Brentwood City Council
August 27, 2024

4859-8121-3143 v1
window trim elements shown at the front elevation of all architectural styles to the sides and rears of the homes to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. These elements shall be reflected on the building plans.

10. The building plans shall reflect that all roof materials shall be concrete tile to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.

11. The Permittee shall incorporate the use of radiant barriers within the attic space of each house to reduce heating and cooling fuel consumption.

12. The Permittee shall install Energy Star-compliant heating and cooling systems, appliances, and equipment and control systems.

13. The Permittee shall pre-wire electrical connections in the wall of each garage in order to accommodate the future placement of plug-in electric or plug-in hybrid vehicle charging stations. These connections shall consist of 240V/20 amp dedicated circuits connected to a dedicated breaker.

14. The Permittee shall incorporate water-reducing features into the building and landscape design, create water-efficient landscapes, and install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices.

15. The Permittee shall install low-flow water fixtures and appliances in each residential home.

16. In order to provide future residents with an alternative to opening windows (open windows may result in unacceptable interior noise levels), mechanical ventilation in the form of whole-house fans, shall be included in the improvement plans for all second floor living spaces, as well as all unshielded living spaces within the project.

17. Second floor windows of the first row of residences along the State Route 4 corridor and Sand Creek Road, shall have a minimum STC rating of 34 for windows with a view of either roadway. Alternatively, an interior noise analysis shall be prepared by a qualified acoustic engineer outlining the measures required to meet the City’s 45 dBA Ldn interior noise standard, especially at unshielded second floor facades along the State Route 4 corridor or Sand Creek Road. Compliance shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development.

18. The brick/stone veneers on the front of all applicable elevations shall wrap around the corresponding side elevation and be carried through to terminate at the fence line. These changes shall be reflected on the plans submitted in support of a building permit application.

19. All fencing shall be shown on the building permit plans and shall be in conformance with BMC Chapter 17.660. Corner lot street side fencing and rear

4859-8121-3143 v1
yard fencing of double-frontage lots shall be setback a minimum of 5 feet.

Fences along the dedicated open space shall be a 6-foot high open space fence.

20. Any brick/stone wall veneers shall wrap to the interior corner of all wall and porch elements on the front elevations and shall be reflected on the plans submitted in support of a building permit application through the provision of either a partial elevation of the affected wall, or a note on the affected sheets.

21. At minimum 60% of all garage doors shall incorporate decorative design elements including, but not limited to, raised or recessed paneling, windows along the top panel of the door, and faux wood or metal detailing, to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. These changes shall be reflected on the plans submitted in support of a building permit application.

22. Brine-discharging self-regenerating water softener systems are prohibited pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section 13.04.022.B.

23. The Permittee shall indemnify, defend with counsel of the City’s reasonable choosing, and hold harmless City and its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents (the “Indemnified Parties”) from and against any third party claim, action, or proceeding against City and/or the Indemnified Parties to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the City’s approval of the project approved herein, including certification of the Final REIR, approval of the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 9586; and Design Review No. 21-010. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, reasonable attorneys' fees, and other reasonable expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding. The Permittee shall pay to the City upon demand or, as applicable, on a monthly basis to counsel of City’s reasonable choosing, amounts owed pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. City shall promptly notify the Permittee of any claim, action, or proceeding and shall engage in reasonable efforts to cooperate in the defense.

24. The Planning Commission shall have the jurisdiction to consider any proposed amendment to this Resolution No. .

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. E.1
07/16/2024
SUBJECT: Bridle Gate - Revised Environmental Impact Report, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, and Design Review
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
STAFF: Erik Nolthenius, Planning Manager
Cindy Gnos, Contract Planner (Raney Planning & Management)

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolutions, thereby certifying the Revised EIR and making CEQA findings, and approving a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and Design Review for the Bridle Gate Project proposed by WCHB Development, LLC. Consideration of this project was continued to a date uncertain at the Planning Commission meeting on September 5, 2023.

A Revised Final Environmental Impact Report (RFEIR) has been prepared for this project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and the Planning Commission will consider whether to certify the document and make required findings.

OWNER/APPLICANT
WCHB Development, LLC

GENERAL PLAN
As shown in Figure 1 below, the General Plan designates the overall project site for a variety of land uses, including Residential Low Density (R-LD) on the majority of the site and south of Sand Creek Road, which allows for development between 1.1 and 5.0 dwelling units per gross acre. The northern portion of the site, which includes a single parcel of 36.82 acres, is shown on the vesting tentative subdivision map as a designated remainder with no specific development proposed as part of this application (the applicant has filed separate preliminary applications under SB 330 for development of this area, but no formal development applications have been submitted to date.) The General Plan also designates approximately six acres of the site as Park and approximately 25 acres of the site as Permanent Open Space, all of which are located south of Sand Creek Road along the western boundary of the site.

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. E.1
07/16/2024
Figure 1: General Plan Land Use Designations

ZONING/SURROUNDING LAND USES
The zoning for the project site is PD-36, which is set forth in Brentwood Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 17.486 and includes a map that does not show any subarea boundaries. Chapter 17.486 does; however, include objective zoning standards for PD-36 that are consistent with the General Plan designation. The fact that the map for PD-36 does not include locations for the various subareas was one of the subjects of a lawsuit concerning this application. In that lawsuit, the City took the position

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. E.1
07/16/2024
that the appropriate residential development standards are those in BMC Section

17.486.004, referring to Subarea C. This conclusion was consistent with the property’s General Plan designation of Residential Low Density, which allows for residential development densities ranging from 1.1 to 5.0 units per acre. The court hearing the lawsuit did not raise concerns with using these objective standards to review the subject application, and so these have been applied.

The minimum lot size for PD-36, Subarea C is 5,000 sf. The applicant thus provided a revised VTSM on August 4, 2023 to comply with BMC Section 17.486.004, including a minimum lot size of 5,000 sf, which resulted in a reduction in the number of lots from 286 (October 2021) to 272, remaining consistent with the density identified in the General Plan designation of Residential Low Density. The project also complies with the PD-36 development standards pertaining to open space and recreation.

It should be noted that the City cannot impose certain PD-36 standards that are inconsistent with State law (e.g., Subarea C’s requirements regarding a housing cap or the requirement to obtain a CUP for residential units over a certain density).

Furthermore, the only other residential subarea in PD-36 is Subarea D, which requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 sf, which, if applied to this project, would substantially decrease the density such that it would also be inconsistent with State law.

Surrounding Land Uses
North – vacant land within the Priority Area 1 (PA-1) Specific Plan area identified for future Employment Center/Light Industrial development (ECLI) East – State Route 4, with The Streets of Brentwood and vacant commercial property beyond
South – two City-owned parcels for permanent open space and a water tank, as well as single-family homes in the Brentwood Hills subdivision West – city limits, with the city of Antioch beyond

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. E.1
07/16/2024
Figure 2: Aerial Photograph of Project Site and Surrounding Area

PREVIOUS ACTION(S)
See attached.

BACKGROUND
The applicant, WCHB Development, LLC, seeks to subdivide the Bridle Gate site to allow for a variety of uses, notably 272 single-family homes.

PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
On September 5, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Bridle Gate project and took testimony from the applicant, as well as 11

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. E.1
07/16/2024
members of the public. After noting several concerns about the project (most notably traffic and specifically the intersection of St. Regis Avenue/San Jose Avenue) and a lengthy deliberation, the Commission ultimately adopted the following motion by a 4-0 vote to continue the item (Chairperson Roberts was absent):

Continue the item to a date uncertain and direct staff to work with the applicant to evaluate the intersection of St. Regis Avenue/San Jose Avenue for a possible gate or emergency vehicle access only, with the understanding that staff will evaluate any other viable solution that would lessen the impact of traffic on the existing residential areas to the south (i.e., Brentwood Hills and Shadow Lakes).

Since that time, staff has been working with the applicant pursuant to the Planning Commission’s direction and has been addressing issues that arose from a change in the parties representing the applicant.

In addition, it is important to note that state law, namely SB 330, only allows a maximum of five public hearings on a project that does not require legislative approvals, such as this project. A hearing includes any public hearing, continuances of a hearing, workshop, or similar meeting, including any appeal. This meeting represents the second public hearing on the project, leaving only three other public hearings available, including any subsequent consideration by the City Council by way of a call for review or an appeal.

PRIOR APPLICATIONS
This application represents the latest in a long series of land use applications submitted for this site (see the attached list of Previous Actions). 2006 Project
On June 6, 2006, the Planning Commission approved the first version of the Bridle Gate project. Commensurate with that approval, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was adopted, which identified that all impacts resulting from the project could be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of mitigation measures. The 2006 project included the following approvals by the City Council: (1) a General Plan Amendment to modify the text of the existing Special Planning Area E land use designation; (2) a Rezone of the project site to establish standards and subareas for the Planned Development No. 36 (PD-36) zoning designation; and (3) a Development Agreement. The approved Tentative Subdivision Map for the project was never finalized or recorded and ultimately expired. The

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. E.1
07/16/2024
Development Agreement also subsequently expired. The General Plan and zoning changes, however, remain generally in place, except as modified in 2014. 2014 General Plan Update
In 2014, the City adopted a comprehensive update to the General Plan and revised certain land use designations applicable to the Bridle Gate project site. These changes included the designation of the entire project site to Residential Low-Density, which was requested by the project applicant. Further, the zoning for the project site was amended to include a PD map that encompassed the entire site and did not include mapped boundaries for the various Subareas that were previously identified in the zoning for PD-36 in 2006.
2020 Project
A revised version of the Bridle Gate Project was proposed in 2020 (the 2020 Bridle Gate Project), and, due to substantial changes to the project, an EIR was prepared.

The requested entitlements included:
 A General Plan Amendment to (1) change the land use designation for the northwesterly 13.98 acres of the site from Regional Commercial (RC) to Planned Development (PD) to allow for up to 258 multi-family units; (2) change the land use designation for 4.3 acres of the site south of the Sand Creek Road alignment to Park (P) to allow for two public parks associated with the single-family units; and (3) revise the planned alignment of the proposed San Jose Avenue extension in the Circulation Element;
 A Rezone of the site to modify the existing development standards for PD-36 to accommodate the single-family and multi-family portions of the site;  A Development Agreement between the City of Brentwood and the project applicant;
 A Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (VTSM) to subdivide the approximately 137.3-acre project site into 4.3 acres for public parks, 13.98 acres for up to 258 multi-family units, approximately 28.35 acres for permanent open space, 252 single-family units, an 11.35-acre elementary school site (or alternatively, a residential overlay that could accommodate an additional 63 single-family units if the school was not constructed), and 19.59 acres for future commercial development; and
 A Design Review for the single-family and multi-family portions of the site.

The project included the development of 252 single-family residences and the dedication of two parcels to the City of Brentwood for use as public parks. The project

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. E.1
07/16/2024
also included an 11.35-acre parcel to be sold to the Brentwood Union School District for development as an elementary school or, alternatively in the event the school construction did not proceed, development with an additional 63 single-family residences. As of the date the Planning Commission considered the proposed project, the project included future development of a 258-unit apartment complex, as well as one parcel designated for future Regional Commercial development. However, subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing on the proposed project, the applicant notified the City that it wished to modify the project to no longer include the 258-unit apartment complex. The applicant ultimately submitted a revised proposed VTSM on January 29, 2021, formally amending the application for the 2020 Bridle Gate Project. As a result of the project amendment, the requested General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Design Review requests were also modified to eliminate the multi-family component. The City Council denied the modified project on March 9, 2021, and the 2020 EIR that analyzed the 2020 Bridle Gate Project was not certified.

Current 2021 Application
A third application for the project, which is currently under consideration, was submitted to the City of Brentwood in late 2021 and was deemed complete in June 2022. This application differs from the prior applications in that, unlike the prior applications, the applicant is not seeking any legislative or discretionary entitlements.

Rather, the developer is seeking only vesting tentative subdivision map and design review approvals since the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan and zoning for the site, as discussed in more detail below. As such, the Planning Commission is limited in its decision-making to determining whether the findings for approval of the vesting tentative subdivision map and design review can be made.

There are also state law limitations on the Planning Commission’s discretion, as described in more detail below.

APPLICABLE STATE HOUSING LAW
The applicant submitted a preliminary application for this project under SB 330 (Government Code § 65941.1). By submitting a preliminary application and complying with the timelines set forth in the law, applicants can vest or “lock in” the City ordinances and regulations, including zoning and objective design standards, in effect at the time of application (Government Code § 65589.5(o)). In this case, the application must be processed under the City ordinances and regulations in effect as of submittal of the preliminary application, October 22, 2021.

Review of the application must also comply with SB 330. Most importantly, if the application complies with the applicable objective general plan, zoning, and

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. E.1
07/16/2024
subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, the City cannot deny or condition the project in a manner that would lessen the intensity of housing, such as decreasing the density or number of units (Government Code § 65589.5(j)).

Therefore, the City cannot require compliance with the City’s General Plan “midrange” policy or require that the applicant obtain conditional use permits for any units over a certain density. The “mid-range” policy requires that applicants meet subjective criteria to develop above the mid-point of the applicable General Plan density range, and is, therefore, contrary to the requirement that cities cannot limit density through subjective criteria. The BMC also requires that residential projects obtain CUPs for units over a certain density range, for PD-36 over 3.5 units per gross acre (see BMC §§ 17.130(B), 17.486.004(B)(1)). This provision is also contrary to current state law and therefore cannot be imposed. Further, the City cannot impose the maximum number of primary dwelling units set forth in PD-36 (see BMC §

17.486.004(C)(12)), as it is directly contrary to SB 330, which states that a city may not impose a housing cap (Government Code § 66300(b)(1)(D)(ii)).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is bounded by Old Sand Creek Road to the north, State Route (SR) 4 to the east, a single-family residential development (Brentwood Hills) to the south, and the edge of the Brentwood Planning Area and the City of Antioch’s city limits to the west. A small segment of existing San Jose Avenue bounds the project site at its farthest southeastern corner. The western terminus of Sand Creek Road, constructed as part of the interchange with SR 4, is located adjacent to the eastern site boundary.

The proposed project would include subdivision of the site for development of 272 single-family detached residences, as well as associated improvements within the project site, including two parks, open space, stormwater detention and treatment areas, utility connections, and construction of an internal roadway network on approximately 92.96 acres. The 36.82 acres of land located north of the future Sand Creek Road extension are on a separate legal parcel shown as a designated remainder on the vesting tentative subdivision map (VTSM), and are therefore not proposed to be developed as part of this application.

The single-family residential area would be developed with lot sizes ranging from 5,000 to 15,930 square feet (sf). The application proposes one- to three-story residences ranging from 1,808 sf to 3,222 sf. As noted below, staff is recommending a condition to limit the residences to two stories consistent with Planned Development (PD) 36 Subarea C standards. Overall, a total of 67.96 acres of the project site would be developed with residential uses. Therefore, buildout of the single-family residential development would result in a density of approximately 4.0 dwelling units per acre

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. E.1
07/16/2024
(du/ac). The density calculation included here is based only on the portions of the site dedicated to residential use and not designated as Permanent Open Space, consistent with the City’s General Plan.

One parcel totaling six acres (northwest portion of the site) and a second parcel totaling 2.49 acres (southeast portion of the site), respectively, would be dedicated to the City of Brentwood for use as public parks. The parks would provide recreational amenities for residents of the proposed single-family subdivision. Landscaping elements would be provided throughout the proposed park areas and all other developed portions of the site consistent with City requirements. An additional 25 acres of permanent open space would be located within the southwestern portion of the site. Sand Creek currently flows from west to east through the northern portion of the proposed project site, and primarily through the 36.82-acre designated remainder.

The proposed project would include water, sewer, and stormwater utility improvements. Stormwater draining off impervious surfaces within the site would be directed to two bio-retention basins located in the northwestern portion of the site, southeast of the proposed six-acre park (Parcel B), and along the southeast boundary of the site (Parcel E), respectively. Water and sewer service for the proposed project would be provided by the City of Brentwood.

In accordance with State law, the City can only require that impacts related to schools be mitigated by the applicant’s payment of fees, prior to any building permit issuance.

Impacts related to fire protection services would be mitigated by the requirement to annex into the current Emergency Medical and Fire Protection Service Funding Community Facilities District (CFD).

ANALYSIS

VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
The project site consists of a total of 135.31 acres. Of this acreage, 25 acres (Parcel I) are preserved as permanent open space, the majority of which is located along the western property line corresponding to hillside ridgelines. The remaining acreage located south of Sand Creek Road includes a ten-foot trail connection (Parcel H) to the Brentwood Hills subdivision to the south, two park locations (6.0 acre Parcel A and 2.49 acre Parcel G), per the Parks, Recreation and Trails Master Plan, and the 272 single-family residential lots. The trail connection is clarified in draft condition of approval #12b on the tentative map resolution. The single-family lot sizes would range from 5,000 sf to 15,930 sf. The remaining parcels are to be utilized for

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. E.1
07/16/2024
landscaping or bioretention areas for stormwater treatment. Along the northern property line and north of Sand Creek is a 36.82-acre designated remainder parcel (formerly the proposed multi-family site as part of the prior development application), which is not proposed to be developed as part of this project.

Access to the single-family development would be through a signalized intersection with Sand Creek Road from the north (located just west of the SR 4 interchange) and another via the extension of San Jose Avenue from the south.

Figure 3: Proposed Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. E.1
07/16/2024
BMC Section 16.050.040(B) identifies seven findings applicable to a decision to approve or deny a subdivision map. In the interest of space, each of these findings is analyzed in the attached draft tentative map resolution. In sum, each of the required findings can be made. Recommended conditions of approval are also attached to the draft resolution to mitigate the impacts of the project.

Roadway Improvements and Frontage
The proposed project would include construction of new internal roadways and the extension of San Jose Avenue to the west. It should be noted that a separate Cityinitiated capital improvement project, Sand Creek Road Extension, is currently underway that will extend two lanes of Sand Creek Road from the westerly existing terminus of SR 4 to Heidorn Ranch Road to the northwest. The City project is on schedule for completion in September 2024 and will extend along the northern boundary of the proposed single-family residential portion of the project and connect to one of the new internal roadways (Bridle Gate Drive) to provide site access. Site access would also be provided by the proposed extension of San Jose Avenue. The proposed internal circulation system would be located throughout the proposed single-family residential subdivision, and would be designed to meet current City standards and would include sidewalks on both sides. Pedestrian access would be provided in the form of sidewalks and trails throughout the proposed development, in conformance with City standards.

As proposed, lots 237 through 257 are considered double frontage lots, with frontage along San Jose Avenue/Bridle Gate Drive and Mill Brook Drive, respectively. Lots 47 through 59 and lots 115 through 133 are also double frontage lots, with frontage along San Jose Avenue/Bridle Gate Drive and Woodglen Drive/Cottonwood Avenue, respectively. A draft condition of approval is included to prohibit vehicular access to the double frontage lots from Bridle Gate Avenue and San Jose Avenue. Access to double frontage lots would be provided by the more interior roadway, such as Millbrook Drive and Cottonwood Avenue. In addition, a draft condition of approval requires the frontage along San Jose Avenue/Bridle Gate Avenue to include a sidewalk and landscaping for the double frontage lots.

Landscaping of the frontage along San Jose Avenue and Bridle Gate Drive would be privately maintained through a perpetual funding mechanism such as a homeowners’ association, which will be required in a draft condition of approval.

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. E.1
07/16/2024
The City received several comment letters on the Draft REIR from residents of the neighborhood to the south of the project expressing concern about the extension of San Jose Avenue and the project’s impacts to increased traffic volumes for San Jose Avenue. The extension of San Jose Avenue was also a significant topic of discussion at the September 5, 2023 Planning Commission hearing. It should be noted that the extension of San Jose Avenue is included in the General Plan Circulation Element.

The proposed circulation would be beneficial to both the proposed homes and existing neighborhoods, as it would provide a direct vehicular connection to Sand Creek Road for more efficient access to PA-1 (the Innovation Center), emergency health services at Kaiser Hospital, and State Route 4. In addition, as determined in the Bridle Gate REIR, with incorporation of mitigation measures, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact for transportation.

St. Regis Avenue and San Jose Avenue Circulation Options As noted above, after the previous hearing, the Planning Commission directed staff to work with the applicant on options to address the concerns regarding traffic.

Consistent with the Planning Commission’s motion, the applicant prepared a memo (dated October 12, 2023) to address the options for minimizing additional traffic on St. Regis Avenue (Attachment 11). Five options were evaluated in the memo:

Table 1: St. Regis Avenue/San Jose Avenue Intersection Options Option Summary
Option 1 Would prohibit (a) eastbound right turns from the planned San Jose Avenue extension onto St. Regis Avenue, and (b) southbound through traffic from Chestnut Oak Drive onto St. Regis Avenue Option 2 Like Option 1, would prohibit (a) eastbound right turns from the planned San Jose Avenue extension onto St. Regis Avenue, and (b) southbound through traffic from Chestnut Oak Drive onto St.

Regis Avenue, but would additionally prohibit (c) southbound leftturns from Chestnut Oak Drive to eastbound San Jose Avenue Option 3 Would restrict a one-block section of the San Jose Avenue extension (immediately west of St. Regis Avenue) to one-way westbound traffic flow only and prohibit southbound left-turns from Chestnut Oak Drive to eastbound San Jose Avenue
Option 4 Full or partial closure at the south end of Chestnut Oak Drive Option 5 Would include an additional access point from the Bridle Gate Project to Sand Creek Road
A summary of the options from the memo is provided below.

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. E.1
07/16/2024
Option 1: Turn Restrictions Alternative A
Two components make up Option 1. The first component is a prohibition of eastbound right turns from the planned San Jose Avenue extension onto St. Regis Avenue. A preliminary design for this is presented in Figure 3. This plan would include an extension of the curb on the southwest corner to not allow right turns and increase compliance with the prohibition on right turns from eastbound San Jose Avenue onto southbound St. Regis Avenue. The second component of Option 1 is a prohibition to southbound through traffic from Chestnut Oak Drive onto St. Regis Avenue. With the turn restrictions at the St. Regis Avenue/San Jose Avenue intersection, traffic on southbound Chestnut Oak Drive would only be able to turn left or right onto San Jose Avenue and southbound through traffic onto St. Regis Avenue would be prohibited. In addition to signage, all-way stop control, and pavement markings, this plan would include a splitter island on the southbound Chestnut Oak Drive approach that would preclude through traffic onto St. Regis Avenue.

Figure 4: Turn Restrictions Alternative A

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. E.1
07/16/2024
Option 2: Turn Restrictions Alternative B
Option 2 is essentially the same as Option 1, with the exception that southbound leftturns from Chestnut Oak Drive to eastbound San Jose Avenue would also be prohibited. A preliminary design for accomplishing this is presented in Figure 4. This plan would include the same extension of the curb on the southwest corner of the intersection to not allow right turns and increase compliance with the prohibition on right turns from eastbound San Jose Avenue onto southbound St. Regis Avenue.

However, under this option on the northern side of the intersection all southbound traffic would be required to turn right onto San Jose Avenue. Left turns onto San Jose Avenue and southbound through traffic onto St. Regis Avenue would both be prohibited.

Figure 5: Turn Restrictions Alternative B

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. E.1
07/16/2024
Option 3: One-Way Street
Option 3 includes two components. The first is to restrict the first segment of the San Jose Avenue extension to one-way westbound traffic only to the west of its intersection with St. Regis Avenue. The one-way section would extend from St.

Regis Avenue to the first intersection within the Bridle Gate Project (Rose Wood Drive). All eastbound traffic on San Jose Avenue would then have to turn left or right at Rose Wood Drive within the Bridle Gate Project. The second component is the same as for the above-described turn restrictions option. In addition to restricting a one-block segment of San Jose Avenue to eastbound traffic only, this option would also include the same prohibition to southbound through traffic from Chestnut Oak Drive onto St. Regis Avenue. Traffic on southbound Chestnut Oak Drive would only be able to turn right onto San Jose Avenue, while left-turns and through traffic would be prohibited. A preliminary design for accomplishing this is presented in Figure 5.

Figure 6: One-Way Street

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. E.1
07/16/2024
Option 4: Full or Partial Street Closure1
This option involves a full or partial closure at the south end of Chestnut Oak Drive.

A partial closure would involve closing only the southbound direction of Chestnut Oak Drive at San Jose Avenue. Under this option, traffic would still be permitted to travel northbound onto Chestnut Oak Drive from the San Jose Avenue/St. Regis Avenue intersection. In the other direction, southbound traffic would be prohibited using a design to block traffic that would be acceptable to the Fire District. The roadway would be designed to effectively block any southbound traffic from entering the intersection from Chestnut Oak Drive. A full closure would involve closing both directions of Chestnut Oak Drive just north of San Jose Avenue. Under this option Chestnut Oak Drive would become a dead end just north of the San Jose Avenue/St.

Regis Avenue intersection. This would include a connection to San Jose Avenue for emergency vehicles only, designed in a manner that would be acceptable to the Fire District. The southern end of the roadway would be designed to effectively block any Chestnut Oak Drive traffic from traveling to or from San Jose Avenue or St.

Regis Avenue. The intersection of St. Regis Avenue with San Jose Avenue would become a three-way intersection, with no northern leg connecting to Chestnut Oak Drive.

Option 5: Additional Access to Sand Creek Road1
Option 5 would create a new right-in/right out only access point onto Sand Creek Road between Bridle Gate Drive and the intersection with the State Route 4 (SR 4) eastbound ramps. A full-access intersection is not feasible because intersection spacing standards cannot be met. In addition, there are significant topography issues, with the grade difference between the Bridle Gate roadway system and the final alignment of Sand Creek Road being substantial. Therefore, the only potential option to consider would be a new right-in/right out only access onto Sand Creek Road to the east of Bridle Gate Drive.

Staff Analysis of Options
Staff continues to recommend approval of the proposed project with full access at the St. Regis Avenue/San Jose Avenue intersection. This provides enhanced circulation for the entire area, allowing residents to the south to access Sand Creek Road and regional destinations, and is also consistent with the General Plan.

However, staff is cognizant of the concerns noted by the Planning Commission and residents. If the Planning Commission decides to approve the project using one of the alternatives to full access, staff would recommend Option 2. The reduced turning

1 There are no corresponding figures for Option 4 or Option 5

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. E.1
07/16/2024
movements will slightly reduce traffic from the Bridle Gate project traveling south but will still allow residents from the south to travel north. Option 2 maintains pedestrian and bicycle connections and is still consistent with the General Plan. There is concern, however, that a significant amount of the traffic traveling south will use the Sand Creek Crossing Shopping Center as an alternative means of access or make a u-turn on San Jose Avenue, both of which are undesirable.

Option 1 would not be effective in reducing traffic to the south. Options 3 and 4 are inconsistent with the General Plan and, therefore, cannot be imposed upon the applicant. Option 5 to provide additional access on Sand Creek Road would not result in reduced traffic going south.

The proposed resolutions attached to this staff report continue to reflect approval with the proposed full access shown at the St. Regis Avenue/San Jose Avenue intersection pursuant to staff’s recommendation. However, staff will be prepared with alternative language at the hearing in the event that the Planning Commission desires to approve the project with one of the options noted above.

