lanes and paths. The future is electric bikes.
Moving a little farther out into the area around the store site, we need some bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure upgrades within a one-mile radius of the new store. Remember, Costco is predicting 15,000 automobile trips PER DAY to its new
store.Many of our suggestions are just a sidewalk adjustment or a traffic signal adjustment. Not very expensive, especially not for the world's third largest retailer. Since the new store is in the northwest corner of Brentwood, some of these infrastructure improvements will have to be built in Antioch and Oakley as well as in Brentwood.
The Mokelumne Aqueduct Regional Trail is on the sidewalk of Heidorn Ranch Road as it goes from the East Bay MUD right-ofway to the traffic signal at Lone Tree Plaza Drive to cross Heidorn Ranch Road with the traffic signal and then back up to the East Bay MUD right-of-way. Currently, those segments of sidewalk are ADA minimum width. We request that the sidewalk be widened to 10-feet. The total length is only about 60 feet.
The East Bay MUD fence will have to be adjusted to fit in this sidewalk improvement. This adjustment is not a significant expense to significantly increase the safety for trail users where the trail abuts the Costco property.
Costco plans to add a protected left-turn-lane to Heidorn Ranch Road at Lone Tree Plaza Drive to make it easier for their shoppers to enter the store parking lot. Please be sure that the existing bike lane along Heidorn Ranch Road is not
compromised by this addition. Removing bicycle lanes is prohibited by the California Streets and Highway Code. Mr.
Kersevan has indicated that this will be the case, but we want to be doubly assured IN WRITING that no bike lanes will be removed as part of the construction of this store.
Costco plans to make adjustments to some of the traffic signals on Lone Tree Way. Bicyclists and pedestrians want to be assured that these adjustments include provision for our nonmotorized citizens. We want marked crosswalks in all FOUR quadrants of every signalized intersection within a one-mile radius of this store. The old days of automobile through-put to the detriment of all other modes of transportation are long gone.
Please install a bike lane on northbound Heidorn Ranch Road as it approaches the Lone Tree Way intersection to the north of the new store. There is sufficient space between the existing curb faces to retain the existing motor-vehicle lanes when installing this short segment of bike lane; we’ll just have to narrow the (currently generous) vehicle-traffic lanes a little bit.
Please add bike lanes to both sides of Fairside Way between Lone Tree Way and the entrance to the existing City of Antioch trail that goes behind the Bella Rose Apartments and connects to Country Hills Drive at Canada Valley Road. These bike lanes should extend to/from the limit line for the crosswalk at Lone Tree Way. The southbound side of Fairside Way might present a width problem for the addition of a bike lane. Bicyclists would prefer a narrower marked bike lane and narrower traffic lanes over the use of sharrows. Fairside Way is a quiet residential street, so this should pose no problem. Note: Heidorn Ranch Road seamlessly changes name to Fairside Way as it crosses Lone Tree Way.
Be sure that the traffic signal of Heidorn Ranch Road/Fairside Way responds to the presence of bicyclists waiting to cross Lone Tree Way.
At each street crossing of the Mokelumne Aqueduct Regional Trail within a one-mile-radius of the new store we want either a standard traffic signal or a Rectangular Rapidly Flashing Beacon along with bright yellow zebra striped crosswalks and shark-tooth limit lines.
As we proceed eastbound on the Mokelumne Aqueduct Regional Trail, it is interrupted by the MoCoCo Railroad right-of-way. The City of Brentwood's existing Minnesota Bicycle Path extends along the west side of this railroad right-of-way all the way to Central Avenue, but there is an about 300-yard gap between its current northern terminus and the Mokelumne Aqueduct Trail.
These two segments of trail need to be connected. The railroad is notoriously difficult to work with, so we might have to adjust Minnesota Avenue a bit to squeeze in a standard-width bike path.
Please require Costco to construct the two segments of Sand Creek Trail between their existing ends up to the new
Mokelumne Aqueduct Trail so that this trail is completed and joins the network of bicycle facilities in Brentwood. These two trail segments were required by the EIR for the PA 1
development. Since the trail segments join the
Mokleumne Aqueduct Trail at the edge of the Costco project property, it is reasonable to ask Costco to become financially involved in constructing these trails.
We need to adjust the traffic signals at the intersection of Hillcrest Avenue and Lone Tree Way in Antioch at the big Walmart superstore. This intersection is within the one-mile radius of the new Costco store. Currently, the bicyclist or pedestrian has to press the "beg" button and wait for the traffic signal to cross each street. We want a diagonal crosswalk installed at this intersection so that our non-motorized citizens get our own signal phase to use the diagonal crosswalk. This will be an inexpensive upgrade to this dangerous intersection. Much of the traffic from Antioch going to the new Costco store will be using either Long Tree Way or Hillcrest Avenue, so it is only reasonable that Costco be responsible for this minor traffic signal upgrade.
Please widen Empire Avenue as it crosses the MoCoCo railroad line. Empire Avenue will be a major access route for Oakley residents to get to the new Costco store. This segment of roadway is within the 1-mile radius of the Costco project. Empire Avenue extends from Brentwood through a corner of Antioch and deep into Oakley. The railroad crossing consists of two 11-foot vehicle vehicle-traffic lanes and nothing else. It is a death trap for anyone not in an automobile.
Be sure that continuous bike lanes exist on both sides of Empire Avenue between the Mokelumne Aqueduct Trail and this railway crossing. Marked bike lanes must be included up to and away from the limit lines/crosswalks of each intersection. This is especially important at the crossing of Lone Tree Way.With judicious adjustment of vehicle-traffic lane-width, there should be sufficient space between the curb faces to fit in all the needed lanes. Follow the standards listed in the CCTA's Countywide Bicycle Plan for designing and installing these bicycle lanes.
These few and inexpensive mitigations will end up costing Costco, the third largest retailer in the United States, just a few hours of its profit and will make the area surrounding the new store MUCH safer and more encouraging for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Thank you.
