Brentwood City Council
December 10, 2024

considered usable park land, per City requirements.
 Parcel G is identified as a park consisting of 2.49 acres, of which

2.41 acres will be graded to less than 3% slope, and thus considered usable park land.
 The two parks combined result in 4.35 acres, which satisfies the quantity of parkland required to be dedicated.

The City Council finds that the two parks proposed to serve the Project are not suitable for park and recreational purposes to serve the immediate and future needs of the Project residents, despite their quantitative conformance to the City’s requirements. The Council makes this determination based on the fact that (a) the proposed parks are not sufficient to meet the needs of the Project’s residents, (b) the Project is bordered by significant topographical features (hills) that inhibit easy access by Project residents to neighborhood parks beyond the Project’s boundaries, and (c) the proposed parks did not include parking for users, considerably decreasing the utility of the parks. b. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the community development plan and any applicable specific plans.

The Project Site is not within any applicable specific plan area. However, the design and improvement of the Revised Map is inconsistent with General Plan and the Brentwood Municipal Code for the reasons set forth in Section 3 and 4(A)(1)(a) of this Resolution, which are incorporated herein as if restated in full.
c. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development.

The site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed in that the Project Site includes many hilltops and ridges that would be subject to significant grading and/or developed with single family residences as developed under the Revised Map. Insomuch as the City’s Conservation and Open Space element of the General Plan looks to “protect hillsides and ridgelines from visual impacts and erosion” and “protect Brentwood’s ridgelines (hilltops and steep hillsides) from erosion, slope failure, and development,” the Project Site is not suitable for the residential development proposed by Applicant. Further, there are other development plans that would be more protective of the hillsides and ridgelines and provide for housing consistent with the both the General Plan and the zoning for the Project Site.
d. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development in that the Revised Map is not consistent with the

development standards in PD-36. As set forth in Section 3 above, the Project Site is designated low-density residential and the zoning for the Project Site includes two sub-area standards and envisions housing compliant with both the Subarea C and D standards. The Revised Map includes residential development consistent with only Subarea C standards.
e. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat unless an Environmental Impact Report was prepared with respect to the project and a finding was made pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Environmental Impact Report.

The City Council cannot make this finding as the City Council has not certified the proposed REIR. Further, concerns were noted about the REIR due to concerns about the transportation and noise impacts, as described in Section 2 above. Without a certified EIR, the City Council cannot make a finding that the design of the Revised Map is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage.
f. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems.

The design of the Revised Map is likely to cause serious public health problems in that the proposed development will result in an increase in traffic along San Jose Avenue, St. Regis Avenue, and Presidio Drive during peak travel periods when there are a large amount of children and families traveling to and from schools and residences. General Plan Policy SA 3-3 requires “[k]eep emergency access routes free of traffic impediments” and Policy SA 3-5 provides “[e]nsure that all areas of the city are accessible to emergency response providers.” The increased traffic introduced onto these roads by the Project could cause serious health problems by reducing the ability of safety vehicles, possibly including police, fire, and paramedics to arrive at scenes of an accident, fatality, or medical emergency.

2. Denial. Therefore, the City Council hereby denies the Revised Map.

B. Alternate Map [see above re: Revised Map]

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

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

The Alternate Map is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan in that the Project does not conform to the following General Plan policies and the Brentwood Municipal Code:
i. General Plan Policy SA 3-3 requires that “emergency access routes [be kept] free of traffic impediments” and Policy SA 3-5 requires “that all areas of the city are accessible to emergency response providers.” Although the Applicant has modified the access points of the Project, development under the Alternate Map would continue to add further vehicle trips to local roads already seriously impacted by school traffic, including San Jose Avenue, St. Regis Avenue, Capilano Drive, Presidio Drive, and West Country Club Drive, during school drop-off and pickup hours. This additional traffic could impede the use of these roads by emergency response providers during these time periods. The Alternate Map is thus inconsistent with Policies SA 3-3 and 3-5. ii. General Plan Goal COS 7 requires the protection of “hillsides and ridgelines from visual impacts and erosion.” To this end, General Plan Policy COS 7-1 states “[p]rotect Brentwood’s ridgelines (hilltops and steep hillsides) from erosion, slope failure, and development,” and Policy COS 7-2 states “[p]reserve the topography of Brentwood’s hills by discouraging unnecessary leveling/grading activities prior to sitebuilding on hillsides where development is permitted.” Development under the Alternate Map would include substantial grading of the hillside in the southwestern portion of the residential area of the Project Site, thus violating Policy COS 7-2. In addition, as shown on the master plotting plan submitted by the Applicant, the Project would also locate single family residences along hilltops within the Project Site, and is thus inconsistent with Goal COS 7.
iii. General Plan Policy N 1-14 provides that the City shall “[e]nsure that new development does not result in indoor noise levels exceeding 45 dBA Ldn for residential uses.” As noted in the Revised EIR prepared to study the Project:

With regard to interior noise levels, modern construction typically provides a 25 dB exterior-to-interior noise level reduction. The 25 dB level of noise reduction would not be adequate to reduce future traffic noise levels within all proposed residences to below the City’s General Plan
interior noise level standard of 45 dB Ldn. Therefore,
additional interior noise control measures would be
required in order to reduce traffic noise exposure.

The additional interior noise control measures proposed consist of (1) soundwalls to shield the residences from roadway noise associated with Sand Creek Road and Highway 4, and (2) for the first row of residences along the SR 4 corridor and Sand Creek Road corridor that have windows with a view of either roadway, either the installation of windows with a minimum STC rating of 34, or the preparation of an interior noise analysis (prepared by a qualified acoustic engineer) outlining the measures required to meet the City’s 45 dBA Ldn interior noise standard, especially at unshielded second floor facades along the SR 4 corridor or Sand Creek Road. These measures do not allow for the achievement of a noise level at or below 45 dBA Ldn when the windows of said residences are open, and thus Policy N 1-14 is not met. b. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the community development plan and any applicable specific plans.

The Project Site is not within any applicable specific plan area. However, the design and improvement of the Alternate Map is inconsistent with General Plan and the Brentwood Municipal Code for the reasons set forth in Section 3 and 4(A)(1)(a) of this Resolution, which are incorporated herein as if restated in full.
c. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development.

The site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed in that the Project Site includes many hilltops and ridges that would be subject to significant grading and/or developed with single family residences as developed under the Alternate Map. Insomuch as the City’s Conservation and Open Space element of the General Plan looks to “protect hillsides and ridgelines from visual impacts and erosion” and “protect Brentwood’s ridgelines (hilltops and steep hillsides) from erosion, slope failure, and development,” the Project Site is not suitable for the residential development proposed by Applicant. Further, there are other development plans that would be more protective of the hillsides and ridgelines and provide for housing consistent with the both the General Plan and the zoning for the Project Site.
d. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development in that the Alternate Map is not consistent with the development standards in PD-36. As set forth in Section 3 above, the Project Site is designated low-density residential and the zoning for the Project Site includes two sub-area standards and envisions housing

compliant with both the Subarea C and D standards. The Alternate Map includes residential development consistent with only Subarea C standards.
e. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat unless an Environmental Impact Report was prepared with respect to the project and a finding was made pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Environmental Impact Report.

The City Council cannot make this finding as the City Council has not certified the proposed REIR. Further, concerns were noted about the REIR due to concerns about the transportation and noise impacts, as described in Section 2 above. Without a certified EIR, the City Council cannot make a finding that the design of the Alternate Map is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage.
f. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems.

The design of the Alternate Map is likely to cause serious public health problems in that the proposed development will result in an increase in traffic along San Jose Avenue, St. Regis Avenue, and Presidio Drive during peak travel periods when there are a large amount of children and families traveling to and from schools and residences. General Plan Policy SA 3-3 requires “[k]eep emergency access routes free of traffic impediments” and Policy SA 3-5 provides “[e]nsure that all areas of the city are accessible to emergency response providers.” The increased traffic introduced onto these roads by the Project could cause serious health problems by reducing the ability of safety vehicles, possibly including police, fire, and paramedics to arrive at scenes of an accident, fatality, or medical emergency.

2. Denial. Therefore, the City Council hereby denies the Alternate Map.

5. Design Review.

A. Findings. With respect to the findings required for design review, the City Council considered all of the required findings set forth in the Brentwood Municipal Code Section 17.820.007 and hereby finds that the proposed design review would not be consistent with the City of Brentwood Municipal Code as neither the Revised Map or Alternate Map for the Project Site has been approved. If a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map is not approved, the design review cannot be approved. Further, the design review would be inconsistent with the existing General Plan and Municipal Code (e.g.,

Subdivision Ordinance standards) that govern the Project Site, as set forth in section 4 above. In addition, the following findings cannot be met:

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

The proposed development would not create a well-composed urban design related to other facilities in the immediate area and to the total setting of the community of the community as the design review is based on the creation of a subdivision that was not approved. Without an approved subdivision, the design of the homes cannot be found to be harmoniously related to the surroundings. Further, the development is not consistent with General Plan policies requiring the protection of hillsides and ridgelines and an interconnected street network. Therefore, the development does not harmoniously relate to the adjoining neighborhoods or to the total setting seen from key vantage points in the community.

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

Elements of design are not consistent with the General Plan or Brentwood Municipal Code as a subdivision has not been approved for the Project Site. Further, the proposed size, bulk and scale of the homes is not consistent with the zoning for the Project Site, which requires a mix residential consistent with Subarea C and Subarea D standards.

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

The proposed development is not of a quality and character of design appropriate to, and serving to protect the value of, private and public investments in the immediate area in that the design is based on a subdivision that has not been approved and is not consistent with the City’s General Plan or Municipal Code, as set forth in Section 3 and 4(A)(1)(a) above.

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

The proposed development is located within PD-36, and the design of the development does not conform in all significant respects with PD36, as set forth in Section 3 above.

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

The proposed development does not conform with all requirements for landscaping, screening, parking and usable open space in that the development is not consistent with the City’s General Plan and the PD36 zoning for the Project Site.

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

The siting and internal arrangement of all structures and other facilities on the site, including the land uses, internal circulation, off-street parking and loading facilities, lighting, signing and access to and from public rights-of-way, are not conducive to an orderly, attractive, efficient and harmonious development in that the siting and arrangement is based on a subdivision that has not been approved and is not consistent with the City’s General Plan or Municipal Code, as set forth in Section 3 and 4(A)(1)(a) above.

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

The proposed development would have adverse environmental effects on adjacent developments, existing or potential, by reason of conflicts in land use, topography or traffic in that the proposed subdivision has not been approved due to inconsistency with land use zoning, and requirements for hillside preservation. In addition, the development would cause adverse environmental effects on adjacent developments due to the traffic and circulation patterns of the Project, as described in Sections 4(A)(1)(a) and 4(B)(1)(a) above.

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

The proposed Project is inconsistent with design criteria or standards set out in the City of Brentwood Design Guidelines in that in that the design is based on a subdivision that has not been approved and is not

consistent with the City’s General Plan or Municipal Code, as set forth in Sections 3, 4(A)(1)(a) and 4(B)(1)(a) above.

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

The proposed Project is inconsistent with regulation of the zoning ordinance or other City ordinance, policies or resolutions as set forth in Sections 3, 4(A)(1)(a) and 4(B)(1)(a) above.

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

6. Denial Without Prejudice. VTSM 9586, including both the Revised Map and the Alternate Map, and DR 21-010 are denied without prejudice. The applicant may submit a revised application to the City addressing the findings of the City Council as documented above.

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

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

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

RECUSE:

APPROVED:
____________________________
Joel Bryant
Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Amanda McVey
City Clerk

CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 24-XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

BRENTWOOD APPROVING THE APPEAL FILED BY WCHB

DEVELOPMENT, LLC, REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE

PLANNING COMMISSION AND CERTIFYING THE REVISED

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE BRIDLE GATE

PROJECT AND ADOPTING CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT FINDINGS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND

REPORTING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of Brentwood (“City”) received an application from WCHB Development, LLC (“Permittee”) seeking City approval of a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (VTSM) and Design Review for a residential development; and WHEREAS, the Project site consists of approximately 135 acres located at the western terminus of Sand Creek Road, to the west of State Route (SR) 4 in the City of Brentwood, California. The site is identified by Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 019-082-009 and 019-082-010; and
WHEREAS, the Project would include subdivision of the site for development of 269 single-family homes, as well as associated improvements within the Project site, including a park, open space, stormwater detention and treatment areas, utility connections, and construction of an internal roadway network on approximately

92.96 acres. The 36.82 acres of land located north of the future Sand Creek Road extension would be designated a remainder and remain undeveloped; and WHEREAS, the City, as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), has completed the Final Revised Environmental Impact Report (“Final REIR” or “REIR”) for the Project. The Final REIR has State Clearinghouse No. 2022120683; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Revised Environmental Impact Report (“Draft REIR”) was released for public and agency review on May 26, 2023. The Draft REIR assesses the potential environmental effects of implementation of the Project, identifies means to eliminate or reduce potential adverse impacts, and evaluates a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City received 53 comments on the Draft REIR during the public review period, and one comment after the close of the public review period.

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

other minor changes to the text of the Draft REIR. The Final REIR is hereby incorporated in this document by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this project at its regular meeting of September 5, 2023, to consider the Project, including the Final REIR; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission continued the item to a date uncertain and directed staff to work with the applicant to evaluate the intersection of St. Regis Avenue/San Jose Avenue for a possible gate or emergency vehicle access only, with the understanding that staff will evaluate any other viable solution that would lessen the impact of traffic on the existing residential areas to the south (i.e., Brentwood Hills and Shadow Lakes); and
WHEREAS, on behalf of the Applicant, Abrams Associates reviewed five potential options for minimizing additional traffic on St. Regis Avenue, which involve various turn restrictions and circulation modifications; and WHEREAS, DKS Associates analyzed the potential impact of the options on the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) discussion in the REIR, which analysis was peer reviewed by Kimley-Horn and ultimately analyzed by the City’s environmental consultant (“Raney”), who determined that none of the options would create a new significant environmental impact or increase in the severity of previously identified impacts; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this project at its regular meeting of July 16, 2024, and denied the Project, taking no action related to CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant appealed the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council on July 24, 2024, in accordance with Chapter 17.880 of the Brentwood Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this project at its regular meeting of August 27, 2024, to consider the Project, including the Final REIR; and WHEREAS, during the hearing, the City Council raised a number of concerns including concerns about traffic circulation and impacts on adjacent/surrounding neighborhoods, CEQA impacts related to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), a preference for providing one large park instead of two smaller ones, compliance with PD-36 Sub Area C standards, deterioration of ridgelines, and noise; and WHEREAS, a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of the project was unanimously passed by the City Council, but no final action was taken on the project at that meeting; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the August 27, 2024, City Council meeting, the applicant submitted an alternate VTSM to address several of the concerns raised by

the City Council. Notably, the alternate VTSM includes the following modifications:
(1) change of access points to allow Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) only at St.

Regis Avenue and San Jose Avenue; (2) the addition of a second access point (rightin/right-out only) on Sand Creek Road near SR 4; (3) the combination of the two original park locations into one 8.49 acre parcel in the northwest corner of the subdivision; and (4) a slight reduction in the overall number of residential units from 272 to 269; and
WHEREAS, Raney analyzed whether the proposed alternate VTSM would alter the conclusions of the REIR and prepared a memorandum dated November 26, 2024, documenting that the revisions do not modify the conclusions in the REIR or create any new significant impacts (“Raney Memorandum”). Therefore, the REIR remains adequate, and recirculation is not required; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing at its regular meeting of December 10, 2024, to consider the Project, as revised, including the Final REIR and Final Memorandum.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Having reviewed all the information in the record, including without limitation the Raney Memorandum analyzing the project revisions, the City Council finds as follows. No new or substantial changes to the Draft REIR were proposed as a result of the public comment process. The Final REIR responds to comments and makes only minor technical changes, clarifications or additions to the Draft REIR. The minor changes, clarifications, or additions to the Draft REIR and the project revisions documented in the Raney Memorandum do not identify any new significant impacts or substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impacts, and do not include any new mitigation measures that would have a potentially significant impact.

