Brentwood City Council
August 27, 2024

AUGUST 27, 2024, 7:00 PM

CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 150 CITY PARK WAY
*IMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT PUBLIC COMMENTS AND MEETING PARTICIPATION* City Council Members will be participating from the Council Chamber. Members of the public are invited to attend and participate at: the Council Chambers, 150 City Park Way, Brentwood CA As a courtesy and technology permitting, members of the public may provide remote public comment during public hearings and on business items via the City’s Zoom Platform. However, the City cannot guarantee that the public’s access to teleconferencing technology will be uninterrupted, and technical difficulties may occur from time to time. In those instances, so long as the public may still attend the meeting in person, the meeting will continue. In addition, the Zoom participation option is provided to the public as a courtesy in order to facilitate participation. If Zoom participation is not enabled, the meeting will continue with public attendance in person only. Members of the public desiring to provide comments as a part of the meeting are encouraged to either submit written comments by 3:00 p.m. prior to the meeting or to attend the meeting in person.

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

1. IN PERSON:
a. Members of the public can provide in-person comments in the Council Chambers.

Members of the public are encouraged, but not required, to fill out a speaker card. The Council Chambers will have seating available for members of the public to attend in person up to full seating capacity.

2. REMOTE (if enabled): Remarks by members of the public participating via Zoom are limited to speaking on items listed under public hearings; business items; and requests for future agendas items, existing requests. Zoom participation during the general public comment period will not be accepted, except in the event a City Council Member is participating remotely under the provisions of Government Code § 54953 (f). a. Zoom: www.brentwoodca.gov/vcc or Zoom Webinar ID: 760 1397 0037 b. Zoom Phone Numbers. Dial Toll Free: (833) 548-0276 or (833) 548-0282 or (877) 853-5247.
c. During the meeting, each period for public comment will be announced, and participants may use the “Raise Hand” feature on Zoom to request to speak. (If you need instructions on how to use this feature, please contact the City Clerk by noon of the meeting date at [email protected] or 925.516.5182.)

3. E-MAIL
a. Public comments can also be submitted via e-mail to [email protected].

Any public comments received up until 3:00 p.m. of the meeting date will be:

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

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

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

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

CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY AGENDA
Zoom Webinar ID: 760 1397 0037

August 27, 2024, 7:00 p.m.

City Council Chambers
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
City Council Zoom Link
A. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Pursuant to Council/Administrative Policy, Meeting Rules and Procedures section 5.2 (Decorum Generally – Public), comments by members of the public are generally limited to five minutes, or less time if a large number of speakers is anticipated, or if approved by the Mayor. Speakers desiring answers to questions should direct them to the Council/Successor Agency and, if relevant, they may direct them to the appropriate staff member. Speakers can also follow up directly with staff during regular City business hours.

Please file a speaker’s card with the City Clerk on the form provided on the counter at the back of the Chambers.

During this portion of the meeting those present in the Council Chambers are permitted to speak on items that are listed under Presentations; Informational Reports; Consent Calendar; Requests for Future Agenda Items- New Items; or items not on the agenda during this portion of the meeting. Public comments for scheduled agenda items should wait until that time.

Zoom participation during this general public comment period will not be accepted.

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

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

E.1 Minutes of the Special City Council meeting of August 13, 2024 E.2 Minutes of the City Council/Successor Agency/BIFA meeting of August 13, 2024 E.3 A Proclamation proclaiming September 2024 as National Senior Center Month E.4 A Proclamation Proclaiming September 2024, as Childhood Cancer Awareness Month E.5 A Proclamation proclaiming September 8th - 14th, 2024, as National Suicide Prevention Week
E.6 Notice of Completion for Perfection Painting Corp. for the Civic Center Painting project Title/Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution accepting the work performed by Perfection Painting Corp. (“PPC”) for the Civic Center Painting project (“Project”); and requesting the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder.

E.7 Setting the General Obligation Bond Tax Rate of .0046% for the 2024/25 tax roll Title/Recommendation
Adopt a resolution adopting the General Obligation Bond Tax Rate of .0046% for the 2024/25 property tax roll and requesting submittal to Contra Costa County.

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

F.1 An application for the Bridle Gate project, including a Revised Environmental Impact Report, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, and Design Review Title/Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council consider the following two options:

Deny the appeal, upholding the Planning Commission’s action to deny the project by adopting a resolution supported by factual finds; or

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

2. The proposed project would include subdivision of the site for development of 272 singlefamily detached residences, as well as associated improvements within the project site, including two parks, open space, stormwater detention and treatment areas, utility connections, and construction of an internal roadway network on approximately 92.96 acres. The 36.82 acres of land located north of the future Sand Creek Road extension are on a separate legal parcel shown as a designated remainder on the vesting tentative subdivision map (VTSM), and are therefore not proposed to be developed as part of this application. The project site is bounded by Old Sand Creek Road to the north, State Route (SR) 4 to the east, a single-family residential development (Brentwood Hills) to the south, and the edge of the Brentwood Planning Area and the City of Antioch’s city limits to the west (APNs: 019-082-009 and 019-082-00).

The City prepared a Revised Environmental Impact Report (REIR) for this project in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, codified at Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., and as further governed by the State CEQA Guidelines, found at 14 CCR §§ 15000, et seq.). Several potentially significant impacts are identified; however, mitigation measures are proposed to reduce those impacts to less-than-significant levels.

G. BUSINESS ITEMS
Persons addressing the City Council using Zoom are asked to raise their hands using the Zoom feature. Those attending in person and wishing to address the Council may do so from the podium. The Council may adopt reasonable regulations at the onset of each business item to facilitate public testimony. These regulations may include time limits. In the absence of such regulations, the item shall follow the protocol for Public Comments. Public comment on each of the following items is limited to what is described in the specific agenda item.

G.1 Presentation of an Inclusive and Adaptive Recreation Update and direction from City Council
Title/Recommendation
The purpose of this report is to provide an update to the City Council in regards to inclusive and adaptive recreation.

G.2 Sale of Successor Agency-Owned Property Located on the Southeast Corner of Oak St. and Walnut Blvd.

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.

G.3 Temporary pickleball courts overlay on the basketball court at Pioneer Park Title/Recommendation
Approve a recommendation by the Park and Recreation Commission to have staff proceed with striping of two pickleball courts and other improvements for a pilot pickleball program.

G.4 Review of City Council and Commission process for public comments to reduce hate speech and the use of virtual platforms for public comments; and consider drafting a statement of values
Title/Recommendation
Provide direction to staff regarding the process for public comments made at City Council and Commission meetings and the use of virtual platforms for public comments; and direct to staff to work with the Diversity, Equity, Belonging and Inclusion Committee to draft a City Council statement of values.

H. REQUEST FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS - NEW REQUEST(S)
Council Members wishing to have an agenda item placed on a future agenda shall make a request under this section of the agenda. These items will be included on the agenda for the next Council meeting
I. REQUESTED FUTURE AGENDA ITEM(S)
I.1 A Request from Council Member Mendoza for the preparation of a memo on the status of improvements to a wall located in Summerset
Title/Recommendation
That the City Council consider and discuss the request from Council Member Mendoza requesting staff prepare a memo on the status of improvements to a wall located in Summerset at Balfour Road and Fairview Avenue.

I.2 A Request from Council Member Mendoza requesting staff hold a townhall related to permitting and business license processes
Title/Recommendation
That the City Council consider and discuss the request from Council Member Mendoza requesting staff hold a town hall inviting business to provide feedback on potential improvements to the permitting and business license process.

I.3 A Request from Council Member Pierson requesting staff prepare information related to the trail between American Avenue and Mountain View Drive Title/Recommendation
That the City Council consider and discuss the request from Council Member Pierson related to the trail between American Avenue and Mountain View Drive and the status of grant funds that may have been used to improve the trail.

J. PRESENTATIONS
J.1 Recognition of City Clerk, Margaret Wimberly, upon the occasion of her retirement

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

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

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

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

If you challenge the any of the matters listed under 'Public Hearings' in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Brentwood City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing
NOTICE
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the meeting room is wheelchair accessible and disabled parking is available at the City Hall parking lot. If you are a person with a disability and you need disability-related modifications or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (925) 516-5440 or fax (925) 516-5441. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. {28 CFR 35.102-35, 104 ADA Title II}

POSTING STATEMENT
On August 22, 2024, a true and correct copy of this agenda was posted on the City Hall Bulletin Board, outside City Hall, 150 City Park Way, Brentwood, CA 94513 and at our website www.brentwoodca.gov
A complete packet of information is available for public review at City Hall or on our website at www.brentwoodca.gov

1 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
August 13, 2024, 5:30 p.m.

A. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
Mayor Bryant called the meeting to order at 5:34 p.m.

Roll Call found the following members present in the Council Chamber:

Mendoza, Pierson, Oerlemans, and Mayor Bryant.

Vice Mayor Meyer participated in the meeting remotely via Zoom teleconference under the just cause provisions of the Brown Act, Government Code § 54953(f).

B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Bryant led the Pledge of Allegiance.

C. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Luke Santos spoke on behalf of Brentwood Employees' Association/Public Works Division regarding labor negotiations.

There being no one wishing to speak, Mayor Bryant closed Public Comments.

D. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
It was moved/seconded by Pierson/Mendoza to recess to Closed Session at 5:41 p.m.

D.1 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION D.2 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
E. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION
The City Council reconvened in open session at 7:02 p.m. and called to order the regular scheduled meeting of August 13, 2024.

F. ADJOURNMENT

1 CITY COUNCIL/SUCCESSOR AGENCY MINUTES
August 13, 2024, 7:00 p.m.

A. CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL
Mayor Bryant called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.

Roll Call found the following members present: Mendoza, Pierson, Oerlemans, and Mayor Bryant.

Vice Mayor Meyer participated in the meeting remotely via Zoom teleconference under the just cause provisions of the Brown Act, Government Code § 54953(f).

B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Bryant led the Pledge of Allegiance.

C. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Bryant stated there were no reportable actions from Closed Session.

D. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Michael Clement provided comments regarding the Veterans Day Ceremony that takes place every November 11th at 11:00 a.m. and requested support and participation from the City Council related to this event and other Veteran related events.

Yildez, Clifton Fagerquist, Greg Chapman, Nabela, Surender Katikaneni, Zackary Che, Ken Che, and Mary Richards provided comments regarding the use of cattle as weed abatement in residential neighborhoods.

Karri Reiser provided an update on behalf of the Brentwood Chamber of Commerce regarding the launch of their in-person business coaching through the East Bay Small Business Development Center.

Sinziana Todor provided comments regarding Planning Commissioner Gerald Johnson.

Fred Sahakian spoke on behalf of the Alameda County Management Employees Association in support of City staff and fair wages.

Sonia Cardinale spoke on behalf of Brentwood Employees' Association/Miscellaneous Office Division regarding labor negotiations.

Danny Dohrmann provided comments regarding virtual public comments, Popeyes, employment, and tax revenue.

2 Ian Cohen provided comments commending a Public Works staff member's attempt to rescue a lost dog and other positive interactions with City staff.

There being no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Bryant closed Public Comments.

E. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS, COMMITTEES,

LIAISONS, AND STAFF
Council Member Mendoza reported on attendance at National Night Out, Downtown Coalition Membership meeting, Hometown Nights, and watched the Planning Commission meeting.

Council Member Pierson reported on attendance at a Closed Session City Council meeting, Rotary meeting, National Night Out, Age and Disabilities Committee's Operational Assessment Report meeting, the Police Department swearing in and promotion event, and watched the Planning Commission meeting.

Council Member Oerlemans reported on attendance at a Tri Delta Transit meeting, the Liberty Union High School Convocation, a Closed Session City Council meeting, Police Department swearing in and promotion event, National Night Out, Chamber of Commerce Ribbon Cutting for Handydads' 10-year Anniversary, Municipal Code Review Committee meeting, and watched the Planning Commission meeting,
Vice Mayor Meyer reported on attendance at Hometown Nights, Liberty Union High School Convocation, Elected Women’s Luncheon, Dedication of Helen Meyers Way, Downtown Brentwood Coalition monthly membership meeting, National Night Out, watched Planning Commission meeting, Age and Disabilities Committee's Operational Assessment Report meeting, and participated as a panelist at the Be___Conference.

Mayor Bryant reported on attendance at a Trans Plan meeting, East Contra Costa Regional Fee and Finance Authority (ECCRFFA) meeting, BART and State Route 4 Bypass meeting, Chamber of Commerce Ribbon Cutting for Handydads' 10-year Anniversary, National Night Out, Dedication of Helen Meyers Way, Mayors' Conference, Police Department swearing in and promotion event, and a Tri Delta Transit meeting.

Bruce Mulder, Director of Parks and Recreation provided update on the Summerset I sound wall project.

F. CONSENT CALENDAR
Moved by: Pa'tanisha Pierson, Council Member
Seconded by: Tony Oerlemans, Council Member
Adopted the Consent Calendar as recommended by staff.

3 Ayes (5): Jovita Mendoza, Council Member, Susannah Meyer, Vice Mayor, Pa'tanisha Pierson, Council Member, Tony Oerlemans, Council Member, and Joel Bryant, Mayor
Motion Approved (5 to 0)
F.1 Minutes of the Special City Council meeting of July 23, 2024 F.2 Minutes of the Special City Council meeting of July 29, 2024 F.3 Correction to the City Council/Successor Agency Meeting Minutes of April 23, 2024
F.4 An agreement with Stommel Inc., dba LEHR Auto Electric for the outfitting of patrol vehicles
Adopted City Council Resolution 2024-82 approving and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute an agreement and necessary documents with Stommel Inc., dba LEHR Auto Electric in the amount of $300,000 over a two year term; not to exceed $150,000 FY 24/25 and not to exceed $150,000 FY 25/26 for the outfitting of police vehicles.

F.5 Proposed refunding of the outstanding Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2014, through the issuance of Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2024, and appointing financing team members.

Adopted City Council Resolution 2024-83 and Brentwood Infrastructure Financing Authority (“BIFA”) Resolution BIFA 51 appointing Del Rio Advisors, LLC as Municipal Advisor; RBC Capital Markets, LLC as Underwriter; Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP as Bond and Disclosure Counsel, and directing City staff to commence preparations to refund the Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2014, and to return to the City Council /BIFA Board once the related documents have been prepared for approval.

F.6 Notice of Completion for the work performed by Luma Engineering Contractors Inc. for the Creekside Park Pickleball Courts Project, CIP Project No. 352-52441.

Adopted City Council Resolution 2024-84 accepting the work performed by Luma Engineering Contractors Inc. for the Creekside Park Pickleball Courts Project, CIP Project No. 352-52441 and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder.

G. PUBLIC HEARINGS
G.1 Annexation #16 to Community Facilities District No. 5 Debra Galey, Senior Analyst, presented the item.

4 Mayor Bryant opened the Public Hearing. There being no one wishing to speak, it was moved/seconded by Mendoza/Pierson to close the Public Hearing, and the motion carried unanimously.

Moved by: Jovita Mendoza, Council Member
Seconded by: Tony Oerlemans, Council Member
Adopted Resolution 2024-86 determining to annex territory to CFD No. 5 and calling a special election for CFD No. 5.

Ayes (5): Jovita Mendoza, Council Member, Susannah Meyer, Vice Mayor, Pa'tanisha Pierson, Council Member, Tony Oerlemans, Council Member, and Joel Bryant, Mayor
Motion Approved (5 to 0)
Moved by: Jovita Mendoza, Council Member
Seconded by: Tony Oerlemans, Council Member
Adopted City Council Resolution 2024-87 determining the results of the special election for the annexation of territory to CFD No. 5 as 73 votes in favor of the annexation and 0 votes opposing the annexation.

Ayes (5): Jovita Mendoza, Council Member, Susannah Meyer, Vice Mayor, Pa'tanisha Pierson, Council Member, Tony Oerlemans, Council Member, and Joel Bryant, Mayor
Motion Approved (5 to 0)
G.2 Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sand Creek Sports Complex
Bruce Mulder, Director of Parks and Recreation, presented the item.

Mayor Bryant opened the Public Hearing. There being no one wishing to speak, Mayor Bryant closed the public hearing.

Moved by: Jovita Mendoza, Council Member
Seconded by: Pa'tanisha Pierson, Council Member
Adopted City Council Resolution 2024-88 adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sand Creek Sports Complex Project, CIP Project No. 352-52446.

Ayes (5): Jovita Mendoza, Council Member, Susannah Meyer, Vice Mayor, Pa'tanisha Pierson, Council Member, Tony Oerlemans, Council Member, and Joel Bryant, Mayor
Motion Approved (5 to 0)

5 G.3 An application for a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, Design Review, Density Bonus request, and request for associated waivers including the City’s General Plan Density Transition Policy
Sarah Yuwiler, Associate Planner, presented the item.

Mayor Bryant opened the Public Hearing.

David Best, Shay Homes, spoke as the applicant for the project.

Sinziana Todor provided comments, suggestions, and concerns regarding the project.

Melissa van Ruiten provided comments, suggestions, and concerns regarding the project.

There being no one else wishing to speak, it was moved/seconded by Mendoza/Oerlemans to close the Public Hearing, and the motion carried unanimously.

Moved by: Tony Oerlemans, Council Member
Seconded by: Pa'tanisha Pierson, Council Member
Adopted City Council Resolution 2024-89 approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH# 20240501112) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Errata Sheet for the Orchard Grove North project.

Ayes (5): Jovita Mendoza, Council Member, Susannah Meyer, Vice Mayor, Pa'tanisha Pierson, Council Member, Tony Oerlemans, Council Member, and Joel Bryant, Mayor
Motion Approved (5 to 0)
Moved by: Tony Oerlemans, Council Member
Seconded by: Pa'tanisha Pierson, Council Member
Adopted City Council Resolution 2024-90 approving the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 9649 (VTSM 9649) for the Orchard Grove North project.

Ayes (5): Jovita Mendoza, Council Member, Susannah Meyer, Vice Mayor, Pa'tanisha Pierson, Council Member, Tony Oerlemans, Council Member, and Joel Bryant, Mayor
Motion Approved (5 to 0)
Moved by: Tony Oerlemans, Council Member
Seconded by: Pa'tanisha Pierson, Council Member
Adopted City Council Resolution 2024-91 approving Design Review No 23-012 (DR 23-012) for the Orchard Grove North project, with the

6 amendment to condition of approval number 15 in the design review resolution to provide that the applicant shall submit the final landscaping plan to both the City and Contra Costa County Fire Protection District to ensure that the landscaping proposed constitutes defensible space within a minimum five-foot area around the home.

Ayes (5): Jovita Mendoza, Council Member, Susannah Meyer, Vice Mayor, Pa'tanisha Pierson, Council Member, Tony Oerlemans, Council Member, and Joel Bryant, Mayor
Motion Approved (5 to 0)
H. BUSINESS ITEMS
H.1 Parks & Recreation Operational Assessment Final Report Alan Pennington and Chas Jordan of Matrix Consulting presented the item.

Ian Cohen reported the positive survey results aligned with his experience as a part-time employee with the Parks and Recreation Department, and provided comments regarding the need for standard operating procedures and SMART goals.

Moved by: Pa'tanisha Pierson, Council Member
Seconded by: Susannah Meyer, Vice Mayor
Accepted the Parks and Recreational Operational Assessment Final Report (the “Report”); directed the City Attorney’s Office to evaluate whether the City can legally implement recommendations contained in the Report; and directed staff to implement the recommendations in the Report that can be implemented.

Ayes (5): Jovita Mendoza, Council Member, Susannah Meyer, Vice Mayor, Pa'tanisha Pierson, Council Member, Tony Oerlemans, Council Member, and Joel Bryant, Mayor
Motion Approved (5 to 0)
H.2 2024 City of Brentwood Veterans Day Event and Amendment to the 24/25 General Fund Operating Budget
Thien Nguyen, Recreation Manager, presented the item.

Mayor Bryant opened the public comment period.

Danny Dohrmann spoke in support of the item.

Dan Duran, Commander of American Legion Post 202, reported that every military service branch is recognized except one at Veterans Park.

7 Michael Clement provided suggestions on how to improve the Veterans Day Ceremony.

Roger Cox spoke in support of the item and thanked the City Council, City staff, and the Police Chief for their support.

Amy Tilley spoke in support of the item as presented by staff and offered a partnership between the City and the Downtown Brentwood Coalition for Veterans events.

There being no one else wishing to speak on the item, Mayor Bryant closed the public comment period.

Following the motion and the vote, the City Council recessed at 8:55 p.m. and reconvened at 9:04 p.m.

Moved by: Pa'tanisha Pierson, Council Member
Seconded by: Tony Oerlemans, Council Member
Adopted City Council Resolution 2024-85, directing staff to coordinate Veterans Day celebrations for 2024 in alignment with Option 3 as presented in the staff report, including an annual downtown parade and annual City sponsorship of the Military Veteran Banner Program; amend the FY 2024/25 General Fund Operating Budget by $32,000; and annually fund future Veterans Day celebrations in the amount of $40,000.

Ayes (5): Jovita Mendoza, Council Member, Susannah Meyer, Vice Mayor, Pa'tanisha Pierson, Council Member, Tony Oerlemans, Council Member, and Joel Bryant, Mayor
Motion Approved (5 to 0)
H.3 Designation of the voting delegate and an alternate for the 2024 League of California Cities Annual Conference
Amanda McVey, Assistant City Clerk, presented the item.

Mayor Bryant opened the public comment period.

There being no one wishing to speak on the item, Mayor Bryant closed the public comment period.

Moved by: Pa'tanisha Pierson, Council Member
Seconded by: Susannah Meyer, Vice Mayor
Adopted Resolution 2024-92 designating Mayor Bryant as City’s voting delegate for the 2024 League of California Cities Annual Conference and Vice Mayor Meyer as the City's alternate voting delegate.

8 Ayes (5): Jovita Mendoza, Council Member, Susannah Meyer, Vice Mayor, Pa'tanisha Pierson, Council Member, Tony Oerlemans, Council Member, and Joel Bryant, Mayor
Motion Approved (5 to 0)
I. REQUEST FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS - NEW REQUEST(S)
Council Member Mendoza requested staff hold a townhall related to permitting and business license processes, inviting businesses to provide feedback on potential improvements to the permitting and business license process.

Council Member Mendoza requested staff prepare a memo on the status of improvements to the sound wall in Summerset.