~0le
Bruce "0le" Ohlson
Bike East Bay
Delta Pedalers Bicycle Club
Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee
CCTA Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee
Caltrans District 4 Bicycle Advisory Committee
TRANSPLAN appointee to Highway 4 Integrated Corridor
Management Study
From: Hagen, Jennifer
To: Wimberly, Margaret; McVey, Amanda
Subject: FW: Brentwood Costco - VMT analysis
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 10:03:13 AM
Good Morning,
Please include the following email as public comment received for tonight.
Jennifer
Jennifer Hagen, Senior Planner
Community Development
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
Phone: 925.516.5135
Fax: 925.516.5407
[email protected]
From: Amy Lopez
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 9:37 AM
To: Hagen, Jennifer <[email protected]>
Subject: Brentwood Costco - VMT analysis
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Hi Jennifer,
I understand City staff have asked about the potential effects to the VMT analysis of the Costco warehouse proposed at Lone Tree Plaza Way should the Sand Creek Rd extension not be constructed or be constructed at a later date.
In any VMT analysis, a change to a major roadway network connection influences the travel routes some people take and thereby results in some change to the computed VMT value, be that an increase or decrease. In this case, Sand Creek Rd provides a shorter route for people traveling to/from the Project site and areas to the south, east, and far southeast. One simple comparison to illustrate this is the approximate travel distance between the SR 4/Sand Creek Rd interchange and the Project site vs. the distance for people who would drive north past that interchange and use Lone Tree Way to access the Project site. This difference is approximately 0.7 miles longer for people taking the Lone Tree Way route.
While this example increase in travel distance for some people traveling to/from the Project site would result in an overall increase to the total VMT attributed to the Project, the total amount of such an increase would remain well within the VMT envelope established by the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR. If Sand Creek Rd were not constructed, the resultant change in projected VMT for the Project would not affect the CEQA conclusion that the Project would not result in a new significant impact nor result in a significant impact of greater severity than impacts disclosed in the PA-1 Specific Plan EIR.
Please let me know if you would like to discuss this further.
Thank you,
Amy
Amy R. Lopez (she/her)
Associate Planner | Staff Development Lead
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Transportation Engineering / Planning
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
Ideas
Twitter
Let’s not allow ourselves to become fatigued by doing good.
Every time we get the chance, let’s work for the benefit of all, starting with the people closest to us.
From: Cornel Todor
To: =yCouncil Members
Subject: Costco Project
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 9:20:17 AM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Hello everyone,
I would like to express my support for the Costco project and urge the council to deny the appeal filed by Seeno Homes. Costco will be an asset for Brentwood with hundreds of good paying jobs and the tax revenue it will generate.
On top of that I think we can all appreciate having a Costco in our town to save us the travel to Antioch, Livermore, or Tracy.
Please keep the Costco project on track!
Thank You,
Cornel Todor
Brentwood
From: Lisa OShea
To: =yCouncil Members
Subject: COSTCO
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 9:34:16 AM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
City Council Members,
We would like to ask that you allow the Costco project to move forward. This is a great opportunity for our community.
Thank You,
Lisa and Jim O’Shea
From: Camilla Jenkins
To: =yCouncil Members
Subject: Re Costco Brentwood
Date: Monday, July 24, 2023 9:24:10 PM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Dear to whom it may concern,
I would like to show my support for the Costco to come to Brentwood. It would bring many jobs and easier shopping experience for Brentwood residents.
Regards
Camilla Jenkins
From: DAN MCDONALD
To: =yCouncil Members
Subject: Costco
Date: Monday, July 24, 2023 9:25:46 PM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
I am for Costco in Brentwood, the expansion of Sandcreek will lessen traffic on Lone Tree.
Please do not cower to Seeno. He could care less about Brentwood, just wants to build homes.
Dan McDonald Shadow Lakes.
From: Darlene Smith
To: =yCouncil Members
Subject: Building a Costco in Brentwood.
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 2:57:17 AM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Everyone, me included, I have talked to is excited about a Costco in Brentwood. Now we don’t have to go to Antioch to shop there. Seeno has enough homes in Brentwood!! Sent from Mail for Windows
From: Mary Martinez
To: =yCouncil Members
Subject: Costco
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 7:05:41 AM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
My husband and I have been residents of brentwood for the past 13 years and we are strongly in support of Costco!!!!!
Mary and Dane martinez
Sent from my iPhone
From: Jen McVicker
To: =yCouncil Members
Subject: In support of Costco
Date: Monday, July 24, 2023 11:39:31 AM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Please do not allow Seeno to derail the Costco project from moving forward. The traffic is already bad in the area, yes, but the new Sand Creek extension will mitigate a lot of the traffic going to Costco, and might be completed before the new Costco even opens. I am a Brentwood resident and fully support bringing Costco to Brentwood.
Thank you,
Jen McVicker
From: Rose Mary Marquez
To: =yCouncil Members
Subject: Costco
Date: Monday, July 24, 2023 2:28:04 PM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
I would like to see Costco come to brentwood , I feel it would benefit the city of brentwood . I would like to see no more housing being built . I love the open space . I feel the more housing we have ,the fire department and police department and school and hospital and our roads will be overwhelmed , Sent from my iPhone
From: Savio Fonseca
To: =yCouncil Members
Subject: YES to COSTCO in Brentwood (NO to SEENO CRAP)
Date: Monday, July 24, 2023 2:08:07 PM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Subject says it all.
Regards,
--Savio
From: Sergio Verbis
To: =yCouncil Members; Ogden, Tim
Subject: City Council meeting tomorrow over the Costco Issue Date: Monday, July 24, 2023 2:45:35 PM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to our city government in support of Costco becoming part of our business community. This is the type of the business we should be encouraging to move into our community.
They treat their employees well through pay and benefits. The shopping experience is great.
Brentwood needs this Costco to help families by making it convenient for not only our citizens but citizens from nearby communities purchase their food, products, and gas from Costco. It will also benefit our city finances through the added tax revenue our city needs to pay for its bills.
I have lived in and around Brentwood since 1998 and I know what the opposition is going to use to not make this project not go forward....traffic. Traffic exists in that corridor already.
Any additional traffic would not greatly impact the flow of traffic in that corridor or the city.
Traffic is not a valid excuse to stop a project that is going to benefit thousands of families in Brentwood, Antioch, and Oakley on a yearly basis.