Therefore, the City Council finds that recirculation of the REIR is not required.

Differences of Opinion Regarding the Impacts of the Project In making its determination to certify the Final REIR and to approve the Project, the City Council recognizes that a range of technical and scientific opinions exist with respect to certain environmental issues. The City Council acknowledges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.2-3(a) ECCC HCP/NCCP Section 6.4.3 Species-Level Measure: Prior to the commencement of construction activities, the project proponent shall provide written notification to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (ECCC HCP/NCCP) Implementing Entity, including site photos and California red-legged frog (CRLF) habitat assessment. The project proponent shall also notify these parties of the approximate date of removal of the CRLF breeding habitat at least 30 days prior to this removal to allow USFWS or CDFW staff to translocate individuals, if requested. USFWS or CDFW must notify the project proponent of their intent to translocate CRLF within 14 days of receiving notice from the project proponent. The applicant must allow USFWS or CDFW access to the site prior to construction if they request it.

In accordance with the ECCC HCP/NCCP, restrictions on the nature of the disturbance or the date of the disturbance shall not be assessed on the project, unless CDFW or USFWS notify the

project proponent of their intent to translocate individuals within the required time period. In this case, the project proponent must coordinate the timing of disturbance of the breeding habitat to allow USFWS or CDFW to translocate the individuals. USFWS and CDFW shall be allowed 45 days to translocate individuals from the date the first written notification was submitted by the project proponent (or a longer period agreed to by the project proponent, USFWS, and CDFW). A report detailing compliance with the provisions established herein shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Brentwood Community Development Department.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If young fledge prior to September 15, covered activities can proceed normally. If the active nest site is shielded from view and noise from the project site by other development, topography, or other features, the project applicant can apply to the
Implementing Entity for a waiver of this avoidance measure. Any waiver must also be approved by USFWS and CDFW. While the nest is occupied, activities outside the buffer can take place. A report detailing compliance with the provisions established herein shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Brentwood Community Development Department.

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

4.2-4(c) ECCC HCP/NCCP Section 6.4.3 Species-Level Measure: Prior to submittal of the of the final improvement plans, the project

applicant shall demonstrate that the final project design will not result in the loss of non-riparian trees in areas proposed for disturbance. If the final project design results in the loss of nonriparian Swainson’s hawk nest trees, such trees shall be mitigated by the project proponent by:
 If feasible on-site, planting 15 saplings for every nest tree lost with the objective of having at least five mature trees established for every nest tree lost according to the
requirements listed below.

AND either
1) Pay the Implementing Entity an additional fee to
purchase, plant, maintain, and monitor 15 saplings on
the HCP/NCCP Preserve System for every tree lost
according to the requirements listed below, OR
2) The project proponent shall plant, maintain, and
monitor 15 saplings for every tree lost on-site or in offsite areas, which shall be approved by the Implementing Entity (e.g., within an HCP/NCCP
Preserve or existing open space linked to HCP/NCCP
preserves), according to the requirements listed below. o Tree survival shall be monitored at least
annually for five years, then every other year
until year 12. All trees lost during the first five
years shall be replaced. Success shall be
reached at the end of 12 years if at least five
trees per tree lost survive without supplemental
irrigation or protection from herbivory. Trees
must also survive for at least three years
without irrigation.
o Irrigation and fencing to protect from deer and
other herbivores may be needed for the first
several years to ensure maximum tree survival.
o Native trees suitable for the project site shall be
planted. When site conditions permit, a variety
of native trees shall be planted for each tree
lost to provide trees with different growth rates,
maturation, and lifespan, and to provide a
variety of tree canopy structures for Swainson’s
hawk. The variety shall help to ensure that nest
trees are available in the short term (five to 10
years for cottonwoods and willows) and in the
long term (e.g., valley oak, sycamore) and shall
also minimize the temporal loss of nest trees.

o Riparian woodland restoration conducted as a
result of covered activities (i.e., loss of riparian
woodland) can be used to offset the nest tree
planting requirement above, if the nest trees
are riparian species.
o Whenever feasible and when site conditions
permit, trees shall be planted in clumps
together or with existing trees to provide larger
areas of suitable nesting habitat and to create
a natural buffer between nest trees and
adjacent development (if plantings occur on the
development site).
o Whenever feasible, plantings in the project site
shall occur closest to suitable foraging habitat
outside the ECCC HCP/NCCP Urban
Development Area (UDA).
o Trees planted in the HCP/NCCP Preserves or
other approved offsite location shall occur
within the known range of Swainson’s hawk in
the inventory area and as close as possible to
high-quality foraging habitat.

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

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2-4(a) through (c) would reduce impacts to Swainson’s hawk either directly (e.g., cause a wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate an animal community) or through substantial habitat modifications to less-than-significant levels by requiring compliance with the applicable ECCC HCP/NCCP measures. Such measures include a preconstruction survey conducted by a qualified biologist to identify nests, and appropriate buffers around such nests, as well as measures to maintain trees or plant replacement trees.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.2-5(a) through (c) would reduce impacts to golden eagle either directly (e.g., cause a wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate an animal community) or through substantial habitat modifications to less-than-significant levels by requiring

compliance with the applicable ECCC HCP/NCCP measures. Such measures are associated with occupied nests, appropriate buffer zones around identified nests, and on-site construction monitoring.

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

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

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

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

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

Adjacent parcels under different land ownership shall not be surveyed. Surveys shall take place near sunrise or sunset, in accordance with CDFW guidelines. All burrows or burrowing owls shall be identified and mapped. Surveys shall take place, at most, 30 days prior to construction. During the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), surveys shall document whether burrowing owls are nesting in or directly adjacent to disturbance areas. During the nonbreeding season (September 1 to January 31), surveys shall document whether burrowing owls are using habitat in or directly adjacent to any disturbance area. Survey results shall be valid only for the season (breeding or nonbreeding) during which the survey is conducted. A report detailing the methodology and results of the survey shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Brentwood Community Development Department.

4.2-6(b) ECCC HCP/NCCP Section 6.4.3 Species-Level Measure: If burrowing owls are found during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), in accordance with the CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, the project proponent shall avoid all nest sites that could be disturbed by project construction during the remainder of the breeding season or while the nest is occupied by adults or young. Avoidance shall include establishment of a

non-disturbance buffer zone (as described below). Construction may occur during the breeding season if a qualified biologist monitors the nest and determines that the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation or that the juveniles from the occupied burrows have fledged. During the nonbreeding season
(September 1 to January 31), the project proponent shall avoid the owls and the burrows they are using, if possible. Avoidance shall include the establishment of a buffer zone (as described below).

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

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

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.2-6(a) and (b) would reduce impacts to western burrowing owl either directly (e.g., cause a wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate an animal community) or through
substantial habitat modifications to less-than-significant levels by requiring compliance with the applicable ECCC HCP/NCCP
measures. The measures require a preconstruction survey conducted by an approved biologist, and any appropriate buffer zones around identified burrows.

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

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

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

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

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

conducted by a qualified biologist to identify any on-site nests and applying appropriate buffers.

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

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

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

Concurrence is not required prior to initiation of covered activities.

4.2-8(b) ECCC HCP/NCCP Section 6.4.3 Species-Level Measure: If San Joaquin kit foxes and/or suitable dens are identified in the survey area, the following measures shall be implemented, prior to the commencement of project construction:
 If a San Joaquin kit fox den is discovered in the proposed development footprint, the den shall be monitored for three days by a USFWS/CDFW-approved biologist using a
tracking medium or an infrared beam camera to determine if the den is currently being used;
 Unoccupied dens shall be destroyed immediately to
prevent subsequent use;
 If a natal or pupping den is found, USFWS and CDFW shall be notified immediately. The den shall not be destroyed

until the pups and adults have vacated, and then, only after further consultation with USFWS and CDFW;
 If kit fox activity is observed at the den during the initial monitoring period, the den shall be monitored for an
additional five consecutive days from the time of the first observation to allow any resident animals to move to
another den while den use is actively discouraged. For dens other than natal or pupping dens, use of the den can be discouraged by partially plugging the entrance with soil, such that any resident animal can easily escape. Once the den is determined to be unoccupied it may be excavated
under the direction of the biologist. Alternatively, if the animal is still present after five or more consecutive days of plugging and monitoring, the den may have to be
excavated when, in the judgment of a biologist, it is
temporarily vacant (i.e., during the animal’s normal
foraging activities).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incorporation of the foregoing setback shall be subject to review

and approval by the City of Brentwood Community Development Department.

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.2-10(b) ECCC HCP/NCCP Conservation Measure 2.12: Prior to submittal of the final improvement plans, the project applicant shall incorporate the following measures into the final project design, which shall be submitted for review and approval to the City of Brentwood Community Development Department:
 The project shall comply with the stream setback
requirements in Conservation Measure 1.7;
 The project shall comply with the guidelines in
Conservation Measure 1.10 to minimize the effects of

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

Erosion-control blankets shall be used as a last resort because of their tendency to biodegrade slowly and trap reptiles and amphibians;
 Fiber rolls used for erosion-control shall be certified as free of noxious weed seed;
 Seed mixtures applied for erosion-control shall not contain invasive non-native species, and shall be composed of
native species or sterile nonnative species; and
 Herbicides shall not be applied within the buffer area along Sand Creek unless needed to control serious invasive
plants. In such case, herbicides that have been approved for use by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in or adjacent to aquatic habitats may be used, as long as label instructions are followed and applications avoid or minimize impacts on Covered Species and their habitats.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.2-10(b).

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

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 4.3-2 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions

involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Noise

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

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

4.4-1 Prior to the issuance of any permits, the following criteria shall be included on grading, improvement, and construction plans, and submitted for review and approval by the City of Brentwood Community Development Director.
 Construction activities shall be limited to the hours set forth below:
o Monday through Friday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM;
o Saturday 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM; and
o Construction shall be prohibited on Sundays and
City holidays. Exceptions to allow expanded
construction activities shall be reviewed on a case‐
by‐case basis as determined by the Chief Building
Official and/or City Engineer.
 The project contractor shall ensure that the following construction noise Best Management Practices (BMPs) are met on‐site during all phases of construction:
o All equipment driven by internal combustion
engines shall be equipped with mufflers, air‐ inlet
silencers where appropriate, and any other
shrouds, shields, or other noise‐reducing features
in good operating condition that meet or exceed
original factory specifications. Mobile or fixed
“package” equipment (e.g., arc welders, air
compressors) shall be equipped with shrouds and
noise‐ control features that are readily available for
that type of equipment.
o All mobile or fixed noise‐producing equipment used
on the project site that are regulated for noise
output by a federal, state, or local agency shall
comply with such regulations while in the course of
project activity.
o The construction contractor shall utilize “quiet”
models of air compressors and other stationary
noise sources where technology exists.
o At all times during project grading and construction, stationary noise‐generating equipment shall be
located as far as practicable from sensitive
receptors and placed so that emitted noise is
directed away from residences.

o Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines
shall be prohibited.
o Construction staging areas shall be established at
locations that would create the greatest distance
between the construction‐related noise sources and
noise‐sensitive receptors nearest the project site
during all project construction activities, to the
extent feasible.
o Construction site and access road speed limits shall
be established and enforced during the construction
period.
o The use of noise‐producing signals, including horns,
whistles, alarms, and bells, shall be for safety
warning purposes only.
o Project‐related public address or music systems
shall not be audible at any adjacent receptor.
o Neighbors located adjacent to the construction site
shall be notified of the construction schedule in
writing.
o The construction contractor shall designate a “noise
disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible
for responding to any local complaints about
construction noise. The disturbance coordinator
shall be responsible for determining the cause of
the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, poor
muffler, etc.) and instituting reasonable measures
as warranted to correct the problem. A telephone
number for the disturbance coordinator shall be
conspicuously posted at the construction site.

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 would reduce impacts related to the generation of a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project by requiring the City’s Community Development Director to confirm the hours of construction and all BMPs involved in construction of the proposed project. Therefore, noise levels would not be in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.

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

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

4.4-3 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the following criteria shall be included on project grading plans, and submitted for

review and approval by the City of Brentwood Community
Development Director:

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

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

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

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

4.5-1 Prior to grading permit issuance, the project applicant shall prepare a Construction Traffic Management Plan for review and approval by the City Engineer. The plan shall include the following:
 A project staging plan to maximize on-site storage of materials and equipment;
 A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak hours; lane closure proceedings; signs, cones and other warning devices for drivers; and designation of
construction access routes;
 Provisions for maintaining adequate emergency access to the project site;
 Permitted construction hours, per City of Brentwood
standards;
 Designated locations for construction staging areas;
 Identification of parking areas for construction employees, site visitors, and inspectors, including on-site locations; and

 Provisions for street sweeping to remove constructionrelated debris on public streets.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Impact V-b Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Impact V-c Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures have been adopted to address these impacts:

V-1. Prior to grading permit issuance, the developer shall submit plans to the Community Development Department for review and
approval which indicate (via notation on the improvement plans) that a qualified archaeologist shall conduct a Cultural Resources Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for all personnel involved in ground-disturbing, site preparation construction activities on the project site prior to construction and ground-disturbing activities. The training shall include basic

information about the types of artifacts that might be
encountered during construction activities, and procedures to follow in the event of a discovery. The training shall be provided for any additional personnel added to the project even after the initiation of construction and ground disturbing activities.

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

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

V-3. Prior to grading permit issuance, the developer shall submit plans to the Community Development Department for review and
approval which indicate (via notation on the improvement plans) that if human remains, or remains that are potentially human, are found during construction, a professional archeologist shall ensure reasonable protection measures are taken to protect the discovery from disturbance. The archaeologist shall notify the Contra Costa County Coroner (per §7050.5 of the State Health and Safety Code). The provisions of §7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, §5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code, and Assembly Bill 2641 will be implemented. If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American and not the result of a crime scene, then the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which then will designate a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the project (§5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). The designated MLD will have 48 hours from the time access to the property is granted to make
recommendations concerning treatment of the remains. If the project contractor does not agree with the recommendations of the MLD, the NAHC can mediate (§5097.94 of the Public

Resources Code). If an agreement is not reached, the qualified archaeologist or MLD must rebury the remains where they will not be further disturbed (§5097.98 of the Public Resources Code).

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

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

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

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

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

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

utilized in the project design in order to adhere to all geotechnical requirements contained in the California Building Code.

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

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

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

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

VII-5. All grading and foundation plans for the development shall be designed by a Civil and Structural Engineer and reviewed and approved by the City Engineer, Chief Building Official, and a qualified Geotechnical Engineer, or through the state approval process for the school, prior to issuance of grading and building

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VII-9. Implement Mitigation Measure VII-5.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

X-2. Prior to the completion of construction, the applicant shall prepare and submit, for the City’s review, an acceptable Stormwater Control Operation and Maintenance Plan. In addition, prior to the sale, transfer, or permanent occupancy of the site, the applicant shall be responsible for paying for the long-term maintenance of treatment facilities, and executing a Stormwater Management Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement and Right of Entry in the form provided by the City of Brentwood. The applicant shall accept the responsibility for maintenance of stormwater management facilities until such responsibility is transferred to another entity.

