Brentwood City Council
September 10, 2024

SEPTEMBER 10, 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

September 10, 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. PRESENTATIONS
E. 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.

F. 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.

F.1 A Proclamation Recognizing the 95th Anniversary of the Brentwood Lion's Club F.2 A Proclamation Proclaiming September 11, 2024, as Patriot Day F.3 Write-Off of Uncollectible Accounts Receivable Over $5,000 Title/Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the write-off of two uncollectible account receivables in the amounts of $7,319.20 and $7,497.79
F.4 Purchase one new 40,000 lb Equipment Trailer, and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute any necessary documents in a total amount not to exceed $90,225.

Title/Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution approving the purchase of one new 40,000 lb Equipment Trailer (Trail- Eze TE401) from Great Western Trailer in Fontana, CA; and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute any necessary documents in an amount not to exceed $90,225.

F.5 Consideration of Recommendation and Potential Appointment of Angela Caprini to the Arts Commission
Title/Recommendation
Consider the recommendation of Angela Caprini to the Arts Commission by Mayor Bryant to fill the vacancy on the Arts Commission, with a term expiring on December 31, 2026.

G. 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.

G.1 Approve the Final Engineer’s Report, and confirm and order the formation of Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-2 (Trumark Trailside) Staff requests that this item be continued to the City Council meeting of September 24, 2024.

Title/Recommendation
Hold the Public Hearing relating to the formation of Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-2 (Trumark Trailside). Confirm the formation with a simple majority property owner approval, weighted by assessment amount. Adopt a Resolution ordering the formation of Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-2 (Trumark Trailside); ordering improvements and confirming the diagram and assessments as shown in the Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-2 (Trumark Trailside) Fiscal year 2024- 25 Final Engineer’s Report in accordance with provisions of the Streets and Highways Code “Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972” and California Proposition 218.

G.2 Approve the Final Engineer’s Report, and confirm the ordering of the formation of Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) Title/Recommendation
Hold the Public Hearing relating to the formation of Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane). Confirm the formation with a simple majority property owner approval, weighted by assessment amount. Adopt a Resolution ordering the formation of Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane); ordering improvements and confirming the diagram and assessments as shown in the Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) Fiscal Year 2024-25 Final Engineer’s Report in accordance with provisions of the Streets and Highways Code “Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972” and California Proposition 218.

G.3 Approve the Final Engineer’s Report, and confirm and order the formation of Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-3 (Inez Estates).

Title/Recommendation
Hold the Public Hearing relating to the formation of Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-3 (Inez Estates). Confirm the formation with a simple majority property owner approval, weighted by assessment amount. Adopt a Resolution ordering the formation of Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-3 (Inez Estates); ordering improvements and confirming the diagram and assessments as shown in the Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) Fiscal Year 2024-25 Final Engineer’s Report in accordance with provisions of the Streets and Highways Code “Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972” and California Proposition 218.

G.4 Call for review of a Design Review and a Conditional Use Permit for a new Popeye’s drivethrough restaurant.

Title/Recommendation
Adopt a resolution affirming the Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 23-006 and Design Review No. 23-003 to construct (and operate beyond 10:00 p.m.) a 2,735 square foot Popeye’s drive-through restaurant and associated site improvements

on a 3.4-acre parcel located at 7820 Brentwood Boulevard (APN 016-150-106).

The project qualifies as a Class 32 categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects), insomuch as the proposed restaurant and drive-through are consistent with the applicable General Plan designation, as well as with the applicable zoning designation and regulations, are proposed on a project site less than 5-acres in size, have no value as habitat for endangered species, would not result in significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, and can be adequately served by all utilities and public services.

H. 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.

H.1 Approve the proposed refunding of the outstanding Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2014 through the issuance of Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2024 (the “2024 Bonds”) and direct staff to take all necessary steps to execute and deliver any and Title/Recommendation
Adopt two Resolutions, one by the City Council and one by the Brentwood Infrastructure Financing Authority (“BIFA”): 1) authorizing issuance and sale of the 2024 Bonds; 2) authorizing execution of a Third Supplemental Trust Agreement; 3) authorizing execution of a Third Supplemental Installment Sale Agreement; 4) authorizing execution of a Bond Purchase Contract; 5) approving an Official Statement; and 6) directing staff to take all necessary steps to execute and deliver any and all documents necessary to facilitate the issuance, sale and delivery of the 2024 Bonds.

H.2 Introduction and Waiver of First Reading of an Ordinance Amending the Brentwood Municipal Code to allow Pad-Mounted Transformers within Development Projects.

Title/Recommendation
Introduce and waive the first reading of an ordinance to amend Brentwood Municipal Code Section 16.120.120, allowing Permittees to install pad-mounted transformers within development projects while the City monitors the nationwide supply chain issues related to underground transformers.

The proposed ordinance is not an action subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as the action has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment. (14 Cal. Code. Regs. § 15358.) Further, adoption of the ordinance is exempt under CEQA because it will not cause a change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the ordinances. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3).) H.3 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.

I. 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
J. REQUESTED FUTURE AGENDA ITEM(S)
J.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.

J.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.

J.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.

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 September 5, 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

PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, the Brentwood Lions Club was organized in 1929, becoming Brentwood’s first service organization and laying the foundation for decades of community service and leadership; and
WHEREAS, over the years, the Brentwood Lions Club has made significant contributions to the community, including purchasing uniforms for Liberty Union High School's football team, which adopted "Lions" as their team name in recognition of the Club's support, and hosting the Football Awards Banquet, a major social event for over 50 years; and
WHEREAS, the Lions Club of Brentwood has been a driving force behind numerous community projects, such as organizing town clean-up efforts, assisting in the development of public parks, supporting youth organizations, and helping to establish local services; and
WHEREAS, the Brentwood Lions Club has continued to evolve, with various fundraisers supporting a wide range of projects, from providing eyeglasses for those in need to supporting local schools and senior citizens, and contributing to regional, state, national, and international Lions activities; and WHEREAS, the Brentwood Lions Club's enduring commitment to service has resulted in recognition both locally and regionally, including sponsorship of additional Lions Clubs in the area; and
WHEREAS, as the Brentwood Lions Club celebrates its 95th anniversary, it continues to be a pillar of the community, embodying the Lions’ motto, "We Serve," and making Brentwood a better place to live for all its residents.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that the City Council and the residents of Brentwood, do hereby recognize and celebrate the 95th Anniversary of the Brentwood Lions Club. We honor its members, past and present, for their unwavering dedication to community service and look forward to many more years of impactful contributions.

Dated this 10th day of September 2024

Joel R. Bryant, Mayor

PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2001, our nation endured a tragic and unprecedented attack that claimed the lives of nearly 3,000 innocent people, a day that forever changed the fabric of our society and united Americans in an extraordinary display of resilience and unity; and
WHEREAS, each year on September 11th, we observe Patriot Day to honor the memory of those who lost their lives in the attacks, to pay tribute to the first responders who risked and sacrificed their lives to save others, and to recognize the courage and strength of the survivors; and WHEREAS, Patriot Day serves as a solemn reminder of the values that define our nation—freedom, justice, and the enduring spirit of the American people, who in the face of adversity, come together to support and protect one another; and
WHEREAS, the City of Brentwood encourages all residents to reflect on the events of September 11, 2001, and to participate in acts of service, unity, and remembrance that honor the victims, heroes, and all those who continue to defend our country and its ideals.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that the City Council
of the City of Brentwood, do hereby recognize September 11, 2024, as

PATRIOT DAY
Dated this 10th day of September 2024

Joel R. Bryant, Mayor

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.3
09/10/2024
SUBJECT: Write-Off of Uncollectible Accounts Receivable Over $5,000 DEPARTMENT: Finance and Information Systems
STAFF: Kerry Breen, Director of Finance and Information Systems Michelle Morey, Financial Services Manager

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the write-off of two uncollectible account receivables in the amounts of $7,319.20 and $7,497.79

FISCAL IMPACT
The two uncollectible account receivables total $14,816.99. This amount would have been credited to the General Fund. It is the City’s practice to not record revenues for DUI recovery claims prior to successful collection. As such, there is not a negative implication to the City’s General Fund forecast.

The Council/Administrative Policy No. 10-5, Budget and Fiscal Policies, allows the Director of Finance and Information Systems to make budget adjustments for writeoffs in accordance with Section 5.9, Uncollectible Receivables and Section 3.3.5., Budget Administration.

BACKGROUND
Council/Administrative Policy No. 10-5, Budget and Fiscal Policies, “Policy” states it is the intent of the City to reflect the value of its receivables and ensure that resources are used efficiently and not devoted to the recovery of uncollectible receivables.

Further, any uncollectible account exceeding $5,000 per transaction or $50,000, in the aggregate, for any individual debtor requires City Council approval to write-off.

The City has identified two delinquent receivable amounts. Account Receivable “AR” invoice #AR13123, in the amount of $7,319.20, is related to the cost recovery for a Driving While Under the Influence “DUI” incident. AR invoice #AR13130, in the amount of $7,497.79, is also for cost recovery due to a DUI incident. Collection efforts have been made per the Council/Administrative Policy No. 10-15, Collection Policy. Both debts are past the California Statute of Limitations of 4 (four) years for this type of debt and therefore, should be written off.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.3
09/10/2024

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 staff’s recommendation. The account receivable invoices will remain on the City’s accounts thereby not accurately reflecting the collectible receivable balance by $14,816.99.

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

ATTACHMENT(S)

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 January 11, 2022, the City Council approved Resolution 2022-01, amending Council/Administrative Policy No. 10-15, Collection Policy, to update the small claims and uncollectible sections as well as minor changes for clarity to referenced authority and readability.

On June 27, 2023, the City Council approved Resolution 2023-85, amending Council/Administrative Policy No. 10-5, Budget and Fiscal Policies.

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD

AUTHORIZING THE WRITE-OFF OF TWO UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNT
RECEIVABLES IN THE AMOUNTS OF $7,319.20 AND $7,497.79
WHEREAS, all write-offs exceeding $5,000 per transaction or $50,000 in the aggregate for any individual debtor require City Council’s approval to write-off; and WHEREAS, staff has identified two uncollectible receivables over $5,000 individually which requires City Council approval prior to being written off; and WHEREAS, the amounts owed to the City of $7,319.20 and $7,497.79 are related to cost recoveries for Driving While Under the Influence “DUI” incidents; and
WHEREAS, collection efforts were made per Council/Administrative Policy 10-15, Collection Policy; and
WHEREAS, the total amount owed, $14,816.99, will be written off in the General Fund; and
WHEREAS, the Council/Administrative Policy 10-5, Budget and Fiscal Policies, “Policy” allows the Director of Finance and Information Systems to make budget adjustments for write-offs in accordance with Section 5.9, Uncollectible Receivables and Section 3.3.5., Budget Administration, of the Policy.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood that the City Council authorizes the write-off of uncollectible account receivable “AR” invoice #AR13123 in the amount of $7,319.20 and #AR13130 in the amount of $7,497.79.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of September 2024 by the following vote:

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.4
09/10/2024
SUBJECT: Purchase one new 40,000 lb Equipment Trailer, and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute any necessary documents in a total amount not to exceed $90,225.

DEPARTMENT: Public Works
STAFF: Casey Wichert, Director of Public Works
Scott Dempsey, Fleet/Facilities Maintenance Manager

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the purchase of one new 40,000 lb Equipment Trailer (Trail-Eze TE401) from Great Western Trailer in Fontana, CA; and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute any necessary documents in an amount not to exceed $90,225.

FISCAL IMPACT
The total cost of one new 40,000 lb Equipment Trailer (Trail-Eze TE401) to be purchased from Great Western Trailer is a not to exceed amount of $90,225, which is included in the FY 2024/25 Wastewater Enterprise Fund Operating Budget.

BACKGROUND
City Council approval for the 40,000 lb Equipment Trailer was requested and received as part of the 2024/25 – 2025/26 Operating Budget adoption. The Equipment Trailer is necessary for staff to successfully implement the new sewer lateral repair program, also adopted as part of the 2024/25 – 2025/26 Operating Budget. The lateral repair program is designed to ensure that aging connections to the sewer system are repaired or replaced prior to failing, which helps prevent sewer overflows.

Wastewater Collection staff will utilize the Trailer to transport equipment to and from the repair locations throughout town. Additionally, the Trailer will also be used to respond to any after-hours sanitary sewer backup service calls as they arise.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.4
09/10/2024
Bid specifications were distributed to three vendors, which provided the following results:

Great Western Trailer $90,225
Trail-Eze $92,259
Utah Tank & Trail $100,096
Staff requests the approval to purchase one new 40,000 lb Trail-Eze – TE401 equipment trailer from Great Western Trailer in Fontana, CA in an amount not to exceed $90,225.

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 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. Resolution

3. Quote

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 February 14, 2017, by Resolution No. 2017-17, City Council adopted the amended City Council/Administrative Policy No. 10-9, Policy and Procedures for the Use of Vehicles and Related Equipment (“Vehicle Policy”).

On June 25, 2024, by Resolution 2024-73, City Council adopted the 2024/25 – 2025/26 Operating Budget.

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BRENTWOOD APPROVING THE PURCHASE ONE NEW 40,000 LB
EQUIPMENT TRAILER (TRAIL-EZE TE401) FROM GREAT
WESTERN TRAILER IN FONTANA, CA; AND AUTHORIZING THE

CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE ANY NECESSARY
DOCUMENTS IN A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $90,225.

WHEREAS, on February 14, 2017, by Resolution No. 2017-17, the City Council adopted the amended City Council/Administrative Policy No. 10-9, Policy and Procedures for the Use of Vehicles and Related Equipment (“Vehicle Policy”); and WHEREAS, on June 25, 2024, by Resolution 2024-73, the City Council approved the 2024/25 – 2025/26 Operating Budget; and
WHEREAS, the Purchasing Policy 10-7 requires that purchases or services over $50,000 be approved by City Council; and
WHEREAS, one new 40,000 lb Equipment Trailer was budgeted for purchase as part of the 2024/25 – 2025/26 Operating Budget to support the Wastewater Division to meet work performance needs; and
WHEREAS, the new Equipment Trailer will be purchased in accordance with the Vehicle Policy 10-9; and
WHEREAS, the bid from Great Western Trailer is the lowest responsive and responsible bid; and
WHEREAS, this purchase is in compliance with the Purchasing Policy No. 10- 7 and the Use of Vehicles and Related Equipment Policy No. 10-9; and WHEREAS, the total $90,225 cost will be expended through the FY 2024/25 Wastewater Enterprise Fund Operating Budget, which is included in the City Council approved 2024/25 – 2025/26 Operating Budget.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood does hereby approve the purchase of one new 40,000 lb Equipment Trailer (Trail-Eze TE401) from Great Western Trailer in Fontana, CA; and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute any necessary associated documents in a total amount not to exceed $90,225 for fiscal year 2024/25.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of September 2024 by the following vote:

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.5
09/10/2024
SUBJECT: Consideration of Recommendation and Potential Appointment of Angela Caprini to the Arts Commission
DEPARTMENT: Park and Recreation
STAFF: Bruce Mulder, Park and Recreation Director
Thien Nguyen, Recreation Manager
Lindsay Pinell, Recreation Supervisor

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Consider the recommendation of Angela Caprini to the Arts Commission by Mayor Bryant to fill the vacancy on the Arts Commission, with a term expiring on December 31, 2026.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this recommendation.

BACKGROUND
The purpose of this agenda item is to approve the Mayor’s recommendation of one member to the Arts Commission.

The Brentwood Municipal Code provides that there will be five Arts Commissioners.

On December 31, 2023, two Arts Commissioners’ terms expired. Under Brentwood Municipal Code section 2.48.020, Arts Commissioners serve terms of three years.

Staff advertised the vacancies on September 29, 2023, and four applications were received by the December 1, 2023, deadline.

The Commission Interview Ad-Hoc Committee (the Committee) was formed by the City Council on January 10, 2023. The Committee is comprised of Mayor Bryant and Council Member Mendoza. Interviews of applicants were conducted on Monday, February 12, 2024, in the City Council Chamber. Following the interviews and Committee deliberation, the Mayor moved forward with the recommendation of Nina Koch, who is currently serving on the Arts Commission, and Bryan Stewart to the Arts Commission for three-year terms expiring on December 31, 2026. On February 27, 2024, the City Council approved this recommendation.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.5
09/10/2024
On July 1, 2024, Arts Commissioner Stewart submitted his resignation from the Commission, creating a vacancy. Following this resignation, the Commission Interview Ad-Hoc Committee is recommending Angela Caprini to fill the Commissioner vacancy and fulfill the remainder of the term, set to expire December 31, 2026.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Not Applicable.

PREVIOUS ACTION
No Previous Action (for this Commissioner recommendation)

DATE OF NOTICE
Not Applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Not Applicable.

ALTERNATIVE OPTION(S)
Not Applicable

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Attachment 1: Arts Commissioners’ Application – Angela Caprini

• ongoing SAP software training and updating courses
2013 - 2018
Admin. Assistant II/Legal Secretary in training • Nevada State Taxicab Authority (Law Enforcement Regulatory agency division
Administrative duties:
• managed payment processing for all court related payments • process all other forms of applications as prevalent to drivers needs • data entry for all driver licensing requirements
• customer service for ~ 200 inbound customer calls per day • transcribed court minutes for depositions, testimonies, and BOD meetings
Legal Secretary:
• manage Livescan fingerprinting process
• manage criminal background check process for all drivers • manage warrant review and investigation process with chief 2004- 2013
HR Assistant • San Mateo Union High School District
Talent Acquisition for Substitute Teachers (Certificated) • Facilitated recruitment processes and activities, including preparing job postings, calling applicants, scheduling testing and interviews, coordinating recruitment events and advertisements, and processing applicant paperwork and background checks
• Responded to applicant calls and provided information as necessary • Testing & Selection
• Proctored and administered paper and computer-based preemployment tests, ensured all applicable policies, guidelines, and protocols were followed and included in the testing process • Scored pre-employment tests efficiently, accurately, and fairly • Reviewed testing results and performed data analysis to ensure testing standards were met and reported any testing irregularities to senior leadership
• managed payroll for substitute teachers
• COBRA benefits administration
• managed HRIS system
• ordered all office supplies
• served as relief receptionist
References
Available upon request

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.2
09/10/2024
SUBJECT: Approve the Final Engineer’s Report, and confirm the ordering of the formation of Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane)
DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation
STAFF: Bruce Mulder, Director of Parks and Recreation
Aaron Wanden, Park Maintenance Manager

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Hold the Public Hearing relating to the formation of Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane). Confirm the formation with a simple majority property owner approval, weighted by assessment amount. Adopt a Resolution ordering the formation of Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane); ordering improvements and confirming the diagram and assessments as shown in the Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) Fiscal Year 2024-25 Final Engineer’s Report in accordance with provisions of the Streets and Highways Code “Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972” and California Proposition 218.

FISCAL IMPACT
Upon build-out, the City will have authorization to collect the maximum annual assessment revenue of approximately $69,977 (in Fiscal Year 2024-25 dollars) from the residential parcels within the Hanson Lane project. This maximum annual assessment revenue will be increased each fiscal year based upon the prior year’s change in the San Francisco Bay Area Urban Wage Earners Consumer Price Index or 2%, whichever is greater, and will fund the special benefit portion of the maintenance, operation, servicing, replacement, and administration expenses associated with City improvements that benefit the project. The annual general benefit portion of these costs of approximately $4,395 will be funded by the General Fund.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.2
09/10/2024
To ensure the Landscape & Lighting Assessment Districts are self-supporting, each district has an administrative cost factored into the maximum assessment rate during formation to cover creation of annual Engineer’s Reports and levying of assessments.

Funds to cover the costs associated with the formation of the Landscape & Lighting District have been deposited with the City by the developer.

BACKGROUND
The proposed formation of Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) will consist of 94 single-family residential homes at build-out, located east of Adams Lane and north of Gracie Lane. The project is conditioned to provide a funding mechanism to offset the annual operation, maintenance, and future capital replacement costs attributed to City streetlights, landscaping, open space areas, trails, and park improvements which benefit the properties located within the project.

The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and Proposition 218 require that an Engineer’s Report be generated for the formation of any new assessment district or any annexations into existing assessment districts. The Engineer’s Report identifies public improvements to be maintained, as well as the maximum annual assessment rates to be levied on properties benefiting from these improvements. The assessment rates may or may not change each fiscal year, dependent on the maintenance budget, but cannot exceed the maximum annual assessment amount set when the assessment district was originally formed, plus an annual cost of living adjustment.

This report will set the maximum annual assessment rate for the new assessment district being proposed.

The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and Proposition 218 require that all formations of assessment districts receive approval, from the affected property owner(s), and a Public Hearing be held, prior to final approval from City Council. In accordance with these requirements, a notice and ballot regarding the formation of this assessment district was mailed to the property owner, Meritage Homes of CA Inc, in accordance with Proposition 218. The notice and ballot contained detailed information about the Landscape & Lighting Assessment District including but not limited to, improvements to be maintained, and the maximum annual assessment amount.

At the close of the public input portion of the Public Hearing, the Acting City Clerk will tabulate all ballots received. This information will be presented to the City Council during the meeting.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.2
09/10/2024
Following the tabulation of the ballots and determining the results, if there is no majority protest, the Council will be presented with the attached Resolution approving the Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) Fiscal Year 2024-25 Final Engineer’s Report and ordering the formation of Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane).

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Not Applicable.

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

DATE OF NOTICE
August 30, 2024

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Not Applicable.

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

1. Do not approve staff’s recommendation. Not approving this action will result in the inability of the City to levy assessments in Fiscal Year 2024/25 to fund the operation, maintenance, and replacement of public improvements associated with Landscape and Lighting Assessment District No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane), and result in a significant General Fund obligation.

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. Resolution

3. Final Engineer’s Report – LLAD 24-1 (Hanson Lane)

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.

Actions were taken in previous years to form the City’s 67 existing Landscape & Lighting Assessment Districts.

On March 23, 2021, by Resolution No. 2021-32, the City Council adopted a resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Francisco for a two-year term, in an amount not to exceed $229,900 per agreement year for assessment engineering services for Fiscal Years 2021/22 and 2022/23. In addition, the two-year agreement included an option to extend the agreement for two additional one-year terms.

On March 14, 2023, by Resolution No. 2023-25, the City Council adopted a resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute an amendment to extend the agreement for Fiscal Year 2023/24, for the first of the two allowable optional one-year terms in an amount not to exceed $229,900.

On March 26, 2024, by Resolution No. 2024-29, the City Council adopted a resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute an amendment to extend the agreement for Fiscal Year 2024/25, for the second of the two allowable optional one-year terms in an amount not to exceed $229,900.

On July 23, 2024, by Resolution No. 2024-77, the City Council declared its intention to 1) order the formation of, 2) levy and collect assessments for, 3) identify improvements to be maintained by Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24- 1 (Hanson Lane) for Fiscal Year 2024-25 and 4) set September 10, 2024, as the Public Hearing date pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and Proposition 218.

RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD APPROVING THE FINAL ENGINEER’S REPORT AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS RELATED TO THE REPORT; ORDERING THE FORMATION OF LANDSCAPE & LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 24-1 (HANSON LANE); ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS; AND CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM

AND ASSESSMENTS AS SHOWN IN THE FORMATION OF LANDSCAPE & LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 24-1 (HANSON LANE) FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 FINAL ENGINEER’S REPORT PURSUANT TO THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE “LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972” AND PROPOSITION 218.

WHEREAS, as required by Section 22585 of the California Streets and Highways Code, the City Council of the City of Brentwood, by Resolution No. 2024-77 initiated the formation of Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) and the Engineer of Work has filed a report describing the improvements and proposed assessment district; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 22587 of the California Streets and Highways Code, the City Council by Resolution No. 2024-77 declared the intent to form Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) and the intent to levy and collect assessments, in addition to setting a date of September 10, 2024 for a Public Hearing on the matter; and
WHEREAS, as required by Proposition 218 and in accordance with the requirements of Section 22588 of the California Streets and Highways Code, notices and ballots have been mailed to each affected property owner, identifying the improvements and assessments; and WHEREAS, on September 10, 2024, City Council conducted a Public Hearing and gave any interested person an opportunity to protest the assessments, the formation of, and the Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) Fiscal Year 2024-25 Final Engineer’s Report, either in writing or orally, and determined that a majority protest had not been filed against the formation of the Landscape & Lighting Assessment District; and WHEREAS, the amount of the assessments represented by the property owner assessment ballots submitted in favor of formation of Landscape & Lighting District No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) was greater than those submitted against the assessment as shown on Exhibit “A” attached.