Traffic Impact Study
Timing of Traffic Impact Study
At the Planning Commission hearing on September 5, 2023, several comments and questions expressed concern regarding the timing of the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared for the proposed project. By way of background, in April 2020, KimleyHorn and Associates completed a TIS for an earlier iteration of the project. As set forth in the Executive Summary of the TIS, that document analyzed two potential development scenarios:

Table 2: Development Scenarios Analyzed in 2020 Traffic Impact Study Uses Scenario One Scenario Two
Single Family Homes 328 2652
Multi-Family Units 258 258
Commercial Uses 199,940 sf 199,940 sf
Public School None 900 student K-5 public school

2 The Traffic Impact Study studied 265 units but the project was later revised to reduce the unit count to 252

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. E.1
07/16/2024
The TIS was prepared using traffic counts generated in 2017. In February 2022, Abrams Associates Traffic Engineering, Inc., and staff analyzed the TIS, and determined that it remains applicable to the proposed project for the following reasons:
 The traffic data generated from traffic counts collected in 2017 continues to represent typical conditions for the area because there has not been any new development in the TIS study area since the 2017 counts were conducted. As a result, there have not been new sources of traffic introduced into the area that would appreciably change the traffic counts collected in 2017.  In addition, the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 significantly changed traffic patterns and volumes throughout the Bay Area. According to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), in 2017, when the TIS’s traffic counts were taken, only 7.5% of Contra Costa workers worked from home. By 2021, the most recent year for which comparable data is available, that number had risen to 28%.3
 Finally, the TIS analyzed two different scenarios of a project considerably larger than the current project. Therefore, the TIS reflects a very conservative analysis of the current project. Table 3 below illustrates the difference between what was originally studied in the TIS and what is now being proposed:

Table 3: Development Scenarios Analyzed in 2020 Traffic Impact Study Compared to Current Project
Uses Scenario
One
Scenario
Two
Current
Project
Difference
Single Family
Homes
328 2652 272 Current Project is
56 fewer homes
than Scenario
One, and 7 more
than Scenario Two
Multi-Family
Units
258 258 - Current Project is
258 units less than
both Scenarios
Commercial
Uses
199,940 sf 199,940 sf - Current Project is
199,940 sq ft less

3 See MTC ‘Commute Mode Choice’ report (updated February 2023), available online at:
https://vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov/indicators/commute-mode-choice

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. E.1
07/16/2024
than both
Scenarios
Public School - 900 student K5 public school- Current Project includes no
students
Thus, the circulation analysis within the Draft REIR is adequate for CEQA purposes.

Further, in the cumulative scenario, the TIS relies upon the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) model for traffic volume projections. The CCTA model utilizes General Plan buildout assumptions to inform growth projections from surrounding communities, as well as the city of Brentwood. The General Plan assumptions include buildout of the Innovation Center. Thus, traffic assumptions for that area of the city are included within the TIS prepared for the proposed project.

Traffic Volume/Trip Generation Projections
Trip generation figures in the TIS are determined based on trip generation rates provided through the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. Planners and engineers use the trip generation rates for single-family homes to estimate traffic impacts of residential developments. The trip generation rate for a single family home is determined primarily through:
 Site Selection – ITE selects and analyzes sites of various sizes, densities, regions and regions to capture a diverse range of travel behaviors.  Collected Data – ITE performs traffic counts that captures the number of trips and the time of day of each trip.

The collected data is then analyzed and standardized to a common unit of measurement (i.e. trips per dwelling unit) which can then be used to estimate how much traffic a project will produce.

Example trip generation rates for single family homes:
 Average Daily Trips: The ITE Trip Generation Manual provides an average daily trip rate for single-family detached housing units. For example, a typical singlefamily home generates around 9-10 vehicle trips per day per dwelling unit.

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. E.1
07/16/2024
 Peak Hour Trips: During the AM peak hour, a single-family home may generate approximately 0.7 trips per dwelling unit, and during the PM peak hour, it may generate about 1.02 trips per dwelling unit.

During the Planning Commission meeting, there was significant discussion with regard to southbound traffic from the proposed project. As detailed in the TIS, the estimated southbound volume at the St. Regis Avenue and San Jose Avenue intersection is 59 vehicles during the busiest one-hour period in the AM and 177 vehicles during the busiest one-hour period in the PM. These figures represent the anticipated vehicle count, for either Scenario One or Two of a larger project (as described above), that could be expected during the busiest single hour of an average day, when congestion is projected to be at its highest. These estimates do not reflect the total number of trips to be generated on a daily basis.

As detailed previously, if the Planning Commission chooses to restrict southbound traffic then the traffic is expected to be split heading east on San Jose Avenue if similarly allowed by Planning Commission or north onto Sand Creek Road.

Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
It should also be noted that traffic congestion can no longer be considered part of CEQA review. Subsequent to preparation of the original TIS, the CEQA statute was amended to require analysis of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) only. Thus, for the purposes of CEQA analysis, a VMT analysis was prepared for the current project, based on the metrics adopted by CCTA. VMT is a metric that captures the total amount of vehicular travel by estimating the number of vehicle trips generated and the length or distance of those trips. VMT is usually measured on a typical weekday, and can be expressed in several ways, such as total VMT, total VMT per service population, home-based VMT per resident, and home-based work VMT per employee.

In compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 743 and following the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) guidance, CCTA implemented VMT analysis methodologies. CCTA’s methodology uses the Home-Based VMT per capita metric for residential projects. Home-based VMT is the VMT for trips that begin and end at the residence. The recommended threshold of significance is that the project generated home-based VMT not exceed 85% of the same in the city. The city of Brentwood has a citywide average of 29.6 VMT per capita, which results in a 25.2 VMT per capita threshold to achieve the 15% reduction (i.e., to not exceed 85% of the average).

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. E.1
07/16/2024
Table 4: Project VMT Analysis Results
City of Brentwood
Proposed Project
Before Mitigation
VMT/Resident
Threshold of
Significance VMT/Resident

29.6 25.2 27.0
The project meets the VMT threshold with the implementation of mitigation measures identified in the REIR. Further, an analysis was done to determine if any of the circulation options described above would affect the VMT analysis in the REIR (Attachment 13). According to the analysis, none of the options would be expected to cause significant increases in VMT. Therefore, any additional CEQA analysis of the circulation options above cannot be required.

Other Roadway Issues
The proposed VTSM indicates that the applicant plans for Old Sand Creek Road (located along the north boundary of the overall project site) to be abandoned. A draft condition of approval is included; however, indicating that Old Sand Creek Road is a portion of a collector street in the Innovation Center Specific Plan and shall not be abandoned.

In addition, consistent with BMC Section 12.04.040, a draft condition of approval is included to require the applicant to construct sidewalk, frontage, and median island landscaping and irrigation, and a second westbound vehicle travel lane along the Sand Creek Road project frontage. The City is currently constructing two lanes of Sand Creek Road, but the ultimate width of the road is four lanes, with two lanes in each direction. The applicant is required to add one additional eastbound lane to this route and is eligible for reimbursement for these improvements per the City’s Development Fee Program.

CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN REQUIREMENTS
All proposed subdivisions must be consistent with the City’s General Plan in order to be approved. The proposed project demonstrates this consistency in various ways, including:

Table 5: Consistency with General Plan Requirements
General Plan Provision Project Implementation Consistent? Land use designations:
 Residential Low Density
Project as proposed: Yes

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. E.1
07/16/2024
General Plan Provision Project Implementation Consistent?  Regional Commercial
 Park
 Permanent Open Space
 Low density, single-family
residential use
 Regional commercial to
remain undeveloped
 Two neighborhood parks
(8.49 acres total)
 Permanent open space (25
acres)
Density: 1.1-5.0 units/acre Density: 4.0 units/acre Yes Goals and Policies:
 Policy LU 2-1: Maintain
Brentwood’s predominant
land use of single family
residential, while providing
for a mix of housing types
throughout the community,
in accordance with the
Housing Element
 Goal LU-4: Maintain a high
quality natural environment
and recreational
opportunities in and around
Brentwood
 Policy IF 1-7: Require the
payment of impact fees for
all new development.
 The project proposes to build
272 single-family homes
 The project includes 25 acres
of permanent open space,

8.49 gross acres of
neighborhood parkland, and is
conditioned to provide
approximately 2,500 linear
feet of improved trail to
augment Sand Creek Trail
and Black Gold Trail
 The project is conditioned to
pay all relevant impact fees,
including those pertaining to
water, wastewater, roadways,
parks and trails. It is also
required to annex into both
the City CFD and the CFD
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. E.1
07/16/2024
General Plan Provision Project Implementation Consistent? established for fire and
emergency medical services
ZONING
As noted above, the project’s residential component is subject to the development standards set forth in Subarea C of Planned Development No. 36 (BMC Section

17.486.004). The project meets these requirements as demonstrated below.

Table 6: Consistency with PD, Subarea C Standards
Requirement Proposed Consistent?
Minimum lot
size
5,000 sq. ft. 5,000-15,863 sq. ft. Yes
Minimum lot
width
50’ 50’ – 160’ Yes
Minimum lot
frontage
35’ at the front
property line for lots on
culs-de-sac, knuckles,
or curvilinear street
35’ minimum Yes
Minimum front
yard setback
20’ for front-facing
garages; fifteen feet
for building walls and
porches
Minimum 20’ for frontfacing garages and
minimum 15’ for
building walls and
porches
Yes
Minimum side
yard setback
5’, with the sum of
both sides 12’; corner
lots shall maintain a
minimum setback of
10’ on the street side
yard
Minimum 5’ on one
side and 7’ on other
side with 10’ on street
side for corner lot
Yes
Minimum rear
yard setback
15’, with an average of
20’
15’ minimum with
average of 20’
Yes
Maximum
building height
2 stories, not to
exceed 30’
As conditioned, the
project will include
homes of no more than
2 stories, ranging in
height from 22’11”-30’
Yes, with
conditions

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. E.1
07/16/2024
Requirement Proposed Consistent?
Corner lot fence
setback
5’ from the street side
property line; all other
fence regulations must
meet BMC Chapter

17.660
Dimension not shown,
but conditioned to
meet standard
Yes, with
conditions
Lots adjacent to
open space
Shall utilize a 6’ open
space fence along the
common property
line(s), as approved
through VTSM 8506
Not shown Yes, with
conditions
Accessory
structures
Prohibited in side or
rear yards for areas
exceeding a 3:1 slope
No accessory
structures are
proposed at this time
Yes
Maximum lot
coverage
40% for two-story
homes and 45% for
single-story homes
10-45% (all lots over
40% are single-story)
Yes
According to BMC Section 17.486.006, which governs the uses and development standards applicable to the project, open space (as a reserve for fire protection, etc.) and parks, playgrounds, and recreational trails, are permitted uses in the “open space” area. The applicant proposes to leave this area undeveloped, except for the trail improvements discussed above. As such, this is consistent with the regulations for this open space area.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Under SB 330, the project must comply with the affordable housing ordinance in place at the time of application submission. Ordinance No. 1014 was in place at the time of project application and requires 10% of the total units within a project to be affordable to various income categories. The applicant originally proposed less than the required number of affordable units, but has since agreed to comply with Ordinance No. 1014. A condition of approval is included to require the Applicant to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City to provide a minimum of 27 affordable units at the required affordability levels. Compliance with this condition, per the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance, is required prior to final map approval and will ensure, among other things, that the affordable units are spaced appropriately throughout the subdivision. The affordability levels for the 27 units are broken down as follows:

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. E.1
07/16/2024
Table 7: Affordable Housing Fulfillment
Affordability Level Requirement Complies?
Very Low Income 3% of 272 = 8 units Yes, as conditioned Low Income 4% of 272 = 11 units Yes, as conditioned
Moderate Income 3% of 272 = 8 units Yes, as conditioned

DESIGN REVIEW
The applicant seeks design review approval for the single-family development on the site. This design review is subject to the approval criteria set out in BMC Section

17.820.007 and the PD-36 standards for Subarea C found in BMC Section

17.486.004. The project’s conformance to those criteria is analyzed in the attached resolution for the design review, with various design elements also evaluated further below.

Architecture
The proposed design review includes 13 distinct floor plans with four alternative elevations per plan, except for Floor Plan 13, which has two elevations. The project includes only two units to be built according to Floor Plan 13, which shows it as a three-story unit. Three of the plans, Plans 1, 2, and 3, are single-story homes, with the remaining plans all two-story homes with a two-car front-on garage. Due to the relatively small minimum lot size (5,000 sf), alternative garage configurations are difficult to accomplish; however, the homes are designed to minimize the garage by setting it back from the front plane of the living spaces, thereby minimizing its prominence in the front elevation, and all of the plans show decorative garage doors to match the architectural style of the home.

As mentioned, each plan has four distinct architectural styles, including Tuscan, Craftsman, French Cottage, and Bay Area Modern. Exterior materials, massing, roof shapes and pitches, trim shapes and materials, and colors vary by these elevation styles. The rear elevations vary by elevation style as well, with accent gable and hip roofs, accent trim, and a variety of roof pitches and massing styles. The trim around the windows is shown as being carried around all windows at the sides and streetfacing rears to match the style of the window trim on the front elevation. This means that the window trim at the side and rear elevations is different by elevation style, but only if it can be viewed from an adjacent street.

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. E.1
07/16/2024
 Tuscan. The Tuscan style elevations combine stucco and stone exteriors with decorative wrought iron trim elements. The rooflines feature both modified hip and gable ends and are finished with curved villa concrete tile roofing.  French Cottage. The French Cottage style elevations include stucco body and trim elements with mock shutters. Stone veneer trim elements are included along the front elevations. Also included are simulated wood siding and trim elements at various locations along the front elevation. The gable roofs are finished with flat concrete tile roofing.
 Craftsman. The Craftsman elevations combine horizontal siding and stucco.

In addition, there are stone trim elements either at the front or on the column bases on the porch posts. Front elevations feature a full grid pattern for the window fenestration, unique to this style. The gable roofs are accented with corbels and have flat concrete tile roofing.
 Bay Area Modern. The Bay Area Modern elevations have stucco finishes with horizontal/vertical siding, stone, and brick trim elements. Windows are both horizontal and vertical to create a varied fenestration style. This elevation includes shed, flat, and pitched roof elements.

Exterior materials, massing, roof shapes and pitches, trim shapes and material, and colors vary by these elevation styles. The rear elevations vary by elevation style as well, with accent gable and hip roofs, accent trim, and a variety of roof pitches and massing styles. The plans include both villa style and flat tile roof elements. To be consistent with the high-quality of materials expected in Brentwood, all proposed roofing materials are concrete tile. In accordance with draft condition of approval #9 of the design review resolution, the accent trim around the windows and the varied window grid patterns would be carried around to windows at the sides and rears on all the homes, not just those that abut streets. The color schemes assist in further differentiating the styles. The developer has proposed a total of 24 different color schemes to be used throughout the project.

Building Design and Massing
A summary of the proposed home models is included below:

Table 8: Single-Family Home Models
Plan
#
Home
Size (sf)
Bed/
Bath
Garage
Spaces
Stories Max.

Height Complies?
1 1,808 3/2 2 1 22’ 11” Yes
2 1,848 3/2 2 1 23’ 0” Yes
3 1,943 4/3 2 1 23’ 2” Yes

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. E.1
07/16/2024
Plan
#
Home
Size (sf)
Bed/
Bath
Garage
Spaces
Stories Max.

Height Complies?
4 2,223 4/3 2 2 25’ 11” Yes
5 2,292 4/3 2 2 28’ 1” Yes
6 2,439 5/3 2 2 27’ 0” Yes
7 2,644 4/3 2 2 29’ 3” Yes
8 2,772 4/3 2 2 27’ 9” Yes
9 2,787 5/4 2 2 27’ 3” Yes
10 2,788 5/4 2 2 30’ 6” No
11 2,831 5/4 2 2 30’ 2” No
12 3,100 5/3 2 2 29’ 4” Yes
13 3,222 4/3 3 3 32’ 1” No
BMC § 17.486.004 outlines the standards for Subarea C of PD-36 and limits the homes to two stories and 30 feet. Therefore, Plans 10, 11, and 13 would need to be modified to meet these standards and a draft condition of approval to that effect is included.

Preliminary/Master Plotting Plan
The master plotting plan depicts which home plans would be constructed on each particular lot. Each plan would be plotted between 7.4 percent and 9.1 percent of the time within the subdivision, with the exception of Plan 13, which only includes 2 units total (0.7 percent). The streetscape varies the plans fairly evenly throughout the subdivision. See discussion below under the Residential Design Guidelines section regarding compliance with the guidelines and proposed conditions of approval.

Parks, Landscaping, and Walls
Parks
The proposed subdivision includes two designated park parcels. Parcel A, located northwest of the main access at Sand Creek Road (as shown in the General Plan), is six acres and will be designed as a neighborhood park. The smaller park is Parcel G, which encompasses 2.49 acres and will also be designed as a neighborhood park.

The landscape plans submitted with this application for a VTSM are preliminary only and pursuant to BMC § 2.46.020G, a conceptual park plan is conditioned to be submitted to the Park and Recreation Commission for review and final approval of the park design, programming, and amenities. The Park and Recreation Commission’s approval will ensure conformance with all aspects of the Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan for Neighborhood Parks. As with all new projects, the final landscape

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. E.1
07/16/2024
plans will be reviewed against the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance to ensure conformance with these regulations.

Staff has calculated the required park acreage based on an expected population within the subdivision of 870 (272 units x 3.2 persons per unit). Using the City’s formula of providing 5 acres of park for every 1,000 residents, a total of 4.35 acres of park is required. Parcel A is identified as a park consisting of six acres. Of this six acres, 1.94 acres will be graded to less than 3% slope, which is considered usable park land. Parcel G is identified as a park consisting of 2.49 acres, of which 2.41 acres will be graded to less than 3% slope, and thus considered usable park land.

The two parks combined result in 4.35 acres, consistent with the required acreage.

Building these two parks offers the Park and Recreation Commission an opportunity to be creative with adding amenities, including those that have been previously identified in the Master Plan Update, such as sport courts, exercise stations, play structures, and trail connections to Sand Creek Road and Black Gold Park. These are recreation activities that the new residents would not have access to if the developer is not required to install these two parks.

Landscaping
The preliminary landscape plan includes conceptual plantings for the Sand Creek Road frontage, the two park parcels, street trees, and typical front yards. It also includes a conceptual design for the masonry wall. Final plans will be reviewed by staff prior to building permit issuance to ensure compliance with all City standards, including water efficiency.

Walls
The project includes a conceptual wall design for the required sound wall locations identified in the acoustical analysis done for the project (see Figure 1). These locations are adjacent to Sand Creek Road and SR 4. The wall design will be masonry block units with a wall cap and appropriately spaced columns with caps (see Figure 2). All other fencing for the project would need to adhere to the City’s standard for good-neighbor fencing between lots, and enhanced good neighbor fencing between lots and City-owned open space where trails or trail connections are adjacent. Open tube steel or wire fencing will be installed by the developer between City open space parcels and lots elsewhere.

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. E.1
07/16/2024
Figure 7: Sound Wall Locations
Figure 8: Conceptual Sound Wall Elevation
A draft condition of approval is included that requires dedication of Parcel I to the City for open space and trail purposes, as well as construction of a 10-foot wide

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. E.1
07/16/2024
asphalt multi-use trail from the southern boundary of the project at the existing terminus of Black Gold Trail to the extension of Sand Creek Road or a portion of the Sand Creek Trail. This is consistent with the Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan and will provide trail connections called for in that Plan.

Design Guidelines
The City adopted a set of Residential Design Guidelines in 20064. These address all aspects of residential design, including project layout and composition, as well as architectural design and features for a wide range of residential unit types. It is important to note that the intent of the design guidelines is not to ensure that every detail is included, but rather provide guidance to the developer regarding the types of features that should be considered when developing the project. In other words, the guidelines are generally suggestions of good design, not rules that need to be followed for every development. Further, it should be noted that, pursuant to State law, the City cannot apply non-objective design guidelines in a manner that would lessen the intensity of housing, such as by reducing density, size of units, or setbacks.

Table 9: Residential Design Guidelines Consistency
Residential Design
Guideline Provision Project Design Consistent?
Single-family residential units
must include one distinct plan
with four unique elevations for
every 25 units in the project
This 272-unit single-family
project has proposed a total of
13 models, with four elevation
styles
Yes
50% of corner lots within a
development must be single-story
units
Of the 26 lots that could be
considered corner lots, 13 of
these have been plotted with
single-story plans
Yes
Garage doors with decorative
features including glass windows
shall be provided for 60% or more
of the units
The proposed garages include
decorative doors with windows
Yes

4 The Objective Design Standards adopted by urgency ordinance on June 27, 2023, and extended on August 8, 2023, do not apply to this project, as the applicant submitted a preliminary application that vested the standards applicable in 2021, as discussed above.

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. E.1
07/16/2024
Residential Design
Guideline Provision Project Design Consistent?
Front-facing garages should be
set back from the front façade of
the living space
The majority of plans include
front-facing garages that are
set back a minimum of 3 feet
from the front plane of the
house
Yes
Materials and detailing shall be
consistently used on all sides of
the structure
The plans include materials and
detailing consistently on all
sides as conditioned
Yes
Provide variation in roof heights The plans include a variety of roof heights and styles, ranging
from approximately 22’ to 30’
Yes
Maintain architectural style
integrity
The architectural style of each
elevation type remains
consistent with the traditional
examples on which the style is
based and the elements evident
on the front façade are
proposed to be carried around
to the less-prominent side and
rear elevations
Yes
OTHER ISSUES DISCUSSED AT SEPTEMBER 5, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION Noise
As noted in the September 5, 2023 Planning Commission staff report, a noise study was prepared for the project by the applicant. The City hired an independent thirdparty noise consultant to peer review the noise study. Both noise experts concluded that a combination of sound wall and STC ratings of 34 for second floor windows are adequate to reduce noise levels in compliance with the General Plan standards. This issue was raised at the Planning Commission meeting. Staff will verify compliance for specialized materials during the review of construction documents, as a matter of standard practice.

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. E.1
07/16/2024
Park Size and Locations
The proposed 6-acre park (Parcel A) in the northwest corner of the subdivision is consistent with the location identified in the General Plan. The parcel will include a

1.94-acre portion of the park that will be graded to a less than 3% slope. An additional 2.49-acre park (Parcel G) is proposed to be located in the center of the project and will be graded such that 2.41 acres have less than a 3% slope. Previous concerns had been raised about having this park on the edge of the site and it has been located in the center to better serve the community. Park credit will only be given to those portions of the park that are less than 3% slope, which totals 4.35 acres between the two parcels. The park design elements, as is typical for all subdivisions, will be determined later by City staff and the Park and Recreation Commission.

Trail Connection to La Sata Court
The applicant agreed to eliminate the pedestrian connection (Parcel H) to La Sata Court. VTSM Condition #13b requires a multi-use trail on Parcel I from the existing terminus of Black Gold Trail to the extension of Sand Creek Road adjacent to the park Parcel A.

Architecture
The applicant agreed to the Design Review condition #10 requiring architectural elements to be provided on all sides and rears of the homes and will update the building plans accordingly.

DATE OF NOTICE
The City published a notice of public hearing in the Brentwood Press and mailed it to property owners within 300 feet of the site on July 5, 2024. In addition, the project site is posted with the required signage along Sand Creek Road as well as San Jose Avenue/St. Regis Avenue.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The Bridle Gate Project has been previously proposed and evaluated in past EIRs. A new project-level Revised EIR (REIR) has been prepared for the currently proposed project. In order to differentiate the current analysis from previous EIRs, although an REIR is not a technical CEQA term, the current analysis has been labeled as such in order to further denote that the Bridle Gate Project has been revised and is now subject to new analysis. The REIR (SCH# 2022120683) for this project was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Several potentially significant impacts are identified; however, mitigation measures are incorporated to reduce those impacts to less-than-significant levels. All mitigation measures not addressed by the

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM NO. E.1
07/16/2024
standard conditions of approval are included as recommended conditions of approval.

The Draft REIR was available for review and comment from May 26, 2023 to July 10, 2023. Several comments were received and addressed in the Final REIR. The Draft REIR and Final REIR may be reviewed by clicking on the link below and scrolling to “Bridle Gate:”
https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/communitydevelopment/planning/ceqa-documents In addition, the City’s CEQA consultant, Raney Planning & Management, Inc., prepared a memorandum (Attachment 11), to analyze whether any of the proposed traffic calming options, which are described in detail below, would alter the conclusions of the REIR (“CEQA Traffic Options Memo”). The CEQA Traffic Options Memo concluded that none of the options alter the conclusions of the REIR.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Previous Actions

2. City Council Ordinance No. 1014

3. Resolution No. 23-032 certifying the Revised EIR

4. Final Revised EIR (see link embedded above)

5. Draft Revised EIR (see link embedded above)

6. Resolution No. 23-033 approving Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 9586

7. VTSM 9586 & Preliminary Grading/Utility Plan

8. Resolution No. 23-034 approving Design Review No. 21-010

9. Bridle Gate design review booklet

10. Preliminary landscape plans

11. Raney Memorandum on Traffic Calming Options, dated July 9, 2024

817 Arnold Drive, Ste. 50
Martinez, CA 94553
Ph: (925) 476-8499
www.apexce.net
NO. REVISIONS NO BY DATE JV
STAFF
JV
DESIGN:

DRAWN:CHECKED:PROJECT #: 20066

PUBLIC WORKS

DEPARTMENT
708 Third Street, Brentwood, CA 94513
Ph: (925) 516-5420 · FAX: (925) 516-5421
www.ci.brentwood.ca.us

GENERAL

FACILITIES

SOILS ENGINEERCIVIL ENGINEERAPEX CIVIL ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEYING 817 ARNOLD DRIVE, SUITE 50
MARTINEZ, CA 94553
(925) 476-8499
JON VIZCAY, PE (R.C.E. #78203)
NOTE
ENGEO INC.2401 CROW CANYON ROAD, SUITE 200
SAN RAMON, CA 94583
(925) 838-1600

BASIS OF BEARINGSBENCHMARK

OWNER/DEVELOPER
WCHB DEVELOPMENT, LLC4021 PORT CHICAGO HIGHWAY
CONCORD, CA. 94520(925) 671-7711

VICINITY MAP

NOT TO SCALE
BRIDLE GATE - VESTING TENTATIVE MAP - 07-02-2024

SHEET INDEX

DESCRIPTION
2 SHEET No.
1 TITLE SHEET

PRELIMINARY GRADING & UTILITY PLAN
LEGEND

SANDCREEK

CHESTNUT OAK DRIVE CHESTNUT OAK DRIVE

CHESTNUT OAK

HEATHERWOOD DRIVE

HEATHERWOOD DRIVE

COTTONWOOD AVENUE

COTTONWOOD AVENUE

HEATHERWOOD COURT

WOODGLEN DRIVE

SAN JOSE AVENUE

SAN JOSE AVENUE

ROSE WOOD DRIVE

ROSE WOOD DRIVEBRIDLE GATE DRIVE

SAND CREEK ROAD

SAN JOSE AVENUE
(FUTURE EXTENSION)
AVE.

SAINT
REGI S
AVE .