Please put my family down as a YES for Costco.
Thank you,
Sergio Verbis
Brentwood, CA 94513
From: Sue Jenlink
To: =yCouncil Members
Subject: Costco
Date: Monday, July 24, 2023 3:52:59 PM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Reject the appeal that Seeno is trying to leverage based on environmental concerns.. that company has had numerous fines for their lack of attention to the environment and shoddy building.. Costco will bring good jobs and a revenue stream from sales tax.. Yes, SandCreek road needs to be extended to relieve traffic on LoneTree.
Sent from my iPhone
From: Annette Beckstrand
To: =yCouncil Members
Subject: City Council Mtg - Discovery Homes Appeal
Date: Monday, July 24, 2023 7:18:37 AM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Dear City Council Members:
Having been a part of the 2000 General Plan and loving the outlook created for Brentwood at that time.
Over the years, adaptations have been necessary to account for realities and sometimes even better visions. Now, all these many years later, I can very much appreciate the opportunity to bring Costco to our community, and value the many benefits it bring to our residents, the jobs, the tax dollars to our City budget, and more. I applaud the Planning Commission for voting YES on this project.
I have had a relationship with Seeno / Discovery Homes for nearly 30 years. In my experience they are not concerned about our residents and the community. They will always put their interests and agendas ahead of the community of Brentwood. They have proven this over and over again. The Bridle Gate project alone is a 20-year manifestation of their unprofessional, delinquent and at times, criminal manipulation of contracts, elected officials and residents.
I respectfully request 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.
I am available to discuss this further, should you need more details regarding my experience with these matters and the appellant.
Respectfully,
Annette Beckstrand
Former City Council Member and Vice-Mayor
From: YAHOO! MAIL
To: =yCouncil Members
Subject: Costco in Brentwood
Date: Monday, July 24, 2023 8:44:18 AM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
We will be at the meeting on Tuesday. We definitely want Costco to come to Brentwood.
More Jobs
More Revenue
Easy access for seniors - hearing aids, new glasses
Easy access for young families - lower prices on food
We lived for many years in San Ramon and Costco was going to build there. A small group kept them out so they went to Danville and Danville got all of the revenue. Let's not let this happen to Brentwood! Anthony and Janice Khalil
From:
To: =yCouncil Members
Cc: Ogden, Tim
Subject: Costco Approval
Date: Monday, July 24, 2023 9:10:14 AM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Good morning
My wife and I are 10 year residents of Brentwood and support the building of the new proposed Costco in Brentwood. We strongly believe the opening of a new Costco would be beneficial to our community. We do not need more homes without the necessary infrastructure to serve the public.
The construction of this Costco is a reasonable step forward and we encourage the council to take all steps necessary to facilitate its approval.
David and Karen Crowe
From: Laura
To: webCityClerk
Cc: Bryant, Joel; Meyer, Susannah; Mendoza, Jovita; Pierson, Pa"tanisha; Oerlemans, Tony Subject: July 25, 2023 City Council Meeting
Date: Thursday, July 20, 2023 8:30:18 PM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
To All:
I’m unavailable to appear or call in during the July 25, 2023, City Council meeting and would appreciate the following comments submitted on my behalf and my husband to be entered into record.
July 25, 2023, City Council Meeting, Item F.1: Please deny the appeal filed by WCHB, LLC and affirm the Planning Commission approval of the project for Costco. In our opinion, it appears this is another strong arm/ransom tactic frequently utilized by Seeno.
There are a multitude of benefits to the city of Brentwood having a Costco within its borders.
Thank you.
Laura and Phil Avila
From: Lorraine Maxson
To: =yCouncil Members
Subject: Costco and Seeno
Date: Friday, July 21, 2023 10:40:02 AM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Please don’t give in to Seeno. I hope your council isn’t in their pocket. Their greed is appalling. Brentwood and residents would benefit from Costco far more than a shoddy development.
Sent from my iPhone
From: M Z
To: =yCouncil Members
Subject: Seeno Asks City to Reject New Costco (today"s East Bay Times) Date: Monday, July 24, 2023 10:13:23 AM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Dear City Council Members:
I beg of you to please reject the request from Seeno to reject the plans for Costco. This is crazy, unreasonable and hypocritical. From what I understand from reading the East Bay Times article today, Seeno doesn’t want the Costco because they want to build hundreds of homes nearby. Obviously, the home builder thinks Costco will adversely affect their bottom line. They cite environmental issues at the future Costco site. They are being hypocritical; just take a look at Seeno's history of disrespecting the environment in the Bay Area:
Click this link:
https://savemountdiablo.org/blog/the-seeno-way-why-the-seenos-are-bad-community-partners/ The residents of Brentwood desperately need and want Costco to be built, the sooner the better.
Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully,
Maureen Zekman
Trilogy at the Vineyards, Brentwood
Tim Ogden June 27, 2023
Brentwood City Manager
City of Brentwood
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
Re: Costco’s Commitment to Renewable Energy Interests
Dear Mr. Ogden,
Costco is eager to be a member of the City of Brentwood community, and we are passionate about meeting the needs of our members. As part of our application process, Costco spoke with community members, received letters relating to the project, and considered all community input provided. Our team understands the community’s desire for solar panels and electric vehicle charging stations to be installed as part of the proposed Warehouse located at Lone Tree Plaza Drive and Heidorn Ranch Road. As explained in this letter, Costco has committed to the future use of renewable energy by designing the buildings to be solar panel ready and installing EV conduit throughout the site.
As part of our project, we are investing in PG&E’s ongoing efforts to provide sustainable energy by contracting with PG&E under its Solar Choice program to supply the project with 100% renewable energy as available. PG&E are experts in the energy and sustainability fields and have the ability to provide the most efficient, sustainable energy for everyone. They understand the regulations and maintenance required for solar to make it an efficient power source.
In order to augment PG&E’s efforts and future sustainability efforts on our site, Costco is proposing to build our Warehouse building roof and electrical system to be solar-ready.
Permitting and constructing the solar system can be a long process that could lead to delays, but planning to add solar after opening when consultation with PG&E indicates that is warranted allows Costco to maintain the earliest possible Warehouse opening date while keeping the option to add solar after opening.