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

1. The preceding recitals are true and correct and material to the adoption of this Resolution.

2. The City Council has carefully reviewed and examined the Final Engineer’s Report in connection with Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) and hereby approves it as submitted (or as amended, if applicable) and finds and determines that:
a. The territory of land within the District will receive special benefits from the operation, maintenance, and servicing of the lights, landscaping, open space

areas, trails, parks and appurtenant facilities and improvements related thereto;
b. The District includes all of the lands so benefitted; and c. The maximum amount to be assessed upon the lands within the Landscape & Lighting Assessment District, in accordance with the build-out budget for Fiscal Year 2024-25 is apportioned by a formula and method which fairly distributes the net amount among all eligible parcels in proportion to the special benefits to be received by each parcel from the improvements and services and is satisfied that the assessments are levied without regard to property valuation.

3. The City Council hereby orders the improvements to be maintained and serviced, orders the formation of Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane), and confirms and approves the diagram, the maximum assessments, and the Fiscal Year 2024-25 assessments as shown in the Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) Fiscal Year 2024-25 Final Engineer’s Report.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of September 2024 by the following vote:

EXHIBIT A

CERTIFICATE OF MAILED BALLOT RESULTS

FOR THE FORMATION OF LANDSCAPE & LIGHTING
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 24-1 (HANSON LANE)
September 10, 2024
I, Amanda McVey, Interim City Clerk of the City of Brentwood, hereby certify the results of the mailed ballot election held on September 10, 2024 to be as follows:

Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) TOTAL ASSESSMENT AMOUNT CAST “YES”: _______________
TOTAL ASSESSMENT AMOUNT CAST “NO”: _______________
TOTAL ASSESSMENT AMOUNT CAST:_______________
THE ASSESSMENT AMOUNT CAST “YES” EQUAL ______________% OF THE TOTAL ASSESSMENT AMOUNT CAST.

Dated: September 10, 2024

CITY OF BRENTWOOD
By
Amanda McVey
Interim City Clerk of the City of Brentwood

Landscaping and LighƟng
Assessment District 24‐1
Hanson Lane
Fiscal Year 2024‐25
Final Engineer’s Report
September 10, 2024

Formation of LLAD No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane)
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 TABLE OF CONTENTS i
Page No.

City Directory.........................................................................................................ii Certificates............................................................................................................iii SECTION I Introduction .................................................................................... 1 SECTION II Impacts of Proposition 218............................................................. .3 SECTION III Engineer’s Report ........................................................................... 5 Part A - Plans and Specifications............................................................... 7 Part B - Estimate of Cost ........................................................................... 9 Part C - Assessment District Diagram...................................................... 11 Part D - Method of Apportionment of Assessment................................... 13 Part E - Property Owner List & Assessment Roll ..................................... 28 Appendix A – Maximum Assessment Roll .........................................................A-1 Appendix B – Benefit Boundary Diagrams ........................................................B-1

Formation of LLAD No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane)
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 CITY DIRECTORY
ii

CITY OF BRENTWOOD

FORMATION OF LANDSCAPE & LIGHTING
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 24-1
(HANSON LANE)
FISCAL YEAR 2024-25

CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND CITY STAFF
Joel R. Bryant
Mayor
Susannah Meyer Jovita Mendoza
Vice Mayor Council Member
Pa'tanisha Pierson Tony Oerlemans
Council Member Council Member
Tim Ogden
City Manager
Allen Baquilar
City Engineer
Kerry Breen
Director of Finance & Information Systems
Amanda McVey
Acting City Clerk
Bruce Mulder
Director of Parks & Recreation
Francisco & Associates
Assessment Engineer

Formation of LLAD No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane)
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 CERTIFICATES
iii

ENGINEER'S REPORT

CITY OF BRENTWOOD
FORMATION OF LANDSCAPE & LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 24-1 (HANSON LANE)
FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
The undersigned, acting on behalf of Francisco & Associates, respectfully submits the enclosed Engineer’s Report as directed by the City of Brentwood City Council pursuant to the provisions of Article XIIID, Section 4 of the California Constitution and provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 commencing with Section 22500 et. seq. of the California Streets and Highways Code. The undersigned certifies that he is a Professional Engineer, registered in the State of California.

Dated: August 15, 2024 By:

Eduardo Espinoza, P.E.

CE No. 83709
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the Engineer’s Report, together with the Assessment Roll and Assessment District Diagram thereto attached was filed with me on the ___________ day of _________, 2024.

Amanda McVey, Acting City Clerk
City of Brentwood
Contra Costa County, California
By:

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer’s Report, together with the Assessment Roll and the Assessment District Diagram thereto attached, was approved and confirmed by the City Council of the City of Brentwood, Contra Costa County, California, on the ____ ________day of ________, 2024.

Amanda McVey, Acting City Clerk
City of Brentwood
Contra Costa County, California
By:

Formation of LLAD No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) SECTION I
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 INTRODUCTION
1 SECTION I

INTRODUCTION
ENGINEER’S REPORT
FORMATION OF LANDSCAPE & LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 24-1 (HANSON LANE)
FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
To ensure the proper flow of funds for the ongoing operation, maintenance, servicing and replacement of specific improvements within the City of Brentwood (the “City”), the City Council, through the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, has previously approved the formation of sixty-seven (67) Landscape & Lighting Assessment Districts (LLADs) and is currently proposing the formation of one (1) additional LLAD, which is the purpose of this Report. Improvements, which may be operated, maintained, serviced, and replaced by the LLADs, include, but are not limited to, landscaping, park, streetlighting, and trail improvements.

Generally, as a part of the conditions of approval to develop property within the City, property owners/developers are required to mitigate their project’s financial impact to the City. Developers can provide their own financing mechanism to mitigate their impacts or they can form a new LLAD or when applicable, annex into an existing LLAD. The formation of these LLADs ensure that the operation, maintenance, servicing, and replacement costs of these improvements are specifically paid for by those property owners who directly benefit from the improvements.

LLAD No. 24-1 (the “District”) will include the Hanson Lane development located south of Lone Tree Way in the northeast portion of the City. The Hanson Lane development will consist of 94 single-family homes at build-out. In order to form the District, it will require approval from the District property owner(s), prior to final approval from City Council. This process is discussed in Section II, ‘Impacts of Proposition 218’ of this Report.

As required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, the Engineer’s Report includes:
(1) a description of the improvements to be operated, maintained, serviced and replaced by the District, (2) a cost estimate for the District, and (3) a listing of the proposed maximum assessments to be levied upon each assessable lot or parcel within the District.

The City of Brentwood will hold a public hearing on September 10, 2024, regarding the formation of the District. At the public hearing the City will provide an opportunity for any interested person to be heard. After the public input portion of the public hearing, the City Clerk will tabulate the assessment ballots. If the assessment ballot tabulation is favorable, the City Council may adopt a resolution forming the District and confirming the maximum assessment rates as originally proposed or as modified.

Formation of LLAD No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) SECTION I
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 INTRODUCTION
2 Payment of these annual assessments for each parcel will be made in the same manner and at the same time as payments are made for their annual property taxes. All funds collected through the assessments must be placed in a special fund and can only be used for the purposes stated within this Report.

Formation of LLAD No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) SECTION II
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PROPOSITION 218
3 SECTION II
IMPACT OF PROPOSITION 218
FORMATION OF LIGHTING & LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 24-1 (HANSON LANE)
FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
On November 5, 1996, California voters approved Proposition 218 entitled "Right to Vote On Taxes Act" which added Articles XIIIC and XIIID to the California Constitution. While its title refers only to taxes, Proposition 218 established new procedural requirements for the formation and administration of assessment districts.

These procedures stipulate that even if assessments are initially exempt from Proposition 218, new or future increases in assessments must comply with the provisions of Proposition 218. However, if the increase in assessment was anticipated in the property owner approved assessment formula (e.g., CPI increase or assessment cap) then the assessment increase is compliant with the intent and provisions of Proposition 218.

In order to form the District, it will require voter approval from the District property owner(s), prior to final approval from City Council. In order to comply with the requirements of Proposition 218, the City of Brentwood has implemented the following procedures:
1) Every property owner within the District will be mailed a ballot, which allows the property owners to cast their votes either in favor or against the proposed formation of the assessment district. A notice describing the assessment, the individual property owner’s maximum annual assessment rate, the duration of the assessment, the reason for the assessment, and the basis upon which the assessment is calculated will accompany the ballots.
2) After the close of the public input portion of the public hearing, the ballots, which have been returned to the City Clerk will be tabulated to determine whether a majority protest against the formation of the District exists. 3) When tabulating the assessment ballots, they will be weighted based on their proportionate maximum assessment amount.
4) Publicly owned properties must be assessed unless there is clear and convincing evidence that those properties receive no special benefit from the improvements. Exempted from the assessment would be the areas of public streets, public avenues, public lanes, public roads, public drives, public courts, public alleys, public easements and rights-of-ways, public greenbelts and public parkways, utility easements, and that portion of public property that is not used for business purposes similar to private residential,

Formation of LLAD No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) SECTION II
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PROPOSITION 218
4 commercial, industrial and institutional activities. Also exempted from the assessments are private streets, utility easements, HOA common areas (except club houses, community centers, parking lots, etc.) and any other parcels that do not receive a special and direct benefit from the improvements.

All property owners will be noticed in accordance with Proposition 218 a minimum of 45 days prior to the public hearing, unless a shorter notice period is agreed to by all affected property owners. After the public hearing and after the ballots have been tabulated, if a majority of the weighted ballots are in favor of the assessment, then the City Council may adopt a resolution forming the District and confirming the maximum assessment rate.

Formation of LLAD No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 ENGINEER'S REPORT 5 SECTION III

ENGINEER'S REPORT PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
SECTION 22500 THROUGH 22679

OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE
Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California), Proposition 218 and in accordance with the Resolution of Intention accepting the Preliminary Engineer’s Report, adopted by the City Council of the City of Brentwood, on July 23, 2024, and in connection with the proceedings for:

CITY OF BRENTWOOD
FORMATION OF LANDSCAPE & LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 24-1 (HANSON LANE)
FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Herein after referred to as the “District", I, Eduardo Espinoza, the duly appointed ENGINEER OF WORK, submit herewith the "Report" consisting of five (5) parts as follows:

PART A: PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
This part describes the improvements in the District. Plans and specifications for the improvements are as set forth on the lists thereof, attached hereto, and are on file in the Office of the Parks & Recreation Department and are incorporated herein by reference.

PART B: ESTIMATE OF COST
This part contains an estimate of the cost of the proposed improvements, including incidental costs and expenses in connection therewith, is as set forth on the lists thereof, attached hereto, and is on file in the Office of the Parks & Recreation and Engineering Department.

PART C: ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
This part incorporates by reference a diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the District and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within the District. The diagram has been prepared by the Engineer of Work and is on file in the Office of the Brentwood City Clerk. The lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel within the District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Contra Costa County Assessor for the year when this Report was prepared. The Assessor's maps and records are incorporated by reference herein and made part of this Report.

Formation of LLAD No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 ENGINEER'S REPORT 6 PART D: METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENT
This part contains the method of apportionment of assessments, based upon parcel classification of land within the District, in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received.

PART E: PROPERTY OWNER LIST & ASSESSMENT ROLL
This part contains a list of the Contra Costa County Assessor’s Parcel numbers, and the maximum amount to be assessed upon the benefited lands within the District. The Assessment Roll is filed in the Office of the Brentwood City Clerk and is incorporated in this Report by reference. The list is keyed to the records of the Contra Costa County Assessor, which are incorporated herein by reference.

Formation of LLAD No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART A
7 PART A

PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
The facilities, constructed that benefit the District, and those which may be subsequently operated, maintained, serviced, and replaced are generally described as follows:

The operation, maintenance, servicing and replacement of streetlighting, landscaping, walls, monuments, trails, parks, open space areas, and associated facilities including but not limited to; personnel, electrical energy, utilities such as water, materials, contractual services, and other items necessary for the satisfactory operation, maintenance, servicing and replacement of the facilities as described below.

Streetlighting Facilities Along Arterial and Major Roadways Median and roadside street lights located along arterial and major roadways as shown on the Arterial and Major Roadway Benefit Boundary Diagram (Appendix page B-2) and described in Table 2 of this Report consist of, but are not limited to poles, fixtures, bulbs, conduits, equipment including guys, anchors, posts and pedestals, metering devices, utilities and other appurtenant facilities within the public rights-of-way and easements benefitting parcels within the boundaries of the District.

Landscaping Facilities Along Arterial and Major Roadways Median and roadside landscaping facilities located along arterial and major roadways as shown on the Arterial and Major Roadway Benefit Boundary Diagram (Appendix page B2) and described in Table 3 of this Report consist of, but are not limited to landscaping, irrigation, planting, shrubbery, ground cover, trees, pathways, hardscapes, walls, fences, utilities, and other appurtenant facilities required to provide landscaping within the public rights-of-way and easements benefitting parcels within the boundaries of the District.

Parks Facilities
Community and neighborhood parks and open space facilities as shown on the Parks Benefit Boundary Diagram (Appendix page B-3) and described in Table 4 of this Report consist of, but are not limited to parks, open space, drainage areas, creeks, ponds, pathways, landscaping, trees, shrubbery, sidewalks, tot lots, park equipment, playgrounds, fences, etc. including the removal of trash and debris, and other appurtenant facilities within the public park areas, public rights-of-way, and easements benefitting parcels within the boundaries of the District.

In-Tract Streetlighting Facilities
In-tract streetlights located along in-tract roadways of the District are shown on the InTract Benefit Boundary Diagram (Appendix page B-4) and described in Table 5 of this

Formation of LLAD No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART A
8 Report consist of, but are not limited to poles, fixtures, bulbs, conduits, equipment including guys, anchors, posts and pedestals, metering devices, utilities and other appurtenant facilities within the public rights-of-way and easements benefitting parcels within the boundaries of the District.

In-Tract Landscaping Facilities
In-tract landscaping facilities located within or adjacent to the District are shown on the In-Tract Benefit Boundary Diagram (Appendix page B-4) and described in Table 6 of this Report consist of, but are not limited to landscaping, irrigation, planting, shrubbery, ground cover, trees, pathways, hardscapes, walls, monuments, fences, utilities, and other appurtenant facilities required to provide landscaping within the public rights-of-way and easements benefitting parcels within the boundaries of the District.

Trail Facilities
Maintenance of trail facilities as shown on the Trail Benefit Diagram (Appendix page B-5) and described in Table 7 of this report consist of, but are not limited to: operation, maintenance, servicing, and replacement of open space areas, trails, etc. including landscaping, irrigation, hardscapes, pathway materials, removal of trash and debris, and other appurtenant facilities within the public rights-of-way and easements that benefit parcels within the boundaries of the District.

Formation of LLAD No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART B
9 PART B

ESTIMATE OF COST
The 1972 Act requires that a special fund be set up for the collection of revenues and expenditures of each LLAD. The Act provides that the total cost of operation, maintenance, servicing and replacement of the street lighting, landscaping, trails, parks, open space areas, and associated facilities, etc. can be recovered by each LLAD.

Incidental expenses including administration of the LLADs, engineering fees, legal fees and all other associated costs of the District can also be included.

Table No. 1 on the following page shows the total operation, maintenance, servicing, and replacement budgets upon completion of all improvements which could be assessed against the benefiting parcels within the District in FY 2024-25 dollars.

Formation of LLAD No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART B
10 Revenues collected from the assessment shall be used only for the purposes as stated herein. Any balance remaining on July 1 at the end of the fiscal year must be carried over to the next fiscal year.

FY 2024-25 LLAD Other Other Non- General
Improvement Type Cost No. 24-1 LLAD Parcels 1 LLAD Parcels 2 Benefit 3 Arterial Streetlighting $413,174.95 $1,510.58 $315,560.10 $84,500.51 $11,603.76 Arterial Landscaping $4,423,732.20 $18,294.28 $3,821,674.31 $511,682.93 $72,080.68 Community and Neighborhood Parks $9,267,730.71 $21,185.72 $7,903,110.85 $1,028,493.98 $314,940.16 In-Tract Streetlighting4 $6,750.00 $6,615.00 N/A N/A $135.00 In-Tract Landscaping4 $1,582.28 $1,550.63 N/A N/A $31.65 Trail Landscaping $1,119,514.91 $16,737.64 $896,746.48 $127,664.75 $78,366.04 Maintenance Subtotal $15,232,485.05 $65,893.85 $12,937,091.74 $1,752,342.17 $477,157.29 Local In-Tract Reserves
Capital Reserves5 $2,075.08 $2,041.75 N/A N/A $33.33
Operating Reserves/Contingency5 $2,075.09 $2,041.76 N/A N/A $33.33 Reserves Subtotal $4,150.17 $4,083.51 N/A N/A $33.33
Total $15,236,635.22 $69,977.36 $12,937,091.74 $1,752,342.17 $477,190.62 1 This represents the special benefit amounts allocated to parcels located within other existing City of Brentwood LLADs. These amounts will be paid for by parcels located within those LLADs. 2 This represents the special benefit amounts allocated to parcels not located within existing City of Brentwood LLADs. These amounts will be funded by the City's General Fund or by some other non-LLAD funds until new development occurs on these parcels. 3 General Benefit will be funded by the City's General Fund or by some other non-LLAD funds. 4 Incidental costs such as County Collection Fees, Assessment Engineering, and City Administration costs have been applied exclusively to in-tract improvements and are included in the cost estimate shown for In-Tract Street Lighting and In-Tract Landscaping. 5 The Operating and Capital Reserves shown above only apply to In-Tract Improvements. Since the City transfers funds to LLAD No. 24-1 on July 1, there is no need to collect operating reserves from Other Non-District Parcels and the General Fund.

Table No. 1 - LLAD No. 24-1 Cost Estimate (FY 2024-25 Dollars) Special Benefit

Formation of LLAD No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART C
11 PART C

ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DIAGRAM
The boundaries of the District are completely within the boundaries of the City of Brentwood. The Assessment Diagram is on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Brentwood and shown on the following page of this Report. The lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel within the District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Contra Costa County Assessor, for the year when this Report was prepared, and are incorporated by reference herein and made part of this Report.

A reduced copy of the Assessment Diagram for the District is included on the following page.

City of Brentwood
LLAD No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) Assessment Diagram

LONE TREE WY
Legend
LLAD 24-1 Boundary
Parcel Lines
±
150 75 0 150 300
Feet

BONITA WY

BEVERLY PL CERRITOS RD

MARSH CREEK REGIONAL TRAIL
APN
018-230-034

Formation of LLAD No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART D
13 PART D

METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENT
Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code, the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, permits the establishment of assessment districts by agencies for the purpose of providing certain public improvements which includes, but is not limited to the operation, maintenance, servicing and replacement of street lighting, landscaping, trails, park, and open space area facilities.

Section 22573 of the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 requires that maintenance assessments must be levied according to benefit rather than according to assessed value. This Section states:
"The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefit to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements.”
In addition, Article XIIID, of the California Constitution limits the amount of any assessment to the proportional “special benefit” conferred on the property. Article XIIID provides that only special benefits are assessable, and the City must separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred on a parcel. There is no widely accepted or statutory formula for determining general and special benefit. However, the constitution states that a special benefit is different from a general benefit in that it is “particular and distinct” and “over and above” general benefits received by other properties.

Article XIIID provided that publicly owned properties must be assessed unless there is clear and convincing evidence that those properties receive no special benefit from the assessment. Exempted from the assessment would be the areas of public streets, public avenues, public lanes, public roads, public drives, public courts, public alleys, public easements and rights-of-ways, public greenbelts and public parkways, utility easements, and that portion of public property that is not developed and used for business purposes similar to private residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional activities.

The amount to be assessed may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the amount among all assessable lots or parcels. Additionally, it’s required that the City separate the general benefits from the special benefits, because only special benefits may be assessed.

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
The operation, maintenance, servicing, and replacement costs for the landscaping, streetlighting, parks, open space areas, and trail facilities are apportioned in accordance with a methodology that is consistent with standard assessment engineering practices.

Formation of LLAD No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART D
14 Since the assessments are levied on the owners of properties as shown on the secured property tax rolls, the final assessments must be assigned by Assessor's Parcel Number.

If assessments were to be allocated by parcel, not considering land use, benefit would not be allocated accurately, because a single-family parcel would be paying the same as a 50-unit apartment parcel or a large commercial establishment. Therefore, as previously stated, the total assessment costs are allocated to each parcel of land based on the benefit received by each parcel. The assessment methodology is based on Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) as discussed below.

Single-Family Residential Parcels - The single-family residential parcel has been selected as the basic unit for the calculation of assessments since it represents approximately 90% of the parcels within the City. Therefore, the single-family residential parcel is defined as one EDU per parcel. The assessment methodology used to assign EDUs to other land uses in proportion to the special benefit they receive relative to the single-family residential parcel is discussed below.

Condominium, Duet, Townhome and Mobile Home Parcels - Condominiums, duets, townhomes, and mobile homes on average have approximately 75% of the building square footage compared to a single-family home. Furthermore, studies consistently show that these types of residential products impact public infrastructure approximately 75% as much as a single-family residential parcel. Therefore, all condominium, townhome and mobile home parcels are assessed 0.75 EDUs per parcel.

Multi-Family Residential Units - Multi-family residential units on average have approximately 50% of the building square footage compared to a single-family home.

Furthermore, studies consistently show that multi-family residential units impact public infrastructure approximately 50% as much as a single-family home. Therefore, all multifamily parcels are assessed 0.50 EDUs per unit.

Non-Residential Parcels - Commercial, industrial, institutional, and other non-residential properties are assessed at three (3) EDUs per acre of land. The 3.00 EDU per acre allocation is based upon the average size of a single-family parcel in the City of Brentwood which is approximately 1/6 of an acre. For every acre of non-residential land approximately 6 single-family homes could be constructed on that acre of land which would equate to 6.00 EDUs per acre. Furthermore, it was determined that NonResidential parcels benefit less than residential properties from the authorized improvements because their employees have less time and opportunity to use and benefit from the improvements, than residents who live within the City. Employees typically benefit or may use the improvements before work, during breaks and at lunch, or after work. Residents have the ability to use the improvements during the same times and on weekends and holidays, since they reside in the area. Based on this information, it is reasonable to assume that for non-residential property the opportunity to use and benefit from the improvements is approximately 50% of that realized by residential properties.

Therefore, EDUs assigned to non-residential property are assessed three (3) EDUs per acre of land because they have been discounted by 50% to account for the differences in benefit from improvements conferred on residential and non-residential property.

Formation of LLAD No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART D
15 Undeveloped Parcels – All undeveloped properties are assessed at 25% of the developed EDUs assigned for each parcel of land based on the properties land use classification.

Undeveloped properties benefit less from the improvements than developed property because undeveloped properties do not have structures which house residents or utilize employees. However, the improvements funded by the City’s LLADs do benefit undeveloped property because improvements have already been installed that allows for development to occur and to use the improvements immediately upon the initiation of development making the property more attractive. Based on this information, it is reasonable to assume that undeveloped property benefits less than developed property.

To determine the difference in special benefit conferred on developed and undeveloped property, the Contra Costa County Assessor’s assessed values for property within the City were reviewed to determine what percentage of assessed value is typically associated with the underlying land and what percentage is typically associated with the structure. Based upon the review, it was determined that approximately 25% of the assessed value of developed property in the City is associated with the underlying land.

Based on the comparison of benefits of developed property to undeveloped property it is reasonable to assess the undeveloped property at 25% of the rate for developed property.

Therefore, EDUs assigned to undeveloped residential and non-residential property have been discounted by 75% to account for the differences in benefit from improvements conferred on developed and undeveloped property.

Exempt Parcels - Publicly owned properties must be assessed unless there is clear and convincing evidence that those properties receive no special benefit from the improvements. Exempted from the assessment would be the areas of public streets, public avenues, public lanes, public roads, public drives, public courts, public alleys, public easements and rights-of-ways, public greenbelts and public parkways (all of which are typically not assigned an APN by the County), and that portion of public property that is not developed and used for business purposes similar to private commercial, industrial, and institutional activities (such as office buildings like a City Hall, etc.). Also exempted from the assessment would be utility rights-of-ways, common areas (such as in condominium complexes), and any other property that is deemed to be unable to develop by the City. These types of parcels do not benefit from the improvements. Also exempted from the assessments are private streets, utility easements, HOA common areas (except club houses, community centers, parking lots, etc.) and any other parcels that do not receive a special and direct benefit from the improvements.

Furthermore, parcels within the District may be assessed as developed once the final maps have been approved by the City of Brentwood and/or it is anticipated that improvements will need to be maintained or reserve funds will need to be collected for the ensuing fiscal year.