DR I VE

MI LLBROOK

SAND CREEK ROAD

SAND CREEK ROAD (FUTURE EXTENSION)
LA
SATA
COURT
DRIVE

OLD SAND CREEK ROAD

SAN JOSE
HIGHWAY 4
HIGHWAY 4
BRIDLE
GATE
DRIVE

817 Arnold Drive, Ste. 50
Martinez, CA 94553
Ph: (925) 476-8499
www.apexce.net
NO. REVISIONS NO BY DATE JV
STAFF
JV
DESIGN:

DRAWN:CHECKED:PROJECT #: 20066

PUBLIC WORKS

DEPARTMENT
708 Third Street, Brentwood, CA 94513
Ph: (925) 516-5420 · FAX: (925) 516-5421
www.ci.brentwood.ca.us

CHESTNUT OAK DRIVE

CHESTNUT OAK DRIVE

CHESTNUT OAK DRIVE

HEATHERWOOD DRIVE

HEATHERWOOD DRIVE

COTTONWOOD AVENUE

COTTONWOOD AVENUE

HEATHERWOOD COURT

WOODGLEN DRIVE

SAN JOSE AVENUE

SAN JOSE AVENUE

ROSE WOOD DRIVE

ROSE WOOD DRIVE
140' STREET SECTION

SAND CREEK ROAD

NOT TO SCALE
60' STREET SECTION

BRIDLE GATE DRIVE & SAN JOSE AVENUE

NOT TO SCALE
TYPICAL 56' STREET SECTION

NOT TO SCALE

ABBREVIATIONS
SA INT

REG I S
AVE .

DR I VE

MI LLBROOK

SAND CREEK ROAD

SAND CREEK ROAD (FUTURE EXTENSION)

LA SATA COURT
HIGHWAY 4

SAN JOSE AVENUE (FUTURE EXTENSION)
AVE.

JOSE
BRIDLE
GATE
DRIVE

BRIDLE GATE DRIVE
SAN

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
Elevation C - Craftsman

1.1 PLAN 1
Front Elevations

STONEBROOK
Elevation D - Bay Area Modern
Elevation A - Tuscan Elevation B - French Cottage

West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024

TYPICAL LOT SIZES
45' x 100' = 4,500 SQ. FT. 2,236 SQ. FT. 49%

LOT COVERAGE

FOOTPRINT COVERAGE
1-STORY: 50% max
PLAN 1
SitePlan

STONEBROOK

BRENTWOOD, CA

1.2 City of Brentwood
APPROX.

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 1
Floor Plan

STONEBROOK

1.3

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 1
Elevation A

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'A'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - Tuscan

1.4

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 1
Elevation B

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'B'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - French Cottage

1.5

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 1
Elevation C

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'C'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - Craftsman

1.6

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 1
Elevation D

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'D'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - Bay Area Modern

1.7

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
Elevation C - Craftsman

2.1 PLAN 2
Front Elevations

STONEBROOK
Elevation D - Bay Area Modern
Elevation A - Tuscan Elevation B - French Cottage

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024

TYPICAL LOT SIZES
45' x 100' = 4,500 SQ. FT. 2,277 SQ. FT. 50%

LOT COVERAGE

FOOTPRINT COVERAGE
1-STORY: 50% max
PLAN 2
Site Plan

STONEBROOK

2.2 City of Brentwood
APPROX.

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 2
Floor Plan

STONEBROOK

2.3

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 2
Elevation A

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'A'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - Tuscan

2.4

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 2
Elevation B

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'B'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - French Cottage

2.5

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 2
Elevation C

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'C'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - Craftsman

2.6

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 2
Elevation D

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'D'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - Bay Area Modern

2.7

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
Elevation C - Craftsman

3.1 PLAN 3
Front Elevations

STONEBROOK
Elevation D - Bay Area Modern
Elevation A - Tuscan Elevation B - French Cottage

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024

TYPICAL LOT SIZES
50' x 100' = 5,000 SQ. FT. 2,392 SQ. FT. 48%

LOT COVERAGE

FOOTPRINT COVERAGE
1-STORY: 50% max
PLAN 3
Site Plan

STONEBROOK

3.2 City of Brentwood
APPROX.

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 3
Floor Plan

STONEBROOK

3.3

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 3
Elevation A

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'A'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - Tuscan

3.4

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 3
Elevation B

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'B'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - French Cottage

3.5

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 3
Elevation C

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'C'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - Craftsman

3.6

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 3
Elevation D

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'D'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - Bay Area Modern

3.7

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
Elevation C - Craftsman 4.1
PLAN 4
Front Elevations

STONEBROOK
Elevation D - Bay Area Modern
Elevation A - Tuscan Elevation B - French Cottage

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024

TYPICAL LOT SIZES
45' x 100' = 4,500 SQ. FT. 1,810 SQ. FT. 40%

LOT COVERAGE

FOOTPRINT COVERAGE
2-STORY: 40% max
PLAN 4
Site Plan

STONEBROOK

4.2 City of Brentwood
APPROX.

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 4
First Floor

STONEBROOK

4.3

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 4
Second Floor

STONEBROOK

4.4

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 4
Elevation A

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'A'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - Tuscan

4.5

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 4
Elevation B

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'B'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - French Cottage

4.6

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 4
Elevation C

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'C'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - Craftsman

4.7

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 4
Elevation D

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'D'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - Bay Area Modern

4.8

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
Elevation C - Craftsman 5.1
PLAN 5
Front Elevations

STONEBROOK
Elevation D - Bay Area Modern
Elevation A - Tuscan Elevation B - French Cottage

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
City of Brentwood

TYPICAL LOT SIZES
45' x 100' = 4,500 SQ. FT. 1,592 SQ. FT. 35%

LOT COVERAGE

FOOTPRINT COVERAGE
2-STORY: 40% max
PLAN 5
Site Plan

STONEBROOK

5.2 APPROX.

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 5
First Floor

STONEBROOK

5.3

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 5
Second Floor

STONEBROOK

5.4

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 5
Elevation A

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'A'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - Tuscan

5.5

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 5
Elevation B

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'B'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - French Cottage

5.6

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 5
Elevation C

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'C'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - Craftsman

5.7

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 5
Elevation D

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'D'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - Bay Area Modern

5.8

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
Elevation C - Craftsman 6.1
PLAN 6
Front Elevations

STONEBROOK
Elevation D - Bay Area Modern
Elevation A - Tuscan Elevation B - French Cottage

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024

TYPICAL LOT SIZES
45' x 100' = 4,500 SQ. FT. 1,806 SQ. FT. 40%

LOT COVERAGE

FOOTPRINT COVERAGE
2-STORY: 40% max
PLAN 6
Site Plan

STONEBROOK

6.2 City of Brentwood
APPROX.

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 6
First Floor

STONEBROOK

6.3

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 6
Second Floor

STONEBROOK

6.4

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 6
Elevation A

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'A'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - Tuscan

6.5

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 6
Elevation B

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'B'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - French Cottage

6.6

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 6
Elevation C

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'C'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - Craftsman

6.7

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 6
Elevation D

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'D'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - Bay Area Modern

6.8

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
Elevation C - Craftsman 7.1
PLAN 7
Front Elevations

STONEBROOK
Elevation D - Bay Area Modern
Elevation A - Tuscan Elevation B - French Cottage

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024

TYPICAL LOT SIZES
45' x 100' = 4,500 SQ. FT. 1,826 SQ. FT. 40%

LOT COVERAGE

FOOTPRINT COVERAGE
2-STORY: 40% max
City of Brentwood

7.2 PLAN 7
SitePlan

STONEBROOK
APPROX.

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024

7.3 PLAN 7
First Floor

STONEBROOK

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024

7.4 PLAN 7
Second Floor

STONEBROOK

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
Roof Plan 'A'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - Tuscan

7.5 PLAN 7
Elevation A

STONEBROOK

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
Roof Plan 'B'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - French Cottage

7.6 PLAN 7
Elevation B

STONEBROOK

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
Roof Plan 'C'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - Craftsman

7.7 PLAN 7
Elevation C

STONEBROOK

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
Roof Plan 'D'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - Bay Area Modern

7.8 PLAN 7
Elevation D

STONEBROOK

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
Elevation C - Craftsman 8.1
PLAN 8
Front Elevations

STONEBROOK
Elevation D - Bay Area Modern
Elevation A - Tuscan Elevation B - French Cottage

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024

TYPICAL LOT SIZES
45' x 100' = 4,500 SQ. FT. 1,829 SQ. FT. 40%

LOT COVERAGE

FOOTPRINT COVERAGE
2-STORY: 40% max
PLAN 8
Site Plan

STONEBROOK

8.2 City of Brentwood
APPROX.

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 8
First Floor

STONEBROOK

8.3

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 8
Second Floor

STONEBROOK

8.4

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 8
Elevation A

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'A'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - Tuscan

8.5

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 8
Elevation B

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'B'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - French Cottage

8.6

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 8
Elevation C

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'C'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - Craftsman

8.7

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 8
Elevation D

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'D'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - Bay Area Modern

8.8

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
Elevation C - Craftsman 9.1
PLAN 9
Front Elevations

STONEBROOK
Elevation D - Bay Area Modern
Elevation A - Tuscan Elevation B - French Cottage

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024

TYPICAL LOT SIZES
45' x 103'-9" = 4,668 SQ. FT. 1,858 SQ. FT. 40%

LOT COVERAGE

FOOTPRINT COVERAGE
2-STORY: 40% max
PLAN 9
Site Plan

STONEBROOK

9.2 City of Brentwood
APPROX.

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 9
First Floor

STONEBROOK

9.3

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 9
Second Floor

STONEBROOK

9.4

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 9
Elevation A

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'A'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - Tuscan

9.5

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 9
Elevation B

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'B'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - French Cottage

9.6

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 9
Elevation C

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'C'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - Craftsman

9.7

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 9
Elevation D

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'D'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - Bay Area Modern

9.8

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
Elevation C - Craftsman 10.1
PLAN 10
Front Elevations

STONEBROOK
Elevation D - Bay Area Modern
Elevation A - Tuscan Elevation B - French Cottage

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024

TYPICAL LOT SIZES
45' x 100' = 4,500 SQ. FT. 1,828 SQ. FT. 40%

LOT COVERAGE

FOOTPRINT COVERAGE
2-STORY: 40% max
PLAN 10
Site Plan

STONEBROOK

10.2 City of Brentwood
APPROX.

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 10
First Floor

STONEBROOK

10.3

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 10
Second Floor

STONEBROOK

10.4

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 10
Elevation A

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'A'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - Tuscan

10.5

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 10
Elevation B

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'B'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - French Cottage

10.6

GARAGE

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 10
Elevation C

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'C'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - Craftsman

10.7

GARAGE

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 10
Elevation D

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'D'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - Bay Area Modern

10.8

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
Elevation C - Craftsman 11.1
PLAN 11
Front Elevations

STONEBROOK
Elevation D - Bay Area Modern
Elevation A - Tuscan Elevation B - French Cottage

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024

TYPICAL LOT SIZES
45' x 100' = 4,500 SQ. FT. 1,822 SQ. FT. 40%

LOT COVERAGE

FOOTPRINT COVERAGE
2-STORY: 40% max
City of Brentwood

11.2 PLAN 11
Site Plan

STONEBROOK
APPROX.

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024

11.3 PLAN 11
First Floor

STONEBROOK

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024

11.4 PLAN 11
Second Floor

STONEBROOK

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
Roof Plan 'A'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - Tuscan

11.5 PLAN 11
Elevation A

STONEBROOK

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
Roof Plan 'B'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - French Cottage

11.6 PLAN 11
Elevation B

STONEBROOK

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
Roof Plan 'C'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - Craftsman

11.7 PLAN 11
Elevation C

STONEBROOK

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
Roof Plan 'D'
Right Front - Bay Area Modern
Rear
Left

11.8 PLAN 11
Elevation D

STONEBROOK

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
Elevation C - Craftsman 12.1
PLAN 12
Front Elevations

STONEBROOK
Elevation D - Bay Area Modern
Elevation A - Tuscan Elevation B - French Cottage

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024

TYPICAL LOT SIZES
45' x 100' = 4,500 SQ. FT. 1,833 SQ. FT. 40%

LOT COVERAGE

FOOTPRINT COVERAGE
2-STORY: 40% max
PLAN 12
Site Plan

STONEBROOK
City of Brentwood

12.2 APPROX.

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 12
First Floor

STONEBROOK

12.3

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 12
Second Floor

STONEBROOK

12.4

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 12
Elevation A

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'A'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - Tuscan

12.5

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 12
Elevation B

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'B'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - French Cottage

12.6

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 12
Elevation C

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'C'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - Craftsman

12.7

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
PLAN 12
Elevation D

STONEBROOK
Roof Plan 'D'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - Bay Area Modern

12.8

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
Elevation B - Craftsman DATE JULY 01, 2024

13.1 PLAN 13
Front Elevations

STONEBROOK
Elevation A - Tuscan

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024

TYPICAL LOT SIZES
114'-5" x 117'-3" = 13,414 SQ. FT. 2,073 SQ. FT. 15%

LOT COVERAGE

FOOTPRINT COVERAGE
2-STORY: 40% max
City of Brentwood

13.2 PLAN 13
Site Plan

STONEBROOK
APPROX.

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024

13.3 PLAN 13
Entry Level

STONEBROOK

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024

13.4 PLAN 13
Main Level

STONEBROOK

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024

13.5 PLAN 13
Upper Level

STONEBROOK

Elevation A

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
Roof Plan 'A'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - Tuscan

13.6 PLAN 13
Elevation A

STONEBROOK

BRENTWOOD, CA
West Coast
LEGACY

DESIGN GROUP

HOME BUILDERS
DATE JULY 01, 2024
Roof Plan 'B'
Right
Rear
Left
Front - Craftsman

13.7 PLAN 13
Elevation B

STONEBROOK

77 78
79 80
81 82
83 84
85 86
87 127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
2 3
4 5
31 32 33 34 35
36 37
38 42
43 45
46 94
75 74
73 72
71 70
69 68
67 66
65 64
63 62
61 110
60 111
112
113
115
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
59 58
57 56 55 54 52 51
49 48
47 39 40
116
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
257
256
206
207 208
209
210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198
199
200
201
202 203 204
205
140
141
142 143
144
146
145
147
148
149 150 151 152 153
167
166
165
164
163
162
161 160 159 158 157 156 155 154
53 41
44 135
1 PARCEL 'I'

PARCEL 'F'

PARCEL 'B'

PARCEL 'D'

PARCEL 'C'
C.3 TREATMENT & SEWER

STORMWATER DETENTION,

OPEN SPACE

PARCEL 'A'
PARK
PORTION OF PARK < 3% SLOPE

STORMWATER

DETENTION
& C.3

TREATMENT

PARCEL 'E'
114
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
50 88
89 90
91 92
93 95
96 97
98 99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
255

PARCEL 'J'
16 246 245 244 243 242 241 240 239
238
237
271 272 270 269 268 265 266 267 264 263
262
261
260
259
258
136
137
138
139
76 PARK

PARCEL 'G'

BRIDLE GATE SUBDIVISION

BRENTWOOD, CALIFORNIA
TOTAL
SHEET
OF
C:\Users\mshul\AppData\Local\Temp\AcPublish_17008\EXH_Bridlegate_Landscape_Site_Plan_Update_SEPT_1_2023.dwg Sep 01, 2023-02:25 pm 2 M I CHA E L S HU L AR , No . 4 8 9 8 Date Renewal Date L I C ENS ED L ANDS CA P E A R CH I T E C T Exp. 05.31.25 Signature AI RN FO OF CAL I E T AT S PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN SEPTEMBER 1, 2023 PRELIMINARY 306 Canyon Falls Dr. Folsom, CA 95630 www.msladesign.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, Inc. 916.989.3372 125' 250' 0' SCALE: 1"=125'-0" 62'

STREET TREE MATRIX

SYM BOTANICAL/ COMMON NAME SIZE
GINKGO BILOBA/ MAIDENHAIR TREE 15 GALCELTIS SINENSIS/ CHINESE HACKBERRY 15 GAL WATER USE*
MEDLOW
ARBUTUS 'MARINA;/ STRAWBERRY TREE 15 GAL LOWKOELREUTERIA BIPINNATA/ CHINESE FLAME TREE 15 GAL LOW

HEATHERWOOD DRIVE

HEATHERWOOD DRIVE

COTTONWOOD AVENUE

COTTONWOOD AVENUE

CHESTNUT OAK DRIVE CHESTNUT OAK DRIVE

CHESTNUT OAK DRIVE
QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA/ COAST LIVE OAK 15 GAL LOW

NON-IRRIGATED BASIN/DETENTION HYDROSEED
AGROSTIS EXARATA 2.0
DISTICHLIS 2.0ELYMUS TRACHYCAULUS 4.0ELYMUS TRITICOIDES RIO 3.0HORDEUM BRACHYANTHERUM 4.0HORDEUM DEPRESSUM 3.0HORDEUM INTERCEDENS 3.0MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS 0.5PLANTAGO INSULARIS 20.0 SISRINCHIUM BELLUM 1.0SPOROBOLUS AIRIODES 1.5
TRIFOLIUM WILLDENOVII 3.0
TOTAL: 47.0

SPECIES LBS/ACRE

ACCA SELLOWIANA/ PINEAPPLE GUAVA
BERBERIS T. 'CRIMSON PYGMY'/ DWARF JAPANESE BARBERRY
CALLISTEMON V. 'LITTLE JOHN'/ DWARF BOTTLEBRUSHCEANOTHUS 'CONCHA'/ WILD LILACCORREA PULCHELLA 'MISSION BELLS'/ AUSTRALIAN FUSCHSIA

HEMEROCALLIS 'RED RUM'/ RED DAYLILY
LANTANA 'GOLD RUSH'/ GOLD RUSH LANTANALAVANDULA A. 'MUNSTEAD'/ ENGLISH LAVANDERLIRIOPE MUSCARI/ BIG BLUE LILY TURF MAHONIA AQUIFOLIUM 'O. F.'/ OREGON GRAPEPITTOSPORUM T. 'VARIEGATA'/ VARIGATED TOBIRARIBES VIBURNIFOLIUM/ EVERGREEN CURRANTROSA X 'NOARE'/ RED FLOWER CARPET ROSEROSMARINUS 'HUNTINGTON CARPET'/ ROSEMARY

SANTOLINA ROSMARINIFOLIA/ SANTOLINA

TRACHELOSPERMUM/ JASMINOIDES STAR JASMINE
5 GAL
1 GAL
1 GAL5 GAL5 GAL
1 GAL1 GAL1 GAL1 GAL1 GAL5 GAL5 GAL5 GAL1 GAL
1 GAL1 GAL
LOW
MED

LOWLOWLOW

MEDLOWLOWMEDMEDMEDLOWMEDLOW
LOWMED

SHRUBS/ GROUNDCOVERS
SYM BOTANICAL/ COMMON NAME SIZE WATER USE*

MASONRY WALL SCHEMATIC (CONCEPTUAL)
NTS
CMU BLOCK PILASTER WITHSPLIT-FACE FINISH AND PRECASTSTONE CAP.

BASALITE REGAL WALL CAP
(CONTINUOUS BETWEEN PILASTERS).

BASALITE REGAL

WALL CAP
(CONTINUOUS

BETWEENPILASTERS)
8x8x16 CMU MASONRY BLOCK WITH

SPLIT-FACE FINISH

DECORATIVE CONCRETE PILASTER CAP

DECORATIVE

CONCRETE

PILASTER CAP
8x8x16 CMU

MASONRY BLOCK

WITH SPLIT-FACE
FINISH

ELEVATION SECTION

SAN JOSE AVENUE

WOODGLEN DRIVE

MILLBROOK COURT

ROSEWOOD DRIVE

BRIDELE GATE DRIVE

SAN JOSE AVENUE

ROSEWOOD DRIVE
P1

SAND CREEK ROAD

BRIDLE GATE SUBDIVISION

BRENTWOOD, CALIFORNIA
TOTAL
SHEET
OF
C:\Users\mshul\AppData\Local\Temp\AcPublish_17008\EXH_Bridlegate_Landscape_Site_Plan_Update_SEPT_1_2023.dwg Sep 01, 2023-02:25 pm 2 M I CHA E L S HU L AR , No . 4 8 9 8 Date Renewal Date L I C ENS ED L ANDS CA P E A R CH I T E C T Exp. 05.31.25 Signature AI RN FO OF CAL I E T AT S PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN SEPTEMBER 1, 2023 PRELIMINARY 306 Canyon Falls Dr. Folsom, CA 95630 www.msladesign.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, Inc. 916.989.3372 2 3/8" SCH 20 GALV. STEEL
POSTS
1"x6" POST COVER
2"x4" POST FRAMES
8" DIA x 24" DEEPCONCRETE PIERS

TOP VIEW

GOOD NEIGHBOR WOOD FENCE WITH

STEEL POSTS AND GATE DETAIL
NTS
6'
HINGE, TYP.

HOUSE
WALL
2"x4" BRACE BOARD
(TOP AND BOTTOM OF GATE)

WOOD FENCE
BOARDS
4"x6" PRESSURE TREATED
DOUG FIR WOOD POST (TYP.)
LATCH
2"x4" DIAGONAL

BRACE BOARD
48"
2 3/8" SCH 20 GALV. STEEL
POSTS
1"x6" FENCEBOARDS
2"x8" PTCT KICK
BOARD

FINISH GRADE
2"x4" DADO

TOP RAIL
2"x4" DADO

BOTTOM RAIL
8' O.C. TYP.
2 3/8" SCH 20 GALV. STEEL
POSTS
1"x6" POST COVER
2"x4" POST FRAMES
8" DIA x 24" DEEPCONCRETE PIERS

TOP VIEW

SIDE VIEW

TYPICAL FRONT YARD PLANTING
1"=8'-0"

CORNER LOT INTERIOR LOT

ACCENT TREE

CANOPY TREE
YARD
GATE
YARD
GATE

GOOD NEIGHBOR

FENCE GOOD NEIGHBOR
FENCE
P2

CONCRETE
WALK
STREET
TREES

CONCRETE
WALK
STREET
TREES

PROPOSED YARD PLANTS

SYMBOL BOTANICAL/ COMMON NAME
TREES
15 GALLON CONTAINERS
ACER RUBRUM' AUTUMN BLAZE’/ RED MAPLECERCIS CANADENSIS 'OKLAHOMA'/ EASTERN REDBUDPISTACIA CHINENSIS 'KEITH DAVEY' CHINESE PISTACHELAGERSTROEMIA DYNAMITE'/ CRAPE MYRTLE

SALVIA GREGGII 'FURMANS RED'/ RED SAGE

ACCA SELLOWIANA/ PINEAPPLE GUAVA

SYMBOL BOTANICAL/ COMMON NAME
SHRUBS
1 GALLON CONTAINERS

XYLOSMA CONGESTUM/ SHINY XYLOSMA

ROSA X 'NOARE'/ RED FLOWER CARPET ROSE

TEUCRIUM FRUTICANS 'VARIEGATED'/ DWARF GERMANDER
5 GALLON CONTAINERS

ARCTOSTAPHYLOS UVA-URSI 'POINT REYES'/ PROSTRATE MANZANITA CALLISTEMON V. 'LITTLE JOHN'/ DWARF BOTTLEBRUSH
PITTOSPORUM T. 'VARIEGATA'/ VARIGATED TOBIRA

WATER USE

MEDLOWLOWLOW

WATER USE

LOWLOWLOWMED
LOW
LOW
LOW
MED

1 July 9, 2024
Erik Nolthenius,
Planning Manager
City of Brentwood Community Development Department
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
Re: Traffic-Calming Options at the proposed St. Regis Avenue/Chestnut Oak Drive/San Jose Avenue intersection for the Bridle Gate Project
Dear Mr. Nolthenius,
Raney Planning and Management, Inc. has prepared this Memorandum to address if alterations to the design of the proposed St. Regis Avenue/Chestnut Oak Drive/San Jose Avenue intersection that would be constructed as part of the Bridle Gate Project (proposed project) would alter the conclusions of the Bridle Gate Project Draft Revised Environmental Impact Report (REIR), such that recirculation of the Draft REIR would be necessary. As discussed herein, the City of Brentwood’s approval of any of the five traffic-calming options at the proposed St. Regis Avenue/Chestnut Oak Drive/San Jose Avenue intersection would not result in a new significant impact or an increase in the severity of an impact previously identified in the Draft REIR. Therefore, each of the five traffic-calming options would be consistent with the analyses and conclusions presented in the Final REIR and do not necessitate recirculation of the Draft REIR, as none trigger the criteria for recirculation established by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a).

Project Background
The Draft REIR prepared for the proposed project evaluated all potential environmental effects required for analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including those associated with the project’s westerly extension of San Jose Avenue and construction of the new north-south Chestnut Oak Drive. The two new roadways would serve as the northern and western legs of the new four-way St. Regis Avenue/Chestnut Oak Drive/San Jose Avenue intersection, which would allow for vehicle access from the proposed residences to the existing Brentwood Hills neighborhood adjacent to the south of the project site.

As discussed in Chapter 1, Introduction, Description of Project Changes, and List of Commenters, of the Final REIR, following the release of the Draft REIR for public review, the proposed project was further refined as part of the Final REIR to comply with applicable development standards for Planned Development-36 (PD-36), Subarea C, set forth in Brentwood Municipal Code Section

17.486.004. The project refinements reduced the number of proposed residential lots from 286 to 272. In addition, Millbrook Court, which was previously proposed for east of Park Parcel G, was reconfigured such that the cul-de-sac would now be extended and renamed Millbrook Drive, connecting to Rosewood Drive to the north and east.

2 Due to the Millbrook Drive reconfiguration, Park Parcel G was reduced from 3.39 acres to 2.49 acres.

The lots surrounding Park Parcel G were also moved to be located north of Millbrook Drive and south of the park. The public review period for the Final REIR occurred from August 25 to September 5, 2023. Since the release of the Final REIR, changes to the project components have not occurred.

As detailed in the Draft REIR and Final REIR, all potential impacts associated with the proposed project, including those related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT), would either be less than significant or would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of the mitigation measures set forth therein.

On September 5, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the potential certification of the Final REIR and heard testimony from the project applicant, as well as 11 members of the public. After noting several concerns about the proposed project – most notably, the potential effect of project-generated through traffic entering the Brentwood Hills neighborhood through the proposed St. Regis Avenue/Chestnut Oak Drive/San Jose Avenue intersection – the Planning Commission adopted a motion to continue the item to an unspecified future hearing. As part of the motion, the Planning Commission directed staff to work with the applicant to evaluate the intersection of St. Regis Avenue/San Jose Avenue for a possible gate or restriction to only an emergency vehicle access, with the understanding that staff would evaluate any other viable solution that would lessen the impact of traffic on the existing residential areas to the south (i.e., Brentwood Hills and Shadow Lakes).

In response, Abrams Associates prepared an assessment of five traffic-calming options that could be implemented at the proposed St. Regis Avenue/Chestnut Oak Drive/San Jose Avenue intersection, which is attached as Attachment A to this Memorandum. 1 DKS Associates prepared
an assessment of the impact of the options on VMT (see Attachment B of this Memorandum), 2 which has been independently peer reviewed by Kimley-Horn on behalf of the City (see Attachment C of this Memorandum).
3 The traffic-calming options include the following:
• Option 1: Turn Restrictions Alternative A;
• Option 2: Turn Restrictions Alternative B;
• Option 3: One Way Street;
• Option 4: Full or Partial Street Closure; and
• Option 5: Additional Access to Sand Creek Road.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a), a lead agency is required to recirculate a Draft EIR if significant new information is added after the Draft EIR is circulated but before certification.