Council Member Pierson requested staff prepare information on the trail between American Avenue and Mountain View Drive and the status of grant funds that may have been used to improve the trail.

J. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved/seconded by Mendoza/Pierson to adjourn the meeting in honor and memory of Commander Bill Weber at 11:21 p.m. and the motion carried unanimously.

P R O C L A M A T I O N
WHEREAS, older Americans are significant members of our society, investing their wisdom and experience to help enrich and better the lives of younger generations; and
WHEREAS, the Brentwood Senior Activity Center has acted as a catalyst for mobilizing the creativity, energy, vitality, and commitment of the older residents of Brentwood; and
WHEREAS, through the wide array of services, programs, and activities, senior centers empower older residents of Brentwood to contribute to their own health and well-being and the health and well-being of their fellow citizens of all ages; and

WHEREAS, the Senior Activity Center in Brentwood affirms the dignity, self-worth, and independence of older persons by facilitating their decisions and actions; tapping their experiences, skills, and knowledge; and enabling their continued contributions to the community.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED, that the City Council
of the City of Brentwood, call upon all residents to recognize the special contributions of the senior center participants and the special efforts of the staff and volunteers who work every day to enhance the well-being of the older residents of our community, hereby proclaim September 2024 as

NATIONAL SENIOR CENTER MONTH
Dated this 27nd day of August, 2024
___________________________________
Joel Bryant, Mayor

PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, childhood cancer is the leading cause of death by disease in children; and
WHEREAS, 1 in 285 children in the United States will be diagnosed by their 20th birthday; and
WHEREAS, 46 children per day or 16,790 children per year are diagnosed with cancer in the U.S.; and
WHEREAS, two-thirds of childhood cancer patients will have chronic health conditions as a result of their treatment toxicity, with one quarter being classified as severe to life-threatening; and WHEREAS, in the last 30 years only six new drugs have been approved by the FDA to specifically treat childhood cancer; and WHEREAS, researchers and healthcare professionals work
diligently dedicating their expertise to treat and to cure children with cancer; and
WHEREAS, too many children are affected by this deadly disease and more must be done to raise awareness and find a cure.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that the City Council
of the City of Brentwood does hereby recognize the month of September 2024 as

CHILDHOOD CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
and urge all to observe Childhood Cancer Awareness Month and support this cause that so deeply impacts families in every community across our country.

Dated this 27th day of August 2024

Joel R. Bryant, Mayor

PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, the week of September 8-14, 2024 is National Suicide Prevention Week, when millions of people around the world join their voices to share a message of hope and healing; and
WHEREAS, according to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (A.F.S.P.), more than 49,000 people die by suicide annually in the United States; and
WHEREAS, according to Hope for the Day (H.F.T.D.), with an average of 132 suicides completed daily and each one directly impacting 100 additional people, including friends, service members, family, social media connections, and neighbors we can safely assume everyone has been impacted by suicide; and WHEREAS, it is essential that we educate residents about suicide, mental health and substance abuse problems and the ways they affect all people in the community; and
WHEREAS, we must encourage relatives, friends, co-workers, and providers to recognize the signs of a problem, and guide those in need to appropriate services and supports; and
WHEREAS, suicide prevention is important every day of the year.

National Suicide Prevention Week gives us an opportunity to shine a special, encouraging light on this topic that affects us all, and send a clear, hopeful message that help is available, and suicide can be prevented.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED, that the City Council of the City of Brentwood does hereby recognize September 8 – 14, 2024 as

SUICIDE PREVENTION WEEK
and encourage all residents to raise awareness of suicide prevention and encourage those in need to access mental health, substance abuse, and suicide prevention services and programs available.

Dated this 27th day of August 2024

Joel R. Bryant, Mayor

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. E.6
08/27/2024
SUBJECT: Notice of Completion for Perfection Painting Corp. for the Civic Center Painting project.

DEPARTMENT: Public Works
STAFF: Casey Wichert, Director of Public Works
Vatsal Patel, Engineering Manager

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution accepting the work performed by Perfection Painting Corp. (“PPC”) for the Civic Center Painting project (“Project”); and requesting the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder.

FISCAL IMPACT
The total contract amount for the work performed by PPC is a follows:

Contractor Final Contract Amount Council Approved Amount (Including Contingency)
PPC $492,900 $530,150
The final cost of the Project is 7% less than the City Council approved amount for this contract. This Project was funded by the Facilities Replacement Fund. The Facilities Replacement Fund provides funding for major maintenance and repair needs of the majority of the City’s facilities.

BACKGROUND
This Project painted the exterior of the Civic Center, which included City Hall, the Community Center and the Parking Structure. The work included protecting, preparing, repairing, and painting, finishing work of all exterior walls, columns, railings, bollards, arcade and any other exterior surfaces of the Civic Center.

Additional work included the re-painting of the existing striping and pavement markings between the first and third floors of the Parking Structure.

The existing exterior paint on the Civic Center was the original paint from when the buildings were constructed in 2011. Exterior paint has a typical service life of between

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. E.6
08/27/2024
five (5) and fifteen (15) years, so the original paint had reached the end of its expected duration. Staff inspected the buildings and identified areas in need of repair due to normal use and exposure to the weather, which cannot be completed through routine maintenance as the work required a significant amount of scaffolding and other specialized equipment specifically used by painting contractors. City staff does not have the necessary equipment or sufficient time and manpower to accomplish the work, so the Project was bid to painting contractors.

PPC completed the Project on July 17, 2024, per the contract documents and executed change orders. Staff is recommending acceptance of the work performed by PPC and the Notice of Completion be filed with the County Recorder.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Not Applicable.

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

DATE OF NOTICE
Not Applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
A Notice of Exemption was filed with the County Recorder on January 31, 2024.

ALTERNATIVE OPTION(S)

1. Do not approve staff’s recommendation.

2. Modify staff’s recommendation based on legally defensible findings.

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

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Previous Action

2. Photographs

3. Resolution

4. Notice of Completion

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

On June 27, 2023, by Resolution 2023-89, the City Council adopted the Amended 2022/23 – 2023/24 Operating Budget, which included funding for the Civic Center Painting project.

On March 26, 2024, by Resolution No. 2024-27, the City Council adopted a Resolution approving the contract documents, awarding the bid and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute a contract and necessary documents for the Civic Center Painting Project with Perfection Painting Corp. as the lowest responsible and responsive bidder in the amount of $461,000, plus funding authorization for a 15% contingency of $69,150, for a total funding authorization not to exceed amount of $530,150.

Acceptance of
Civic Center Painting Project
City Hall

Parking Structure

Parking Striping
Promenade

Community Center

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

BRENTWOOD ACCEPTING THE WORK PERFORMED BY
PERFECTION PAINTING CORP. FOR THE CIVIC CENTER
PAINTING PROJECT; AND REQUESTING THE CITY CLERK TO
FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION WITH THE COUNTY RECORDER.

WHEREAS, on June 27, 2023, by Resolution 2023-89, the City Council adopted the Amended 2022/23 – 2023/24 Operating Budget, which included funding for the Civic Center Painting project (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, on March 26, 2024, by Resolution No. 2024-27, the City Council adopted a Resolution approving the contract documents, awarding the bid and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute a contract and necessary documents for the Civic Center Painting Project with Perfection Painting Corp. as the lowest responsible and responsive bidder in the amount of $461,000, plus funding authorization for a 15% contingency of $69,150, for a total funding authorization not to exceed amount of $530,150; and
WHEREAS, this Project painted the exterior of the Civic Center, which included City Hall, the Parking Structure and the Community Center; and WHEREAS, this Project also re-painted the striping and pavement markings between the first and third floors of the Parking Structure; and WHEREAS, Perfection Painting Corp. completed the Project on July 17, 2024, per the contract documents and executed change orders, and staff is recommending that the work performed by Perfection Painting Corp. be accepted and the Notice of Completion filed with the County Recorder.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood does hereby accept the work performed by Perfection Painting Corp. for the Civic Center Painting project; and request the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder.

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

Recording Requested By:

The City of Brentwood
When Recorded Mail To:

Margaret Wimberly, City Clerk
City of Brentwood
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513

EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEES PER
GOVERNMENT CODE § 27383
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE IS FOR RECORDER’S USE

NOTICE OF COMPLETION
Civil Code §§ 8182, 8184, 9204, and 9208
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:

1. The undersigned is the agent of the owner of the Project described below.

2. Owner’s full name is City of Brentwood (“City”)

3. City’s address is 150 City Park Way, Brentwood, CA 94513

4. The nature of City’s interest in the Project is:
_X_ Fee Ownership __ Lessee __ Other:__________________

5. Construction work on the Project performed on City’s behalf is generally described as follows: Civic Center Painting, including City Hall, the Community Center and the Parking Structure.

6. The name of the original Contractor for the Project is: Perfection Painting Corp. located at 38045 47th Street East, Suite E #142, Palmdale, CA 93552.

7. The Project was accepted as complete on: August 27, 2024.

8. The Project is located at: 150 City Park Way (City Hall); 35 Oak Street (Community Center); and 100 City Park Way (Parking Structure).

Verification: In signing this document, I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I have read this notice, and I know and understand the contents of this notice, and that the facts stated in this notice are true and correct.

Brentwood, CA ________________________________
Date Signature
________________________________
Margaret Wimberly, MMC, City Clerk

EXEMPT FROM NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT REQUIREMENTS PER
GOVERNMENT CODE § 27287 AND CIVIL CODE § 9208

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. E.7
08/27/2024
SUBJECT: Setting the General Obligation Bond Tax Rate of .0046% for the 2024/25 tax roll
DEPARTMENT: Finance and Information Systems
STAFF: Kerry Breen, City Treasurer/Director of Finance and Information Systems
Angela Ausemus, Accountant II

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution adopting the General Obligation Bond Tax Rate of .0046% for the 2024/25 property tax roll and requesting submittal to Contra Costa County.

FISCAL IMPACT
The property tax levy is expected to generate the amount required to pay the General Obligation Bond debt service of $720,000, as well as fund administrative costs, and maintain the reserve fund for fiscal year 2024/25. The applicable revenues and expenses are included in the 2024/25 General Obligation Bond Debt Service Fund Operating Budget.

BACKGROUND
On November 6, 2001, voters passed Measure J, authorizing the City of Brentwood to issue General Obligation Bonds (“Bonds”) in the principal amount of six million dollars to finance the construction, acquisition, and improvement of a new police station, and all costs incident thereto.

The Bond Official Statement stipulates that the City Council has the power and is obligated to annually levy ad valorem taxes for payment of principal, interest and accreted value of the Bonds upon all property within the City subject to taxation by the City, without limitation of rate of amounts (except certain personal property, which is taxable at limited rates). It further establishes that the annual tax rate will be based on the assessed value of taxable property in the City. Fluctuations in the annual debt service on the Bonds and the assessed value of taxable property in the City may cause the annual tax rate to fluctuate.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. E.7
08/27/2024
Based on the debt service requirements for fiscal year 2024/25 and the assessed value certification provided by Contra Costa County, a tax rate of .0046% will need to be assessed against all taxable property in the City of Brentwood. The tax rate percentage is multiplied by property assessed valuations to arrive at the total tax.

Due to property assessed valuations increasing almost $527 million from the prior year, no increase is required in the tax rate for 2024/25.

Contra Costa County requires the City Council to pass a resolution annually setting the tax rate for the General Obligation Bond in order to place the assessment. This rate equates to $4.60 per $100,000 of assessed valuation and is the same amount per $100,000 as the 2023/24 rate.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Not Applicable.

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:

1. Do not approve the FY 2024/25 General Obligation Bond tax rate, resulting in the inability of the City to levy the annual tax required to pay the debt service.

This would likely result in litigation from bondholders due to the City’s legal obligation to annually levy ad valorem taxes in support of the bond.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Previous Action

2. Resolution

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 12, 2002, the City Council passed Resolution No. 2468, authorizing issuance and sale of not to exceed $6,000,000 principal amount of bonds, approving the form of the paying agent agreement, authorizing the execution and delivery of a bond purchase agreement by and among the City of Brentwood, the Brentwood Infrastructure Financing Authority and RBC Dain Rauscher, and approving the form and distribution of any official statement and authorizing certain actions in connection with the issuance, sale and delivery of such bonds.

On August 22, 2023, the City Council passed Resolution No. 2023-103, approving the submittal of the General Obligation Bond Tax Rate of .0046% to Contra Costa County for the 2023/24 tax roll.

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

BRENTWOOD APPROVING THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND
TAX RATE OF .0046% FOR THE 2024/25 TAX ROLL AND

REQUESTING SUBMITTAL TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
WHEREAS, the voters of the City of Brentwood approved the issuance of General Obligation Bonds for a new police station on November 6, 2001; and WHEREAS, the City Council passed Resolution No. 2468, authorizing issuance and sale of not to exceed $6,000,000 principal amount of bonds on February 12, 2002; and
WHEREAS, for fiscal year 2023/24 a tax rate of .0046% was assessed; and WHEREAS, based on the debt service requirements for fiscal year 2024/25 and the assessed value certification provided by Contra Costa County, a tax rate of .0046% will need to be assessed against all taxable property in the City of Brentwood.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood, hereby approves the General Obligation Bond tax rate of .0046% to be levied against all taxable property within the City for the 2024/25 Tax Roll, and requests that the Finance and Information Systems Director submit this resolution to Contra Costa County.

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

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.1
08/27/2024
SUBJECT: An application for the Bridle Gate project, including a Revised Environmental Impact Report, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, and Design Review.

DEPARTMENT: Community Development
STAFF: Alexis Morris, Community Development Director
Erik Nolthenius, Planning Manager

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council consider the following two options:

1. Deny the appeal, upholding the Planning Commission’s action to deny the project by adopting a resolution supported by factual finds; or

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

The proposed project would include subdivision of the site for development of 272 single-family detached residences, as well as associated improvements within the project site, including two parks, open space, stormwater detention and treatment areas, utility connections, and construction of an internal roadway network on approximately 92.96 acres. The 36.82 acres of land located north of the future Sand Creek Road extension are on a separate legal parcel shown as a designated remainder on the vesting tentative subdivision map (VTSM), and are therefore not proposed to be developed as part of this application. The project site is bounded by Old Sand Creek Road to the north, State Route (SR) 4 to the east, a single-family residential development (Brentwood Hills) to the south, and the edge of the Brentwood Planning Area and the City of Antioch’s city limits to the west (APNs: 019-082-009 and 019- 082-00).

The City prepared a Revised Environmental Impact Report (REIR) for this project in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, codified at Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., and as further governed by the State CEQA Guidelines, found at 14 CCR §§ 15000, et seq.). Several potentially significant impacts are identified; however, mitigation measures are proposed to reduce those impacts to less-than-significant levels.

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

FISCAL IMPACT
The applicant, WCHB Development, LLC, has paid approximately $300,000 to process the application. These fees fully cover staff and consultant’s time spent processing the application, including preparation of the REIR.

BACKGROUND

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AND APPEAL
On July 16, 2024, the Planning Commission held a continued public hearing on the proposed project. After extensive deliberation, the Commission voted unanimously to deny the proposed project. Because a denial does not require CEQA review, the Planning Commission took no action regarding the project’s REIR. The Planning Commission provided findings for denial which were incorporated into the resolution (Attachment 6). The Planning Commission meeting is discussed in more detail below.

On July 24, 2024, WCHB Development, LLC, filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission action with the City Clerk.

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

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.1
08/27/2024
development would result in a density of approximately 4.0 dwelling units per acre (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.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.1
08/27/2024
FIGURE 1: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

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

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 all of the provisions SB 330, including the following:
 If the application complies with the applicable objective general plan, zoning, and 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 “mid-range” 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 Brentwood Municipal Code (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.
 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)).
 Any decision to deny or lower the density of a project that is consistent with applicable objective City standards must be supported by a preponderance of evidence that both: (1) the project has a specific adverse impact upon public health or safety based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards; and (2) there is no feasible way to mitigate the impact other than denial or approval at a lower density. (Government Code § 65589.5(j)(1).)

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

PROJECT SUMMARY
General Plan & Zoning Consistency
The project is consistent with the General Plan. As shown in the figure 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 application1 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.

Figure 2: General Plan Land Use Designations
The zoning for the project site is PD-36, which is set forth in 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

1 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 applicant is required to submit the required development applications by September 21, 2024 (within 180 days of submittal of a qualifying preliminary application to the City).

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.1
08/27/2024
locations for the various subareas was one of the subjects of a lawsuit concerning this application. In that lawsuit, the City maintained that appropriate residential development standards are those in BMC Section 17.486.004, referring to Subarea C. This 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).

A detailed analysis of the project’s General Plan and Zoning consistency can be found starting on page 21 in the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 7).

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, resulting in 4.35 acres of useable park space with less than three percent slope), 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 to be relocated to Parcel I, connecting to Sand Creek Road; therefore, Parcel H can be eliminated and absorbed into the adjacent lots.

The single-family lot sizes would range from 5,000 sf to 15,930 sf. The remaining parcels are to be utilized for 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, which is not proposed to be developed as part of this project.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.1
08/27/2024
Figure 3: VTSM 9586
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.

A more detailed description of the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map can be found starting on page 9 in the attached Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 7).

Affordable Housing

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.1
08/27/2024
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 draft 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:

Affordability Level Requirement
Very Low Income 3% of 272 = 8 units
Low Income 4% of 272 = 11 units
Moderate Income 3% of 272 = 8 units
Total 10% = 27 units
Design Review
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. The master plotting plan shown below, depicts the variation of the different home plans and elevations to ensure that no two identical homes are located next to each other. A more detailed explanation can be found starting on page 25 in the attached Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 7) for more information.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.1
08/27/2024
Figure 4: Master Plotting Plan

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 5, 2023, at which many items were discussed. The Planning Commission continued the item and directed staff to work with the applicant on options to address concerns regarding traffic due to the extension of San Jose Avenue and the potential additional traffic on St. Regis Avenue.

On July 16, 2024, the Planning Commission held a continued public hearing on the proposed project which included a discussion of several options related to the St.

Regis Avenue/San Jose Avenue intersection as well as other topics which are summarized below. It should be noted that the July 2024 hearing reiterated many topics which had been raised at the September 2023 hearing, so the summary below encompasses both hearings.

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 (included in Attachment 13). Five options were evaluated in the memo and are summarized in the table below.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.1
08/27/2024
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.  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 below. 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 preventing southbound traffic from Chestnut Oak Drive from accessing 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.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.1
08/27/2024
Figure 5: Option 1: Turn Restrictions Alternative A
 Option 2: Turn Restrictions Alternative B
Option 2 is essentially the same as Option 1, 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 below. 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.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.1
08/27/2024
Figure 6: Option 2: Turn Restrictions Alternative B
 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

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.1
08/27/2024
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 below.

Figure 7: Option 3: One Way Street
 Option 4: Full or Partial Street Closure
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

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.1
08/27/2024
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. Note, the applicant’s consultant did not prepare a corresponding figure for Option 4.  Option 5: Additional Access to Sand Creek Road
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. Note, the applicant’s did not prepare a corresponding figure for Option 5.
 Planning Commission Discussion of Options
The Planning Commission reviewed the options and determined that none of them reduced existing traffic that turns left (south) onto St. Regis Avenue. Staff explained that the options were designed to reduce the project’s traffic on St.

Regis Avenue and that the applicant is not responsible for solving existing traffic issues or concerns. The Planning Commission discussed many options, including closing St. Regis completely and time restrictions on westbound left-turns from San Jose Avenue onto St. Regis Avenue.

Traffic
The Planning Commission expressed concerns with the use of a traffic study from 2020. Staff explained that the traffic counts conducted were still valid because of the limited changes in the immediate vicinity. Further, the traffic study looked at a significantly larger version of the project so any impacts would likely be reduced from what was identified in the study. Finally, staff explained that CEQA no longer allows analysis of environmental impacts based on level of service (LOS), and currently uses

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.1
08/27/2024
a methodology based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The CEQA analysis of traffic and transportation can be found beginning on page 245 of the REIR, which can be accessed by clicking on the following link and scrolling to “Bridle Gate:” https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/communitydevelopment/planning/ceqa-documents.

Parks
The Planning Commission had concerns that the proposed project includes two parks rather than a central larger park. 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 park2.

The smaller park is Parcel G, which encompasses 2.49 acres and will also be designed as a neighborhood park. 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.

Staff explained that the Parcel A park is consistent with the General Plan and to require a larger centrally located park would require a General Plan Amendment, which the City cannot require the developer to do. Staff further explained that having two parks allows greater access for the entire subdivision and described various park programming that might be placed in each park. In addition, there is no objective standard requiring one larger park.

Affordable Housing Locations
The applicant provided a preliminary concept of the locations of the affordable units within the subdivision at the Planning Commission hearing at the request of staff (Attachment 15); however, staff was not able to review the plan before the hearing.

At the hearing, staff noted that, should the project be approved, the final location of

2 According to the City’s Parks, Trails & Recreation Master Plan Update (p. 22), neighborhood parks are parks that typically serve the surrounding neighborhood for multiple uses. Park development may include play areas, small fields, benches, picnic tables, and improved paths but do not include restroom facilities. Geographic range of users is generally up to one-half-mile as the crow flies.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.1
08/27/2024
the units would be determined as part of the Affordable Housing Agreement with the City Council. The Planning Commission suggested that the units be further spread throughout the subdivision when it was reviewed by City Council. The conceptual plan provided by the applicant does not distribute the units throughout the development as required by the Affordable Housing Ordinance. A condition on the VTSM (Condition #20) requires compliance with the Affordable Housing Ordinance, including its provisions as to spacing of the affordable units.

Hillside Preservation
The Commission expressed concerns that PD-36 was designed to preserve hillsides and that the proposed project would be constructed in a manner that does not preserve the hillside, which is inconsistent with the General Plan. Staff explained that the General Plan policy focuses on the unnecessary grading of a hillside.

Noise
The Commission discussed the required noise mitigation and questioned the adequacy of the analysis, the varying heights of the wall, and the adequacy of the STC rating. Commissioners expressed concern that in order to meet the standards, windows must remain closed. Staff explained the methodology of the noise analysis, as well as the applicable City noise standards. The Commission noted that these homeowners would be aware of the noise situation when purchasing a home. The CEQA analysis of noise can be found beginning on page 222 of the REIR, which can be accessed by clicking on the following link and scrolling to “Bridle Gate:” https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/communitydevelopment/planning/ceqa-documents.