Formation of LLAD No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART D
16 QUANTIFICATION OF BENEFIT
The District will provide a funding source for the operation, maintenance, servicing and replacement of streetlighting, landscaping, park, and open space area facilities authorized under the statute that benefit properties within the boundaries of the District. As previously discussed, it’s required that the City separate the general benefits from the special benefits, because only special benefits may be assessed. In order for the City to separate out the costs associated with general and special benefits for each improvement type, an analysis of each improvement was conducted as described below.

Streetlighting Along Arterial and Major Roadways
Streetlighting located along the City’s arterial and major roadways provide a benefit to parcels inside and outside the City. The benefits from streetlights are enhanced illumination which allows for:
• Safer vehicle and pedestrian access to and from property. • Enhanced deterrence of criminal or suspicious activity such as property theft, vandalism, criminal acidity, illegal dumping, and damage to improvements and property.
• Improved ability of pedestrians and motorists to see. • Improved traffic circulation and reduced nighttime accidents and personal property loss.
• Increased nighttime visibility resulting in enhanced safety on roads, streets, and in public areas.

To determine which properties benefit from streetlighting along the City’s arterial and major roadways a benefit analysis was performed. The analysis utilized Google Maps to determine which arterial and major roadways within the City were most likely to be used by property owners/residents when driving or walking to various destinations inside and outside of the City. The analysis showed that all properties within the City would utilize the City’s arterial and major roadway system when traveling to destinations within the City or to other cities and communities. The analysis also found that there are additional properties located outside the City limits that would utilize the City’s arterial and major roadway system when traveling through the City to various destinations outside the City.

Vehicular or pedestrian traffic flow commencing outside of the City but traveling to a destination inside the City was determined to be a special benefit to the destination parcel within the City. The analysis used each parcel’s physical location as a starting destination and then selected ending destinations were inputted (e.g., neighboring cities or communities surrounding the City of Brentwood). If Google Maps showed the property owner/resident located outside the City would pass through and utilize the City’s arterial and major roadway system to travel to a destination outside of the City, then they were considered to receive a benefit from the City’s arterial and major roadway system. In addition, the analysis showed that most parcels outside of the City did not benefit from the improvements because they did not utilize the City’s roadways to travel to a destination parcel outside of the City, but would in most circumstances, if not all rather

Formation of LLAD No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART D
17 utilize Highway 4 to traverse the City or use an alternative route, therefore circumventing the City’s arterial and major roadways.

In addition to the special and direct benefits the property owners within the City receive from these enhanced streetlighting improvements, there are also some incidental general benefits received by vehicular and pedestrian flow-through traffic (traffic that does not stop within the City) which originates from properties outside the City limits from individuals who use the City’s arterial and major roadway system to travel to another destination outside of the City. It has been determined that some properties not located within the City, north of the City limits, utilize arterial and major roadways within the City when traveling to destinations south of the City and that some properties not located within City, south and east of the City limits, utilize arterial and major roadways within the City when traveling to a destination north of the City. Properties meeting these criteria have been identified and such benefits must be accounted for and cannot be assessed to the properties within the City’s LLADs.

To quantify and separate the special benefits received by property owners within the City limits and the general benefit received by the property owners outside the City, EDUs were assigned to all benefiting properties (both inside and outside the City). The analysis resulted in a benefit boundary being drawn and EDUs being assigned to one of three categories of parcels: special benefits assigned to properties that lie within the City and not in a LLAD, special benefits assigned to properties that lie within the City and in a LLAD, and general benefits assigned to properties that lie outside the City. The aggregated EDU assignments for each categorization of property determined that 2.81% of the EDUs were attributed to properties located outside of the City. Therefore, it is estimated that 97.19% of the annual cost to operate, maintain, service and replace the arterial and major roadway streetlighting would be a special and direct benefit to the parcels within the City and 2.81% of the annual cost to operate, maintain, service and replace the arterial and major roadway streetlighting would be a general benefit.

Streetlighting Along Arterial and Major Roadway Cost Allocation The 1,396 roadside and median streetlights located along arterial and major roadways within the Arterial and Major Roadway Benefit Boundary cost approximately $413,175 per year to maintain in FY 2024-25 dollars. The cost to maintain the streetlighting along the arterial and major roadways are spread to all benefitting parcels identified within the Arterial and Major Roadway Benefit Boundary. The parcels identified to be within the Arterial and Major Roadway Benefit Boundary equate to 25,711 EDUs which results in an annual cost allocation of $16.07 per EDU in FY 2024-25 dollars. As previously discussed,

97.19% of the annual cost to operate and maintain the streetlights would be a special and direct benefit to the parcels within the Arterial and Major Roadway Benefit Boundary.

Table No. 2 shows the streetlight cost allocation associated with arterials and major roadways.

Formation of LLAD No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART D
18 Landscaping Along Arterial and Major Roadways
Landscaping located along the City’s arterial and major roadways provide a benefit to parcels within and outside the City. The benefits from landscaping include enhanced beautification which allows for:
• Enhanced desirability of property through association with the improvements. • Improved aesthetic appeal of properties providing a positive representation of the area and properties.
• Enhanced beautification to the adjacent developments. • Increased sense of pride in ownership of property within the LLADs resulting from well-maintained improvements associated with the properties. • Enhanced quality of life through well-maintained green space and landscaped areas.
• Reduced criminal activity and property-related crimes (especially vandalism) against properties in the LLADs through well-maintained surroundings and amenities including abatement of graffiti.
• Environmental enhancement through improved erosion resistance, dust and debris control, and fire prevention.
• Enhanced environmental quality of the parcels by moderating temperatures, providing oxygenation, and attenuating noise.

To determine which properties benefit from landscaping along the City’s arterial and major roadways a benefit analysis was performed. The analysis utilized Google Maps to determine which arterial and major roadways within the City were most likely to be used by property owners/residents when driving or walking to various destinations inside and outside of the City. The analysis showed that all properties within the City would utilize the City’s arterial and major roadway system when traveling to destinations within the City or to other cities and communities. The analysis also found that there are additional properties located outside the City limits that would utilize the City’s arterial and major roadway system when traveling through the City to various destinations outside the City.

Vehicular or pedestrian traffic flow commencing outside of the City but traveling to a destination inside the City was determined to be a special benefit to the destination parcel within the City. The analysis used each parcel’s physical location as a starting destination and then selected ending destinations were inputted (e.g. neighboring cities or communities surrounding the City of Brentwood). If Google Maps showed the property owner/resident located outside the City would pass through and utilize the City’s arterial LLAD No. 24-1
LLAD Other Other Non General Cost per EDU
Improvement No. 24-1 LLAD Parcels LLAD Parcels Benefit (FY 2024-25 Type 0.37% 76.37% 20.45% 2.81% Dollars)1
Arterial and Major Roadway
Streetlighting $1,510.58 $315,560.10 $84,500.51 $11,603.76 $16.07 1 The LLAD No. 24-1 Cost per EDU was determined by dividing the LLAD No. 24-1 costs attributed to special benefit by the projected number of EDUs for LLAD No. 24-1.

Special Benefit
Table No. 2 - Arterial and Major Roadway Street Lighting Cost Allocation

Formation of LLAD No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART D
19 and major roadway system to travel to a destination outside of the City, then they were considered to receive a benefit from the City’s arterial and major roadway system. In addition, the analysis showed that most parcels outside of the City did not benefit from the improvements because they did not utilize the City’s roadways to travel to a destination parcel outside of the City, but would in most circumstances, if not all rather utilize Highway 4 to traverse the City or use an alternative route, therefore circumventing the City’s arterial and major roadways.

In addition to the special and direct benefits the property owners within the City receive from these enhanced landscaping improvements, there are also some incidental general benefits received by vehicular and pedestrian flow-through traffic (traffic that does not stop within the City) which originates from properties outside the City limits from individuals who use the City’s arterial and major roadway system to travel to another destination outside of the City. It has been determined that some properties not located within the City, north of the City limits, utilize arterial and major roadways within the City when traveling to destinations south of the City and that some properties not located within City, south and east of the City limits, utilize arterial and major roadways within the City when traveling to a destination north of the City. Properties meeting these criteria have been identified and such benefits must be accounted for and cannot be assessed to the properties within the City’s LLADs.

To quantify and separate the special benefits received by property owners within the City limits and the general benefit received by the property owners outside the City, EDUs were assigned to all benefiting properties (both inside and outside the City). The analysis resulted in a benefit boundary being drawn and EDUs being assigned to one of three categories of parcels: special benefits assigned to properties that lie within the City and not in a LLAD, special benefits assigned to properties that lie within the City and in a LLAD, and general benefits assigned to properties that lie outside the City. It was determined that parcels within the categories that are not in a LLAD benefit less than parcels within the LLADs due to the proximity of the landscaping to the properties within the LLADs. This finding resulted in the EDUs assigned to parcels in the City and not in a LLAD and parcels outside the City being reduced by 50%. The aggregated EDU assignments for each categorization of property determined that 1.63% of the EDUs were attributed to properties located outside of the City. Therefore, it is estimated that 98.37% of the annual cost to operate, maintain, service and replace the arterial and major roadway landscaping would be a special and direct benefit to the parcels within the City and 1.63% of the annual cost to operate, maintain, service and replace the arterial and major roadway landscaping would be a general benefit.

Landscaping Along Arterial and Major Roadway Cost Allocation The 117.493 acres of City-maintained landscaping along the arterial and major roadways within the Arterial and Major Roadway Benefit Boundary cost approximately $4,423,733 per year to maintain in FY 2024-25 dollars. The cost to maintain the arterial and major roadway landscaping is spread to all benefitting parcels identified within the Arterial and Major Roadway Benefit Boundary. The parcels identified on the Arterial and Major Roadway Benefit Boundary equate to 22,731 EDUs which results in an annual cost

Formation of LLAD No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART D
20 allocation of $194.62 per EDU in FY 2024-25 dollars. As previously discussed, 98.37% of the annual cost to operate and maintain the roadside and median landscaping would be a special and direct benefit to the parcels within the Arterial and Major Roadway Benefit Boundary. Table 3 shows the landscaping cost allocation associated with arterials and major roadways.

Park Facilities
The City of Brentwood’s General Plan policy is aimed at ensuring that recreational opportunities will continue to exist throughout the City and that an adequate park system continues to be developed and maintained to serve the City. In keeping with these policies, the City Council formed a Citywide Park Assessment district for park maintenance in 1997 to secure a funding mechanism for a portion of the benefits and associated costs to maintain community parks and neighborhood parks. In addition, the City’s LLADs were also established to fund park costs associated with each benefiting property for the community and neighborhood parks that could not be funded from the Citywide Park Assessment District. For the purposes of this report, community parks are defined as typically being larger parks that are designed with amenities to serve the City as a whole as described further in the Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan originally approved on August 23, 1994 and subsequently approved on June 25, 2002.

Neighborhood parks are defined as being generally smaller than community parks and typically benefit those residents located within a one-half mile radius from the park and as further defined within the Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan previously referenced.

There are 99 Parks spread throughout the City serving a population of approximately 67,000 residents. Community and neighborhood parks provide a special and direct benefit to the parcels within the City. The special and direct benefit to the parcels consists of enhanced recreational opportunities, including baseball, soccer, swimming, basketball, walking, jogging, etc. and the use of improvements such as: picnic tables, barbequing, playground equipment, community center rooms, green spaces, benches, bioswales, etc.

The parks and the associated recreational opportunities provide for more aesthetically pleasing neighborhoods, environmental and health benefits, community gathering places, and an overall improved and healthier community image, etc. If these park improvements were not installed, property within the City’s LLADs would not look as appealing to property owners, prospective property buyers, and patrons alike, which would adversely affect the value of their property. Based on the Parks and Economic Development Report LLAD No. 24-1
LLAD Other Other Non General Cost per EDU
No. 24-1 District Parcels District Parcels Benefit (FY 2024-25 Improvement Type 0.41% 86.39% 11.57% 1.63% Dollars)1
Arterial and Major Roadway
Landscaping $18,294.28 $3,821,674.31 $511,682.93 $72,080.68 $194.62 1 The LLAD No. 24-1 cost per EDU was determined by dividing the LLAD No. 24-1 costs attributed to special benefit by the projected number of EDUs for LLAD No. 24-1.

Special Benefit
Table No. 3 - Arterial and Major Roadway Landscaping Cost Allocation

Formation of LLAD No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART D
21 published in the American Planning Association, homes adjacent and near parks and open space are typically valued at 8-20% higher than comparable properties, with positive price effect declining to zero about ½ mile away. Therefore, park improvements provide a special and direct benefit to property located within ½ miles of park improvements.

Furthermore, the Brentwood Parks, Trails, and Recreation Master Plan development guidelines as previously referenced herein, states that, neighborhood parks should service residents within a ½ mile +/- radius or approximately 1,000 to 2,000 people. The City maintains on average one neighborhood park per 800 residents. In addition to the special and direct benefits the property owners receive within the City from these enhanced park improvements, there are also some incidental benefits received by residents located from outside the City that may utilize the City’s community and neighborhood parks. Even though these are incidental benefits, they must be accounted for and cannot be assessed to the properties within the City’s LLADs.

Based on park user data, it is conservatively estimated that approximately 95% of the benefits associated with community parks are of benefit to property within the City and 98% of the benefits associated with neighborhood parks are of a special and direct benefit to properties within ½ mile distance (+/-). Therefore, 95% of the costs to annually operate, maintain, service and replace the community parks and 98% of the costs to annually operate, maintain, service and replace the neighborhood parks would be a special and direct benefit to the parcels within the City, and 5% and 2%, respectively of the annual costs to operate, maintain, service and replace the parks would be a general benefit.

Park Facilities Cost Allocation
The approximately 253.06 acres of community and neighborhood parks within the Park Benefit Boundary cost approximately $9,267,731 to maintain in FY 2024-25 dollars. The cost to maintain the parks is spread to all benefiting parcels identified within the Parks Benefit Boundary.

The community parks within the Park Benefit Boundary cost approximately $4,319,518 to maintain in FY 2024-25 dollars. As previously discussed, 95% of the annual cost to operate and maintain community parks is considered a special and direct benefit to the parcels within the park benefit boundary and 5% of the annual cost to operate and maintain community parks is considered a general benefit. The parcels identified within the Park Benefit Boundary equate to 22,872 EDUs, which results in an annual cost allocation of $84.83 per EDU in FY 2024-25 dollars for community parks. Table 4A shows the cost allocation associated with community parks.

Formation of LLAD No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART D
22 The neighborhood parks within the Park Benefit Boundary cost approximately $4,948,213 to maintain in FY 2024-25 dollars. As previously discussed, approximately 98% of the annual cost to operate and maintain neighborhood parks is considered a special and direct benefit to the parcels within the park benefit boundary and 2% of the annual cost to operate and maintain neighborhood parks is considered a general benefit. The parcels identified within the Park Benefit Boundary equate to 22,872 EDUs, which results in an annual cost allocation of $140.55 per EDU in FY 2024-25 dollars for neighborhood parks.

Table 4B shows the cost allocation associated with neighborhood parks.

The total annual cost allocation needed to maintain the community and neighborhood parks within the Park Benefit Boundary is $225.38 per EDU in FY 2024-25 dollars as summarized in Table 4C below.

In-Tract Streetlighting
To determine which properties benefit from in-tract or development specific streetlighting a benefit analysis was performed. Streetlighting located along and adjacent to the in-tract streets provides a special and direct benefit to parcels within the developments. The special and direct benefits from streetlights within the development consists of enhanced illumination which allows for safer vehicle and pedestrian access to and from property. In addition, this enhanced illumination helps deter criminal or suspicious activity such as property theft, vandalism, illegal dumping, etc.

LLAD No. 24-1
LLAD Other Other Non General Cost per EDU
Improvement No. 24-1 District Parcels District Parcels Benefit (FY 2024-25 Type 0.18% 85.85% 8.96% 5.00% Dollars)1
Parks $7,974.02 $3,708,456.69 $387,111.30 $215,975.90 $84.83 1 The LLAD No. 24-1 cost per EDU was determined by dividing the LLAD No. 24-1 costs attributed to special benefit by the projected number of EDUs for LLAD No. 24-1.

Special Benefit
Table No. 4A - Community Park Cost Allocation
LLAD No. 24-1
LLAD Other Other Non General Cost per EDU
Improvement No. 24-1 District Parcels District Parcels Benefit (FY 2024-25 Type 0.27% 84.77% 12.96% 2.00% Dollars)1
Parks $13,211.70 $4,194,654.16 $641,382.68 $98,964.26 $140.55 1 The LLAD No. 24-1 cost per EDU was determined by dividing the LLAD No. 24-1 costs attributed to special benefit by the projected number of EDUs for LLAD No. 24-1.

Table No. 4B - Neighborhood Park Cost Allocation
Special Benefit
Community Park Neighborhood Park Parks
Cost per EDU Cost per EDU Cost per EDU
$84.83 $140.55 $225.38
Table No. 4C - Parks FY 2024-25 Annual Cost Allocation

Formation of LLAD No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART D
23 Since the in-tract streets within the development are designed to have minimal flow through traffic, there are few reasons for vehicles to access the in-tract streets unless their destination is to or from a single-family residential parcel within the development.

However, it is reasonable to conclude that some vehicular traffic may on a rare occasion utilize the in-tract streets due to the need to turn around or a mistaken turn into the development. The rare circumstance where a pedestrian or vehicle mistakenly uses the in-tract streets, have been determined to be a rare and infrequent circumstance. Even though these are rare and infrequent circumstances, they must be accounted for and cannot be assessed to the properties within the City’s LLADs. Therefore, based on flowthrough traffic it is conservatively estimated that approximately 98% of the annual trips along in-tract roadways within the development would be a special and direct benefit to the parcels within the City’s LLADs and 2% of the annual trips along in-tract roadways within the development would be a general benefit.

To quantify and separate the special benefits received by all property within the development EDUs were assigned to all benefitting properties inside the development as identified. It was determined that 2% of the cost to operate, maintain, service and replace the in-tract street lighting were assigned to properties located outside of the development.

Therefore, it is estimated that 98% of the annual cost to operate, maintain, service and replace the in-tract streetlighting would be a special and direct benefit to the parcels within each development and 2% of the annual cost to operate, maintain, service and replace the in-tract streetlighting would be a general benefit.

In-Tract Streetlighting Cost Allocation
The forty-five (45) in-tract streetlights within the In-Tract Benefit Boundary cost approximately $6,750 to maintain in FY 2024-25 dollars. As previously discussed, 98% of the annual cost to operate and maintain the in-tract streetlights is a special and direct benefit to the parcels within the In-Tract Benefit Boundary and is spread to all benefitting parcels within the In-Tract Benefit Boundary. The parcels identified on the In-Tract Benefit Boundary equate to 94 EDUs which results in an annual cost allocation of $70.37 per EDU in FY 2024-25 dollars. Table 5 shows the cost allocation associated with in-tract streetlights.

LLAD No. 24-1
LLAD General Cost per EDU
Improvement FY 2024-25 No. 24-2 Benefit (FY 2024-25
Type Cost 98.00% 2.00% Dollars)1
In-Tract Streetlighting $6,750.00 $6,615.00 $135.00 $70.37 1 The LLAD No. 24-1 cost per EDU was determined by dividing the LLAD No. 24-1 costs attributed to special benefit by the projected number of EDUs for LLAD No. 24-1.

Table No. 5 - Local In-Tract Streetlighting Cost Allocation

Formation of LLAD No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART D
24 In-Tract Landscaping
To determine which properties benefit from in-tract or development specific landscaping a benefit analysis was performed. Landscaping located along and adjacent to the in-tract streets provides a special and direct benefit to parcels within the development. The special and direct benefits from in-tract landscaping within the development consists of enhanced beautification to the entrances and along the roadsides within the development.

Property owners who reside within these developments realize this enhanced aesthetic benefit when they are entering and exiting the development. If these in-tract landscape improvements were not installed, the developments would not look as appealing to property owners and prospective property buyers which would adversely affect the value of their property. Therefore, these landscape improvements provide a specific enhancement to their property values and not a general enhancement of property values.

Since the in-tract streets within the development are designed to have minimal flow through traffic, there are few reasons for vehicles to access the in-tract streets unless their destination is to or from a single-family residential parcel within the development.

However, it is reasonable to conclude that some vehicular traffic may on a rare occasion utilize the in-tract streets due to the need to turn around or a mistaken turn into the development. The rare circumstance where a pedestrian or vehicle mistakenly uses the in-tract streets, have been determined to be a rare and infrequent circumstance. Even though these are rare and infrequent circumstances, they must be accounted for and cannot be assessed to the properties within the City’s LLADs. Therefore, based on flowthrough traffic it is conservatively estimated that approximately 98% of the annual trips along in-tract roadways within the development would be a special and direct benefit to the parcels within the LLADs and 2% of the annual trips along in-tract roadways within the development would be a general benefit.

To quantify and separate the special benefits received by all property within the development EDUs were assigned was applied to all benefitting properties inside the development as identified. It was determined that 2% of the cost to operate, maintain, service and replace the in-tract landscaping were assigned to properties located outside of the development. Therefore, it is estimated that 98% of the annual cost to operate, maintain, service and replace the in-tract landscaping would be a special and direct benefit to the parcels within the development and 2% of the annual cost to operate, maintain, service and replace the in-tract landscaping would be a general benefit.

In-Tract Landscaping/Fencing and Soundwall Cost Allocation The approximately 3,000 square feet of soundwall within the In-Tract Benefit Boundary cost approximately $1,583 to maintain in FY 2024-25 dollars. As previously discussed, 98% of the annual cost to operate and maintain the in-tract landscaping is a special and direct benefit to the parcels within the In-Tract Benefit Boundary and is spread to all benefitting parcels within the In-Tract Benefit Boundary. The parcels identified on the InTract Benefit Boundary equate to 94 EDUs which results in an annual cost allocation of $16.50 per EDU in FY 2024-25 dollars. Table 6 shows the cost allocation associated with in-tract landscaping.

Formation of LLAD No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART D
25 Trails
Trails provide special and direct benefits to the parcels located within a certain proximity to the trails. These special and direct benefits consist of enhanced recreational opportunities such as walking, jogging, biking, etc. within and along their developments.

These benefits allow for:
• Increases in options to exercise and incorporate recreational opportunities into daily routines.
• Increases in opportunities to travel and connect with places people may need or want to go.
• Enhanced environmental opportunities because of improvement in air quality due to people utilizing the trail verse driving to nearby destinations. • Specific enhancements in property values due to the increase in walkability of an area and the increase in amenities.

In addition, the trails provide general benefits to the public-at-large since it is a public trail system and anyone from the public can access it. To determine who is most likely to use trails, the City’s Parks and Recreation Department staff performed a trail user survey over multiple days at different times and locations along existing trail segments over a threemonth period. Based upon their survey findings, ninety-three percent (93%) of trail users were benefitting property owners located both within the City and those outside the City limits, who lived within ½-mile (+/-) of trails. The ½-mile benefit boundaries from each respective trail can vary slightly for trail segments due to the location of geographical features and major roadways. Therefore, it is estimated that 93% of the annual cost to operate, maintain, service and replace the trail improvements would be a special and direct benefit to the parcels within the ½-mile (+/-) distance both within and outside the City and 7% of the annual cost to operate, maintain, service and replace the trail improvements would be a general benefit. Special benefits assigned to properties that lie within a ½ mile (+/-) of trails that are not within a LLAD (in or outside the City), are special benefits that will be paid by the City because they cannot be assessed to parcels within LLADs. Only the benefits associated with properties within the City and within a LLAD that are within a ½ mile (+/-) distance of trails will be assessed.

Trails Assessment Allocation
The 27.782 acres of trails within the District Trail Benefit Boundary (Appendix B) cost approximately $1,119,515 to maintain in FY 2024-25 dollars. As previously discussed, 93% of the annual cost to operate and maintain these trail segments are a special and LLAD No. 24-1
LLAD General Cost per EDU
Improvement FY 2024-25 No. 24-2 Benefit (FY 2024-25
Type Cost 98.00% 2.00% Dollars)1
In-Tract Landscaping/Fencing and Soundwalls $1,582.28 $1,550.63 $31.65 $16.50 1 The LLAD No. 24-1 cost per EDU was determined by dividing the LLAD No. 24-1 costs attributed to special benefit by the projected number of EDUs for LLAD No. 24-1.

Table No. 6 - Local In-Tract Landscaping Cost Allocation

Formation of LLAD No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART D
26 direct benefit to the parcels within the Trail Benefit Boundary and is spread to all benefitting parcels within the Trail Benefit Boundary. The parcels identified to be within the Trail Benefit Boundary equate to 5,848 EDUs which results in an annual cost allocation of $178.06 per EDU in FY 2024-25 dollars. Table No. 7 below shows the cost allocation associated with the District Trail Benefit Boundary.

