Brentwood City Council
September 8, 2026

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

TABLE 1

SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
Level of
Service Description of Operations
Average Delay
(sec/veh)
Volume to
Capacity Ratio
A
Insignificant Delays: No approach phase is fully
used and no vehicle waits longer than one red
indication.
< 10 < 0.60
B Minimal Delays: An occasional approach phase
is fully used. Drivers begin to feel restricted. > 10 to 20 > 0.61 to 0.70 C Acceptable Delays: Major approach phase may
become fully used. Most drivers feel restricted. > 20 to 35 > 0.71 to 0.80 D
Tolerable Delays: Drivers may wait through no
more than one red indication. Queues may
develop but dissipate without excessive delays.
> 35 to 55 > 0.81 to 0.90
E
Significant Delays: Volumes approaching
capacity. Vehicles may wait through several
signal cycles and long vehicle queues from
upstream.
> 55 to 80 > 0.91 to 1.00
F
Excessive Delays: Represents conditions at
capacity, with extremely long delays. Queues
may block upstream intersections.
> 80 > 1.00
SOURCES: Highway Capacity Manual – Sixth Edition, Transportation Research Board, 2016.

TABLE 2

UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS
Level of
Service Description of Operations
Average Delay
(seconds/vehicle)
A No delay for stop-controlled approaches. 0 to 10
B Operations with minor delays. > 10 to 15
C Operations with moderate delays. > 15 to 25
D Operations with some delays. > 25 to 35
E Operations with high delays and long queues. > 35 to 50 F Operation with extreme congestion, with very high delays and long queues unacceptable to most drivers. > 50
SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual – Sixth Edition, Transportation Research Board, 2016.

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

3.7 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle paths, lanes and routes are typical examples of bicycle transportation facilities, which are defined by Caltrans as being in one of the following three classes:

Class I – Provides a completely separated facility designed for the exclusive use of bicyclists and pedestrians with crossing points minimized.

Class II – Provides a restricted right-of-way designated lane for the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and cross-flows by pedestrians and motorists permitted.

Class III – Provides a right-of-way designated by signs or permanent markings and shared with pedestrians and motorists.

There are no bicycle facilities immediately adjacent to the proposed project but the General Plan anticipates Class I and Class II bicycle facilities on most of the major roadways in the project study area. There are two major multi-use trails (i.e. Class I bicycle trails) in the project area that include the Marsh Creek Regional Trail and the Mokelumne Coast to Crest Trail.

Pedestrian facilities are generally limited with discontinuous sidewalks in some areas and none on the segment of Lone Tree Way adjacent to the site. Crosswalks with push-button pedestrian activation are provided at each of the four signalized study intersections.

TABLE 3

EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CONDITIONS

INTERSECTION CONTROL PEAK
HOUR

EXISTING
Delay LOS
1 LONE TREE WAY & SMITH RD / WEST PROJECT ACCESS Side Street Stop
AM 13.8 B
PM 17.3 C
2 LONE TREE WAY & EAST PROJECT ACCESS Side Street
Stop

AM N/A N/A

PM N/A N/A
SOURCE: Abrams Associates, 2022
NOTES: HCM LOS results are presented in terms of average intersection delay in seconds per vehicle. For stop controlled intersections the results for the worst side street approach are presented.

3.8 Transit Service
Three major public mass transit operators provide service within or adjacent to the study area.

These include BART and the Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority (or Tri Delta Transit).

These operators are described below.

Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) – BART is a rapid mass transit system which provides regional transportation connections to much of the Bay Area. It runs from the North Bay Area in Richmond to the South Bay Area in Fremont. In the east-west direction it runs from Brentwood

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

to the San Francisco Airport and Milbrae with several connections in Oakland. The Antioch EBART station, which is closest to the proposed project, serves all of Brentwood, Bay Point, Antioch, and all other surrounding cities and runs from 4:00 am to 12:00 am daily, with a weekday frequency of 15 minutes.

Tri Delta Transit - Tri Delta Transit serves the East County including Brentwood, Oakley, Brentwood, Antioch, Bay Point and unincorporated areas of East County. Transit service in the City of Brentwood is provided by Tri Delta Transit (TDT by three Tri Delta Transit fixed routes (300, 391, and 393). All Tri Delta Transit buses are equipped with bicycle racks to serve bicyclists accessing bus service. Route 300 is an express service for transit riders traveling between the Brentwood Park and Ride facility (located at 4000 Walnut Boulevard), Oakley, Antioch, and the Pittsburg/Bay Point BART station.

Route 383 operates from downtown Oakley down O’Hara Avenue to Lone Tree Way ending at the Antioch (Hillcrest) Park and Ride. Route 391 is a non-express service for transit riders traveling between Downtown Brentwood, Oakley, Antioch, Pittsburg, and the Pittsburg/Bay Point BART station. Route 393 is a non-express weekend service for transit riders traveling between Downtown Brentwood, Oakley, Antioch, Pittsburg, and Bay Point. .
4) REGULATORY CONTEXT
Existing policies, laws and regulations that apply to the proposed project are summarized below.