The applicant shall submit, with the application of building permits, a draft Stormwater Facilities and Maintenance Plan, including detailed maintenance requirements and a maintenance schedule for the review and approval by the City Engineer. Typical routine maintenance consists of the following:

 Limit the use of fertilizers and/or pesticides. Mosquito larvicides shall be applied only when absolutely necessary.  Replace and amend plants and soils as necessary to insure the planters are effective and attractive. Plants must
remain healthy and trimmed if overgrown. Soils must be
maintained to efficiently filter the storm water.
 Visually inspect for ponding water to ensure that filtration is occurring.
 After all major storm events, remove bubble-up risers for obstructions and remove if necessary.
 Continue general landscape maintenance, including
pruning and cleanup throughout the year.
 Irrigate throughout the dry season. Irrigation shall be provided with sufficient quantity and frequency to allow plants to thrive.
 Excavate, clean and or replace filter media (sand, gravel, topsoil) to insure adequate infiltration rate (annually or as needed).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures X-1 through X-7 would reduce impacts related to surface or ground water quality to a

less-than-significant level by requiring payment of fees and compliance with all approved plans, such as the required SWPPP and Stormwater Control Operation and Maintenance Plan.

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

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

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

The applicant shall submit, with the application of building permits, a draft Stormwater Facilities and Maintenance Plan, including detailed maintenance requirements and a maintenance schedule for the review and approval by the City Engineer. Typical routine maintenance consists of the following:
 Limit the use of fertilizers and/or pesticides. Mosquito larvicides shall be applied only when absolutely necessary.

 Replace and amend plants and soils as necessary to ensure the planters are effective and attractive. Plants must
remain healthy and trimmed if overgrown. Soils must be
maintained to efficiently filter the storm water.
 Visually inspect for ponding water to ensure that filtration is occurring.
 After all major storm events remove trash, inspect drain pipes and bubble-up risers for obstructions and remove if necessary.
 Continue general landscape maintenance, including
pruning and cleanup throughout the year.
 Irrigate throughout the dry season. Irrigation shall be provided with sufficient quantity and frequency to allow plants to thrive.
 Excavate, clean and/or replace filter media (sand, gravel, topsoil) to ensure adequate infiltration rate (annually or as needed).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

XVIII-1. If tribal cultural resources are discovered during project-related construction activities, all ground disturbances within a minimum of 50 feet of the find shall be halted until a qualified professional archaeologist can evaluate the discovery. The archaeologist shall examine the resources, assess their significance, and recommend appropriate procedures to the lead agency to either further investigate or mitigate adverse impacts. If the find is determined by the lead agency in consultation with the Native American tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project site to be a tribal cultural resource and the discovered archaeological resource cannot be avoided, then applicable mitigation measures for the resource shall be discussed with the geographically affiliated tribe. Applicable mitigation measures that also take into account the cultural values and meaning of the discovered tribal cultural resource, including confidentiality if requested by the tribe, shall be completed (e.g., preservation in place, data recovery program pursuant to Public Resources Code §21083.2[i]). During evaluation or mitigative treatment, ground disturbance and construction work could continue on other parts of the project site.

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

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

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

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

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

language of the mitigation measure has been specifically and expressly modified by these findings.

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

Several commenters raised concerns related to components of the proposed project that do not address environmental impacts subject to CEQA review, or they did not specifically address the adequacy of the Draft REIR. Comments regarding safety, existing current circulation concerns, or existing roadway Level of Service (LOS) conditions are not within the scope of environmental review required for the Draft REIR. These comments have been noted for the record and were forwarded to decision-makers as part of their consideration of the proposed project. Additionally, several commenters raised concerns related to the transportation and circulation analysis, including the congestion of roadways in the vicinity of the project site, the methods employed in evaluating transportation-related impacts under CEQA, traffic volumes, vehicle cut-through, and the lack of mitigation measures prepared to address potentially increased traffic. Any modifications that were made to mitigation measures in response to such comments are denoted in Chapter 3, Revisions to Draft REIR Text, of the Final REIR.

In addition, the Raney Memorandum analyzed the proposed project revisions in the alternate VTSM and determined they would not create any new significant environmental impact or increase in the severity of previously identified impacts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Project (No Build) Alternative.

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

A No-Project Alternative describes the environmental conditions in existence at the time the Notice of Preparation was published, along with a discussion of what would

be reasonably expected to occur at the site in the foreseeable future, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.

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

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

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

Clustered Development Alternative.

The Clustered Development Alternative would be designed to reduce the total amount of proposed development acreage, while still resulting in a residential density within the allowable range presented in the City’s General Plan. According to the City’s General Plan, the R-LD land use designation permits a density range of 1.1 to five dwelling units per acre (du/ac), with a mid-range of three du/ac. The proposed Project is anticipated to result in the development of 272 units on 67.96 acres, which would result in a density of approximately 4.0 du/ac. If 67.96 acres of the Project site were to be developed using the mid-range of three du/ac, a total of 186 units would be anticipated. However, in order to cluster the development and increase the amount of open space on-site, while still keeping in the range of allowed density, under the Clustered Development Alternative 186 units would be built on 37.2 acres, which would result in a density of five du/ac, the maximum allowable density within the R-LD land use designation.

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

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

Generally, all other site improvements required under the proposed Project would still be developed under the Clustered Development Alternative, and the Alternative would still require a potential Rezone to amend the PD-36 Zoning District,

Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, and Design Review. In addition, because the Clustered Development Alternative would generally result in similar development of the proposed Project, all Project objectives would be met.

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

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

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

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

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

Reduced Density Alternative.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

RECUSE:

APPROVED:
____________________________
Joel Bryant
Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Amanda McVey
City Clerk

CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 24-XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

BRENTWOOD APPROVING THE APPEAL FILED BY WCHB

DEVELOPMENT, LLC, REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE

PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVING THE VESTING
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 9586 TO ALLOW THE
SUBDIVISION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 135-ACRE SITE INTO 269

SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS, ONE PARK PARCEL,

TWO PARCELS FOR BIORETENTION, ONE OPEN SPACE PARCEL

WITH TRAIL, FOUR LANDSCAPED ENTRY PARCELS, AND A

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

WHEREAS, on October 22, 2021, WCHB Development, LLC, (the “Permittee”) submitted an application to the City of Brentwood requesting approval of a vesting tentative subdivision map (No. 9586) to subdivide approximately 135 acres into 286 single-family residential parcels, two park parcels, two bio-retention areas for stormwater treatment, one open space parcel, as well as several parcels for landscaping and pedestrian access, and a designated remainder (the “Project,” modified as noted below); and
WHEREAS, the Project is proposed to be located on a roughly 135 acre site bounded by the proposed Sand Creek Road Extension to the north, State Route 4 to the east, a single-family residential development (Brentwood Hills) to the south, and the edge of the Brentwood Planning Area and the City of Antioch’s city limits to the west, with a small segment of existing San Jose Avenue bounding the site at its farthest southeastern corner (the “Project Site”); and
WHEREAS, the City referred the Project to various departments and agencies for review and recommendations; and
WHEREAS, in August 2022, the Permittee initiated legal proceedings against the City in the Contra Costa Superior Court (the “Court”) pertaining to the processing of the Project, alleging, among other things, that the PD-36 zoning standards applicable to the Project were not objective; and
WHEREAS, consistent with the Court’s opinion, the City has processed the application consistent with the objective standards for PD-36, Subarea C; and WHEREAS, on June 30, 2023, the Permittee revised its application by submitting a modified proposed vesting tentative subdivision map that increased the minimum lot size for all parcels to 5,000 square feet, and decreased the number of units to 272; and

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

Press on August 16, 2024, and the Permittee posted the Project Site with the required signage in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this project at its regular meeting of August 27, 2024, to consider the Project, and considered the staff report, supporting documents, public testimony, and all appropriate information submitted with the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, during the hearing, the City Council raised a number of issues, including concerns about traffic circulation and impacts on adjacent/surrounding neighborhoods, CEQA impacts related to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), a preference for providing one large park instead of two smaller ones, compliance with PD-36 Sub Area C standards, deterioration of ridgelines, and noise; and WHEREAS, a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of the project was unanimously passed by the City Council, but no final action was taken on the project at that meeting; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the August 27, 2024, City Council meeting, the applicant submitted an alternate vesting tentative subdivision map (“VTSM”) to address several of the concerns raised by the City Council. Notably, the alternate VTSM includes the following modifications: (1) change of access points to allow Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) only at St. Regis Avenue and San Jose Avenue; (2) the addition of a second access point (right-in/right-out only) on Sand Creek Road near SR 4; (3) the combination of the two original park locations into one 8.49 acre parcel in the northwest corner of the subdivision; and (4) a slight reduction in the overall number of residential units from 272 to 269; and WHEREAS, the City’s CEQA consultant, Raney, analyzed whether the proposed alternate VTSM would alter the conclusions of the REIR and prepared a memorandum dated November 26, 2024 documenting that the revisions do not modify the conclusions in the REIR or create any new significant impacts and therefore, recirculation was not required; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing at its regular meeting on December 10, 2024, to consider the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 24-XXX, certifying the Final Revised Environmental Impact Report and adopting Findings of Facts and a Mitigating Monitoring and Report Plan.

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

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

16.050.040.B and Government Code section 66474:

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

The proposed alternate VTSM is consistent with the City’s General Plan in that the number of lots shown on the map (269) will result in development at a density range of approximately 4.0 du/a, which is permitted in the site’s Residential-Low Density land use designation, which allows development at densities of 1.1-5.0 dwelling units per gross acre, with 3.0 du/a being the acceptable mid-range. To the extent the density exceeds the mid-range, Government Code section 65589.5(j) constrains the City’s ability to enforce with the subjective criteria in the midrange density policy set forth in the City of Brentwood General Plan and, therefore, allows for projects to be developed up to the maximum density, provided that the project complies with other applicable zoning and General Plan standards. To the extent the project exceeds the housing cap in the PD-36, Subarea C standards and does not require conditional use permits for those residential uses that exceed

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

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

The Project Site is not within any applicable specific plan area. The design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with General Plan, including through consistency with:
a. Policy CIR 3-3 (“Design developments to include features that encourage walking, bicycling, and transit use. Design features shall include bus turnouts, transit shelters and benches, and pedestrian access points between subdivisions and between adjacent related land uses.”) in that it includes extension of both the Black Gold Trail and Sand Creek Trail, and pedestrian access points from the Black Gold Trail into the single-family neighborhood.
b. Policy LU 6-3 (“Residential neighborhoods should be well-defined with park and recreation facilities, schools, open space, and neighborhood commercial land uses that incorporate unifying landscape and architectural themes and provide visible functional centers.”) insomuch as the proposed Project includes one neighborhood park of roughly 8.49 acres in total, over 25 acres of open space, and approximately 4 acres of land for bioretention. c. Finally, the project complies with other aspects of the General Plan as described in finding A(1) above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The design of the alternate subdivision and the type of improvements proposed are not likely to cause serious public health problems due to the fact that this Project includes proposed improvements necessary to ensure

a safe and healthy development, including adequate wastewater and potable water infrastructure, streets that meet the City’s specifications, modified access points to limit impacts on adjoining neighborhoods, street lighting, and compliance with Federal, State, and local regulations designed to protect public health.

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

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

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

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

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

RECUSE:

APPROVED:
____________________________
Joel Bryant
Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Amanda McVey
City Clerk

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

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
VESTING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 9586

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

2. The final map shall be substantially in conformance with Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 9586 prepared by APEX Civil Engineering & Land Surveying dated September 19, 2024, unless otherwise amended by the conditions of approval contained herein.

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

This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, reasonable attorneys' fees, and other reasonable expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding. The Permittee shall pay to the City upon demand or, as applicable, on a monthly basis to counsel of City’s reasonable choosing, amounts owed pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. City shall promptly notify the Permittee of any claim, action, or proceeding and shall engage in reasonable efforts to cooperate in the defense. To the extent the above indemnification is limited by Government Code Section 66474.9, any limitations shall only apply to VTSM 9586, and the remainder of this obligation shall be unaffected by said Government Code section.

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

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

4 and Sand Creek Road shall be shielded from the foregoing roadways through the use of masonry sound walls per the approval of the City Engineer. The approximate locations of these walls as shown on Figure 4.4- 4 of the Draft Revised Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project and as updated by Saxelby Acoustics (included as Figure 4 to Attachment D of the Raney Planning & Management, Inc. memorandum dated November 26, 2024). Other types of barriers may be employed but shall be reviewed by an acoustical engineer prior to being constructed. The design for all soundwalls identified in the acoustical analysis for this project shall be submitted to the City Engineer and the Director of Community Development for review and approval and shall incorporate a split face hand-laid block design with a cap, and columns with a cap approximately every 50 feet, as shown on the preliminary landscape plans. The soundwall design shall be approved prior to issuance of improvement plans for the project. All walls shall comply with City-approved acoustic analysis. Plans for said walls shall include clear delineation of maintenance responsibilities of all wall sections.

Sound wall heights shall be stated relative to building pad elevations and may achieve the required wall height through use of earthen berm and wall combinations to achieve the total height. Additionally, second floor windows of the first row of residences along the State Route 4 corridor and Sand Creek Road, shall have a minimum STC rating of 34 for windows with a view of either roadway. Alternatively, an interior noise analysis shall be prepared by a qualified acoustic engineer outlining the measures required to meet the City’s 45 dBA Ldn interior noise standard, especially at unshielded second floor facades along the State Route 4 corridor or Sand Creek Road.

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

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

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

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

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

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

15.52.160 “City Held Harmless.”

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

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

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

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

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

9. Prior to issuance of an encroachment permit or approval of Improvement Plans:
a. Construction Plans shall include all improvements in conformance with the latest Infrastructure Master Plans (i.e. Sewer, Water, etc.) and as directed by the City Engineer. Said improvements include a Zone 2 water main in San Jose Avenue.
b. Construction Plans shall include non-potable water mains and services to serve the proposed park and stormwater treatment/detention basins and stub to the existing terminus of San Jose Avenue to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
c. Construction Plans shall incorporate safety fencing with vehicular access gates around proposed open space and stormwater parcels to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Construction Plans shall incorporate speed tables or other vehicular speed and safety control measures within the proposed streets to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
e. Pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section 16.120.090 “Public Facilities Installation”, construction plans shall incorporate missing sidewalk improvements along the northerly portion of San Jose Avenue from the existing sidewalk terminus near State Route 4 to Saint Regis Avenue and a 10-foot wide sidewalk along Parcel A and B to connect to the existing 10-foot wide trail at the westerly boundary of the project. f. Construction plans shall include pedestrian and bicycle connectivity between the proposed San Jose Avenue and Chestnut Oak Drive intersection and existing St. Regis Avenue and San Jose Avenue intersection.
g. Construction plans shall incorporate maintenance vehicle access from a public road to all proposed privately maintained stormwater treatment and detention parcels to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

h. Construction plans shall incorporate a deceleration lane at the proposed intersection of Oak Lane and Sand Creek Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
i. Construction plans shall meet all design requirements including measures to prevent access to east-bound State Route 4, if warranted, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
j. Oak Lane shall be designed in compliance with access control standards as defined within the Caltrans Highway Design Manual to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
k. Pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section 16.120.080.C, construction plans shall include designs consistent with Standard Detail ST-1 “Arterial Street” along the project frontage, including Parcel A and Parcel B frontage, to provide one additional eastbound lane along Sand Creek Road. Improvements shall include, but not be limited to, a traffic signal at Sand Creek Road and Bridle Gate Drive, sidewalks, curb and gutter, roadway widening, frontage and median island landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Permittee will be eligible for reimbursement as set forth in the City’s Development Fee Program. l. Construction Plans shall reflect the entirety of San Jose Avenue to be designed as a 60-foot wide residential collector street consistent with Standard Detail ST-4 “Residential Collector Street”.
m. 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.
n. Construction Plans shall include all utilities designed with seismic considerations to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. o. Permittee shall submit a colored Composite Site Exhibit showing the location of all existing and proposed utilities, utility boxes, landscaping, monuments, street improvements, lights, signs, driveways, house envelopes, fencing, grading contours, walls, easements, property lines, and other improvements as required at a sufficient scale to allow a comprehensive review of proposed improvements.
p. 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.

q. Construction Plans shall include cathodic protection measures for all buried metallic infrastructure pursuant to City Standards or as approved by the City Engineer.
r. 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.
s. 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. t. Construction Plans shall include all landscaping with adequate root barriers to protect all City facilities, including but not limited to sidewalks, utilities, meters, ramps, and driveways.
u. Permittee shall have a licensed Land Surveyor locate all existing survey monuments on or adjacent to the project, and show said monuments as protected on all construction plans.
v. Construction Plans shall include a Traffic Control Plan in conformance with the latest edition of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices issued by Caltrans and as required by the City Engineer. w. Construction Plans shall include Emergency Vehicle Access areas to comply with the requirements of the Fire District, and that ingress and egress is provided to all neighboring properties during construction. x. Construction plans shall incorporate roadways and driveways that provide adequate sight distance pursuant to City and Caltrans design requirements. All landscape areas required to have restrictions to comply with sight distance requirements shall be shown on applicable Construction and Plot Plans.
y. Construction plans shall incorporate rights-of-way and all-weather vehicular access from a public road to all proposed and existing public utilities, appurtenances and easements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This includes, but is not limited to, existing public utilities within Park Parcel A and designated permanent open space Parcel H.