DISTRICT MAXIMUM ASSESSMENT RATE
The maximum assessment rate may be adjusted each subsequent fiscal year to correspond with the annual increase in the San Francisco Bay Area Urban Wage Earners Consumer Price Index from December to December of each year (Base Year of 2023), or 2% whichever is greater.

Parcels within the District become assessable once the final maps have been approved by the City of Brentwood or it is anticipated that improvements will need to be maintained or reserve funds will need to be collected in the ensuing fiscal year.

The following table outlines the total maximum assessment rate in FY 2024-25 dollars.

LLAD No. 24-1
LLAD Other District Non District General Cost per EDU
Improvement No. 24-1 Parcels Parcels Benefit (FY 2024-25 Type 1.50% 80.10% 11.40% 7.00% Dollars)1
City Trails $16,737.64 $896,746.48 $127,664.75 $78,366.04 $178.06 1 The LLAD No. 24-1 cost per EDU was determined by dividing the LLAD No. 24-1 costs attributed to special benefit by the projected number of EDUs for LLAD No. 24-1.

Table No. 7 - Trail Cost Allocation
Special Benefit

Formation of LLAD No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART D
27 Other Other Non LLAD No. 24-1
LLAD No. 24-1 District Parcel District Parcel Rate per EDU FY 2024-25 Special Special Special General (FY 2024-25
Improvement Type Cost Benefit Benefit1 Benefit2 Benefit3 Dollars) Arterial and Major Roadway Streetlighting $413,174.95 $1,510.58 $315,560.10 $84,500.51 $11,603.76 $16.07 Arterial and Major Roadway Landscaping $4,423,732.20 $18,294.28 $3,821,674.31 $511,682.93 $72,080.68 $194.62 Community and Neighborhood Parks $9,267,730.71 $21,185.72 $7,903,110.85 $1,028,493.98 $314,940.16 $225.38 In-Tract Streetlighting4 $6,750.00 $6,615.00 N/A N/A $135.00 $70.37 In-Tract Landscaping4 $1,582.28 $1,550.63 N/A N/A $31.65 $16.50 Trail Landscaping $1,119,514.91 $16,737.64 $896,746.48 $127,664.75 $78,366.04 $178.06 Subtotal $15,232,485.05 $65,893.85 $12,937,091.74 $1,752,342.17 $477,157.29 $701.00 Local In-Tract Reserves
Capital Reserves5 $2,075.08 $2,041.75 N/A N/A $33.33 $21.72 Operating Reserves/Contingency5 $2,075.09 $2,041.76 N/A N/A $33.33 $21.72 Subtotal $4,150.17 $4,083.51 N/A N/A $66.66 $43.44
Total $15,236,635.22 $69,977.36 $12,937,091.74 $1,752,342.17 $477,223.95 $744.44 1 This represents the special benefit amounts allocated to parcels located within other existing City of Brentwood LLADs. These amounts will be paid for by parcels located within those LLADs.
2 This represents the special benefit amounts allocated to parcels not located within existing City of Brentwood LLADs. These amounts will be funded by the City's General Fund or by some other non-LLAD funds until new development occurs on these parcels. 3 General Benefit will be funded by the City's General Fund or by some other non-LLAD funds. 4 Incidental costs such as County Collection Fees, Assessment Engineering, and City Administration costs have been applied exclusively to in-tract improvements and are included in the cost estimate for In-Tract Street Lighting and In-Tract Landscaping. 5 The Operating and Capital Reserves shown above only apply to In-Tract Improvements. Since the City transfers funds to LLAD No. 24-1 on July 1, there is no need to collect operating reserves from Other Non-District Parcels and the General Fund.

Table No. 8 - Total Maximum Assessment Calculation (FY 2024-25 Dollars)

Formation of LLAD No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART E
28 PART E

PROPERTY OWNER LIST & ASSESSMENT ROLL
A list of names and addresses of the owners of all parcels, and the description of each lot or parcel proposed for the District is shown on the last equalized Property Tax Roll of the Contra Costa County Assessor, which by reference is hereby made a part of this Report.

This list is keyed to the Assessor's Parcel Numbers as shown on the Assessment Roll, which includes the maximum proposed amount of assessments apportioned to each lot or parcel. The Maximum Assessment Roll is on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Brentwood and is shown in this Report as Appendix “A”.

Formation of LLAD No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane)
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 APPENDIX A
A-1

APPENDIX A

MAXIMUM ASSESSMENT ROLL

Formation of LLAD No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane)
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 APPENDIX A
A-2

Assessor Parcel Development FY 2024-25
Number(s) Name Maximum Assessment
018-230-034 Hanson Lane $69,977.36
LLAD No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane)

Formation of LLAD No. 24-1 (Hanson Lane)
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 APPENDIX B
B-1

APPENDIX B

BENEFIT BOUNDARY DIAGRAMS

*
*
Street Lighting and Landscaping along Arterial and Major Roadways Benefit Boundary Diagram
LLAD No. 24-1
¯ 0 2,500 5,000
Feet
4 4
Brentwood Blvd
Sellers Ave
Sunset Rd
Concord Ave
Byron Hwy
Bixler Rd
Chestnut St
Brentwood Blvd
Minnesota Ave
Hanson Lane
Project Site
B-2
Neroly Rd Delta Rd
Brentwood Blvd
O'Hara Ave
Sycamore Ave
Sand Creek Rd
Oak St
Lone Tree Wy
Fairview
Ave
Empire Ave
Shady Willow Ln
Jeffrey Wy Sand Creek Rd
Balfour Rd
Central Blvd
Fairv ei w
Ave
Griffith Ln
Walnut Blvd
Vineyards Pkwy
Legend
LLAD No. 24-1 Boundary
City Limit
Parcel Lines
Parcels outside of City Limits - East/South Bound
Parcels outside of City Limits - North/West Bound
Parcels within City Limits
City Arterial/Major Roadways

LLAD No. 24-1
Parks Benefit Diagram
Lone Tree Wy
Sand Creek Rd
Balfour Rd
Brentwood Blvd
Fairview Ave
Minnesota Ave
Grant St
O'Hara Ave
Brentwood Blvd
John Muir Pkwy
4 ¯
Sunset
Park
Aquatic Complex
& Skate Park
King
Park
Miwok Park
Oak Meadow
Park
Apple Hill
Park
Arbor View
Park
Garin
Park
Summerset
Commons
Park
Sand Creek
Soccer
Hanson Lane
Project Site
B-3
4 2,000 1,000 0 2,000
Feet
Legend
LLAD No. 24-1 Boundary
City Limit
Parcel Lines
Parcels within the
Neighborhood Park Boundary
Community Park
Neighborhood Park

!( !( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!( !(
!(
!(
!(
!( !( !(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
City of Brentwood
LLAD No. 24-1 In-Tract Benefit Diagram

LONE TREE WY
M
E
G
A
N
O
S
R
D
M
E
G
A
N
O
S
R
D
RIVA
S
D
R
CAT
E
R
PIL
LA
R
L
N

BLOOMFIELD WY

VICEROY WY

HANSON LN
Legend
LLAD 24-1 Boundary
Parcel Lines
Citywide Parks Improvement
Citywide Trail Improvement
!( Proposed Streetlights
Proposed Masonry Walls
±
150 75 0 150 300
Feet
P
arc
el D
Parcel B
P
arc
el C
Parcel A
B-4 Page 70 of 414
City of Brentwood - LLAD No. 24-1 Trail Benefit Diagram B-5
Hanson Lane
Project Site
Fairview
Ave
Brentwood Blvd
O
H' ara Ave
E
mpire Ave
Lone Tree Wy
Sand Creek Rd
4 850
¯0 850
Feet
Legend
LLAD No. 24-1 Boundary
City Limit
Parcel Lines
Grant Street Trail Benefit Boundary
Parcels within Grant Street Trail Benefit Boundary
Grant Street Trail

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.3
09/10/2024
SUBJECT: Approve the Final Engineer’s Report, and confirm and order the formation of Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-3 (Inez Estates).

DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation
STAFF: Bruce Mulder, Director of Parks and Recreation
Aaron Wanden, Park Maintenance Manager

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Hold the Public Hearing relating to the formation of Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-3 (Inez Estates). Confirm the formation with a simple majority property owner approval, weighted by assessment amount. Adopt a Resolution ordering the formation of Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-3 (Inez Estates); ordering improvements and confirming the diagram and assessments as shown in the Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) Fiscal Year 2024-25 Final Engineer’s Report in accordance with provisions of the Streets and Highways Code “Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972” and California Proposition 218.

FISCAL IMPACT
Upon build-out, the City will have authorization to collect the maximum annual assessment revenue of approximately $6,904 (in Fiscal Year 2024-25 dollars) from the residential parcels within the Inez Estates project. This maximum annual assessment revenue will be increased each fiscal year based upon the prior year’s change in the San Francisco Bay Area Urban Wage Earners Consumer Price Index or 2%, whichever is greater, and will fund the special benefit portion of the maintenance, operation, servicing, replacement, and administration expenses associated with City improvements that benefit the project. The annual general benefit portion of these costs of approximately $420 will be funded by the General Fund.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.3
09/10/2024
To ensure the Landscape & Lighting Assessment Districts are self-supporting, each district has an administrative cost factored into the maximum assessment rate during formation to cover creation of annual Engineer’s Reports and levying of assessments.

Funds to cover the costs associated with the formation of the Landscape & Lighting District have been deposited with the City by the developer.

BACKGROUND
The proposed formation of Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) will consist of 8 single-family homes at build-out, located south of Lone Tree Way and west of Gann Street. The project is conditioned to provide a funding mechanism to offset the annual operation, maintenance, and future capital replacement costs attributed to City streetlights, landscaping, open space areas, trails, and park improvements which benefit the properties located within the project.

The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and Proposition 218 require that an Engineer’s Report be generated for the formation of any new assessment district or any annexations into existing assessment districts. The Engineer’s Report identifies public improvements to be maintained, as well as the maximum annual assessment rates to be levied on properties benefiting from these improvements. The assessment rates may or may not change each fiscal year, dependent on the maintenance budget, but cannot exceed the maximum annual assessment amount set when the assessment district was originally formed, plus an annual cost of living adjustment.

This report will set the maximum annual assessment rate for the new assessment district being proposed.

The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and Proposition 218 require that all formations of assessment districts receive approval, from the affected property owner(s), and a Public Hearing be held, prior to final approval from City Council. In accordance with these requirements, a notice and ballot regarding the formation of this assessment district was mailed to the property owner, Inez Estates LLC, in accordance with Proposition 218. The notice and ballot contained detailed information about the Landscape & Lighting Assessment District including but not limited to, improvements to be maintained, and the maximum annual assessment amount.

At the close of the public input portion of the Public Hearing, the Acting City Clerk will tabulate all ballots received. This information will be presented to the City Council during the meeting.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.3
09/10/2024
Following the tabulation of the ballots and determining the results, if there is no majority protest, the Council will be presented with the attached Resolution approving the Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) Fiscal Year 2024-25 Final Engineer’s Report and ordering the formation of Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-3 (Inez Estates).

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Not Applicable.

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

DATE OF NOTICE
August 30, 2024

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Not Applicable.

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

1. Do not approve staff’s recommendation. Not approving this action will result in the inability of the City to levy assessments in Fiscal Year 2024/25 to fund the operation, maintenance, and replacement of public improvements associated with Landscape and Lighting Assessment District No. 24-3 (Inez Estates), and will result in funding obligations of the General Fund.

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. Resolution

3. Final Engineer’s Report – LLAD No. 24-3 (Inez Estates)

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.

Actions were taken in previous years to form the City’s 67 existing Landscape & Lighting Assessment Districts.

On March 23, 2021, by Resolution No. 2021-32, the City Council adopted a resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Francisco for a two-year term, in an amount not to exceed $229,900 per agreement year for assessment engineering services for Fiscal Years 2021/22 and 2022/23. In addition, the two-year agreement included an option to extend the agreement for two additional one-year terms.

On March 14, 2023, by Resolution No. 2023-25, the City Council adopted a resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute an amendment to extend the agreement for Fiscal Year 2023/24, for the first of the two allowable optional one-year terms in an amount not to exceed $229,900.

On March 26, 2024, by Resolution No. 2024-29, the City Council adopted a resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute an amendment to extend the agreement for Fiscal Year 2024/25, for the second of the two allowable optional one-year terms in an amount not to exceed $229,900.

On July 23, 2024, by Resolution No. 2024-79, the City Council declared its intention to 1) order the formation of, 2) levy and collect assessments for, 3) identify improvements to be maintained by Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24- 3 (Inez Estates) for Fiscal Year 2024-25 and 4) set September 10, 2024, as the Public Hearing date pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 and Proposition 218.

RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD APPROVING THE FINAL ENGINEER’S REPORT AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS RELATED TO THE REPORT; ORDERING THE FORMATION OF LANDSCAPE & LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 24-3 (INEZ ESTAES); ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS; AND CONFIRMING THE DIAGRAM AND

ASSESSMENTS AS SHOWN IN THE FORMATION OF LANDSCAPE &
LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 24-3 (INEZ ESTATES) FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 FINAL ENGINEER’S REPORT PURSUANT TO THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE “LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972” AND PROPOSITION 218.

WHEREAS, as required by Section 22585 of the California Streets and Highways Code, the City Council of the City of Brentwood, by Resolution No. 2024-79 initiated the formation of Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) and the Engineer of Work has filed a report describing the improvements and proposed assessment district; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 22587 of the California Streets and Highways Code, the City Council by Resolution No. 2024-79 declared the intent to form Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) and the intent to levy and collect assessments, in addition to setting a date of September 10, 2024 for a Public Hearing on the matter; and
WHEREAS, as required by Proposition 218 and in accordance with the requirements of Section 22588 of the California Streets and Highways Code, notices and ballots have been mailed to each affected property owner, identifying the improvements and assessments; and WHEREAS, on September 10, 2024, City Council conducted a Public Hearing and gave any interested person an opportunity to protest the assessments, the formation of, and the Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) Fiscal Year 2024-25 Final Engineer’s Report, either in writing or orally, and determined that a majority protest had not been filed against the formation of the Landscape & Lighting Assessment District; and WHEREAS, the amount of the assessments represented by the property owner assessment ballots submitted in favor of formation of Landscape & Lighting District No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) was greater than those submitted against the assessment as shown on Exhibit “A” attached.

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

1. The preceding recitals are true and correct and material to the adoption of this Resolution.

2. The City Council has carefully reviewed and examined the Final Engineer’s Report in connection with Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) and hereby approves it as submitted (or as amended, if applicable) and finds and determines that:
a. The territory of land within the District will receive special benefits from the operation, maintenance, and servicing of the lights, landscaping, open space

areas, trails, parks and appurtenant facilities and improvements related thereto;
b. The District includes all of the lands so benefitted; and c. The maximum amount to be assessed upon the lands within the Landscape & Lighting Assessment District, in accordance with the build-out budget for Fiscal Year 2024-25 is apportioned by a formula and method which fairly distributes the net amount among all eligible parcels in proportion to the special benefits to be received by each parcel from the improvements and services and is satisfied that the assessments are levied without regard to property valuation.

3. The City Council hereby orders the improvements to be maintained and serviced, orders the formation of Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-3 (Inez Estates), and confirms and approves the diagram, the maximum assessments, and the Fiscal Year 2024-25 assessments as shown in the Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) Fiscal Year 2024-25 Final Engineer’s Report.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of September 2024 by the following vote:

EXHIBIT A

CERTIFICATE OF MAILED BALLOT RESULTS

FOR THE FORMATION OF LANDSCAPE & LIGHTING
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 24-3 (INEZ ESTATES)
September 10, 2024
I, Amanda McVey, Interim City Clerk of the City of Brentwood, hereby certify the results of the mailed ballot election held on September 10, 2024 to be as follows:

Landscape & Lighting Assessment District No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) TOTAL ASSESSMENT AMOUNT CAST “YES”: _______________
TOTAL ASSESSMENT AMOUNT CAST “NO”: _______________
TOTAL ASSESSMENT AMOUNT CAST:_______________
THE ASSESSMENT AMOUNT CAST “YES” EQUAL ______________% OF THE TOTAL ASSESSMENT AMOUNT CAST.

Dated: September 10, 2024

CITY OF BRENTWOOD
By
Amanda McVey
Interim City Clerk of the City of Brentwood

Landscaping and LighƟng
Assessment District 24‐3
Inez Estates
Fiscal Year 2024‐25
Final Engineer’s Report
September 10, 2024

Formation of LLAD No. 24-3 Inez Estates)
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 TABLE OF CONTENTS i
Page No.

City Directory.........................................................................................................ii Certificates............................................................................................................iii SECTION I Introduction .................................................................................... 1 SECTION II Impacts of Proposition 218............................................................. .3 SECTION III Engineer’s Report ........................................................................... 5 Part A - Plans and Specifications............................................................... 7 Part B - Estimate of Cost ........................................................................... 9 Part C - Assessment District Diagram...................................................... 11 Part D - Method of Apportionment of Assessment................................... 13 Part E - Property Owner List & Assessment Roll ..................................... 28 Appendix A – Maximum Assessment Roll .........................................................A-1 Appendix B – Benefit Boundary Diagrams ........................................................B-1

Formation of LLAD No. 24-3 (Inez Estates)
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 CITY DIRECTORY

ii

CITY OF BRENTWOOD

FORMATION OF LANDSCAPE & LIGHTING
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 24-3
(INEZ ESTATES)
FISCAL YEAR 2024-25

CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND CITY STAFF
Joel R. Bryant
Mayor
Susannah Meyer Jovita Mendoza
Vice Mayor Council Member
Pa'tanisha Pierson Tony Oerlemans
Council Member Council Member
Tim Ogden
City Manager

Allen Baquilar Amanda McVey
City Engineer Acting City Clerk

Kerry Breen Bruce Mulder
Director of Finance & Information Systems Director of Parks & Recreation Francisco & Associates
Assessment Engineer

Formation of LLAD No. 24-3 (Inez Estates)
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 CERTIFICATES
iii

ENGINEER'S REPORT

CITY OF BRENTWOOD
FORMATION OF LANDSCAPE & LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 24-3 (INEZ ESTATES)
FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
The undersigned, acting on behalf of Francisco & Associates, respectfully submits the enclosed Engineer’s Report as directed by the City of Brentwood City Council pursuant to the provisions of Article XIIID, Section 4 of the California Constitution and provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 commencing with Section 22500 et. seq. of the California Streets and Highways Code. The undersigned certifies that he is a Professional Engineer, registered in the State of California.

Dated: August 15, 2024 By:

Eduardo Espinoza, P.E.

CE No. 83709
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the Engineer’s Report, together with the Assessment Roll and Assessment District Diagram thereto attached was filed with me on the ___________ day of _________, 2024.

Amanda McVey, Acting City Clerk
City of Brentwood
Contra Costa County, California
By:

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed Engineer’s Report, together with the Assessment Roll and the Assessment District Diagram thereto attached, was approved and confirmed by the City Council of the City of Brentwood, Contra Costa County, California, on the ____ ________day of ________, 2024.

Amanda McVey, Acting City Clerk
City of Brentwood
Contra Costa County, California
By:

Formation of LLAD No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) SECTION I
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 INTRODUCTION
1 SECTION I

INTRODUCTION
ENGINEER’S REPORT
FORMATION OF LANDSCAPE & LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 24-3 (INEZ ESTATES)
FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
To ensure the proper flow of funds for the ongoing operation, maintenance, servicing and replacement of specific improvements within the City of Brentwood (the “City”), the City Council, through the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, has previously approved the formation of sixty-seven (67) Landscape & Lighting Assessment Districts (LLADs) and is currently proposing the formation of one (1) additional LLAD, which is the purpose of this Report. Improvements, which may be operated, maintained, serviced, and replaced by the LLADs, include, but are not limited to, landscaping, park, streetlighting, and trail improvements.

Generally, as a part of the conditions of approval to develop property within the City, property owners/developers are required to mitigate their project’s financial impact to the City. Developers can provide their own financing mechanism to mitigate their impacts or they can form a new LLAD or when applicable, annex into an existing LLAD. The formation of these LLADs ensure that the operation, maintenance, servicing, and replacement costs of these improvements are specifically paid for by those property owners who directly benefit from the improvements.

LLAD No. 24-3 (the “District”) will include the Inez Estates development located south of Lone Tree Way and west of Gann Street. The Inez Estates development will consist of 8 single-family homes at build-out. In order to form the District, it will require approval from the District property owner(s), prior to final approval from City Council. This process is discussed in Section II, ‘Impacts of Proposition 218’ of this Report.

As required by the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, the Engineer’s Report includes:
(1) a description of the improvements to be operated, maintained, serviced and replaced by the District, (2) a cost estimate for the District, and (3) a listing of the proposed maximum assessments to be levied upon each assessable lot or parcel within the District.

The City of Brentwood will hold a public hearing on September 10, 2024, regarding the formation of the District. At the public hearing the City will provide an opportunity for any interested person to be heard. After the public input portion of the public hearing, the City Clerk will tabulate the assessment ballots. If the assessment ballot tabulation is favorable, the City Council may adopt a resolution forming the District and confirming the maximum assessment rates as originally proposed or as modified.

Formation of LLAD No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) SECTION I
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 INTRODUCTION
2 Payment of these annual assessments for each parcel will be made in the same manner and at the same time as payments are made for their annual property taxes. All funds collected through the assessments must be placed in a special fund and can only be used for the purposes stated within this Report.

Formation of LLAD No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) SECTION II
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PROPOSITION 218
3 SECTION II
IMPACT OF PROPOSITION 218
FORMATION OF LIGHTING & LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT No. 24-3 (INEZ ESTATES)
FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
On November 5, 1996, California voters approved Proposition 218 entitled "Right to Vote On Taxes Act" which added Articles XIIIC and XIIID to the California Constitution. While its title refers only to taxes, Proposition 218 established new procedural requirements for the formation and administration of assessment districts.

These procedures stipulate that even if assessments are initially exempt from Proposition 218, new or future increases in assessments must comply with the provisions of Proposition 218. However, if the increase in assessment was anticipated in the property owner approved assessment formula (e.g., CPI increase or assessment cap) then the assessment increase is compliant with the intent and provisions of Proposition 218.

In order to form the District, it will require voter approval from the District property owner(s), prior to final approval from City Council. In order to comply with the requirements of Proposition 218, the City of Brentwood has implemented the following procedures:
1) Every property owner within the District will be mailed a ballot, which allows the property owners to cast their votes either in favor or against the proposed formation of the assessment district. A notice describing the assessment, the individual property owner’s maximum annual assessment rate, the duration of the assessment, the reason for the assessment, and the basis upon which the assessment is calculated will accompany the ballots.
2) After the close of the public input portion of the public hearing, the ballots, which have been returned to the City Clerk will be tabulated to determine whether a majority protest against the formation of the District exists. 3) When tabulating the assessment ballots, they will be weighted based on their proportionate maximum assessment amount.
4) Publicly owned properties must be assessed unless there is clear and convincing evidence that those properties receive no special benefit from the improvements. Exempted from the assessment would be the areas of public streets, public avenues, public lanes, public roads, public drives, public courts, public alleys, public easements and rights-of-ways, public greenbelts and public parkways, utility easements, and that portion of public property that is not used for business purposes similar to private residential,

Formation of LLAD No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) SECTION II
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PROPOSITION 218
4 commercial, industrial and institutional activities. Also exempted from the assessments are private streets, utility easements, HOA common areas (except club houses, community centers, parking lots, etc.) and any other parcels that do not receive a special and direct benefit from the improvements.

All property owners will be noticed in accordance with Proposition 218 a minimum of 45 days prior to the public hearing, unless a shorter notice period is agreed to by all affected property owners. After the public hearing and after the ballots have been tabulated, if a majority of the weighted ballots are in favor of the assessment, then the City Council may adopt a resolution forming the District and confirming the maximum assessment rate.

Formation of LLAD No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 ENGINEER'S REPORT 5 SECTION III

ENGINEER'S REPORT PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
SECTION 22500 THROUGH 22679

OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE
Pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California), Proposition 218 and in accordance with the Resolution of Intention accepting the Preliminary Engineer’s Report, adopted by the City Council of the City of Brentwood, on July 23, 2024, and in connection with the proceedings for:

CITY OF BRENTWOOD
FORMATION OF LANDSCAPE & LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 24-3 (INEZ ESTATES)
FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
Herein after referred to as the “District", I, Eduardo Espinoza, the duly appointed ENGINEER OF WORK, submit herewith the "Report" consisting of five (5) parts as follows:

PART A: PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
This part describes the improvements in the District. Plans and specifications for the improvements are as set forth on the lists thereof, attached hereto, and are on file in the Office of the Parks & Recreation Department and are incorporated herein by reference.