Attachment 15
Costco has committed to the installation of EV charging conduit to 10% of the parking stalls on site. As the use of electric vehicles increases in California, Costco continues to explore the addition of EV charging stations to serve our members. Permitting of the EV Charging Stations is done independently of the Warehouse and Fuel Station after opening to limit potential schedule delays related to the energy providers.
To reiterate, Costco is committed to the use of renewable energy through designing the buildings to be solar panel-ready and installing EV conduit throughout the site. As with every Costco warehouse, should further feasibility analyses support the need for solar panels and the local need for EV charging stations, Costco has the ability to install this equipment at a future date after opening. The permitting and installation of solar panels and EV charging stations after opening allow Costco to maintain the schedule of opening by Summer 2024 and begin serving the community as quickly as possible.
Sincerely,
Pari Holliday
Real Estate Development Director
Attachment 15
Twenty Eighth Floor
633 West Fifth Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
O 213-291-0758
F 213-921-4303
C 213-718-3468
[email protected]
June 30, 2023
VIA EMAIL ONLY
[email protected]
[email protected]
Honorable Joel R. Bryant, Mayor
Honorable Jovita Mendoza
Honorable Pa'tanisha Pierson
Honorable Susannah Meyer, Vice Mayor
Honorable Tony Oerlemans
City of Brentwood City Council
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
RE: Appeal Approvals of MS 351-22, CUP 22-001, DR 22-002 and MSP 22-001 Dear Honorable Councilmember:
Our firm represents the Contra Costa Climate Action Coalition, an unincorporated association of concerned Brentwood residents and business owners (“Association”) that wishes to appeal to the Brentwood City Council (“City Council”) the erroneous decision made by the Brentwood Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”), at a regularly scheduled hearing held on June 21, 2023, whereby the Planning Commission granted certain project approvals related to the approximately 152,000-square-foot wholesale Costco warehouse, a gasoline fueling station, and other site improvements proposed to be constructed in the City of Brentwood, at Lone Tree Plaza Drive within the Lone Tree Plaza shopping center (“Project”).
The Project approvals include: (i) a Tentative Parcel Map (“MS 351-22”) for the reconfiguration and subdivision of two vacant parcels, including Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 019-020-073 and 019-020-055, into a total of four smaller parcels; (ii) a Conditional Use Permit, CUP 22-001, to operate the proposed gas station facility; (iii) a Design Review Application, DR 22-002, for the development of a 154,852-square-foot Costco Warehouse with a 5,368-square-foot entrance canopy, and a gas station fueling area with an 11,500 square foot canopy over 16 fueling dispensers, which allows for 32 fuel pumps. Associated parking lot, landscaping, and access and Attachment 15
City of Brentwood City Councilmembers
June 30, 2023
circulation improvements will also be included on the two lots; and (iv) a Master Sign Program, MSP 22-001, which consists of building-mounted signage for the Costco warehouse and Costco fueling station (“Approvals”). This comment letter was submitted as an appeal based on the Association’s concerns about unmitigated adverse air quality, noise and health impacts to the community caused Project construction and traffic, as these impacts may exacerbate existing conditions, as well as urban decay conditions that can be created in Brentwood because of the Project. The appeal and proffered filing fee were rejected by the City Clerk because there is already another appeal of the Approvals pending. Thus, this appeal is being submitted as public comments instead. The Association intends to attend the City Council meeting at which time the appeal is expected to be heard.
Increased Traffic Makes Brentwood Less Livable
Costco warehouses are huge and draw a lot of traffic. Brentwood is already a very congested city. The environmental analysis underlying the Approvals does not adequately account for adverse impacts to Brentwood’s air quality from increased greenhouse gas emissions and toxic air contaminants caused by Project traffic. The existing area traffic conditions can only exacerbate the Project traffic impacts. The additional gas station will only make things worse due to emissions from the pumps and from the additional cars that stand idling, waiting to fuel up.
The Gas Station Will Impact Sensitive Receptors
The proposed gas station is poorly situated so close to residential areas. Its location raises serious health concerns, particularly for families residing in the area that have toddlers, young children and retired adults. These vulnerable members of our community are particularly susceptible to the adverse effects of air pollution and other toxic air contaminants and emissions generated by a gas station located close to residential areas. It is concerning that more comprehensive studies have not been conducted to assess these potential health risks and to implement appropriate mitigation measures to safeguard vulnerable populations.
Urban Decay is Likely to Occur
The planned Project is likely to cause urban decay in Brentwood. The Priority Area -1 (“PA-1”) Specific Plan is intended to foster a next generation employment hub in the city.
Unfortunately, the opposite is likely to result because of an unhealthy concentration of big box stores in the community. Another Costco is located just 15 minutes away. Together, they will exert undue economic pressure on nearby existing small businesses, causing many of them to fail.
Furthermore, while the Association is in favor of growing the local Brentwood economy, such growth must be sustainable – and it must be measurable, rather than speculative. In reality, the anticipated 250-300 jobs forecasted to be created will go to people who simply can’t afford to live in Brentwood. This will lead to more traffic and greater commute times for workers – exactly the opposite of what PA-1 is supposed to accomplish. Additionally, in recent years Attachment 15
City of Brentwood City Councilmembers
June 30, 2023
Brentwood has become a crowded metropolis. This Project worsens that condition without sufficient reciprocal landscaping to replace the precious lost open space that this Project will cause.
Ambient Noise and Light Levels Will Unduly Disturb the Community Construction and operations noise will also adversely impact nearby residential areas.
Physical damage to human hearing begins at prolonged exposure to noise levels higher than 85 decibels (“dBA”). Exposure to high noise levels affects the entire system, with prolonged noise exposure in excess of 75 dBA increasing body tensions, thereby affecting blood pressure and functions of the heart and the nervous system. Extended periods of noise exposure above 90 dBA results in permanent cell damage, which is the main driver for employee hearing protection regulations in the workplace. For community environments, the ambient or background noise problem is widespread, though generally worse in urban areas than in outlying, less developed areas. Elevated ambient noise levels can result in noise interference (e.g., speech interruption/masking, sleep disturbance, disturbance of concentration) and cause annoyance.