10. Prior to approving the Final Map:
a. The Final Map shall comply with the current Subdivision Map Act.

b. The Project shall annex into the most current City Community Facilities District (currently CFD #5), and annex into, or form a street lighting and landscape maintenance assessment district, or update the current LLAD 02-3 to reflect the current project or provide and execute an alternative funding mechanism acceptable to the City for the maintenance of City improvements.
c. The Project shall annex into the most current Emergency Medical and Fire Protection Service Funding Community Facilities District as required by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (Brentwood Municipal Code Chapter 17.635).
d. Permittee shall provide for an adequate private funding mechanism for the perpetual maintenance of all stormwater treatment areas, stormwater detention basins, rear-lot landscaping for lots with double street frontages, soundwalls along State Route 4, and common interest development facilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Permittee shall dedicate parcels in fee or private easements with said facilities to a Homeowners Association or similar private entity.
e. Permittee shall process a vacation of the 25’ of San Jose Avenue along the eastern border of the property prior to or concurrent with the approval of the Final map.
f. Final Map shall include references to private access, maintenance and utility easements over the shared driveways of all proposed flag lots to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g. Final Map shall include approved street names by the Fire District and Community Development Department. All public streets, including Sand Creek Road, shall be irrevocably offered for dedication. h. All applicable City fees shall be paid including, but not limited to, the Agricultural Mitigation Fee, the Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District Fee.
i. The Final Map shall show relinquishment of abutter’s rights of access for all double frontage lots along Bridle Gate Drive and San Jose Avenue and adjacent to all accessible ramp locations.
j. The Final Map shall include public utility easements along all street frontages to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
k. The 25-foot wide existing right-of-way for Old Sand Creek Road is identified to be a portion of a collector street in the Innovation Center Specific Plan and shall not be abandoned.

l. Permittee shall submit a copy of the draft Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions to the City Engineer and Director of Community Development for review and approval. Prior to recordation, Permittee shall submit any revisions to the City for approval.

11. Prior to issuance of any Building Permits:
a. The following improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer:
i. All on-site improvements, shall be constructed prior to the issuance of any building permit in each phase (excluding model homes). The improvements shall include, but not limited to pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lights, stormwater facilities, utilities, and walls.
ii. The traffic signal at the proposed Sand Creek Road and Bridle Gate Drive including the additional Sand Creek Road eastbound lane, separated bike lane, curbs, gutters, bioretention, and sidewalk along the project frontage and all soundwalls shall be substantially completed prior to the issuance of the 50 th building
permit.
b. Permittee shall provide an approval signed and sealed by a geotechnical or structural engineer of the location, nature and proximity of stormwater features near or adjacent to buildings as determined by the City Engineer. Locations and design of any mitigating structural design feature (i.e. foundations) shall be shown on the appropriate construction plans.
c. Permittee shall provide an approval signed and sealed by a geotechnical or structural engineer that there is adequate clearance between building foundations and creeks.
d. Permittee shall provide documents signed by a licensed engineer on building pad elevation, compaction, and appropriate remediation from unsuitable soils.
e. Permittee shall demonstrate that all acoustic mitigations have been incorporated into applicable plans.

12. Permittee shall pay all Development Impact Fees per the City’s Development Fee Program on a pro rata basis for each dwelling prior to issuance of building permit.

13. As set forth below, Permittee shall dedicate the park parcel and open space parcels to the City in fee title. Maintenance of these properties shall be

included in the Lighting and Landscaping District for this Project, as indicated in the General Plan Goals CSF 1 and CSF 2.
a. Permittee shall dedicate to the City of Brentwood in fee title Parcel “A” for public park purposes and construct landscaping and park improvements to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation. Parcel “A” totals 8.49 acres, of which 4.35 acres Permittee shall grade to a less than 3% slope in order to be deemed usable and fee creditable Park land. Park improvements shall be designed and improved to include amenities consistent with the ‘Neighborhood Park’ definition in the current Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan and will be reimbursed according to the provisions of the Development Fee Program. Pursuant to the requirements of BMC Section 2.46.020.G, prior to submittal of the landscape construction plans for the park, the Permittee shall submit Conceptual Park Plans showing the proposed design, amenities and programming of the park for review and approval by the Park and Recreation Commission, as indicated in the General Plan Goals CSF 1 and CSF 2.
b. Permittee shall dedicate to the City of Brentwood in fee title Parcel “H” for open space and trail purposes and construct a 10 foot wide asphalt multi-use trail on Parcel “H” from the southern boundary of the Project at the existing terminus of Black Gold Trail, thence to the extension of Sand Creek Road adjacent to the park in Parcel ‘A,’ to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation. The Permittee will also construct open space landscaping and trail amenity improvements to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation prior to the issuance of the 135th building permit. Trail and landscape fee credit will be provided for these improvements per the City’s Development Fee Program, as indicated in the General Plan Goals CSF1 and CSF2.

14. In addition to the sound walls required in Condition of Approval No. 5 above, Permittee shall construct a split-face masonry block wall with the same design as approved for the sound walls adjacent to City-owned park or landscape areas at the heights and in the locations set forth below, unless approved otherwise by the City Engineer and the Director of Parks and Recreation:
a. A minimum 7-foot high masonry wall separating Lot #1 and Lot #125 from Parcel ‘A’;
b. A minimum 7-foot high masonry wall separating Lots #36-38 from Parcel ‘G’;
c. A minimum 8-foot high masonry wall separating Lots #119-125 from Parcel ‘C’;
d. A minimum 8-foot high masonry wall separating Lots #126-135 from Parcel ‘D’; and
e. A minimum 8-foot high masonry wall separating Lot #136 from Parcel ‘E’.

15. The Permittee shall submit all landscape plans for the review and approval of the Director of Parks and Recreation for street frontage landscaping, stormwater treatment areas, front yard landscape areas, and parks and trails prior to approval of improvement plans for the project. All trees shall be selected and planted as per the City’s Urban Forest Guidelines. The landscaping improvements for the park parcels and trail improvements shall be constructed and improved prior to issuance of the 135th building permit, including model homes or any permit adjacent to the park parcel to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation.

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

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

18. The Permittee shall pay any parks and trails fees due on a pro rata basis at the time of final inspection or certificate of occupancy for each dwelling to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation and Community Development Director. The on-site parkland and park improvements dedicated by Permittee to the City shall be fee creditable as defined and broken down above, as per the City’s development fee program.

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

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

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

22. Prior to each building permit issuance, the Permittee shall submit to the Community Development Department written proof from the Liberty Union

High School District and the Brentwood Union School District indicating that appropriate school mitigation fees have been paid.

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

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

25. Any dead-end emergency apparatus access roadways in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of Fire District apparatus.

26. 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 28-feet or greater, but less than 36-feet unobstructed width shall have NO PARKING – FIRE LANE signs posted, allowing for parking on one side only or curbs painted red with the words NO PARKING – FIRE LANE clearly marked.

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

28. Permittee shall provide an adequate and reliable water supply for fire protection with a minimum fire flow of 1500 GPM. Required flow must be delivered from not more than 1 hydrant flowing for a duration of 120 minutes while maintaining 20-pounds residual pressure in the main.

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

30. A land development permit is required from Contra Costa Fire Protection District for access and water supply review and approval prior to submitting building construction plans. Permittee shall submit a minimum of two copies of full size, scaled site improvement plan indicating:
a. All existing or proposed hydrant locations
b. Fire apparatus access to include slope and road surface c. Elevations building

d. Size of building and type of construction
e. Gates, fences, retaining walls, bio-retention basins, any obstructions to access
f. Detail showing the lowest level of fire department vehicle access and the floor level of the highest occupied floor
g. Striping and signage plan to include “NO PARKING – FIRE LANE” markings
This is a separate submittal from the building construction plans. These plans shall be approved prior to submitting building plans for review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

40. Permittee shall inform and notify prospective buyers in writing as prescribed by the City’s Right to Farm Ordinance, prior to purchase, about existing and on-going agriculture activities in the immediate area in the form of a disclosure statement. The notifications shall disclose that the Brentwood area is an agricultural area subject to ground and aerial application of chemicals and early morning or nighttime farm operations which may create noise, dust, etc. The language and format of such notification shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to recordation of the final map. Each disclosure statement shall be acknowledged with the signature of each prospective buyer.

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

42. Permittee shall comply with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Rules and Regulations, including implementing all Basic Construction Mitigation Measures (BCMMs) including:
a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.

b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day.

The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
f. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.
g. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site.
h. Unpaved roads providing access to sites located 100 feet or further from a paved road shall be treated with a six- to 12-inch layer of compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.
i. Publicly visible signs shall be posted with the telephone number and name of the person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s General Air Pollution Complaints number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

43. Permittee shall implement BAAQMD enhanced best management practices, including:
a. Limit the simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and grounddisturbing construction activities. b. Install wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity.
c. Plant vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established.
d. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent.

e. Minimize the amount of excavated material or waste materials stored at the site.
f. Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to construction areas, including previously graded areas, that are inactive for at least 10 calendar days.

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

CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 24-XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

BRENTWOOD APPROVING THE APPEAL FILED BY WCHB

DEVELOPMENT, LLC, REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW NO.
21-010 FOR 13 HOME PLANS TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON 269

SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS FOR THE BRIDLE GATE PROJECT, LOCATED

GENERALLY WEST OF THE SAND CREEK ROAD AND STATE ROUTE
4 INTERCHANGE (APNs: 019-082-009 and 019-082-010).

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

WHEREAS, the City distributed a Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners of record within 300 feet of the Project Site and published it in the Brentwood Press on August 25, 2023, and the Permittee posted the Project Site with the required signage in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this project at its regular meeting of September 5, 2023, to consider the Project, including this design review application and considered the staff report, supporting documents, public testimony, and all appropriate information submitted with the proposed Project and studied the compatibility of this request with adjacent land uses; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, on September 5, 2023, continued the item to a date uncertain and directed staff to work with the Permittee to evaluate the intersection of St. Regis Avenue/San Jose Avenue for a possible gate or emergency vehicle access only, with the understanding that staff will evaluate any other viable solution that would lessen the impact of traffic on the existing residential areas to the south (i.e., Brentwood Hills and Shadow Lakes); and
WHEREAS, on behalf of the Permittee, Abrams Associates reviewed five potential options for minimizing additional traffic on St. Regis Avenue, which involve various turn restrictions and circulation modifications; and WHEREAS, DKS Associates analyzed the potential impact of the options on the REIR Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) discussion, which analysis was peer reviewed by Kimley-Horn and ultimately analyzed by the City’s environmental consultant (“Raney”), who determined that none of the options would create a new significant environmental impact or increase in the severity of previously identified impacts; and WHEREAS, the City distributed a Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners of record within 300 feet of the Project Site and published it in the Brentwood Press on July 5, 2024, and the Permittee posted the Project Site with the required signage in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this project at its regular meeting of July 16, 2024, and denied the Project, taking no CEQA action; and
WHEREAS, the Permittee appealed the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council on July 24, 2024 in accordance with Chapter 17.880 of the Brentwood Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City distributed a Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners of record within 300 feet of the Project Site and published it in the Brentwood Press on August 16, 2024, and the Permittee posted the Project Site with the required signage in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090; and

WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this project at its regular meeting of August 27, 2024, to consider the Project, and considered the staff report, supporting documents, public testimony, all appropriate information submitted with the proposed Project, and studied the compatibility of this request with adjacent land uses, and the additional options provided related to circulation; and WHEREAS, during the hearing, the City Council raised a number of issues including concerns about traffic circulation and impacts on adjacent/surrounding neighborhoods, CEQA impacts related to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), a preference for providing one large park instead of two smaller ones, compliance with PD-36 Sub Area C standards, deterioration of ridgelines, and noise; and WHEREAS, a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of the project was unanimously passed by the City Council, but no final action was taken at that meeting; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the August 27, 2024, City Council meeting, the applicant submitted an alternate VTSM to address several of the concerns raised by the City Council. Notably, the alternate VTSM includes the following modifications:
(1) change of access points to allow Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) only at St.

Regis Avenue and San Jose Avenue; (2) the addition of a second access point (rightin/right-out only) on Sand Creek Road near SR 4; (3) the combination of the two original park locations into one 8.49 acre parcel in the northwest corner of the subdivision; and (4) a slight reduction in the overall number of residential units from 272 to 269; and
WHEREAS, the City’s CEQA consultant, Raney, analyzed whether the alternate VTSM would alter the conclusions of the REIR and prepared a memorandum dated November 26, 2024, documenting that the revisions do not modify the conclusions in the REIR or create any new significant impacts and therefore, recirculation was not required; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing at its regular meeting of December 10, 2024, to consider the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 24-XXX, certifying the Final Revised Environmental Impact Report and adopting Findings of Facts and a Mitigating Monitoring and Report Plan and Resolution No. 24-XXX to approve the VTSM.

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

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

17.820.007:

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

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

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

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

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

The proposed development is of a quality and character appropriate to, and serving to protect the value of, private and public investments in the immediate area, in that the location and design of the proposed homes, as conditioned, will not adversely affect abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood, as the proposed project includes 13

different floor plans and four different architectural styles, which will create a well-designed neighborhood with varied home elevations that maintain the quality of the neighborhood and that would be located on these 269 new lots. Furthermore, the proposed project is consistent with the Residential Low Density designation in the General Plan, including the density of the proposed project at 4.0 du/ac. The project is also consistent with the applicable objective zoning standards for PD-36 set forth in Brentwood Municipal Code Section 17.486.004, referring to Subarea C, including: the minimum lot size for the proposed project is 5,000 square feet (sf); the minimum proposed lot width is 50 feet; and the minimum proposed lot depth is 100 feet, as well as setback and lot coverage standards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The location and internal arrangements of all structures and other facilities as conditioned on the site, including land uses, internal circulation, parking, and lighting are conducive to an orderly, attractive, efficient, and harmonious development as the project, as conditioned, will comply with all proposed zoning requirements, and the streets are designed to meet City standards. Further, revised access points in the alternate VTSM will limit impacts on the adjoining neighborhoods.

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

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

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

The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the City of Brentwood Residential Design Guidelines, dated September 26, 2006, as illustrated in various ways, including:
a. The Design Guidelines provide that single-family residential units must include one distinct plan with four unique elevations for every 25 units in the project, and the project provides thirteen floorplans plans, with four elevation styles; and

b. The Design Guidelines state that 50% of corner lots within a development must be single-story units, and, of the 26 lots that could be considered corner lots in the project, 13 of these have been plotted with single-story plans; and
c. The Design Guidelines note that garage doors with decorative features, including glass windows, must be provided for 60% or more of the units, and all of the project’s proposed garage doors include windows.