PART B: ESTIMATE OF COST
This part contains an estimate of the cost of the proposed improvements, including incidental costs and expenses in connection therewith, is as set forth on the lists thereof, attached hereto, and is on file in the Office of the Parks & Recreation and Engineering Department.

PART C: ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
This part incorporates by reference a diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the District and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within the District. The diagram has been prepared by the Engineer of Work and is on file in the Office of the Brentwood City Clerk. The lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel within the District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Contra Costa County Assessor for the year when this Report was prepared. The Assessor's maps and records are incorporated by reference herein and made part of this Report.

Formation of LLAD No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 ENGINEER'S REPORT 6 PART D: METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENT
This part contains the method of apportionment of assessments, based upon parcel classification of land within the District, in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received.

PART E: PROPERTY OWNER LIST & ASSESSMENT ROLL
This part contains a list of the Contra Costa County Assessor’s Parcel numbers, and the maximum amount to be assessed upon the benefited lands within the District. The Assessment Roll is filed in the Office of the Brentwood City Clerk and is incorporated in this Report by reference. The list is keyed to the records of the Contra Costa County Assessor, which are incorporated herein by reference.

Formation of LLAD No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART A
7 PART A

PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
The facilities, constructed that benefit the District, and those which may be subsequently operated, maintained, serviced, and replaced are generally described as follows:

The operation, maintenance, servicing and replacement of streetlighting, landscaping, walls, monuments, trails, parks, open space areas, and associated facilities including but not limited to; personnel, electrical energy, utilities such as water, materials, contractual services, and other items necessary for the satisfactory operation, maintenance, servicing and replacement of the facilities as described below.

Streetlighting Facilities Along Arterial and Major Roadways Median and roadside street lights located along arterial and major roadways as shown on the Arterial and Major Roadway Benefit Boundary Diagram (Appendix page B-2) and described in Table 2 of this Report consist of, but are not limited to poles, fixtures, bulbs, conduits, equipment including guys, anchors, posts and pedestals, metering devices, utilities and other appurtenant facilities within the public rights-of-way and easements benefitting parcels within the boundaries of the District.

Landscaping Facilities Along Arterial and Major Roadways Median and roadside landscaping facilities located along arterial and major roadways as shown on the Arterial and Major Roadway Benefit Boundary Diagram (Appendix page B2) and described in Table 3 of this Report consist of, but are not limited to landscaping, irrigation, planting, shrubbery, ground cover, trees, pathways, hardscapes, walls, fences, utilities, and other appurtenant facilities required to provide landscaping within the public rights-of-way and easements benefitting parcels within the boundaries of the District.

Parks Facilities
Community and neighborhood parks and open space facilities as shown on the Parks Benefit Boundary Diagram (Appendix page B-3) and described in Table 4 of this Report consist of, but are not limited to parks, open space, drainage areas, creeks, ponds, pathways, landscaping, trees, shrubbery, sidewalks, tot lots, park equipment, playgrounds, fences, etc. including the removal of trash and debris, and other appurtenant facilities within the public park areas, public rights-of-way, and easements benefitting parcels within the boundaries of the District.

In-Tract Streetlighting Facilities
In-tract streetlights located along in-tract roadways of the District are shown on the InTract Benefit Boundary Diagram (Appendix page B-4) and described in Table 5 of this

Formation of LLAD No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART A
8 Report consist of, but are not limited to poles, fixtures, bulbs, conduits, equipment including guys, anchors, posts and pedestals, metering devices, utilities and other appurtenant facilities within the public rights-of-way and easements benefitting parcels within the boundaries of the District.

In-Tract Landscaping Facilities
In-tract landscaping facilities located within or adjacent to the District are shown on the In-Tract Benefit Boundary Diagram (Appendix page B-4) and described in Table 6 of this Report consist of, but are not limited to landscaping, irrigation, planting, shrubbery, ground cover, trees, pathways, hardscapes, walls, monuments, fences, utilities, and other appurtenant facilities required to provide landscaping within the public rights-of-way and easements benefitting parcels within the boundaries of the District.

Trail Facilities
Maintenance of trail facilities as shown on the Trail Benefit Diagram (Appendix page B-5) and described in Table 7 of this report consist of, but are not limited to: operation, maintenance, servicing, and replacement of open space areas, trails, etc. including landscaping, irrigation, hardscapes, pathway materials, removal of trash and debris, and other appurtenant facilities within the public rights-of-way and easements that benefit parcels within the boundaries of the District.

Formation of LLAD No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART B
9 PART B

ESTIMATE OF COST
The 1972 Act requires that a special fund be set up for the collection of revenues and expenditures of each LLAD. The Act provides that the total cost of operation, maintenance, servicing and replacement of the street lighting, landscaping, trails, parks, open space areas, and associated facilities, etc. can be recovered by each LLAD.

Incidental expenses including administration of the LLADs, engineering fees, legal fees and all other associated costs of the District can also be included.

Table No. 1 on the following page shows the total operation, maintenance, servicing, and replacement budgets upon completion of all improvements which could be assessed against the benefiting parcels within the District in FY 2024-25 dollars.

Formation of LLAD No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART B
10 Revenues collected from the assessment shall be used only for the purposes as stated herein. Any balance remaining on July 1 at the end of the fiscal year must be carried over to the next fiscal year.

FY 2024-25 LLAD Other Other Non- General
Improvement Type Cost No. 24-3 LLAD Parcels 1 LLAD Parcels 2 Benefit 3 Arterial Streetlighting $411,753.00 $128.56 $315,560.10 $84,500.51 $11,563.83 Arterial Landscaping $4,406,717.64 $1,556.96 $3,821,674.31 $511,682.93 $71,803.44 Community and Neighborhood Parks $9,247,717.38 $1,803.04 $7,903,110.85 $1,028,493.98 $314,309.51 In-Tract Streetlighting4 $600.00 $588.00 N/A N/A $12.00 In-Tract Landscaping4 $1,912.30 $172.33 $1,701.72 N/A $38.25 Trail Landscaping $1,103,049.15 $1,424.48 $896,746.48 $127,664.75 $77,213.44 Maintenance Subtotal $15,171,749.47 $5,673.37 $12,938,793.46 $1,752,342.17 $474,940.47 Local In-Tract Reserves
Capital Reserves5 $628.07 $615.51 N/A N/A $12.56
Operating Reserves/Contingency5 $628.08 $615.52 N/A N/A $12.56 Reserves Subtotal $1,256.15 $1,231.03 N/A N/A $12.56
Total $15,173,005.62 $6,904.40 $12,938,793.46 $1,752,342.17 $474,953.03 1 This represents the special benefit amounts allocated to parcels located within other existing City of Brentwood LLADs. These amounts will be paid for by parcels located within those LLADs. 2 This represents the special benefit amounts allocated to parcels not located within existing City of Brentwood LLADs. These amounts will be funded by the City's General Fund or by some other non-LLAD funds until new development occurs on these parcels. 3 General Benefit will be funded by the City's General Fund or by some other non-LLAD funds. 4 Incidental costs such as County Collection Fees, Assessment Engineering, and City Administration costs have been applied exclusively to in-tract improvements and are included in the cost estimate shown for In-Tract Street Lighting and In-Tract Landscaping. 5 The Operating and Capital Reserves shown above only apply to In-Tract Improvements. Since the City transfers funds to LLAD No. 24-3 on July 1, there is no need to collect operating reserves from Other Non-District Parcels and the General Fund.

Table No. 1 - LLAD No. 24-3 Cost Estimate (FY 2024-25 Dollars) Special Benefit

Formation of LLAD No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART C
11 PART C

ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DIAGRAM
The boundaries of the District are completely within the boundaries of the City of Brentwood. The Assessment Diagram is on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Brentwood and shown on the following page of this Report. The lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel within the District are those lines and dimensions shown on the maps of the Contra Costa County Assessor, for the year when this Report was prepared, and are incorporated by reference herein and made part of this Report.

A reduced copy of the Assessment Diagram for the District is included on the following page.

City of Brentwood
LLAD No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) Assessment Diagram
Legend
LLAD 24-3 Boundary
Parcel Lines
±
150 75 0 150 300
Feet

LONE TREE WY

GANN ST
APN
018-080-022
APN
018-080-025

SAGE SPARROW ST

Formation of LLAD No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART D
13 PART D

METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF ASSESSMENT
Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code, the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, permits the establishment of assessment districts by agencies for the purpose of providing certain public improvements which includes, but is not limited to the operation, maintenance, servicing and replacement of street lighting, landscaping, trails, park, and open space area facilities.

Section 22573 of the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 requires that maintenance assessments must be levied according to benefit rather than according to assessed value. This Section states:
"The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefit to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements.”
In addition, Article XIIID, of the California Constitution limits the amount of any assessment to the proportional “special benefit” conferred on the property. Article XIIID provides that only special benefits are assessable, and the City must separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred on a parcel. There is no widely accepted or statutory formula for determining general and special benefit. However, the constitution states that a special benefit is different from a general benefit in that it is “particular and distinct” and “over and above” general benefits received by other properties.

Article XIIID provided that publicly owned properties must be assessed unless there is clear and convincing evidence that those properties receive no special benefit from the assessment. Exempted from the assessment would be the areas of public streets, public avenues, public lanes, public roads, public drives, public courts, public alleys, public easements and rights-of-ways, public greenbelts and public parkways, utility easements, and that portion of public property that is not developed and used for business purposes similar to private residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional activities.

The amount to be assessed may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the amount among all assessable lots or parcels. Additionally, it’s required that the City separate the general benefits from the special benefits, because only special benefits may be assessed.

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
The operation, maintenance, servicing, and replacement costs for the landscaping, streetlighting, parks, open space areas, and trail facilities are apportioned in accordance with a methodology that is consistent with standard assessment engineering practices.

Formation of LLAD No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART D
14 Since the assessments are levied on the owners of properties as shown on the secured property tax rolls, the final assessments must be assigned by Assessor's Parcel Number.

If assessments were to be allocated by parcel, not considering land use, benefit would not be allocated accurately, because a single-family parcel would be paying the same as a 50-unit apartment parcel or a large commercial establishment. Therefore, as previously stated, the total assessment costs are allocated to each parcel of land based on the benefit received by each parcel. The assessment methodology is based on Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) as discussed below.

Single-Family Residential Parcels - The single-family residential parcel has been selected as the basic unit for the calculation of assessments since it represents approximately 90% of the parcels within the City. Therefore, the single-family residential parcel is defined as one EDU per parcel. The assessment methodology used to assign EDUs to other land uses in proportion to the special benefit they receive relative to the single-family residential parcel is discussed below.

Condominium, Duet, Townhome and Mobile Home Parcels - Condominiums, duets, townhomes, and mobile homes on average have approximately 75% of the building square footage compared to a single-family home. Furthermore, studies consistently show that these types of residential products impact public infrastructure approximately 75% as much as a single-family residential parcel. Therefore, all condominium, townhome and mobile home parcels are assessed 0.75 EDUs per parcel.

Multi-Family Residential Units - Multi-family residential units on average have approximately 50% of the building square footage compared to a single-family home.

Furthermore, studies consistently show that multi-family residential units impact public infrastructure approximately 50% as much as a single-family home. Therefore, all multifamily parcels are assessed 0.50 EDUs per unit.

Non-Residential Parcels - Commercial, industrial, institutional, and other non-residential properties are assessed at three (3) EDUs per acre of land. The 3.00 EDU per acre allocation is based upon the average size of a single-family parcel in the City of Brentwood which is approximately 1/6 of an acre. For every acre of non-residential land approximately 6 single-family homes could be constructed on that acre of land which would equate to 6.00 EDUs per acre. Furthermore, it was determined that NonResidential parcels benefit less than residential properties from the authorized improvements because their employees have less time and opportunity to use and benefit from the improvements, than residents who live within the City. Employees typically benefit or may use the improvements before work, during breaks and at lunch, or after work. Residents have the ability to use the improvements during the same times and on weekends and holidays, since they reside in the area. Based on this information, it is reasonable to assume that for non-residential property the opportunity to use and benefit from the improvements is approximately 50% of that realized by residential properties.

Therefore, EDUs assigned to non-residential property are assessed three (3) EDUs per acre of land because they have been discounted by 50% to account for the differences in benefit from improvements conferred on residential and non-residential property.

Formation of LLAD No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART D
15 Undeveloped Parcels – All undeveloped properties are assessed at 25% of the developed EDUs assigned for each parcel of land based on the properties land use classification.

Undeveloped properties benefit less from the improvements than developed property because undeveloped properties do not have structures which house residents or utilize employees. However, the improvements funded by the City’s LLADs do benefit undeveloped property because improvements have already been installed that allows for development to occur and to use the improvements immediately upon the initiation of development making the property more attractive. Based on this information, it is reasonable to assume that undeveloped property benefits less than developed property.

To determine the difference in special benefit conferred on developed and undeveloped property, the Contra Costa County Assessor’s assessed values for property within the City were reviewed to determine what percentage of assessed value is typically associated with the underlying land and what percentage is typically associated with the structure. Based upon the review, it was determined that approximately 25% of the assessed value of developed property in the City is associated with the underlying land.

Based on the comparison of benefits of developed property to undeveloped property it is reasonable to assess the undeveloped property at 25% of the rate for developed property.

Therefore, EDUs assigned to undeveloped residential and non-residential property have been discounted by 75% to account for the differences in benefit from improvements conferred on developed and undeveloped property.

Exempt Parcels - Publicly owned properties must be assessed unless there is clear and convincing evidence that those properties receive no special benefit from the improvements. Exempted from the assessment would be the areas of public streets, public avenues, public lanes, public roads, public drives, public courts, public alleys, public easements and rights-of-ways, public greenbelts and public parkways (all of which are typically not assigned an APN by the County), and that portion of public property that is not developed and used for business purposes similar to private commercial, industrial, and institutional activities (such as office buildings like a City Hall, etc.). Also exempted from the assessment would be utility rights-of-ways, common areas (such as in condominium complexes), and any other property that is deemed to be unable to develop by the City. These types of parcels do not benefit from the improvements. Also exempted from the assessments are private streets, utility easements, HOA common areas (except club houses, community centers, parking lots, etc.) and any other parcels that do not receive a special and direct benefit from the improvements.

Furthermore, parcels within the District may be assessed as developed once the final maps have been approved by the City of Brentwood and/or it is anticipated that improvements will need to be maintained or reserve funds will need to be collected for the ensuing fiscal year.

Formation of LLAD No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART D
16 QUANTIFICATION OF BENEFIT
The District will provide a funding source for the operation, maintenance, servicing and replacement of streetlighting, landscaping, park, and open space area facilities authorized under the statute that benefit properties within the boundaries of the District. As previously discussed, it’s required that the City separate the general benefits from the special benefits, because only special benefits may be assessed. In order for the City to separate out the costs associated with general and special benefits for each improvement type, an analysis of each improvement was conducted as described below.

Streetlighting Along Arterial and Major Roadways
Streetlighting located along the City’s arterial and major roadways provide a benefit to parcels inside and outside the City. The benefits from streetlights are enhanced illumination which allows for:
• Safer vehicle and pedestrian access to and from property. • Enhanced deterrence of criminal or suspicious activity such as property theft, vandalism, criminal acidity, illegal dumping, and damage to improvements and property.
• Improved ability of pedestrians and motorists to see. • Improved traffic circulation and reduced nighttime accidents and personal property loss.
• Increased nighttime visibility resulting in enhanced safety on roads, streets, and in public areas.

To determine which properties benefit from streetlighting along the City’s arterial and major roadways a benefit analysis was performed. The analysis utilized Google Maps to determine which arterial and major roadways within the City were most likely to be used by property owners/residents when driving or walking to various destinations inside and outside of the City. The analysis showed that all properties within the City would utilize the City’s arterial and major roadway system when traveling to destinations within the City or to other cities and communities. The analysis also found that there are additional properties located outside the City limits that would utilize the City’s arterial and major roadway system when traveling through the City to various destinations outside the City.

Vehicular or pedestrian traffic flow commencing outside of the City but traveling to a destination inside the City was determined to be a special benefit to the destination parcel within the City. The analysis used each parcel’s physical location as a starting destination and then selected ending destinations were inputted (e.g., neighboring cities or communities surrounding the City of Brentwood). If Google Maps showed the property owner/resident located outside the City would pass through and utilize the City’s arterial and major roadway system to travel to a destination outside of the City, then they were considered to receive a benefit from the City’s arterial and major roadway system. In addition, the analysis showed that most parcels outside of the City did not benefit from the improvements because they did not utilize the City’s roadways to travel to a destination parcel outside of the City, but would in most circumstances, if not all rather

Formation of LLAD No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART D
17 utilize Highway 4 to traverse the City or use an alternative route, therefore circumventing the City’s arterial and major roadways.

In addition to the special and direct benefits the property owners within the City receive from these enhanced streetlighting improvements, there are also some incidental general benefits received by vehicular and pedestrian flow-through traffic (traffic that does not stop within the City) which originates from properties outside the City limits from individuals who use the City’s arterial and major roadway system to travel to another destination outside of the City. It has been determined that some properties not located within the City, north of the City limits, utilize arterial and major roadways within the City when traveling to destinations south of the City and that some properties not located within City, south and east of the City limits, utilize arterial and major roadways within the City when traveling to a destination north of the City. Properties meeting these criteria have been identified and such benefits must be accounted for and cannot be assessed to the properties within the City’s LLADs.

To quantify and separate the special benefits received by property owners within the City limits and the general benefit received by the property owners outside the City, EDUs were assigned to all benefiting properties (both inside and outside the City). The analysis resulted in a benefit boundary being drawn and EDUs being assigned to one of three categories of parcels: special benefits assigned to properties that lie within the City and not in a LLAD, special benefits assigned to properties that lie within the City and in a LLAD, and general benefits assigned to properties that lie outside the City. The aggregated EDU assignments for each categorization of property determined that 2.81% of the EDUs were attributed to properties located outside of the City. Therefore, it is estimated that 97.19% of the annual cost to operate, maintain, service and replace the arterial and major roadway streetlighting would be a special and direct benefit to the parcels within the City and 2.81% of the annual cost to operate, maintain, service and replace the arterial and major roadway streetlighting would be a general benefit.

Streetlighting Along Arterial and Major Roadway Cost Allocation The 1,396 roadside and median streetlights located along arterial and major roadways within the Arterial and Major Roadway Benefit Boundary cost approximately $411,753 per year to maintain in FY 2024-25 dollars. The cost to maintain the streetlighting along the arterial and major roadways are spread to all benefitting parcels identified within the Arterial and Major Roadway Benefit Boundary. The parcels identified to be within the Arterial and Major Roadway Benefit Boundary equate to 25,622 EDUs which results in an annual cost allocation of $16.07 per EDU in FY 2024-25 dollars. As previously discussed,

97.19% of the annual cost to operate and maintain the streetlights would be a special and direct benefit to the parcels within the Arterial and Major Roadway Benefit Boundary.

Table No. 2 shows the streetlight cost allocation associated with arterials and major roadways.

Formation of LLAD No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART D
18 Landscaping Along Arterial and Major Roadways
Landscaping located along the City’s arterial and major roadways provide a benefit to parcels within and outside the City. The benefits from landscaping include enhanced beautification which allows for:
• Enhanced desirability of property through association with the improvements. • Improved aesthetic appeal of properties providing a positive representation of the area and properties.
• Enhanced beautification to the adjacent developments. • Increased sense of pride in ownership of property within the LLADs resulting from well-maintained improvements associated with the properties. • Enhanced quality of life through well-maintained green space and landscaped areas.
• Reduced criminal activity and property-related crimes (especially vandalism) against properties in the LLADs through well-maintained surroundings and amenities including abatement of graffiti.
• Environmental enhancement through improved erosion resistance, dust and debris control, and fire prevention.
• Enhanced environmental quality of the parcels by moderating temperatures, providing oxygenation, and attenuating noise.

To determine which properties benefit from landscaping along the City’s arterial and major roadways a benefit analysis was performed. The analysis utilized Google Maps to determine which arterial and major roadways within the City were most likely to be used by property owners/residents when driving or walking to various destinations inside and outside of the City. The analysis showed that all properties within the City would utilize the City’s arterial and major roadway system when traveling to destinations within the City or to other cities and communities. The analysis also found that there are additional properties located outside the City limits that would utilize the City’s arterial and major roadway system when traveling through the City to various destinations outside the City.

Vehicular or pedestrian traffic flow commencing outside of the City but traveling to a destination inside the City was determined to be a special benefit to the destination parcel within the City. The analysis used each parcel’s physical location as a starting destination and then selected ending destinations were inputted (e.g. neighboring cities or communities surrounding the City of Brentwood). If Google Maps showed the property owner/resident located outside the City would pass through and utilize the City’s arterial LLAD No. 24-3
LLAD Other Other Non General Cost per EDU
Improvement No. 24-3 LLAD Parcels LLAD Parcels Benefit (FY 2024-25 Type 0.03% 76.64% 20.52% 2.81% Dollars)1
Arterial and Major Roadway
Streetlighting $128.56 $315,560.10 $84,500.51 $11,563.83 $16.07 1 The LLAD No. 24-3 Cost per EDU was determined by dividing the LLAD No. 24-3 costs attributed to special benefit by the projected number of EDUs for LLAD No. 24-3.

Special Benefit
Table No. 2 - Arterial and Major Roadway Street Lighting Cost Allocation

Formation of LLAD No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART D
19 and major roadway system to travel to a destination outside of the City, then they were considered to receive a benefit from the City’s arterial and major roadway system. In addition, the analysis showed that most parcels outside of the City did not benefit from the improvements because they did not utilize the City’s roadways to travel to a destination parcel outside of the City, but would in most circumstances, if not all rather utilize Highway 4 to traverse the City or use an alternative route, therefore circumventing the City’s arterial and major roadways.

In addition to the special and direct benefits the property owners within the City receive from these enhanced landscaping improvements, there are also some incidental general benefits received by vehicular and pedestrian flow-through traffic (traffic that does not stop within the City) which originates from properties outside the City limits from individuals who use the City’s arterial and major roadway system to travel to another destination outside of the City. It has been determined that some properties not located within the City, north of the City limits, utilize arterial and major roadways within the City when traveling to destinations south of the City and that some properties not located within City, south and east of the City limits, utilize arterial and major roadways within the City when traveling to a destination north of the City. Properties meeting these criteria have been identified and such benefits must be accounted for and cannot be assessed to the properties within the City’s LLADs.

To quantify and separate the special benefits received by property owners within the City limits and the general benefit received by the property owners outside the City, EDUs were assigned to all benefiting properties (both inside and outside the City). The analysis resulted in a benefit boundary being drawn and EDUs being assigned to one of three categories of parcels: special benefits assigned to properties that lie within the City and not in a LLAD, special benefits assigned to properties that lie within the City and in a LLAD, and general benefits assigned to properties that lie outside the City. It was determined that parcels within the categories that are not in a LLAD benefit less than parcels within the LLADs due to the proximity of the landscaping to the properties within the LLADs. This finding resulted in the EDUs assigned to parcels in the City and not in a LLAD and parcels outside the City being reduced by 50%. The aggregated EDU assignments for each categorization of property determined that 1.63% of the EDUs were attributed to properties located outside of the City. Therefore, it is estimated that 98.37% of the annual cost to operate, maintain, service and replace the arterial and major roadway landscaping would be a special and direct benefit to the parcels within the City and 1.63% of the annual cost to operate, maintain, service and replace the arterial and major roadway landscaping would be a general benefit.

Landscaping Along Arterial and Major Roadway Cost Allocation The 117.493 acres of City-maintained landscaping along the arterial and major roadways within the Arterial and Major Roadway Benefit Boundary cost approximately $4,406,718 per year to maintain in FY 2024-25 dollars. The cost to maintain the arterial and major roadway landscaping is spread to all benefitting parcels identified within the Arterial and Major Roadway Benefit Boundary. The parcels identified on the Arterial and Major Roadway Benefit Boundary equate to 22,643 EDUs which results in an annual cost

Formation of LLAD No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART D
20 allocation of $194.62 per EDU in FY 2024-25 dollars. As previously discussed, 98.37% of the annual cost to operate and maintain the roadside and median landscaping would be a special and direct benefit to the parcels within the Arterial and Major Roadway Benefit Boundary. Table 3 shows the landscaping cost allocation associated with arterials and major roadways.