Significant new information is defined as information that changes a Draft EIR “…in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on…” a significant impact, a feasible way to mitigate an impact, or a feasible way to avoid an impact. The following identifies circumstances that would be considered “significant new information” that would trigger recirculation:
1 Abrams Associates. Review of Potential Options for Minimizing Additional Traffic on St. Regis Avenue. October 12, 2023. 2 DKS Associates. Assessment of Traffic Calming Options. October 16, 2023. 3 Kimley-Horn. Final Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment of Traffic Calming Options Peer Review, Bridle Gate Residential Development, City of Brentwood. June 19, 2024.

3 • Information that shows a new significant impact;
• Information that shows an increase in the severity of an impact (unless mitigation measures are identified to reduce it to acceptable levels);
• Information that identifies a feasible new alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from other analyzed alternatives or mitigation measures that would clearly lessen project impacts and the applicant declines to implement the measure; and/or • Information that demonstrates that the Draft EIR was fundamentally flawed, basically inadequate, and conclusory in nature, thus, precluding meaningful public review and comment.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b), recirculation is not required if the information added to an EIR merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications. The aforementioned five traffic-calming options are discussed further below with respect to how each option could affect the Draft REIR’s VMT conclusion under Impact 4.5-3 (Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision [b]), to determine if the traffic-calming options would constitute significant new information should any one of them be selected for implementation. The analysis below is based on the conclusions of the DKS Associates assessment and peer review conducted by Kimley-Horn. The discussions are then followed by an evaluation of how any changes in VMT as a result of the foregoing traffic-calming options could affect other environmental issue areas required for analysis under CEQA, which would primarily include air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and noise.

Option 1: Turn Restrictions Alternative A
Under this option, eastbound traffic along the new leg of San Jose Avenue within the project site would be prohibited from making right turns onto St. Regis Avenue. Southbound through traffic from Chestnut Oak Drive would similarly be prohibited from continuing onto St. Regis Avenue. Because the San Jose Avenue-St. Regis Avenue connection was not included in the traffic network model employed as part of the VMT Assessment prepared for the Draft REIR (see Appendix J of the Draft REIR), approval of Option 1 would not alter the conclusion of Impact 4.5-3, which was found to be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5-3. Mitigation Measure 4.5-3 requires that the project include an additional full intersection along the internal project roadway network to achieve a project-wide intersection density of 61.5, which would be sufficient to reduce project VMT to below the applicable threshold of 25.2 VMT per resident. Because the San Jose Avenue-St. Regis Avenue connection was not included in the traffic network model, DKS Associates concluded that Option 1 is consistent with the Impact 4.5-3 analysis, which was affirmed by KimleyHorn. Thus, approval of Option 1 would be consistent with the conclusion of Impact 4.5-3 of the Draft REIR.

Option 2: Turn Restrictions Alternative B
Option 2 would include the same restrictions as Option 1, but would also prohibit southbound left turns from Chestnut Oak Drive onto the existing segment of eastbound San Jose Avenue. While the traffic network model used in the VMT Assessment prepared for the Draft REIR included the Chestnut Oak Drive-San Jose Avenue connection, DKS Associates determined that Option 2 would not increase VMT beyond that which was identified in the Draft REIR, as alternatively accessing locations east of State Route (SR) 4 by way of San Creek Road (as necessitated by this option) would not be significantly longer for motorists. Kimely-Horn affirmed the foregoing conclusion. Thus,

4 approval of Option 2 would be consistent with the analysis and conclusion of Impact 4.5-3 of the Draft REIR.

Option 3: One Way Street
Option 3 would restrict the new leg of San Jose Avenue west of St. Regis Drive to one-way westbound traffic only. This option would also include prohibiting southbound through traffic from Chestnut Oak Drive onto St. Regis Avenue. Similar to Option 2, the traffic network model used in the VMT Assessment prepared for the Draft REIR included the Chestnut Oak Drive-San Jose Avenue connection. However, DKS Associates concluded that Option 3 would not increase VMT beyond that which was identified in the Draft REIR, as alternatively accessing locations east of SR 4 by way of Sand Creek Road would not be significantly longer, as discussed above with respect to Option 2. In addition, Option 3 would allow for vehicle trips returning to the proposed project through westbound San Jose Avenue. Thus, Option 3 would be consistent with the analysis and conclusion of Impact

4.5-3 of the Draft REIR.

Option 4: Full or Partial Street Closure
Option 4 would require either a partial (southbound) or full closure of Chestnut Oak Drive at San Jose Avenue. In the traffic network model used in the VMT Assessment prepared for the Draft REIR, Chestnut Oak Drive is represented as a centroid connected to the San Jose Avenue extension.

However, similar to Options 2 and 3, DKS Associates concluded that alternatively requiring motorists to access locations east of SR 4 by way of Sand Creek Road would not significantly lengthen trips, and Option 4 would not substantially increase VMT beyond that which was identified in the Draft REIR. Thus, Option 4 would be consistent with the analysis and conclusion of Impact 4.5-3 of the Draft REIR.

Option 5: Additional Access to Sand Creek Road
Option 5 would include an additional right-in/right-out access point to Sand Creek Road between Bridle Gate Drive and the eastbound SR 4 ramps; however, it should be noted that Abrams Associates concluded that Option 5 would be unlikely to gain City approval, as another full-access intersection would be unlikely to meet the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) intersection spacing standards for a divided arterial roadway such as Sand Creek Road. In addition, the road’s topography would discourage the City from approving new connections to Sand Creek Road west of San Jose Avenue, as the grade between the proposed roadway network and the final alignment of Sand Creek Road would be substantial.

Option 5 would slightly reduce a portion of the vehicle trips accessing eastbound SR 4 and eastbound Sand Creek Road, resulting in a slight (albeit minimal) decrease in VMT. Thus, approval of Option 5 would be consistent with the analysis and conclusion of Impact 4.5-3 of the Draft REIR.

Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise
Potential increases in VMT would result in an associated potential increase in air quality pollutants, GHG emissions, and noise level increases. With respect to air quality and GHG emissions, as discussed above, Options 2 through 5 would not substantially increase VMT beyond that which was identified in the Draft REIR, as Options 2, 3, and 4 would require motorists to access locations east of SR 4 by way of Sand Creek Road, which would not significantly lengthen trips, and Option 5 would slightly reduce a portion of the vehicle trips accessing eastbound SR 4 and eastbound Sand Creek

5 Road. In addition, Option 1 would not increase VMT. Thus, none of the traffic-calming options would result in substantial increases to project-generated criteria pollutants during project operation, which were concluded under Impact 4.1-2 of the Draft REIR to be less than significant. In addition, the Draft REIR determined that with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5-3 (pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.1-6[a]) and prohibition of natural gas within the proposed structures as required by Mitigation Measure 4.1-6(b), the potential impact related to GHG emissions would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, approval of any of the traffic-calming options would similarly result in a less-than-significant impact with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.1-6(a) and 4.1- 6(b). Based on the above, approval of the traffic-calming options would be consistent with the analyses and conclusions related to air quality and GHG emissions in the Draft REIR.

With respect to noise, the Draft REIR determined under Impact 4.4-2 that noise-level increases at existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity as a result of project-generated traffic would be, at most, 0.9 dB, with most noise-level increases projected to not exceed 0.4 dB. Thus, the Draft REIR concluded that with regard to noise-level increases related to traffic, the proposed project would not exceed the applicable threshold of 1.5 dB and a less-than-significant impact would occur. According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), increasing traffic-generated noise levels by 3.0 dB requires a doubling of traffic levels.4 While approval of the traffic-calming options would redistribute the foregoing vehicle trips to other roads in the project vicinity, such an amount would not result in a doubling of the volumes anticipated in the Draft REIR. Thus, should any of the trafficcalming options be selected, none would result in an increase to existing roadway traffic volumes such that the proposed project would be anticipated to result in a new significant impact related to traffic noise beyond what was identified in the Draft REIR. Thus, approval of the traffic-calming options would be consistent with the analyses and conclusions related to noise in the Draft REIR.

Remaining Environmental Issue Areas
With respect to the remaining environmental issue areas addressed in the Draft REIR, approval of the traffic-calming options would not a new or substantially more severe significant impact beyond what was identified in the Draft REIR or Final REIR or information that identifies a feasible new alternative or mitigation measure that would clearly lessen project impacts or demonstrates that the Draft REIR and Final REIR are fundamentally flawed. For example, alterations to the routing of project-generated traffic as a result of the traffic-calming options would not necessitate the construction of roadways that were not previously proposed and analyzed in the Draft REIR or Final REIR, or any other alterations to the previously evaluated area of disturbance. Thus, the trafficcalming options would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, or mineral resources. The traffic-calming options would not result in new residential units and associated population increases beyond what was evaluated in the Draft REIR and Final REIR. Therefore, new or substantially more severe significant impacts would not occur related to energy consumption, land use and planning, population and housing, public services, recreation, utilities and service systems, or wildfire. Finally, as the alterations to the routing of project-generated traffic as a result of the traffic-calming options would only add a slight increase of project-generated traffic to previously proposed and/or existing roadways in the project vicinity, new or substantially more severe significant impacts would not occur 4 California Department of Transportation. Technical Noise Supplement [page 6-5]. September 2013.

6 related to aesthetics. Thus, approval of the traffic-calming options would be consistent with the analyses and conclusions related to the Draft REIR’s remaining environmental issue areas.

Conclusion
As demonstrated above, the traffic-calming options are consistent with the analyses and conclusions of the Draft REIR and revisions to the Draft REIR and/or Final REIR are not required. Thus, the traffic-calming options do not constitute significant new information and recirculation of the Draft REIR is not warranted.

If you have any questions regarding the contents of this document, please do not hesitate to contact me at (916) 372-6100, or via email at [email protected].

Thank you,
Rod Stinson
Vice President/Air Quality Specialist
1501 Sports Drive, Suite A
Sacramento, CA 95834
Office: (916) 372-6100
www.raneymanagement.com
Attachments:

Attachment A Review of Potential Options for Minimizing Additional Traffic on St. Regis Avenue Attachment B Assessment of Traffic Calming Options
Attachment C Final Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment of Traffic Calming Options Peer Review

7 Attachment A
Review of Potential Options for
Minimizing Additional Traffic on St.

Regis Avenue

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.
1875 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 210 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 925.945.0201 Fax: 925.945.7966 October 12, 2023
Louis Parsons
Discovery Builders, Inc.
3240 Stone Valley Road
Alamo, CA 94507
Re: Review of Potential Options for Minimizing Additional Traffic on St. Regis Avenue This report presents the results of a review of potential options for minimizing additional traffic on St. Regis Avenue, given the additional roadway connections that would be constructed as part of the Bridle Gate Project. Figure 1 identifies the locations of the various options being reviewed and shows both the existing and planned roadways in the study area. This review includes the potential effects on trip distribution from the Bridle Gate project that could result if any of the potential options are implemented. The intersection of San Jose Avenue and St.

Regis Avenue has not yet been completed and, once fully constructed as part of the Bridle Gate Project, would become a four-way intersection with all-way stop control. Both San Jose Avenue and St. Regis Avenue would be extended through this intersection as part of the Bridle Gate Project. San Jose Avenue would be extended through the project from St. Regis Avenue, it would then transition into Bridle Gate Drive and connect to Sand Creek Road. St. Regis Avenue would extend through the intersection to the north into the Bridle Gate Project, but the roadway would change names to Chestnut Oak Drive north of San Jose Avenue.

Five options were evaluated for minimizing traffic on St. Regis Avenue, and all would be subject to City approval. The first two options consist of potential turn restrictions at the intersection of St. Regis Avenue and San Jose Avenue. The third option involves restricting a one-block section of the San Jose Avenue extension (just west of St. Regis Avenue) to one-way westbound traffic flow. The fourth option involves a full or partial closure at the south end of Chestnut Oak Drive. The fifth option is to potentially include an additional access point from the Bridle Gate Project to Sand Creek Road.

Option 1 - Turn Restrictions Alternative A – Turn restrictions at the intersection of St. Regis Avenue and San Jose Avenue were evaluated as one possibility to help minimize the amount of traffic from the Bridle Gate project that might travel to the south on St. Regis Avenue towards Balfour Road. The first turn restriction option being evaluated (Alternative A) in this report has two components:
1) The first component is a potential prohibition of eastbound right turns from the planned San Jose Avenue Extension onto St. Regis Avenue. A preliminary design for this is presented in Figure 2. This plan would include an extension of the curb on the southwest corner to not allow right turns and increase compliance with the prohibition on right turns from eastbound San Jose Avenue onto southbound St. Regis Avenue.

Loma Vista
Elementary
School
Pioneer
Elementary
School
Elementary
School
Ron Nunn
ve
West Country C
Dr
West Country Club Dr
West Country Club Dr
H

GRANT ST

ILLCREST AVE

SHADY WIL

I EH ROD AR N N HC DR

SHADY WILLOW LN

JEFFERY WAY

EMPIRE AVE

PREWETT RANCH DR

VISTA GR ANDE DR

EM I P ER AVE

SAND CREEK RD
e Gat
Sand Creek
Crossings

BRIDLE GATE

PROJECT
Potential Turn
Restrictions at
Potential Full or
Closure on
Chestnut Oak Dr
Potential New
Right-In / Right-Out
Project Access
Option 5
Potential One-Way
Street Segment on
San Jose Ave
Option 4
Options 1 & 2
Option 4
N
Loma Vista
Elementary
School
Pioneer
Elementary
School
Elementary
School
Ron Nunn
ve
West Country C
Dr
West Country Club Dr
West Country Club Dr
H

GRANT ST

ILLCREST AVE

SHADY WIL

I EH ROD AR N N HC DR

SHADY WILLOW LN

JEFFERY WAY

EMPIRE AVE

PREWETT RANCH DR

VISTA GR ANDE DR

EM I P ER AVE

SAND CREEK RD
e Gat
Sand Creek
Crossings

BRIDLE GATE

PROJECT
Potential Turn
Restrictions at
Potential Full or
Closure on
Chestnut Oak Dr
Potential New
Right-In / Right-Out
Project Access
Option 5
Potential One-Way
Street Segment on
San Jose Ave
Option 4
Options 1 & 2
Option 4
N
Loma Vista
Elementary
School
Pioneer
Elementary
School
Elementary
School
Ron Nunn
ve
West Country Club Dr
West Country Club Dr
West Country Club Dr
H

GRANT ST

ILLCREST AVE

SHADY WIL

I EH ROD AR N N HC DR

SHADY WILLOW LN

JEFFERY WAY

EMPIRE AVE

PREWETT RANCH DR

VISTA GR ANDE DR

EM I P ER AVE

SAND CREEK RD
e Gat
Sand Creek
Crossings e

BRIDLE GATE

PROJECT
Potential Turn
Restrictions at
St. Regis Ave and
San Jose Ave
Loma Vista
Elementary
School ve

ADY WIL
Sand Creek
Crossings
School
Potential Full or
Partial Road
Closure on
Chestnut Oak Dr
Potential New
Right-In / Right-Out
Project Access
Option 5
Potential One-Way
Street Segment on
San Jose Ave
Option 3
Options 1 & 2
Option 4
N
Bridle Gate Project
REVIEW OF OPTIONS FOR MINIMIZING TRAFFIC ON ST. REGIS AVENUE City of Brentwood
FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION AND FUTURE ROADWAYS
Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Page 298 of 406
Source: APEX Civil Engineering and Surveying
Bridle Gate Project
REVIEW OF OPTIONS FOR MINIMIZING TRAFFIC ON ST. REGIS AVENUE City of Brentwood
FIGURE 2 OPTION 1 - TURN RESTRICTIONS ALTERNATIVE A
Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Page 299 of 406
Abrams Associates Page 4 of 12 – Bridle Gate Project Traffic Review TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

2) The second component of Option A is a potential prohibition to southbound through traffic from Chestnut Oak Drive onto St. Regis Avenue. With the potential turn restrictions at the St. Regis Avenue/San Jose Avenue intersection traffic on southbound Chestnut Oak Drive would only be able to turn left or right onto San Jose Avenue and southbound through traffic onto St. Regis Avenue would be prohibited. In addition to signage, all-way stop control, and pavement markings, this plan would include a splitter island on the southbound Chestnut Oak Drive approach that would preclude through traffic onto St. Regis Avenue.

Option 2 - Turn Restrictions Alternative B – The second turn restriction option being evaluated (Alternative B) is essentially the same as the first option with the exception that southbound left-turns from Chestnut Oak Drive to eastbound San Jose Avenue would also be prohibited. A preliminary design for accomplishing this is presented in Figure 3. This plan would include the same extension of the curb on the southwest corner of the intersection to not allow right turns and increase compliance with the prohibition on right turns from eastbound San Jose Avenue onto southbound St. Regis Avenue. However, under this option on the northern side of the intersection all southbound traffic would be required to turn right onto San Jose Avenue. Left turns onto San Jose Avenue and southbound through traffic onto St. Regis Avenue would both be prohibited.

Under both of the turn restriction options the prohibited movements are proposed to be clearly signed and marked. However, it is assumed that some motorists would ignore these prohibitions and/or make a U-turns on San Jose Avenue so they could come back and make the permitted westbound left turn movement onto St. Regis Avenue.

Shifts in Traffic Patterns with the Turn Restriction Alternatives A and B (Options 1 and 2) – The most significant effect of the potential turn restrictions would likely be to discourage traffic from traveling through the Bridle Gate Project from Sand Creek Road and State Route 4. The previously considered Bridle Gate Project proposal from 2020-2022 included retail and school uses that were assumed to draw a significant amount of traffic from St. Regis Avenue and the neighborhoods to the south. The original project with the school site and apartments was included was forecast to generate almost 1,500 trips per hour in the April 2020 Traffic Impact Study prepared for the project.1 The revised project is forecast to generate less than 20% of the PM peak hour traffic that would have been generated by the previous proposal for the site.2 The TIA for the previous project also specified that a substantial portion of the elementary school traffic (20%) would originate from the neighborhoods to the south off of St. Regis Avenue, in addition to a portion of the shopping center traffic. 1 Bridle Gate Traffic Impact Study, Kimley Horn, Pleasanton, CA, April, 2020. 2 Technical Memorandum - Review of Changes to the Trip Generation and Potential Traffic Impacts Resulting from Revision of 2020 Bridle Gate Project (VTM 9586) to include only Single-Family Homes, Abrams Associates Traffic Engineering, Walnut Creek, CA, February 15, 2022.

Source: APEX Civil Engineering and Surveying
Bridle Gate Project
REVIEW OF OPTIONS FOR MINIMIZING TRAFFIC ON ST. REGIS AVENUE City of Brentwood
FIGURE 3 OPTION 2 - TURN RESTRICTIONS ALTERNATIVE B
Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Page 301 of 406
Abrams Associates Page 6 of 12 – Bridle Gate Project Traffic Review TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

The current version of the Bridle Gate project includes only single-family homes (272 units) and the prior TIA assumed that about only 4% of the project’s residential traffic would be to and from the south on St. Regis Avenue. However, to be conservative, based on US census data on the average number of students per household it is assumed that up to 25% of the AM peak hour traffic generated by the Bridle Gate project could be school-related traffic bound for St. Regis Avenue and the existing schools to the south. Brentwood School District attendance boundaries indicate Bridle Gate Students would attend Adams Middle School and Heritage High School. However, the attendance boundaries indicate elementary students would theoretically be assigned to Loma Vista Elementary school (to the east on San Jose Avenue).

Based on the AM peak hour trip generation forecasts for the current residential project (200 trips per hour) the proposed Bridle Gate residential project could generate up to 40 trips per hour to and from St. Regis Avenue to the south. Figure 4 presents the forecast changes to the AM peak hour turning movements that would result from the various options that were studied in this report. An analysis of options for school traffic to get from the Bridle Gate Project to Adams Middle School and Heritage High School indicates that approximately 75% of this traffic would be expected to cut through the Sand Creek Crossings Shopping Center to come back to St.

Regis Avenue due to congestion and travel times on other alternate routes. In other words, although about 40 trips per hour may be restricted from turning straight out of the Bridle Gate Project with the turn restrictions, about 30 trips per hour would still make their way to St. Regis Avenue anyway (via Sand Creek Road and the shopping center). Therefore, the net decrease due to the potential turn restrictions is estimated to be more around 10 trips per hour once the school traffic going through the shopping center is accounted for. The potential turn restrictions would also affect the southbound through traffic that would otherwise pass through the Bridle Gate Project from Sand Creek Road and the State Route 4 freeway.

It is important to note that the potential turn restrictions would only affect southbound traffic from the Bridle Gate Project. Traffic from St. Regis Avenue or San Jose Avenue that wants to access (or pass through) the Bridle Gate Project to Sand Creek Road and the State Route 4 freeway would not be restricted and/or discouraged by the proposed turn restrictions. The restrictions as currently presented would only be expected to affect southbound traffic onto St.

Regis Avenue.

The more significant effect of the turn restrictions would be to discourage any external traffic from Sand Creek Road or State Route 4 from heading south through the Bridle Gate Project to St. Regis Avenue. It is our understanding that some of the traffic that might travel through the Bridle Gate Project to St. Regis Avenue currently travels through the Sand Creek Crossing (Raley’s) Shopping Center to get to San Jose Avenue. Some of this traffic also appears to use Highland Way and Meadowgate Way to reach St. Regis Avenue via San Jose Avenue. These routes have the potential to have increased safety issues with this additional traffic, when compared to having this traffic travel through the Bridle Gate Project on a newly constructed

+ 30
- 32 - 8

SAN JOSE AVE ST REGIS AVE
+ 30
- 12
- 32- 8

SAN JOSE AVE ST REGIS AVE
- 12
+ 30
- 32
- 18- 8

SAN JOSE AVE ST REGIS AVE

TURN RESTRICTIONS

ALTERNATIVE A
OPTION 1

TURN RESTRICTIONS

ALTERNATIVE B
OPTION 2

ONE WAY STREET OR

PARTIAL STREET CLOSURE
OPTION 3

FORECAST CHANGES TO

AM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENTS
Bridle Gate Project
REVIEW OF OPTIONS FOR MINIMIZING TRAFFIC ON ST. REGIS AVENUE City of Brentwood
Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

FIGURE 4 FORECAST CHANGES TO THE AM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENTS

Abrams Associates Page 8 of 12 – Bridle Gate Project Traffic Review TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC. section of San Jose Avenue/Bridle Gate Drive that is designed to safely accommodate through traffic with a wide cross-section and no homes fronting on it.

Both of the routes from the SR 4 freeway to St. Regis Avenue (on the east side of SR 4) have speed bumps to discourage speeding and external through traffic. The Highland Way/Meadowgate Way route passes right by the Loma Vista Park Playground and also Loma Vista Elementary School. However, most southbound traffic destined for St. Regis Avenue appears to travel through Sand Creek Crossings Shopping Center. Motorists destined for St.

Regis Avenue that pass through the Sand Creek Crossings Shopping Center must navigate seven pedestrian crosswalks along with a roundabout and multiple speed bumps when cutting through from Sand Creek Road down to San Jose Avenue.

Option 3 - One-Way Street – A one-way street option was evaluated as another way to potentially help minimize the amount of traffic that might travel south on St. Regis Avenue. A preliminary design for accomplishing this is presented in Figure 5. This option also includes two components:
1) The first component would be to restrict the first segment of the San Jose Avenue Extension to one-way westbound traffic only to the west of its intersection with St. Regis Avenue. The one-way section would extend from St. Regis Drive to the first intersection within the Bridle Gate Project (Rose Wood Drive). All eastbound traffic on San Jose Avenue would then have to turn left or right at Rose Wood Drive within the Bridle Gate Project. Since the segment to the east of Rose Wood Drive (to St. Regis Avenue) would become one-way westbound, it would be clearly signed as “Do Not Enter” and “Right or Left Turn Only” for eastbound traffic on San Jose Avenue within the Bridle Gate Project. 2) The second component is exactly the same as for the above-described turn restrictions option. In addition to restricting a one-block of San Jose Avenue to eastbound traffic only, this option would also include the same prohibition to southbound through traffic from Chestnut Oak Drive onto St. Regis Avenue. Traffic on southbound Chestnut Oak Drive would only be able to turn left or right onto San Jose Avenue, through traffic would be prohibited. In addition to signage, all-way stop control, and pavement markings, this plan would include a splitter island (as shown in Figure 2) on the southbound Chestnut Oak Drive approach to help further discourage through traffic onto St. Regis Avenue.

Shifts in Traffic Patterns with the One-Way Street Option (Option 3) – As with the turn restrictions option, the most significant effect of the potential one-way street segment would likely be to discourage traffic from traveling through the Bridle Gate Project from Sand Creek Road and State Route 4. Figure 4 presents the forecast changes to the AM peak hour turning movements that would result from the one-way street option. Although about 40 trips per hour may be restricted from coming out of the Bridle Gate Project the one-way street, about 30 trips per hour would still be forecast make their way back to St. Regis Avenue anyway (via Sand

Source: APEX Civil Engineering and Surveying
FIGURE 5
REVIEW OF OPTIONS FOR MINIMIZING TRAFFIC ON ST. REGIS AVENUEBridle Gate ProjectCity of Brentwood OPTION 3 - ONE WAY STREET Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Abrams Associates Page 10 of 12 – Bridle Gate Project Traffic Review TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Creek Road and the shopping center). Therefore, the net decrease due to the potential turn restrictions is estimated to be more around 10 trips per hour once the school traffic going through the shopping center is accounted for.

Option 4 - Full or Partial Street Closure – A full or partial closure at the south end of Chestnut Oak Drive was another option that was evaluated to potentially help minimize the amount of traffic that might travel south on St. Regis Avenue.
1) A partial closure would involve closing only the southbound direction of Chestnut Oak Drive at San Jose Avenue. Under this option traffic would still be permitted to travel northbound onto Chestnut Oak Drive from the San Jose Avenue/St. Regis Avenue intersection. In the other direction southbound traffic would be prohibited using a design to block traffic that would be acceptable to the fire department. The roadway would be designed to effectively block any southbound traffic from entering the intersection from Chestnut Oak Drive. With the partial closure option, no southbound traffic would be able to travel through the Bridle Gate Project on Chestnut Oak Drive to San Jose Avenue, so it would be clearly signed as “Local Traffic Only” and “No Outlet”. 2) A full closure would involve closing both directions of Chestnut Oak Drive just north of San Jose Avenue. Under this option Chestnut Oak Drive would become a dead end just north of the San Jose Avenue/St. Regis Avenue intersection. This would include a connection to San Jose Avenue for emergency vehicles only, designed in a manner that would be acceptable to the fire department. The southern end of roadway would be designed to effectively block any Chestnut Oak Drive traffic from traveling to or from San Jose Avenue or St. Regis Avenue. The intersection of St. Regis Avenue with San Jose Avenue would become a three-way intersection, with no northern leg connecting to Chestnut Oak Drive. With this full closure option traffic would not be able to travel through the Bridle Gate Project on Chestnut Oak Drive to San Jose Avenue, so it would be clearly signed as “Local Traffic Only” and “No Outlet”.