Mitigation measures must be mandated to ensure construction and operations cumulative ambient noise levels are within acceptable levels.
The proposed Costco store and gas station would introduce a heavy footprint in close proximity to a quiet residential area. The increased noise, traffic, air quality and other detrimental impacts will disrupt the tranquility and peaceful living environment enjoyed by these residents. The perceived quality of life (and, perhaps, property values) will be negatively impacted by the traffic, noise and air pollution the Project will create.
Furthermore, the light to be emitted from this proposed Project will negatively impact the community at night. In addition to pointing the lights downward, blinders should be installed on the light fixtures to prevent lateral light pollution from reaching nearby residents and from increasing Brentwood’s nighttime ambient light levels.
Several More Stringent Mitigation Measures are Necessary to Ensure Citizen Safety The recent federal infrastructure legislation will invest heavily in the electric vehicle market nationwide. At a minimum, the Project should be required to install an adequate number of charging stations for electric vehicles and electronic bicycles. Indeed, in order to safely and conveniently serve people approaching the store on foot or via bicycle from the Mokelumne Aqueduct Regional Trail (“Mokelumne Trail", additional bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure must be constructed throughout the parking lot from the street to the bicycle parking racks and on to the front door of the store.
Traffic at the intersection that feeds Home Depot, In-and-Out Burger, Lowes and Kohls, etc. is often congested because cars will pull into the intersection when there is no place to go and block traffic. Traffic lights in the area need to be better coordinated to alleviate this problem as the additional Costco will only make this problem worse.
Attachment 15
City of Brentwood City Councilmembers
June 30, 2023
Once more comprehensive studies have been conducted to assess the potential health risks and air quality impacts caused by greenhouse gas emissions and toxic air contaminants, appropriate mitigation measures must be implemented to safeguard sensitive receptors.
Several mitigation measures are necessary to ensure bicycle and pedestrian safety, including:
• Provide a safe route for pedestrians and bicyclists from the Mokelumne Trail to the main entrance of the store.
• Install bicycle parking near the front door of the store, no farther away from the main entrance than the closest non-handicapped automobile parking place. • The bicycle parking should include both lockers and racks that accommodate cargo bikes and trailers as well as normal bicycles. This generally means that the bicycle racks should be spaced farther apart than racks for regular bicycles. • The number of bicycle parking places should be in a ratio with the automobile parking places. One bicycle space per 15-20 car parking spaces would be appropriate. • At least half of the bicycle parking spaces should have an electric power receptacle so that electric bicycles and scooters can be charged while the owner is inside the store shopping.
Due to the proximity of Antioch and Oakley, additional mitigation measures are needed in those communities. Brentwood and the Developer should work together to achieve these goals:
Mitigations Needed in Brentwood:
• Remove the single curb cut that serves both crosswalks from the southeast corner of Heidorn Ranch Road and Lone Tree Plaza Drive and reconstruct the sidewalk so that individual curb-cuts lead to each crosswalk.
• Install a sidewalk that is at least 10 feet wide on the east side of Heidorn Ranch Road, leading from the corner of Lone Tree Plaza Drive to the Mokelumne Trail, which is located on the East Bay MUD utility corridor.
• All crosswalks, especially those associated with the Mokelumne Trail, in the vicinity of the new Costco store should be zebra striped in bright yellow paint. • All crosswalks, especially those associated with the Mokelumne Trail, in the vicinity of the new Costco store should have shark tooth limit lines in the appropriate traffic lanes Attachment 15
City of Brentwood City Councilmembers
June 30, 2023
and a sign telling motorists to "stop here when crosswalk is occupied." (Use the standard MUTCD sign.)
• All crossings of uncontrolled intersections by the Mokelumne Trail must have rectangular rapidly flashing beacons.
• Build a connecting trail along the MoCoCo railroad line between the Mokelumne Trail and the City of Brentwood's existing Minnesota Trail, which parallels the railroad line and extends to Central Boulevard. Along the way, this trail intersects with and crosses the Marsh Creek Regional Trail. The segment of trail that needs to be built is less than a quarter of a mile long. Minnesota Drive may have to moved approximately 15-feet to the west to accommodate the construction of this trail segment. Railroad companies are notoriously difficult to deal with, so we undoubtedly will not be able to build this segment of trail on the railroad’s property. The land to the west of the needed segment of trail is currently undeveloped, so moving Minnesota Drive and constructing this short segment of trail should be no problem. A member of Brentwood’s staff has indicated that it would be easier to build the new segment of trail on the west side of Minnesota Drive and have the trail users cross Minnesota Drive at each end of the new segment of trail.
That would certainly be a lesser desired option, but if that is the one selected, we must have full-blown vehicle traffic signals at each end of the new segment of trail.
Mitigations Needed in Antioch:
• Widen the sidewalk on the west side of Heidorn Ranch Road between the signalized intersection with Lone Tree Plaza Drive where the Mokelumne Trail crosses Heidorn Ranch Road and then heads back to the East Bay MUD utility corridor where the Mokelumne Trail resumes. This sidewalk segment is around 50-feet long. Currently the sidewalk is ADA minimum width. The sidewalk should be increased to 10-feet wide. The location of the gate and entrance to the utility corridor/trail will need to be adjusted to accommodate the widened sidewalk.
• Install a bike lane on northbound Heidorn Ranch Road as it approaches the Lone Tree Way intersection. There is sufficient space between the existing curb faces to retain the existing motor-vehicle lanes when installing this short segment of bike lane; we’ll just have to narrow the (currently generous) vehicle-traffic lanes a little bit.
Note: Heidorn Ranch Road has bike lanes on both sides of the street over most of its length and currently extends to the south to Sand Creek Road. • Add bike lanes to both sides of Fairside Way between Lone Tree Way and the entrance to the existing City of Antioch trail that goes behind the Bella Rose Apartments and connects to Country Hills Drive at Canada Valley Road. These bike lanes should extend to/from the limit line for the crosswalk at Lone Tree Way.