Park Facilities
The City of Brentwood’s General Plan policy is aimed at ensuring that recreational opportunities will continue to exist throughout the City and that an adequate park system continues to be developed and maintained to serve the City. In keeping with these policies, the City Council formed a Citywide Park Assessment district for park maintenance in 1997 to secure a funding mechanism for a portion of the benefits and associated costs to maintain community parks and neighborhood parks. In addition, the City’s LLADs were also established to fund park costs associated with each benefiting property for the community and neighborhood parks that could not be funded from the Citywide Park Assessment District. For the purposes of this report, community parks are defined as typically being larger parks that are designed with amenities to serve the City as a whole as described further in the Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan originally approved on August 23, 1994 and subsequently approved on June 25, 2002.

Neighborhood parks are defined as being generally smaller than community parks and typically benefit those residents located within a one-half mile radius from the park and as further defined within the Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan previously referenced.

There are 99 Parks spread throughout the City serving a population of approximately 67,000 residents. Community and neighborhood parks provide a special and direct benefit to the parcels within the City. The special and direct benefit to the parcels consists of enhanced recreational opportunities, including baseball, soccer, swimming, basketball, walking, jogging, etc. and the use of improvements such as: picnic tables, barbequing, playground equipment, community center rooms, green spaces, benches, bioswales, etc.

The parks and the associated recreational opportunities provide for more aesthetically pleasing neighborhoods, environmental and health benefits, community gathering places, and an overall improved and healthier community image, etc. If these park improvements were not installed, property within the City’s LLADs would not look as appealing to property owners, prospective property buyers, and patrons alike, which would adversely affect the value of their property. Based on the Parks and Economic Development Report LLAD No. 24-3
LLAD Other Other Non General Cost per EDU
No. 24-3 District Parcels District Parcels Benefit (FY 2024-25 Improvement Type 0.04% 86.72% 11.61% 1.63% Dollars)1
Arterial and Major Roadway
Landscaping $1,556.96 $3,821,674.31 $511,682.93 $71,803.44 $194.62 1 The LLAD No. 24-3 cost per EDU was determined by dividing the LLAD No. 24-3 costs attributed to special benefit by the projected number of EDUs for LLAD No. 24-3.

Special Benefit
Table No. 3 - Arterial and Major Roadway Landscaping Cost Allocation

Formation of LLAD No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART D
21 published in the American Planning Association, homes adjacent and near parks and open space are typically valued at 8-20% higher than comparable properties, with positive price effect declining to zero about ½ mile away. Therefore, park improvements provide a special and direct benefit to property located within ½ miles of park improvements.

Furthermore, the Brentwood Parks, Trails, and Recreation Master Plan development guidelines as previously referenced herein, states that, neighborhood parks should service residents within a ½ mile +/- radius or approximately 1,000 to 2,000 people. The City maintains on average one neighborhood park per 800 residents. In addition to the special and direct benefits the property owners receive within the City from these enhanced park improvements, there are also some incidental benefits received by residents located from outside the City that may utilize the City’s community and neighborhood parks. Even though these are incidental benefits, they must be accounted for and cannot be assessed to the properties within the City’s LLADs.

Based on park user data, it is conservatively estimated that approximately 95% of the benefits associated with community parks are of benefit to property within the City and 98% of the benefits associated with neighborhood parks are of a special and direct benefit to properties within ½ mile distance (+/-). Therefore, 95% of the costs to annually operate, maintain, service and replace the community parks and 98% of the costs to annually operate, maintain, service and replace the neighborhood parks would be a special and direct benefit to the parcels within the City, and 5% and 2%, respectively of the annual costs to operate, maintain, service and replace the parks would be a general benefit.

Park Facilities Cost Allocation
The approximately 253.06 acres of community and neighborhood parks within the Park Benefit Boundary cost approximately $9,247,717 to maintain in FY 2024-25 dollars. The cost to maintain the parks is spread to all benefiting parcels identified within the Parks Benefit Boundary.

The community parks within the Park Benefit Boundary cost approximately $4,311,839 to maintain in FY 2024-25 dollars. As previously discussed, 95% of the annual cost to operate and maintain community parks is considered a special and direct benefit to the parcels within the park benefit boundary and 5% of the annual cost to operate and maintain community parks is considered a general benefit. The parcels identified within the Park Benefit Boundary equate to 22,786 EDUs, which results in an annual cost allocation of $84.83 per EDU in FY 2024-25 dollars for community parks. Table 4A shows the cost allocation associated with community parks.

Formation of LLAD No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART D
22 The neighborhood parks within the Park Benefit Boundary cost approximately $4,935,879 to maintain in FY 2024-25 dollars. As previously discussed, approximately 98% of the annual cost to operate and maintain neighborhood parks is considered a special and direct benefit to the parcels within the park benefit boundary and 2% of the annual cost to operate and maintain neighborhood parks is considered a general benefit. The parcels identified within the Park Benefit Boundary equate to 22,786 EDUs, which results in an annual cost allocation of $140.55 per EDU in FY 2024-25 dollars for neighborhood parks.

Table 4B shows the cost allocation associated with neighborhood parks.

The total annual cost allocation needed to maintain the community and neighborhood parks within the Park Benefit Boundary is $225.38 per EDU in FY 2024-25 dollars as summarized in Table 4C below.

In-Tract Streetlighting
To determine which properties benefit from in-tract or development specific streetlighting a benefit analysis was performed. Streetlighting located along and adjacent to the in-tract streets provides a special and direct benefit to parcels within the developments. The special and direct benefits from streetlights within the development consists of enhanced illumination which allows for safer vehicle and pedestrian access to and from property. In addition, this enhanced illumination helps deter criminal or suspicious activity such as property theft, vandalism, illegal dumping, etc.

LLAD No. 24-3
LLAD Other Other Non General Cost per EDU
Improvement No. 24-3 District Parcels District Parcels Benefit (FY 2024-25 Type 0.02% 86.01% 8.98% 5.00% Dollars)1
Parks $678.64 $3,708,456.69 $387,111.30 $215,591.93 $84.83 1 The LLAD No. 24-3 cost per EDU was determined by dividing the LLAD No. 24-3 costs attributed to special benefit by the projected number of EDUs for LLAD No. 24-3.

Special Benefit
Table No. 4A - Community Park Cost Allocation
LLAD No. 24-3
LLAD Other Other Non General Cost per EDU
Improvement No. 24-3 District Parcels District Parcels Benefit (FY 2024-25 Type 0.02% 84.98% 12.99% 2.00% Dollars)1
Parks $1,124.40 $4,194,654.16 $641,382.68 $98,717.58 $140.55 1 The LLAD No. 24-3 cost per EDU was determined by dividing the LLAD No. 24-3 costs attributed to special benefit by the projected number of EDUs for LLAD No. 24-3.

Table No. 4B - Neighborhood Park Cost Allocation
Special Benefit
Community Park Neighborhood Park Parks
Cost per EDU Cost per EDU Cost per EDU
$84.83 $140.55 $225.38
Table No. 4C - Parks FY 2024-25 Annual Cost Allocation

Formation of LLAD No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART D
23 Since the in-tract streets within the development are designed to have minimal flow through traffic, there are few reasons for vehicles to access the in-tract streets unless their destination is to or from a single-family residential parcel within the development.

However, it is reasonable to conclude that some vehicular traffic may on a rare occasion utilize the in-tract streets due to the need to turn around or a mistaken turn into the development. The rare circumstance where a pedestrian or vehicle mistakenly uses the in-tract streets, have been determined to be a rare and infrequent circumstance. Even though these are rare and infrequent circumstances, they must be accounted for and cannot be assessed to the properties within the City’s LLADs. Therefore, based on flowthrough traffic it is conservatively estimated that approximately 98% of the annual trips along in-tract roadways within the development would be a special and direct benefit to the parcels within the City’s LLADs and 2% of the annual trips along in-tract roadways within the development would be a general benefit.

To quantify and separate the special benefits received by all property within the development EDUs were assigned to all benefitting properties inside the development as identified. It was determined that 2% of the cost to operate, maintain, service and replace the in-tract street lighting were assigned to properties located outside of the development.

Therefore, it is estimated that 98% of the annual cost to operate, maintain, service and replace the in-tract streetlighting would be a special and direct benefit to the parcels within each development and 2% of the annual cost to operate, maintain, service and replace the in-tract streetlighting would be a general benefit.

In-Tract Streetlighting Cost Allocation
The four (4) in-tract streetlights within the In-Tract Benefit Boundary cost approximately $6,00 to maintain in FY 2024-25 dollars. As previously discussed, 98% of the annual cost to operate and maintain the in-tract streetlights is a special and direct benefit to the parcels within the In-Tract Benefit Boundary and is spread to all benefitting parcels within the In-Tract Benefit Boundary. The parcels identified on the In-Tract Benefit Boundary equate to 8 EDUs which results in an annual cost allocation of $73.50 per EDU in FY 2024-25 dollars. Table 5 shows the cost allocation associated with in-tract streetlights.

LLAD No. 24-3
LLAD General Cost per EDU
Improvement FY 2024-25 No. 24-3 Benefit (FY 2024-25
Type Cost 98.00% 2.00% Dollars)1
In-Tract Streetlighting $600.00 $588.00 $12.00 $73.50
1 The LLAD No. 24-3 cost per EDU was determined by dividing the LLAD No. 24-3 costs attributed to special benefit by the projected number of EDUs for LLAD No. 24-3.

Table No. 5 - Local In-Tract Streetlighting Cost Allocation

Formation of LLAD No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART D
24 In-Tract Landscaping
To determine which properties benefit from in-tract or development specific landscaping a benefit analysis was performed. Landscaping located along and adjacent to the in-tract streets provides a special and direct benefit to parcels within the development. The special and direct benefits from in-tract landscaping within the development consists of enhanced beautification to the entrances and along the roadsides within the development.

Property owners who reside within these developments realize this enhanced aesthetic benefit when they are entering and exiting the development. If these in-tract landscape improvements were not installed, the developments would not look as appealing to property owners and prospective property buyers which would adversely affect the value of their property. Therefore, these landscape improvements provide a specific enhancement to their property values and not a general enhancement of property values.

Since the in-tract streets within the development are designed to have minimal flow through traffic, there are few reasons for vehicles to access the in-tract streets unless their destination is to or from a single-family residential parcel within the development.

However, it is reasonable to conclude that some vehicular traffic may on a rare occasion utilize the in-tract streets due to the need to turn around or a mistaken turn into the development. The rare circumstance where a pedestrian or vehicle mistakenly uses the in-tract streets, have been determined to be a rare and infrequent circumstance. Even though these are rare and infrequent circumstances, they must be accounted for and cannot be assessed to the properties within the City’s LLADs. Therefore, based on flowthrough traffic it is conservatively estimated that approximately 98% of the annual trips along in-tract roadways within the development would be a special and direct benefit to the parcels within the LLADs and 2% of the annual trips along in-tract roadways within the development would be a general benefit.

To quantify and separate the special benefits received by all property within the development EDUs were assigned was applied to all benefitting properties inside the development as identified. It was determined that 2% of the cost to operate, maintain, service and replace the in-tract landscaping were assigned to properties located outside of the development. Therefore, it is estimated that 98% of the annual cost to operate, maintain, service and replace the in-tract landscaping would be a special and direct benefit to the parcels within the development and 2% of the annual cost to operate, maintain, service and replace the in-tract landscaping would be a general benefit.

In-Tract Landscaping/Fencing and Soundwall Cost Allocation The District’s share of maintenance cost for 0.06 acres of in-tract landscaping located along Gann Street is approximately $1,912 in FY 2024-25 dollars. As previously discussed, 98% of the annual cost to operate and maintain the in-tract landscaping is a special and direct benefit to the parcels within the In-Tract Benefit Boundary and is spread to all benefitting parcels within the In-Tract Benefit Boundary. The parcels identified on the In-Tract Benefit Boundary equate to 8 EDUs which results in an annual cost allocation of $21.54 per EDU in FY 2024-25 dollars. Table 6 shows the cost allocation associated with in-tract landscaping.

Formation of LLAD No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART D
25 Trails
Trails provide special and direct benefits to the parcels located within a certain proximity to the trails. These special and direct benefits consist of enhanced recreational opportunities such as walking, jogging, biking, etc. within and along their developments.

These benefits allow for:
• Increases in options to exercise and incorporate recreational opportunities into daily routines.
• Increases in opportunities to travel and connect with places people may need or want to go.
• Enhanced environmental opportunities because of improvement in air quality due to people utilizing the trail verse driving to nearby destinations. • Specific enhancements in property values due to the increase in walkability of an area and the increase in amenities.

In addition, the trails provide general benefits to the public-at-large since it is a public trail system and anyone from the public can access it. To determine who is most likely to use trails, the City’s Parks and Recreation Department staff performed a trail user survey over multiple days at different times and locations along existing trail segments over a threemonth period. Based upon their survey findings, ninety-three percent (93%) of trail users were benefitting property owners located both within the City and those outside the City limits, who lived within ½-mile (+/-) of trails. The ½-mile benefit boundaries from each respective trail can vary slightly for trail segments due to the location of geographical features and major roadways. Therefore, it is estimated that 93% of the annual cost to operate, maintain, service and replace the trail improvements would be a special and direct benefit to the parcels within the ½-mile (+/-) distance both within and outside the City and 7% of the annual cost to operate, maintain, service and replace the trail improvements would be a general benefit. Special benefits assigned to properties that lie within a ½ mile (+/-) of trails that are not within a LLAD (in or outside the City), are special benefits that will be paid by the City because they cannot be assessed to parcels within LLADs. Only the benefits associated with properties within the City and within a LLAD that are within a ½ mile (+/-) distance of trails will be assessed.

Trails Assessment Allocation
The 27.782 acres of trails within the District Trail Benefit Boundary (Appendix B) cost approximately $1,103,049 to maintain in FY 2024-25 dollars. As previously discussed, LLAD No. 24-3
LLAD General Cost per EDU
Improvement FY 2024-25 No. 24-3 Benefit (FY 2024-25
Type Cost 98.00% 2.00% Dollars)1
In-Tract Landscaping/Fencing and Soundwalls $1,912.30 $1,874.05 $38.25 $21.54 1 The LLAD No. 24-3 cost per EDU was determined by dividing the LLAD No. 24-3 costs attributed to special benefit by the projected number of EDUs for LLAD No. 24-3.

Table No. 6 - Local In-Tract Landscaping Cost Allocation

Formation of LLAD No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART D
26 93% of the annual cost to operate and maintain these trail segments are a special and direct benefit to the parcels within the Trail Benefit Boundary and is spread to all benefitting parcels within the Trail Benefit Boundary. The parcels identified to be within the Trail Benefit Boundary equate to 5,761 EDUs which results in an annual cost allocation of $178.06 per EDU in FY 2024-25 dollars. Table No. 7 below shows the cost allocation associated with the District Trail Benefit Boundary.

DISTRICT MAXIMUM ASSESSMENT RATE
The maximum assessment rate may be adjusted each subsequent fiscal year to correspond with the annual increase in the San Francisco Bay Area Urban Wage Earners Consumer Price Index from December to December of each year (Base Year of 2023), or 2% whichever is greater.

Parcels within the District become assessable once the final maps have been approved by the City of Brentwood or it is anticipated that improvements will need to be maintained or reserve funds will need to be collected in the ensuing fiscal year.

The following table outlines the total maximum assessment rate in FY 2024-25 dollars.

LLAD No. 24-3
LLAD Other District Non District General Cost per EDU
Improvement No. 24-3 Parcels Parcels Benefit (FY 2024-25 Type 0.13% 81.30% 11.57% 7.00% Dollars)1
City Trails $1,424.48 $896,746.48 $127,664.75 $77,213.44 $178.06 1 The LLAD No. 24-3 cost per EDU was determined by dividing the LLAD No. 24-3 costs attributed to special benefit by the projected number of EDUs for LLAD No. 24-3.

Table No. 7 - Trail Cost Allocation
Special Benefit

Formation of LLAD No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART D
27 Other Other Non LLAD No. 24-3
No. 24-3 District Parcel District Parcel Rate per EDU
FY 2024-25 Special Special Special General (FY 2024-25
Improvement Type Cost Benefit Benefit1 Benefit2 Benefit3 Dollars) Arterial and Major Roadway Streetlighting $411,753.00 $128.56 $315,560.10 $84,500.51 $11,563.83 $16.07 Arterial and Major Roadway Landscaping $4,406,717.64 $1,556.96 $3,821,674.31 $511,682.93 $71,803.44 $194.62 Community and Neighborhood Parks $9,247,717.38 $1,803.04 $7,903,110.85 $1,028,493.98 $314,309.51 $225.38 In-Tract Streetlighting4 $600.00 $588.00 N/A N/A $12.00 $73.50 In-Tract Landscaping4 $1,912.30 $172.33 $1,701.72 N/A $38.25 $21.54 Trail Landscaping $1,103,049.15 $1,424.48 $896,746.48 $127,664.75 $77,213.44 $178.06 Subtotal $15,171,749.47 $5,673.37 $12,938,793.46 $1,752,342.17 $474,940.47 $709.17 Local In-Tract Reserves
Capital Reserves5 $628.07 $615.51 N/A N/A $12.56 $76.94 Operating Reserves/Contingency5 $628.08 $615.52 N/A N/A $12.56 $76.94 Subtotal $1,256.15 $1,231.03 N/A N/A $25.12 $153.88
Total $15,173,005.62 $6,904.40 $12,938,793.46 $1,752,342.17 $474,965.59 $863.05 1 This represents the special benefit amounts allocated to parcels located within other existing City of Brentwood LLADs. These amounts will be paid for by parcels located within those LLADs.
2 This represents the special benefit amounts allocated to parcels not located within existing City of Brentwood LLADs. These amounts will be funded by the City's General Fund or by some other non-LLAD funds until new development occurs on these parcels. 3 General Benefit will be funded by the City's General Fund or by some other non-LLAD funds. 4 Incidental costs such as County Collection Fees, Assessment Engineering, and City Administration costs have been applied exclusively to in-tract improvements and are included in the cost estimate for In-Tract Street Lighting and In-Tract Landscaping. 5 The Operating and Capital Reserves shown above only apply to In-Tract Improvements. Since the City transfers funds to LLAD No. 24-3 on July 1, there is no need improvements and to collect operating reserves from Other Non-District Parcels and the General Fund.

Table No. 8 - Total Maximum Assessment Calculation (FY 2024-25 Dollars)

Formation of LLAD No. 24-3 (Inez Estates) SECTION III
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 PART E
28 PART E

PROPERTY OWNER LIST & ASSESSMENT ROLL
A list of names and addresses of the owners of all parcels, and the description of each lot or parcel proposed for the District is shown on the last equalized Property Tax Roll of the Contra Costa County Assessor, which by reference is hereby made a part of this Report.

This list is keyed to the Assessor's Parcel Numbers as shown on the Assessment Roll, which includes the maximum proposed amount of assessments apportioned to each lot or parcel. The Maximum Assessment Roll is on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Brentwood and is shown in this Report as Appendix “A”.

Formation of LLAD No. 24-3 (Inez Estates)
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 APPENDIX A
A-1

APPENDIX A

MAXIMUM ASSESSMENT ROLL

Formation of LLAD No. 24-3 (Inez Estates)
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 APPENDIX A
A-2
Assessor Parcel Development FY 2024-25
Number(s) Name Maximum Assessment
018-080-022 Inez Estates $3,452.20
018-080-025 Inez Estates $3,452.20
Total $6,904.40
LLAD No. 24-3 (Inez Estates)

Formation of LLAD No. 24-3 (Inez Estates)
Engineer’s Report Fiscal Year 2024-25 APPENDIX B
B-1

APPENDIX B

BENEFIT BOUNDARY DIAGRAMS

*
*
Street Lighting and Landscaping along Arterial and Major Roadways Benefit Boundary Diagram
LLAD No. 24-3
¯ 0 2,500 5,000
Feet
4 4
Brentwood Blvd
Sellers Ave
Sunset Rd
Concord Ave
Byron Hwy
Bixler Rd
Chestnut St
Brentwood Blvd
Minnesota Ave
Inez Estates
Project Site
B-2
Neroly Rd Delta Rd
Brentwood Blvd
O'Hara Ave
Sycamore Ave
Sand Creek Rd
Oak St
Lone Tree Wy
Fairview
Ave
Empire Ave
Shady Willow Ln
Jeffrey Wy Sand Creek Rd
Balfour Rd
Central Blvd
Fairv ei w
Ave
Griffith Ln
Walnut Blvd
Vineyards Pkwy
Legend
LLAD No. 24-3 Boundary
City Limit
Parcel Lines
Parcels outside of City Limits - East/South Bound
Parcels outside of City Limits - North/West Bound
Parcels within City Limits
City Arterial/Major Roadways

LLAD No. 24-3
Parks Benefit Diagram
Lone Tree Wy
Sand Creek Rd
Balfour Rd
Brentwood Blv
F
d
airview
Ave
Minnesota Ave
Grant St
O'Hara Ave
Brentwood Blvd
John Muir Pkwy
4 ¯
Sunset
Park
Aquatic Complex
& Skate Park
King
Park
Miwok Park
Oak Meadow
Park
Apple Hill
Park
Arbor View
Park
Garin
Park
Summerset
Commons
Park
Sand Creek
Soccer
Inez Estates
Project Site
B-3
4 2,000 1,000 0 2,000
Feet
Legend
LLAD No. 24-3 Boundary
City Limit
Parcel Lines
Parcels within the
Neighborhood Park Boundary
Community Park
Neighborhood Park

!(
!( !(
!(
City of Brentwood - LLAD No. 24-3 In-Tract Benefit Diagram

LONE TREE WY
± 75 37.5 0 75
Feet
Legend
District Boundary
Parcel Lines
In-Tract Landscaping
!( Proposed Streetlights

GANN ST

LEZCANO LN
B-4
Parcel A

City of Brentwood - LLAD No. 24-3 Trail Benefit Diagram B-5
Inez Estates
Project Site
Fairview
Ave
Brentwood Blvd
O
H' ara Ave
E
mpire Ave
Lone Tree Wy
Sand Creek Rd
4 850
¯0 850
Feet
Legend
LLAD No. 24-3 Boundary
City Limit
Parcel Lines
Grant Street Trail Benefit Boundary
Parcels within Grant Street Trail Benefit Boundary
Grant Street Trail

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.4
09/10/2024
SUBJECT: Call for review of a Design Review and a Conditional Use Permit for a new Popeye’s drive-through restaurant.

DEPARTMENT: Community Development
STAFF: Alexis Morris, Director of Community Development Miguel Contreras, Associate Planner

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution affirming the Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 23-006 and Design Review No. 23-003 to construct (and operate beyond 10:00 p.m.) a 2,735 square foot Popeye’s drive-through restaurant and associated site improvements on a 3.4-acre parcel located at 7820 Brentwood Boulevard (APN 016-150-106).

The project qualifies as a Class 32 categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects), insomuch as the proposed restaurant and drive-through are consistent with the applicable General Plan designation, as well as with the applicable zoning designation and regulations, are proposed on a project site less than 5-acres in size, have no value as habitat for endangered species, would not result in significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, and can be adequately served by all utilities and public services.

FISCAL IMPACT
The project proponent, Charlie Brown, has paid a total of $23,577 to cover staff time and materials associated with the project. There are no specific fees associated with a call for review.

BACKGROUND
On May 10, 2023, Charlie Brown submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 23-003) and a Design Review (DR 23-003) to construct (and operate beyond 10:00 p.m.) a new, 2,735 square foot, Popeye’s fast-food restaurant with a 21- vehicle capacity drive-through lane and associated site improvements on a 3.4-acre parcel located at 7820 Brentwood Boulevard (APN 016-150-106) [see attached Planning Commission Staff Report for greater detail].

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.4
09/10/2024
On April 16, 2024, the project was brought before the Planning Commission for a public hearing. During the public hearing, the Planning Commission expressed concerns regarding the inclusion of the proposed 21-vehicle drive-through component, finding this to be in conflict with the Brentwood Boulevard Specific Plan’s (BBSP) stated vision and in particular goal #4, which seeks to transform the historical auto-oriented corridor into a more traditional boulevard that gives prominence to all modes of transportation (i.e., not solely to vehicles). The Commission also expressed a desire to improve the proposed open space area with additional seating and vegetation. After deliberation, the Commission indicated that it was unable to make findings for approval of the Conditional Use Permit (and by default the Design Review since the drive-through component is integral to the design) and therefore directed the applicant to redesign the project without a drive-through component and to beautify the proposed open space area.