Shifts in Traffic Patterns with the Full or Partial Street Closure Option (Option 4) – As with the other options, the most significant effect of a full or partial closure of Chestnut Oak Drive would likely be to discourage external traffic from traveling through the Bridle Gate Project from Sand Creek Road and State Route 4. Figure 4 presents the forecast changes to the AM peak hour turning movements that would result from the partial street closure, which is the same as would be forecast for the one-way street option. Again, although about 40 trips per hour may be restricted from coming out of the Bridle Gate Project the one-way street, about 30 trips per hour would still be forecast make their way back to St. Regis Avenue anyway (via Sand Creek Road and the shopping center). Therefore, the net decrease due to the potential turn restrictions is estimated to be more around 10 trips per hour once the school traffic back going through the shopping center is accounted for.

Abrams Associates Page 11 of 12 – Bridle Gate Project Traffic Review TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Option 5 - Additional Access to Sand Creek Road Option – Another option that was evaluated was to potentially create an additional access from the Bridle Gate Project onto Sand Creek Road. Any additional connections to Sand Creek Road would require approval from the City and this preliminary review is intended only to provide guidance on what other access options the City might consider accepting. Based on our preliminary review of the designs for the Sand Creek Road Extension and the Bridle Gate Project site plan there is only really one option for additional access to Sand Creek Road that appears to be potentially viable and might be acceptable to the City. This would be to create a new right-in/right out only access point onto Sand Creek Road between Bridle Gate Drive and the intersection with the State Route 4 eastbound ramps. Our review indicates it is unlikely the City would permit another new full movement intersection (i.e. an intersection allowing left turns) on Sand Creek Road anywhere along the Bridle Gate project frontage. The main reason for this conclusion is that another fullaccess intersection would be unlikely to meet Caltrans’ intersection spacing standards for a divided arterial roadway like Sand Creek Road. Intersections (especially signalized intersections) require sufficient spacing to allow for back-to-back turn lanes in the median and they also need sufficient spacing for safety reasons and to ensure vehicle queuing does not impact adjacent intersections.

In addition to insufficient spacing from the adjacent intersections, there are also some significant topography issues that appear to make it unlikely the City would or could feasibly approve any new connections to Sand Creek Road to the west of San Jose Avenue. The grade difference between the Bridle Gate roadway system and the final alignment of Sand Creek Road is substantial in this area. Therefore, it is our conclusion that the only new connection that might potentially be acceptable to the City would be a new right-in/right out only access onto Sand Creek Road to the east of Bridle Gate Drive.

Shifts in Traffic Patterns with the Additional Access to Sand Creek Option – A review of the project trip generation and external through traffic for the Bridle Gate Project indicates a new right-in/right-out access to Sand Creek Road would not have any significant changes to the potential future traffic on St. Regis Avenue. Almost all of the traffic using any new right-in/rightout access would be expected to be simply shifted over from the future turn volumes at the Bridle Gate Drive intersection. The northbound right turn from Bridle Gate Drive to Sand Creek Road and the eastbound right-turn onto Bridle Gate Drive are both forecast to operate with little delay under Cumulative Plus Project conditions. Because of this, and the lack of an inbound left turn movement (for traffic from State Route 4), it appears unlikely the City would ultimately identify any substantial benefits to traffic on St. Regis Avenue from a new connection to Sand Creek Road. In summary, it appears unlikely that a new access point would provide sufficient benefits to warrant having the City make substantial changes to the final design of the Sand Creek Road Extension.

Abrams Associates Page 12 of 12 – Bridle Gate Project Traffic Review TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Review of Potential Changes to the 2020 Traffic Impact Study Conclusions – Subject to City approval, it is our conclusion that the various options being reviewed would not result in any significant shifts in traffic that would warrant further analysis of traffic operations. None of the options include any substantial modifications to the overall planned roadway system in the project area. Based on our review there should be no new or increased hazards, or changes affecting emergency access, subject to City approval. The potential turn restrictions would not increase the severity of any previously identified Level of Service ("LOS") impacts at intersections or ramps in the area3; nor would they cause any new impacts related to LOS.

However, by discouraging through traffic from traveling south through the Bridle Gate Project there would potentially be a missed opportunity to reduce the external through traffic that currently passes through the Sand Creek Crossings Shopping Center.

Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,
Stephen C. Abrams
President, Abrams Associates
T.E. License No. 1852
3 While the Bridle Gate EIR used LOS as one of its thresholds of significance, it should be noted that the General Plan does not include an objective mandate of compliance with any LOS Standards. The City of Brentwood’s General Plan LOS policies generally state that specified standards "should" be met rather than mandating conformance with set standards, and thus are directive as opposed to mandatory.

While the General Plan establishes Level of Service standards, Policy CIR 1-6 indicates that intersections may be exempted from the LOS standards in cases where the City Council finds that the infrastructure improvements needed to maintain vehicle LOS (such as roadway or intersection widening) would be in conflict with goals of improving multimodal circulation or would lead to other potentially adverse environmental impacts. (General Plan, p. 2-5.).

8 Attachment B
Assessment of Traffic Calming Options

ASSESSMENT OF TRAFFIC CALMING OPTIONS
DATE: October 16, 2023
TO: Louis Parsons | Discovery Builders
FROM: Erin Vaca | DKS Associates
SUBJECT: Brentwood Bridle Gate – Traffic Calming Improvements Project #22265-000

BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION
DKS Associates prepared a VMT analysis for the proposed Bridle Gate residential development in Brentwood, CA. The analysis was documented in a report dated March 2, 2023, with findings of less than significant impacts with mitigation.

Subsequently, traffic calming improvements have been proposed to minimize cut-through traffic on St. Regis Avenue, impacting the existing residential neighborhood to the south of the proposed project. The proposed traffic calming improvements are documented in a letter from Abrams Associates dated October 12, 2023. This memorandum reviews the proposed traffic calming improvements to assess whether any of these improvements would affect the VMT characteristics of the proposed project.

TRAFFIC CALMING IMPROVEMENTS
OPTION 1 – TURN RESTRICTIONS ALTERNATIVE A
Under this option, right turns would be prohibited from eastbound San Jose Avenue onto St. Regis Avenue. Southbound through traffic from Chestnut Oak Drive onto St. Regis Avenue would also be prohibited. Note that the San Jose Avenue-St. Regis Avenue connection was not included in the traffic network model used for the VMT analysis. Therefore, the VMT analysis effectively reflects this traffic calming alternative and would not impact the VMT analysis results.

OPTION 2 – TURN RESTRICTIONS ALTERNATIVE B
This alternative is the same as Alternative A but with an additional restriction prohibiting southbound left turns from Chestnut Oak Drive onto eastbound San Jose Avenue. While the traffic network model used in the VMT analysis did include the San Jose Avenue connection, the

BRENTWOOD BRIDLE GATE PROJECT • ASSESSMENT OF TRAFFIC CALMING OPTIONS• OCTOBER 2023 2
alternative path to access locations east of State Route 4 via San Creek Road would not be significantly longer and thus this option would be expected to have a neutral effect on VMT.

OPTION 3 – ONE WAY STREET
This alternative would restrict the segment of the San Jose Avenue extension west of St. Regis Drive to one-way westbound traffic only. This alternative would also include the prohibition of southbound through traffic from Chestnut Oak Drive onto St. Regis Avenue. Like Option 2, while the traffic network model used in the VMT analysis did include the San Jose Avenue connection, the alternative path to access locations east of State Route 4 via San Creek Road would not be significantly longer and thus this option would be expected to have a neutral effect on VMT. Note that this option would leave the path open for vehicle trips returning to the Bridle Gate neighborhood via westbound San Jose Avenue.

OPTION 4 – FULL OR PARTIAL STREET CLOSURE
This alternative proposes either a partial (southbound) or full closure of Chestnut Oak Drive at San Jose Avenue. In the traffic network model used for the VMT analysis, Chestnut Oak Drive is represented as a centroid connected to the San Jose Avenue extension. Again, the alternative path via Sand Creek Road is not significantly longer and this option would not be expected to have a significant VMT effect.

OPTION 5 – ADDITIONAL ACCESS TO SAND CREEK ROAD
This option proposes an additional right in-right-out access point to Sand Creek Road between Bridle Gate Drive and the eastbound State Route 4 ramps. This option would have the effect of slightly shortening some of vehicle trips accessing eastbound State Route 4 or eastbound Sand Creek Road with resulting minimal VMT effects.

SUMMARY
DKS has reviewed the proposed traffic calming alternatives; none of the alternatives would be expected to cause significant increases in VMT. Furthermore, all the alternatives will leave full access movement open for bicyclists and pedestrians. This will be an important consideration in providing a relatively low-stress route for Bridle Gate residents to bicycle or walk to the commercial land use along Balfour Road to the south as well as the Sand Creek Crossing shopping center to the east. In addition, it will be important to maintain bicycle and pedestrian access to Loma Vista Elementary School on San Jose Avenue to minimize VMT.

9 Attachment C
Final Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
Assessment of Traffic Calming Options
Peer Review

FINAL Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment of Traffic Calming Options Peer Review June 19, 2024 Bridle Gate Residential Development Page 1 of 1
Memorandum
To: Rod Stinson
From: Chris Gregerson, P.E., T.E., ACIP
Tyler Mickelson, EIT
Ben Huie, P.E.

Re: FINAL Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment of Traffic Calming Options Peer Review Bridle Gate Residential Development, City of Brentwood
Date: June 19, 2024
This memorandum documents a peer review completed by Kimley-Horn of a VMT assessment for the proposed traffic calming options at the Bridle Gate Residential development in Brentwood, CA dated November 10, 2023, completed by DKS Associates1. This memorandum summarizes the initial comments prepared by Kimley-Horn.

Peer Review Comments
A. Background and Introduction

1. The DKS memo references three previous analyses to provide context for analysis completed in this update.

B. Traffic Calming Improvements

1. Kimley-Horn agrees that the first traffic calming alternative is reflected in the original analysis performed for the project.

C. Analysis Steps

1. Kimley-Horn agrees that the steps described in this section correctly model the analysis scenario comprising Option 2.

2. Kimley-Horn agrees with the methodology outlined in this section to determine the change in VMT relative to Option 2.

D. Results

1. Kimley-Horn confirms that the output from the VMT excel file matches that reported in the memo for Option 2.

2. Kimley-Horn agrees that the implementation of Option 2 traffic calming causes an insignificant change in VMT and the original findings of the Project’s VMT analysis would remain the same under this scenario, namely that of less than significant with mitigation. 1 Assessment of Traffic Calming Options for Brentwood Bridle Gate – Traffic Calming Improvements, DKS Associates, November 10, 2023.

ORDINANCE NO. 1014
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17. 725 OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE (" AFFORDABLE HOUSING").

WHEREAS, the City of Brentwood, California ( the " City") is a general law city, duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65800, et seq. authorizes cities to adopt and administer zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations as a means of implementing that city' s general plan; and
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2003, the City Council of the City of Brentwood adopted Ordinance 756, establishing the Affordable Housing Program, as recommended by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 790 on January 11, 2005, and amended in its entirety Chapter 17. 725 of the City of Brentwood Municipal Code ( the Affordable Housing Ordinance"); and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 842 on April 27, 2007, amending the Affordable Housing Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 874 on July 28, 2009, amending the City' s Affordable Housing Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 909 on November 13, 2012, further amending the City' s Affordable Housing Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on October 23, 2018, the City Council conducted an affordable housing workshop and appointed an ad hoc Housing Policy Committee; and WHEREAS, on April 1, 2019, the Housing Policy Committee held a meeting to receive further information from staff on the City' s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (" RHNA") attainment, the provisions of the City' s Affordable Housing Ordinance, and statewide affordable housing efforts; and
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2019, the City Council heard a presentation from staff on meeting the City' s RHNA and local affordable housing needs and directed staff to begin crafting potential Affordable Housing Ordinance amendments for Council consideration; and WHEREAS, on June 24, 2019, the City hosted a meeting with local stakeholders regarding potential amendments to the Affordable Housing Ordinance; and WHEREAS, on July 16, 2019, staff presented information on the City's RHNA attainment and affordable housing needs to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on September 10, 2019, the City Council provided further direction to staff on its desired revisions to the Affordable Housing Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, acting on such Council direction, staff prepared the ordinance attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit ' 1' ( the " Ordinance"); and WHEREAS, at its meeting of March 3, 2020, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the Ordinance, and, by adoption of Resolution No. 20- 008, recommended the City Council adopt said Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Ordinance is appropriate and in the public interest, as required by Brentwood Municipal Code Section 17. 870. 008. This is demonstrated by its consistency with the General Plan of the City of Brentwood, which consistency may be found with regard to multiple General Plan goals and policies, including, but not limited to:
a. Policy LU 2. 1 Maintain Brentwood' s predominant land use of single family residential while providing for a mix of housing types throughout the community, in accordance with the Housing Element, insomuch as the Ordinance will allow for the construction of a variety of affordable housing types in conjunction with market rate developments throughout the City.
b. Policy LU 2. 8 Provide for a variety of residential products through the Zoning Ordinance in order to accommodate the housing needs of all segments of the city' s population, in that the Ordinance will require eligible residential developers to construct or otherwise contribute to housing affordable to specified income ranges, thereby increasing the variety of households for which housing will be available within the city.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Brentwood does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. The text of Chapter 17. 725 of the Brentwood Municipal Code is hereby repealed in its entirety and is replaced as set forth in Exhibit " 1" attached hereto and incorporated herein.

SECTION 2. The Ordinance shall be published in accordance with Government Code Section 36933 by either posting or publishing the Ordinance in accordance with that law.

Further, the City Clerk is directed to cause the text adopted in Section 1 above to be entered in the City of Brentwood Municipal Code. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days following its adoption.

SECTION 3. The Ordinance is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act ( Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., and the Guidelines for CEQA, 14 CCR 15000, et seq.) because it has no potential to result in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, per 14 CCR § 15061( b)( 3). Further, the Ordinance is also exempt because it does not apply to any particular housing project at this time and it is thus speculative to evaluate any such future project in the context of consideration of this Ordinance.

THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced with the first reading waived at a regular meeting of the Brentwood City Council on the
14th
day of April, 2020, by the following
vote:

AYES: Bryant, Rarey, Rodriguez, Staton, Taylor
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RECUSE: None
And was adopted at a regular meeting of the Brentwood City Council on the 28th day of
April, 2020, by the following vote:

AYES: Bryant, Rarey, Rodriguez, Staton, Taylor
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RECUSE: None
1 : 1324 .-11
anl a0
Robert Taylor Dat
Mayor
ATTEST:

Margaret Wi jy.erly, MMC
City Clerk b

DRAFT/ PROPOSED CHANGES TO
CHAPTER 17. 725
Chapter 17. 725, as Amended by Proposed Ordinance
Chapter 17. 725 AFFORDABLE HOUSING

17. 725. 001 Title and purpose of provisions.

A. Title. The provisions of this chapter shall be known as the "affordable housing program" of this title.

B. Purpose. The purpose of this affordable housing program is to:

1. Enhance the public welfare and assure that further housing development contributes to the attainment of the City' s housing goals as described in the housing element of the general plan, by creating, preserving, maintaining, and protecting housing affordable for households of Very Low-, Low- and Moderate- Income;

2. Assure that the remaining developable land in the City' s planning area is utilized in a manner consistent with the city' s housing policies and needs.

3. Increase the number of affordable housing units in Brentwood in recognition of the insufficient number of existing affordable housing units in relation to the community' s current and future needs, and

4. Assure that new affordable housing units that are constructed are distributed throughout the city as part of mixed- income developments in order to obtain the benefits that flow from economically diverse communities, increase access to opportunity, and affirmatively further fair housing.

17.725. 002 Definitions.

As used in this chapter, each of the following terms shall be defined as follows:

Affordable Housing Agreement" means a recorded agreement between the City and a residential developer setting forth the residential developer' s compliance with the requirements of this chapter.

Affordable Housing Cost" means the cost defined in the California Health and Safety Code Sections 50052. 5 and 50053 ( as may be amended from time to time) for owner- occupied and tenant- occupied units, respectively, and adjusted for Assumed Household Size. The housing manager, on or about July 1 of each calendar year shall publish the maximum Affordable Housing Costs for sales prices and rents as calculated in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Health and Safety Code.

Affordable Unit" means an ownership or rental- housing unit, including senior housing, occupied by and available to households of very low-, low- and moderate- incomes at an affordable housing cost, adjusted for Assumed Household Size as defined in this chapter, with deed restrictions as defined in this chapter in favor of the City.

Assumed Household Size" means the assumed number of persons residing within a dwelling unit. For the purposes of this chapter, Assumed Household Sizes for Affordable Units for a given number of bedrooms are as follows, or as may be amended by the California Health and Safety Code.

Assumed 1 2 3 4 5 6 or
Household more
Size
Unit Size Studio 1 2 3 4 5
Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom Bedroom
Custom Home Development" means any residential development being subdivided by one party and sold as individual lots or parcels to separate owners for construction and development of dwelling units.

Divided In- Lieu Fee" means the total amount of the In- Lieu Fees due for the residential development at the time of first building permit issuance divided by the total number of Market Rate Units in the residential development. The Divided In- Lieu Fee shall be adjusted annually in accordance with appropriate factors or indexes as adopted by the Cost Allocation Plan.

Dwelling Unit" means a dwelling designed and intended for occupancy by one household.

First Time Homebuyer" means a household which has not owned its principal place of residence within the last three years.

In- Lieu Fee" means a fee paid to the City by an applicant in lieu of providing the required Affordable Units.

Low- Income Household" means a household whose annual income does not exceed the qualifying limits set for " lower income households" in Section 50079. 5 of the California Health and Safety Code.

Market- Rate Unit" is defined as a residential unit that is not an Affordable Unit.

Moderate- Income Household" means a household whose annual income does not exceed the qualifying limits set for " moderate- income households" in Section 50093 of the California Health and Safety Code and does not include a very low- or low- income household.

Ownership Development" means any Residential Development that includes the creation of one or more additional dwelling units that may be sold individually. An Ownership Development also includes the conversion of a residential rental development to a residential ownership development.

Refinance and Resale Limitation Agreement and Option to Purchase" means a recorded agreement between the City and an individual homebuyer of an ownership Affordable Unit documenting resale controls and/ or rent restrictions.

Rental Development" means any Residential Development that creates one or more additional dwelling units that cannot be lawfully sold individually in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act.

Resale Controls and/ or Rent Restrictions" means legal restrictions by which Affordable Units shall be restricted to ensure that the unit remains affordable to very low-, low- or moderateincome households, as applicable, for a period of not less than forty-five years for ownership units and not less than fifty-five years for rental units, or longer periods if required by state housing or federal law or a financing assistance program. Resale controls for owner-occupied units shall be in the form of resale restrictions, deeds of trust, and/ or other similar documents recorded against the subject property. Rent restrictions for rental units shall be in the form of a regulatory agreement recorded against the subject property.

Residential Development" means and includes, without limitation, for- sale single- family dwellings, multiple- family dwellings, groups of dwellings, condominium or townhouse developments, condominium conversions, cooperative developments, mixed use developments that include housing units, manufactured housing, mobile homes, and residential land subdivisions intended to be sold, leased or rented to the general public.

Very Low- income Household" means a household whose annual income does not exceed the qualifying limits set for " very low- income households" in Sections 50093 and 50105 of the California Health and Safety Code. " Very Low Income Households" include " extremely lowincome households" as defined in Sections 50093 and 50106 of the California Health and Safety Code.

17. 725. 003 General requirements.

A. Applicability. This chapter shall apply to all new Residential Developments of five or more lots or Dwelling Units designed and intended for residential occupancy in the city. No Residential Development, other than that exempted in subsection C of this section, shall be undertaken, and no building permits shall be accepted for processing or issued, unless the development has been approved in accordance with this chapter.

B. Affordability Requirement. Developers of Residential Developments of five or more lots or Dwelling Units designed and intended for residential occupancy shall construct or make possible the construction of a minimum of six percent of the total number of Dwelling Units within the Residential Development as Affordable Units, allocated to income levels as set forth in this chapter, or as provided in an Affordable Housing agreement which specifies the means of satisfying this chapter. Commencing on January 1, 2021, the required percentage of Affordable Units shall be increased to ten percent of the total number of Dwelling Units for any Residential Development of five or more lots, unless the application was determined to be complete by December 31, 2020 under Government Code Section 65589. 5( o). The foregoing requirement shall be applied prior to the application of a density bonus and no more than once to an

approved Residential Development regardless of changes in its character or ownership, provided that the total number of Dwelling Units does not change.

1. Residential Developments of Five to Nine Dwelling Units. Developers of Residential Developments consisting of five to nine Dwelling Units may either construct one lowincome Affordable Unit, pay a fee equal to 50% of the low- income In- Lieu Fee, as established by resolution of the City Council, or provide an " Alternative Equivalent" as established in this chapter. However, if all or any portion of a Residential Development of five to nine Dwelling Units is later re- subdivided into ten or more parcels or Dwelling Units, the City' s affordable housing requirement may not be satisfied by payment of an In- Lieu Fee.

2. Application to Residential Development of Ten or More Dwelling Units. In applying this requirement to residential development consisting of ten or more dwelling units, any decimal fraction less than 0. 50 dwelling units shall be disregarded and any decimal fraction equal to or greater than 0. 50 dwelling units shall be construed as one dwelling unit.

C. Exemptions. The following are exempt from the provisions of this chapter:

1. Residential Development governed by a development agreement expressly precluding compliance with this chapter or an ordinance of this nature. In cases in which the development agreement does not expressly preclude compliance with this chapter, the project shall comply with this chapter;

2. Replacement housing due to natural disaster on a one for one basis ( i. e., one dwelling unit replaced for each legally existing Dwelling Unit);

3. Modifications to existing properties or structures that do not increase the number of Dwelling Units;

4. Residential care facilities with Dwelling Units that are nonself- sufficient units; that is, they do not include kitchen facilities ( if a project includes both self- sufficient and nonselfsufficient units, only the latter are exempt);

5. Subdivisions consisting of between one and four lots or Dwelling Units.

6. Development of up to four new Dwelling Units on an existing residential lot of record;

7. Development of up to three additional Dwelling Units on a lot zoned to accommodate up to a maximum of four Dwelling Units, and which already contains at least one existing Dwelling Unit, provided that the maximum limit of Dwelling Units is not increased;

8. A residential second unit or accessory dwelling unit ( as defined by state law) on an existing residential lot, subject to compliance with the zoning ordinance;

9. Residential Developments whose applications were determined to be complete under Government Code Section 65943 or any successor provision prior to the effective date of

this Ordinance No. 1014, provided that such Residential Developments shall comply with the predecessor ordinance, resolution, or policy in effect immediately prior to the effective date of Ordinance No. 1014;

10. Residential Developments exempted by California Government Code Section 65589. 5( o) or successor provision, provided that such Residential Development shall comply with any predecessor ordinance, resolution, or policy in effect on the date a preliminary application for the development containing all of the information required by Government Code Section 65941. 1 was submitted to the City.

D. Allocation of Affordable Units to Income Levels. Dwelling units located within the Brentwood city limits for Very Low-, Low and Moderate Income Households as required by this chapter shall be allocated as follows:

Allocation through December 31, 2020 ( 6% affordability requirement):

Ownership Development
Moderate- Income Households 1%
Low- Income Households 4%
Very Low- Income Households 1%
Rental Development
Low- Income Households 3%
Very Low Income Households 3%
Allocation applicable commencing January 1, 2021 ( 10% affordability requirement):

Ownership Development
Moderate- Income Households 3%
Low- Income Households 4%
Very Low-income Households 3%
Rental Development
Low- Income Households 5%
Very Low- Income Households 5%
E.

E. Concurrent Construction. All Affordable Units in a Residential Development or phase of a Residential Development shall be constructed prior to or concurrently with Market-Rate Units, as set forth, and in the location specified, in a schedule of construction approved by the City and set forth in the Affordable Housing Agreement. The building permits for the last ten percent of

the Market Rate Units shall not be issued until the last Affordable Unit has been issued a building permit and construction of the last Affordable Unit has begun.

F. Design and Distribution of Affordable Units. All Affordable Units within a Residential Development shall be comparable to the Market- Rate Units in exterior design, quality, materials, architectural elements and overall construction quality, as well as number and proportion of bedroom types. If approved by the Planning Commission in the design review approval process as specified in Section 17. 725. 006( D), the developer may request an exception to the foregoing in order to reduce the cost of the Affordable Units by permitting reduced front, side and backyard landscaping and smaller square footage for bedrooms. Otherwise, Affordable Units shall be comparable to the approved landscape plans, exterior elevations, and bedroom square footage found in the approved plans for the remainder of the Residential Development. In addition, all Affordable Units shall include the same or similar interior amenities offered for Market Rate Units within a Residential Development. Affordable Units shall be dispersed throughout the Residential Development so as to prevent the concentration of Affordable Units, unless the planning commission has approved an exception to this standard to accommodate senior housing or to reduce Affordable Unit costs as described above, or approval of an off- site location has been granted.

1. Very Low to Medium- Density Zoning. For residential developments with very lowto medium- density zoning designations as defined by the general plan, the Affordable Unit may be smaller in size than other models in the Residential Development. The minimum permissible Affordable Unit size is one thousand six hundred square feet on a three thousand square foot parcel. As a means to provide massing and lot proportions consistent with the Residential Development, a duet unit will satisfy the City' s affordable housing requirement. For example, a duet unit can be located on a corner with each duet unit being one thousand six hundred square feet on two separate three thousand square foot parcels.

2. High to Very High- Density Zoning. For Residential Developments with high to very high- density zoning designations as defined by the general plan, the Affordable Units shall be comparable to Market- Rate Units in square footage.

G. Length of Affordability. All Affordable Ownership Units shall remain affordable for a period of at least forty-five years from date of original occupancy and each subsequent ownership, and any Affordable Rental Units provided as an agreed- upon alternative equivalent proposal pursuant to Section 17.725.004 shall remain affordable for a period of at least fifty-five years from the date of the initial rental or leasing period, or longer periods as may be required by state housing law.

H. Concurrently with applicant' s submission of a Universal Application to the City with respect to any proposed Residential Development subject to the Chapter, applicant shall also submit a narrative describing how the proposed Residential Development will comply with the requirements of this chapter.

17. 725. 004 Alternative equivalent proposal.

As an alternative to constructing Affordable Units on- site, a residential developer may propose one of the alternative equivalents set forth below to meet the requirements of Section

17. 725. 003. Such proposed alternative shall be processed in accordance with Section

17.725. 005 of this Chapter. An alternative equivalent proposal may include, but is not limited to, payment of an In- Lieu Fee for Ownership Development, dedication of vacant developable land, dedication of constructed units to the City' s Rental Housing Program, construction of Affordable Units on another site, or conversion of existing Market Rate Units ( either for-sale or for-rent) within the city to Affordable Units through acquisition and enforcement of required affordability restrictions consistent with this chapter. All alternative equivalent proposals must be submitted in writing, demonstrate that the alternative equivalent will provide as much or more affordable housing in the city as would be achieved through the construction of required on- site Affordable Units required under Sections 17. 725. 003( D), be consistent with the city' s housing element, and not increase residential segregation. Additionally, for Ownership Developments, an alternative equivalent proposal must result in an approximately equal geographic distribution of Affordable Units throughout the city.

A. Approval of Payment of In- Lieu Fees. In- Lieu Fees may be paid for ( 1) Residential Developments consisting of between five and nine Dwelling Units or ( 2) the Very Low- Income requirement for a Residential Development consisting of ten or more Dwelling Units. The amount of the In- Lieu Fee shall be adopted by resolution of the City Council, and may be amended from time to time.