EIR
The Planning Commission expressed concerns regarding the number of potentially significant impacts identified in the EIR. Staff explained that the document they were referring to was the Initial Study prepared to determine areas that required further analysis in the EIR. Each of the environmental areas were analyzed in the EIR and, if necessary, mitigation measures were imposed to reduce the impacts to a less-thansignificant level. The EIR did not identify any significant and unavoidable impacts.

The Commission specifically questioned the impacts of abandoned oil wells. Staff explained that the wells have been abandoned to the standards of the State of California and were revisited again prior to the preparation of the EIR and found to be in compliance. Mitigation measures are included to require no structures within a 10-foot radius around the wells as required by the BMC and to require disclosure of the wells to future owners.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.1
08/27/2024
Questions were also raised regarding the adequacy of the biological mitigation measures and the loss of habitat. Staff explained that the purpose of the HCP is to cumulatively be able to purchase habitat that would not be fragmented and allow adequate preservation of habitat.

The REIR for the project can be accessed by clicking on the following link and scrolling to “Bridle Gate:” https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/communitydevelopment/planning/ceqa-documents.

Landscape and Defensible Space
The Commission raised concerns regarding defensible space around the homes and whether homeowners will be able to obtain insurance if there is not sufficient defensible space around the homes, particularly related to the proposed front yard landscaping. The Commission ultimately wanted to ensure that homes would be able to procure insurance, and therefore wanted to add a condition of approval to require a minimum of five feet of defensible space around the homes. Additionally, the Commission discussed the concern that the proposed trees may cause the sidewalks to buckle over time.

Zoning Standards
The Planning Commission noted that they were concerned with the application of the PD-36 Sub Area C standards and noted that Sub Area D standards are objective and would also be consistent with the General Plan. As noted above under the Zoning discussion, staff explained that the court hearing the lawsuit did not have objection to the imposition of the Sub Area C standards, but did not explicitly address the Sub Area D standards. The PD-36 Zoning standards can be found at the following link:
https://ecode360.com/43621934.

Planning Commission Action
After deliberation, including the discussion mentioned above, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the proposed project. Because a denial does not require CEQA review, the Planning Commission took no action regarding the EIR.

The Planning Commission provided findings for denial which were incorporated into the resolution (Attachment 6).

CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS
Several resolutions are attached which provide the City Council with two options for the proposed Bridle Gate project.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.1
08/27/2024
 Option 1: Deny the Project:

Attachment 2 is a draft resolution that would deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of the project. The draft resolution denies the proposed vesting tentative subdivision map and the design review. The resolution further notes that CEQA is not required for denial and therefore takes no action related to the REIR. The draft resolution includes the list of required findings that must be made for the project. The City Council will need to determine which of these findings cannot be made based upon the evidence and the facts in the record. If the Council opts for Option 1, staff would recommend that the City Council provide direction to staff regarding the evidence to support the findings and staff would then bring a final resolution back to the City Council for adoption.  Option 2: Approve the Project
Attachments 3 through 5 are draft resolutions that would uphold the appeal, overturn the Planning Commission’s decision and approve the project. Attachment 3 certifies the EIR. Attachment 4 approves the vesting tentative subdivision map, including findings of fact and conditions of approval. Attachment 5 approves the design review, including findings of fact and conditions of approval. These resolutions were originally included in the Planning Commission packet based upon the staff recommendation for approval and have been modified to include recitations related to Planning Commission action and the appeal.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Not applicable.

PREVIOUS ACTION
Previous Actions are included as Attachment 1.

DATE OF NOTICE
The City of Brentwood published a public hearing notice in the Brentwood Press and mailed it to all property owners within 300 feet of the site on August 16, 2024.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The Bridle Gate Project has been previously proposed and evaluated in past EIRs. A new project-level 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

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.1
08/27/2024
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-thansignificant levels. All mitigation measures not addressed by the 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 13), 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. Draft City Council Resolution Denying VTSM 9586 and DR 21-010

3. Draft City Council Resolution Certifying the EIR

4. Draft City Council Resolution Approving VTSM 9586

5. Draft City Council Resolution Approving DR 21-010

6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 23-032 (adopted July 16, 2024)

7. Planning Commission Staff Report without attachments (July 16, 2024)

8. Final Revised EIR (see link embedded on page 19 of the staff report)

9. Draft Revised EIR (see link embedded on page 19x of the staff report)

10. VTSM 9586 and Preliminary Grading & Utility Plan

11. Bridle Gate Design Review Booklet

12. Preliminary Landscape Plans

13. Raney Memorandum on Traffic Calming Options (July 9, 2024)

14. City Council Ordinance No. 1014

15. Preliminary Affordable Housing Site Layout

ATTACMENT 1

PREVIOUS ACTIONS
Previous actions related to this agenda item that were taken by the Planning Commission and City 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 April 19, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on a request for a General Plan Amendment (GPA 01-01), a Rezone (RZ 05-04), a Development Agreement (DA 04-02), a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (VTSM 8606) for 166 residential lots, and a Design Review (DR 01-02) for the first iteration of the Bridle Gate project (“2006 Project”) and continued the item to a date uncertain.
 On April 27, 2005, Discovery Builders appealed the Planning Commission continuance to the City Council.
 On May 24, 2005, the City Council continued a public hearing on the appeal to its meeting of June 14, 2005, due to noticing requirements.  On June 14, 2005, the City Council held a public hearing on the appeal and referred the project back to the Planning Commission for additional consideration.
 On November 1, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on a General Plan Amendment (GPA 01-01), a Rezone (RZ 05-04), a Development Agreement (DA 04-02), a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (VTSM 8606) for 166 residential lots, and a Design Review (DR 01-02) for the 2006 Project and requested staff to prepare the necessary resolution for denial of the general plan amendment and rezone.
 On November 15, 2005, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 05-82 denying General Plan Amendment No. 01-01 and Rezone No. 05-04.  On January 10, 2006, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the appeal by Discovery Builders and directed staff to prepare the necessary resolutions for approval of the appeal.
 On May 23, 2006, the City Council held a continued public hearing on the appeal and approved the mitigated negative declaration, General Plan amendment, and introduced and waived the first reading of the ordinance for the Rezone, by Resolution Nos. 2006-124 and 2006-125 and Ordinance No. 827, respectively, and referred the development agreement, vesting

tentative subdivision map, and design review application back to the Planning Commission for action.
 On June 6, 2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and approved Development Agreement No. 04-02, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8506, and Design Review No. 01-12 by Resolution Nos. 06-47, 06- 48, and 06-49, respectively for the 2006 Project.
 On July 22, 2014, the City Council adopted a resolution amending the City’s General Plan and designating the project site as R-LD (Residential LowDensity).  On November 10, 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 960, which among other things replaced the Planned Development map for the project site, PD-36, which map previously denoted the various subareas within PD36, with a map that outlined the entire area of PD-36 and did not include any internal subarea boundaries.
 In June 2017, Discovery Builders, Inc., submitted an application to the City of Brentwood seeking approval of a General Plan amendment (GPA 17-001), a rezone (RZ 17-004), a vesting tentative subdivision map (VTSM 8506), design review for 252 single-family homes (DR 17-007), and design review for up to 258 multi-family homes (DR 17-008) (the “2020 Project”), along with the required environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
 In 2019, West Coast Home Builders, Inc. (“WCHB”), submitted an application to the City of Brentwood seeking approval of a Development Agreement (DA 19-001) as a further element of the 2020 Project, as a co-applicant with Discovery Builders, Inc.
 On August 18, 2020, the Planning Commission was scheduled to hold a public hearing to consider the applicant’s request for certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Amendment No. 17-001, Rezone No. 17-004, Development Agreement No. 19-001, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8506, Design Review No. 17-007, and Design Review No. 17-008 for the 2020 Project. However, on August 18, 2020, the City received notice that Pacific Gas & Electric had planned for potential rolling blackouts in and around the city of Brentwood on that day. Given that the Planning Commission meeting was being conducted remotely as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the possibility that a blackout could disrupt a remote meeting, City staff and the applicant agreed to request that the item be continued to the Planning Commission’s September 1, 2020 meeting. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to continue the public hearing on the matter to its meeting of September 1, 2020.
 On September 1, 2020, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the 2020 Project and voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council

deny General Plan Amendment No. 17-001, Rezone No. 17-004, Development Agreement No. 19-001, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8506, Design Review No. 17-007, and Design Review No. 17-008 for the 2020 Project, as well as take no action to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project.
 The City Council was scheduled to hold a public hearing on the 2020 Project at a special meeting set for September 15, 2020, and all requisite public hearing notices were provided accordingly. However, on that day, the applicant notified the City that it wished to continue the City Council’s public hearing on the matter to February 9, 2021.
 In December 2020, the Applicant notified the City that it wished to modify the 2020 Project by no longer including a request to include multi-family uses. The Applicant ultimately submitted a revised proposed VTSM 8506 on January 29, 2021, formally amending the application for the 2020 Project.

As a result of this amendment, the applicant and City agreed to move the City Council’s planned public hearing on the 2020 Project, as revised, from February 9, 2021, to March 9, 2021.
 On March 9, 2021, the City Council held a public hearing on the revised 2020 Project and voted unanimously to direct staff to prepare a resolution to deny the project.
 On March 23, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-36 denying applications for a General Plan Amendment (GPA 17-001), Rezone (RZ 17-004), Development Agreement (DA 19-001), Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (VTSM 8506), and Design Review for Single-Family Development (DR 17-007) for the 2020 Project, and taking no further action on the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 2020 Project.  On June 7, 2021, Discovery Builders, Inc. filed a lawsuit challenging the City’s denial of the 2020 Project, and also alleging constitutional violations based on the City’s denial (“2020 Project Litigation”).  On October 22, 2021, WCHB Development, LLC submitted an SB 330 preliminary application and formal development applications seeking approval of a vesting tentative subdivision map and design review to develop the Bridle Gate site with a 292-unit residential project (“Current Project”).  On June 3, 2022, the City provided notice that WCHB Development, LLC’s application was complete, and that City staff would notify them of any inconsistencies with applicable standards within 60 days in accordance with state law.
 On August 2, 2022, as required by state law, the City provided staff’s written assessment of the Project’s inconsistencies with applicable standards for PD36 zoning and additional regulations.

 On August 31, 2022, Discovery Builders, Inc, and WCHB filed a lawsuit regarding the City’s processing of the current project application, among other things, requesting the court to require the City to deem the Project consistent with applicable regulations (“Current Project Litigation”).  On November 1, 2022, the 2020 Project Litigation was resolved with the Court entering judgment in the City’s favor.
 On April 27, 2023, the Court held a hearing on the Current Project Litigation, where the court rejected Discovery Builders and WCHB’s contention that none of the PD-36 standards, specifically the subarea C standards, apply.

Although the City prevailed on this point, the lawsuit is still active, with certain claims against the City still pending.
 On September 5, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Revised EIR, VTSM 9586, and DR 21-010. After closing the public hearing and deliberating, the Planning Commission continued the item to an unspecified future meeting.
 On July 16, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Revised EIR, VTSM 9586, and DR 21-010. After closing the public hearing and deliberating, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 23-032, denying VTSM 9586 and DR 21-010, and taking no further action on the Revised EIR.

CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 24-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BRENTWOOD (1) DENYING VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION
MAP NO. 9586 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF AN APPROXIMATELY
135-ACRE SITE; (2) DENYING THE DESIGN REVIEW OF 13 HOME

PLANS, FOR THE BRIDLE GATE PROJECT, LOCATED GENERALLY
WEST OF THE SAND CREEK ROAD AND THE STATE ROUTE 4
INTERCHANGE (APN 019-082-009 and 010); AND (3) TAKING

NO FURTHER ACTION ON THE REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE PROJECT.

WHEREAS, on October 22, 2021, WCHB Development, LLC, (the “Permittee”) submitted an application to the City of Brentwood requesting approval of (1) a vesting tentative subdivision map (No. 9586) to subdivide approximately 135 acres into 286 single-family residential parcels, two park parcels, two bio-retention areas for stormwater treatment, one open space parcel, as well as several parcels for landscaping and pedestrian access, and a designated remainder, and (2) design review (DR 21-010) for thirteen home plans to be constructed on the single-family residential lots (the “Project,” modified as noted below); and WHEREAS, the Project is proposed to be located on a roughly 135 acre site bounded by the proposed Sand Creek Road Extension to the north, State Route 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, with a small segment of existing San Jose Avenue bounding the site at its farthest southeastern corner (the “Project Site”); and
WHEREAS, the City referred the Project to various departments and agencies for review and recommendations; and
WHEREAS, in August 2022, the Permittee initiated legal proceedings against the City in the Contra Costa Superior Court (the “Court”) pertaining to the processing of the Project, alleging, among other things, that the PD-36 zoning standards applicable to the Project were not objective; and
WHEREAS, on June 30, 2023, the Permittee revised its application by submitting a modified proposed vesting tentative subdivision map that increased the minimum lot size for all parcels to 5,000 square feet, and decreased the number of units to 272; and
WHEREAS, on August 3, 2023, the Permittee further revised its application by submitting a modified master plotting plan, floor area matrix, and lot coverage matrix, with 50 foot lot widths; and
WHEREAS, the City distributed a Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners of record within 300 feet of the Project Site and published it in the Brentwood

Press on August 25, 2023, and the Permittee posted the Project Site with the required signage in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Final Revised Environment Impact Report (REIR), including a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for this Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA,” codified at Public Resources Code Section 15000, et seq., and as further governed by the State CEQA Guidelines, found at 14 CCR 21000, et seq.); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this project at its regular meeting of September 5, 2023, to consider the Project, including this vesting tentative subdivision map and design review application, and considered the staff report, supporting documents, public testimony, and all appropriate information submitted with the proposed Project and studied the compatibility of this request with adjacent land uses; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on September 5, 2023, continued the item to a date uncertain and directed staff to work with the Permittee 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); and
WHEREAS, on behalf of the Permittee, Abrams Associates reviewed five potential options for minimizing additional traffic on St. Regis Avenue, which involve various turn restrictions and circulation modifications; and WHEREAS, DKS Associates analyzed the potential impact of the options on the REIR Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) discussion, which analysis was peer reviewed by Kimley-Horn and ultimately analyzed by the City’s environmental consultant (“Raney”), who determined that none of the options would create a new significant environmental impact or increase in the severity of previously identified impacts; and WHEREAS, the City distributed a Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners of record within 300 feet of the Project Site and published it in the Brentwood Press on July 5, 2024, and the Permittee posted the Project Site with the required signage in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this project at its regular meeting of July 16, 2024, and considered the staff report, supporting documents, public testimony, and all appropriate information submitted with the proposed Project and studied the compatibility of this request with adjacent land uses, and adopted a resolution denying the Project and taking no CEQA action; and WHEREAS, on July 24, 2024 the Permittee appealed the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council in accordance with Chapter 17.880 of the Brentwood Municipal Code; and

WHEREAS, the City distributed a Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners of record within 300 feet of the Project Site and published it in the Brentwood Press on August 16, 2024, and the Permittee posted the Project Site with the required signage in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this project at its regular meeting of August 27, 2024, to consider the Project, including this vesting tentative subdivision map (VTSM 9586) and design review (DR 21-010) application and considered the staff report, supporting documents, public testimony, all appropriate information submitted with the proposed Project, and studied the compatibility of this request with adjacent land uses.

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

1. Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and are hereby adopted in full.

2. California Environmental Quality Act. With respect to CEQA, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15270(a), “CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.” Therefore, this action denying the Project approvals is exempt from CEQA and the City Council takes no action to certify the REIR. Further, the REIR does not address the following impacts from the Project:

3. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map.

A. Findings. With respect to the findings required for a vesting tentative subdivision map, the City Council considered all of the required findings set forth in the Brentwood Municipal Code Section 16.050.040.B and Government Code section 66474 and hereby finds that the following findings cannot be met:

1. That the proposed map is consistent with the community development plan and any applicable specific plans.

The proposed vesting tentative subdivision map is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan in that the project does not conform to:

A.

B.

Further, the proposed vesting tentative subdivision map is inconsistent with the Brentwood Municipal Code in that the project does not conform to:

C.

2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the community development plan and any applicable specific plans.

The Project Site is not within any applicable specific plan area. The design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is inconsistent with General Plan in that:

A.

B.

3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development.

The site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed in that:

A.

B.

4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development in that:

A.

B.

5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat unless an Environmental Impact Report was prepared with respect to the project and a finding was made pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Environmental Impact Report.

The design of the subdivision is likely to cause substantial environmental damage in that:

A.

B.

6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely

to cause serious public health problems.

The design of the subdivision is likely to cause serious public health problems in that:

A.

B.

7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.

The design of the subdivision will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large or access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision, in that:

A.

B.

B. Denial. Therefore, the City Council hereby denies Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 9586.

4. Design Review.

A. Findings. With respect to the findings required for design review, the City Council considered all of the required findings set forth in the Brentwood Municipal Code Section 17.820.007 and hereby finds that the following findings cannot be met:

1. The proposed development shall create a well-composed urban design, harmoniously related to other facilities in the immediate area and to the total setting as seen from key vantage points in the community.

The proposed development does not create a well-composed urban design, harmoniously related to other existing and planned developments in the immediate area and as viewed from key vantage points in the area in that:

A.

B.

2. Elements of design which have significant relationship to the exterior appearance of structures and facilities shall be given special consideration; these elements include but are not limited to height, arrangement on the site, texture, lighting, material, color, signs,

landscaping, size, bulk and scale, and appurtenances.

The design elements do not have significant relationship to the exterior appearance of the structures in that:

A.

B.

3. The proposed development shall be of a quality and character appropriate to, and serving to protect the value of, private and public investments in the immediate area.

The proposed development is not of a quality and character of design appropriate to, and serving to protect the value of, private and public investments in the immediate area in that:

A.

B.

4. Where the proposed development is located in an area for which a specific plan, planned development, neighborhood plan or precise plan has been adopted by the city council, the design of the development shall conform in all significant respects with such plans.

The proposed development is located within PD-36, and the design of the development does not conform in all significant respects with PD36 in that:

A.

B.

5. The proposed development shall conform with all requirements for landscaping, screening, parking, usable open space and off-street loading as set forth in Title 17 of the Brentwood Municipal Code.

The proposed development does not conform with all requirements for landscaping, screening, parking and usable open space in that:

A.

B.

6. The siting and internal arrangement of all structures and other facilities on the site, including the land uses, internal circulation, off-street parking and loading facilities, lighting, signing and access to and from

public rights-of-way, shall be conducive to an orderly, attractive, efficient and harmonious development.

The siting and internal arrangement of all structures and other facilities on the site, including the land uses, internal circulation, off-street parking and loading facilities, lighting, signing and access to and from public rights-of-way, are not conducive to an orderly, attractive, efficient and harmonious development in that:

A.

B.

7. The proposed development shall not have adverse environmental effects on adjacent developments, existing or potential, by reason of conflicts in land use, topography or traffic.

The proposed development would have adverse environmental effects on adjacent developments, existing or potential, by reason of conflicts in land use, topography or traffic in that:

A.

B.

8. “The City of Brentwood Design Guidelines” Draft, dated February 1, 2001, and any other applicable specific design criteria or standards set out in this title or other city ordinance.

The proposed project is inconsistent with design criteria or standards set out in the City of Brentwood Design Guidelines in that:

A.

B.

9. All applicable regulations of the zoning ordinance and other city ordinances, policies or resolutions.

The proposed project is inconsistent with regulation of the zoning ordinance or other City ordinance, policies or resolutions in that:

A.

B. Denial. Therefore, the City Council hereby denies Design Review No. 21- 010.

5. The applications for VTSM 9586 and DR 21-010 are thus denied without prejudice. The applicant may submit a revised application to the City addressing the findings of the City Council as documented above.

6. Housing Accountability Act Findings.

With respect to Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(1), the City Council finds that these findings need not be made, as the City Council has determined, as set forth above, that the project does not conform to the objective standards of the General Plan or the applicable zoning.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at its regular meeting of August 27, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

RECUSE:

APPROVED:
____________________________
Joel Bryant
Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Margaret Wimberly
City Clerk

CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 24-XX

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

BRENTWOOD CERTIFYING THE REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT REPORT FOR THE BRIDLE GATE PROJECT AND

ADOPTING CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

FINDINGS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of Brentwood (“City”) received an application from WCHB Development, LLC (“Permittee”) seeking City approval of a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (VTSM) and Design Review for a residential development; and WHEREAS, the Project site consists of approximately 135 acres located at the western terminus of Sand Creek Road, to the west of State Route (SR) 4 in the City of Brentwood, California. The site is identified by Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 019-082-009 and 019-082-010; and
WHEREAS, the Project would include subdivision of the site for development of 272 single-family homes, as well as associated improvements within the Project site, including 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 would be designated a remainder and remain undeveloped; and WHEREAS, the City, as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), has completed the Final Revised Environmental Impact Report (“Final REIR” or “REIR”) for the Project. The Final REIR has State Clearinghouse No. 2022120683; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Revised Environmental Impact Report (“Draft REIR”) was released for public and agency review on May 26, 2023. The Draft REIR assesses the potential environmental effects of implementation of the Project, identifies means to eliminate or reduce potential adverse impacts, and evaluates a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City received 53 comments on the Draft REIR during the public review period, and one comment after the close of the public review period.

Responses to each comment letter were prepared, and are available in Chapter 2, Responses to Comments, of the Final REIR; and
WHEREAS, the Final REIR comprises the Draft REIR together with one additional volume that includes the comments on the Draft REIR submitted by interested public agencies and members of the public; written responses to the environmental issues raised in those comments; revisions to the text of the Draft REIR reflecting changes made in response to comments and other information; and other minor changes to the text of the Draft REIR. The Final REIR is hereby incorporated in this document by reference; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this project at its regular meeting of September 5, 2023, to consider the Project, including the Final REIR; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued the item to a date uncertain and directed 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); and
WHEREAS, on behalf of the Applicant, Abrams Associates reviewed five potential options for minimizing additional traffic on St. Regis Avenue, which involve various turn restrictions and circulation modifications; and WHEREAS, DKS Associates analyzed the potential impact of the options on the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) discussion in the REIR, which analysis was peer reviewed by Kimley-Horn and ultimately analyzed by the City’s environmental consultant (“Raney”), who determined that none of the options would create a new significant environmental impact or increase in the severity of previously identified impacts; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this project at its regular meeting of July 16, 2024, and denied the Project, taking no action related to CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant appealed the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council on July 24, 2024, in accordance with Chapter 17.880 of the Brentwood Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this project at its regular meeting of August 27, 2024, to consider the Project, including the Final REIR.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND DETERMINED, by the City Council of the City of Brentwood as follows:

I. CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL REIR
The City Council of the City of Brentwood (the “City Council”) certifies that it has been presented with the Final REIR and that it has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final REIR prior to making the following findings in Section II, below.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15090 (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15090) the City Council certifies that the Final REIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council certifies the Final REIR for the Project as described above.