On April 17, 2024, staff spoke with the applicant, who indicated that their plans would be reviewed and the open space component would be modified, but that while the drive-through component also would be reviewed for possible improvements, it would be retained, as removing it would make the project financially infeasible.

On June 11, 2024, the applicant submitted an updated set of plans (attached) with the following changes:
 Addition of three benches and four tables in the open space area.  Addition of approximately 147 square feet of landscaping within the open space area.

On August 6, 2024, the project was brought before the Planning Commission for a second public hearing with a recommendation to deny, based on the direction provided at the April 16, 2024 meeting and the continued inclusion of a drivethrough. During this second public hearing, there was a significant amount of deliberation amongst the Commission regarding the drive-through component and design, specifically:
 Queuing capacity: Members of the Commission expressed concern that a longer drive-through would create a higher demand for Popeye’s and thus create impacts.
 Specific Plan: Members of the Commission deliberated over the intent of the Brentwood Boulevard Specific Plan’s goal to “transform the historical autoPage 119 of 414 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.4
09/10/2024
oriented ‘strip commercial’ land use patterns by prohibiting that type of development in the future and by requiring a vibrant mix of workplace and residential land uses easily accessible by pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and motor vehicles.” However, the BBSP also allows, through approval of a CUP, drive-through uses in the COIR zoning district, where the project site is located.
 Open Space: Members of the Commission determined that the proposed open space area was not sufficient and appeared to be more of an afterthought.  Architecture: Members of the Commission deliberated on the proposed architecture for the restaurant. The Commission was divided as to whether or not the proposed architecture was in compliance with the BBSP.

After deliberation, the Planning Commission ultimately approved the project on a 3- -2 vote (Commissioner Brand and Commissioner Flohr voted no). The approval included additional conditions of approval as follows:
 Final design of the drive-through, including queuing capacity, shall be approved by the Design Review Subcommittee.
 Final design of the required community courtyard shall include additional green space, additional tables, additional shade, and shall be approved by the Design Review Subcommittee.

However, on August 8, 2024, before the Design Review Subcommittee could convene, Council Member Mendoza filed a call for review per Brentwood Municipal Code (BMC) Section 17.880.030. Under BMC Section 17.880.030, a call for review is required to be heard before the appellate body within 45 days of being filed, unless both the applicant and appellant consent in writing to a later date. In this case, the call for review is being considered 33 days from when it was received, within the required timeframe.

ANALYSIS
The April 16th and August 6th Planning Commission staff reports and public comments received via email before and after the publication of the Planning Commission packets are attached for the City Council’s review and reference. The attached staff reports explain in detail how the project is consistent and complies with the City’s General Plan, Specific Plan, and zoning requirements.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.4
09/10/2024
According to the BMC, a call for review results in a ‘de novo’ or new hearing. Based on the Planning Commission’s approval, the Design Review Subcommittee (consisting of two appointed Planning Commissioners) would have considered revisions to the two identified areas of concern, but the items may now be considered by the City Council. The City Council, sitting as the appellate body, is thus required to make specific findings supporting its decision, be it upholding the lower body’s decision, modifying it, or reversing it.

If the call for review results in a project approval:
 Entitlements would be affirmed, including the staff modification to draft resolution condition 3.a-b regarding the size of the drive-through component and open space area improvements, unless those conditions were modified by the Council.
 The City Council could add or amend conditions relative to specific concerns or issues.
 If direction is clearly provided, the application would no longer require subsequent review by the Design Review Subcommittee. To reflect this, staff has removed conditions of approval, from the attached draft City Council resolutions, that would have required the project to be reviewed by the Subcommittee after Council approval.

If the call for review results in project denial staff would recommend the following steps:
 Either resolutions or both can be denied, depending on the reasons for making findings for denial.
 The Council should provide staff with findings for denial.  The denial resolution would be brought back to Council for adoption.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Not applicable.

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

DATE OF NOTICE

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.4
09/10/2024
The City of Brentwood published a public hearing notice in the Brentwood Press and mailed it to all property owners within 300 feet of this site on August 30, 2024. The applicant also posted the project site with the required signage.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed project qualifies as a Class 32 categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 Infill Development) in that the proposed restaurant building and drive-through are consistent with the applicable General Plan designation, as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations, are proposed on a project site less than 5-acres in size, have no value as habitat for endangered species, would not result in significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, and can be adequately served by all utilities and public services.

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

1. If the call for review results in a project denial, the Council would provide findings for the denial and the item would return to the Council at a subsequent meeting to review the resulting resolution and formally deny the project. The Council would need to provide findings of denial for either the CUP application or the Design Review application, or for both applications, depending on the findings for the denial.

2. Modify the Planning Commission’s approval to include additional conditions or remove conditions.

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

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Previous Action

2. Draft Resolution for CUP 23-006

3. Draft Resolution for DR 23-003

4. Planning Commission Staff Report 4-16-24

5. Planning Commission Staff Report 8-6-24

6. Project Description

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.4
09/10/2024

7. Project Plans

8. Parking Calculations

9. Architectural Review comments

10.Traffic Analysis

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.

The Brentwood Boulevard Specific Plan was approved by the City Council on March 27, 2012.

CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 24-XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

BRENTWOOD APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP
23-006) TO ALLOW FOR A NEW 2,735 SQUARE FOOT POPEYE’S
RESTAURANT TO OPERATE BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 10:00 A.M.

AND 12:00 A.M. AND TO FEATURE A DRIVE-THROUGH LOCATED
AT 7820 BRENTWOOD BOULEVARD (APN 016-150-106).

WHEREAS, Charlie Brown of C.C. Planning & Permitting Services, (the “Applicant”) submitted an application to the City of Brentwood requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 23-006) to allow for a new 2,735 square foot Popeye’s restaurant to operate between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. and to feature a drive-through; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant concurrently submitted a request for a Design Review (DR 23-003) to allow for a new 2,735 square foot restaurant building; and WHEREAS, collectively, DR 23-003 and CUP 23-006 constitute the “Project;” and
WHEREAS, the City referred the Project to various departments and agencies for review and recommendations; and
WHEREAS, the City distributed a Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners within 300 feet of the Project Site and published it in the Brentwood Press on April 5, 2024, in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090, and a public hearing notice sign was posted on the site during this same timeframe; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) as it qualifies as a Class 32 categorical exemption under the CEQA Guidelines section 15332, as it is characterized as in-fill development, meeting the following conditions: i) the project is consistent with the existing General Plan designation and all applicable General Plan policies, as well as with the applicable zoning designation and regulations, ii) the proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses, iii) the project site has no value for endangered, rare, or threatened species, iv) approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, and v) the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood considered this design review application at its regular meeting of April 16, 2024, and considered the staff report, all accompanying information, and testimony received from the applicant and other interested parties; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission was unable to make findings for approval of CUP 23-006 during the April 16, 2024 meeting and continued the item with direction to the applicant to resubmit the application without the drive-through component; and
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2024, the applicant submitted a revised proposal that still featured the drive-through component; and
WHEREAS, the City distributed a Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners within 300 feet of the Project Site and published it in the Brentwood Press on July 26, 2024, in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090, and a public hearing notice sign was posted on the site during this same timeframe; and
WHEREAS; the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood considered this CUP 23-006 application in a public hearing at its regular meeting of August 6, 2024, and considered the staff report, all accompanying information, and testimony received from the applicant and other interested parties; and WHEREAS; the Planning Commission approved the Project, subject to certain findings and conditions; and
WHEREAS, on August 8, 2024, Council Member Mendoza filed a Call for Review, pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section 17.882.030; and WHEREAS, the City distributed a Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners within 300 feet of the Project Site and published it in the Brentwood Press on August 30, 2024, in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090, and a public hearing notice sign was posted on the site during this same timeframe; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this project at its regular meeting of September 10, 2024, and considered, among other things, the staff report, supporting documents, public testimony, and all appropriate information submitted with the proposed Project.

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

A. Hereby finds that:
i. With respect to the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project is exempt from CEQA as it qualifies as a Class 32 categorical exemption under the CEQA Guidelines section 15332, as it is characterized as in-fill development, meeting the following conditions:
i) the project is consistent with the existing General Plan designation and all applicable General Plan policies, as well as with the applicable zoning designation and regulations, ii) the proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially

surrounded by urban uses, iii) the project site has no value for endangered, rare, or threatened species, iv) approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, and v) the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
ii. With respect to the conditional use permit findings required pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section 17.830.005:
a. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed development must be compatible with and must not adversely affect the livability of appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood. Consideration shall be given, but shall not be limited to:

1. Harmony in scale, bulk, coverage and density;
The proposed drive-through use would be in harmony with the scale and bulk coverage of the greater Brentwood Plaza, given that the proposed building is proposed to be of compatible architectural design that features a flat roof with variations in height and linear features such as pilasters. The proposed building is further compatible with the existing development as the proposed materials (stucco, metal and ornamental brick) would be comparable to the existing buildings on site.

2. The availability of public facilities and utilities; The site is served by the appropriate public facilities and utilities including water, sewer, refuse, and electricity.

3. The harmful effect, if any, upon desirable neighborhood character or the planned specialization of retail, commercial or community service areas;
The Project would not have a harmful effect upon the planned specialization given that the COIR zoning district’s intent is to provide a transition between employment areas and residential areas located primarily near the Downtown and to serve as an attractive gateway to the Downtown and the proposed
restaurant would serve as a transition between employment areas and residential areas found east and south of the project site. Further, there would be no harmful effect upon the neighborhood character with approval of this permit due to the location of the use within an existing commercial development and the fact that the drive-through would be adequately screened and would face Brentwood Boulevard.

4. Generation of traffic and the capacity of surrounding streets; A traffic analysis was submitted demonstrating that the proposed project would not generate a significant amount of traffic or impact the capacity of the surrounding streets given that the surrounding streets are designed for vehicle use and calculated to adequately handle the proposed increase in vehicular use.

Additionally, Brentwood Boulevard is a major north-south arterial street and is able to handle expanding traffic needs.

5. Other relevant impacts of the development; and
The location, size, design, and operating characteristics for the proposed project are the same as envisioned for the overall purpose and intent of the COIR zone. The proposed speaker boxes will be located on the western portion of the building, which would not impact any existing residential uses. The only residential use that the speaker boxes would face directly is a single family home at the pocket of the cul-de-sac where Berry Lane and Curtis Drive intersect. However, this home would be approximately 305 feet away from the edge of the subject parcel, across Brentwood Boulevard and through the Napa Auto Parts’ parking lot, and is thus not projected to be impacted by the speaker box.

6. The criteria set forth in Chapter 17.820 for design and site criteria and conditional use permit criteria, if applicable.

The Project would be in compliance with BMC Chapter 17.820, as documented in the City Council resolution analyzing the design review (DR 23-003) application that was submitted as part of this project. Said findings are incorporated herein as if stated here in full.
b. The location, design, landscaping and screening, and overall site planning of the proposed development will provide an attractive, useful and convenient living, working, shopping or community service area.

The proposed location, design, landscaping and screening and overall site planning is well thought out to provide an attractive, useful and convenient eating area, in that the drive-through feature would be adequately screened and the project is located close to public transportation and arterial streets.

B. Hereby approves this Conditional Use Permit (CUP 23-006), subject to the above findings and the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached to and incorporated into this resolution.

C. This permit shall terminate on September 10, 2025, unless actual construction or alteration under valid permits, or the actual operation of the business authorized hereby, begins prior to that date. However, such deadline may be extended by the Planning Commission upon the filing of an extension request at any time before said period expires.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at its regular meeting of September 10, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED
Joel R. Bryant
Mayor
ATTEST:

Amanda McVey
Interim City Clerk

EXHIBIT ‘A’
Conditions of Approval for
Conditional Use Permit (CUP 23-006)

1. The Permittee, including all successors in interest (collectively “Permittee”) shall comply with each and every condition set forth in this Permit. Conditional Use Permit No. 23-006 (“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 or caused to be performed.

2. The proposed project shall be operated in substantial conformance with the project description, dated “Received February 12, 2024” unless otherwise amended by the Planning Commission or the conditions of approval contained herein. Minor changes to plans and operation may be allowed subject to the approval of the Community Development Director if found to be in substantial conformance with the approved exhibits.

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

4. Permittee shall maintain the project site in a clean and orderly manner at all times.

5. No signage is approved as part of this conditional use permit. The Permittee is required to submit an application for a sing permit for review and approval in accordance with the BMC.

6. The restaurant and drive-through window shall be open only during the hours between 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 a.m. every day of the week. Any requests to open between 12:01 a.m. – 9:59 a.m. shall be at the discretion of the Community Development Director, who may refer any requested change to drive-through window hours to the Planning Commission for subsequent review at a public hearing for consideration and approval.

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

8. Permittee shall comply with Brentwood Municipal Code Chapter 9.32 “Noise Regulations.”

9. The Permittee will 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 this Permit, and any environmental determination made with regard thereto. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, reasonable attorneys' fees, and other reasonable expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding. The Permittee shall pay to the City upon demand or, as applicable, on a monthly basis to counsel of City’s reasonable choosing, amounts owed pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition.

City shall promptly notify the Permittee of any claim, action, or proceeding and shall engage in reasonable efforts to cooperate in the defense.

10. In the event modifications to this Permit are sought, the Planning Commission shall have jurisdiction to consider any such changes or hear any enforcement hearings.

CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 24-XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BRENTWOOD APPROVING A DESIGN REVIEW (DR 23-003) FOR A

NEW RESTAURANT BUILDING WITH A DRIVE-THROUGH
FEATURE, AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON A ±3.4-ACRE
PARCEL LOCATED AT 7820 BRENTWOOD BOULEVARD (APN 016-
150-106).

WHEREAS, Charlie Brown of C.C. Planning & Permitting Services, (the “Applicant”) submitted an application to the City of Brentwood requesting approval of a Design Review application (DR 23-003) to allow for a new 2,735 square foot Popeye’s restaurant featuring a drive-through; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant concurrently submitted a request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 23-006) to allow a drive-through feature as part of the proposed restaurant building and to operate between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m.; and
WHEREAS, collectively, DR 23-002 and CUP 23-002 constitute the “Project”; and
WHEREAS, the City referred the Project to various departments and agencies for review and recommendations; and
WHEREAS, the City distributed a Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners within 300 feet of the Project Site and published it in the Brentwood Press on April 5, 2024, in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090, and a public hearing notice sign was posted on the site during this same timeframe; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) as it qualifies as a Class 32 categorical exemption under the CEQA Guidelines section 15332, as it is characterized as in-fill development, meeting the following conditions: i) the project is consistent with the existing General Plan designation and all applicable General Plan policies, as well as with the applicable zoning designation and regulations, ii) the proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses, iii) the project site has no value for endangered, rare, or threatened species, iv) approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, and v) the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood considered this design review application at its regular meeting of April 16, 2024, and considered the staff report, all accompanying information, and testimony received from the applicant and other interested parties.

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission was unable to make findings for approval of CUP 23-006 during the April 16, 2024 meeting and continued the item with direction to the applicant to resubmit the application without the drive-through component; and
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2024, the applicant submitted a revised proposal that still featured the drive-through component; and
WHEREAS, the City distributed a Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners within 300 feet of the Project Site and published it in the Brentwood Press on July 26, 2024, in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090, and a public hearing notice sign was posted on the site during this same timeframe; and
WHEREAS; the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood considered this CUP 23-006 application in a public hearing at its regular meeting of August 6, 2024, and considered the staff report, all accompanying information, and testimony received from the applicant and other interested parties; and WHEREAS; the Planning Commission approved the project, subject to certain findings and conditions; and
WHEREAS, on August 8, 2024, Council Member Mendoza filed a Call for Review, pursuant to BMC Section 17.882.030; and
WHEREAS, the City distributed a Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners within 300 feet of the Project Site and published it in the Brentwood Press on August 30, 2024, in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090, and a public hearing notice sign was posted on the site during this same timeframe; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this project at its regular meeting of September 10, 2024, and considered, among other things, the staff report, supporting documents, public testimony, and all appropriate information submitted with the proposed Project.

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

A. Hereby finds that:

A. The proposed project is exempt from CEQA as it qualifies as a Class 32 categorical exemption under the CEQA Guidelines section 15332, as it is characterized as in-fill development, meeting the following conditions: i) the project is consistent with the existing General Plan designation and all applicable General Plan policies, as well as with the applicable zoning designation and regulations, ii) the proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by

urban uses, iii) the project site has no value for endangered, rare, or threatened species, iv) approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, and v) the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

B. With respect to the Design Review findings under Section 17.820.007 of the Brentwood Municipal Code:
i. 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 would create a well-composed urban design and would be harmoniously related to the other facilities in the immediate area given that the proposed development would be complimentary to the existing strip-mall in that the new development would feature compatible architectural features, such as a flat roof with varying heights and will feature comparable materials such as stucco, wood and ornamental veneer. The proposed development would be seen as an integrated part of the commercial development from the Brentwood Boulevard key vantage point.
ii. 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.

Special consideration was given to the proposed building in that it would complement the existing buildings in the established Brentwood Plaza by having a comparable height and the incorporations of pilasters on the proposed trellises that would resemble structures typically found in the greater Brentwood Plaza. The materials and architecture are varied in a similar fashion as the surrounding buildings as detailed in the finding above. The building will be situated in a logical location that compliments the surrounding development. Any proposed signage will need to be reviewed as a separate application, but will be required to adhere to the BMC sign requirements.
iii. 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.

As mentioned above, the proposed project is complimentary to the surrounding Brentwood Plaza. Additionally, the new development would serve to revitalize an area of the BBSP that has not seen redevelopment or new projects since the approval of AutoZone in May of 2012 which was deemed complete prior to the March, 2012, adoption of the BBSP.

iv. 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 within the COIR zoning district of the BBSP. The proposed restaurant adheres to the purpose and intent of the zone as the purpose of the COIR is to provide a transition between employment areas and residential areas located primarily near the Downtown, and to serve as an attractive gateway to the downtown, and the project is of a high quality design, provides open space to pedestrians, and will redevelop a portion of a 1960’s strip mall.
v. The proposed development shall conform with all requirements for landscaping, screening, parking, usable open space and off-street loading as set forth in this tittle.

The project proposes ample vegetation within the project area and at the boundary with the adjacent right-of-ways. The project further proposes an ornate CMU wall that will screen the drive-through use from the rightof-way and neighboring parcels. The project also proposes 10% of the project site as usable open space for the enjoyment of visitors, employees and passersby. Off-street loading and deliveries will happen when the restaurant is closed between the hours of 12:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m.
vi. The site development criteria set forth in Section 17.820.008.

1. 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 conductive to an orderly, attractive, efficient and harmonious development.

The project has been routed to all applicable departments to ensure an orderly, attractive, efficient and harmonious development. The project internal arrangement would be
conducive to an orderly development as no changes are
proposed to the ingress/egress of the Brentwood Plaza, there is sufficient parking (with the shared access and parking
agreement), all lighting is that typical of commercial areas, any signage will be vetted through a separate sign permit, and the proposed building is of a design complementary to the
Brentwood Plaza commercial development. The proposed
circulation would be harmonious with the existing Brentwood Plaza. Part of the project proposal is to construct a new

centralized trash enclosure area in the eastern portion of the Brentwood Plaza, thus improving the overall plaza.

2. 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 project has been analyzed by multiple departments, who have found no existing or potential adverse effects on the environment by reason of land use, topography or traffic impacts. The project is within the Brentwood Plaza and the uses, architecture and landscaping are designed to be compatible with the Brentwood Plaza.
vii. The City of Brentwood Design Guidelines and any other applicable specific design criteria or standards set out in this title or other city ordinances.

The project adheres to the City’s Commercial/Industrial Design Guidelines, in that the project is an infill project, there is substantial landscaping (shrubs, trees and ground cover) proposed, and the building uses quality materials and craftsmanship.
viii. All applicable regulations of the zoning ordinance and other city ordinances, policies or resolutions.

The proposed development is consistent with all applicable regulations of the zoning ordinance and other City ordinances, policies or resolutions.

The project meets parking, landscaping, and development requirements for the COIR zoning district, given that it proposes a re-striping to accommodate all parking needs, 16% of the overall site will be landscaped, and is meeting all setback and height restrictions. The project is conditioned to meet all applicable Building, Engineering, and Public Works codes and regulations.

C. Hereby approves Design Review No. 23-003, subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and made a part of this resolution, and all City standards applicable to this project.

D. This permit shall terminate on September 10, 2025, unless actual construction or alteration under valid permits has begun and is diligently pursued within said period. However, such period of time may be extended by the Planning Commission upon application filed at any time before said period has expired.

ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at its regular meeting of September 10, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

APPROVED
Joel R. Bryant
Mayor
ATTEST:

Amanda McVey
Interim City Clerk

EXHIBIT ‘A’

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
DESIGN REVIEW (DR 23-003)

1. The Permittee, including all successors in interest (collectively “Permittee”) shall comply with each and every condition set forth in this Permit. Design Review No. 23-003 (“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 or caused to be performed.

2. The Permittee shall comply with all applicable Standard Conditions of Approval for Commercial and Industrial Projects, dated May 2005, hereby incorporated by reference, unless modified by any of the conditions below.

3. The project shall be built substantially in conformance with the project plans drawn by AGJM Design Studio, date stamped by the City as received February, 12, 2024, unless otherwise amended by the conditions of approval contained herein.

4. The project shall be built substantially in conformance with the site, grading drainage plans drawn by Moua Enterprise Professional Engineering, date stamped by the City as received February, 12, 2024, unless otherwise amended by the conditions of approval contained herein.

5. The project shall be built substantially in conformance with the landscape plans drawn by Green Design Landscape Architects, Inc., date stamped by the City as received February, 12, 2024, unless otherwise amended by the conditions of approval contained herein.

6. The Permittee shall submit an application for any future signage proposed for the project, which shall require approval of an administrative sign permit by the Community Development Department.

7. At the time of building plan submittal, the Permittee shall submit plans depicting the CMU wall, that serves to screen the drive-through area, to be at least 48 inches tall.

8. The Permittee shall ensure that the open space area, as identified in the project plans drawn by AGJM Design Studio, date stamped by the City as received February, 12, 2024, to be accessible to all and not exclusively to patrons or employees of the proposed restaurant.

9. In the event that the project site is subdivided into its own parcel, at the time of subdivision the Permittee shall secure a shared access and parking agreement with the existing Brentwood Plaza.

10. The building construction drawings shall be submitted for the review and approval by the Community Development Director prior to building permit issuance and shall be designed so that illuminated signs can be installed on the building fascia without the use of external raceways.

11. The landscape plans shall incorporate climbing vegetation on the proposed trellis to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation Department.

12. Any significant alteration from the design review drawings “Received February 12, 2024,” as determined by the Community Development Director, except as conditioned herein, shall be approved by the Design Review Subcommittee prior to building permit issuance.

13. Any significant alteration of the building colors or materials from the approved color and materials board, as determined by the Community Development Director, shall be approved by the Design Review Subcommittee prior to building permit issuance.

14. The building construction drawings shall indicate that the top of all rooftop equipment is below the height of the parapet to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director prior to building permit issuance. No rooftop equipment shall extend above the roofline on the building.

15. The building construction drawings shall reflect that all roof drainage downspouts and scuppers be interior to the building. All roof drainage shall be designed to be contained within the building walls so as to not be visible from any vantage point to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director prior to building permit issuance.

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

17. The Permittee shall maintain the area surrounding the development, including but not limited to, the building and the walkways surrounding the building in a

clean and orderly manner at all times to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.

18. Plans for any external building-mounted light fixtures shall be submitted in conjunction with the photometric plan for the review and approval of the Community Development Director. All fixtures must be of a cut-off or full cutoff classification and cut-sheets allowing verification of the classification must be submitted for all portions of the driveways and parking areas shall be illuminated between 1-7 foot-candles.

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

20. 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 Brentwood Municipal Code, the City Engineering Department’s Standard Plans and Specifications, and the City Engineering Department’s Engineering Procedures Manual.

21. 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. Water service shall comply with Brentwood Municipal Code Chapters 14.01 “Municipal Water System” and Chapter 14.10 “Cross-Connection Control.”

h. 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.”
i. 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.”
j. Fire access and aerial apparatus access shall comply with the requirements of the Fire District and Brentwood Municipal Code Chapter 15.06 “Fire Code.”
k. Grading shall comply with Brentwood Municipal Code Chapter 15.52 “Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control.”
l. 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.”
m. In addition to the indemnification obligation set forth below, Permittee shall indemnify the City pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section

15.52.160 “City Held Harmless.”
n. Permittee shall obtain all required permits including, but are not limited to:
buildings; sewer connections; encroachment; grading; use; business license; water connection; Contra Costa County Flood Control; pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section 16.120.050 “Procedures.” o. 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.”
p. Utilities shall be installed underground pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section 16.120.120 “Undergrounding – Electric, Communication, Street Lighting and Advanced Technology Systems.”
q. All landscaping installed by the project shall consist of 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, to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation and City Engineer.

22. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or approval of on-site improvement plans:

a. 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.
b. Permittee shall provide approved hydrology and hydraulic calculations signed by a licensed engineer demonstrating that the Project will adequately collect and convey all runoff within the Project as well as the entire developed watershed upstream of the Project pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code 16.120.080C. The analysis shall include conveyance capacity of the existing onsite creek, if any.
c. 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. d. Construction Plans shall note that construction of all gravity utilities (i.e. storm drain, sewer) to always commence at the downstream connection and proceed to the upstream terminus.
e. Construction Plans shall 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.
f. Construction Plans shall include all proposed storm drain inlets to include and update existing storm drain inlets along the project frontage with “No Dumping – Drains to Creek” thermoplastic stencils to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g. Permittee shall obtain approval from the City Engineer on the Project Operation and Maintenance Manual for all stormwater control systems.

Said Manual shall comply with all applicable Municipal Regional NPDES Permit requirements including, but not limited to, maintenance, sediment removal, weed and trash abatement, and the use of chemicals. h. The Project shall annex into the most current City Community Facilities District, and annex into, or form a street lighting and landscape maintenance assessment district, or provide and execute an alternative funding mechanism acceptable to the City for the maintenance of City improvements.
i. The Project shall annex into the most current Fire Community Facilities District as required by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District.

j. Permittee shall provide for an adequate private funding mechanism for the perpetual maintenance of all stormwater NPDES treatment areas and other similar clean water facilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

23. Prior to issuance of any Building Permits:
a. All on-site improvements shall be constructed prior to the issuance of any building permit in each phase. The improvements shall include, but is not limited to pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lights, utilities and walls to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
b. Permittee shall provide an approval signed and sealed by a geotechnical or structural engineer of the location, nature and proximity of stormwater features near or adjacent to buildings as determined by the City Engineer.

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

24. Final landscape plans and a landscape project application must be submitted for review and approved by the Community Development Director, City Engineer, and the Director of Parks and Recreation prior to installation of any landscape or irrigation materials and prior to approval of improvement plans.

Further, the landscape plans must include all water use calculations necessary to determine compliance with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and any further regulations enacted by the State of California prior to landscape plan approval. A passing water audit is required even though the City does not accept maintenance responsibility.

25. Utilize City of Brentwood ‘Urban Forest Guidelines’ for choosing trees species; medium and/or large for shade trees.

26. No Crepe Myrtles shall be installed.

27. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall pay all Contra Costa County Fire Protection District impact fees at the time of the issuance of the first building permit, at the then-current rate.

28. Access roadways of less than 28-feet unobstructed width shall have signs posted or curbs painted red with the words: “No Parking – Fire Lane” clearly marked. Access roadways of 28-feet or greater, but less than 36 feet, unobstructed width shall have “No Parking – Fire Lanes” signs posted, allowing

for parking on one side only or curbs painted red with the words “No Parking – Fire Lance” clearly marked.

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

30. The Permittee shall provide an adequate and reliable water supply for fire protection with a minimum fire flow of 1125 GPM. Required flow must be delivered from not more than 1 hydrant flowing for a duration of 120 minutes while maintaining 20-punds residual pressure in the main.

31. New building shall have approved radio coverage for emergency responders.

An emergency responder radio coverage system shall be installed when the conditions of CFC 510.4.a are not met. Testing shall be conducted and the results submitted to the Fire District prior to the building final.

32. The Permittee shall obtain from the Contra Costa Fire Protection District a land development permit prior to submitting building construction plans to the City.

The Permittee shall submit a minimum of two copies of full size, scaled site improvement plans indicating:
a. All existing or proposed hydrant locations
b. Fire apparatus access to include slope and road surface c. Aerial fire apparatus access
d. Elevations of building
e. Size of building and type of construction
f. Gates, fences, retaining walls, bio-retention basins, any obstructions to access
g. Detail showing the lowest level of fire department vehicle access and the floor level of the highest occupied floor
h. Striping and signage plan to include “No parking – Fire Lane” markings

34. The building 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.

35. As proposed shall be protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system complying with the 2016 edition of NFPA. Submit a minimum of two sets of plans to the Contra Costa Fire Protection District for review and approval prior to installation.

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

37. The Permittee shall cut down and remove all weeds, grass, vines, or other growth that is capable of being ignited and endangering property.

38. The Permittee shall submit a minimum of two complete sets of building construction plans and specifications for the subject project to the Fire District.

After the new construction / tenant improvement plans are approved, plans and specifications for all necessary deferred submittals shall be submitted, including, but not limited to the following:
a. Private underground fire service water mains
b. Fire sprinklers
c. Fire alarm
d. Fire pump if required
e. Emergency generator if required
f. Photovoltaic
g. Carbon dioxide systems
h. Commercial kitchen hood extinguishing systems
i. Emergency responder radio coverage systems (ERRCS)
Plans shall be submitted 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.

39. In the event modifications to this Permit are sought, the Planning Commission shall have jurisdiction to consider any such changes or hear any enforcement hearings.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.1
06/11/2024
SUBJECT: Application for Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and Design Review approval for the Lone Tree Way residential project DEPARTMENT: Community Development Department
STAFF: Alexis Morris, Director of Community Development Miguel Contreras, Associate Planner

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the project by adopting three separate resolutions: one adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project (SCH#20231003390); one approving a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (VTSM 9597) for the subdivision of a 16.32-acre parcel into 37 single-family residential lots; and one approving a Design Review application (DR 22-005), subject to certain findings and conditions.

The Planning Commission’s recommendation includes approval of a subdivision map to create 37 single-family residential lots, including two sets of duets, a public park, a new private internal roadway system, and other related on-site and off-site improvements. The project qualifies for a density bonus pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL), but the project will not exceed the density allowed by the General Plan. Rather, the project will utilize waivers/reductions from certain City standards, as allowed by the SDBL. The project also includes a design review application (DR 22-005) for the homes to be constructed on the lots. The project is located at 7590/7650 Lone Tree Way, just east of O’Hara Avenue (APN 018-060-006 and -007).

As noted below, the project that the Planning Commission recommended approving is slightly modified from what the applicant proposed. The applicant subsequently suggested further modifications to the project for the City Council’s consideration.

The City prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration 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 incorporated to reduce those impacts to less than significant levels. All mitigation measures not addressed by the standard conditions of approval are included as individual conditions of

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.1
06/11/2024
approval where appropriate. The MND analysis covers all iterations of the project discussed in this report.

FISCAL IMPACT
The project proponent, Seecon Financial & Construction Co., Inc., has paid a total of $117,125.07 to process the application. These fees have fully covered staff’s time spent processing the application.

BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project has evolved throughout its processing. In order to provide the City Council and the public with a clear understanding of the project, this staff report addresses (1) the Applicant’s original project (the “Original Project”), (2) the version of the project considered by the Planning Commission (“Revised Project #1); (3) the version of the project the Planning Commission ultimately recommended for approval (the “PC Recommended Project”), and (4) the Applicant’s revised project, as submitted on January 23, 2024 (“Revised Project #2”) (see attached Comparison Matrix).

THE ORIGINAL PROJECT

ORIGINAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In April 2022, Seecon Financial submitted applications VTSM 9597 and DR 22-005 requesting that the City approve a subdivision consisting of 34 single-family homes and a set of duet units, for a total of 36 single-family homes on 36 lots. Under this Original Project application, the project would have included two lots with long, narrow sections located behind other parcels, i.e. “wings.” This unusual formation was suggested by the applicant to satisfy the City’s density transition policy. This policy requires that any new lots facing or abutting existing residential lots of one acre or more to generally have a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. Since the project site is surrounded on three sides by lots that are larger than one acre, the project would have to provide 20,000 square foot lots immediately adjacent to those large neighboring lots.

While this requirement is objective in nature and can be enforced, the City’s land use regulations do not include any objective standards as to required lot shape or configuration. Thus, the applicant proposed to meet the letter of the policy by adding “wings” to two of the project’s lots, thus technically meeting the 20,000 square foot buffer requirement, as shown on the following map:

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.1
06/11/2024
Figure 1: Subdivision map with “wings”
REVISED PROJECT #1
REVISED PROJECT #1 DESCRIPTION
In addition to the Original Project, the applicant also indicated that they would be willing to build a revised version of the project, one that did away with the “wings” shown above. In order to avoid providing 20,000 square foot lots in compliance with the City’s density transition policy, the applicant proposed to waive that policy by using the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL). While this law is often used to increase the density of a given project, the applicant here was proposing to use it to employ the waiver of local development standards (i.e., the density transition policy that would otherwise require 20,000 square foot lots on three sides).

Under this version of the project, the applicant needed to increase the amount of affordable housing being offered, so as to qualify for the SDBL and its benefits. The applicant proposed to meet the affordable housing obligations of Revised Project #1 as follows:

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.1
06/11/2024
 Affordable Housing
This project is vested under the provisions of SB 330, and therefore, is subject to the regulations that were in place in April 2022, when the applicant submitted the preliminary application. As such, the project is only required to meet the 10% inclusionary housing requirements in effect at the time the application was submitted, rather than the current 13% requirement (the applicable Affordable Housing Ordinance is attached). With the Revised Project #1, the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance (“Ordinance”) would be met via one moderate income detached single-family home, one very-low income duet unit, and one duet unit offered to the City for dedication, which (if accepted by the City) would count as two low income units, per the Ordinance.
 Density Bonus
In addition to the above, the applicant was also seeking relief from the City’s density transition policy through waivers offered by the provisions of the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL). In order to qualify for these waivers, an applicant must provide a certain percentage of affordable units. In this case, the applicant proposes to meet this requirement by providing 5% very-low income units through a “shared housing building” that provides five housing units in the bedrooms of the home with common areas for cooking and gathering, as allowed through the SDBL. Shared housing is “…a residential or mixed-use structure, with five or more shared housing units and one or more common kitchens and dining areas designed for permanent residence of more than 30 days by its tenants. The kitchens and dining areas within the shared housing building shall be able to adequately accommodate all residents.” (Government Code Section 65915(o)(7)(A)(i).) Lastly, the applicant proposed that this shared housing building be contained in one of the duet units offered for dedication to the City.

All of the above is explained in further detail in the attached December 5, 2023, Planning Commission staff report.

PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 5, 2023 RECOMMENDATION
The applicant’s Revised Project #1 was heavily dependent on the assumption that the City would accept the proposed dedication of the one duet unit containing five shared housing units. In the event that the City did not accept this dedication, then the project would be out of compliance with the City’s affordable housing requirements, in that there would be a deficit of one low income unit proposed.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.1
06/11/2024
While a shared housing building is allowed through the SDBL, the Planning Commission expressed concern that the units would be out of character with the greater city fabric and other units in the affordable housing program. The Planning Commission therefore recommended that the City Council approve yet another version of the project (“PC Recommended Project”) that included the elimination of the shared housing building and the inclusion of an additional set of duet units. This alternative would create 37 lots, instead of 36, and two sets of duet units, instead of one. This alternative would still meet the City’s affordable housing requirements (minimum 10% affordable units) and qualify for waivers under the SDBL (in order to waive the density transition requirement) without substantially redrawing the proposed map or architectural plans. This is further detailed below.

At the public hearing, the applicant indicated a willingness to consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation, but did not commit to a willingness to replace their project proposals with the Planning Commission’s.

SUMMARY OF PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION
On December 5, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the project. The City did not receive any public comments regarding this project prior to the Planning Commission hearing or during the circulation period of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).

Planning Commission Questions
After staff’s presentation, the Planning Commission asked a few clarifying questions on the following topics:

1. Self-retaining water facilities (pervious surface) versus traditional retaining facilities (bio swales). Revised Project #1 proposed pervious surfaces on all road segments and driveways, as well as water retention areas on all side yards. While this is not common, it is also not inferior. The City Engineer cited a few places in the bay area, including San Jose, where these have been utilized. Essentially, it is a different type of engineering that achieves the same result and is a treatment method approved by the County’s C.3 policy that governs stormwater quality requirements.

Maintenance of these facilities would be the responsibility of the project’s home owners’ association.

2. Dedication of an affordable unit. The Commission asked staff to explain the applicant’s proposed dedication of an affordable unit. Staff clarified that, under the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance, an applicant may either

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.1
06/11/2024
build the required number of affordable units or propose an “alternative equivalent” to constructing those affordable units. One of the potential “alternative equivalents” listed in the Ordinance is the dedication (or transfer of ownership) of affordable units to the City for inclusion in the City’s rental housing program. In the event the City accepts such an offer of dedication, “each unit dedicated to the city shall equate to the construction of two affordable units that would otherwise be required…” (BMC Section 17.725.004.D.) Staff noted that the City has not previously accepted any offers of dedication of affordable units, nor is the City required to do so.

3. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Prior to July 2020, the CEQA analysis of development projects studied transportation impacts by measuring vehicle delay or congestion through a reporting system known as ‘Level of Service’ (LOS). Projects that increased automobile delay or congestion beyond certain thresholds were required to mitigate those impacts. Beginning in July of 2020, the State mandated that the LOS metric would no longer be permissible for CEQA purposes. Vehicle Miles Traveled (‘VMT’) has replaced LOS as the relevant measuring system for CEQA transportation impacts. In the public hearing on this project, the Commission asked if the VMT analysis correlates to the “real world.” The CEQA consultant, De Novo Consulting, explained that VMT analysis is used as a model to predict the impacts to traffic by the development. While impossible to predict the future, these models offer a likely outcome based on the surrounding land uses, zoning, planned projects (schools, CIP, etc.) and trends and projections. Moreover, these models offer mitigation measures that would reduce or eliminate potential impacts. In the case of the VMT analysis, the identified mitigation measure (payment of school fees) is sufficient for the purposes of CEQA.

4. Calculation used for the park acreage. The Commission wanted to know how staff concluded that each home would yield 3.2 persons for the purposes of calculating the required park acreage. The City’s Parks Maintenance Manager answered that this is the prescribed figure per the General Plan. Staff also clarified that the proposed park location was the preferred location, as the Brentwood PD prefers parks to be located in highly visible areas for patrolling.

5. Shared housing building affiliation and parking requirements. The Commission asked if the shared housing building would be affiliated with a higher education institution or shelters. Staff clarified that the proposed

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.1
06/11/2024
shared housing units would not be associated with either. The SDBL defines these units as units for non-transient occupancy that would function similar to an apartment rental. Additionally, the Commission asked if there were different parking requirements for the shared housing building. Staff clarified that the SDBL only requires those parking spaces that the zoning code would require; in this case, it would only be two parking spaces.

After discussion, the Commission opened the hearing and took testimony from the applicant, represented by Jaqueline Seeno. In her presentation, Ms. Seeno gave a general overview of the Revised Project #1 and emphasized that her proposal was purposefully seeking to provide larger lots (at least 12,000 square feet) to maintain the character of the area, even though the applicant could use density bonus to create up to 74 smaller lots. Therefore, the applicant’s density bonus request only sought waivers to offer flexibility with the project site plan. Additionally, the applicant explained that the proposal of the park was a request from staff and they would rather pay an in-lieu fee and eliminate the park from the plans, given that the development is less than 50 units. The applicant also pointed out that their proposal also includes four junior accessory dwelling units (JADU’s) as extra units that could be counted towards the City’s RHNA obligations.

After her presentation, the Commission had questions for the applicant on topics including:

1. Whether the applicant built other developments that employ the same bio retention areas as the Revised Project #1. The applicant stated that they have in other jurisdictions and that no issues have arisen with those projects. The Commission further asked why the applicant did not use the same technique in their Inez Estates development. The applicant responded that the project was too small to use this type of engineering.

2. Whether the applicant would be opposed to alternate options, such as a duplex or triplex concept. The applicant stated that they were willing to entertain other options, except for a triplex, provided that the engineering worked out.

However, the applicant clarified that they would like to retain the five-unit shared housing building in order to qualify for the SDBL. (As noted above, the configuration of the project that the Commission ultimately recommended does not include the five-unit shared housing building, but would still allow the applicant to qualify for the SDBL.)

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.1
06/11/2024

3. Opposition to moving the park to another location within the development.

The applicant stated that they would be open to a discussion of not building a park and paying the in-lieu fee instead, but they were not amenable to moving the park to another location within the proposed development. The applicant presented a slide that demonstrated that there would be four parks within a quarter mile radius from the proposed development.

4. The purpose of proposing the JADUs. The applicant explained that these do not count towards density bonus or the City’s affordable housing ordinance.

However, they can be counted towards the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), provided certain conditions are met, and therefore, the applicant is providing these as a bonus to the City.

The Commission further asked if the JADUs count towards the park acreage requirement. Staff clarified that neither JADU nor ADUs count towards the required acreage for parks, since the State treats these differently than nonaccessory units.

5. The vision for the five unit shared housing building. The applicant stated that the vision is to provide different housing alternatives for those who are not ready to live in a full-sized home, adding that, since this building is offered for dedication, it would be up to the City to determine the vision and provide oversite in terms of establishing a vetting process and offering these to income eligible households.

The Commission pointed out that this could only happen if the City were to accept the dedication. The Commission further asked what the vision is if the City opts to not accept the dedication.

The applicant suggested that, merely by offering the units for dedication to the City, they had fulfilled their affordable housing obligation to provide one unit – whether or not the City accepted such offer. Moreover, the applicant stated that the City’s decision as to whether or not to accept the offer of dedication need not be made until after the project was approved, and should be done in conjunction with the City Council’s consideration of the affordable housing agreement for the project.

City staff clarified that this is not correct, and that if the City Council does not accept the dedication of the five unit shared housing building, then the applicant would not be able to use the two-for-one provision in the affordable

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.1
06/11/2024
housing ordinance. Therefore, the tentative map could not be approved because the project would be out of compliance with the BMC for being deficient in affordable housing units. The applicant could not fulfill the affordable housing obligation by simply offering a unit for dedication. Rather, the City would have to determine that it wanted to accept that dedication for the project to meet the requirements.

Public Comments
Three comments were received during public comment. The first comment was from a neighbor (to the north) who had concerns regarding his property, which houses a dog training facility, abutting the new development. His concerns were the safety of new neighbors who might have children or animals that venture onto his property.

The speaker claimed that the proposed six-foot wooden fence might not be sufficient to keep animals and children off his property, which could lead to an accident.

To this concern, staff clarified that one of the mitigation measures would be that the portions of the new development abutting the dog training facility will be improved with an eight-foot tall concrete masonry (CMU) wall.

The second comment was a neighbor whose property abuts the eastern portion of the project site. She expressed a desire that the entire eastern portion of the project be improved with an eight-foot tall CMU wall. She also expressed a concern regarding the height of the proposed homes (60% of them being two stories) obstructing her view of Mount Diablo. Her final concern was what mechanism would be used to keep people from wandering from the proposed park onto her property.

Staff clarified that the park would be improved with an eight-foot tall CMU wall preventing people from having access to her property. Further, staff clarified that the homes abutting her lot have at least a 20-foot setback from her property line, and this would mitigate against obstruction of views of Mount Diablo.

The final commenter had questions regarding the proposed drainage and the fiveunit shared housing building. The caller asked who would be required to maintain these water retention areas on the side yards, if these could lead to flooding issues, and what would keep a homeowner from putting down a concrete slab that would impede the drainage these areas were designed to facilitate.

The future HOA would be responsible for the maintenance of these areas and CC&Rs would be established prohibiting future homeowners from building or disturbing these

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.1
06/11/2024
water retention areas. Furthermore, these areas have been engineered to prevent flooding issues.

The caller’s last question was how was it that the Planning Department even allowed this type of development (shared housing building) to get this far into the process, if the low density designation is intended for detached single family homes.

To this, staff explained that the Planning Division has an obligation to move proposed projects through the process. In this case, the applicant is utilizing provisions of the SDBL, which supersede local zoning and general plan regulations. Through the SDBL, a shared housing building, with at least five shared housing units, can be constructed in any zone that allows for residential uses, including mixed-use zones. Furthermore, if the applicant meets the SDBL affordability, room size and amenity (kitchenette, bathroom, etc.) requirements, then the local jurisdiction has very few permissible grounds for denying the proposal. Here, the applicant is meeting the requirements set by the SDBL, and therefore the Planning Division must process the project.

Planning Commission Deliberation
During deliberation, the Commission expressed a desire to keep the park on site.

They questioned what would happen to the land if the City accepted a fee in-lieu of constructing it. Staff clarified that the applicant has indicated that this land would become an additional single family detached home. The Commission also questioned how the public would have access to this park if the project’s roads are private. Staff clarified that the Council can require, as a condition of approval, a method (such as an easement) to allow the public to access the park.

The Commission also expressed a concern regarding a waiver requesting a zero lot side yard. While they understood that this waiver was intended for the duet lot, they had an issue with a zero lot side yard being used by other non-duet lots. With this, the Commission asked staff to clarify the language of the waiver being sought to be only applicable for the side yards of any duet units.

PC RECOMMENDED PROJECT

After substantial deliberation, the Planning Commission ultimately recommended that the project be modified to provide 37 units, including two sets of duets, with no shared housing building. This would cause minimal modifications to the Revised Project #1, as shown below:

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.1
06/11/2024
Table 1: Comparison of Revised Project #1 and PC Recommended Project Items to remain the same Items that would change
 MND and MMRP (the project’s CEQA
initially contemplated 38 units and thus
covers a lesser unit count as well)
 Architecture
 Landscape plan
 Park location
 Bio-retention locations and methods
 Fencing/wallplan
 Off-site improvements
 Ingress/egress and circulation
 Density transition waiver request
 Eliminate 5 unit shared housing
building
 No longer offer a unit for dedication
 Adds set of duets for a total of four
units in duets (thus increasing total
lots from 36 to 37)
 Reduces number of units from 40 to 37
 Reduces park size from 0.64 acres to

0.59 acres due to the reduction of the
total number of units
 Modifies requested waivers to allow
certain waivers to apply to the duet
units only
The applicant provided the City with a plotting plan of what the 37 lot concept would look like (attached). The additional duet units would be located on lot 18 and a new lot 37 and would be the same floor plans as the previously proposed set of duets. If the City Council adopts the attached resolution, staff recommends that the Council add a condition of approval requiring that each set of duets be of different architectural styles to create greater variety within the project (condition of approval #30 in DR resolution).

Consistency with the Affordable Housing Ordinance
The Commission’s recommendation to include a second set of duets and remove the shared housing building would still be in compliance with the City’s affordable housing ordinance as follows:

Table 2: Local Affordable Housing Ordinance Requirements Affordability
Level
Required (for
ownership projects)
Proposed Does PC
Recommended
Project meet
requirement?
Very-low 3% (1.1 units
rounded to 1 unit)
2/37 = 5.4%
(duet on Lot 36 and
11)
Yes
Low 4% (1.4 units
rounded to 1 units)
1/37 = 2.7%
(duet unit on Lot 18)
Yes

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. H.1
06/11/2024
As seen above, the applicant would be in compliance with the 10% affordability required by the applicable ordinance. In addition to this, the applicant’s revised plotting plan exhibit shows that the duets would not be located near each other, which is consistent with the requirements of the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance.

State Density Bonus Law Request
The applicant still sought to qualify for waivers under the SDBL in order to gain relief from the City’s density transition policy. In order to qualify for waivers, the applicant must include at least 5% of the proposed units as affordable to very-low income households. The applicant meets this requirement as follows:

Table 3: State Density Bonus Law
As noted above, the applicant would still qualify for the SDBL waivers by providing two very-low income units. The requested waivers are as follows:

Table 4: Waivers Requested
Standard Waiver Requested Analysis
1 Transition Lots:

Lots facing or
abutting existing
residential lots of
one acre or more
have a minimum
size of 20,000
square feet
Elimination of the
transition lot
requirement for lots
along the perimeter of
the project.

Providing 20,000 sf
transition lots would
physically preclude
construction of 6 of the
proposed units. This would
reduce the overall density of
the project as proposed.

Moderate 3% (1.1 units
rounded to 1 units)
1/37 = 2.7%
(single-family home
on Lot 37)
Yes
Total 10%
(4 units)
4/37 = 11% Yes
Affordability
Level
Minimum number of
units required
Proposed Does the project PC
recommended project
meet minimum
qualifications for
SDBL eligibility?
Very-low 5% (1.8 units rounded to 2
units)
2/37 =

5.4% Yes