1. In- Lieu Fees for Custom Home Developments shall be paid at time of building permit issuance for each custom home. For each permit pulled, the developer shall pay either the divided In- Lieu Fee or in a lump sum with the total fee, as elected by the developer.

2. In- Lieu Fees for all other Residential Developments shall be paid at building permit issuance for each Market Rate Unit constructed within the development. For each permit pulled, the developer shall pay either the Divided In- Lieu Fee or in a lump sum as with the total fee, as elected by the developer.

3. Except as may otherwise be required by law, the amount of the fee shall be as set forth in the In- Lieu Fee resolution in effect at the time of payment. In- Lieu Fees paid to the City shall be deposited into the Affordable Housing In- Lieu Fee Fund in accordance with Section

17. 725. 007.

4. The In- Lieu Fee paid by the developer of an Ownership Development shall be calculated using a Market Rate median sales price based in- lieu fee. This fee is based on the 12- month median sales price for a 3- bedroom, 1, 500 — 1, 700 square foot, Market Rate home in Brentwood, minus the current Affordable Housing Cost as defined in the California Health and Safety Code for owner- occupied units for the applicable household income level.

The amount of the In- Lieu Fee for each Affordable Unit shall be the difference between the Market Rate median sales price, calculated as above, and the Affordable Housing Cost for a forsale 3- bedroom unit.

5. Developers of Rental Developments must construct Affordable Units on- site or satisfy the affordable requirements through an alternative equivalent proposal other than

payment of In- Lieu Fees unless, prior to the last discretionary approval for the development, the applicant requests a waiver under Section 17. 725. 011, and the City Council approves the InLieu Fee based on specific findings demonstrating that the City' s goals of increasing affordable housing production are equally met through use of applicant' s proposed alterative.

B. Dedication of Vacant Developable Land. An applicant may dedicate vacant developable land to the City or City- approved nonprofit housing developer in- lieu of constructing a portion of the required Affordable Units, if the City Council finds all of the following:

1. The dedication of vacant land in lieu of constructing Affordable Units is consistent with this chapter' s goal of creating, preserving, maintaining, and protecting housing for very lowlow- and moderate- income households;

2. The dedicated vacant land is large enough and appropriately zoned to accommodate the number of Affordable Units that the applicant would otherwise be required to construct by Sections 17. 725. 003( D);

3. The dedicated vacant land is improved with infrastructure and utilities required to serve the property, including, but not limited to, power, telephone, cable, gas, water, sewer and fiber optics, grading, and all applicable fees, taxes, and assessments, including, but not limited to, school and flood control fees, and excluding any affordable housing In- Lieu Fees, have been or will be paid by the applicant;

4. The dedicated vacant land is located inside the city, or the vacant land will be annexed to the city prior to issuance of any building permits to the applicant for his/ her related Market Rate Dwelling Unit( s).

5. That the off- site location would not increase segregation; and

6. That the development of Affordable Units on the dedicated land will be financially feasible.

C. Off- Site Construction of For- Sale or For- Rent Affordable Units or Conversion of Market Rate For-Sale or For- Rent Units to Affordable Units. An applicant may construct the required Affordable Units off- site from the proposed Market- Rate development site by causing the construction of new ownership or rental Affordable Units or convert existing Market- Rate ownership or rental Affordable Units with the approval of the City Council and subject to the City Council' s approval of each of the following findings and imposition of the following conditions of approval on each tentative map or other entitlement:

1. Required Findings for construction and conversion.
a. The construction of the Affordable Units off-site or conversion of the existing Market- Rate Units, excluding mobile- home units and units within cooperative developments, in lieu of constructing Affordable Units on- site is consistent with this chapter.

b. The developer has submitted documentation to the satisfaction of the City Manager or designee that demonstrates that the construction of the Affordable Units onsite would be impractical or that off- site construction or conversion of Market Rate Units to Affordable Units will significantly benefit the city.
c. The Residential Development will be subject to the conditions of approval set forth in subsection( C)( 3) of this section. The conditions of approval for the market rate development shall require that any off- site affordable units be governed by resale controls and/ or rent restrictions similar to those required for on- site Affordable Units. d. The quality and quantity of affordable Units constructed off- site and Market Rate Units converted to Affordable Units shall be equivalent to Affordable Units that would have been constructed on- site to satisfy the city's Affordable Housing requirement.

2. Additional finding required for construction of ownership or rental Affordable Units.
a. The conditions of approval and subdivision guarantee for a residential project, or other security such as a cash deposit, are adequate to provide for the construction of the off- site Affordable Units prior to or concurrently with the completion of the on- site construction of the Market Rate Units.

3. Required Conditions.
a. Affordable Units constructed off- site shall be constructed at the time specified in the Affordable Housing Agreement.
b. Affordable Units converted from Market- Rate Units shall be both converted and inspected at the time specified in the Affordable Housing Agreement. MarketRate Units converted to Affordable Units shall require inspection by the Community Development Department to ensure that the Affordable Units are in good condition and repair, and conform to all applicable city building and zoning codes. c. Existing Very Low-, Low, or Moderate - Income- Households that occupy Market- Rate Units being converted to Affordable Units shall not be displaced from those units. If temporary or permanent displacement occurs while the converted units are being repaired or rehabilitated, the developer shall be responsible to pay relocation and moving benefits to the displaced households in accordance with the California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Chapter 6, ( California Relocation Assistance Guidelines). The calculation of relocation and moving benefits to be provided by developers to temporarily or permanently displaced households shall be submitted to and approved by the city for verification of compliance with the California relocation assistance guidelines.

D. Dedication of Affordable Units to the City of Brentwood. An applicant may dedicate constructed or converted on- site or off- site Affordable Units to the City' s rental housing Program to satisfy the requirements of this Chapter. Mobile homes and units within cooperative developments are excluded from dedication. Each unit dedicated to the City shall equate to the

construction of 2 Affordable Units that would otherwise be required pursuant to Section

17. 725. 003 ( D). Any units dedicated to the City' s rental housing program shall be from the rental stream from these affordable rental units shall be deposited into a Brentwood Rental Housing Trust Fund administered by the City' s Finance Director in accordance with Section

17.725. 008.

All units dedicated to the City pursuant to this Chapter shall meet the following requirements prior to acceptance by the City:

1. All applicable fees ( including development impact fees), Capital Improvement Financing Program assessments, and bond interest payments shall have been prepaid by the developer.

2. The units shall be less than 20 years old and in good condition and repair, as verified by an inspection conducted by the Community Development Department.

A second such inspection may need to be performed to confirm that any repair punchlist generated by the initial inspection is completed prior to the City's acceptance of the unit into the Rental Housing Program.

3. The developer shall have installed any front yard, sideyard, any backyard landscaping and the unit' s interior shall meet the City' s minimum interior finish and appliance requirements.

4. The sprinkler system, window coverings, and all appliances shall have been installed in the unit in accordance with the list of required items maintained by the City Manager or designee.

5. Each unit must be on a subdivided parcel in accordance with Government Code sections 66426, 66427, or 66428.

6. The developer shall pay all recording, escrow and title fees involved in the transfer of title to the City, including the costs of a title policy insuring City' s title in a form and with exceptions approved by the City.

E. Other Means of Fulfilling Affordable Housing Requirements. Subject to City Manager or designee approval, any developer may fulfill its affordable housing requirement through additional alternative equivalent methods not specifically mentioned in this chapter, including through the provision of rental Affordable Units by developers of Ownership Development projects ( in accordance with Government Code Section 65589. 8), provided that the City Council determines such alternative results in the same number of Affordable Units that would have

been provided with on- site construction of Affordable Units and that the Affordable Units otherwise meet all requirements of subsections F through G of Section 17.725.003.

17.725. 005 Implementation procedures.

A. Satisfaction of Affordable Housing Requirement. Each proposal for satisfying the city' s affordable housing requirement, together with a proposed affordable housing agreement per subsection B of this section, shall be reviewed by the City Manager or designee, considered for recommendation by the City Council Committee having jurisdiction, and forwarded to the City Council for approval on its consent calendar agenda. The requirements of this chapter shall be satisfied by all Ownership and Rental Developments subject to this chapter, the applicant receives a waiver under Section 17. 725. 011.

B. Agreements. Prior to the approval of a final map for any Residential Development, or issuance of a building permit for a unit within a Residential Development, to which this chapter applies, whichever comes first, the City and the residential developer shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney. For those Residential Developments for which Affordable Units will be constructed or converted on- or off-site, the Affordable Housing Agreement shall include appropriate resale controls and/ or rent restrictions.

For ownership Affordable Units, the City and the individual homebuyer shall be required to enter into a recorded refinance and resale limitation agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney. The City Manager or his or her designee is authorized to execute Affordable Housing Agreements, resale controls and/ or rent restrictions and any other documents necessary to effectuate the implementation of this chapter, provided such agreements and documents are consistent with the requirements of this chapter.

C. Annual Monitoring and Transfer Fees. Agreements involving rental units provided off- site or by conversion of market rate units as specified in 17. 725. 004( C) shall require the owner of the Affordable Rental Units to submit an annual monitoring report to the Housing Division, in a format approved by the City Manager. For each Affordable Rental unit provided hereunder, the current owner may be required to pay an annual monitoring fee for the term of required affordability in the amount set forth in the Affordable Housing Agreement. For each owneroccupied Affordable Unit provided under this chapter, the current owner may be required to pay a transfer fee for any change of ownership as adopted from time to time by the City Council during the term of required affordability in the amount set forth in the Refinance and Resale Limitation Agreement.

D. Resale Prices for Affordable Ownership Units. The maximum resale price for an Affordable Ownership Unit and terms of resale to an eligible household shall be set by the Community Development Director pursuant to the Affordable Housing Cost as defined in Section 17. 725. 002( A) and as set forth in a Refinance and Resale Limitation Agreement.

E. City' s Right of Option to Purchase Affordable Ownership Units. The Resale Restrictions as set forth in the Refinance and Resale Limitation Agreement shall provide that in the event the owner cannot in good faith and despite his/ her best reasonable efforts, locate an eligible household to purchase an Affordable Ownership Unit at an Affordable Housing Cost, the owner shall give written notice of such circumstances, and an option to purchase, to the City. The City

shall also have an option to purchase the Affordable Unit at the maximum resale price, as limited by any applicable affordability restrictions, if the owner defaults on the terms of the Refinance and Resale Limitation Agreement.

F. Selection Criteria for Rental or Ownership Units. No household at the time of move- in shall be permitted to rent, purchase or occupy an Affordable Unit that is required under this chapter unless its qualifications are consistent with this chapter and the housing manager has approved the household' s eligibility. Eligible potential occupants of ownership Affordable Units must be first-time homebuyers and will be qualified on the basis of household income as defined in this chapter, including all sources of income and assets, the relationship between household size and the size of the available units, and any further criteria required by law and/ or established by the City Council. The affordable housing developer shall use an equitable selection method established in conformance with the terms of this chapter and in compliance with state and federal law. Selection of qualified households shall be based on the affordable housing priorities established below:

Priority 1. Eligible applicants for an Affordable Unit that live or work within Brentwood city limits. Preference will not be allowed if not permitted by state or federal law or other fair housing restrictions.

Priority 2. Other Qualified Applicants that do not live or work within Brentwood' s City Limits.

The Community Development Director shall establish and maintain eligibility selection contact lists for qualified households based on the two housing priority groups mentioned in subsection F of this section. Proof of qualification for a priority group shall be provided by a household before placement on one of the selection contact lists. The lists shall be updated as needed.

By virtue of their position or relationship, City senior management employees and officials and their children, or members of the city' s agencies, authorities, or commissions who have, by the authority of their position, policy making authority or influence affecting city housing programs, are ineligible to occupy an Affordable Unit.

17.725.006 Affordable unit concessions and construction incentives.

For any Residential Development meeting the requirements specified in Section 17. 725. 003 of this chapter, the city may offer incentives or financial assistance to encourage compliance with this chapter to the extent resources for this purpose are available and approved for such use by the City. In order to provide flexibility in the application of these concessions and incentives, and to ensure that they fit the variety of circumstances and different development projects regularly processed by the City, such incentives may include, but shall not be limited to any of the following items, applied alone or in any combination upon the City Council' s finding that a developer has proven that the incentive is necessary to the financial feasibility of the residential development.

A. Development Processing Fee Deferral. The City Manager or designee may approve deferring payment of City processing and plan check fees applicable to the review and

processing of the project. The terms and payment schedule of the deferred processing fees shall be subject to the approval of the City Manager or designee. In no case shall deferred development processing fees be paid later than occupancy of any of the units in the Residential Development. In no case shall fees be waived.

B. Development Impact Fee Deferral. The City Manager or designee may authorize the deferred payment of development impact fees applicable to the Affordable Units. Approval of this incentive requires demonstration by the applicant that the deferral increases the project' s feasibility. The applicant must provide appropriate security to ensure future payment of applicable development impact fees. In no case shall deferred development impact fees be paid later than occupancy of any of the units in the Residential Development. In no case shall fees be waived.

C. Density Bonus. Concurrently with consideration of an application for a residential growth management program allocation, the city may award a density bonus for developments that comply with the very low-, low or moderate income affordability provisions of this chapter by constructing units on- site, paying the appropriate in lieu fee, providing an acceptable alternative equivalent proposal, or a combination of the above, in accordance with this chapter. In the event that a development is also eligible for a density bonus pursuant to Government Code Section 65915, the density bonus authorized pursuant to this chapter shall be included in any density bonus obtained pursuant to state law and shall not increase the amount of the density bonus above that afforded by state law. An application for a density bonus must be received concurrently with an application for residential growth management program allotments. The density bonus provided shall initially be set at nine percent above the midpoint of the density range established in the general plan and zoning code. Fractional density bonus units shall be rounded in the manner set forth in Section 17.725. 003( B)( 2) of this chapter. The density bonus amount shall be periodically reviewed by the city engineer, the community development director, and the housing manager, who will recommend that adjustments, as appropriate, be adopted by resolution of the city council. Density bonus units authorized under this chapter shall be excluded from the affordability requirements specified in Section 17. 725. 003 of this code.

D. Flexible Design Standards. The approving body may modify city standards, including design guidelines, for Affordable Units that reduce the costs of and are necessary to result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing, including but not limited to, the following:

1. Reduced lot sizes;

2. Reduced setback requirements;

3. Reduced open space requirements;

4. Construction of duets, duplexes, triplexes or fourplexes on corner lots within single- family areas;

5. Reduced landscaping requirements;

6. Reduced parking requirements;

7. Height restriction waivers.

The applicant shall be responsible for documenting to the satisfaction of City Manager or designee, that the modification is necessary for the financial or other feasibility of the Residential Development. Except for any standards modified by the planning commission, the Residential Development must otherwise be consistent with all required general plan, zoning code, Uniform Building Code, and other applicable city regulations and policies.

E. Fast Track Processing. The City Manager or designee may authorize prioritized application review and project processing including environmental review, report preparation, entitlement meetings, plan checks and project inspections.

F. Direct Financial Assistance. The City Council may authorize provision of direct financial assistance in the form of a loan or grant from collected affordable housing trust funds as described in Section 17. 725. 007 of this code for developments which include Dwellings Units affordable to Very Low-, Low, or Moderate- Income- Households that exceed minimum Affordable Unit counts required under Section 17. 725. 003 of this code.

G. Additional Concessions and Incentives. The City Council may consider, on a case- bycase basis, at its sole discretion, the provision of additional concessions or incentives consistent with state law and the housing element of the City of Brentwood general plan for residential development projects that exceed the requirements of this chapter.

17.725.007 Affordable housing in lieu fee fund.

A. Creation. In- Lieu Fees shall be deposited into the Affordable Housing In- Lieu Fee fund, which is part of the housing enterprise.

B. Use. The Finance Director shall administer all monies in this fund including any interest earnings. Funds shall be disbursed at the discretion of the City Council for the purpose of assisting in the construction of Very Low-, Low or Moderate- Income Dwelling Units, or helping with other affordable housing opportunities. Use of this fund may include the provision of loans to help fund rental housing projects. The Finance Director is authorized to utilize the City Council approved budget to annually fund the city housing operating costs. In addition, the Finance Director is authorized to make budget adjustments as required to forgive the interfund receivable that has accumulated prior to the adoption of this Ordinance codified in this chapter.

17. 725. 008 Brentwood rental housing trust fund.

A. Creation. Net rental income from all rental units dedicated to the City' s previous rental housing program shall be deposited into a Brentwood rental housing trust fund, which is part of the housing enterprise.

B. Use. The Finance Director shall administer all monies in this fund including any interest earnings. All funds other than those specified in subsection C of this section shall be utilized

to purchase, construct or repair single- or multi-family rental unit inside the city limits. One- half of the rental income may be utilized from time to time at the City Council' s discretion to further the provision of affordable housing in the city of Brentwood so long as sufficient funds remain to pay for the maintenance and operation of existing affordable housing in the city' s rental housing program.

C. Withholding. The Finance Director is authorized to utilize the City Council approved budget to annually fund the City housing operating costs from the rental stream of these affordable rental units to fund City housing personnel and administrative costs directly related to management and administration of the Brentwood rental housing trust fund and program. The Finance Director is further authorized to withhold up to an additional fifteen percent of net proceeds from the rental stream to reimburse city development fees and agricultural mitigation fees for these units until the City development fee accounts are whole.

17.725.009 First time homebuver fund.

A. Creation. Contributions to the city' s first time homebuyer program in accordance with Section 17. 725. 004( D) shall be deposited into the first time homebuyer fund, which is part of the housing enterprise.

B. Use. The Finance Director shall administer all monies in this fund, including any interest earnings. All monies in the fund, other than those specified in Section 17. 725. 009( C) shall be loaned to first time homebuyers that qualify as a Moderate Income, Low-Income or Very LowIncome Household, in accordance with terms and provisions of the approved first time homebuyer program approved by the City Council.

C. Withholding. The Finance Director is authorized to utilize the City Council approved budget to annually fund the City housing personnel and administrative costs directly related to the management and administration of the first time homebuyer fund and program.

17. 725. 010 Enforcement.

A. General. The City shall enforce this chapter, and its provisions shall be binding on all agents, successors, and assigns of an applicant. The City may suspend or revoke any building permit or approval upon finding a violation of any provision of this chapter. No land use approval, building permit, or occupancy approval shall be granted for any residential development unless it is in compliance herewith, including but not limited to, actions to revoke, deny, or suspend any permit or development approval.

B. Excessive Sales Price and Rents/ Legal Action. It is unlawful, a public nuisance and a misdemeanor for any person to sell or rent an Affordable Unit at a price or rent exceeding the maximum allowed under this chapter or to a household not qualified under this chapter, and such person shall be subject to a five hundred dollar fine per month from the date of original noncompliance until the Affordable Unit is in compliance with this chapter. If the City determines that the sales price or rents_in excess of those allowed by operation of this chapter have been charged to a household residing in an Affordable Unit, the City may take appropriate legal action.

C. Violation Abatement. The City of Brentwood City Attorney or the Contra Costa County District Attorney, as appropriate, shall be authorized to abate violations of this chapter and to enforce the provisions of this chapter and all implementing regulatory agreements and affordability controls placed on Affordable Units by civil action, injunctive relief, and any other proceeding or method permitted by law. Remedies provided for in this chapter shall not preclude the city from any other remedy or relief to which it otherwise would be entitled under law or equity.

17.725. 011 Waiver.

A. A developer of any project subject to the requirements of this chapter may request that the requirements of this section be waived or modified by the City Council, based upon a showing that applying the requirements of this section would result in an unconstitutional taking of property or would result in any other unconstitutional result.

B. Any such request for a waiver shall be made in writing to the City Council, submitted to the City concurrently with applicant' s submission of a Universal Application for any proposed Residential Development subject to this chapter.

C. The request for waiver shall set forth in detail the factual and legal basis for the claim of waiver or modification. The City Council shall consider the request at the public hearing on the permit application. The applicant shall bear the burden of presenting substantial evidence to support the waiver request, including comparable technical information to support applicant' s position.

D. A waiver of an affordable housing requirement may only be approved by the City Council to the extent necessary to avoid an unconstitutional result, based upon legal advice provided by or at the behest of the City Attorney, after adoption of written findings, based on legal analysis and substantial evidence. The decision of the City Council shall be final. If a modification or waiver is granted, any change in use within the project shall invalidate the waiver or modification of the affordable housing requirement, and a new application shall be required for any waiver or modification under this section.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.1
08/27/2024
SUBJECT: Presentation of an Inclusive and Adaptive Recreation Update and direction from City Council
DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation
STAFF: Bruce Mulder, Director of Parks and Recreation
Thien Nguyen, Recreation Manager
Lindsay Pinell, Recreation Supervisor

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
The purpose of this report is to provide an update to the City Council in regards to inclusive and adaptive recreation.

Staff recommends the City Council receive and discuss this report, and provide direction to City staff on how to continue with this City Council Strategic Initiative to provide inclusive and adaptive recreational programs.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the discussion of this report. Depending on direction from the City Council, City staff has prepared a range of estimated costs of $85,500-$265,705 to continue the development of Adaptive Recreation programming. This range of costs includes estimates for additional staff, supplies, training, and the General Fund expenditure budget required to create this new program. The staffing costs are based on 2023/2024 Cost Allocation Plan salaries and benefit rates at Step E, utilizing existing staff classifications or Recreation Leader III to Recreation Coordinator. The staffing costs, as estimated using this information, would be impacted by the outcome of the current labor contract negotiation process and are likely to be understated.

Staff originally estimated a two-year (FY 2024-25 / 2025-26) General Fund cumulative surplus of $0.8 million at the Budget Adoption in June. Since that time there have been additional expenditure commitments along with increased revenues from higher than anticipated property tax assessed valuation. After incorporating these changes staff estimates the current two year cumulative surplus to be approximately $1.1 million, or an average of $550,000 per year. These calculations include a placeholder for labor contract negotiations of 3% per year and additional

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.1
08/27/2024
funding will likely be needed. The outcome of labor negotiations will further impact these fiscal capacity estimates.

If an Adaptive Recreation programming option is approved, the cost of the option selected would reduce the two-year surplus by the same amount. In addition, as the cost for providing the programming would be an ongoing additional cost, it would need to be incorporated into the City’s long-term fiscal projections, which will be updated once the labor negotiation process is concluded.

If staff is directed to move forward with a recommendation that has a fiscal impact on the 2024/25 and 2025/26 General Fund Operating Budget, staff will prepare a Mid-Year Operating Budget amendment request, which will be presented to City Council in January 2025.

BACKGROUND
The City of Brentwood Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan Update, which was approved by the City Council on February 26, 2019, includes several recommendations regarding program accessibility for individuals with disabilities.

The recommendations in Section 2.3 of the Master Plan are as follows:

1. Develop and receive City Council approval of an Inclusion Policy that is committed to following the guidelines set forth by Title VI and the American Disabilities Act (“ADA”) to ensure that all programs, activities, and services, when viewed in their entirety are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.

2. Continue to provide opportunities for individuals with disabilities to participate in inclusive programs as well as programs specifically designed for persons with disabilities.

3. Coordinate with Contra Costa County to explore options for subsidized transportation to future programming for those with special needs.

4. Expand inclusion programming to allow participants the opportunity for more “hands on” job training to improve their potential for finding employment.

5. Explore potential cooperative agreements with other Contra Costa County agencies to provide programming opportunities for the developmentally disabled including summer programs, after school programs, independent living programs, and job training specific to youth with disabilities.

In response to this, the then City Council included in their Strategic Plan FY 2020/21 and FY 2021/22 the following Initiative:

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.1
08/27/2024
Focus Area 5 – Community and Neighborhood Services: Expand and enhance recreation opportunities by increasing programming for seniors, youth, and teens; implementing adaptive recreation and expanding cultural arts.

The City carried over this Strategic Initiative to the FY 2022/23 and FY 2023/24 Strategic Plan.

Using the City of Brentwood Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan Update from 2019, Recreation staff created benchmarks based on the recommendations of the Master Plan in 2023(attachment 2). These benchmarks were created to define and guide progress related to this strategic initiative, and has been updated to show staff is currently working on mid to long term items related to adaptive recreation. In addition to these benchmarks, City Staff also is including progress from City Council direction received following the October 10, 2023 City Council meeting (attachment 3). Recommendations from the 2019 Parks Master Plan, Moore Recreation Therapy & Consulting Inc’s assessment, benchmarks for this strategic initiative, direction received from City Council, research conducted by City Staff in the last two years, and input from the Aging and Disabilities Friendly Community ad-hoc committee have all contributed to tonight’s update and presentation to City Council. This report will highlight the directive from the City Council to provide a cost benefit analysis between hiring an in-house employee versus retaining an outside company to provide inclusive and adaptive programming, and the attachment in this staff report provide updates to the other progress made related to adaptive recreation.

Overview
“Adaptive Recreation” is a concept where people with disabilities are given the opportunity to participate in recreational activities and programs. Currently the City of Brentwood Parks and Recreation Department (the “Department”) programs strive to be fully inclusive and adaptive. The City is continually providing reasonable accommodations for those that request them. In this regard, adaptive equipment has been purchased as needed and the Department has been pursuing partnerships for inclusive and adaptive programs. As used in this report, “Adaptive Recreation” should not be confused with “Therapeutic Recreation” (“TR”), as TR is a process that utilizes recreation and other activity-based interventions to address the assessed needs of individuals with illness and/or disabling conditions, as a means to psychological and physical health and well-being. It is important to make this distinction between the two, as providing “Therapeutic Recreation” is not within the Department’s purview or a part of the expertise or the programming that the Department provides.

To highlight the difference between these terms, staff proposes to include definitions of these and related terms in future Activities Guides once the Adaptive Program launches. A sample of how the definitions will be used in the future is in attachment

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.1
08/27/2024
3 and the definitions are planned to be included in future marketing materials and updated periodically as program offerings and services expand.

Outside Contractor
Staff research shows that there are no companies in the Brentwood area that will contract with the City, as a single entity, to design and provide inclusive and adaptive recreation programs. The City can hire individual consultants, such as Moore Recreation & Therapy Consulting, Inc. (“Moore”), to help the City build/design individual programs but they do not staff the programs. A full Adaptive Program will require the City to pay for the consulate and City staff to implement, assess, operate and maintain program.

In July 2024, staff contacted Moore to provide their estimated consulting fees for an Adaptive Program for the City. Moores’ costs are included below in Table 1. At this time, staff is not recommending the City invest in these services, and instead is recommending to have staff internally build programs and partnerships with local organizations for the execution and staffing of programs. There may be a time in the future where further consultation services for adaptive programming is needed however staff is providing these estimates for comparison purposes.

Table 1: Estimate provided by Moore Recreation & Therapy Description Unit Amount
Supportive Expense: Cost of travel, insurance,
supplies, licenses, resources, and any additional ancillary needs. (Mandatory)
1 $4,000.00
Program/Class Adaptive Program Development
with materials to include lesson plans, outline of new
program, marketing suggestions, adaptive equipment
recommendations, documentation forms (if applicable),
scheduled Zoom meeting with program supervisor to
educate on program developed and material provided for
implementation, etc.
(e.g., adaptive aquatics, sensory programming, senior
services, sports program, art program, gymnastic
program, special events, etc.)
Per Program/
Class
$6,000.00
Hands-on Program Specific Staff Training (4 hours)
detail training in person (ex. Adaptive aquatics, sensory programming, senior services, sports program,
gymnastic program, special events, etc.)
 Review of all Program Materials (lesson plans,
objectives, adaptive equipment, etc.)
Per Training $6,000.00

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.1
08/27/2024
 Implementation of program
 Breakout sessions
 Train the trainer material
 PowerPoint or Google slides
Additional consultation via Zoom, as needed Per Hour $300.00 In-House Program Development and Staffing
As an alternative to working with an outside contractor to build programming, the City Council could instead direct staff to develop and implement adaptive recreational programming in-house, with allocation of additional resources.