Note 1: The southbound side of Fairside Way might present a width problem for the Attachment 15
City of Brentwood City Councilmembers
June 30, 2023
addition of a bike lane. Bicyclists would prefer a narrower marked bike lane and narrower traffic lanes over the use of sharrows. Fairside Way is a quiet residential street, so this should pose no problem.
Note 2: Heidorn Ranch Road seamlessly changes name to Fairside Way as it crosses Lone Tree Way.
• Ensure the traffic signal of Heidorn Ranch Road/Fairside Way responds to the presence of bicyclists waiting to cross Lone Tree Way.
Note: These two small additions to the city's bike lanes will create a marked, on-street route on the west side of Highway 4 between the Mokelumne Trail and the Delta de Anza Regional Trail using the bike lanes on Country Hills Drive and Laurel Road. • Install rapidly flashing rectangular beacons at the crossing of Vista Grande Drive by the Mokelumne Trail. In addition to push-buttons, these rapidly flashing rectangular beacons should automatically activate when the presence of an approaching bicyclist is detected. • The existing single curb-cut in the middle of the curve of each corner serving two crosswalks must be removed and curb-cuts for the sidewalks at each corner of the north side Vista Grande Drive should be installed so that one curb-cut leads to each crosswalk. • Install zebra-painted crosswalks, yellow in color, at every street that the Mokelumne Trail crosses in the City of Antioch. Each crosswalk needs an appropriately placed shark-tooth limit line in each traffic lane. Uncontrolled, midblock intersections should have rapidly flashing rectangular beacons installed.
• Install a scramble phase for pedestrians and bicyclists at the traffic signal at Lone Tree Way/Hillcrest Avenue where the Mokelumne Trail crosses both streets. • Widen the sidewalk of Hillcrest Avenue on the east side of the street to 10-feet where the Mokelumne Trail is on the sidewalk for about 100 feet as it goes to the intersection with Lone Tree Way from the East Bay MUD right-of-way. Currently the sidewalk is ADA minimum width. This widening will require that the fence and gate of the East Bay MUD utility corridor be moved to accommodate the new sidewalk width. Note: there is a small entrance sign/plaza on the southeast corner of Hillcrest Avenue and Lone Tree Way that includes decorative concrete flat-work close to the corner. This existing concrete sidewalk must not be damaged when the concrete for the widened sidewalk is poured. • Ensure that continuous bicycle lanes exist on both sides of Empire Avenue between the border with Oakley and the border with Brentwood. Marked bicycle lanes must be included up to and away from the limit lines/crosswalks of each intersection. This is especially important at the crossing of Lone Tree Way.
Note: With judicious adjustment of vehicle-traffic lane-width, there should be sufficient Attachment 15
City of Brentwood City Councilmembers
June 30, 2023
space between the curb faces to fit in all the needed lanes. Follow the standards listed in the CCTA's Countywide Bicycle Plan for designing and installing these bicycle lanes. • Connect the current western end of the Mokelumne Trail near Stapleton Drive to Somersville Road. This will connect the Mokelumne Trail with the Delta de Anza Regional Trail, which passes the corner of Somersville Road and Buchanan Road. This connection can be easily made by widening the sidewalk on the south side of Buchanan Road to 10-feet between the appropriate points.
Note: This trail connection is several miles from the Costco site, so it might be placed fairly low on the required-projects list. However, this connection is needed to connect the separate bicycle paths into a continuous network and it is part of the Mokelumne Trail.
Mitigations Needed in Oakley:
• Widen Empire Avenue as it crosses the MoCoCo railroad line. Empire Avenue extends from Brentwood through a corner of Antioch and deep into Oakley. Except for the railroad crossing, Empire Avenue currently consists of four vehicle traffic lanes, two sidewalks, two bicycle lanes, and a landscaped median over the entire distance between the railroad tracks and Laurel Road. The railroad crossing consists of two 11-foot vehicle traffic lanes and nothing else. It is a death trap for anyone not in an automobile. Empire Avenue will be a major access route for Oakley residents to get to the new Costco store and is a major access point for Oakley citizens accessing the shopping opportunities along Lone Tree Way.
Note: By widening the railroad crossing we will complete a marked, on-street route between the Mokelumne Trail and the Delta de Anza Regional Trail on the east side of the freeway. • Add bicycle lanes to Neroli Road/Bridgehead Road between Live Oak Avenue and Wilbur Avenue.
Note: Neroli Road seamlessly changes names to Bridgehead Road as it crosses Main Street.
This project would create a marked, on-street connection between the Delta de Anza Regional Trail and the west end of the Big Break Regional Trail.
Note: The California Delta Trail is temporarily on the Delta de Anza Trail and uses this segment of road to get over to the Antioch Bridge as it continues its trek up to Locke and then to Sacramento. This project would require the widening of Neroli Road/Bridgehead Road in order to fit the bike lanes. These bike lanes would be added to over about a two or two-and-a-half-mile segment of road.
Note: There is space between the abutments under the BNSF railroad, so we won’t have to rebuild this crossing to fit in the bike lanes. This route would closely parallel Highway 4 for part of the way and Highway 160 for the remainder of the way.
As these Public Comments demonstrate, the Project Approvals cannot be granted until the Public has been provided with enough time and information to review the Project, to provide Brentwood with detailed information about the effect which the proposed Project is likely to have on Attachment 15
City of Brentwood City Councilmembers
June 30, 2023
the environment, and to provide ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be mitigated.
For the reasons stated herein, the Association requests a hearing on the Project Approvals before the City Council so the Association can provide additional, well-informed comments on the Project prior to its final Approval.
Sincerely,
Tal C. Finney, Esq., Of
FINNEY ARNOLD, LLP
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Bill Zuroff
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 7:17 AM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: In Support of Brentwood Costco
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Good morning,
I was reading that there might be pressure to stop the plans for Costco to open in Brentwood. I live here in Brentwood and fully support Costco coming to Brentwood. For several reasons, this would be a great benefit.
From all of my research, Costco is a great community partner. They bring higher paying jobs to the area and invest in employees and the community. Selfishly, it would be great not to have to drive to Antioch or Tracy for my shopping.
Having Costco here in Brentwood really makes sense and I hope that it can move forward.