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

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

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

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

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

RECUSE:

APPROVED:
____________________________
Joel Bryant
Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Amanda McVey
City Clerk

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

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
DESIGN REVIEW NO. 21-010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

yard fencing of double-frontage lots shall be setback a minimum of 5 feet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

DRAWN:

CHECKED:

PROJECT #: 20066

PUBLIC WORKS

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

GENERAL

FACILITIES

SOILS ENGINEER

CIVIL ENGINEER

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

BASIS OF BEARINGS

BENCHMARK

OWNER/DEVELOPER

WCHB DEVELOPMENT, LLC
4021 PORT CHICAGO HIGHWAY
CONCORD, CA. 94520
(925) 671-7711

VICINITY MAP

NOT TO SCALE
BRIDLE GATE - ALTERNATE LOTTING PLAN - 09-19-2024

SHEET INDEX

DESCRIPTION
2 SHEET No.
1 TITLE SHEET

PRELIMINARY GRADING & UTILITY PLAN
LEGEND

SANDCREEK

CHESTNUT OAK DRIVE

CHESTNUT OAK DRIVE

CHESTNUT OAK

HEATHERWOOD DRIVE

HEATHERWOOD DRIVE

COTTONWOOD AVENUE

COTTONWOOD AVENUE

WOODGLEN DRIVE

SAN JOSE AVENUE

SAN JOSE AVENUE

ROSE WOOD DRIVE

ROSE WOOD DRIVE

BRIDLE GATE DRIVE

SAND CREEK ROAD

SAN JOSE AVENUE
(FUTURE EXTENSION)
AVE.

SAINT
REGI S
AVE .

DR I VE

MI LLBROOK

SAND CREEK ROAD

SAND CREEK ROAD
(FUTURE EXTENSION)
LA
SATA
COURT
DRIVE

OLD SAND CREEK ROAD

SAN JOSE
HIGHWAY 4
HIGHWAY 4
BRIDLE
GATE
DRIVE

OAK LANE

CONFIGURATION

FOR STREET
SEE SHEET 2

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

DRAWN:

CHECKED:

PROJECT #: 20066

PUBLIC WORKS

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

CHESTNUT OAK DRIVE

CHESTNUT OAK DRIVE

CHESTNUT OAK DRIVE

HEATHERWOOD DRIVE

HEATHERWOOD DRIVE

COTTONWOOD AVENUE

COTTONWOOD AVENUE

WOODGLEN DRIVE

SAN JOSE AVENUE

SAN JOSE AVENUE

ROSE WOOD DRIVE

ROSE WOOD DRIVE
140' STREET SECTION

SAND CREEK ROAD

NOT TO SCALE
60' STREET SECTION

BRIDLE GATE DRIVE & SAN JOSE AVENUE

NOT TO SCALE
TYPICAL 56' STREET SECTION

NOT TO SCALE

ABBREVIATIONS
SA INT

REG I S
AVE .

DR I VE

MI LLBROOK

SAND CREEK ROAD

SAND CREEK ROAD
(FUTURE EXTENSION)

LA SATA COURT
HIGHWAY 4

SAN JOSE AVENUE
(FUTURE EXTENSION)
AVE.

JOSE
BRIDLE
GATE
DRIVE

BRIDLE GATE DRIVE
SAN

OAK LANE
EVA
20'

BRIDLE GATE SUPPLEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
10/16/2024
This Supplemental Project Description supplements the project description previously provided for the Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) dated 7/2/2024 and its associated documents.

Bridle Gate, a single-family subdivision (“Project”), was heard at the 8/27/2024 City Council Meeting. At that time, the Project was as shown on the 7/2/2024 VTM (272 single-family lots). In response to City Council’s comments, WCHB Development LLC, the Project Applicant, subsequently provided an Alternate Map dated 9/19/2024 (269 single-family lots) to address certain concerns; and each concern is discussed below.

Park:

The 7/2/2024 VTM showed 2 neighborhood parks consisting of Parcel A (6 acres gross with 1.94 acres at 3% or flatter slope) and Parcel G (2.49 acres gross with 2.41 acres at 3% or flatter slope), for a total area of 4.35 acres at 3% or flatter slope. This park configuration was recommended by the City’s parks staff. However, City Council preferred a single larger parcel instead of 2 smaller parks. The Alternate Map now has a single larger park at Parcel A (8.49 acres gross with 4.35 acres at 3% slope or flatter slope, which is equivalent to the total flat area of the 2 smaller parks). Parcel G of the 7/2/2024 VTM has been reconfigured into residential lots, as shown on the Alternate Map.

Noise:

The 7/2/2024 VTM showed Bridle Gate Drive being the primary access off Sand Creek Rd. to the Project. City Council preferred a second access off Sand Creek Rd. The 9/19/2024 Alternate Map shows Oak Ln. as this second access. Saxelby Acoustics, the consultant that prepared the original noise study for the Project, reviewed the noise impact with the second access, confirmed the validity of the original study, and determined that the City’s noise standards would be met with the recommended mitigation measures. The Sand Creek Rd. soundwall should be wrapped around the returns at the newly created corner lots along Oak Ln. (Saxelby, 10/11/2024 Memo) so that the returns will extend beyond the noise contours as shown in the figure attached to the 10/11/2024 Saxelby Memo.

Traffic:

At the 8/27/2024 City Council Meeting, City Staff presented several options for the St.

Regis/San Jose/Chestnut Oak intersection at the southeast corner of the Project. The Alternate Map presents another option that would isolate Bridle Gate general vehicular

traffic from the existing St. Regis – San Jose traffic, and vice versa. Bicycle, pedestrian, and emergency vehicle traffic would not be impeded. DKS Associates prepared the previous Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) studies for the Project, which arrived at a conclusion of less-than-significant impact with mitigation. DKS analyzed the impacts to VMT due to the updated street connections (i.e., Sand Creek Rd. and San Jose Ave.) in the Alternate Map and confirmed the continued validity of its previous conclusion (DKS, 10/11/2024 Memo).

Affordable Housing:

An Affordable Housing Plan will be executed between the City and the Applicant, after entitlement approval and prior to final map recordation. Applicant has summarized the Project’s affordable housing approach in the attached table. Per City Ordinance No. 1014, Project is required to provide 3% of the homes to be available at the very-lowincome level (calculates to 8 very-low-income homes), 4% at low-income (calculates to 11 low-income homes), and 3% at moderate-income (calculates to 8 moderate-income homes).

To meet the above requirements, Applicant proposes to provide 14 homes at very-lowincome (8 of which would fulfill the City’s very-low-income requirement, and 6 would be used toward fulfilling the City’s low-income requirement); 5 homes at low-income (which combined with the 6 excess homes at very-low-income would meet the requirement for 11 low-income homes); and 8 homes at moderate-income. This approach meets the City’s affordable housing requirements.

The Project meets the 5% threshold under Gov’t Code § 65915(b)(1)(B). Alternatively, the Project can meet the 10% threshold under Gov’t Code § 65915(b)(1)(D). Under either scenario, Gov’t Code § 65915 (e) applies. Please note that Brentwood’s density bonus application is for units, incentives and concessions, and reduced parking, which Applicant is not currently seeking.

205 6203715.52 2167849.83 153.01 SCATTERED BRUSH SCATTERED BRUSH SCATTERED BRUSH SCATTERED BRUSH SCATTERED BRUSH SCATTERED BRUSH SCATTERED BRUSH SCATTERED BRUSH POOL SAN JOSE AVENUE GROUND NOT DENSE BRUSH DENSE BRUSH DENSE BRUSH DENSE BRUSH DENSE BRUSH DENSE BRUSH DENSE BRUSH DENSE BRUSH DENSE BRUSH 173 251
194
133 PARCEL 'H' PARCEL 'G' PARCEL 'B' PARCEL 'D' PARCEL 'C' C.3 TREATMENT & SEWER STORMWATER DETENTION, OPEN SPACE PARCEL 'A' PORTION OF PARK < 3% SLOPE STORM WATER DETENTION & C.3 TREATMENT
PARCEL 'F' PERMANENT1234567891011121415161718192021
22 23
24 25
52 53
54 55
56 57
58 59
60 61
62 63
64 65
66 67
68 69
70 71
72 73
74 75
97 96
95 94
93 92
91 90
89 88
87 86
85 84
83 82
81 80
79 78
77 76
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
116
115
114
113
112
111
110
109
108
107
106
105
104
103
102
101
100
99 98 26 27 28 29 3031 32 34 35 3738 5150
49 48
47 46
45 43 4241
40 39
44 33 36 126
127128129 130 132 131
135
136
150
149
148
147
146 145 144 143 142 141 140 139 138 137
134
151
152
153
154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162
163
164
165
166
167
168
170 171 172 174 175 176 177 178 180 179 181 182
183
184
185 186 187
188
169
243242241 240239 238 244
245
246 247
248
249
250
252 253 254
255
220
221222 223
224
226
225
227 228 229 230 231
232
233
234
235
236 237 189 190 191 192 193 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217
218
13 203 204
219
269 268 265 264 263 260 259 258
257
256 267 266 262 261 PARCEL 'E' Stonebrook at Bridle Gate Master Plotting Plan Brentwood, CA West Coat Home Builders LegacyDesign Group November 8,2024 1 SINGLE STORY 2 SINGLE STORY 3 SINGLE STORY 4 TWO STORY 5 TWO STORY 6 TWO STORY 7 TWO STORY 8 TWO STORY 9 TWO STORY 10 TWO STORY 11 TWO STORY 12 TWO STORY PLAN # COUNT PERCENT 13 THREE STORY 104.0% 259.3% 166.0% 259.3% 207.4% 249.0% 259.0% 239.1% 259.3% 259.3% 259.3% 249.0% 00% GRAND TOTAL HOMES: 269 TOTAL PERCENT: 100% 1/16 INCH = 1'-0" NOTE: ASTERISK DENOTES AFFORDABLE HOUSING * LOCATION * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Page 398 of 962 1 November 26, 2024
Erik Nolthenius,
Planning Manager
City of Brentwood Community Development Department
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
Re: Alternate Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for the Bridle Gate Project Dear Mr. Nolthenius,
Raney Planning and Management, Inc. has prepared this Memorandum to address if alterations to the design of the proposed St. Regis Avenue/Chestnut Oak Drive/San Jose Avenue intersection that would be constructed as part of the Bridle Gate Project (proposed project), as well as the addition of a new site access roadway and the consolidation of the on-site parks associated with the Alternate Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (VTSM), would alter the conclusions of the Bridle Gate Project Draft Revised Environmental Impact Report (REIR), such that recirculation of the Draft REIR would be necessary. As discussed herein, the City of Brentwood’s approval of the Alternate VTSM would not result in a new significant impact or an increase in the severity of an impact previously identified in the Draft REIR. In addition, a comment letter on the Bridle Gate Project Draft REIR was submitted on August 27, 2024 by Leigh Prince of Fox Rothschild, LLA (see Attachment A of this Memorandum); as discussed in further detail below, the comment letter does not invalidate the conclusions of the Draft REIR, and the analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposed project contained therein remains valid. Therefore, the Alternate VTSM would be consistent with the analyses and conclusions presented in the Final REIR and does not necessitate recirculation of the Draft REIR, as the revisions do not trigger the criteria for recirculation established by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a).

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

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

17.486.004. The project refinements reduced the number of proposed residential lots from 286 to 272.

2 In addition, Millbrook Court, which was previously proposed for east of Park Parcel G, was reconfigured such that the cul-de-sac would now be extended and renamed Millbrook Drive, connecting to Rosewood Drive to the north and east. Due to the Millbrook Drive reconfiguration, Park Parcel G was reduced from 3.39 acres to 2.49 acres. The lots surrounding Park Parcel G were also moved to be located north of Millbrook Drive and south of the park. The public review period for the Final REIR occurred from August 25 to September 5, 2023. Since the release of the Final REIR, changes to the project components have not occurred. As detailed in the Draft REIR and Final REIR, all potential impacts associated with the proposed project, including those related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT), would either be less than significant or would be reduced to a less-thansignificant level through implementation of the mitigation measures set forth therein.

On August 27, 2024, the City Council held a public hearing on the appeal filed by the project applicant of the Planning Commission’s denial of the proposed project. During the hearing, the City Council raised concerns about traffic circulation and impacts on adjacent/surrounding neighborhoods, CEQA impacts related to VMT, a preference for providing one large park instead of two smaller ones, compliance with PD-36 Subarea C standards, deterioration of ridgelines, and noise. Based on the public comments and concerns raised by the City Council, a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s denial of the project was unanimously passed by the City Council.

Subsequent to the August 27, 2024 City Council hearing, a Alternate VTSM has been prepared, as shown in Figure 1. As shown therein, the new portion of San Jose Avenue within the project site would not connect with the existing portion of San Jose Avenue for general public vehicular traffic. Similarly, Chestnut Oak Drive would not connect with St. Regis Avenue for public vehicular traffic. Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure connections would still be developed between the foregoing roadways, and a 20-foot-wide emergency vehicle access (EVA) connection would be provided to the project site. In addition, as shown in the Alternate VTSM, a new site access roadway, labeled as Oak Lane, would be provided from Sand Creek Road, east of the main site entrance. As discussed in further detail below, a sound wall would be installed along the new corner lots along Oak Lane.

In addition, whereas the previous VTSM for the proposed project included two neighborhood parks in Parcel A and Parcel G totaling 4.35 acres, the Alternate VTSM includes a single larger park (8.49 acres) within Parcel A, in the northwestern corner of the site. Parcel G of the previous VTSM has been reconfigured into residential lots. With the reconfiguration of the proposed residential lots, as well as the deletion of the three-story homes in the southern portion of the site, the Alternate VTSM now includes 269 residential lots, as compared to the previously proposed 272 residential lots.

DKS Associates prepared an Updated VMT Assessment based on the Alternate VTSM (see Attachment B of this Memorandum),1 which was peer reviewed by Kimley-Horn (see Attachment C of this Memorandum),2 and Saxelby Acoustics, LLC prepared an Updated Noise Assessment based on the Alternate VTSM (see Attachment D of this Memorandum), 3 which was peer reviewed
by Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (see Attachment E of this Memorandum).4 1 DKS Associates. VMT Assessment for Bridle Gate Residential Project - Updated. October 11, 2024. 2 Kimley-Horn. Final Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment Peer Review. November 8, 2024. 3 Saxelby Acoustics, LLC. Bridle Gate Residential Project – Response to Noise Comments from the August 27, 2024 City Council Hearing – City of Brentwood, California. October 11, 2024. 4 Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. (BAC) Peer Review of the Bridle Gate Residential Environmental Noise Assessment updated prepared by Saxelby Acoustics dated October 11, 2024.

November 4, 2024.

3 Figure 1
Alternate Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map

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

Significant new information is defined as information that changes a Draft EIR “…in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on…” a significant impact, a feasible way to mitigate an impact, or a feasible way to avoid an impact. The following identifies circumstances that would be considered “significant new information” that would trigger recirculation:
• Information that shows a new significant impact;
• Information that shows an increase in the severity of an impact (unless mitigation measures are identified to reduce it to acceptable levels);
• Information that identifies a feasible new alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from other analyzed alternatives or mitigation measures that would clearly lessen project impacts and the applicant declines to implement the measure; and/or • Information that demonstrates that the Draft EIR was fundamentally flawed, basically inadequate, and conclusory in nature, thus, precluding meaningful public review and comment.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b), recirculation is not required if the information added to an EIR merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications. The Alternate VTSM is discussed further below with respect to how the revisions could affect the Draft REIR’s VMT conclusion under Impact 4.5-3 (Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision [b]), to determine if the revisions associated with the Alternate VTSM would constitute significant new information should it be selected for implementation. The analysis below is based on the conclusions of the DKS Associates assessment. The discussion is then followed by an evaluation of how any changes in VMT and site design as a result of the Alternate VTSM could affect other environmental issue areas required for analysis under CEQA, which would primarily include air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and noise.