Below are three program options that allow the Department to expand program offerings. Staff has reviewed programming and staffing practices from several comparable cities, as well as current best practices. The following table provides highlights of the program options with full details and information about each option provided in Attachment 4.

Note that the program area presented in these options will fall under an existing Recreation Supervisor.

Table 2: Estimate for Staff Managed Adaptive Programming Option 1: Option 2: Option 3:

Timeframe Implement within 6
months of program being
funded
Implement in 6-12
months
Implement in 1-2 years
Target Ages of
Participants
Teens and young adults All Ages (youth-seniors)
but initially starting with
teens-young adults.

All Ages: Youth - Seniors
Staffing Need 1 Part-Time Rec
Leader III
1 Recreation
Coordinator FTE
1 Recreation Coordinator
FTE and
1 Part-Time Rec Leader
III
Sample
Programs
(see Attachment
4 for full list)
-Work Experience
Program for young
adults, current
Recreation Supervisor
becomes CTRS certified.
-Continue Partnership
with Be Exceptional
Everything in option 1
plus:
- hire contract
instructors to offer
adaptive programming
such as art, yoga/fitness
and sensory activities
Everything in option 1 &
2 plus:
-Intergenerational
Programming
-Membership program for
participants
-Explore grant writing
and sponsorships

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.1
08/27/2024
Option 1: Option 2: Option 3:
-Continue to list local
resources on City’s
Adaptive webpage.
-Partner with Care Parent
Network.
-Monthly social
gatherings for youth,
teens, young adults.
-Establish agreement
with Regional Center of
the East Bay (RCEB) to
become a preferred
vendor.
-Agreement with
Department of
Rehabilitation (DOR) to
subsidize the Work
Experience Program.
*Budget
Requested Programming: $27,500
CTRS Training:$7,000
Staffing: $51,000
Total: $85,500
Programming: $32,500
CTRS Training: $7,000
Staffing: $165,205
Total: $204,705
Programming: $42,500
CTRS Training: $7,000
Staffing: $216,205
Total: $265,705
* As mentioned in the fiscal impact section, staffing cost are estimated based on current staff salary information and is subject to change/increase in future fiscal years.
**Estimated timeframes are based on a period of six months from the time of the adoption of funding for an Adaptive Recreation Program.

On July 16, 2024, staff presented this proposal to the Age and Disabilities Friendly Communities Committee. The Committee is recommending that the City Council move forward with Option 2. City staff will continue to assess and seek ways to improve current program offerings, becoming more inclusive and adaptive to program participants.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Focus Area 5: Parks and Recreation Services
Item 4. Expand and enhance recreation opportunities by increasing programming for seniors, youth and teens; implementing adaptive recreation. a. Complete carry over strategic initiatives
i. Adaptive Recreation Programming

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

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.1
08/27/2024

DATE OF NOTICE
Not Applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Not Applicable.

ALTERNATIVE OPTION(S)
Alternative Options to the Staff Recommendation:

1. Do not select any options presented in regard to expansion of adaptive programing. With this option, City staff will still continue to pursue opportunities to be more inclusive and adaptive, but will be limited in resources and how quickly program changes can be made (in addition to current programming offered).

2. Provide feedback to City staff and modify the committee’s recommendation to encompass and select items City Council would prefer to move forward with, with corresponding resources.

3. Continue item with direction for staff to return with additional information.

ATTACHMENT(S)
Attachment 1: Previous Action
Attachment 2: City Staff Adaptive Recreation Benchmarks August 2024 Update Attachment 3: Council Direction from October 10, 2023 and City Staff Updates Attachment 4: Adaptive Program Options Developed by Staff

PREVIOUS ACTION – Attachment 1
Previous actions related to this agenda item that were taken by the Council are listed below. To view prior actions and materials, and Brentwood Municipal Code references in the staff report, as applicable:
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/meetings, and select the meeting date(s) desired to see the reference materials and videos.
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/municipalcode to research references to the Brentwood Municipal Code and search by the code section(s) cited.

On February 26, 2019, The City of Brentwood Parks, Trails & Recreation Master Plan Update was adopted by City Council per Resolution 2019-21.

On February 25, 2020, The City of Brentwood Strategic Plan FY 2020/21-FY 2021/22 was adopted by City Council per Resolution 2020-29.

On July 14, 2020, The City of Brentwood Strategic Plan FY 2020/21-FY 2021/22 was amended by City Council per Resolution 2020-96. The amendment included the Funding Deferred Projects Holding List.

On December 15, 2020, then Council Member Meyer requested a future agenda item requesting the Parks and Recreation Department review how programming serves adults with special needs to improve accessibility.

On January 12, 2021, an agenda item was presented by then Council Member Meyer and there was a consensus of the Council to have staff provide an update on programming for individuals with special needs, including adults.

On February 9, 2021, City Council reviewed the current adaptive recreation programming and restored the adaptive recreation Strategic Plan Initiative and funding to engage a consultant and amend the FY 2020/21 General Fund Operating Budget in an amount not to exceed $20,000.

On January 24, 2023, the City Council reviewed the Strategic Plan 2022-2024 and requested an update on the Adaptive and Inclusive Recreation Assessment as shared on August 25, 2022 with the Parks & Recreation Commission.

On April 25, 2023, the City Council received and discussed the Adaptive and Inclusive Recreation Assessment from Moore Recreation Therapy & Consulting Inc. and requested Staff bring this item back for further discussion.

On October 10, 2023, the City Council received and discussed the Inclusive and Adaptive Recreation Strategic Initiative Focus 5 Update and requested staff post some local resources on the webpage as well as return with more information on accessibility at Veteran’s Park, assess the one acre open space parcel near Pioneer Elementary as a potential All Adaptive Park, and to provide a cost benefit analysis

between hiring someone in-house versus hiring an outside company to provide inclusive and adaptive programming.

1 Attachment 5
Following the previous discussion of providing programs that are inclusive and that are designed specifically for individuals with disabilities with City Council on April 25, 2023, City staff created some benchmarks to address these areas (in alignment with recommendations from the . At the time of creating these benchmarks staff was mindful that some items discussed would take longer than others to accomplish. Following are the benchmark and, where applicable, their status:

Short Term
Benchmark Status Notes Aug 2024
Update

1. Adding more information
and resources about
inclusive and adaptive
recreation to City’s
website.

Completed
October
2023
Added an Adaptive webpage with resources around the
areas as well as parks in our city. Will continue to add resources for families and more adaptive programming.

Website
maintenance is
on-going, but
this task has
been completed.

2. Inventory programs and
equipment
Completed:

Consultant
Assessment
completed
in 2022,
City Staff
Assessment
and
response in
October
2023
Current Infrastructure:

Community Center- Handicapped Parking in both front
parking lot and parking garage  Elevator  Visual Signage  ADA restrooms  Accessible front desk counter  Sensory table, tubs, toys and equipment  Various vinyl spot markers to support spatial awareness  Fidgets and other tools to recenter and re-focus participants  Vestibular swing  Soft play equipment and mats  Art supplies of various shapes and sizes to meet dexterity needs – scissors, markers,
crayons, paint brushes  Emotional expression dolls  Variety of inclusive books for circle time  Most common
accommodation is parental/one on one aide support in
independent classes.

Aquatic Complex- Handicapped Parking in parking lot 
ADA lift and zero depth entry into pools  Visual Signage  ADA restrooms  Free lifejackets for non-swimmers  Swim diapers available for purchase  Most common
accommodation is parental/one on one aide support in
independent classes.

Sunset Athletic Complex- Handicapped Parking in both
front and back parking lots  Playground with ADA
equipment  Visual Signage  ADA restrooms and pathways.

Updating
offerings and
equipment is
on-going but
task has been
completed.

2 Senior Activity Center- Front door with automatic
accessible push door  ADA restrooms  Handicapped
parking spaces  ADA picnic bench behind Senior Center  CCTV- Donated around 2019 (this has been used less than one time)  Musical instruments  ADA automatic front doors

3. Continue providing
reasonable
accommodations
Current Reasonable accommodations are made depending on the design of the program and equipment.

On-going

4. Pursuing partnerships for
inclusive and adaptive
programs
Current Currently have fee waivers with Be Exceptional, City works with programs to host Unified Prom each year. We have
Camp Brentwood during the Summer and other seasonal
breaks for BUSD which makes reasonable accommodations
for those who need/ask for it, the aquatics division offers Sensory Swim.

On-going

5. Provide regular updates
to City Council to further
conversations about
inclusive and adaptive
recreation
Current Past updates include February 9, 2021, April 25, 2023, and October 10, 2023 and August 27, 2024, the next update will come depending on council’s direction tonight. Frequent updates are given to the Age and Disability Friendly
Community Committee during meetings scheduled every
other month.

This currently is
a City Council
Strategic
Initiative, and
updates to
Council will
continue as
requested.

Mid Term
Benchmark Status Notes Aug 2024
Update

1. Continue short term goals
associated with this item
Current Adding more information and resources about inclusive and adaptive recreation to City’s website, inventory programs and equipment, continue providing reasonable
accommodations and pursuing partnerships for inclusive and adaptive programs as well as providing regular updates to City Council to further conversations about inclusive and adaptive recreation.

On-going

2. Update website/Activities
Guide about programs
and offerings
Current As we partner with agencies on inclusive and adaptive resources and learn of more resources we will continue to add them to our website and provide class offerings in
future Activity Guides.

On-going. As
more resources
are provided to
Adaptive

3 Recreation,
more updates
will be available.

3. Research applicable
training for program areas
and inventory
Current We are currently looking at the program to become a Certified Therapeutic Recreation Specialist (CTRS) for the current Recreation Supervisor as well as trainings offered through local agencies and the California Parks and
Recreation Society (CPRS).

Staff is always
looking for “best
practices” and
continual
trainings for all
program areas

4. Establish Inclusive and
Adaptive Statement and
supporting information
Completed Can be found on the City of Brentwood’s Adaptive and Inclusive Recreation Resources Page: Adaptive and Inclusive Recreation Resources | Brentwood, CA (brentwoodca.gov)
Statement will
be used in
future
documents and
marketing with
expansion of
programs.

5. Coordinate and explore
options for subsidized
transportation to future
programming for those
with special needs.

Current This service can be provided by the Tri-Delta Transit program. One of its programs, Tri MyRide, does not
currently service the Brentwood area, however we can
request service once regular adaptive programming is up and running.

Staff will
continue to seek
additional
transportation
services in
Brentwood Area
for residents
Long Term
Benchmark Status Notes Aug 2024
Update

1. Continue short and midterm goals associated with
this item
Current Adding more information and resources about inclusive and adaptive recreation to City’s website, inventory programs and equipment, continue providing reasonable
accommodations and pursuing partnerships for inclusive and adaptive programs as well as providing regular updates to City Council to further conversations about inclusive and adaptive recreation. Continue to research and provide
trainings to current and future staff working in our recreation programs, continue to look at transportation offerings in the county, continue to grow our Adaptive offerings.

On-going

4 2. Explore agreements to
provide programming
opportunities for the
developmentally disabled,
including summer, after
school, independent living,
and job training
InProgressExploring partnerships with the Department of Rehabilitation (DOR), Regional Center of the East Bay (RCEB), Working
Wonders, Be Exceptional, and Liberty Union High School
Special Education and the Parent Care Network (PCN).

Pending
resources to
further explore
and execute
partnerships

3. Provide a cost benefit
analysis between hiring
someone in-house versus
hiring an outside company
to provide inclusive and
adaptive programming.

InprogressOptions are being brought forth to City Council on August 27, 2024.

Council will
provide
feedback and
direction to City
Staff at
08/27/24
Meeting

4. City ADA Transition Plan Current Staff is currently working on this plan; reviewing and updating this requires collaboration from multiple City departments and divisions. The plan includes Parks and
Recreation facilities, but also City buildings and spaces.

City-wide ADA
Plan is a longterm and
“living” plan.

Public Works
presented leads
this and plan
was last
updated and
approved by
City Council
November 2023

1 Attachment 2
Council Direction from the October 10, 2023 City Council Meeting with Staff Updates to each item:

Council Direction Staff Update

1. Include the statement or revise as needed:

The City of Brentwood Adaptive Recreation
program provides opportunities for youth and
adults of all ages and abilities. We offer a wide
variety of programs that promote socialization,
skill development and physical activity. Staff
provides advocacy and inclusion support for
individuals with diverse abilities to participate in
other recreational activities that the City of
Brentwood has to offer.

This statement was revised and can be found on the
Adaptive and Inclusive Recreation Resources page.

2. Share the above statement with the Park and
Recreation Commission to encourage
consideration of the adapted programming lens
when they’re making decisions.

This statement was shared with the Parks and
Recreation Commission at their November 16, 2023
meeting.

3. Investigate use of Tri MyRide Transit
programming.

This service is provided by the Tri-Delta Transit
program. Tri MyRide does not currently service the
Brentwood area, however we have a large amount of
seniors that use the Tri Delta Bus Service to get to and from the Brentwood Senior Activity Center (BSAC).

4. Ensure programming that's offered to seniors at
the community center is considered for people
that are more active so they have easier access
to parking.

The only Senior Programs currently being offered at the Brentwood Community Center (BCC) is Boogie Nites,
Single to Mingle and Book Banter. These programs are
running at the BCC as the events/groups have grown
too large to host at BSAC or due to timing conflicts with other programs.

5. Add definitions of Adaptive, Inclusive Recreation,
recreation therapy, and therapeutic recreation to
municipal code section 7.0.020.

Staff is recommending to add these definitions to the
Activities Guide and on the Adaptive page online once
we launch the new Adaptive Program. Sample draft
included below. As these definitions are applied they
can be modified and updated in alignment with direction of adaptive programs (and offerings).

2 Council Direction from the October 10, 2023 City Council Meeting with Staff Updates to each item: (Cont.) Council Direction Staff Update
Sample – Future Activities Guide: Adaptive
Recreation Page

6. Add links to the City’s website pages for: youth
resources and adaptive resources. California
Children's Services at DHCS.gov; Contra Costa
County Senior Legal Services; Contra Costa
County Bar Association; Contra Costa
health.org/seniors, to be included in both
locations on the website.

These resources have been added online on the
Adaptive webpage and Senior webpages.

7. Ensure there are inclusive resources that are not
only limited to young children, but for all age
groups.

This is an ongoing task as we look to expand our senior and adaptive programming.

8. Assess the one acre open space parcel near
Pioneer Elementary as a potential “All Adaptive
Park.”
Included in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
2024/25-2028/29, under the Future Improvements
section there are improvements listed that are planned, but are currently unfunded.

3 Council Direction from the October 10, 2023 City Council Meeting with Staff Updates to each item: (Cont.) Council Direction Staff Update

9. Examine the accessibility at Veteran’s park
including an accessible ramp to the play structure
area.

Veteran’s park Universal Abilities playground
specification sheet online here
The Universal Abilities Playground at Veterans Park
opened in February 2013. This unique playground, the
first of its kind in East County, includes play equipment for kids of ALL abilities. Children with social/emotional, physical, sensory, cognitive, and/or communication
challenges are able to use the equipment at this park.

This allows children with disabilities to interact side-byside with their siblings and other children on the same equipment. This playground promotes children of all
ages and abilities to be as healthy and active as
possible, regardless of any physical and/or emotional
challenges they may have. There's something for
everyone to enjoy! On December 13, 2023 a double
wide ADA Accessible ramp install was completed at the
“new” Veteran’s Park Playground (picture below)
Veteran’s park “new” Playground (Playground
Ramp)

10.Provide a cost benefit analysis between hiring
someone in-house versus hiring an outside
company to provide inclusive and adaptive
programming.

This item will be presented to City Council on August
27, 2024. Please see Attachment 4 for full scope of
cost benefit analysis between hiring someone in-house
versus hiring an outside company.

Option 1: Option 2: Option 3:

Timeframe Implement within 6 months of program being
funded
May be longer than 6 months with recruiting a new FT
Coordinator
1-2 Years with recruitment of full time employees and set up of programs
Ages of Participants Teens and Young Adults All Ages: youth-seniors (starting with teens and young adults) All Ages: youth-seniors Staff Need
(1) Part time Rec Leader III
-Manage Work Program
-Manage adaptive components under
Supervisor
Rec Leader III: $26.06/hr. (Step E)+Benefits
1500 hours per year= $51,000
CTRS Certifications Preferred
+$7,000 to pay for CTRS Certification for
Supervisor *If new hire already has CTRS it will
be a cost we will not incur
**Report to existing Recreation Supervisor
**Recreation Coordinator FTE:
- Allows the department to have a dedicated staff to
this new program area to use as a resource and
advocate.
- Manage adaptive components under Supervisor.
- Give direction to part time employees and
volunteers.

Annual Salary and Benefits:$165,205.00 (Step E)
**Report to existing Recreation Supervisor
CTRS Certification Preferred
+$7,000 to pay for CTRS Certification
*If new hire already has CTRS it will be a cost we will not incur *Will use some PT staff TBD
**Recreation Coordinator FTE:
-Direct Part-time Rec Leader III and other part time
employees
and volunteers.
- To conduct in-house trainings, assess all new and current programs for inclusivity and adaptability.
-Contract with outside instructors and agencies to come in and provide more Adaptive Rec Classes
Annual Salary and Benefits: $165,205.00 (Step E)
**Report to existing Recreation Supervisor
Part time Rec Leader III:

Instruct some of the programs/classes running in addition to the contract instructors.

Rec Leader III: $26.06/hr. (Step E)+ Benefits
1500 hours per year= $51,000
+$7,000 to pay for CTRS Certification *If new hire already has CTRS it will be a cost we will not incur
*Will use some PT staff TBD
Programs Included

1. Work Experience Program- With outside
agencies such as Working Wonders and
Gateway
$25,000 to contribute to the work program,
continue to work with DOR to get a contract in
place to either help subsidize the program or
take over salary compensation completely. (Go
out to RFP)

2. Continue partnership with Be Exceptional

3. Continue offering reasonable
accommodations within our current
programming.

4. Continue to list local resources on our
Adaptive webpage.

5. Partner with Care Parent Network (fee
waiver), could offer classes such as a parent
support group, social activity for parents of
kids with special needs in East County,
parent training workshop. All would be free
aside from a one-time fee of $2,500 to
develop a presentation for parent training.

1. All components in “Option 1”
PLUS Potential Programs

2. Enter into agreements with Contract Instructors to
offer more Adaptive Programs in the areas of yoga,
fitness, art, sensory programs. Would involve a
revenue split consistent with existing Contract Classes.

3. Create a program for youth, teens and adults to have monthly trips, themed gatherings and dances. ($5,000
supply budget)

4. Coordinate with Human Resources to create and
manage a volunteer program where high school
students can volunteer for service hours and also
accept other volunteers from the community.

5. Establish and maintain Agreement with RCEB to
become a preferred vendor.

6. Establish and maintain an Agreement with the
Department of Rehabilitation (DOR) to subsidize the
Work Experience Program.

7. Make recommendations or modifications for our
existing programs.
**Cost Recovery and Subsidized programs must be
approved through the COB Cost Recovery and Allocation
plans and policies. There is going to be a higher level of Subsidies, some revenue coming in for cost recovery

1. All components in “Option 1 and 2”
PLUS

2. Intergenerational Programming

3. Design a membership program for participants.

4. Continue to work with LUHSD’s Gateway to expand upon programming for the students.

5. Explore grant writing and sponsorships.

6. Establish and maintain Agreement with RCEB to become a preferred vendor.

7. Establish and maintain an Agreement with the Department of Rehabilitation (DOR) to subsidize the Work Experience Program.
(increase to $15,000 supply Budget)
**Cost Recovery and Subsidized programs must be approved through the COB Cost Recover and Allocation plans and
policies.

Budget Ask Programming: $27,500.00
*CTRS Training:$7,000.00
Staffing: $51,000.00
Total: $85,500.00
Programming: $32,500.00
*CTRS Training: $7,000.00
Staffing: $165,205.00
Total: $204,705.00
Programming: $42,500.00
*CTRS Training: $7,000.00
Staffing: $216,205.00
Total: $265,705.00
Attachment 4

**Estimated timeframes are based on a period of six months from the time of the adoption of funding for an Adaptive Recreation Program.

Comparable City Programs This option is what the City of Brentwood’s Parks and Recreation Department can
implement and accommodate with current
and existing programs.

Walnut Creek:
-Recreation Coordinator-CTRS Certified.
-Has 11 part-time staff to teach classes, take participants on excursions, and runs a 3 week summer camp. Two of
these employees have a Class B Driver’s License so they can provide transportation for the programs.
-Vendor with RCEB
Concord:
-Program Coordinator
-2 Part-time staff
-A few drop in classes, does not have enough resources to have regularly scheduled classes.
-Bowling Day
-Every couple of months get together. Encourage parents and caregivers to attend for extra support.
-Expense Budget $7,000 per year
**Concord, Walnut Creek and Martinez host Community
dances together for with a DJ once a month. Usually have 60-100 attendees
Vacaville:
- Recreation Coordinator
- Rec III Specialists (CTRS preferred)
- Recreation Specialist II
- Volunteers
- Monthly Membership
- Sensory Storytime Ages 2-6
- Toddler Sensory Exploration Ages 5 and under
- Kids Sensory Socialization Ages 5-7
- Games in the Park Ages 5-17
- Play4 All Park and Art Ages 5-12
- Game Night with Friends Ages 5-10
- Summertime Pizza Party Ages 13 & up
- Planting with Pals Ages 13 & up
- Nature Walk and Scavenger Hunt – All Ages
- Walk & Roll – Ages 13 and up
- Coffee Connections 18 and up
- Karaoke Night All ages
**Some of these require parents/caregivers to participate Quote from Moore Recreation & Therapy Consulting Inc.:

Description Unit Amount
Supportive Expensive: Cost of travel, insurance, supplies, licenses, resources, and any additional ancillary needs. (mandatory)
1 $4,000.00
Program/Class adaptive program development with materials to include lesson plans, outline of new program, marketing suggestions, adaptive equipment recommendations, documentation forms if applicable, scheduled zoom meeting with program supervisor to educate on program developed and material provided for implementations, etc.
(ex. Adaptive aquatics, sensory programming, senior services, sports program , art program, gymnastic program, special events, etc.)
Per Program/ Class $6,000.00
Hands-on Program Specific Staff Training (4 hours) detail training in person (ex. Adaptive aquatics, sensory programming, senior services, sports program, gymnastic program, special events, etc.)  Review of all Program Materials (lesson plans, objectives, adaptive equipment etc.)  Implementation of program
 Breakout sessions
 Train the trainer material
 PowerPoint or Google slides
Per Training $6,000.00
Additional consultation via zoom as needed Per Hour $300.00 **Note: these consulting costs would be in addition to the costs for staff we are asking for to implement the programs once they have been designed with the help of the consulting firm.

CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY AGENDA ITEM NO. G.2
08/27/2024
SUBJECT: Sale of Successor Agency-Owned Property Located on the Southeast Corner of Oak St. and Walnut Blvd.

DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office
STAFF: Darin Gale, Assistant City Manager
Abraham Salinas, Senior Analyst

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving and authorizing the Executive Director, or designee, in coordination with the General Counsel, to execute an Agreement for Purchase and Sale of real property with Hagar Realty, or related entity in substantial conformance with the attached agreement, for Successor Agency-owned property located on the southeast corner of Oak Street and Walnut Boulevard (APN 013-232-006), and authorizing execution of other documents as necessary to complete the transaction.

FISCAL IMPACT
Due to the dissolution of redevelopment agencies and the subsequent creation of successor agencies tasked with managing the winding down of their affairs, the City, in its role as Successor Agency, was directed to dispose of all former Redevelopment Agency parcels. This process is governed by the County oversight board, and funds are distributed as property tax revenues according to California Health and Safety Code Section 34177. The county auditor-controller is responsible for allocating these funds to the relevant taxing entities, including the state and county, as part of the property tax allocation process.

The agreed sale price for the property is $390,000 in “as-is” condition. Upon Successor Agency Board approval of the Purchase and Sales Agreement with Hagar Realty, the sale is expected to generate approximately $60,000 in one-time General Fund revenue for the City of Brentwood, as most of the revenue from the sale of successor agency-owned property is allocated to the state and county.

BACKGROUND
The Brentwood Successor Agency owns a 1.796-acre (78,234 square foot) commercial tract of land situated at the southeast corner of Oak Street and Walnut Boulevard (the Property). The Property, which has a level topography but an irregular

CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY AGENDA ITEM NO. G.2
08/27/2024
and narrow shape, is located near downtown Brentwood. These physical characteristics limit its potential uses.

The Property lies within the Brentwood Downtown Zoning District and is specifically zoned as C-4, which is designated for commercial use. Permitted uses for this Property include recreational sales and services, commercial sales and services, restaurants, parking lots and garages, office spaces, civic and cultural facilities, lodging, various forms of residential development, and other similar uses as determined by the Community Development Director.

Conditionally Permitted Uses that may apply, with the granting of a use permit, include uses featuring outdoor sales and outdoor storage not clearly ancillary to the use, and auto or other vehicle repair service uses with outdoor storage. Other conditional uses include those that the zoning administrator determines, because of type of operation, include material stored or sold, or other special circumstances require special consideration and regulations through the conditional use permit procedure.

SURPLUS LAND ACT PROCESS
In 2020, the Property, along with 13 others, was declared surplus. The disposition or sale of surplus real property by the City is governed by the California Surplus Lands Act (SLA) (Government Code 54220 et seq.), while the disposition of Successor Agency-owned properties must also follow the California Redevelopment Dissolution Law (California Health & Safety Code section 34170 et seq.). Final decisions regarding the disposition of City-owned real estate rest with the City Council, whereas for Successor Agency-owned parcels, the State of California’s Department of Finance has the final authority. Additionally, with Successor Agency parcels, the Successor Agency is prohibited from restricting or conditioning the sale of the property for a specific type of use.

In May 2023, the City Council updated the City Council/Administrative Policy No. 10- 20 (Attachment 4), which provides detailed guidelines for the sale of City and Successor Agency-owned property. Staff has adhered to the SLA process and is now moving forward with the disposition of the Property in accordance with City Council/Administrative Policy 10-20.

HAGAR REALTY
A recently completed Broker’s Price Opinion for the property determined the current fair market value of the Property to be $390,000. Hagar Realty (the Buyer), and commercial real estate broker, has expressed interest in purchasing the Property and

CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY AGENDA ITEM NO. G.2
08/27/2024
has made an all-cash offer at the full market value. Additionally, the Buyer has site control of the adjacent parcel and hopes to close on that property in the coming months. The combination of these parcels would allow for more suitable development, as the Property alone is not ideal for development due to its narrow and irregular shape.