The City Council further certifies that the Final REIR reflects its independent judgment and analysis.

II. FINDINGS
Having received, reviewed, and considered the Final REIR and other information in the record of proceedings, the City Council hereby adopts the following findings in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines:

Part A: Findings regarding the environmental review process and the contents of the Final REIR.

Part B: Findings regarding the significant environmental impacts of the Project and the mitigation measures for those impacts identified in the Final REIR and adopted as conditions of approval.

Part C: Findings regarding the reasonableness of the range of alternatives evaluated in the Final REIR.

The City Council certifies that these findings are based on full appraisal of all viewpoints, including all comments received up to the date of adoption of these findings, concerning the environmental issues identified and discussed in the Final REIR. The City Council adopts the findings in Parts A, B, and C for the Project.

In addition to the findings regarding environmental impacts and mitigation measures, Part D, below, identifies the custodian and location of the record of proceedings, as required by CEQA.

Part E describes the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project. As described in Part E, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as set forth in Exhibit A to these findings.

Part A. Environmental Review Process
Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting
On December 29, 2022, the City issued a Notice of Preparation announcing the intended preparation of the Draft REIR and describing its proposed scope. The Notice of Preparation had a 30-day review period until January 30, 2023. The City held a public scoping meeting for the Draft REIR on January 17, 2023, for the purpose of informing the public and receiving comments on the scope of the environmental analysis to be prepared for the Project. The scoping meeting was held at the City of Brentwood Council Chambers located at 150 City Park Way, Brentwood, California, 94513.

The City received seven comment letters during the comment period on the Notice of Preparation, from state, regional, and local agencies and organizations. In addition, verbal comments were received at the public scoping meeting held on January 17, 2023.

Preparation of the EIR
The City completed the Draft REIR for the Project and, beginning on May 26, 2023, the City made the Draft REIR available for review and comment. A notice of availability was published and the period for receipt of comments on the Draft EIR remained open for 45 days. The Draft REIR was available for public review on the City’s website at: https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/communitydevelopment/planning/ceqa-documents. During the comment period, the City received 53 comment letters, including three from State and local agencies and 50 from members of the public. In addition, one comment letter was received after the close of the public comment period.

The Final REIR was completed and available to commenting public agencies on August 25, 2023.

The Final REIR contains all of the comments received during and immediately after the public comment period, together with written responses to significant environmental issues raised in those comments, which were prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.

The City Council finds and determines that the Final REIR provides adequate, good faith, and reasoned responses to all comments raising significant environmental issues.

Absence of Significant New Information
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires that a lead agency recirculate an EIR for further review and comment when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of a Draft EIR, but before certification. Such new information includes:

1. A new significant environmental impact that would result from the project (or any alternative) or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.

2. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.

3. A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project (or an alternative), but the project's proponents decline to adopt it.

4. The Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

Having reviewed all the information in the record, the City Council finds as follows. No new or substantial changes to the Draft REIR were proposed as a result of the public comment process. The Final REIR responds to comments and makes only minor technical changes, clarifications or additions to the Draft REIR. The minor changes, clarifications, or additions to the Draft REIR do not identify any new significant impacts or substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impacts, and do not include any new mitigation measures that would have a potentially significant impact. Therefore, the City Council finds that recirculation of the REIR is not required.

Differences of Opinion Regarding the Impacts of the Project In making its determination to certify the Final REIR and to approve the Project, the City Council recognizes that a range of technical and scientific opinions exist with respect to certain environmental issues. The City Council acknowledges that it has acquired an understanding of the range of this technical and scientific opinion by its review of the Draft REIR, the comments received on the Draft REIR and the responses to those comments in the Final REIR, as well as testimony, letters, and reports regarding the Final REIR and its own experience and expertise in these environmental issues. The City Council acknowledges that it has reviewed and considered, as a whole, the evidence and analysis presented in the Draft REIR, the evidence and analysis presented in the comments on the Draft REIR, the evidence and analysis presented in the Final REIR, the information submitted on the Final REIR, and the reports prepared by the experts who prepared the REIR, by the City’s consultants, and by staff, addressing those comments. The City Council acknowledges that it has gained a comprehensive and well-rounded understanding of the environmental issues presented by the Project. The City Council acknowledges that in turn, this understanding has enabled the City Council to make its decisions after weighing and considering the various viewpoints on these important issues. The City Council accordingly certifies that its findings are based on full appraisal of all the evidence contained in the Final REIR, as well as the evidence and other information in the record addressing the Final REIR.

Part B. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The City Council acknowledges that these findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of the City Council regarding the environmental impacts of the Project and the mitigation measures identified by the Final REIR and adopted by the City Council as conditions of approval for the Project.

1. Significant or Potentially Significant Impacts Mitigated to a Lessthan-Significant Level.

The following significant and potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project, including cumulative impacts, are being mitigated to a less-thansignificant level and are set out below. Pursuant to Section 21081(a)(1) of CEQA and Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, as to each such impact, the City Council, based on the evidence in the record before it, finds that changes or alterations incorporated into the Project by means of conditions or otherwise, mitigate, avoid or

substantially lessen these significant or potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project to a less-than-significant level. The basis for the finding for each identified impact is set forth below.

Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG), and Energy Impact 4.1-7 Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address this impact:

4.1-7(a) Implement Mitigation Measure 4.5-3.

4.1-7(b) Prior to the approval of project improvement plans, the applicant shall implement the following measure:
 Consistent with the BAAQMD’s Buildings standard a.,
natural gas shall be prohibited in proposed structures.

Compliance with the foregoing measure shall be ensured by the City of Brentwood Community Development Department.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.1-7(a) and (b) would reduce GHG emissions sufficient to achieve the thresholds of significance and minimize conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs through the inclusion of a full intersection on a revised tentative map and by prohibiting natural gas use in the proposed structures.

Biological Resources
Impact 4.2-3 Impacts to California red legged frog either directly (e.g., cause a wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate an animal community) or through substantial habitat modifications.

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address this impact:

4.2-3(a) ECCC HCP/NCCP Section 6.4.3 Species-Level Measure: Prior to the commencement of construction activities, the project proponent shall provide written notification to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the East Contra Costa County Habitat

Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (ECCC HCP/NCCP) Implementing Entity, including site photos and California red-legged frog (CRLF) habitat assessment. The project proponent shall also notify these parties of the approximate date of removal of the CRLF breeding habitat at least 30 days prior to this removal to allow USFWS or CDFW staff to translocate individuals, if requested. USFWS or CDFW must notify the project proponent of their intent to translocate CRLF within 14 days of receiving notice from the project proponent. The applicant must allow USFWS or CDFW access to the site prior to construction if they request it.

In accordance with the ECCC HCP/NCCP, restrictions on the nature of the disturbance or the date of the disturbance shall not be assessed on the project, unless CDFW or USFWS notify the project proponent of their intent to translocate individuals within the required time period. In this case, the project proponent must coordinate the timing of disturbance of the breeding habitat to allow USFWS or CDFW to translocate the individuals. USFWS and CDFW shall be allowed 45 days to translocate individuals from the date the first written notification was submitted by the project proponent (or a longer period agreed to by the project proponent, USFWS, and CDFW). A report detailing compliance with the provisions established herein shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Brentwood Community Development Department.

4.2-3(b) ECCC HCP/NCCP Section 6.3.3 Measure: Prior to implementation of a covered activity, the project applicant shall develop and submit a Construction Monitoring Plan to the City of Brentwood Community Development Department and the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy for review and approval, detailing the methods in which the proposed project would avoid potential impacts to Covered Species during project construction, including CRLF, Swainson’s hawk, golden eagle, western burrowing owl, tricolored blackbird, and San Joaquin kit fox. Elements of the Construction Monitoring Plan shall include the following:
 Results of planning and preconstruction surveys;
 Description of avoidance and minimization measures to be implemented, including a description of project-specific refinements to the measures or additional measures not
included in the ECCC HCP/NCCP;
 Description of monitoring activities, including monitoring frequency and duration, and specific activities to be
monitored; and
 Description of the on-site authority of the construction monitor to modify implementation of the activity.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.2-3(a) and (b) would reduce impacts to California red legged frog either directly (e.g., cause a wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate an animal community) or through
substantial habitat modifications to a less-than-significant level through ensuring consistency with the ECCC HCP/NCCP by
requiring a habitat assessment and a Construction Monitoring Plan.

Impact 4.2-4 Impacts to Swainson’s hawk either directly (e.g., cause a wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate an animal community) or through substantial habitat modifications.

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address this impact:

4.2-4(a) ECCC HCP/NCCP Section 6.4.3 Species-Level Measure: Prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities associated with the proposed project during the nesting season (March 15 to September 15), a qualified biologist shall conduct a
preconstruction survey, at most, one month prior to construction to establish whether Swainson’s hawk nests within 1,000 feet of the project site are occupied. If potentially occupied nests within 1,000 feet are off the project site, then their occupancy shall be determined by observation from public roads or by observations of Swainson’s hawk activity (e.g., foraging) near the project site.

If nests are occupied, minimization measures and construction monitoring shall be required, as set forth in Mitigation Measure

4.2-4(b). A report detailing the methodology and results of the survey shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Brentwood Community Development Department.

4.2-4(b) ECCC HCP/NCCP Section 6.4.3 Species-Level Measure: During the nesting season (March 15 to September 15), covered activities associated with the proposed project within 1,000 feet of occupied nests or nests under construction shall be prohibited to prevent nest abandonment. If site-specific conditions or the nature of the covered activity (e.g., steep topography, dense vegetation, limited activities) indicate that a smaller buffer could be used, the ECCC HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity shall
coordinate with CDFW/USFWS to determine the appropriate buffer size.

If young fledge prior to September 15, covered activities can proceed normally. If the active nest site is shielded from view and noise from the project site by other development, topography, or

other features, the project applicant can apply to the
Implementing Entity for a waiver of this avoidance measure. Any waiver must also be approved by USFWS and CDFW. While the nest is occupied, activities outside the buffer can take place. A report detailing compliance with the provisions established herein shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Brentwood Community Development Department.

All active nest trees shall be preserved on site, if feasible. Nest trees, including non-native trees, lost to covered activities shall be mitigated by the project proponent, in accordance with the requirements set forth in Mitigation Measure 4.2-4(c).

4.2-4(c) ECCC HCP/NCCP Section 6.4.3 Species-Level Measure: Prior to submittal of the of the final improvement plans, the project applicant shall demonstrate that the final project design will not result in the loss of non-riparian trees in areas proposed for disturbance. If the final project design results in the loss of nonriparian Swainson’s hawk nest trees, such trees shall be mitigated by the project proponent by:
 If feasible on-site, planting 15 saplings for every nest tree lost with the objective of having at least five mature trees established for every nest tree lost according to the
requirements listed below.

AND either
1) Pay the Implementing Entity an additional fee to
purchase, plant, maintain, and monitor 15 saplings on
the HCP/NCCP Preserve System for every tree lost
according to the requirements listed below, OR
2) The project proponent shall plant, maintain, and
monitor 15 saplings for every tree lost on-site or in offsite areas, which shall be approved by the Implementing Entity (e.g., within an HCP/NCCP
Preserve or existing open space linked to HCP/NCCP
preserves), according to the requirements listed below. o Tree survival shall be monitored at least
annually for five years, then every other year
until year 12. All trees lost during the first five
years shall be replaced. Success shall be
reached at the end of 12 years if at least five
trees per tree lost survive without supplemental
irrigation or protection from herbivory. Trees
must also survive for at least three years
without irrigation.

o Irrigation and fencing to protect from deer and
other herbivores may be needed for the first
several years to ensure maximum tree survival.
o Native trees suitable for the project site shall be
planted. When site conditions permit, a variety
of native trees shall be planted for each tree
lost to provide trees with different growth rates,
maturation, and lifespan, and to provide a
variety of tree canopy structures for Swainson’s
hawk. The variety shall help to ensure that nest
trees are available in the short term (five to 10
years for cottonwoods and willows) and in the
long term (e.g., valley oak, sycamore) and shall
also minimize the temporal loss of nest trees.
o Riparian woodland restoration conducted as a
result of covered activities (i.e., loss of riparian
woodland) can be used to offset the nest tree
planting requirement above, if the nest trees
are riparian species.
o Whenever feasible and when site conditions
permit, trees shall be planted in clumps
together or with existing trees to provide larger
areas of suitable nesting habitat and to create
a natural buffer between nest trees and
adjacent development (if plantings occur on the
development site).
o Whenever feasible, plantings in the project site
shall occur closest to suitable foraging habitat
outside the ECCC HCP/NCCP Urban
Development Area (UDA).
o Trees planted in the HCP/NCCP Preserves or
other approved offsite location shall occur
within the known range of Swainson’s hawk in
the inventory area and as close as possible to
high-quality foraging habitat.

A decrease of the number of years that newly planted nest trees must be monitored shall be at the discretion of the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy and City of Brentwood. A report detailing compliance with the provisions established herein shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Brentwood Community Development Department.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2-4(a) through (c) would reduce impacts to Swainson’s hawk either directly (e.g., cause a wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate an animal community) or through substantial habitat modifications to less-than-significant levels by requiring

compliance with the applicable ECCC HCP/NCCP measures. Such measures include a preconstruction survey conducted by a qualified biologist to identify nests, and appropriate buffers around such nests, as well as measures to maintain trees or plant replacement trees.

Impact 4.2-5 Impacts to golden eagle either directly (e.g., cause a wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate an animal community) or through substantial habitat modifications.

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address this impact:

4.2-5(a) ECCC HCP/NCCP Section 6.4.3 Species-Level Measure: Prior to implementation of covered activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey to establish whether nests of golden eagles are occupied in accordance with the applicable criteria set forth in Section 6.3.1, Planning Surveys, of the ECCC HCP/NCCP. If nests are occupied, minimization requirements and construction monitoring shall be required, as set forth in Mitigation Measures 4.2-5(b) and 4.2-5(c). A report detailing the methodology and results of the survey shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Brentwood Community
Development Department.

4.2-5(b) ECCC HCP/NCCP Section 6.4.3 Species-Level Measure: If active golden eagle nests are identified by the qualified biologist that could be impacted by the proposed project, during project construction, covered activities shall be prohibited within 0.5-mile of active nests. Nests can be built and active at almost any time of the year, although mating and egg incubation occurs from late January through August, with peak activity in March through July.

If site-specific conditions or the nature of the covered activity (e.g., steep topography, dense vegetation, limited activities) indicate that a smaller buffer could be appropriate or that a larger buffer should be implemented, the Implementing Entity shall coordinate with CDFG/USFWS to determine the appropriate buffer size. A report detailing compliance with the provisions established herein shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Brentwood Community Development Department.

4.2-5(c) ECCC HCP/NCCP Section 6.4.3 Species-Level Measure: During project construction, a qualified biologist shall provide on-site construction monitoring to ensure that covered activities do not occur within the non-disturbance buffer zone established around an active golden eagle nest. Although known golden eagle nest sites do not occur within or near the ECCC HCP/NCCP Urban Limit

Line (ULL), covered activities inside and outside of the Preserve System have the potential to disturb golden eagle nest sites.

Construction monitoring shall ensure that direct effects to golden eagles are minimized. A report detailing compliance with the provisions established herein shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Brentwood Community Development Department.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.2-5(a) through (c) would reduce impacts to golden eagle either directly (e.g., cause a wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate an animal community) or through substantial habitat modifications to less-than-significant levels by requiring compliance with the applicable ECCC HCP/NCCP measures. Such measures are associated with occupied nests, appropriate buffer zones around identified nests, and on-site construction monitoring.

Impact 4.2-6 Impacts to western burrowing owl either directly (e.g., cause a wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate an animal community) or through substantial habitat modifications.

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address this impact:

4.2-6(a) ECCC HCP/NCCP Section 6.4.3 Species-Level Measure: Prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities, a USFWS/CDFW-approved biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey in areas identified in the planning surveys completed for the proposed project as having potential burrowing owl habitat.

The preconstruction surveys shall establish the presence or absence of western burrowing owl and/or habitat features and evaluate use by owls, in accordance with CDFW survey guidelines.

On areas where activities are proposed, the biologist shall survey the proposed disturbance footprint and a 500-foot radius from the perimeter of the proposed footprint to identify burrows and owls.

Adjacent parcels under different land ownership shall not be surveyed. Surveys shall take place near sunrise or sunset, in accordance with CDFW guidelines. All burrows or burrowing owls shall be identified and mapped. Surveys shall take place, at most, 30 days prior to construction. During the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), surveys shall document whether burrowing owls are nesting in or directly adjacent to disturbance areas. During the nonbreeding season (September 1 to January 31), surveys shall document whether burrowing owls are using habitat in or directly adjacent to any disturbance area. Survey

results shall be valid only for the season (breeding or nonbreeding) during which the survey is conducted. A report detailing the methodology and results of the survey shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Brentwood Community Development Department.

4.2-6(b) ECCC HCP/NCCP Section 6.4.3 Species-Level Measure: If burrowing owls are found during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), in accordance with the CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, the project proponent shall avoid all nest sites that could be disturbed by project construction during the remainder of the breeding season or while the nest is occupied by adults or young. Avoidance shall include establishment of a non-disturbance buffer zone (as described below). Construction may occur during the breeding season if a qualified biologist monitors the nest and determines that the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or that the juveniles from the occupied burrows have fledged. During the nonbreeding season
(September 1 to January 31), the project proponent shall avoid the owls and the burrows they are using, if possible. Avoidance shall include the establishment of a buffer zone (as described below).

During the breeding season, buffer zones of at least 250 feet in which construction activities cannot occur shall be established around each occupied burrow (nest site). Buffer zones of 160 feet shall be established around each burrow being used during the nonbreeding season. The buffers shall be delineated by highly visible, temporary construction fencing.

If occupied burrows for burrowing owls are not avoided, passive relocation shall be implemented. Owls shall be excluded from burrows in the immediate impact zone and within a 160-foot buffer zone by installing one-way doors in burrow entrances. The doors shall be in place for 48 hours, prior to excavation. The project area shall be monitored daily for one week to confirm that the owl has abandoned the burrow. Whenever possible, burrows shall be excavated using hand tools and refilled to prevent reoccupation. Plastic tubing or a similar structure shall be inserted in the tunnels during excavation to maintain an escape route for any owls inside the burrow. A report detailing compliance with the provisions established herein shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Brentwood Community Development Department.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.2-6(a) and (b) would reduce impacts to western burrowing owl either directly (e.g., cause a wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,

threaten to eliminate an animal community) or through
substantial habitat modifications to less-than-significant levels by requiring compliance with the applicable ECCC HCP/NCCP
measures. The measures require a preconstruction survey conducted by an approved biologist, and any appropriate buffer zones around identified burrows.

Impact 4.2-7 Impacts to white-tailed kite, tricolored blackbird, and nesting birds and raptors protected under the MBTA and CFGC either directly (e.g., cause a wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate an animal community) or through substantial habitat modifications.

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address this impact:

4.2-7(a) Prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities that occur during the nesting season for white-tailed kite (March 15 to August 31), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey, at most, one month prior to construction to establish whether white-tailed kite is nesting in trees within or visible from the site. In the event active nests are found, an initial 300-foot buffer shall be established around the nest tree. Ground disturbance related to covered activities within the buffer shall either be delayed until a qualified biologist determines nesting is complete, or until the applicant consults with the ECCC HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity and CDFW and implements CDFW-approved measures to minimize potential disturbance. A report detailing the methodology and results of the survey and, if applicable, compliance with the provisions established herein shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Brentwood Community Development Department.

4.2-7(b) If possible, any ground disturbance related to covered activities shall occur outside of the general bird nesting season (February 1 to August 31). Alternately, a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey, at most, two weeks prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities. In the event active raptors or tricolored blackbird nests are found, an initial 300-foot buffer shall be established around the nests. In the event nests of other birds are found, an initial 50-foot buffer shall be established around the nest. Ground disturbance related to covered activities within the buffers shall either be delayed until a qualified biologist determines nesting is complete, or until the applicant consults with the ECCC HCP/NCCP Implementing Entity and CDFW and implements CDFW-approved measures to
minimize potential disturbance. A report detailing the
methodology and results of the survey and, if applicable,

compliance with the provisions established herein shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Brentwood Community Development Department.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.2-7(a) and (b) would reduce impacts to white-tailed kite, tricolored blackbird, and nesting birds and raptors protected under the MBTA and CFGC either directly (e.g., cause a wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate an animal community) or through substantial habitat modifications to less-than-significant levels by requiring compliance with the applicable ECCC HCP/NCCP measures concerning a preconstruction survey
conducted by a qualified biologist to identify any on-site nests and applying appropriate buffers.

Impact 4.2-8 Impacts to San Joaquin kit fox either directly (e.g., cause a wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate an animal community) or through substantial habitat modifications.

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address this impact:

4.2-8(a) ECCC HCP/NCCP Section 6.4.3 Species-Level Measure: Prior to any ground disturbance related to covered activities, a USFWS/CDFW-approved biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey in areas identified in the planning surveys conducted for the proposed project as supporting suitable breeding or denning habitat for San Joaquin kit fox. The surveys shall establish the presence or absence of San Joaquin kit foxes and/or suitable dens and evaluate use by kit foxes in accordance with USFWS survey guidelines. Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted within 30 days of ground disturbance. On areas where activities are proposed, the biologist shall survey the proposed disturbance footprint and a 250-foot radius from the perimeter of the proposed footprint to identify San Joaquin kit foxes and/or suitable dens. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership shall not be surveyed. The status of all dens shall be determined and mapped. Written results of preconstruction surveys shall be submitted to USFWS and the City of Brentwood Community
Development Department within five working days after survey completion and before the start of ground disturbance.

Concurrence is not required prior to initiation of covered activities.