Transportation
As discussed above, under the Alternate VTSM, the new portion of San Jose Avenue within the project site would not connect with the existing portion of San Jose Avenue for general public vehicular traffic. Similarly, Chestnut Oak Drive would not connect with St. Regis Avenue for public vehicular traffic. Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure connections would still be developed between the foregoing roadways, and a 20-foot-wide EVA connection would be provided to the project site. In addition, as shown in the Alternate VTSM, a new site access roadway, labeled as Oak Lane, would be provided from Sand Creek Road, east of the main site entrance.

According to the California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity (CAPCOA Handbook), one method of reducing VMT is to increase intersection density, listed as Measure T-17. 5 The CAPCOA Handbook states that increasing intersection density (i.e., by converting cul-de-sacs or dead-end streets to grid streets) decreases VMT by promoting improved connectivity to facilitate shorter trips, encourage more walking and biking, and reduce GHG emissions.

DKS Associates determined that the Alternate VTSM would include project-wide intersection density such that project-generated VMT per capita would be 25.08, which is below the applicable threshold 5 California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association. Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity. December 2021.

5 of 25.2 VMT per resident. Therefore, approval of the Alternate VTSM would be consistent with the conclusion of Impact 4.5-3 of the Draft REIR.

In addition, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has reviewed the Alternate VTSM and expressed concerns regarding traffic safety associated with the new site access roadway.

However, Conditions of Approval will be required from the Public Works Department to address such concerns and ensure that all access points and internal roadways would be safely designed so as not to create any hazardous design elements.

Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise
Potential increases in VMT would result in an associated potential increase in air quality pollutants, GHG emissions, and noise level increases. With respect to air quality and GHG emissions, as discussed above, the proposed Alternate VTSM would not substantially increase VMT beyond that which was identified in the Draft REIR. In addition, because the Alternate VTSM would result in a reduction in residential units, the Alternate VTSM would slightly reduce a portion of the vehicle trips accessing eastbound SR 4 and eastbound Sand Creek Road. Thus, the Alternate VTSM would not result in substantial increases to project-generated criteria pollutants during project operation, which were concluded under Impact 4.1-2 of the Draft REIR to be less than significant. In addition, the Draft REIR determined that with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5-3 (pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.1-6[a]) and prohibition of natural gas within the proposed structures as required by Mitigation Measure 4.1-6(b), the potential impact related to GHG emissions would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, approval of the Alternate VTSM would similarly result in a lessthan-significant impact with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.1-6(a) and 4.1-6(b). Based on the above, approval of the Alternate VTSM would be consistent with the analyses and conclusions related to air quality and GHG emissions in the Draft REIR.

With respect to noise, the Draft REIR determined under Impact 4.4-2 that noise-level increases at existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity as a result of project-generated traffic would be, at most, 0.9 dB, with most noise-level increases projected to not exceed 0.4 dB. Thus, the Draft REIR concluded that with regard to noise-level increases related to traffic, the proposed project would not exceed the applicable threshold of 1.5 dB and a less-than-significant impact would occur. According to Saxelby Acoustics, LLC, construction and operation associated with the Alternate VTSM would not increase off-site noise and vibration levels in violation of the City’s standards or the requirements of CEQA. Therefore, the Alternate VTSM would not result in an increase to existing roadway traffic volumes such that the proposed project would be anticipated to result in a new significant impact related to traffic noise beyond what was identified in the Draft REIR and, thus, the proposed Alternate VTSM would be consistent with he analyses and conclusions related to noise in the Draft REIR. It is noted, however, that Saxelby Acoustics, LLC states that an eight-foot sound wall would be required along the lots adjacent to Oak Lane in order to ensure that interior noise levels meet the City’s interior noise standard, as shown in Figure 4 of the Updated Noise Assessment (see Attachment D of this Memorandum).

Remaining Environmental Issue Areas
With respect to the remaining environmental issue areas addressed in the Draft REIR, approval of the proposed Alternate VTSM would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts beyond what was identified in the Draft REIR or Final REIR or information that identifies a feasible new alternative or mitigation measure that would clearly lessen project impacts or demonstrates that the Draft REIR and Final REIR are fundamentally flawed. For example, alterations to the routing of project-generated traffic as a result of the proposed Alternate VTSM would not necessitate the construction of off-site roadways that were not previously proposed and analyzed in

6 the Draft REIR or Final REIR, or any other alterations to the previously evaluated area of disturbance.

Thus, the proposed Alternate VTSM would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, or mineral resources. The Alternate VTSM would result in fewer new residential units as compared to the proposed project and, thus, would not result in associated population increases beyond what was evaluated in the Draft REIR and Final REIR. In addition, although the on-site park uses would be consolidated into one lot, the acreage provided would not change. Therefore, new or substantially more severe significant impacts would not occur related to energy consumption, land use and planning, population and housing, public services, recreation, utilities and service systems, or wildfire. Finally, as the Alternate VTSM would only result in a decrease of project-generated traffic to previously proposed and/or existing roadways in the project vicinity, and would not result in changes related to the visual appearance of the proposed development or the amount of light and/or glare generated, new or substantially more severe significant impacts would not occur related to aesthetics. Thus, approval of the Alternate VTSM would be consistent with the analyses and conclusions related to the Draft REIR’s remaining environmental issue areas.

Response to Comment
A comment letter on the Bridle Gate Project Draft REIR was submitted on August 27, 2024 by Leigh Prince of Fox Rothschild, LLA (see Attachment E of this Memorandum). Responses to the comments within the letter are provided below.

The comment letter states that the proposed project is inconsistent with General Plan Policy COS 7- 1, which states that the City shall protect Brentwood’s ridgelines from erosion, slope failure, and development. However, as discussed in Section VII, Geology and Soils, of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project, although the project site is located on a slope, implementation of Mitigation Measure VII-5, which requires the applicant to submit to the City a letter from a qualified Geotechnical Engineer and Civil Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for any lot stating that the lot has been constructed in conformance with the approved Grading Plan and recommendations in a Geotechnical Report that provides feasible measures to address potential impacts related to slope failure. In addition, pursuant to Mitigation Measure VII-7, the project applicant shall be required to submit an erosion control plan to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to approval of a grading permit, thus ensuring that erosion would not occur. Furthermore, the aesthetic impacts of the proposed project are addressed in Section I, Aesthetics, of the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project. It is also noted that the language of Policy COS 7-1 does not constitute an absolute prohibition on ridgeline development.

With respect to the commenter’s claim that the proposed project conflicts with General Plan Policy CIR 3-4, as discussed above, pursuant to the Alternate VTSM, the new portion of San Jose Avenue within the project site would not connect with the existing portion of San Jose Avenue for general public vehicular traffic, and Chestnut Oak Drive would not connect with St. Regis Avenue for public vehicular traffic. Because the proposed project would no longer include connections to the aforementioned streets for vehicular traffic, cut-through traffic would be further discouraged, and the project would be consistent with Policy CIR 3-4. With respect to the proposed project’s alleged conflict with General Plan LU 2-8, the language of the Policy is as follows: “Provide for a variety to residential products through the Zoning Ordinance in order to accommodate the housing needs of all segments of the City’s population.” The intent of the Policy is to provide a City-wide goal, and is not intended to apply to individual development projects. Furthermore, as discussed in further detail below, the proposed project is consistent with the site’s PD-36 zoning designation.

7 The zoning for the project site is PD-36, which is set forth in Brentwood Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 17.486 and includes a map that does not show any subarea boundaries. Chapter 17.486 does, however, include objective zoning standards for PD-36 that are consistent with the General Plan designation. The fact that the map for PD-36 does not include locations for the various subareas was one of the subjects of a lawsuit concerning the project application. In that lawsuit, the City took the position that the residential development standards in BMC Section 17.486.004 (referring to Subarea C) were appropriate. This conclusion was consistent with the property’s General Plan designation of Residential Low Density, which allows for residential development densities ranging from 1.1 to 5.0 units per acre. The court hearing the lawsuit did not raise concerns with using these objective standards to review the subject application, and so these have been applied. As such, consistent with the analysis of the Draft REIR for the proposed project and the decision of the court, the proposed project is subject to compliance only with the Subarea C standards established for the PD-36 zoning designation, and is not subject to Subarea D or Subarea E standards. Therefore, the comment does not invalidate the conclusions of the Draft REIR, and the analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposed project contained therein remains valid.

Conclusion
As demonstrated above, the proposed Alternate VTSM is consistent with the analyses and conclusions of the Draft REIR and revisions to the Draft REIR and/or Final REIR are not required.

Thus, the proposed Alternate VTSM does not constitute significant new information and recirculation of the Draft REIR is not warranted.

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

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

Attachment A Comment Letter from Leigh Prince of Fox Rothschild, LLA Attachment B Updated VMT Assessment
Attachment C Updated VMT Assessment Peer Review
Attachment D Updated Noise Assessment
Attachment E Updated Noise Assessment Peer Review

8 Attachment A
Comment Letter

161981584.6

LEIGH PRINCE
Direct No: 704.384.2617
Email: [email protected]
345 California Street, Suite 2200
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.364.5540 415.391.4436
101 S. Tryon Street, Suite1700
Charlotte, NC 28280
704.384.2600 704.384.2800
www.foxrothschild.com
August 27, 2024
Via Email: [email protected]
City Council
City of Brentwood
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
Re: Bridle Gate Project – City Council Public Hearing Item F.1 Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:

This letter is written on behalf of Discovery Builders, Inc. in support of the Planning Commission’s unanimous denial of the Bridle Gate Project (“Project”) on the basis that the Project does not comply with either the City’s General Plan or the Municipal Code.

A. The Project does not comply with the City’s General Plan.

The Planning Commission made findings that the Project does not comply with General Plan policies to protect Brentwood’s ridgelines or discourage cut-through traffic.

See General Plan Policy COS 7-1 and CIR 3-4. The City Council can also make these findings and deny the Project. It should be noted, however, that the City Council is not limited to these findings and may find that the Project does not comply with other General Plan policies. For example, by not including larger lot sizes as required in Subarea D, an objective zoning standard, the Project does not conform to Policy LU 2-8 to provide a variety of residential products through the Zoning Ordinance to accommodate the housing needs of all segments of the City’s population.

The courts defer to a local agency’s determination of consistency, or lack thereof:
“When we review an agency’s decision for consistency with its own general plan, we accord great deference to the agency’s determination. This is because the body which adopted the general plan policies in its legislative capacity has unique competence to interpret those policies when applying them in its adjudicatory capacity.” Save Our Peninsula Comm. v Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4 th 99, 142.

Thus, the Council’s decision to deny based on findings that the Project does not conform to the City’s General Plan policies would be given great deference.

August 27, 2024

161981584.6
B. The Project does not comply with the City’s Municipal Code.

The Planning Commission also found that the Project did not comply with the City’s Municipal Code by failing to conform to both Subarea C and Subarea D standards.

Attached is the letter submitted to the Planning Commission explaining that the land use regulations applicable to the Project are not limited to Subarea C standards, but also include Subarea D standards and Subarea E standards, even after the court decision.

The staff report is correct that the court did not address these other Subarea standards.

These standards are codified in the City’s Municipal Code remain applicable as to open space, ridgeline preservation and lot sizes.

C. The Environmental Impact Report should not be certified.

As outlined in the attached letter to the Planning Commission, there are inadequacies in the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”). Therefore, the City Council should not certify the EIR, and does not need to certify the EIR when it denies the Project.

For all the foregoing reasons, Discovery Builders urges the City Council to uphold the Planning Commission’s determination that the Project is not in compliance or conformance with both the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code and deny the appeal.

Sincerely,
Leigh Prince
Enclosure
cc: Anita Roberts ([email protected])
David Sparling ([email protected])
Gerald Johnson ([email protected])
Rod Flohr ([email protected])
Kristopher Brand ([email protected])

August 27, 2024

161981584.6
Erik Nolthenius ([email protected])
Katherine Wisinski ([email protected])
City Clerk ([email protected])
Clients

LEIGH PRINCE
Direct No: 704.384.2617
Email: [email protected]
345 California Street, Suite 2200
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.364.5540 415.391.4436
101 S. Tryon Street, Suite1700
Charlotte, NC 28280
704.384.2600 704.384.2800
www.foxrothschild.com
July 16, 2024
Via Email
Planning Commission
City of Brentwood
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
Re: Bridle Gate Housing Development Project - Planning Commission Hearing July 16, 2024 – Item E.1
Dear Planning Commission:

My firm represents Discovery Builders, Inc. and this letter pertains to the housing development project in the City of Brentwood known as Bridle Gate Project Subdivision 9586 (“Project”) and is submitted for the Planning Commission hearing regarding the Project on July 16, 2024.

In reviewing the staff report, it appears that City staff have determined only Subarea C standards in the PD-36 zoning district apply and therefore the Project meets applicable objective requirements of the City’s land use regulations. This conclusion is incorrect.

City staff submitted a comment letter on August 2, 2022 (attached) while reviewing this Project and summarized the land use regulations applicable to this Project. Applicable land use regulations, as indicated by staff, are not limited to Subarea C standards.

Furthermore, there is a final court ruling Superior Court ruling N22-1738 (attached) as a result of an April 27, 2023 hearing. The issue in the case was whether PD-36 was valid and whether lots less than 5,000 square feet were acceptable. The court did not find PD36 invalid and held that the minimum lot size in the PD-36 zoning district for Subarea C was 5,000 square feet (an objective standard). Although lots could not be smaller, nothing in the court’s ruling suggests larger 10,000 square foot lots (also an objective standard for Subarea D) were not appropriate. The court did not rule that only Subarea C requirements applied.

July 16, 2024

160675160.1
Following are some objective standards outlined in the City’s Municipal Code – PD-36 – that the current application does not comply with:
• Subarea D – requiring 10,000 sq ft lot minimums
• Subarea E – specifying open space preservation, specifically the sensitive topographic areas
• Maximum number of units: 124 in Subarea C and 42 in Subarea D for a total maximum allowable unit count of 166
Government Code section 65589.5(j) provides that the City may require the proposed housing development to comply with the objective standards and criteria of the zoning that are consistent with the general plan; however, the standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development at the density allowed on the site by the general plan. Here, whether Subarea C standards only or standards consistent with City staff’s August 2nd letter are applied the Project would still be consistent with the general plan density of 1.1 to 5 units per acre. Applying only Subarea C results in approx. 4 units per acre and applying the Subareas as shown in the August 2nd letter results in approx. 3 units per acre. As argued by the City during the litigation, the Planning Commission (and if appealed, the City Council) will be the final decision maker regarding compliance with all applicable land use regulations.

In order to comply with the objective standards as outlined in the City’s August 2, 2022 letter that is consistent with the allowable general plan density and the final court order, the Project needs to be redesigned. Moving forward with approval of the application as presented will be in violation of the applicable objective standards and therefore the application would not be subject to the protections of the Housing Accountability Act.

In addition, upon reviewing the latest map, there is a future San Jose Road extension to the west in the Southwest portion of the Project site. This is not adequately addressed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project, and it should be further analyzed and addressed. This future San Jose Road extension will be crossing a jurisdictional wetland and also crossing and impacting a significant PG&E gas line.

Environmental impacts of this future road extension should be fully addressed and

July 16, 2024

160675160.1
discussed in the EIR. Furthermore, if this road extension is completed, it will impact traffic patterns for this Project and the City. This extension is not adequately addressed is the City’s traffic studies for this Project.

In summary, Discovery Builders, Inc. urges the Planning Commission to request that the Project be revised to comply with the objective standards identified in City staff’s letter dated August 2, 2022 and for the EIR to be updated to adequately and comprehensively address the future San Jose Road extension.