I don’t know all the details about the pressure to stop the development, but as a resident here, I think this is a very sound decision by the city to have it move forward and am 100% behind it! It would be very sad to have that area become (or pay for) another private safari building where the rich can flaunt their wealth in front of hard working residents…
Thank you!
Bill Zuroff
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Nick King
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 7:12 AM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Please build the new Costco in Brentwood it would greatly benefit Brentwood with all of the new revenue and jobs.
Nick King
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Jeannine Sullivan
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 5:23 AM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco project
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
I am writing to voice my support to move forward on the approved Costco project. Stand strong against Seeno and their questionable tactics.
Jeannine Sullivan
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Jeremy Jones
Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2023 9:10 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco Project ‐ Please Approve
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Good evening,
I’m writing to express my support of the Costco project recently approved by the Planning Commission. With the number of Brentwood residents already Costco members (me being one of them🙂), the number of solid jobs that will be created, and the additional sales tax revenue that will be generated for Brentwood, this is a great opportunity for our city.
Thank you.
Jeremy Jones
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Susan Travis <
Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2023 9:09 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco project
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Please keep the Costco project moving ahead. This is what Brentwood needs! Susan Travis
Brentwood
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Tammie Macdonald <
Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2023 8:44 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Seeno and Costco
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
I’m writing to ask that the city of Brentwood move forward with building the approved Costco. Not only does the city benefit from all the sales tax revenue, but the citizens of the city have the opportunity to earn a good living wage. These types of jobs are something the people have been wanting and needing.
Thank you,
Tammie Macdonald
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Mohib Raza <
Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2023 7:25 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco Approval ‐Seeno Resistance
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Dear city council members,
Our family applaud you for approving the Costco project in our city. Thank you very much.
We have learned through Nextdoor application that an organization by the name of Seeno homes has petitioned you to stop the Costco project. We want you to know that the Costco project is extremely important to this community. We do not want you to give in to the challenges presented by Seeno homes! While Seeno homes is known for their low quality products and doubtful business practices, but that is not my point here. We want to extend our full support to you to continue with the Costco project. If you need anything in terms of support, please do let us know. The last thing our city needs is a lost opportunity like Costco business that can benefit us for a very long time.
Thanks again and stay strong.
Thanks
Syed Mohibbe Raza
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Michelle Guerrero <
Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2023 6:47 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
City Council,
I’m not sure what Seeno will gain if Costco does not go into Brentwood and really don’t care. Costco will provide jobs, tax dollars and convenience to Brentwood and surrounding area. Please ignore the glutinous builder and proceed as planned.
Thank you,
Michelle Guerrero
(32 year resident)
Sent from my iPad
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Adrian Torres <
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 8:53 AM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Good morning,
It has come to my attention that there are some that are opposing the new Costco. It is obvious that this project is a great benefit to the city of Brentwood and its residents. Please do all in your power to fast track this project for tge residents of Brentwood.
Sincerely,
Adrian
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Renee Swanson
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 9:12 AM
To: Web ComDev Dist <[email protected]> Subject: Costco
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Please move forward with Costco development.
Thank you
R. Swanson
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Don Stidham <
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 9:04 AM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco Project
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Hi City Council,
Just wanted to thank you for approving the Costco expansion into Brentwood.
Before retiring I had the privilege of dealing with Costco in my business for a number of years. They are first class operators and a great community neighbor.
They also go out of their way to feature local products to their members which will be good for Brentwood vendors.
They integrate themselves into the community.
This will be a big advantage for Brentwood citizens.
Please don’t allow any dissenters to stop or slow down this important project. You’ve made a great decision and I’m sure you will work hard to manage traffic issues.
Again, congratulations and thank all of you who support this project.
Kind regards,
Don Stidham
Brentwood, CA 94513
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Tracey Thomas
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 9:44 AM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco Project
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Costco is good for our community. They are a good employer and will provide jobs to our area! We should not let intimidation by a crooked builder speak for our community. Please do what you can to keep this project moving! Tracey Salazar
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Danielle K
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 10:04 AM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco Brentwood
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
As a Brentwood resident, I am very excited for the new Costco. We’d like the project to continue.
Thank you,
Danielle Kralj
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Robert Kimball
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 10:25 AM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Allow the Costco Project to continue
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Please allow the Costco project to become reality for Brentwood!!! It will bring many jobs and revenue to the city.
Sent from my phone. Please excuse any spelling errors.
Robert Kimball
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From:
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 10:31 AM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco project
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Please go forward with the Costco project and don’t give in to Seeno homes threats. This city needs a project like this to provide jobs and give the community something that will be appreciated.
Thank you,
Bezhan
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Shannon <
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 11:30 AM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Want to send my support for having a Costco in Brentwood. Antioch is not safe to drive too and Tracy/Livermore are too far to go to on a regular basis. We have nothing like Costco here. We need less housing and fast food restaurants.
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: JACQUELINE Calica
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 12:17 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Brentwood Resident in Brentwood Hills
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
To whom it may concern,
I want to thank our city’s good office in providing the best place to live and nurture our kids. As a resident of Brentwood here in Brentwood Hills, I support the moving forward of Costco project and reject Seeno Developer. We wish to have safe, spacious yet progressive Brentwood City.
Thank you
Calica Family
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: duyichu duyichu <
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 12:18 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco Brentwood approval
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Hello,
I am writing to you in support of moving forward with the Costco project in Brentwood. On behalf of the Kaiser Permanente Antioch staff physicians, particularly those of us who reside in Brentwood and Antioch, we feel that having a Brentwood Costco location will greatly enhance the quality of life for both our colleagues and patients. I hope that the city council will do their utmost to make sure this project sees its completion. Thank you! Sincerely,
Ray Zhang, MD
Kaiser Permanente Antioch physician and proud Brentwood resident Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Marcia Davis <
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 1:10 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
I am totally in agreement to have a Brentwood Costco. As a Brentwood resident I find the current trip to Costco long.
And that store is always so busy
Marcia Davis
Trilogy
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Margaret Taylor <
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 1:16 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Please support and expedite the Costco project it’s a great benefit for our city and its citizens. I am very excited for this project to be completed!