4.2-8(b) ECCC HCP/NCCP Section 6.4.3 Species-Level Measure: If San Joaquin kit foxes and/or suitable dens are identified in the survey

area, the following measures shall be implemented, prior to the commencement of project construction:
 If a San Joaquin kit fox den is discovered in the proposed development footprint, the den shall be monitored for three days by a USFWS/CDFW-approved biologist using a
tracking medium or an infrared beam camera to determine if the den is currently being used;
 Unoccupied dens shall be destroyed immediately to
prevent subsequent use;
 If a natal or pupping den is found, USFWS and CDFW shall be notified immediately. The den shall not be destroyed until the pups and adults have vacated, and then, only after further consultation with USFWS and CDFW;
 If kit fox activity is observed at the den during the initial monitoring period, the den shall be monitored for an
additional five consecutive days from the time of the first observation to allow any resident animals to move to
another den while den use is actively discouraged. For dens other than natal or pupping dens, use of the den can be discouraged by partially plugging the entrance with soil, such that any resident animal can easily escape. Once the den is determined to be unoccupied it may be excavated
under the direction of the biologist. Alternatively, if the animal is still present after five or more consecutive days of plugging and monitoring, the den may have to be
excavated when, in the judgment of a biologist, it is
temporarily vacant (i.e., during the animal’s normal
foraging activities).

A report detailing compliance with the provisions established herein shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Brentwood Community Development Department.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.2-8(a) and (b) would reduce impacts to San Joaquin kit fox either directly (e.g., cause a wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate an animal community) or through substantial habitat modifications to less-than-significant levels by requiring compliance with the applicable ECCC HCP/NCCP measures. In turn, the ECCC HCP/NCCP measures require an approved
biologist to conduct a preconstruction survey to identify breeding or denning habitat for the San Joaquin kit fox. Should any habitat be identified, the mitigation measures would require appropriate monitoring and steps to avoid disturbance to the den.

Impact 4.2-9 Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS.

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address this impact:

4.2-9(a) Implement Mitigation Measure 4.2-10(c).

4.2-9(b) ECCC HCP/NCCP Conservation Measure 1.7: Prior to submittal of the of the final improvement plans, the project applicant shall ensure that a minimum 75-foot setback from the top of the bank of Sand Creek has been incorporated into the final project design.

Incorporation of the foregoing setback shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Brentwood Community Development Department.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.2-9(a) and (b) would reduce impacts that have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS to less-than-significant levels by requiring a setback in the final project design in accordance with the ECCC HCP/NCCP.

Impact 4.2-10 Have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address this impact:

4.2-10(a) ECCC HCP/NCCP Conservation Measure 1.10: Prior to submittal of the of the final improvement plans, the project applicant shall develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that identifies best management practices (BMPs) to be implemented to minimize the introduction of foreign material into waterbodies, control stormwater runoff, minimize erosion and sedimentation, and limit the amount of surface disturbance to the area.

Standard construction BMPs shall be employed during
construction to minimize the potential for erosion and off-site transport of fines. BMPs shall include use of water trucks, appropriate compaction of soil, and installation of straw wattles, silt fences or other technologies along the perimeter of the site during construction, and stabilization of bare soils as appropriate with seeding, straw, and/or hydromulch.

The SWPPP shall be submitted for review and approval to the City Engineer.

4.2-10(b) ECCC HCP/NCCP Conservation Measure 2.12: Prior to submittal of the final improvement plans, the project applicant shall incorporate the following measures into the final project design, which shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Brentwood Community Development Department:
 The project shall comply with the stream setback
requirements in Conservation Measure 1.7;
 The project shall comply with the guidelines in
Conservation Measure 1.10 to minimize the effects of
urban development on downstream hydrology, streams,
and wetlands;
 All wetlands to be avoided by covered activities shall be temporarily staked in the field by a qualified biologist;  The project shall establish a buffer zone between Sand Creek and development, as described in Conservation
Measure 1.7;
 Personnel conducting ground-disturbing activities adjacent to the seasonal wetland in the western portion of the site or the buffer zone along Sand Creek shall be trained by a qualified biologist in the avoidance and minimization
requirements and the permit obligations of project
proponents working under the ECCC HCP/NCCP. Vehicles
and equipment shall be parked on pavement, existing
roads, and previously disturbed areas;
 Trash generated during project construction shall be
promptly and properly removed from the site;
 Construction or maintenance vehicles shall not be refueled within 200 feet of Sand Creek or the seasonal wetland
unless a bermed and lined refueling area is constructed and hazardous material absorbent pads are available in the
event of a spill;
 Appropriate erosion-control measures (e.g., fiber rolls, filter fences, vegetative buffer strips) shall be used on-site to reduce siltation and runoff of contaminants into Sand Creek or the seasonal wetland. Filter fences and mesh shall be of material that will not entrap reptiles and amphibians.

Erosion-control blankets shall be used as a last resort because of their tendency to biodegrade slowly and trap reptiles and amphibians;
 Fiber rolls used for erosion-control shall be certified as free of noxious weed seed;
 Seed mixtures applied for erosion-control shall not contain invasive non-native species, and shall be composed of
native species or sterile nonnative species; and

 Herbicides shall not be applied within the buffer area along Sand Creek unless needed to control serious invasive
plants. In such case, herbicides that have been approved for use by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in or adjacent to aquatic habitats may be used, as long as label instructions are followed and applications avoid or minimize impacts on Covered Species and their habitats.

Appropriate herbicides may be applied to the ruderal
grassland within the buffer area during the dry season to control nonnative invasive species, such as yellow starthistle. Herbicide drift shall be minimized by applying the herbicide as close to the target area as possible.

4.2-10(c) If a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit is determined to be necessary, prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall apply for a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Waters that would be lost or disturbed shall be restored, replaced or rehabilitated on a “nonet-loss” basis. Habitat restoration, rehabilitation, and/or replacement shall be at a location and by methods acceptable to the USACE. In the event that a Section 404 permit is required, the project applicant shall also apply for a Section 401 water quality certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) prior to the issuance of grading permits and adhere to the certification conditions therein.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.2-10(a) through (c) would reduce impacts that have a substantial adverse effect on State or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means to a less-thansignificant level. The mitigation measures would require compliance with ECCC HCP/NCCP measures associated with
development of a SWPPP and the included BMPs, as well as project design specifics. An additional measure addresses potential circumstances requiring Section 401 and Section 404 permits.

Impact 4.2-13 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address this impact:

4.2-13 Implement Mitigation Measures 4.2-3(a), 4.2-3(b), 4.2-4(a), 4.2- 4(b), 4.2-4(c), 4.2-5(a), 4.2-5(b), 4.2-5(c), 4.2-6(a), 4.2-6(b),

4.2-7(a), 4.2-7(b), 4.2-8(a), 4.2-8(b), 4.2-9(c), 4.2-10(a), and

4.2-10(b).

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2-13 would reduce impacts that conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan to a less-than-significant level by requiring compliance with all applicable measures found in the ECCC HCP/NCCP.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 4.3-2 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment.

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address this impact:

4.3-2(a) Prior to recordation of any final map for the proposed project, the applicant shall submit proof to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that all planned development on-site is at least 10 feet (10’) from any abandoned oil wells. Precise locations of all oil well sites shall be depicted on the final map.

If abandoned oil/gas well infrastructure is encountered during grading, grading shall cease and the well shall be removed to the satisfaction of City prior to resuming any grading.

4.3-2(b) Prior to the first building permit issuance for the proposed project, the applicant shall confirm, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Community Development Director, the lot locations of all on-site oil wells, and shall confirm that subject oil well locations are incorporated into all subject lot deeds, and shall confirm that all proposed development on the project site is at least 10 feet from any abandoned oil well locations.

4.3-2(c) Prior to issuance of a grading permit, California Geologic Energy Management Department (CalGEM) shall be consulted to
determine if the abandoned wells shall require modification in casing height, where grading is proposed proximate to these well locations. Proof of compliance shall be submitted to the City Community Development Department for review and approval.

4.3-2(d) During construction activities, any abandoned oil pipelines within the project site shall be removed in consultation with the Contra Costa County Environmental Health Department. Proof of removal

shall be provided to the City Community Development
Department and City Engineer.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3-2(a) through (d) would reduce impacts that create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment to a less-than-significant level by requiring City and County officials to confirm the proposed project’s avoidance of potential hazards.

Noise
Impact 4.4-1 Generation of a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address this impact:

4.4-1 Prior to the issuance of any permits, the following criteria shall be included on grading, improvement, and construction plans, and submitted for review and approval by the City of Brentwood Community Development Director.
 Construction activities shall be limited to the hours set forth below:
o Monday through Friday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM;
o Saturday 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM; and
o Construction shall be prohibited on Sundays and
City holidays. Exceptions to allow expanded
construction activities shall be reviewed on a case‐
by‐case basis as determined by the Chief Building
Official and/or City Engineer.
 The project contractor shall ensure that the following construction noise Best Management Practices (BMPs) are met on‐site during all phases of construction:
o All equipment driven by internal combustion
engines shall be equipped with mufflers, air‐ inlet
silencers where appropriate, and any other
shrouds, shields, or other noise‐reducing features
in good operating condition that meet or exceed
original factory specifications. Mobile or fixed
“package” equipment (e.g., arc welders, air
compressors) shall be equipped with shrouds and
noise‐ control features that are readily available for
that type of equipment.

o All mobile or fixed noise‐producing equipment used
on the project site that are regulated for noise
output by a federal, state, or local agency shall
comply with such regulations while in the course of
project activity.
o The construction contractor shall utilize “quiet”
models of air compressors and other stationary
noise sources where technology exists.
o At all times during project grading and construction, stationary noise‐generating equipment shall be
located as far as practicable from sensitive
receptors and placed so that emitted noise is
directed away from residences.
o Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines
shall be prohibited.
o Construction staging areas shall be established at
locations that would create the greatest distance
between the construction‐related noise sources and
noise‐sensitive receptors nearest the project site
during all project construction activities, to the
extent feasible.
o Construction site and access road speed limits shall
be established and enforced during the construction
period.
o The use of noise‐producing signals, including horns,
whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety
warning purposes only.
o Project‐related public address or music systems
shall not be audible at any adjacent receptor.
o Neighbors located adjacent to the construction site
shall be notified of the construction schedule in
writing.
o The construction contractor shall designate a “noise
disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible
for responding to any local complaints about
construction noise. The disturbance coordinator
shall be responsible for determining the cause of
the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, poor
muffler, etc.) and instituting reasonable measures
as warranted to correct the problem. A telephone
number for the disturbance coordinator shall be
conspicuously posted at the construction site.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 would reduce impacts related to the generation of a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project by requiring the City’s Community Development Director to confirm the hours of construction and all BMPs involved in construction of

the proposed project. Therefore, noise levels would not be in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.

Impact 4.4-3 Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address this impact:

4.4-3 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the following criteria shall be included on project grading plans, and submitted for review and approval by the City of Brentwood Community
Development Director:

Any compaction required less than 26 feet from the adjacent residential structures to the south of the project site shall be accomplished by using static drum rollers which use weight instead of vibrations to achieve soil compaction. As an alternative to this requirement, pre‐construction crack documentation and construction vibration monitoring could be conducted for residential structures less than 26 feet from the project’s property line to ensure that construction vibrations do not cause damage to any adjacent structures.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-3 would reduce impacts related to the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels to a less-than-significant level by requiring the use of static drum rollers for compaction occurring less than 26 feet from residences.

Transportation
Impact 4.5-1 Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system during construction activities.

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address this impact:

4.5-1 Prior to grading permit issuance, the project applicant shall prepare a Construction Traffic Management Plan for review and approval by the City Engineer. The plan shall include the following:
 A project staging plan to maximize on-site storage of materials and equipment;

 A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak hours; lane closure proceedings; signs, cones and other warning devices for drivers; and designation of
construction access routes;
 Provisions for maintaining adequate emergency access to the project site;
 Permitted construction hours, per City of Brentwood
standards;
 Designated locations for construction staging areas;
 Identification of parking areas for construction employees, site visitors, and inspectors, including on-site locations; and
 Provisions for street sweeping to remove constructionrelated debris on public streets.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 and the required Construction Traffic Management Plan would reduce impacts that conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system during construction activities to a less-thansignificant level.

Impact 4.5-3 Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address this impact:

4.5-3 Prior to improvement plan approval, the proposed tentative map shall be revised to include an additional full intersection to achieve a project-wide intersection density of 61.5. The revised map shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. A potential intersection location is included as an Appendix to the VMT Assessment prepared for the proposed project by DKS.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5-3 and buildout of the required full intersection in the tentative map would reduce impacts that conflict or are inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) to a less-than-significant level.

Initial Study
Impact I-d Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been adopted to address this impact:

I-1. In conjunction with development of the proposed project, the developer shall shield all on-site lighting so that nighttime lighting is directed within the project site and does not illuminate adjacent properties. A detailed lighting plan shall be submitted for the review and approval by the Community Development Department and the Public Works Department in conjunction with the project improvement plans. The lighting plan shall indicate the locations and design of the shielded light fixtures.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure I-1 would reduce impacts related to the generation of light and glare to a less-thansignificant level by requiring the shielding of all on-site lighting and submitting a detailed lighting plan to the City.

Impact II-a Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Impact II-e Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been adopted to address these impacts:

II-1. Prior to recordation of any final map or issuance of any grading permit, the developer shall comply with Chapter 17.730
(Agricultural Preservation Program) of the Brentwood Municipal Code in order to mitigate the project’s conversion of agricultural land, as defined in Section 17.730.020, by granting an
agricultural conservation easement or paying the current agricultural conservation City fee in effect at that time to provide funds to purchase conservation easements to mitigate the loss of farmland.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure II-1 would reduce impacts related to the conversion of Farmland to a less-than-significant level by granting an agricultural conservation easement or paying the equivalent fee to the City.

Impact V-b Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

Impact V-c Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address these impacts:

V-1. Prior to grading permit issuance, the developer shall submit plans to the Community Development Department for review and
approval which indicate (via notation on the improvement plans) that a qualified archaeologist shall conduct a Cultural Resources Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for all personnel involved in ground-disturbing, site preparation construction activities on the project site prior to construction and ground-disturbing activities. The training shall include basic information about the types of artifacts that might be
encountered during construction activities, and procedures to follow in the event of a discovery. The training shall be provided for any additional personnel added to the project even after the initiation of construction and ground disturbing activities.

V-2. Prior to grading permit issuance, the developer shall submit plans to the Community Development Department for review and
approval which indicate (via notation on the improvement plans) that if historic and/or cultural resources are encountered during site grading or other site work, all such work shall be halted immediately within 100 feet and the contractor shall immediately notify the Community Development Department of the discovery.

In such case, a qualified archaeological monitor shall be retained by the developer, at its own expense, and shall evaluate any potentially important discovery. Significance determinations shall be measured in terms of criteria for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources (Title 14 CCR, §4852[a]), and the definition of tribal cultural resources set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21074. The archaeologist shall be required to submit to the Community Development Department for review and approval a report of the findings and method of curation or protection of the resources. Comments on the report shall be submitted by the Native American tribes within 30 days of receipt of the report. Further grading or site work within the area of discovery shall not be allowed until the preceding work has occurred.

V-3. Prior to grading permit issuance, the developer shall submit plans to the Community Development Department for review and
approval which indicate (via notation on the improvement plans) that if human remains, or remains that are potentially human, are found during construction, a professional archeologist shall ensure reasonable protection measures are taken to protect the

discovery from disturbance. The archaeologist shall notify the Contra Costa County Coroner (per §7050.5 of the State Health and Safety Code). The provisions of §7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, §5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code, and Assembly Bill 2641 will be implemented. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American and not the result of a crime scene, then the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which then will designate a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the project (§5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). The designated MLD will have 48 hours from the time access to the property is granted to make
recommendations concerning treatment of the remains. If the project contractor does not agree with the recommendations of the MLD, the NAHC can mediate (§5097.94 of the Public
Resources Code). If an agreement is not reached, the qualified archaeologist or MLD must rebury the remains where they will not be further disturbed (§5097.98 of the Public Resources Code).

This will also include either recording the site with the NAHC or the appropriate Information Center, using an open space or conservation zoning designation or easement, or recording a reinternment document with the county in which the property is located (AB 2641). Work cannot resume within the no-work radius until the lead agencies, through consultation as appropriate, determine that the treatment measures have been completed to their satisfaction.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures V-1 through V-3 would reduce impacts related to the disturbance of archaeological resources and human remains to a less-than-significant level by requiring the submission of plans to the City’s Community Development Department indicating completion of training from qualified archaeologist and immediate action upon discovery of historical/cultural resources and/or human remains.

Impact VII-ai Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Impact VII-aii Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking?
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address these impacts:

VII-1. All project buildings shall be designed in conformance with the current edition of the California Building Standards Code (CBSC).

VII-2. Prior to grading permit issuance, the applicant shall submit a final geotechnical evaluation of the project site that analyzes soil stability including soil expansion, and the potential for lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. The report shall identify any on site soil and seismic hazards and provide design recommendations for onsite soil and seismic conditions. The geotechnical evaluation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, Chief Building Official, and a qualified Geotechnical Engineer to ensure that all geotechnical recommendations specified in the geotechnical report are properly incorporated and utilized in the project design in order to adhere to all geotechnical requirements contained in the California Building Code.

VII-3. All grading and foundation plans for the development shall be designed by a Civil and Structural Engineer and reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, Chief Building Official, and a qualified Geotechnical Engineer prior to issuance of grading and building permits to ensure that all geotechnical recommendations specified in the geotechnical report are properly incorporated and utilized in the project design in order to adhere to all geotechnical requirements contained in the California Building Code.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures VII-1 through VII-3 would reduce impacts related to rupture of a known earthquake fault or strong seismic ground shaking to a less-than-significant level by requiring compliance with the CBSC, requiring a geotechnical evaluation, and review and approval of all grading and foundation plans.

Impact VII-aiii Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Impact VII-aiv Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
Impact VII-c Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address these impacts:

VII-4. During construction, the project contractor shall completely remove and recompact any existing non-engineered fill on-site under the supervision of a registered geotechnical engineer, according to the recommendations presented in the Geotechnical Exploration Report and to the satisfaction of City. A written summary of the operations shall be submitted to the City Engineer.

VII-5. All grading and foundation plans for the development shall be designed by a Civil and Structural Engineer and reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, Chief Building Official, and a qualified Geotechnical Engineer, or through the state approval process for the school, prior to issuance of grading and building permits to ensure that all geotechnical recommendations specified in the geotechnical report are properly incorporated and utilized in the project design. In addition, prior to issuance of a building permit for any lot, the applicant shall submit to the City a letter from a qualified Geotechnical Engineer and Civil Engineer stating that the lot has been constructed in conformance with the approved Grading Plan and recommendations in the Geotechnical Report. The Geotechnical Exploration Report provides feasible measures including, but not limited to: demolition and stripping design grades be cleaned to a firm undisturbed soil surface; specification of backfill materials and procedure; slope gradient guidelines; creek bank and bed protection proper foundation design; reinforced structural mat foundations; and posttensioned slabs.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures VII-4 and VII-5, which require the removal and recompaction of non-engineered fill as well as requiring approval of all grading and foundation plans, would reduce impacts related to seismic-related ground failure, including off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence or liquefaction to a less-than-significant level.

Impact VII-b Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address this impact:

VII-6. Prior to grading permit issuance, the applicant shall submit a final grading plan to the City Engineer for review and approval. If the grading plan differs significantly from the proposed grading illustrated on the approved project plans, plans that are consistent with the new revised grading plan shall be provided for review and approval by the City Engineer.

VII-7. Any applicant for a grading permit shall submit an erosion control plan to the City Engineer for review and approval. The plan shall identify protective measures to be taken during construction, supplemental measures to be taken during the rainy season, the sequenced timing of grading and construction, and subsequent revegetation and landscaping work to ensure water quality in creeks and tributaries in the General Plan Area is not degraded from its present level. All protective measures shall be shown on the grading plans and specify the entity responsible for completing and/or monitoring the measure and include the circumstances and/or timing for implementation.

VII-8. Grading, soil disturbance, or compaction shall not occur during periods of rain or on ground that contains freestanding water. Soil that has been soaked and wetted by rain or any other cause shall not be compacted until completely drained and until the moisture content is within the limit approved by a Soils Engineer. Approval by a Soils Engineer shall be obtained prior to the continuance of grading operations. Confirmation of this approval shall be provided to the City Engineer prior to commencement of grading.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures VII-6 through VII-8 would reduce impacts related to substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil to a less-than-significant level by requiring submission of a final grading plan, an erosion control plan, and by requiring soils to be completely drained before being graded, disturbed, or compacted.

Impact VII-d Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been adopted to address this impact:

VII-9. Implement Mitigation Measure VII-5.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure VII-9 would reduce impacts related to expansive soil to a less-than-significant level by requiring an approved grading and foundation plan.

Impact VII-f Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been adopted to address this impact:

VII-10. Should construction or grading activities result in the discovery of unique paleontological resources, all work within 100 feet of the discovery shall cease. The Community Development Department shall be notified, and the resources shall be examined by a qualified archaeologist, paleontologist, or historian, at the developer’s expense, for the purpose of recording, protecting, or curating the discovery as appropriate. The archaeologist, paleontologist, or historian shall submit to the Community Development Department for review and approval a report of the findings and method of curation or protection of the resources.

Work may only resume in the area of discovery when the
preceding work has occurred. The language of this mitigation shall be included via notation on the project improvement plans.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure VII-10 would reduce impacts related to the destruction of a unique paleontological resource, site, or unique geologic feature to a less-thansignificant level by requiring project activity to halt upon the discovery of such resources and establishing a method of curation or protection.

Impact X-a Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address this impact:

X-1. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the contractor shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The Developer shall file the Notice of Intent (NOI) and associated fee to the SWRCB. The SWPPP shall serve as the framework for
identification, assignment, and implementation of BMPs. The contractor shall implement BMPs to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges consistent with the requirements
established in 15.52.60(F): Erosion and Sediment Control of the City’s Municipal Code. The SWPPP shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval and shall remain on the project site during all phases of construction. Following implementation of the SWPPP, the contractor shall subsequently demonstrate the SWPPP’s effectiveness and provide for necessary and appropriate revisions, modifications, and improvements to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable.