If the City Council acting as the Successor Agency Board approves this agreement, staff will forward the agreement to the County Oversight Board for consideration and then the agreement would be reviewed and finalized by California’s Department of Finance. Given the limited availability of commercial land in the downtown area and where the property is located, staff believes this development opportunity could lead to the addition of new businesses, job creation, and increased tax revenue for the City. The Buyer will close on this property with 120 days of final approval of agreement from the State.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Focus Area 3: Economic Development:

1.a. Encourage private re-investment though the sale of Successor Agency and City owned real Properties.

1.b. Incentivize higher tier, unique business and development to the Brentwood Boulevard and Downtown areas.

2.a. Enhance retail recruitment awareness and prioritize activities that display the City’s efforts inducing new retail-commercial development.

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

DATE OF NOTICE
Not Applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Not Applicable.

ALTERNATIVE OPTION(S)
Alternative Options to the Staff Recommendation:

CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY AGENDA ITEM NO. G.2
08/27/2024

1. Do not approve staff’s recommendation.

2. Modify staff’s recommendation.

3. Continue item with direction for staff to return with additional information.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Previous Action

2. Resolution

3. Draft Purchase & Sale Agreement (PSA) with Hagar Realty

4. City Council/Administrative Policy No. 10-20

5. Draft SLA Affordable Housing Covenant

ATTACHMENT “1”
Previous actions related to this agenda item that were taken by the Council are listed below. To view prior actions and materials, and Brentwood Municipal Code references in the staff report, as applicable:
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/meetings, and select the meeting date(s) desired to see the reference materials and videos.
 Visit www.brentwoodca.gov/municipalcode to research references to the Brentwood Municipal Code and search by the code section(s) cited.

On December 14, 2010, the City Council, by way of Resolution No. 2010-176, adopted Council/Administrative Policy No. 10-20, Disposition of City/Agency Real Estate to provide guidance for the disposition of excess or surplus real estate owned in fee title by the City of Brentwood (“City”) or the former City of Brentwood Redevelopment Agency (“Agency”).

On February 9, 2016, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2016-11 to approve the FY 2016/ 17 and FY 2017/ 18 City of Brentwood Strategic Plan, including Strategic Initiative 4.1.f., preparation of a City-owned Parcels Plan.

On November 13, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution 2018-153 approving an agreement with Carpenter/Robbins Commercial Real Estate, Inc., to prepare and complete a City-owned Parcels Plan in an amount not to exceed $73,033 and amending the 2018/19 Operating Budget.

On July 14, 2020, the City Council adopted the Amended City of Brentwood Strategic Plan for FY 2020/ 21 — FY 2021/22, which included Strategic Priorities to facilitate development and encourage investment and implement the City's Economic Development Action Plan.

On October 13, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution 2020-132 declaring certain real property as surplus and authorizing the City or designee to provide notification to required parties under state law and offer the properties for sale.

On May 23, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution 2023-62 amending City Council Administrative Policy No. 10-20, Disposition of City/Agency Real Estate.

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XX-SA

A RESOLUTION OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY BOARD TO THE

BRENTWOOD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING A

PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT WITH HAGAR REALTY, FOR

THE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF

OAK STREET AND WALNUT BOULEVARD, BRENTWOOD,
CALIFORNIA; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

OR DESIGNEE, IN COORDINATION WITH THE GENERAL

COUNSEL, TO PERFORM ALL NECESSARY ACTIONS AND
EXECUTE THOSE AGREEMENTS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE SALE.

WHEREAS, on December 14, 2010, the City Council, by way of Resolution No. 2010-176, adopted Council/Administrative Policy No. 10-20 (‘Disposition of City/Agency Real Estate’) to provide guidance for the disposition of excess or surplus real estate owned in fee title by the City of Brentwood (“City”) or the former City of Brentwood Redevelopment Agency (“Agency”); and
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2020, the City Council adopted the Amended City of Brentwood Strategic Plan for FY 2020/21 – FY 2021/22, which included Strategic Priorities to facilitate development and encourage investment and implement the City’s Economic Development Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, on October 13, 2020, by way of Resolution No. 2020-132, the City Council declared certain real property as surplus and authorized the City Manager or designee to provide notification to required parties under State Law and offered the properties for sale; and
WHEREAS, On May 23, 2023, by way of Resolution No. 2023-62, the City Council amended City Council Administrative Policy No. 10-20, Disposition of City/Agency Real Estate; and
WHEREAS, Government Code 54220, et seq., and AB 1485 require certain actions be taken by a public agency to dispose of surplus real property, which may include, but are not limited to, notifying public agencies and affordable housing developers of the availability of the real properties and providing a 60-day period to consider making an offer to purchase a property or properties; and WHEREAS, the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Brentwood is the owner in fee simple of certain real property located on the southeast corner of Oak Street and Walnut Boulevard, Brentwood, California 94513, Assessor Parcel Number 013-232-006, consisting of 78,234 square feet on 1.796 acres (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the sale and potential development of Property will provide fiscal and economic benefits for the City and community.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Successor Agency Board to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Brentwood does hereby resolve to approve and authorize the Executive Director, or designee, in coordination with the General Counsel, to:

1. execute an Agreement for Purchase and Sale of real property and Joint Escrow Instructions with Hagar Realty, or related entity for the real property located on the southeast corner of Oak Street and Walnut Boulevard, Brentwood, CA 94513 APN 013-232-006, for the purchase price of $390,000, which agreement shall be substantially similar to that attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit ‘A’; and

2. perform all necessary actions and execute those agreements as needed to complete the sale, including, as necessary, the negotiation and acceptance any modifications to the agreements required by the Contra Costa County Oversight Board and/or State of California Department of Finance.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Successor Agency Board of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Brentwood at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of August 2024 by the following vote:

99999.91994\42582120.1
08/19/24
1 PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
THIS PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is dated for reference purposes as of _______________, 2024, by and between The City of Brentwood (“Seller”), and Hagar Realty, a California corporation or its assignee (“Buyer”) who agree as follows:

1. Purchase and Sale of Property. Seller hereby agrees to sell and convey to Buyer, and Buyer hereby agrees to purchase from Seller, subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, that certain unimproved real property consisting of approximately 1.796 acres located in the area of Contra Costa County, California, commonly referred to as Assessor’s Parcel Number 013-232-006, all as more fully described in Exhibit A, together with all rights, privileges, easements or appurtenances to or affecting the Land, including, but not limited to, all of Seller’s mineral rights, water rights, options, deliveries and obligations of the Contra Costa County Flood Control which are associated with the Property and all of Seller’s rights to under crop insurance policies on the crop growing on the Property, and all of Seller’s rights to applicable claims and proceeds thereunder (collectively, the “Property”). The Property shall also include the following personal property to be transferred with a bill of sale: pipes, and other equipment currently on the land.

2. Purchase Price. The purchase price for the Property (“Purchase Price”) shall be $390,000.00, and shall be paid as follows:(i) within 3 days following the Effective Date, Seller and Buyer shall open an escrow in connection herewith (“Escrow”) at Chicago Title Company, 1676 North California Boulevard, Suite 117, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 at 925-288-8351 [email protected]; Attn: Laurie Balding-Smith (“Escrow Holder”), and Buyer shall deposit $25,000.00 into Escrow (“Initial Deposit”); and (ii) on or before the Closing, if this Agreement has not been earlier terminated, Buyer shall deposit into Escrow the balance of the Purchase Price, less any credits due Buyer hereunder (the “Closing Amount”). The Initial Deposit shall be fully refundable to Buyer until Buyer’s waiver or approval of the Governmental Approvals and the Due Diligence Approval.

3. Title to the Property/Seller’s Deliveries. At the Closing, Seller shall convey to Buyer good and marketable fee simple title to the Property by duly executed and acknowledged grant deed with no reservations of any rights and free of encumbrances (the “Deed”). As used in this Agreement, Closing (the “Closing”) shall be deemed to occur upon the recording of the Deed.

Evidence of delivery of fee simple title shall be the issuance by Escrow Holder to Buyer of an ALTA standard coverage owner’s policy of title insurance in the amount of the Purchase Price, insuring fee simple title to the Property in Buyer, subject only to such exceptions as Buyer shall have approved as provided in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the “Title Policy”). Within five (5) business days following the Effective Date, Seller shall deliver to Buyer materials requested by Buyer in Seller’s possession or control, or to which Seller has access (collectively, the “Seller’s Deliveries”). Seller shall deliver a Natural Hazards Disclosure Report with Seller’s Deliveries.

4. Conditions Precedent to Closing. The conditions listed in Exhibit B attached hereto, and incorporated herein by reference, are conditions precedent to Buyer’s obligation to purchase the Property (the “Conditions Precedent”).

99999.91994\42582120.1
08/19/24
2 5. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. IF THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT

CONSUMMATED SOLELY BECAUSE OF A DEFAULT UNDER THIS AGREEMENT ON

THE PART OF BUYER, THE DEPOSIT SHALL BE RETAINED BY SELLER AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED THAT SELLER’S ACTUAL

DAMAGES, IN THE EVENT OF A DEFAULT BY BUYER, WOULD BE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT OR IMPRACTICABLE TO DETERMINE. THEREFORE, BY PLACING THEIR

INITIALS BELOW, THE PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE EARNEST MONEY HAVE BEEN AGREED UPON, AFTER NEGOTIATION, AS THE PARTIES’ REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF SELLER’S DAMAGES AND AS SELLER’S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE

REMEDY AGAINST BUYER, AT LAW OR IN EQUITY, IN THE EVENT OF A DEFAULT UNDER THIS AGREEMENT ON THE PART OF BUYER. FURTHERMORE, THE

PAYMENT AND RETENTION OF SUCH DEPOSIT AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES IS NOT

INTENDED AS A FORFEITURE OR PENALTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 3275 AND 3369, BUT IS INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE

LIQUIDATED DAMAGES TO SELLER PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTIONS 1671, 1676 AND 1677.

INITIALS: Seller __________ Buyer __________

6. Representations, Warranties and Covenants of Seller. As of the date hereof and again as of Closing, Seller represents and warrants to Buyer as follows: (a) Seller has all necessary power and authority to enter into this Agreement, to carry out its obligations hereunder, and to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby. This Agreement constitutes a legal, valid and binding obligation of Seller enforceable against Seller in accordance with its terms; (b) There are no claims, actions, suits, investigations or other legal proceedings pending or threatened against or by Seller relating to or affecting the Property; (c) Seller has good and marketable title to the Property; (d) Seller has fully disclosed in writing to Buyer all material information in Seller’s possession that relates to the Property, its condition, and the title to the Property and (d) to Seller’s actual knowledge, the Property has not at any time been used for the purposes of storing, manufacturing, releasing or dumping Hazardous Materials. To Seller actual knowledge, no underground storage tanks, pipelines or clarifiers are located on the Property and no Hazardous Materials are located at, on, under the Property other than in full compliance with all applicable laws. “Hazardous Materials” shall mean (1) hazardous wastes, hazardous materials, hazardous substances, hazardous constituents, toxic substances or related materials, whether solids, liquids or gases, including, but not limited to, substances deemed as “hazardous wastes,” “hazardous materials,” “hazardous substances,” “toxic substances,” “pollutants,” “contaminants,” “radioactive materials,” or other similar designations in, or otherwise subject to regulation under, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq.; the Toxic Substance Control Act (“TSCA”), 15 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.; the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 1802; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9601, et seq.; the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.; the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300 et seq.; the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.; the Hazardous Waste Control Law, California Health and Safety Code § 25025 et seq., the Carpenter-Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act, California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.8, the Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Act, California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95, The Underground Storage of Hazardous Substances Act, California Health and

99999.91994\42582120.1
08/19/24
3 Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.7, the Porter-Cologne Act, California Water Code § 13050 et seq. and in any permits, licenses, approvals, plans, rules, regulations or ordinances adopted, or other criteria and guidelines promulgated pursuant to the preceding laws or other similar federal, state or local laws, regulations, rules or ordinances now or hereafter in effect relating to environmental matters (collectively the “Environmental Laws”); and (ii) any other substances, constituents or wastes subject to any applicable federal, state or local law, regulation, ordinance or common law doctrine, including any Environmental Law, now or hereafter in effect, including, but not limited to, (A) petroleum, (B) refined petroleum products, (C) waste oil, (D) waste aviation or motor vehicle fuel, (E) asbestos, (F) lead in water, paint or elsewhere, (G) radon, (H) polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB’s) and (I) ureaformaldehyde.

7. Representations, Warranties and Covenants of Buyer. Buyer hereby represents and warrants to Seller that Buyer has all necessary power and authority to enter into this Agreement, to carry out its obligations hereunder, and to consummate the transactions contemplated hereby.

This Agreement constitutes a legal, valid and binding obligation of Buyer enforceable against Buyer in accordance with its terms.

8. Continuation and Survival. All representations, warranties and covenants by the respective parties contained herein are intended to and shall be deemed made as of the date of this Agreement and again at the Closing, shall be deemed to be material, and unless expressly provided to the contrary shall survive the execution and delivery of this Agreement, the Deed and the Closing.

9. Possession. Possession of the Property shall be delivered to Buyer on the Closing Date free of any occupant or property not being conveyed to Buyer as provided hereunder.

10. Seller’s Cooperation with Buyer. Seller shall cooperate and do all acts as may be reasonably required or requested by Buyer, with regard to the fulfillment of any Condition Precedent. Seller hereby authorizes Buyer and its agents to make all inquiries with and applications to any third party, including any governmental authority, as Buyer may reasonably require to complete its due diligence and satisfy the Conditions Precedent.

11. Professional Fees. In the event legal action is commenced to enforce or interpret any of the terms or provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection with the prosecution or defense of said action,

12. Miscellaneous. Buyer shall have the right to assign this Agreement without Seller’s consent or approval. This Agreement shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the parties hereto and their respective successors, heirs, administrators and assigns. This Agreement may be amended or modified only by a written instrument executed by Seller and Buyer. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. This Agreement and the exhibits attached hereto constitute the entire agreement between the parties and supersede all prior agreements and understandings between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Time is of the essence of this Agreement. If any provision of this Agreement, or the application thereof to any person, place, or circumstance, shall be held to be invalid, unenforceable or void, the remainder of this Agreement and such provisions as applied to other

99999.91994\42582120.1
08/19/24
4 persons, places and circumstances shall remain in full force and effect. The waiver by any party to this Agreement of the breach of any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach, whether of the same or another provision of this Agreement. This Agreement may be executed in a number of identical counterparts. Each of the counterparts will be deemed an original for all purposes and all counterparts will collectively constitute one Agreement. Time is of the essence of this Agreement. This Agreement has been negotiated at arm’s length and between persons (or their representatives) sophisticated and knowledgeable in the matters dealt with in this Agreement. Accordingly, any rule of law (including California Civil Code § 1654 and any successor statute) or legal decision that would require interpretation of any ambiguities against the party that has drafted it is not applicable and is waived. The provisions of this Agreement shall be interpreted in a reasonable manner to effect the purpose of the parties and this Agreement. Buyer shall have the right to assign this Agreement to an affiliate, related entity, subsidiary or partner without obtaining Seller’s approval.

13. Notices. Any notice, consent or approval required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been given upon (i) hand delivery, (ii) one (1) business day after being deposited with a reliable overnight courier service for next day delivery, (iii) two (2) business days after being deposited in the United States mail, registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt required, and addressed to the address shown below each party’s signature.14. Indemnity. Seller shall indemnify Buyer against and hold Buyer harmless from any and all loss, damage, liability or expense, including court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, which Buyer may reasonably incur or sustain either prior to or following the Closing by reason of or in connection with (i) any breach of Seller’s representations and/or warranties contained herein; (ii) the failure of Seller’s covenants or agreements set forth herein; and/or (iii) any litigation pending as of the Closing or filed after the Closing regarding events occurring prior to the Closing. The provisions of this paragraph shall survive the Closing and recording of the Deed.
[SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]

99999.91994\42582120.1
08/19/24
5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed and entered into this Agreement as of the date last written below (the “Effective Date”).

SELLER BUYER
The City of Brentwood
By:__________________
Name:________________
Its:________________
Date:_______________
Hagar Realty,
a California corporation
By:___________________
Name:________________
Its:________________
Date:_______________

99999.91994\42582120.1
08/19/24
1 EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

99999.91994\42582120.1
08/19/24
1 EXHIBIT B

CLOSING AND ESCROW PROCEDURES

1. Title to the Property. The Title Policy issued to Buyer pursuant to Section 3 of the Agreement, shall provide full coverage against mechanics’ and materialmen’s liens and shall contain such special endorsements as Buyer may reasonably require, including, without limitation, any endorsements required as a condition to Buyer’s approval of any title exceptions (the “Endorsements”). Within five (5) business days following the Effective Date, Seller shall order the issuance of a preliminary title report with respect to the Property, together with copies of all underlying documents referenced therein and a map containing a plotting of all easements capable of being plotted (collectively, the “Preliminary Report”), to be prepared by the Escrow Holder and delivered to Buyer. No later than ten (10) days after receipt of the Preliminary Report, Buyer shall give written notice to Seller of any items contained in the Preliminary Report which Buyer disapproves (“Buyer’s Disapproval Notice”). Failure of Buyer to notify Seller of Buyer’s disapproval of all or any item on the Preliminary Report shall be deemed to be an approval by Buyer of such item(s). In any event, Seller covenants to remove as exceptions to title prior to the Closing, any mortgages, deeds of trust, and other monetary encumbrances (collectively, “Disapproved Liens”) shown on the Preliminary Report except for real property taxes not delinquent. Seller shall notify Buyer no later than five (5) days after receipt of Buyer’s Disapproval Notice whether it elects to remove such other items disapproved by Buyer.

2. Conditions Precedent to Closing. The Conditions Precedent referenced in Section 4 of the Agreement and detailed below are intended solely for the benefit of Buyer and may be waived only by Buyer in writing in Buyer’s sole and absolute discretion. In the event any Condition Precedent is not satisfied, Buyer may, in its sole and absolute discretion, terminate this Agreement. The following are the Conditions Precedent:
a. The transactions contemplated by this Agreement will have been approved by all applicable Seller departments, agencies and councils at their respective sole discretion, within one hundred twenty (120) days after Buyer and Seller execute this Agreement. If required by Seller’s charter, Seller’s mayor and the Board of Supervisors, each at their sole discretion, will have enacted a resolution approving, adopting, and authorizing this Agreement and the transactions contemplated by this Agreement, within one hundred twenty (120) days after Buyer and Seller execute this Agreement (collectively, “Government Approvals”).

99999.91994\42582120.1
08/19/24
2 b. Buyer’s inspection, review and approval, in its sole discretion, of all of the following within sixty (60) days after the unequivocal receipt of the Government Approvals:
(i) the physical characteristics and condition of the Property (including without limitation the condition of the soils); (ii) Seller’s Deliveries and (iii) the Preliminary Report and all aspects of the Property’s title pursuant to section 1 above (“Due Diligence Approval”).
c. Escrow Holder shall be unconditionally committed to issue the Title Policy to Buyer upon the Closing in the form and with such exceptions and endorsements as have been approved, or are deemed approved, by Buyer as provided above. d. Seller shall have complied with all of Seller’s duties and obligations contained in the Agreement and all of Seller’s representations and warranties contained in or made pursuant to this Agreement shall have been true and correct when made and shall be true and correct as of the Closing Date.

3. Escrow; Closing, Prorations.
b. Upon mutual execution of the Agreement, the parties shall deposit an executed counterpart of this Agreement with Escrow Holder and this Exhibit B shall serve as instructions to Escrow Holder for consummation of the purchase contemplated hereby. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of the Agreement and any supplementary Escrow instructions signed by Buyer and Seller, the terms of the Agreement shall control.
c. The Closing shall take place (the “Closing Date”) on or before the date that is sixty (60) days following the waiver or approval by Buyer, in its sole and absolute discretion, of the Governmental Approvals and Due Diligence Approval , or as may be extended as provided below.
d. At or before the Closing, Seller shall deliver to Escrow Holder or Buyer the duly executed and acknowledged Grant Deed for the Property, a general assignment of any pertinent rights for the Property, any certificates and resolutions reflecting the Governmental Approvals, and a Bill of Sale for the personal property. e. At or before the Closing, Buyer shall deliver to Escrow Holder or Seller the following: (i) the Closing Statement, duly executed by Buyer; (ii) the Closing amount necessary to complete the purchase; and (iii) evidence reasonably acceptable to Escrow Holder that the documents delivered by Buyer have been duly authorized and executed on behalf of Buyer and constitute valid and binding obligations of Buyer.
f. Seller and Buyer shall each deposit such other instruments as are reasonably required by Escrow Holder or otherwise required to close the Escrow and consummate the purchase of the Property in accordance with the terms hereof. g. Costs and expenses of Escrow incurred in this transaction shall be paid as follows:
(1) Seller shall pay the premium for a standard ALTA coverage owner’s policy of

99999.91994\42582120.1
08/19/24
3 title insurance; Buyer shall pay the premium for any extended ALTA coverage if desired; (2) Seller and Buyer shall each pay one-half (1/2) of the Escrow fees, recording fees and related expenses; (3) all other costs of escrow shall be paid equally by Buyer and Seller; (4) legal fees for purchase and sale agreement drafting shall be shared equally. The provisions of this Subparagraph (f) shall survive the Closing.

COUNCIL/ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY
Subject:

Disposition of City/Agency Real
Estate
Policy No: 10-20 Date: 05/23/2023
Resolution No: 2023-62 Page 1 of 3

CITY OF BRENTWOOD

1. PURPOSE
It is the purpose of this policy to provide guidance for the disposition of excess or surplus real estate owned in fee title by the City of Brentwood (“City”) or the City of Brentwood Successor Agency (“Agency”). The City disposition procedures are governed by the California Surplus Lands Act (California Government Code section 542200 et seq.) (the “SLA”) and the Agency disposition procedures are governed by both the SLA and the California Redevelopment Dissolution Law, California Health & Safety Code section 34170 et. seq. (the “Dissolution Law”)

2. POLICY
This policy provides guidance on the disposition of real estate. Real Estate is defined as any parcel owned in fee title by the City or Agency. All final decisions on the disposition of City and Agencyowned real estate is reserved for the City Council. For Successor Agency-owned parcels, the County-wide Oversight Board makes all final decisions, subject to review by the State Department of Finance. All other non-real estate assets are governed by the Council / Administrative Policy 10-07, Purchasing.

3. CITY REAL ESTATE

3.1 GENERAL GUIDELINES

3.1.1 In accordance with Section 54221(b)1) of the SLA, prior to the disposition of City owned real estate, the property must be declared surplus or exempt surplus land by the City Council of the City of Brentwood, during a regular public meeting.

3.1.2 The City will comply with the requirements of the SLA as they may be amended from time to time, in seeking to dispose of City owned real estate.

3.1.3 In the event the City complies with the requirements of the SLA and the SLA Guidelines, but does not dispose of the property, the City may pursue alternative means of disposition as set forth in this policy.

3.1.4 Disposition methods following completion of the SLA process may include:

Requests for Proposals (RFPs), Auction, Negotiated Sale or Exchange in order to maximize the benefit to the taxpayers.

3.1.5 The City shall optimize the benefit of the disposition of City-owned excess or surplus real estate based on relevant factors including:

3.1.5.1 The value of the real estate based on an appraisal or brokers opinion of value, as appropriate, which is no more than 12 months old at the time the sales agreement is presented to the City Council, except that an appraisal will not be needed on real estate that does not exceed $200,000 in value based on fair market value supported by a written report from staff.

3.1.5.2 The City is required to follow applicable State laws related to disposition of surplus property at the same time of disposition. Any

COUNCIL/ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY
Subject:

Disposition of City/Agency Real
Estate
Policy No: 10-20 Date: 05/23/2023
Resolution No: 2023-62 Page 2 of 3

CITY OF BRENTWOOD
special benefits to accrue from the sale or exchange.

3.1.6 Generally, the City shall represent itself in real estate transactions; however, the City may from time to time authorize a brokerage agreement for the disposition of real estate. In such cases, the brokerage fee shall be as specified in the agreement between the City and the broker. The selection of a real estate broker to provide real estate services shall be subject to the Council / Administrative Policy 10-07, Purchasing.

In certain circumstances when a broker is not under contract with the City, the City, in its sole discretion, may negotiate and pay a real estate brokerage fee for qualified representation of a party purchasing City real estate (“broker participation”). In no case shall the broker participation exceed one-half of the generally accepted local brokerage fee for the type of real estate being sold.

When the amount of purchase price offered is a criterion for selecting a purchaser in competitive situations, the selection will be based on the highest net purchase price, without taking into account any brokerage fees involved in the competition/evaluation. When such broker participation is contracted by the City, it shall be subject to all of the following:

3.1.6.1 The party represented by the broker shall provide written certification that the broker represents said party; and

3.1.6.2 The broker shall provide written certification that broker is not an employee of said party; and

3.1.6.3 The broker shall possess a valid California real estate broker license.

3.2 PROCESS

3.2.1 Staff will prepare a report for the City Council’s or Agency’ consideration recommending the declaration of certain stated real estate as surplus real estate.

3.2.2 The City will comply with the SLA and any other applicable guidelines or regulations as determined with the City Attorney’s office.

3.2.3 Since it is generally not in the City's best interest for a real estate transaction to be negotiated in open session, pursuant to Section 54956.8 of the Government Code, the City Council may discuss either approval, disapproval, or continuation for further negotiation or study any recommendation regarding the disposition of City real estate in closed session. Any final action, however, shall occur in open session and comply with the California Environmental Quality Act and shall disclose the revenue from any sale and the appraised value of the real estate involved in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Government Code section 54950 et seq.

3.3 PAYMENT FOR CITY SURPLUS REAL ESTATE
Sales of real estate shall be on an all cash basis, or on such other terms that in the

COUNCIL/ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY
Subject:

Disposition of City/Agency Real
Estate
Policy No: 10-20 Date: 05/23/2023
Resolution No: 2023-62 Page 3 of 3

CITY OF BRENTWOOD
discretion of the City Council results in the optimum public benefit.

3.4 USE OF PROCEEDS
Proceeds from sales shall be assigned to the appropriate fund, as follows:
 To enterprise accounts if the real estate was purchased using these funds.  To the General Fund, or other funds, if required by law.  As directed by the City Council.

3.5 COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DISPOSITION OF REAL ESTATE Unless otherwise directed, the costs associated with the disposition of surplus real estate shall be charged to the appropriate fund(s). Expenditures for this purpose will be budgeted as part of the normal budgeting cycle or budget amendment process if needed. If the real estate is owned by a fund other than the General Fund, the fund may be reimbursed for the costs associated with purchasing, managing, maintaining and disposing of surplus or excess real estate.

4. AGENCY OWNED REAL ESTATE
With the passage of the 2011 Budget Act (AB x1 26), the State of California eliminated Redevelopment Agencies (RDAs) and RDAs were officially dissolved as of February 1, 2012. As part of the dissolution law former RDAs are required to sell their assets “as is” and “expeditiously and in a manner aimed at maximizing value.” The County-wide Oversight Board is required to approve disposition of Agency-owned properties, with all Oversight Board decisions being subject to review and approval by the State of California’s Department of Finance. The Successor Agency must also comply with the SLA prior to disposition of former RDA property.

Once the Successor Agency Board takes action in support of the disposition of a property, a resolution is forwarded to the County Oversight Board for consideration and approval prior to Department of Finance ultimately approving or denying the transaction.