Sincerely,
Leigh Prince
Enclosures
cc: Anita Roberts ([email protected])
David Sparling ([email protected])
Gerald Johnson ([email protected])
Rod Flohr ([email protected])
Kristopher Brand ([email protected])
Erik Nolthenius ([email protected])
Katherine Wisinski ([email protected])
City Clerk ([email protected])
Louis Parsons [email protected]
David Young [email protected]

MERITAGE• VISION• Of>l'OllTUNITY
August 2, 2022
Louis Parsons
Discovery Builders, Inc.
4061 Port Chicago Highway
Concord, CA 94520
Subject: Review of the Bridle Gate project consistency with PD-36 Zone Development Standards and Brentwood General Plan Land Use Policies (APN 019-082- 007)
Mr. Louis Parsons:

Thank you for your recent submittals proposing the development of 286 single family residences, two parks, a commercial area, and open space on 135.31 acres located at the west end of Sand Creek Road and west of State Route 4. Based on a review of the application submittal materials, staff has determined that the project, as proposed, is inconsistent with the Development Standards for the PD-36 zone (pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code Section 17.486), the Brentwood General Plan, and the City's Residential Design Guidelines.

As you know, the proposed project includes development within subareas C, D, and E of the PD36 zone as approved by City Council in 2006. The subarea map is included as an attachment to this letter. The subareas should be clearly delineated on the proposed vesting tentative map.

Consistency with Zoning Regulations
Chapter 17.486 PD-36 Zone of the Brentwood Municipal Code includes the permitted uses, conditionally permitted uses, and general development standards within each subarea of the PD36 zone.

Subarea C is located between Bridle Gate Drive, State Route 4, Sand Creek Road, and the southern boundary of the project site. The following are the applicable development standards required for subarea C. Inconsistencies or unmet requirements are noted under the sections in italics.

Section 17.486.004 (C)

1. Minimum lot size: Five thousand square feet;
• Proposed minimum lot size is 4,500, and does not meet this requirement.

2. Minimum lot width: Fifty feet;
• Many proposed lots have a width of 45 feet, and do not meet his requirement.

3. Minimum lot frontage: Thirty-five feet at the front property line for lots on culs-de-sac, knuckles, or curvilinear streets;

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
150 City Park Way • Brentwood, California 94513
Phone: 925-516-5405 • Fax: 925-5115-5407
e-mail: dept-comdev@brentwoodca Page 413 of 962
Parsons
August 2, 2022
Page2
• Requirement met.

4. Minimum front yard setback: Twenty feet for front-facing garages; fifteen feet for building walls and porches;
• Proposed setback requirement to garage is 20 feet, and requirement is met. • Proposed setback to living and porch is 10 feet, and requirement is not met.

5. Minimum side yard setback: Five feet, with the sum of both sides twelve feet; corner lots shall maintain a minimum setback of ten feet on the streetside yard; • Proposed minimum side yard setback is 5 feet, but the sum of both sides does not equal 12 feet, and the requirement is not met.
• Proposed streetside yard setbacks for corners lots maintains a minimum of 10 feet and the requirement is met.

6. Minimum rear yard setback: Fifteen feet, with an average of twenty feet; • Proposed minimum rear yard setback is 15 feet, but does not average 20 feet and the requirement is not met.

7. Maximum building height: Two stories, not to exceed thirty feet; • Building heights for single- and two-story homes are not included in the proposed vesting tentative map and must meet this requirement.

8. Corner lot fence setback: Five feet from the street side property line; all other fence regulations shall adhere to the requirements of Chapter 17.660 of [Title 17 of the Brentwood Municipal Code];
• Fence setbacks are not included in the proposed vesting tentative map and must meet this requirement.

9. Lots adjacent to open space shall utilize a six-foot high open space fence along the common property line(s), as approved through VTSM 8506;
• Fence heights for these lots are not included in the proposed vesting tentative map and must meet this requirement.

10. Accessory structures shall be prohibited in side or rear yards for areas exceeding a 3: 1 slope;
• No accessory structures are shown on the proposed vesting tentative map.

Insomuch as none are proposed, this requirement is met.

11. Maximum lot coverage: Forty percent for two-story homes and forty-five percent for singlestory homes; · • The proposed 40% lot coverage for two-story homes meets the requirement. • The proposed 50% lot coverage for single-story homes does not meet the requirement.

12. Maximum number of primary dwelling units: One hundred twenty-four. (Ord. 857 § 2, 2008) • The proposed vesting tentative map exceeds the maximum number of lots allowed within subarea C.

Subarea D is located between Cottonwood Avenue and Heatherwood Drive. The general development standards for subarea D are found in Section 17.486.005 of the Brentwood

Parsons
August 2, 2022
Page3
Municipal Code.

Section 17.486.005 (C)

1. Minimum lot size: Ten thousand square feet;
• Proposed minimum lot size is 4,500, and does not meet this requirement.

2. Minimum lot width: Ninety feet;
• Many proposed lots have a width of 45 feet, and do not meet his requirement.

3. Minimum lot frontage: Forty-five feet at the front property line for lots on culs-de-sac, knuckles, or curvilinear streets;
• No proposed cul-de-sacs within subarea D.

4. Minimum front yard setback: Twenty feet for front-facing garages; fifteen feet for building walls and porches;
• Proposed setback requirement to garage is 20 feet, and requirement is met. • Proposed setback to living and porch is 1 O feet, and requirement is not met.

5. Minimum side yard setback: Five feet, with the sum of both sides fifteen feet; corner lots shall maintain a minimum setback of ten feet on the street side yard. • Proposed minimum side yard setback is 5 feet, but the sum of both sides does not equal 15 feet, and the requirement is not met.
• Proposed streetside yard setbacks for corners lots maintains a minimum of 1 O feet and the requirement is met.

6. Minimum rear yard setback: Fifteen feet, with an average of twenty feet. • Proposed minimum rear yard setback is 15 feet, but does not average 20 feet for every lot within subarea D and the requirement is not met.

7. Maximum building height: Two stories, not to exceed thirty feet; except that the ten lots referenced on the approved residential site plan with Model 11 shall not exceed thirty-three and one-half feet;
• Building heights for single- and two-story homes are not included in the proposed vesting tentative map and must meet this requirement.

8. Corner lot fence setback: five feet from the street side property line; all other fence regulations shall adhere to the requirements of Chapter 17.660 of this title; • Fence setbacks are not included in the proposed vesting tentative map and must meet this requirement.

9. Lots adjacent to open space shall utilize a six-foot-high open space fence along the common property line(s), as approved through VTSM 8506;
• Fence heights for these lots are not included in the proposed vesting tentative map and must meet this requirement.

10. Accessory structures shall be prohibited in side or rear yards for areas exceeding a 3: 1 slope; • No accessory structures are shown on the proposed vesting tentative map.

Insomuch as none are proposed, this requirement is met.

Parsons
August 2, 2022
Page4

11. Maximum lot coverage: Forty percent for two-story homes and forty-five percent for singlestory homes; • The proposed 40% lot coverage for two-story homes meets the requirement. • The proposed 50% lot coverage for single-story homes does not meet the requirement.

12. Maximum number of primary dwelling units: Forty-two. (Ord. 857 § 2, 2008) • The proposed vesting tentative map exceeds the maximum number of lots allowed within subarea D.

Subarea E is located west of Heatherwood Drive, and extends to the northern, western, and southern boundaries of the project site. Permitted uses within subarea E are:
•
•
•
•
•
Public recreational areas;
Public or quasi-public rights-of-way for utility, irrigation, drainage, or similar areas utilized for or having the potential to be utilized for trials or similar uses; Open space as a reserve for fire protection, seismic safety, water conservation, protection of view, or similar appropriate purposes;
Parks, playgrounds, and recreational trails;
Conservation easements for wetland and habitat preservation and mitigation related to development of SPA E.

Conditionally permitted uses with subarea E include:
• An addition to an existing structure which will increase the coverage of the structure by five hundred square feet, or any new structure in excess of five hundred square feet, except minor recreational structures such as playground equipment, trellises, and similar uses;
• Any commercial use which may be conducted on open space land without substantially detracting from its value as open space such as golf courses, riding academies or stables, tennis or swim clubs, and similar recreational-related uses of a predominantly open nature.

All uses in subarea E are subject to the design and site development review procedures established in Chapter 17.820. The setback, building height, parking, and other design and performance criteria shall be established at the time of the proposed development and in accordance with any development standards established by resolution for the type of use proposed.

The proposed vesting tentative map shows single-family lots within subarea E, which is neither a permitted or conditionally permitted use per Section 17. 486. 006 of the Brentwood Municipal Code.

Consistency with General Plan Policies
Policy LU 2-1 states: Maintain Brentwood's predominant land use of single family residential, while providing for a mix of housing types throughout the community, in accordance with the Housing Element. Consistent with this policy, the PD-36 zone included a subarea with a 5,000- square-foot (sf) lot minimum, and a subarea with a 10,000-sf lot minimum, in order to achieve a mix in housing and lot sizes. However, the proposed project includes a 4,500-sf lot minimum throughout the development, and therefore does not achieve a mix of housing types.

Parsons
August 2, 2022
Page5
Consistency with City of Brentwood Residential Design Guidelines Section 2.4 Landscaping - 2.4.1 Street Trees
• Street trees are required along all public and private streets at a minimum of 1 tree per lot, plus 2 additional trees on the side of corner lots.

Not all comer Jots within the proposed development map include 2 additional trees on the side yard.

Project Comments Unrelated to Consistency with Objective Standards In addition to the foregoing. staff also notes:

Section 1.6 Basic Design Principles - 4.
• Minimize the impact of garages and driveways along street frontages.

The proposed Vesting Tentative Map shows many of the lot frontages being 45 feet. Having narrow lot widths makes minimizing the impact of garages and driveways difficult. Additionally, the layout of the lots in a linear design without curves or breaks only emphasizes garages and driveways further.

Section 2.1 Subdivision Layout - 2.1.1 Neighborhoods:
• Incorporates natural features into the site design to enhance the subdivisions' visual links to their unique location.

PD-36 subarea E maintained open space around the onsite hills, however the project includes development on a portion of subarea E.

Section 2.2 Streets - 2.2.1 Internal Streets:
• Interior streets should have visual interest with street trees, parks trips, decorative street lights, and landscape bulbs to reduce apparent street width. • Internal streets should be faced by no more than a maximum of 1 O uninterrupted parking spaces or garages. Significant landscaped areas, including trees and with a minimum width of 5 feet, should separate blocks of garages and/or parking spaces.

While the minimum 5-foot side yard setback may meet the minimum required in the guidelines, the length of Cottonwood Avenue and Heatherwood Drive do not meet the intent of the guideline. For example, Heatherwood Drive has over 1,600 feet of lots that are very similar in size in a straight line, with one street tree each.

This layout will not minimize driveways or create a streetscape with visual interest.

In order to proceed with the proposed project, project plans must be revised to be compliant with all applicable regulations and guidelines or a rezone application to modify the development standards is required.

Staff will provide additional project comments, which are not related to inconsistencies with objective standards, in separate correspondence. Please note that as the City continues processing of your application, it may identify additional information that is necessary to clarify, amplify, correct, or supplement your application.

Parsons
August 2, 2022
Page6
If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact Erik Nolthenius by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
C+--
Alexis Morris
Community Development Director, City of Brentwood
(925) 516-5405

Parsons
August 2, 2022

17.486.08
Attachment: Subarea Map for PD-36
SUBAREA MAP FOR PD-36
(subarea D:)10,000 sq ft
min lots
-- ' . • :.,11,
*iii n:r: . !
Km ·;r jnJ ,,. -......
:r·
(Subarea C:). ·, ____ ---- ---- _______ /
5,000 sq ft
min lots

Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County
Department 12
925-608-1000
www.cc-courts.org
K. Bieker
Court Executive Officer

MINUTE ORDER
DISCOVERY BUILDERS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS.

CITY OF BRENTWOOD, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL-LAW CITY
N22-1738
HEARING DATE: 04/27/2023
PROCEEDINGS: *HEARING ON MOTION IN RE: JUDGMENT ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE (CONTINUED FROM 3/30/23 CALENDAR)
DEPARTMENT 12
JUDICIAL OFFICER: CHARLES S TREAT
CLERK: DENESE JOHNSON
COURT REPORTER: RAQUEL SHARP, #10619
JOURNAL ENTRIES:

Counsel: Ellis Raskin & Andrew Bassak, for petitioner, are present in person.

Counsel: Kevin Siegel & Deepa Sharma, for respondent, appear via Zoom.

The Court issued the following tentative ruling:

Petitioners, Discovery Builders, Inc. and WCHB Development, LLC, request judgment on the pleadings. Among other items, their petition seeks a writ of mandate compelling Respondent and Defendant City of Brentwood to “proceed with processing” the Bridle Gate Project consistent with various applicable laws. They also seek a determination from this Court that the Project is consistent with the City’s standards, and that the City cannot require a zoning amendment.

The Court previously requested supplemental briefing to address several questions concerning Chapter 17.486 of the City’s Municipal Code, the “blank map” located at section 17.486.008 of that Chapter, ripeness and the issues before the Planning Commission, and timelines for further Project review. Parties have provided responsive supplemental briefs.

Having reviewed these materials, the motion is denied. As discussed below, Petitioners fail to meet their burden to demonstrate the requirements for a writ of mandate: a clear and present duty on the part of the City, and their entitlement to the City’s performance of any duty.

Requests for Judicial Notice
Both the City and Petitioners request judicial notice.

Petitioner requests notice of various provisions from the City’s Municipal Code (Exs 1-2, 6-7), a 2014 map from a draft EIR, not ultimately adopted (Ex 3); a City staff report regarding the 2014 General Plan Update agenda item for City Council (Ex 4); the Land Use Element of the City’s 2014 General Plan (Ex 5); Ordinance No. 960, adopted in 2015, as well as the attached blank map showing PD-36 (Ex 8); and the Department of Housing and Community Development’s Housing Accountability Act Technical Assistance Advisory (Ex. 9).

Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County
Department 12
925-608-1000
www.cc-courts.org
K. Bieker
Court Executive Officer
In support of its Opposition, the City requests notice of the judgment in a previous lawsuit between the parties (Ex. A); various provisions from the City’s municipal code (Exs. B-C); and provisions from other cities’ municipal codes, including Antioch, Danville, El Cerrito, Hercules, Lafayette, Moraga, Orinda, Pittsburg, Richmond, and Walnut Creek (Exs. D-M).

Both these requests are unopposed and granted.

On reply, Petitioners additionally request notice of an agenda for a meeting of the City of San Ramon Planning Commission for the purpose of showing statements by counsel for the City in this case. The request is denied based on relevance. Further, the argument of counsel is not evidence. (Fuller v. Tucker (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1163, 1173.)
In support of its supplemental brief, the City requests judicial notice of its Notice of Preparation of a Revised Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Bridle Gate Project. The request is granted.