X-2. Prior to the completion of construction, the applicant shall prepare and submit, for the City’s review, an acceptable Stormwater Control Operation and Maintenance Plan. In addition, prior to the sale, transfer, or permanent occupancy of the site, the applicant

shall be responsible for paying for the long-term maintenance of treatment facilities, and executing a Stormwater Management Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement and Right of Entry in the form provided by the City of Brentwood. The applicant shall accept the responsibility for maintenance of stormwater management facilities until such responsibility is transferred to another entity.

The applicant shall submit, with the application of building permits, a draft Stormwater Facilities and Maintenance Plan, including detailed maintenance requirements and a maintenance schedule for the review and approval by the City Engineer. Typical routine maintenance consists of the following:
 Limit the use of fertilizers and/or pesticides. Mosquito larvicides shall be applied only when absolutely necessary.  Replace and amend plants and soils as necessary to insure the planters are effective and attractive. Plants must
remain healthy and trimmed if overgrown. Soils must be
maintained to efficiently filter the storm water.
 Visually inspect for ponding water to ensure that filtration is occurring.
 After all major storm events, remove bubble-up risers for obstructions and remove if necessary.
 Continue general landscape maintenance, including
pruning and cleanup throughout the year.
 Irrigate throughout the dry season. Irrigation shall be provided with sufficient quantity and frequency to allow plants to thrive.
 Excavate, clean and or replace filter media (sand, gravel, topsoil) to insure adequate infiltration rate (annually or as needed).

X-3. Design of on-site drainage facilities shall meet with the approval of both the City Engineer and the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District prior to the issuance of grading permits.

X-4. Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District drainage fees for the Drainage Area shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

X-5. The Applicant/Developer shall ensure that the project site shall drain into a street, public drain, or approved private drain, in such a manner that un-drained depressions shall not occur.

Satisfaction of this measure shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer.

X-6. The construction plans shall indicate roof drains emptying into a pipe leading to the project bioswale areas for the review and approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits.

X-7. The improvement plans shall indicate concentrated drainage flows not crossing sidewalks or driveways for the review and approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures X-1 through X-7 would reduce impacts related to surface or ground water quality to a less-than-significant level by requiring payment of fees and compliance with all approved plans, such as the required SWPPP and Stormwater Control Operation and Maintenance Plan.

Impact X-ci Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Impact X-cii Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
Impact X-ciii Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address these impacts:

X-8. Prior to the completion of construction activities, the applicant shall prepare and submit, for the City’s review, an acceptable Stormwater Control Operation and Maintenance Plan. In addition, prior to the sale, transfer, or permanent occupancy of the site the applicant shall be responsible for paying for the long-term maintenance of treatment facilities, and executing a Stormwater Management Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement

and Right of Entry in the form provided by the City of Brentwood.

The applicant shall accept the responsibility for maintenance of stormwater management facilities until such responsibility is transferred to another entity.

The applicant shall submit, with the application of building permits, a draft Stormwater Facilities and Maintenance Plan, including detailed maintenance requirements and a maintenance schedule for the review and approval by the City Engineer. Typical routine maintenance consists of the following:
 Limit the use of fertilizers and/or pesticides. Mosquito larvicides shall be applied only when absolutely necessary.  Replace and amend plants and soils as necessary to ensure the planters are effective and attractive. Plants must
remain healthy and trimmed if overgrown. Soils must be
maintained to efficiently filter the storm water.
 Visually inspect for ponding water to ensure that filtration is occurring.
 After all major storm events remove trash, inspect drain pipes and bubble-up risers for obstructions and remove if necessary.
 Continue general landscape maintenance, including
pruning and cleanup throughout the year.
 Irrigate throughout the dry season. Irrigation shall be provided with sufficient quantity and frequency to allow plants to thrive.
 Excavate, clean and/or replace filter media (sand, gravel, topsoil) to ensure adequate infiltration rate (annually or as needed).

X-9. Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District drainage fees for the Drainage Areas shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of building permits.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures X-8 and X-9 would reduce impacts related to substantially altering the existing drainage pattern to a less-than-significant level by requiring development and approval of a Stormwater Control Operation and Maintenance Plan.

Impact XV-a Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection?

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address this impact:

XV-1. Prior to building permit issuance, the developer shall cause the project to be annexed into the most current Community Facilities District established for Emergency Medical and Fire Protection Service Funding, per Brentwood Municipal Code Chapter 17.635.

XV-2. The project applicant shall participate in a Community Facilities District, which has been established by the Fire District and will include annual assessments in an amount sufficient to cover the service costs associated with the new residences.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures XV-1 and XV-2 would reduce impacts related to governmental facilities for fire protection to a less-than-significant level by requiring the project site be incorporated into the most current Community Facilities District.

Impact XV-b Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection?
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been adopted to address this impact:

XV-3. Prior to approval of the final map, the developer shall cause the project to be annexed into the most current City Community Facilities District, per Brentwood Municipal Code Chapter 17.636.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure XV-3 would reduce impacts related to governmental facilities for police protection to a lessthan-significant level by requiring the project site be incorporated into the most current Community Facilities District.

Impact XV-c Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools?

Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been adopted to address this impact:

XV-4. Prior to building permit issuance, the developer shall submit to the Community Development Department written proof from the Liberty Union High School District and the Brentwood Union School District that appropriate school mitigation fees have been paid.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure XV-4 requires proof of payment for school mitigation fees, which would reduce impacts related to governmental facilities for schools to a less-thansignificant level.

Impact XVIII-a Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
Impact XVIII-b Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measure has been adopted to address this impact:

XVIII-1. If tribal cultural resources are discovered during project-related construction activities, all ground disturbances within a minimum of 50 feet of the find shall be halted until a qualified professional archaeologist can evaluate the discovery. The archaeologist shall examine the resources, assess their significance, and recommend appropriate procedures to the lead agency to either further investigate or mitigate adverse impacts. If the find is determined

by the lead agency in consultation with the Native American tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project site to be a tribal cultural resource and the discovered archaeological resource cannot be avoided, then applicable mitigation measures for the resource shall be discussed with the geographically affiliated tribe. Applicable mitigation measures that also take into account the cultural values and meaning of the discovered tribal cultural resource, including confidentiality if requested by the tribe, shall be completed (e.g., preservation in place, data recovery program pursuant to Public Resources Code §21083.2[i]). During evaluation or mitigative treatment, ground disturbance and construction work could continue on other parts of the project site.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure XVIII-1 would reduce impacts related to tribal cultural resources to a less-thansignificant level by requiring construction of the proposed project to cease and involve a qualified archaeologist upon discovery of any tribal cultural resources.

The City Council acknowledges that in making these findings, the City Council has considered the opinions of other agencies and members of the public, including opinions that disagree with some of the analysis and significance thresholds used in the REIR. The City Council finds that the determination of significance thresholds is a judgment within the discretion of the City Council; the significance thresholds used in the REIR are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the expert opinion of the REIR preparers and City staff; and the significance thresholds used in the REIR provide reasonable and appropriate means of assessing the significance of the adverse environmental effects of the Project.

In particular, the REIR relied on significance criteria for evaluating impacts that are tailored to this type of project. The criteria used in this REIR to determine whether an impact is or is not “significant” are based on (a) CEQA-stipulated “mandatory findings of significance” listed in CEQA Guidelines section 15065; (b) the relationship of the Project effect to the adopted policies, ordinances and standards of the City and of responsible agencies; and (c) commonly accepted practice and the professional judgment of the REIR authors and City staff.

A full explanation of the environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the Final REIR and these findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in the Final REIR supporting the Final REIR’s determinations regarding the Project’s impacts and mitigation measures designed to address those impacts. In making these findings, the City Council ratifies, adopts, and incorporates the analysis and explanation in the Final REIR, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates in these findings the determinations and conclusions of the Final REIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the extent any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these findings.

The City Council adopts, and incorporates as conditions of approval of the Project, the mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to these findings as Exhibit A to reduce or avoid the potentially significant and significant impacts of the Project. The City Council acknowledges that in adopting these mitigation measures, the City Council intends to adopt each of the mitigation measures recommended for approval by the Final REIR. Accordingly, in the event a mitigation measure recommended in the Final REIR has inadvertently been omitted from Exhibit A, such mitigation measure is hereby adopted and incorporated in the findings below by reference. In addition, in the event the language describing a mitigation measure set forth in Exhibit A fails to accurately reflect the mitigation measures in the Final REIR due to a clerical error, the language of the mitigation measure as set forth in the Final REIR shall control, unless the language of the mitigation measure has been specifically and expressly modified by these findings.

The City Council hereby finds that the adopted mitigation measures are changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which reduce or avoid significant effects on the environment to the maximum extent feasible.

Several commenters raised concerns related to components of the proposed project that do not address environmental impacts subject to CEQA review, or they did not specifically address the adequacy of the Draft REIR. Comments regarding safety, existing current circulation concerns, or existing roadway Level of Service (LOS) conditions are not within the scope of environmental review required for the Draft REIR. These comments have been noted for the record and will be forwarded to decision-makers as part of their consideration of the proposed project.

Additionally, several commenters raised concerns related to the transportation and circulation analysis, including the congestion of roadways in the vicinity of the project site, the methods employed in evaluating transportation-related impacts under CEQA, traffic volumes, vehicle cut-through, and the lack of mitigation measures prepared to address potentially increased traffic. Any modifications that were made to mitigation measures in response to such comments are denoted in Chapter 3, Revisions to Draft REIR Text, of the Final REIR.

In addition, as noted above, at the request of the City Council, Abrams Associates reviewed five potential options for minimizing additional traffic on St.

Regis Avenue, which involve various turn restrictions and circulation modifications.

DKS Associates analyzed the potential impact of the options on the Vehicle Miles Traveled VMT discussion in the REIR, which analysis was peer reviewed by KimleyHorn and ultimately analyzed by the City’s environmental consultant, who determined that none of the options would create a new significant environmental impact or increase in the severity of previously identified impacts.

With respect to the additional measures suggested by commenters that were not added to the Final REIR, the City Council hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the reasons set forth in the responses to comments contained in the Final REIR as its grounds for rejecting adoption of these mitigation measures.

Part C. Alternatives
Summary of Discussion of Alternatives in the Final EIR
The Draft REIR evaluates three potential alternatives to the Project. The Draft REIR examines the environmental impacts of each alternative in comparison with the Project and the relative ability of each alternative to satisfy project objectives.

Findings Relating to Alternatives
In making these findings, the City Council certifies that it has independently reviewed and considered the information on alternatives provided in the Draft REIR, including the information provided in comments on the Draft REIR and the responses to those comments in the Final REIR. The Draft REIR’s discussion and analysis of these alternatives is not repeated in these findings, but the discussion and analysis of the alternatives in the Draft REIR is incorporated in these findings by reference.

The Draft REIR describes and evaluates in detail three alternatives to the Project. The City Council acknowledges that the reasons for the City Council’s decision to approve the Project instead of the remaining alternatives are presented below. The City Council finds that the Project would satisfy the Project Objectives, and the remaining alternatives, excluding the Clustered Development Alternative, are unable to satisfy the project objectives to the same degree as the Project. The City Council further finds that, on balance, none of the remaining alternatives has economic or housing supply advantages over the Project that are sufficiently great to justify approval of such an alternative instead of the Project. Accordingly, the City Council determines to approve the Project instead of approving one of the remaining alternatives.

Description of Project Objectives
The project objectives are as follows:
 Maximize development of much-needed housing in the City of Brentwood, providing for a diversity of housing types to suit the demands of homebuyers with different socioeconomic statuses on a site that is close to main transportation corridors (e.g., SR 4) and which may be practically and efficiently connected to existing infrastructure, and which otherwise can be practically developed to facilitate achievement of state housing goals.
 Provide parks and open space for residences in the region, in close proximity to project housing in order to minimize vehicle mile trips and associated air emissions.
 Facilitate the extension of a portion of Sand Creek Road to the project entrance, which will help fulfill a critical need for the City of Brentwood and the region and Planning Area 1 to the north of the site.

Discussion and Findings Relating to the Alternatives
Evaluated in the Draft REIR
Chapter 7, Alternatives Analysis, of the Draft REIR evaluates the following three alternatives, which are summarized below:
 No Project (No Build) Alternative;
 Clustered Development Alternative; and
 Reduced Intensity Alternative.

No Project (No Build) Alternative.

Under CEQA, a “No-Project Alternative” compares the impacts of proceeding with a proposed Project with the impacts of not proceeding with the proposed Project.

A No-Project Alternative describes the environmental conditions in existence at the time the Notice of Preparation was published, along with a discussion of what would be reasonably expected to occur at the site in the foreseeable future, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.

The City has decided to evaluate a No Project (No Build) Alternative, which assumes that the current conditions of the Project site would remain, and the site would not be developed. As described in the REIR, the Project site consists primarily of undeveloped grassland and weedy vegetation, with Sand Creek flowing west to east through the northern portion of the Project site. The extension of Sand Creek Road in the Project vicinity would move forward consistent with the Sand Creek Roadway Extension Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. The No Project (No Build) Alternative would not meet any of the Project objectives and would not meet the overall intent of the General Plan land use designations for the site.

Because implementation of the No Project (No Build) Alternative would result in the site remaining under current conditions, physical environmental impacts related to air quality, GHG emissions, and energy; biological resources; hazards and hazardous materials; noise; and transportation would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the No Project (No Build) Alternative would result in fewer overall impacts compared to that of the Project. However, the No Project (No Build) Alternative would not meet any of the Project objectives.

On balance, the environmental benefits that might be achieved with this alternative are outweighed by its failure to achieve any of the Project objectives, and the City Council rejects this alternative.

Clustered Development Alternative.

The Clustered Development Alternative would be designed to reduce the total amount of proposed development acreage, while still resulting in a residential density within the allowable range presented in the City’s General Plan. According to the City’s General Plan, the R-LD land use designation permits a density range of 1.1 to five dwelling units per acre (du/ac), with a mid-range of three du/ac. The proposed

Project is anticipated to result in the development of 272 units on 67.96 acres, which would result in a density of approximately 4.0 du/ac. If 67.96 acres of the Project site were to be developed using the mid-range of three du/ac, a total of 186 units would be anticipated. However, in order to cluster the development and increase the amount of open space on-site, while still keeping in the range of allowed density, under the Clustered Development Alternative 186 units would be built on 37.2 acres, which would result in a density of five du/ac, the maximum allowable density within the R-LD land use designation.

As a result, the Clustered Development Alternative would include an additional

24.76 acres to be designated as permanent open space. The additional permanent open space would be located along the eastern portion of the site to allow for a buffer between the proposed residences and SR 4.

Generally, all other site improvements required under the proposed Project would still be developed under the Clustered Development Alternative, and the Alternative would still require a potential Rezone to amend the PD-36 Zoning District, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, and Design Review. In addition, because the Clustered Development Alternative would generally result in similar development of the proposed Project, all Project objectives would be met.

Physical environmental impacts identified for the proposed Project related to biological resources and hazards and hazardous materials would be similar under the Clustered Development Alternative. In addition, from a CEQA perspective, the impacts identified for the proposed Project related to noise would be similar under the Clustered Development Alternative. However, it is noted that, with regard to impacts of the existing environment onto a project, the Clustered Development Alternative would reduce noise impacts upon residents from SR 4 and would result in a reduction in sound wall height. Additionally, because the Clustered Development Alternative would result in a reduction of air pollutants and GHG emissions generated through construction and operation of the proposed Project, as well as a reduction in construction and operational traffic, the Alternative’s impacts related to air quality, GHGs, and energy and transportation would be fewer than the proposed Project.

The Clustered Development Alternative would fully meet all of the Project objectives; result in similar impacts to the proposed Project related to three of the five issue areas for which Project impacts were identified; and result in fewer impacts than the proposed Project for the remaining two issue areas. Thus, the Clustered Development Alternative would be considered the environmentally superior alternative to the proposed Project.

However, because fewer residential units would be developed, the economic benefit to the City through property and sales taxes and other Project fees would be greatly reduced. Furthermore, the Clustered Development Alternative would provide only 50 percent of the housing that the proposed Project would create, and, thus, would not provide needed housing supply for the State or the City to the same extent as the proposed Project.

Accordingly, the environmental benefits that might be achieved with this alternative are outweighed by its reduced economic benefit and housing supply.

Therefore, the City Council has determined that the aforementioned considerations render the Clustered Development Alternative infeasible (See CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, subdivision [a][3].).

Reduced Density Alternative.

According to the City’s General Plan, the R-LD land use designation permits a density range of 1.1 to five du/ac, with a mid-range of three du/ac. The proposed Project is anticipated to result in the development of 272 units on 67.96 acres, which would result in a density of approximately 4.0 du/ac. The Reduced Density Alternative would result in the development of single-family residential uses on the same amount of acreage as the proposed Project (67.96 acres), at the minimum density allowed for the R-LD land use designation. As a result, the Reduced Density Alternative would develop a total of 68 dwelling units on-site.

Generally, all other site improvements required under the proposed Project would still be developed under the Reduced Density Alternative, including the development of 8.49 acres of parks and 25 acres of open space. As such, the Alternative would still require a potential Rezone to amend the PD-36 Zoning District, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, and Design Review.

Because the Reduced Density Alternative would still provide parks and open space in the region, and would facilitate the extension of a portion of Sand Creek Road, Project Objectives #2 and #3 would be fully met under the Alternative.

However, although the Reduced Density Alternative would result in the development on-site, because development would be at a reduced density as compared to the proposed Project, the Alternative would not maximize development of housing, and Project Objective #1 would only be partially met.

Implementation of the Reduced Density Alternative would result in a similar area of disturbance as the proposed Project. As such, physical environmental impacts related to biological resources; hazards and hazardous materials; and noise would be similar to those of the proposed Project. However, because the Reduced Density Alternative would result in a reduction of air pollutants and GHG emissions generated through construction and operation of the proposed Project, as well as a reduction in construction and operational traffic, the Alternative’s impacts related to air quality, GHGs, and energy and transportation would be fewer than the proposed Project.

The Reduced Density Alternative would only partially meet Project Objective #1; result in similar impacts to the proposed Project related to three of the five issue areas for which Project impacts were identified; and result in fewer impacts than the proposed Project for the remaining two issue areas. However, because fewer residential units would be developed, the economic benefit to the City through property and sales taxes and other Project fees would be greatly reduced.

Furthermore, the Reduced Density Alternative would provide only 23 percent of the housing that the proposed Project would create, and, thus, would not provide needed housing supply for the State or the City to the same extent as the proposed Project.

Accordingly, the environmental benefits that might be achieved with this alternative are outweighed by its reduced economic benefit; reduced housing supply; and failure to achieve all of the Project objectives. Therefore, the City Council has determined that the aforementioned considerations render the Reduced Density Alternative infeasible (See CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, subdivision [a][3].).

Findings Regarding Reasonable Range of Alternatives
The City Council finds that the range of alternatives evaluated in the Draft REIR reflects a reasonable attempt to identify and evaluate various types of alternatives that would potentially be capable of reducing the Project’s environmental effects, while accomplishing most but not all of the project objectives. The City Council finds that the alternatives analysis is sufficient to inform the City Council and the public regarding the tradeoffs between the degree to which alternatives to the Project could reduce environmental impacts and the corresponding degree to which the alternatives would hinder the City’s ability to achieve the project objectives.

Part D. Record of Proceedings
Various documents and other materials constitute the record upon which the City Council bases these findings and the approvals contained herein. The location and custodian of these documents and materials is Erik Nolthenius, Planning Manager, City of Brentwood, 150 City Park Way, Brentwood, CA 94513.

Part E. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City Council must adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program to ensure that the mitigation measures adopted herein are implemented. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project attached to these findings as Exhibit A.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revised Environmental Impact Report for the Bridle Gate Project is hereby certified pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. All feasible mitigation measures for the Project identified in the Revised Environmental Impact Report and accompanying studies are hereby incorporated into this approval.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at its regular meeting of August 27, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

RECUSE:

APPROVED:
____________________________
Joel Bryant
Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Margaret Wimberly
City Clerk

EXHIBIT A
TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 24-XX
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Draft and Final REIR and associated documents for the Bridle Gate project can be found listed under “Bridle Gate” on the City’s website at the following link:
https://www.brentwoodca.gov/government/communitydevelopment/planning/ceqa-documents

CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 24-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

BRENTWOOD APPROVING THE APPEAL FILED BY WCHB

DEVELOPMENT, LLC, REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE

PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVING THE VESTING
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 9586 TO ALLOW THE
SUBDIVISION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 135-ACRE SITE INTO 272

SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS, TWO PARK PARCELS,

TWO PARCELS FOR BIORETENTION, ONE OPEN SPACE PARCEL,

FOUR LANDSCAPING/PEDESTRIAL ACCESS PARCELS, AND A

DESIGNATED REMAINDER, LOCATED GENERALLY WEST OF THE
SAND CREEK ROAD AND THE STATE ROUTE 4 INTERCHANGE
(APN 019-082-009 and 010).