Sent from my iPad
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Raja Tadi
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 1:41 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco and Seeno
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Hi Brentwood CityCouncil,
I am Raja Tadi resident of Brentwood, CA.Please don’t get intimidated by Seeno homes regarding the Costco construction. Please support Costco and help our Brentwood neighborhood grow. Good luck.
Sent from my iPhone
Raja Tadi.
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Jesus Gonzales
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 2:31 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Please allow Costco to proceed
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Hello,
Please allow Costco to be built and the project to proceed. I am a local resident and agree with the majority of the community that Costco would be beneficial and a great addition to the community and quality of life of our fellow Brentwood residents.
Thank you!
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Alfredo Remorin
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 3:04 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
We need Costco in our area!
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Cathlyn White Guerra <
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 3:17 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Stand Firm against Seeno
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
I’m so happy the Costco project has been approved! Glad to hear the Sand Creek extension will be completed before Costco opens! That was my only concern!
Please stand firm against the self interests of Seeno. The Costco project is good for our City! Thank you!
Cathlyn White Guerra
BWD
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Lydia Moon
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 3:45 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Brentwood Costco Project
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Dear City Council Members,
I have read that the proposed Costco project was approved and is now being appealed by Seeno. Please do what you can to make this project move forward. We need a Costco in our area, and the jobs and tax revenue will both benefit our city.
Thank you for doing your best to keep our city growing in a positive direction.
Sincerely,
Lydia Moon
Brentwood resident
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: RALPH COLE <
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 4:57 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Support for the building of the Brentwood Costco CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Brentwood City Council:
As a residents of Trilogy at the Vineyard my wife and I fully support the building of the Brentwood Costco. Please do not let Seeno’s bullying tactics influence your decisions.
Thank you,
Ralph and Cheri Cole
Brentwood, CA. 94513
Sent from my iPad
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Shoaib Siddiqi
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 4:59 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Please move forward with Costco
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
We as a resident of Brentwood highly support Costco in our neighborhood.
Shoaib Siddiqi
Brentwood, CA 94513
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Dennis Linsmeier
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 5:55 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Seeno interference
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
This guy. Should not be allowed to do business in Brentwood, we don’t need this type of character here. City council please don’t let this guy strongarm us!
Dennis Linsmeier
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Derrick Lewis
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 7:20 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco store in Brentwood.
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
To whom it may concern,
As a homeowner and resident of Brentwood. I am in support of the Costco Project to move forward. As a resident I feel it would create jobs, more money for the city of Brentwood and overall better experience. Please keep the project moving forward.
Kind regards
Derrick Lewis.
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Dawn O’Sullivan <
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 9:19 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Cc:
Subject: Costco
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
To whom it may concern,
Our family recently moved to Brentwood and we are excited that our new community has their priorities aligned with the best interest of the residents. Please continue the great work you do! Our family is very grateful that the Costco project is underway and we hope nothing changes with the plan. We fully support the Costco project. Thank you for considering our input.
Dawn & Michael O’Sullivan
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Yun Shen
Sent: Friday, July 7, 2023 12:14 AM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: support Costco 100%!!!
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Sent from my iPad
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: SOLO VELO <
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 4:07 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: WE WANT COSTCO IN BRENTWOOD
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Thank you…
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Alison Overzet <
Sent: Sunday, July 9, 2023 7:22 AM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Please move forward with Costco!
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
I would like to add my voice to the numerous voices that want you to move forward with the Costco project. People in this community are tired of having to go all the way to Tracy to go to Costco because no one wants to go to the Antioch Costco because it’s in a horrible area. We actually travel all the way to Tracy just so we can go to a nice Costco, and we are so excited, as are everyone that I talk to that I know in our community, to have a Costco here where we can access it easily. Please do not allow Seeno development to take this from us and just develop more homes in that area. They are greedy developers who want the land for themselves. We want businesses here that offer opportunities for employment and offer us a place to go buy things where we can save money. Please move forward with this project Alison Overzet
Brentwood, CA 94513
“Love is that condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own”. ‐ Robert Heinlen Sent from my iPhone
Alison Overzet
“Love is that condition in which the happiness of another person is essential to your own”. ‐ Robert Heinlen Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Alora Martinez <
Sent: Saturday, July 8, 2023 8:02 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Support Costco in Brentwood
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Dear City Council:
I would like to give my support for Costco to build and support our community. I hope that you continue to keep in good standing with the higher‐ups with Costco corporate so they do not give up on this project due to delays caused by frivolous lawsuits.
Please continue to look toward the residents of our great community and their support for this amazing project.
Thank you,
Alora Martinez
Brentwood CA 94513
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Elissa Welch <
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 11:31 AM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Seeno/Costco
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Hello,
I am a resident of Brentwood and was taken back when I heard that Seeno was trying to stop the City of Brentwood from moving forward with a unanimous decision to bring Costco to Brentwood.
The Brentwood city residents who have elected you and pay your salary want Costco. The city doesn’t want Seeno development.
Please put the city residents/tax payers first, and not Seeno, a special interest developer.
Thank you for your continued partnership and support.
Elissa Welch
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Carol Ramsey
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2023 10:13 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: I support the Costco project.
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
I’m in support of the Costco project, respectfully, C. Ramsey Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Liz Harris
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2023 11:46 AM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: We support the new Costco project
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
This is to notify Brentwood city council that my husband and I are in full support of the new Costco project planned near Kohl’s in Brentwood.
Please do NOT let this project fall through.
Thank you!
David and Elizabeth Harris
Apple Hill Estates
Brentwood
Sent from my iPhone
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
From: +
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 3:58 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco
YES ON COSTCO ‐PLEASE
Attachment 15
1 Hagen, Jennifer
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From:
Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2023 12:07 PM
To: =yCouncil Members <[email protected]>
Subject: Costco
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
I live very close to wear the new Costco is hoping to be built and I can’t wait! We will literally be able to walk to the store.
I am hearing there could be opposition to this being built by a builder named Seeno? I really don’t think they should have any say with the reputation they have in the community.
This project will bring many jobs and opportunities to the area and I am excited for this to come into our neighborhood.
Thank you
Tracy DeLucia
Attachment 15
Attachment 15