Standard
The parties appear unsure about which sort of mandate controls our analysis. The court in Bunnett v. Regents of University of California (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 843, 848, provides the basic rules by which we may determine the applicable standard here:

The proper method of obtaining judicial review of most public agency decisions is by instituting a proceeding for a writ of mandate. Statutes provide for two types of review by mandate: ordinary mandate and administrative mandate. (Code Civ.Proc., §§ 1085 [ordinary], 1094.5 [administrative].) The nature of the administrative action or decision to be reviewed determines the applicable type of mandate. In general, quasi-legislative acts are reviewed by ordinary mandate and quasi-judicial acts are reviewed by administrative mandate. But judicial review via administrative mandate is available "only if the decision[ ] resulted from a 'proceeding in which by law: 1) a hearing is required to be given, 2) evidence is required to be taken, and 3) discretion in the determination of facts is vested in the agency." Thus, ordinary mandate is used to review adjudicatory actions or decisions when the agency was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing. (Citations omitted.)
Because no one has argued that an evidentiary hearing should have occurred in this matter, we proceed under the standard for ordinary mandate, Code of Civil Procedure § 1085. Section 1085 (a) provides that a writ of mandate may be issued “to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the party is entitled, and from which the party is unlawfully precluded by that inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person.” This has been read to require the showing of a (1) clear, present and usually ministerial duty on the part of the respondent and (2) a clear, present and beneficial right in the petitioner to the performance of that duty. (CV Amalgamated LLC v. City of Chula Vista (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 265,

Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County
Department 12
925-608-1000
www.cc-courts.org
K. Bieker
Court Executive Officer
278, citing Santa Clara County Counsel Attys. Assn. v. Woodside (1994) 7 Cal.4th 525, 539-40.) The petitioner bears the burden of pleading and proving the facts on which the claim for relief is based. (California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. State Personnel Bd. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1133, 1153.) Discussion

1. The Consistency Determination
Petitioners contend the Planning Commission was required to make the relevant consistency determination, that it did not, and this means the Project must be deemed to conform with any objective criteria. They contend the Court must order the City to “proceed with processing” the Project consistent with applicable laws and deem the Project compliant with all objective standards.

In support of their position, Petitioners urge the Court to examine the Legislative purposes of Government Code § 65589.5. Government Code, section 65589.5(j)(2) states (emphasis added):
(A) If the local agency considers a proposed housing development project to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision as specified in this subdivision, it shall provide the applicant with written documentation identifying the provision or provisions, and an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity as follows:
[…]
(ii) Within 60 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete, if the housing development project contains more than 150 units.
(B) If the local agency fails to provide the required documentation pursuant to subparagraph (A), the housing development project shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision.

Nothing in the statute itself refers to a meeting or determination by the Planning Commission.

Further, it is only where an applicant is not informed of an inconsistency within the relevant time period, that the housing project is "deemed consistent […] with the applicable plan, program," etc. (See Gov. Code, § 65589.5(j)(2)(B).)
In this case, the triggering event for deeming a project compliant did not occur. Petitioners were timely informed of the alleged inconsistency.

Parties here agree that the application was complete on June 3, 2022. Then, within 60 days, the City (staff) sent a letter (“written documentation”) on August 2, explaining the issues with the application (“an explanation of the reason or reasons it considers the housing development to be inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity”). This is all the statute requires.

Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County
Department 12
925-608-1000
www.cc-courts.org
K. Bieker
Court Executive Officer
The Court is not permitted to read additional requirements into the law, be it an implication that the Planning Commission make the consistency determination, or redefining the term “considers” to include a requirement that the agency opinion is correct.

A court's role in construing a statute is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature so as to effectuate the purpose of the law. (Merced Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 916, 924.) Courts look first at the words themselves, giving them their usual and ordinary meaning because statutory language is generally the most reliable indicator of that intent. (Ibid.) When the statutory language is clear, courts usually adopt the plain meaning of that language unless it would (1) produce absurd consequences that the Legislature clearly did not intend or (2) frustrate the manifest purposes that appear from the provisions of the legislation when considered as a whole in light of its legislative history. (Ibid.)
Petitioners argue that there are absurd consequences in construing the City’s August 2 letter as a valid consistency determination. The Housing Accountability Act must be “interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.” (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(a)(2)(L).) But requiring a local agency to convene a properly noticed Planning Commission meeting within the timelines mentioned in the statute (30 or 60 days) could also be an absurd consequence of the interpretation urged by Petitioners, as the City contends.

Because (1) the August 2 letter was sent, and (2) no one contends additional standards (beyond what was mentioned in the letter) should apply, there is no clear, present duty on the part of the City pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(j)(2)(B).

2. Zoning for PD-36
Petitioners argue they are entitled to an Order that their Project is consistent with all objective criteria—a determination premised on a finding that the zoning for PD-36—the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 17.486—is wholly invalid (see Petitioner Supplemental Brief, 10:20-22.) That premise is not sufficiently supported here.

The City’s Chapter 17.486 of its Municipal Code is titled “PD-36 (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT THIRTYSIX) ZONE.” It contains seven sections of text in addition to the attached map.

As reflected in the City’s August 2 letter, the text of section 17.486.004 provides that lot sizes for single-family residential areas within PD-36 must be a minimum of five thousand square feet. (See Raskin Decl., Ex. 3 [“1. Minimum lot size: Five thousand square feet; Proposed minimum lot size is 4,500, and does not meet this requirement.].)
This minimum is unambiguous and this section is the most permissive residential lot size that exists within Chapter 17.486 (the other minimum residential lot size being 10,000 square feet). One can derive, from this, the minimum lot size for residential lots within the area designated as PD-36.

That means any residential lot that measures less than this violates the Code provisions. No subjective judgment is necessary to determine whether residential lots can be less than 5,000 square feet. This is a standard that is “objective” pursuant to Government Code, § 65589.5(h)(8)

Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County
Department 12
925-608-1000
www.cc-courts.org
K. Bieker
Court Executive Officer
[“involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official”].) A similar construction is possible with respect to lot widths. The unambiguous and most permissive width for residential lots is 50 feet. The City’s August 2 letter states the Petitioners’ application includes lots that only measure 45 feet.

As the Court’s previous order mentioned, Petitioners make no argument that the lots in their Project comply with the standards of the text.

Although not mentioned by the parties, the Court notes that the City’s Municipal Code provides for inconsistencies in its rules of construction. The rules, listed in Chapter 1.01, state, in relevant part:

J. Severability. The titles, chapters, sections, subsections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses and phrases of this code are severable. If any is declared unconstitutional, invalid or unenforceable by a court, that determination shall not affect the remaining provisions.

K. If there is an inconsistency, the stricter regulation applies. (Ord. 999 § 1, 2018; Ord. 978 § 2, 2016)
Petitioner ignores the specifics of its Project, not presenting “substantial evidence” showing compliance with the relevant standards, relying instead on the invalidity of the zoning chapter. (See Gov. Code, § 65589.5(f)(4) discussing substantial evidence standard for consistency determination.) Petitioners do claim the zoning in PD-36 is inconsistent with the General Plan, but do not provide specifics as to how. Whether or not the Chapter is inconsistent with the General Plan may ultimately need to be determined in the course of this litigation, but the issue is not necessary to reach at this time.

Conclusion
Petitioners’ requested relief (the duty) is not particularly precise. An order of compliance with several broad statutory schemes, as well as “all applicable laws and regulations” does not sufficiently articulate a ministerial duty appropriate for a writ of mandate. (See Proposed Order on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment.) Petitioners fail to meet their burden to articulate a duty.

They also cannot show entitlement to the City’s performance as the City appears to already be granting the relief requested by continuing to process the application. (See RJN in Support of Supplemental Brief [draft revised EIR].) Parties agree there are still timelines (mandated by CEQA) applicable to the processing of the application. (See City’s Supplemental Brief, 3:16-28 and Petitioners’ Supplemental Brief, 12:10-13:8.)
Because the burden falls on Petitioners to show the existence of a clear and present duty, and their entitlement to the City’s performance, the motion must be denied.

Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County
Department 12
925-608-1000
www.cc-courts.org
K. Bieker
Court Executive Officer
The Court, having considered the pleadings and oral argument of counsel, adopts the above tentative ruling as the ruling of the Court.

A case management conference is set for 8/2/23 at 8;30 a.m.

FUTURE HEARING(S):

AUGUST 02, 2023 8:30 AM *CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

TREAT, CHARLES S

JOHNSON, DENESE
DEPARTMENT 12
DATED: 4/27/2023 BY:__________________________________
D. JOHNSON, DEPUTY CLERK

9 Attachment B
Updated VMT Assessment

BRENTWOOD BRIDLE GATE VMT ANALYSIS
DATE: October 11, 2024
TO: Doug Chen | WCHB Development LLC
FROM: Erin Vaca | DKS Associates
SUBJECT: VMT Assessment for Bridle Gate Residential Project – Updated Project #22265-001

INTRODUCTION
This memorandum is an update to the March 2023 analysis documenting the VMT characteristics of the proposed Bridle Gate residential development (“Project”) located in Brentwood, California. The March 2023 analysis was included in Appendix J of the Project’s Revised EIR (Raney Planning & Management Inc., May 2023). The Project originally consisted of 286 single-family residential lots at the southwest quadrant of State Route 4 and Sand Creek Road, and with parcels for parks, open space, and designated remainder, all within a gross area of approximately 135 acres. The Project site is currently vacant and is being used for grazing (see Figure 1 for location; a copy of the site plan is attached).

In response to the City’s request, the Project Applicant subsequently revised the site plan from 286 lots to 272 lots in order conform to PD-36 Subarea C standards. After Planning Commission Hearings on September 5, 2023, and July 16, 2024; and a City Council Hearing on August 27, 2024, the Project Applicant issued an Alternate Map (269-lot configuration) dated September 19, 2024, to address City Council comments. DKS’s October 3, 2024, memo provided a qualitative VMT analysis of the Alternate Map.

A quantitative VMT analysis of the Alternate Map has been performed and confirms the previous findings of Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation (the mitigation measure remains valid).

BACKGROUND ON SENATE BILL 743 AND VMT METRICS
California Senate Bill 743, adopted in 2013, brought about changes in the approach to measuring the transportation impacts of projects subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Effective July 2020, the transportation impacts of projects are primarily measured in terms of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) characteristics.

BRENTWOOD BRIDLEGATE PROJECT • VMT ASSESSMENT• OCTOBER 2024 2 FIGURE 1: PROJECT LOCATION

BRENTWOOD BRIDLEGATE PROJECT • VMT ASSESSMENT• OCTOBER 2024 3 The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has issued technical guidance recommending that residential and employment land use projects be assessed in terms of VMT per capita, and that the recommended threshold of significance be set at 85% of the existing baseline VMT per capita or per employee. The OPR technical guidance also specifies circumstances under which projects may be presumed to have less than significant VMT impacts (i.e., screening criteria).

METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS STANDARDS
In compliance with SB 743 and following OPR guidance, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) has implemented VMT analysis methodologies in its Growth Management Plan (GMP) Implementation Guide (revised February 2021). This document specifies the methodology, screening criteria, and thresholds of significance that member jurisdictions should follow to remain in compliance with the GMP. This assessment utilizes follows methodologies specified in the GMP Implementation Guide to calculate the VMT characteristics of the proposed project.

VERSION OF CCTA MODEL AND VMT SUMMARY SCRIPT
DKS conducted analysis using the 2020 version of the CCTA travel demand model1 which incorporates the “P2017” land use forecasts. Model files previously used for analysis of other projects in Brentwood were reviewed to ensure consistency (model files used by TJKM and provided by the City of Brentwood). In particular, the land use input file (without the project) was compared and found to be identical. While the TJKM script used to calculate VMT for each TAZ appeared to differ from the script supplied by CCTA, the resulting VMT was very similar (see Project VMT Analysis, below).

Although the project’s proposed residential units are in the model’s land use file, the model does not forecast activation of this land use until many years in the future. To conduct the project VMT analysis, DKS modified the master land use file to reflect project land use for a 2020 scenario.

THRESHOLD OF SIGNIFICANCE
The threshold of significance is based on a citywide average of 29.6 VMT per capita, as reported by the City of Brentwood. In conformance with the GMP, this results in a threshold of significance of

25.2 VMT per capita or 15% below the existing citywide average. For comparison, the County-wide residential VMT per capita is 19.4, which would imply a significance threshold of 16.5. Per the GMP, however, the less stringent threshold may be used.
1 For reference, the source script for this version of the model is “cctamodel20201014.rsc”.

BRENTWOOD BRIDLEGATE PROJECT • VMT ASSESSMENT• OCTOBER 2024 4

PROJECT ANALYSIS

PROJECT SCREENING
The GMP Implementation Guide lists five screening criteria to which projects may be compared.

Projects meeting at least one screening criterion may be considered to have less than significant VMT impacts, and further analysis is not required. The proposed Bridle Gate Project does not meet any of the criteria for a presumption of less than significant impacts, as discussed below.

1. CEQA Exemption – Any project that is exempt from CEQA is not required to conduct a VMT analysis. The proposed Project is not exempt from CEQA and thus does not meet this criterion.

2. Small Projects – Small projects are defined as having 10,000 square feet or less of nonresidential space or 20 residential units or less, or otherwise generating less than 836 VMT per day. The proposed Project consists of 286 single family residential units and thus does not meet this criterion.

3. Local-Serving Uses – Projects that consist of Local-Serving Uses primarily draw users and customers from a relatively small geographic area that will lead to short-distance trips and trips that are linked to other destinations. This screening criterion applies to commercial or retail uses. Since the proposed Project is a residential project, this screening criterion is not applicable.

4. Projects Located in Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) – Projects located within a TPA can be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. The proposed Project is not located within a TPA and thus does not meet this criterion.

5. Projects Located in Low VMT Areas – Residential and employment-generating projects located within a low VMT-generating area can be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. For a residential project, a low VMT area is defined as cities and unincorporated portions within CCTA’s five subregions that have existing home-based VMT per capita that is 85% or less of the existing County-wide average. The proposed Project is located within the city limits of Brentwood, in which the home-based VMT per capita is above the County-wide average. Therefore, the proposed Project does not meet this criterion.

PROJECT VMT ANALYSIS

BASELINE ANALYSIS
Because the proposed Project is in a Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) that is currently vacant, analysis of the Project’s VMT effects was conducted using the CCTA Travel Demand Model. The Project was analyzed for a 2020 condition for consistency with the scenario year used for the baseline VMT calculation. As noted previously, the scenario roadway network has been modified to reflect the presence of the Sand Creek Road extension to the west and the removal of nonemergency vehicular access through the intersection of St. Regis Avenue and San Jose Avenue.

BRENTWOOD BRIDLEGATE PROJECT • VMT ASSESSMENT• OCTOBER 2024 5 The model run was conducted using the 2020 version of the CCTA model script and outputs were summarized using the VMT tabulation script and summary spreadsheet provided by CCTA (the calculation spreadsheet is available upon request).

The threshold of significance is 85% of the baseline VMT per capita for the City of Brentwood, or

25.2 VMT per capita. As shown in Table 1, while the Project TAZ home-based VMT is lower than the baseline average for the City of Brentwood, it exceeds the threshold of significance by about

9.5%.

TABLE 1: PROJECT VMT AVERAGE RATES AND THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE TABLE 1: HOME-BASED VMT PER RESIDENT
a Threshold of significance based on direction from City of Brentwood (email from Raney Planning and Management dated 1/12/2023). This threshold has been selected to be consistent with previous VMT studies for projects in Brentwood (see TJKM, “VMT Analysis for the Orchard Grove Residential Development”, January 2022).

VMT REDUCTION STRATEGIES
Applicable site-level VMT reduction measures listed in the guide published by the California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association (CAPCOA) were evaluated for potential incorporation into the Project. Applicable strategies are listed in Table 2.

The most feasible and quantifiable strategy was determined to be an increase in intersection density, listed as Measure T-17. Under the previously considered site plan, the Project incorporated an additional intersection to achieve the intersection density needed to demonstrate mitigation.

The most recent iteration of the Project site plan carries forward this intersection density. Taking credit for this previously incorporated measure would reduce the VMT per capita by approximately 10%, as documented in Table 3, resulting in a VMT per capita below the threshold of significance.

Therefore, the proposed project is found to have a less-than-significant impact with mitigation.

Other potential mitigation measures considered and their corresponding VMT reductions include:

T-4 “Integrate Affordable Housing” (28.6% VMT reduction): The project is proposing 10% affordable housing, but the documented effectiveness of this measure applies only to multifamily units.

GEOGRAPHIC AREA AVERAGE VMT PER

RESIDENT
85% AVERAGE VMT PER

RESIDENT
TAZ WITH PROJECT 27.9 n/a
CITY OF BRENTWOOD 29.6 a 25.2
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 19.4 16.5