WHEREAS, on October 22, 2021, WCHB Development, LLC, (the “Permittee”) submitted an application to the City of Brentwood requesting approval of a vesting tentative subdivision map (No. 9586) to subdivide approximately 135 acres into 286 single-family residential parcels, two park parcels, two bio-retention areas for stormwater treatment, one open space parcel, as well as several parcels for landscaping and pedestrian access, and a designated remainder (the “Project,” modified as noted below); and
WHEREAS, the Project is proposed to be located on a roughly 135 acre site bounded by the proposed Sand Creek Road Extension to the north, State Route 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, with a small segment of existing San Jose Avenue bounding the site at its farthest southeastern corner (the “Project Site”); and
WHEREAS, the City referred the Project to various departments and agencies for review and recommendations; and
WHEREAS, in August 2022, the Permittee initiated legal proceedings against the City in the Contra Costa Superior Court (the “Court”) pertaining to the processing of the Project, alleging, among other things, that the PD-36 zoning standards applicable to the Project were not objective; and
WHEREAS, consistent with the Court’s opinion, the City has processed the application in accordance with the objective standards for PD-36, Subarea C; and WHEREAS, on June 30, 2023, the Permittee revised its application by submitting a modified proposed vesting tentative subdivision map that increased the minimum lot size for all parcels to 5,000 square feet, and decreased the number of units to 272; and

WHEREAS, on August 3, 2023, the Permittee further revised its application by submitting a modified master plotting plan, floor area matrix, and lot coverage matrix, with 50 foot lot widths; and
WHEREAS, the City distributed a Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners of record within 300 feet of the Project Site and published it in the Brentwood Press on August 25, 2023, and the Permittee posted the Project Site with the required signage in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this project at its regular meeting of September 5, 2023, to consider the Project, including this vesting tentative subdivision map application and considered the staff report, supporting documents, public testimony, and all appropriate information submitted with the proposed Project and studied the compatibility of this request with adjacent land uses; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on September 5, 2023, continued the item to a date uncertain and directed staff to work with the Permittee 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); and
WHEREAS, on behalf of the Permittee, Abrams Associates reviewed five potential options for minimizing additional traffic on St. Regis Avenue, which involve various turn restrictions and circulation modifications; and WHEREAS, DKS Associates analyzed the potential impact of the options on the REIR Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) discussion, which analysis was peer reviewed by Kimley-Horn and ultimately analyzed by the City’s environmental consultant (“Raney”), who determined that none of the options would create a new significant environmental impact or increase in the severity of previously identified impacts; and WHEREAS, the City distributed a Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners of record within 300 feet of the Project Site and published it in the Brentwood Press on July 5, 2024, and the Permittee posted the Project Site with the required signage in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this project at its regular meeting of July 16, 2024, and denied the Project, taking no CEQA action; and
WHEREAS, the Permittee appealed the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council on July 24, 2024 in accordance with Chapter 17.880 of the Brentwood Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City distributed a Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners of record within 300 feet of the Project Site and published it in the Brentwood

Press on August 16, 2024, and the Permittee posted the Project Site with the required signage in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this project at its regular meeting of August 27, 2024, to consider the Project, including this vesting tentative subdivision map application and considered the staff report, supporting documents, public testimony, all appropriate information submitted with the proposed Project, studied the compatibility of this request with adjacent land uses, and the additional options provided related to circulation and determined to approve the appeal reversing the Planning Commission’s action to deny the Project; and WHEREAS, after consideration of the proposed circulation options, the City Council did not alter the original proposed circulation; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Final Revised Environment Impact Report, including a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for this Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA,” codified at Public Resources Code Section 15000, et seq., and as further governed by the State CEQA Guidelines, found at 14 CCR 21000, et seq.), and at its August 27, 2024 meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 24- , certifying the Final Revised Environmental Impact Report and adopting Findings of Facts and a Mitigating Monitoring and Report Plan.

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

A. Hereby finds that with respect to Brentwood Municipal Code Section

16.050.040.B and Government Code section 66474:

1. That the proposed map is consistent with the community development plan and any applicable specific plans.

The proposed vesting tentative subdivision map is consistent with the City’s General Plan in that the number of lots shown on the map (272) will result in development at a density range of 4.0 du/a, which is permitted in the site’s Residential-Low Density land use designation, which allows development at densities of 1.1-5.0 dwelling units per gross acre, with 3.0 du/a being the acceptable mid-range. To the extent the density exceeds the mid-range, Government Code section 65589.5(j) constrains the City’s ability to enforce with the subjective criteria in the midrange density policy set forth in the City of Brentwood General Plan and, therefore, allows for projects to be developed up to the maximum density, provided that the project complies with other applicable zoning and General Plan standards. To the extent the project exceeds the housing cap in the PD-36, Subarea C standards and does not require conditional use permits for those residential uses that exceed

3.5 units per gross acre, these requirements are inconsistent with Government Code Section 66300(b)(1)(D)(ii).).

2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the community development plan and any applicable specific plans.

The Project Site is not within any applicable specific plan area. The design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with General Plan, including through consistency with:
a. Policy CIR 3-3 (“Design developments to include features that encourage walking, bicycling, and transit use. Design features shall include bus turnouts, transit shelters and benches, and pedestrian access points between subdivisions and between adjacent related land uses.”) in that it includes extension of both the Black Gold Trail and Sand Creek Trail, and pedestrian access points from the Black Gold Trail into the single-family neighborhood.
b. Policy LU 6-3 (“Residential neighborhoods should be well-defined with park and recreation facilities, schools, open space, and neighborhood commercial land uses that incorporate unifying landscape and architectural themes and provide visible functional centers.”) insomuch as the proposed Project includes two neighborhood parks of roughly 8.5 acres in total, over 25 acres of open space, and approximately 4 acres of land for bioretention. c. Finally, the project complies with other aspects of the General Plan as described in finding A(1) above.

3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development.

The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed by VTSM No. 9586 insomuch as the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision will not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board because the Permittee will be required to make the necessary improvements to tie in to the City’s stormwater and sewer facilities, as well as treat all stormwater runoff, and the design of the subdivision and the associated improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems due to the fact that this project will be required to construct all of the necessary improvements needed to ensure a safe and healthy development, including all Federal, State, and local regulations.

4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

The site is physically suitable for the density of development proposed, in that it complies with the density specified in the General Plan’s ResidentialLow Density land use designation, as set forth in Finding A(1) above, as well as with the development standards for the Planned Development No. 36 (PD-36) Zone for Sub Area C, except as noted in Finding A(1) above and

development of the site is consistent with other single-family residential developments within the City.

5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat unless an Environmental Impact Report was prepared with respect to the project and a finding was made pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Environmental Impact Report.

The design of the subdivision and the associated improvements have been analyzed for their impacts on the environment through the preparation of a Revised Environmental Impact Report (REIR), and the City Council (through adoption of Resolution No. 24- ) has adopted Findings of Fact and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is incorporated herein by reference. Based on the evidence in the REIR, the proposed improvements would not be likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems.

The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements proposed are not likely to cause serious public health problems due to the fact that this Project includes proposed improvements necessary to ensure a safe and healthy development, including adequate wastewater and potable water infrastructure, streets that meet the City’s specifications, street lighting, and compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations designed to protect public health.

7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.

The design of the subdivision and the associated improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision as alternative access, utility, and irrigation facilities will be constructed enabling continued service to properties serviced by existing easements and trails will be provided within the Project that will connect to existing trails within the City of Brentwood.

B. Hereby approves Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 9586 subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and made a part of this resolution, and all City standards applicable to this project.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at its regular meeting of August 27, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

RECUSE:

APPROVED:
____________________________
Joel Bryant
Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Margaret Wimberly
City Clerk

EXHIBIT “A” TO
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 24-XX

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 9586

1. The Permittee and Permittee, including all successors in interest (collectively, “Permittee”) shall comply with each and every condition set forth in the Permit. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 9586 (the “Permit”) shall have no force or effect and no building permit shall be issued unless and until all things required by the below-enumerated precedent conditions have been performed. The Permittee shall develop the site in accordance with the approved attachments and as modified by these Conditions of Approval.

2. The final map shall be substantially in conformance with Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 9586 prepared by APEX Civil Engineering & Land Surveying dated July 2, 2024, unless otherwise amended by the conditions of approval contained herein.

3. The Permittee shall indemnify, defend with counsel of the City’s reasonable choosing, and hold harmless City and its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents (the “Indemnified Parties”) from and against any third party claim, action, or proceeding against City and/or the Indemnified Parties to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the City’s approval of the project approved herein, including adoption of VTSM 9586, and DR 21-010, and any environmental determination made with regard thereto, save and except to the extent caused solely by the City's sole or active negligence, or willful misconduct.

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. To the extent the above indemnification is limited by Government Code Section 66474.9, any limitations shall only apply to VTSM 9586, and the remainder of this obligation shall be unaffected by said Government Code section.

4. The final map shall adhere to all development standards adopted in Brentwood Municipal Code Section 17.486.004, referring to Subarea C, with respect to the development of residential uses, except the maximum number of units in 17.486.004(C)(12).

5. Prior to approval of project improvement plans, the plans for the proposed project shall show that the lots located immediately adjacent to State Route

4 and Sand Creek Road shall be shielded from the foregoing roadways through the use of masonry sound walls per the approval of the City Engineer. The approximate locations of these walls as shown on Figure 4.4- 4 Error! Reference source not found.of the Draft Revised Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project. Other types of barriers may be employed but shall be reviewed by an acoustical engineer prior to being constructed. The design for all soundwalls identified in the acoustical analysis for this project shall be submitted to the City Engineer and the Director of Community Development for review and approval and shall incorporate a split face hand-laid block design with a cap, and columns with a cap approximately every 50 feet, as shown on the preliminary landscape plans.

The soundwall design shall be approved prior to issuance of improvement plans for the project. All walls shall comply with City-approved acoustic analysis. Plans for said walls shall include clear delineation of maintenance responsibilities of all wall sections. Sound wall heights shall be stated relative to building pad elevations and may achieve the required wall height through use of earthen berm and wall combinations to achieve the total height.

Additionally, 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.

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

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

8.16 “Solid Waste.”
b. Construction and demolition work shall comply with Brentwood Municipal Code Chapter 8.40 “Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling.”
c. Permittee shall comply with Brentwood Municipal Code Chapter 9.32 “Noise Regulations.”

d. Permittee shall comply with the encroachment permit requirements pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Chapter 12.08 “Street Encroachments.”
e. Sewer backflow prevention, interceptors, and other health and safety requirements shall be incorporated into the project pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Chapter 13.04 “Sewer System – Rules and Regulations.”
f. Brine-discharging self-regenerating water softener systems are prohibited pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section 13.04.022.B. g. Recycled water services shall comply with Brentwood Municipal Code Chapter 13.06 “Recycled Water Regulations.”
h. Water service shall comply with Brentwood Municipal Code Chapters

14.01 “Municipal Water System” and Chapter 14.10 “Cross-Connection Control.” In addition and to comply with both health and safety requirements as well as the City’s Engineering Design Standards. i. Contractors requiring construction water shall obtain a temporary water permit and shall only take water metered at a location specified by the City Engineer pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section 14.01.340 “Contractors.”
j. Permittee shall comply with the Federal Clean Water Act, the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit, and Brentwood Municipal Code Chapter 14.20 “Stormwater Management and Discharge Control.”
k. Fire access and aerial apparatus access shall comply with the requirements of the Fire District and Brentwood Municipal Code Chapter

15.06 “Fire Code.”
l. Special flood hazard areas shall comply with the requirements of Brentwood Municipal Code Chapter 15.07 “Flood Plain Management.” m. Grading shall comply with Brentwood Municipal Code Chapter 15.52 “Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control.”
n. All grading and noise generating activities shall be limited to the days and hours defined in Brentwood Municipal Code Section 15.52.060 “Grading Regulations.”
o. In addition to the indemnification obligation set forth above, Permittee shall indemnify the City pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section

15.52.160 “City Held Harmless.”

p. Pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section 16.070.030.B, review of a Final Map, certification and approval shall not proceed until the Improvement Plans (on-site and off-site) have been submitted and reviewed by and approved by the City Engineer.
q. Permittee shall obtain all required permits including, but are not limited to: buildings; sewer connections; encroachment; grading; use; business license; water connection; Army Corps of Engineers; Contra Costa County Flood Control; California Department of Fish and Wildlife pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section 16.120.050 “Procedures.”
r. All storm drain, sewer, water and street systems shall be designed and sized to accommodate such additional flows, volumes or loads as may be contributed by the most intensive developed land use of the lands adjacent to or beyond the limits of the subdivision pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section 16.120.080.
s. All public facilities shall be constructed and any existing deficiencies shall be corrected. This includes both required on- and off-site public facilities and any deficiencies on-site, abutting the parcel or parcels involved or required off-site to provide service to the proposed development or for the continued safety, health and well-being of the public upon completion of the development pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section 16.120.090 “Public Facilities Installation.”
t. Utilities shall be installed underground pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section 16.120.120 “Undergrounding – Electric, Communication, Street Lighting and Advanced Technology Systems.”
u. All landscaping installed by the project shall be from trees and plants selected from the City Approved Drought Tolerant and Native Plant List with the exception of bioretention facilities which shall conform to Appendix B of the Contra Costa Clean Water Program C.3 Guidelines and to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation and City Engineer.
v. Permittee shall make all land dedications pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Sections 16.140 and 16.150.
w. Permittee shall comply with Brentwood Municipal Code Section

17.680.021(B) related to well abandonment development procedures. x. All proposed and required sound walls along Sand Creek Road, State Route 4, and lots adjacent to open spaces shall be entirely located on private property and privately maintained.

y. Stormwater treatment and detention basins shall be located outside of any public easements and areas offered for dedication to the City.

8. Prior to issuance of a grading permit:
a. The height and location of all existing and proposed retaining walls shall be shown on the Grading Plans. Retaining walls over three feet in height shall be structurally engineered, and shall require separate building permits. All retaining walls shall include a sub-drain system to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
b. Construction Plans shall demonstrate with plans, analysis, or other documentation signed and stamped by a licensed Civil Engineer that there is adequate overland drainage release to an adequate public drainage facility to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Permittee shall acquire drainage easements, if necessary.
c. Grading Plans shall include a sufficient number of cross-sections adjacent to creeks, floodplains, and wetland areas showing the proximity of these features to proposed grading and building foundations to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Grading Plans shall clearly identify the location of all wetlands, creeks, creek setbacks, trees (both to be removed and to be protected). e. Pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section 15.070.320, grading plans shall identify any special flood hazard area and the elevation of the base flood.
f. Permittee shall secure all required regulatory permits and construct all required drainage facilities, including all storm drain outfalls into creeks unless otherwise constructed by the City.
g. Permittee shall provide approved hydrology and hydraulic calculations signed by a licensed engineer demonstrating that the Project will adequately collect and convey all runoff within the Project, as well as the entire developed watershed upstream of the Project, pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section 16.120.080C. The analysis shall include conveyance capacity of Sand Creek, as well as the downstream drainage system, including the Lower Sand Creek Basin. Permittee shall consult with the Contra Costa County Flood Control District for technical review of the regional drainage impacts. At a minimum, said calculations shall include the following:
i. The analysis shall assume that Lower Sand Creek Basin may not be completed to serve the Project.

ii. The analysis shall calculate peak flows using the same methodology per the Contra Costa County Flood Control District guidelines.
iii. The analysis should include riprap sizing calculations for any proposed riprap at the proposed outfalls in Sand Creek to mitigate erosion.
iv. Bioretention sections of the basins shall not be included in any calculations related to mitigating peak flows.

9. Prior to issuance of an encroachment permit or approval of Improvement Plans:
a. Construction Plans shall include all improvements in conformance with the latest Infrastructure Master Plans (i.e. Sewer, Water, etc.) and as directed by the City Engineer. Said improvements include a Zone 2 water main in San Jose Avenue.
b. Construction Plans shall include non-potable water mains and services to serve the proposed parks and stormwater treatment/detention basins and stub to the existing terminus of San Jose Avenue to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
c. Construction Plans shall incorporate safety fencing with vehicular access gates around proposed open space and stormwater parcels to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Construction Plans shall incorporate speed tables or other vehicular speed and safety control measures within the proposed streets to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
e. Pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section 16.120.090 “Public Facilities Installation”, construction plans shall incorporate missing sidewalk improvements along the northerly portion of San Jose Avenue from the existing sidewalk terminus near State Route 4 to Saint Regis Avenue and a 10-foot wide sidewalk along Parcel A to connect to the existing 10-foot wide trail at the westerly boundary of the project. f. Pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section 16.120.080.C, construction plans shall include designs consistent with Standard Detail ST-1 “Arterial Street” along the project frontage, including Parcel A and Parcel B frontage, to provide one additional eastbound lane along Sand Creek Road, in addition to the two lanes being constructed by the City’s Sand Creek Road extension project (CIP #336-31700). Improvements shall include, but not be limited to, a traffic signal at Sand Creek Road and Bridle Gate Drive, sidewalks, curb and gutter, roadway widening, frontage and median island landscaping to the satisfaction of the City

Engineer. Permittee will be eligible for reimbursement as set forth in the City’s Development Fee Program.
g. Construction Plans shall reflect the entirety of San Jose Avenue to be designed as a 60-foot wide residential collector street consistent with Standard Detail ST-4 “Residential Collector Street”.
h. Construction Plans shall include all utilities, including, but not limited to, meters, hydrants, poles, signs, clean-outs and boxes to be located clear of all trails, sidewalks and driveways or as determined by the City Engineer.
i. Construction Plans shall include all utilities designed with seismic considerations to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. j. Permittee shall submit a colored Composite Site Exhibit showing the location of all existing and proposed utilities, utility boxes, landscaping, monuments, street improvements, lights, signs, driveways, house envelopes, fencing, grading contours, walls, easements, property lines, and other improvements as required at a sufficient scale to allow a comprehensive review of proposed improvements.
k. Construction Plans shall demonstrate that all gravity utilities (i.e. storm drain, sewer) are designed to positively and completely drain by gravity without relying on any electro-mechanical means (i.e. pumps, lift stations and siphons) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. l. Construction Plans shall include cathodic protection measures for all buried metallic infrastructure pursuant to City Standards or as approved by the City Engineer.
m. Construction Plans shall include all proposed storm drain inlets to include and update existing storm drain inlets along the project frontage with “No Dumping – Drains to Creek” thermoplastic stencils to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
n. Permittee shall obtain approval from the City Engineer on the Project Operation and Maintenance Manual for all stormwater control systems.

Said Manual shall comply with all applicable Municipal Regional NPDES Permit requirements including, but not limited to, maintenance, sediment removal, weed and trash abatement, and the use of chemicals. o. Construction Plans shall include all landscaping with adequate root barriers to protect all City facilities, including but not limited to sidewalks, utilities, meters, ramps, and driveways.

p. Permittee shall have a licensed Land Surveyor locate all existing survey monuments on or adjacent to the project, and show said monuments as protected on all construction plans.
q. Construction Plans shall include a Traffic Control Plan in conformance with the latest edition of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices issued by Caltrans and as required by the City Engineer. r. Construction Plans shall include Emergency Vehicle Access areas to comply with the requirements of the Fire District, and that ingress and egress is provided to all neighboring properties during construction. s. Construction plans shall incorporate roadways and driveways that provide adequate sight distance pursuant to City and Caltrans design requirements. All landscape areas required to have restrictions to comply with sight distance requirements shall be shown on applicable Construction and Plot Plans.
t. Construction plans shall incorporate rights-of-way and all-weather vehicular access from a public road to all proposed and existing public utilities, appurtenances and easements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This includes, but is not limited to, existing public utilities within the designated permanent open space Parcel I.

10. Prior to approving the Final Map:
a. Final Map shall comply with the current Subdivision Map Act. b. The Project shall annex into the most current City Community Facilities District (currently CFD #5), and annex into, or form a street lighting and landscape maintenance assessment district, or update the current LLAD 02-3 to reflect the current project or provide and execute an alternative funding mechanism acceptable to the City for the maintenance of City improvements.
c. The Project shall annex into the most current Emergency Medical and Fire Protection Service Funding Community Facilities District as required by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (Brentwood Municipal Code Chapter 17.635).
d. Permittee shall provide for an adequate private funding mechanism for the perpetual maintenance of all stormwater treatment areas, stormwater detention basins, rear-lot landscaping for lots with double street frontages, soundwalls along State Route 4, and common interest development facilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Permittee shall dedicate parcels or private easements with said facilities to a Homeowners Association or similar private entity in fee.

e. Final Map shall include approved street names by the Fire District and Community Development Department. All public streets shall be irrevocably offered for dedication.
f. All applicable City fees shall be paid including, but not limited to, the Agricultural Mitigation Fee, the Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District Fee.
g. For double frontage residential lots along Bridle Gate Drive and San Jose Avenue, the Final Map shall show relinquishment of abutter’s rights of access adjacent to all accessible ramp locations and provide a public utility easement along street frontages to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
h. The 25-foot wide existing right-of-way for Old Sand Creek Road is identified to be a portion of a collector street in the Innovation Center Specific Plan and shall not be abandoned.
i. For all common interest developments, Permittee shall submit a copy of the draft Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions to the City Engineer and Director of Community Development for review and approval. Prior to recordation, Permittee shall submit any revisions to the City for approval.

11. Prior to issuance of any Building Permits:
a. The following improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer:
i. All on-site improvements, including the extension of San Jose Avenue and Bridle Gate Drive to Sand Creek Road, shall be constructed prior to the issuance of any building permit in each phase (excluding model homes). The improvements shall include, but not limited to pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lights, stormwater facilities, utilities, and walls.
ii. The traffic signal at the proposed Sand Creek Road and Bridle Gate Drive including the additional Sand Creek Road eastbound lane, separated bike lane, curbs, gutters, bioretention, and sidewalk along the project frontage and all soundwalls shall be substantially completed prior to the issuance of the 50 th building
permit.
b. Permittee shall provide an approval signed and sealed by a geotechnical or structural engineer of the location, nature and proximity of stormwater features near or adjacent to buildings as determined by the City Engineer. Locations and design of any mitigating structural design

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

12. As set forth below, Permittee shall dedicate the park parcels and open space parcels to the City in fee. Maintenance of these properties shall be included in the Lighting and Landscaping District for this Project, as indicated in the General Plan Goals CSF 1 and CSF 2.
a. Permittee shall dedicate to the City of Brentwood in fee title Parcels “A” and “G” for public park purposes and construct landscaping and park improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Director of Parks and Recreation. Parcel “A” totals 6 acres, of which 1.94 acres Permittee shall grade to a less than 3% slope in order to be deemed usable and fee creditable Park land. Parcel “G” totals 2.49 acres, of which 2.41 acres Permittee shall grade to a less than 3% slope in order to be deemed usable and fee creditable Parkland. Park improvements shall be designed and improved to include amenities consistent with the ‘Neighborhood Park’ definition in the current Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan and will be reimbursed according to the provisions of the Development Fee Program. Pursuant to the requirements of BMC Section 2.46.020.G, prior to submittal of the landscape construction plans for the parks, the Permittee shall submit Conceptual Park Plans showing the proposed design, amenities and programming of the parks for review and approval by the Park and Recreation Commission, as indicated in the General Plan Goals CSF 1 and CSF 2.
b. Permittee shall dedicate to the City of Brentwood in fee title Parcel “I” for open space and trail purposes and construct a 10 foot wide asphalt multi-use trail on Parcel “I” from the southern boundary of the Project at the existing terminus of Black Gold Trail, thence to the extension of Sand Creek Road adjacent to the park in Parcel A, to the satisfaction of

the Director of Parks and Recreation. In the vicinity of Lot 32, the trail shall include a pass-through connection point to San Jose Avenue. The trail pass-through at this location shall be a total width of 30 feet, including the ten foot wide asphalt trail. The Permittee will also construct open space landscaping and trail amenity improvements to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation prior to the issuance of the 136th building permit. Trail and landscape fee credit will be provided for these improvements per the City’s Development Fee Program, as indicated in the General Plan Goals CSF1 and CSF2.

13. In addition to the sound walls required in Condition of Approval No. 5 above, Permittee shall construct a split-face masonry block wall with the same design as approved for the sound walls adjacent to City-owned park or landscape areas at the heights and in the locations set forth below, unless approved otherwise by the City Engineer and the Director of Parks and Recreation:
a. A minimum 7-foot high masonry wall separating the northern lot line of Lot #1 from Parcel ‘A’;
b. A minimum 7-foot high masonry wall separating Lots #258-272 from Parcel ‘G’;
c. A minimum 7-foot high masonry wall separating the eastern lot line of Lots 45 and 46 from Parcel ‘F’;
d. A minimum 8-foot high masonry wall separating Lots #133-139 from Parcel ‘C’; and
e. A minimum 8-foot high masonry wall separating the northern lot line of Lot #140 from Parcel ‘D’.

14. The Permittee shall submit all landscape plans for the review and approval of the Director of Parks and Recreation for street frontage landscaping, stormwater treatment areas, front yard landscape areas, and parks and trails prior to approval of improvement plans for the project. All trees shall be selected and planted as per the City’s Urban Forest Guidelines. The landscaping improvements for the park parcels and trail improvements shall be constructed and improved prior to issuance of the 136th building permit, including model homes or any permit adjacent to the two park parcels to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation.

15. The Permittee shall identify all park and trail locations within the subdivision with signage, prior to, through construction and permanent signage upon completion, to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation, or their designee.

16. The Permittee shall comply with the Public Art Program by paying the in-lieu fees consistent with Brentwood Municipal Code Chapter 2.60.

17. The Permittee shall pay any parks and trails fees due and in effect at the time of the issuance of each building permit to the satisfaction of the Director of

Parks and Recreation and Community Development Director. The on-site parkland and park improvements dedicated by Permittee to the City shall be fee creditable as defined and broken down above, as per the City’s development fee program.

18. Prior to recordation of a final map, the Permittee shall comply with the policies established in support of Goal 2 (COS 2) of the General Plan Conservation and Open Space element and the Agricultural Preservation Program (Chapter 17.730) of the Brentwood Municipal Code in order to mitigate the potential significant impact of the proposed project on the loss of farmland. The Permittee shall pay the current agricultural conservation fee in effect at the time of final map recordation to provide funds for the City to purchase conservation easements to mitigate the loss of farmland.

19. The Permittee shall submit a worksheet containing the lot sizes, fee per lot, subtotal and total fee required, as well as the lot closure calculations to the Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District for its review. Additionally, the Permittee shall include a worksheet containing calculations of all other impervious surfaces within the project area.

20. Prior to final map approval, Permittee shall enter into an affordable housing agreement with the City of Brentwood in accordance with the requirements, including, but not limited to, the affordability levels, set forth in Ordinance No. 1014.

21. Prior to each building permit issuance, the Permittee shall submit to the Community Development Department written proof from the Liberty Union High School District and the Brentwood Union School District indicating that appropriate school mitigation fees have been paid.

22. The Permittee shall pay all fire facility impact fees at the time of the issuance of the first building permit, at the then-current rate.

23. Provide emergency apparatus access roadways with all-weather (paved) driving surfaces of not less than 20-feet unobstructed width, and not less than 13 feet 6 inches of vertical clearance, to within 150 feet of travel distance to all portions of the exterior walls of every building. Access shall have a minimum outside turning radius of 45 feet and must be capable of supporting the imposed first apparatus loading of 37 tons.

24. Access roadways of less than 38-feet unobstructed width shall have NO PARKING – FIRE LANE signs posted, allowing for parking on one side only or curbs painted red with the works NO PARKING – FIRE LANE clearly marked.

25. Permittee shall provide an adequate and reliable water supply for fire protection as set forth in the California Fire Code.

26. Permittee shall provide an adequate and reliable water supply for fire

protection with a minimum fire flow of 1500 GPM. Required flow must be delivered from not more than 1 hydrant flowing for a duration of 120 minutes while maintaining 20-poutds residual pressure in the main.

27. Permittee shall provide additional hydrants of the East Bay type in compliance with Chapter 5 and Appendix B and C of the California Fire Code (C103.1) CFC. Additional location needed: One at each of two entrances to development and additional hydrants on Bridle Gate Drive and San Jose Ave to meet requirements of Appendix C of CFC.

28. A land development permit is required from Contra Costa Fire Protection District for access and water supply review and approval prior to submitting building construction plans. Permittee shall submit a minimum of two copies of full size, scaled site improvement plan indicating:
a. All existing or proposed hydrant locations
b. Fire apparatus access to include slope and road surface c. Elevations building
d. Size of building and type of construction
e. Gates, fences, retaining walls, bio-retention basins, any obstructions to access
f. Detail showing the lowest level of fire department vehicle access and the floor level of the highest occupied floor
g. Striping and signage plan to include “NO PARKING – FIRE LANE” markings
This is a separate submittal from the building construction plans. These plans shall be approved prior to submitting building plans for review.

29. Emergency apparatus access roadways and hydrants shall be installed, in service, and inspected by the Fire District prior to construction or combustible storage on site. Note: A temporary aggregate base or asphalt grindings roadway is not considered an all-weather surface for emergency apparatus access. The first lift of asphalt concrete paving shall be installed as the minimum roadway material and must be engineered to support the designated gross vehicle weight of 22/37 tons.

30. The homes as proposed shall be protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system complying with the 2022 edition of NFPA 13 or Section R313.3 of the 2022 California Residential Code. Permittee shall submit a minimum of two sets of plans to the Fire District for review and approval prior to installation.

31. Permittee shall provide traffic signal pre-emption systems (Opticom) on any new or modified traffic signals installed with this development.

32. Flammable or combustible liquid storage tanks shall not be located on the site without obtaining approval and necessary permits from the Fire District.

33. As required by Brentwood Municipal Code Section 8.36.035 (‘Weed abatement’), Permittee shall cut down and remove all weeds, grass, vines, and other growth on the project site that are capable of being ignited and endangering property.

34. Where existing access to open land or space, or to fire trail systems maintained for public or private use is obstructed by new development of any kind, Permittee shall provide an alternate means of access into the area that is sufficient to allow access for fire personnel and apparatus. These access roadways shall be a minimum of 16 feet in width to accommodate Fire District equipment. Access locations will be determined by the District upon submittal of three copies of complete improvement plans.

35. Permittee or Permittee’s authorized agent shall be responsible for the development, implementation and maintenance of a written plan in compliance with NFPA 241, establishing a fire prevention program at the project site applicable throughout all phases of construction. The plan shall be made available for review by the Fire Code official upon request. The fire prevention program superintendent shall develop and maintain an approved prefire plan in cooperation with the fire chief. The fire chief and Fire Code official shall be notified of changes affecting the utilization of information contained in such prefire plans.

36. Permittee shall submit plans to the Fire District for review and approval prior to construction of the building or installation of the systems to ensure compliance with minimum requirements related to fire and life safety. Plan review and inspection fees shall be submitted at the time of plan review submittal.

37. Any work within the Contra Costa Water District right-of-way, including extension of existing utilities through Sand Creek Road or any drainage/mitigation work within Sand Creek shall require submittal of an application and administrative deposit to the District for review. Any work within the District right-of-way or impacting the Los Vaqueros Pipeline will require a permit. No construction staging is permitted within the District right-of-way.

38. Permittee shall inform and notify prospective buyers in writing as prescribed by the City’s Right to Farm Ordinance, prior to purchase, about existing and on-going agriculture activities in the immediate area in the form of a disclosure statement. The notifications shall disclose that the Brentwood area

is an agricultural area subject to ground and aerial application of chemicals and early morning or nighttime farm operations which may create noise, dust, etc. The language and format of such notification shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to recordation of the final map. Each disclosure statement shall be acknowledged with the signature of each prospective buyer.

39. Permittee shall install an eastbound bus turnout on Sand Creek Road near the intersection of Sand Creek Road and Bridle Gate Drive in coordination with Tri Delta Transit and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. These bus turnout locations shall also include a bus shelter to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

40. Permittee shall comply with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Rules and Regulations, including implementing all Basic Construction Mitigation Measures (BCMMs) including:
a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day.

The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
f. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.
g. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.
h. Unpaved roads providing access to sites located 100 feet or further from a paved road shall be treated with a six- to 12-inch layer of compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.
i. Publicly visible signs shall be posted with the telephone number and name of the person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within

48 hours. The Air District’s General Air Pollution Complaints number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

41. Permittee shall implement BAAQMD enhanced best management practices, including:
a. Limit the simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and grounddisturbing construction activities. b. Install wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity.
c. Plant vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established.
d. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent. e. Minimize the amount of excavated material or waste materials stored at the site.
f. Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to construction areas, including previously graded areas, that are inactive for at least 10 calendar days.

42. Permittee shall fulfill all mitigation measures identified in the Final Revised Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, which are hereby incorporated into these conditions of approval.

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

4859-8121-3143 v1
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 24-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

BRENTWOOD APPROVING THE APPEAL FILED BY WCHB

DEVELOPMENT, LLC, REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW NO.
21-010 FOR 13 HOME PLANS TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON 272

SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS FOR THE BRIDLE GATE PROJECT, LOCATED

GENERALLY WEST OF THE SAND CREEK ROAD AND STATE ROUTE
4 INTERCHANGE (APN 019-082-007).

WHEREAS, on October 22, 2021, WCHB Development, LLC (the “Permittee”) submitted an application to the City of Brentwood requesting approval of a design review (DR 21-010) for thirteen home plans to be constructed on 286 single-family lots for the Bridle Gate Project, located generally west of the Sand Creek Road and the State Route 4 interchange; and
WHEREAS, the Permittee also submitted a request for a vesting tentative subdivision map (VTSM 9586); and
WHEREAS, the Project is proposed to be located on a roughly 135-acre site bounded by the proposed Sand Creek Road Extension to the north, State Route 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, with a small segment of existing San Jose Avenue bounding the site at its farthest southeastern corner (the “Project Site”); and
WHEREAS, the City referred the Project to various departments and agencies for review and recommendations; and
WHEREAS, in August 2022, the Permittee initiated legal proceedings against the City in the Contra Costa Superior Court (the “Court”) pertaining to the processing of the Project, alleging, among other things, that the PD-36 zoning standards applicable to the Project were not objective; and
WHEREAS, consistent with the Court’s opinion, the City has processed the application in accordance with the objective standards for PD-36, Subarea C; and WHEREAS, on June 30, 2023, the Permittee revised its application by submitting a modified proposed vesting tentative subdivision map that increased the minimum lot size for all parcels to 5,000 square feet, and decreased the number of units to 272; and
WHEREAS, on August 3, 2023, the Permittee further revised its application by submitting a modified master plotting plan, floor area matrix, and lot coverage matrix, with 50 foot lot widths; and

4859-8121-3143 v1
WHEREAS, the City distributed a Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners of record within 300 feet of the Project Site and published it in the Brentwood Press on August 25, 2023, and the Permittee posted the Project Site with the required signage in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this project at its regular meeting of September 5, 2023, to consider the Project, including this design review application and considered the staff report, supporting documents, public testimony, and all appropriate information submitted with the proposed Project and studied the compatibility of this request with adjacent land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on September 5, 2023, continued the item to a date uncertain and directed staff to work with the Permittee 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); and
WHEREAS, on behalf of the Permittee, Abrams Associates reviewed five potential options for minimizing additional traffic on St. Regis Avenue, which involve various turn restrictions and circulation modifications; and WHEREAS, DKS Associates analyzed the potential impact of the options on the REIR Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) discussion, which analysis was peer reviewed by Kimley-Horn and ultimately analyzed by the City’s environmental consultant (“Raney”), who determined that none of the options would create a new significant environmental impact or increase in the severity of previously identified impacts; and WHEREAS, after consideration of the proposed circulation options, the City Council did not alter the original proposed circulation; and WHEREAS, the City distributed a Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners of record within 300 feet of the Project Site and published it in the Brentwood Press on July 5, 2024, and the Permittee posted the Project Site with the required signage in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this project at its regular meeting of July 16, 2024, and denied the Project, taking no CEQA action; and
WHEREAS, the Permittee appealed the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council on July 24, 2024 in accordance with Chapter 17.880 of the Brentwood Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City distributed a Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners of record within 300 feet of the Project Site and published it in the Brentwood Press on August 16, 2024, and the Permittee posted the Project Site with the required signage in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090; and

4859-8121-3143 v1
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this project at its regular meeting of August 27, 2024, to consider the Project, including this vesting tentative subdivision map application and considered the staff report, supporting documents, public testimony, all appropriate information submitted with the proposed Project, studied the compatibility of this request with adjacent land uses, and the additional options provided related to circulation and determined to approve the appeal reversing the Planning Commission’s action to deny the Project; and WHEREAS, the City prepared a Final Revised Environment Impact Report, including an Initial Study, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for this Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA,” codified at Public Resources Code Section 15000, et seq., and as further governed by the State CEQA Guidelines, found at 14 CCR 21000, et seq.), and at its August 27, 2024 meeting, the City Council certified the Final Revised Environmental Impact Report, adopting of Findings of Fact and a Mitigating Monitoring and Report Plan through adoption of Resolution No. 24- .

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

A. Hereby finds that with respect to Brentwood Municipal Code Section

17.820.007:

1. The proposed development shall create a well-composed urban design, harmoniously related to other facilities in the immediate area and to the total setting as seen from key vantage points in the community.

The proposed development creates a well-composed urban design, harmoniously related to other existing and planned developments in the immediate area and as viewed from key vantage points in the area, in that the proposed house models include 13 distinct floor plans with four alternative elevations per plan, except for Floor Plan 13, which has two elevations. The plans are architecturally diverse and interesting, offering a variety of styles (Tuscan, Craftsman, French Cottage, and Bay Area Modern) that complement the architectural styles in neighboring residential subdivisions, including Brentwood Hills to the south. In addition, the layout of the proposed development provides adequate landscaping along arterial, collector, and residential streets, as well as within publicly-accessible open spaces, as conditioned.

2. Elements of design which have significant relationship to the exterior appearance of structures and facilities shall be given special consideration; these elements include but are not limited to height, arrangement on the site, texture, lighting, material, color, signs, landscaping, size, bulk and scale, and appurtenances.

4859-8121-3143 v1
Special consideration is given to those elements of the design that have significant relationship to the exterior appearance of structures proposed within the development given that the exterior materials, massing, roof shapes and pitches, trim shapes and material, and colors vary by these elevation styles (and include a total of 24 different color schemes), and 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, and the accent trim and around the windows and the varied window grid patterns are proposed to be carried around to windows at the sides and rears of all residences. The proposed landscaping satisfies City requirements, with at least 50% of the front yards of each residence being landscaped and street trees included along each project street. Finally, the bulk and scale of the proposed residences meet the maximum height and setback requirements of PD36, Subarea C, as conditioned.

3. The proposed development shall be of a quality and character appropriate to, and serving to protect the value of, private and public investments in the immediate area.

The proposed development is of a quality and character appropriate to, and serving to protect the value of, private and public investments in the immediate area, in that the location and design of the proposed homes, as conditioned, will not adversely affect abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood, as the proposed project includes 13 different floor plans and four different architectural styles, which will create a well-designed neighborhood with varied home elevations that maintain the quality of the neighborhood and that would be located on these 272 new lots. Furthermore, the proposed project is consistent with the Residential Low Density designation in the General Plan, including the density of the proposed project at 4.0 du/ac. The project is also consistent with the applicable objective zoning standards for PD-36 set forth in Brentwood Municipal Code Section 17.486.004, referring to Subarea C, including: the minimum lot size for the proposed project is 5,000 square feet (sf); the minimum proposed lot width is 50 feet; and the minimum proposed lot depth is 100 feet, as well as setback and lot coverage standards.

4. Where the proposed development is located in an area for which a specific plan, planned development, neighborhood plan or precise plan has been adopted by the city council, the design of the development shall conform in all significant respects with such plans.

The Project Site is not located within the boundaries of any specific plan, neighborhood plan, or precise plan. It is, however, zoned Planned Development No. 36 (PD-36). Subarea C of PD-36 includes the following development standards and the proposed project conforms to the proposed development standards, as conditioned:

4859-8121-3143 v1
Minimum lot size: 5,000 square feet;
Minimum lot width: 50 feet;
Minimum lot frontage: 35 feet at the front property line for lots on culde-sacs, knuckles, or curvilinear streets; Minimum front yard setback: 20 feet for front-facing garages; 15 feet for building walls and porches;
Minimum rear yard setback: 15 feet, with an average of 20 feet; Maximum building height: Two stories, not to exceed 30 feet; Corner lot fence setback: Five feet from the street side property line; all other fence regulations shall adhere to the requirements of Chapter

17.660 of the Municipal Code;
Lots adjacent to open space shall utilize a six-foot high tubular steel fence or similar design along the common property lines.

Accessory structures shall be prohibited in side or rear yards for areas exceeding a 3:1 slope.

To the extent the project is not consistent with the PD-36, Subarea C standards requiring a housing unit cap and a conditional use permit for residential uses over 3.5 units per gross, these requirements cannot be imposed as they are not consistent with State law.

5. The proposed development shall conform with all requirements for landscaping, screening, parking, usable open space and off-street loading as set forth in Title 17 of the Brentwood Municipal Code.

The proposed development is conditioned to conform to all requirements for landscaping, parking, usable open space and off-street loading insomuch as preliminary landscaping plans have been included with the project and final landscaping plans are conditioned to be approved prior to building permit issuance, a minimum of two spaces per single-family home have been provided, off-street loading spaces are not required, and a total of 8.5 acres of parkland has been provided.

6. The siting and internal arrangement of all structures and other facilities on the site, including the land uses, internal circulation, off-street parking and loading facilities, lighting, signing and access to and from public rights-of-way, shall be conducive to an orderly, attractive, efficient and harmonious development.

The location and internal arrangements of all structures and other facilities as conditioned on the site, including land uses, internal circulation, parking, and lighting are conducive to an orderly, attractive, efficient, and harmonious development as the project, as conditioned, will comply with all proposed zoning requirements, and the streets are designed to meet City standards. The project will also complete an important link in the City’s planned circulation system, by constructing a connection between an extended San Jose Avenue and the newly

4859-8121-3143 v1
extended Sand Creek Road, as envisioned in Figure CIR-1 (‘Circulation Diagram’) of the Circulation Element of the General Plan.

7. The proposed development shall not have adverse environmental effects on adjacent developments, existing or potential, by reason of conflicts in land use, topography or traffic.

The proposed development will not have adverse environmental effects on adjacent developments, existing or potential, by reason of conflicts in land use, topography or traffic as the environmental effects of the project were evaluated in the Revised Environmental Impact Report (REIR) prepared for the project and all mitigation measures were incorporated into the approval of Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 9586. The REIR includes no findings of significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the project.

8. “The City of Brentwood Design Guidelines” Draft, dated February 1, 2001, and any other applicable specific design criteria or standards set out in this title or other city ordinance.

The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the City of Brentwood Residential Design Guidelines, dated September 26, 2006, as illustrated in various ways, including:
a. The Design Guidelines provide that single-family residential units must include one distinct plan with four unique elevations for every 25 units in the project, and the project provides thirteen floorplans plans, with four elevation styles; and
b. The Design Guidelines state that 50% of corner lots within a development must be single-story units, and, of the 26 lots that could be considered corner lots in the project, 13 of these have been plotted with single-story plans; and
c. The Design Guidelines note that garage doors with decorative features, including glass windows, must be provided for 60% or more of the units, and all of the project’s proposed garage doors include windows.

9. All applicable regulations of the zoning ordinance and other city ordinances, policies or resolutions.

The proposed project conforms to all applicable regulations of the zoning ordinance and other City ordinances, policies, or resolutions given that the homes on the lots will meet the development standards previously established for Planned Development No. 36, Subarea C, except as noted in Finding(A)(4) above, as well as parking and landscaping requirements.

4859-8121-3143 v1
B. Hereby approves Design Review No. 21-010, subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and made a part of this resolution, and all City standards applicable to this project.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at its regular meeting of August 27, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

RECUSE:

APPROVED:
____________________________
Joel Bryant
Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Margaret Wimberly
City Clerk

4859-8121-3143 v1
EXHIBIT “A” TO
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 24-XX

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
DESIGN REVIEW NO. 21-010

1. The Applicant, including all successors in interest (collectively, “Permittee”) shall comply with each and every condition set forth in the Permit. Design Review No. 21-010 (the “Permit”) shall have no force or effect and no building permit shall be issued unless and until all things required by the belowenumerated precedent conditions have been performed. The Permittee shall develop the site in accordance with the approved attachments and as modified by these Conditions of Approval.

2. The houses and related improvements for this project shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the plans prepared by West Coast Home Builders and Legacy Design Group dated July 1, 2024, unless otherwise modified by the Planning Commission or any of these conditions.

3. The Permittee shall comply with all conditions of approval in Resolution No. 24- , approving Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 9586.

4. All mitigation measures identified in the Final Revised Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation and Monitoring Plan are hereby incorporated into these conditions of approval.

5. The Permittee is responsible for ensuring that all setbacks are met at the time of plot plan submittal for building permits and throughout the construction process in accordance with Brentwood Municipal Code Section 17.486.004, referring to Subarea C.

6. To ensure compliance with Brentwood Municipal Code Section 17.486.004, Plans 10, 11, and 13 shall be modified prior to building permit issuance to not exceed two stories and a maximum height of 30 feet, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.

7. Prior to approval of any permit, the Permittee shall submit the General Plan Maintenance Fee in effect at the time of fee submittal.

8. In order to satisfy the requirements of Brentwood Municipal Code Chapter

16.168 (‘Habitat Conservation Plan [HCP]/Natural Community Conservation Plan [NCCP] Implementation’), Permittee shall fulfill its obligations as set forth in that certain ‘Multi-Party Mitigation and Land Dedication In-Lieu of Development Fee Agreement’ by and between the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy; the City of Pittsburg; the City of Brentwood; Nortonville, LLC; Seecon Built Homes, Inc.; and West Coast Home Builders, Inc.

9. All elevations of all homes shall carry around the window grid patterns and