4.1 State
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has jurisdiction over State highways.

Therefore, Caltrans controls all construction, modification, and maintenance of State highways, such as SR 4. Any improvements to these roadways would require Caltrans’ approval. The Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies provides consistent guidance for Caltrans staff who review local development and land use change proposals. The Guide also informs local agencies about the information needed for Caltrans to analyze the traffic impacts to state highway facilities which include freeway segments, on- or off-ramps, and signalized intersections.

4.2 Local
Contra Costa Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Update (2009) - The transportation policies that are currently applicable within Contra Costa County are based on the Contra Costa County Comprehensive Transportation Plan. This document identifies the criteria for analyzing transportation impacts and sets forth plans for future roadway improvements in the county.

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

City of Brentwood General Plan - The Transportation and Circulation Element included in the City of Brentwood General Plan was prepared pursuant to Section 65302(b) of the California Government Code. The Transportation and Circulation Element addresses the location and extent of existing and planned transportation routes, terminals, and other local public utilities and facilities. The General Plan identifies roadway and transit goals and policies that have been adopted to ensure that the transportation system of the City will have adequate capacity to serve planned growth. These goals and policies are intended to provide a plan and implementation measures for an integrated, multi-modal transportation system that will safely and efficiently meet the transportation needs of all economic and social segments of the City.

4.3 Significance Criteria
The goal of the City of Brentwood is to maintain a Level of Service (LOS) D during the peak hours. Signalized Intersections - Project-related operational impacts on the City of Brentwood’s signalized study intersections are considered significant if project-related traffic causes the Level of Service (LOS) rating to deteriorate from LOS D or better to LOS E or F, or from LOS E to LOS F. Unsignalized Intersections - Project-related operational impacts on unsignalized intersections are considered significant if project generated traffic causes the LOS at an unsignalized intersection to degrade to worse than LOS D and causes an unsignalized intersection to meet traffic signal warrants based on Warrant 3B (peak hour volume warrant) as presented in the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD).

According to CEQA guidelines, a project would have a significant impact if it would:
 Conflict with a plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
 Would the project conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b)? (Note: This pertains to analysis of vehicle miles traveled, which is being provided separately from this Traffic Impact Study)
 Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment).  Result in inadequate emergency vehicle access.
5) IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

5.1 Project Trip Generation
The proposed project would include construction of 38 single family homes on property currently occupied by three single family homes. The trip generation calculations are shown in Table 4.

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

TABLE 4

TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS
Land Use Size ADT
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Single Family Dwellings – ITE
Fitted Curve Trip Rates 10.90 0.23 0.68 0.91 0.60 0.35 0.95 Proposed Single Family
Homes Trip Generation 38 units 414 9 26 35 23 13 36
The calculations are based on the data from the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. The total trip generation reflects all vehicle trips that would be counted at the project driveways, both inbound and outbound. No adjustments applied to account for pass-by or internal trips. The project is forecast to generate a total of 35 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 36 trips during the PM peak hour.

For purposes of determining the reasonable worst-case impacts of traffic on the surrounding street network from a proposed project, the trips generated by this proposed development are estimated for the peak commute hours which represent the peak of “adjacent street traffic”.

This is the time period when the project traffic would generally contribute to the greatest amount of congestion.

5.2 Project Trip Distribution
The trip distribution assumptions have been based on the project’s proximity to freeway interchanges, the existing directional split at other nearby intersections, and the overall land use patterns in the area. The resulting distribution then assumed that 60 percent of the project traffic would be to and from the west on Lone Tree Way. Figure 5 shows the project traffic that would be added at each of the study intersections.

5.3 Existing Plus Project Intersection Capacity Conditions This scenario evaluates the existing conditions with the addition of traffic from the proposed project. The capacity calculations for the Existing Plus Project scenario were shown previously in Table 3. Figure 6 shows the project traffic that would be added at each of the study intersections. As shown in Table 5, both of the project study intersections would continue to have acceptable conditions (LOS D or better) during the weekday AM and PM peak hours.

LONE TREE WAY
SAND

CREEK RD
SU

NSET RD

SHADY WILLOW LN

EMPIRE RD

BRENTWOOD BLVD
DELTA
RD
O’HARA AVE

DA MA S NL

ANDERSON LN

FREEDOM

HIGH SCHOOL

FAIRVIEW AVE

SMITH RD
2 PROJECT

LOCATION
1 2

PROJECT ACCESS

LONE TREE WAY
1 (3)2 (6)
4 (2)
2 (5)7 (3)
5 (3)
1 SMITH RD

PROJECT ACCESS

LONE TREE WAY
2 (6)5 (3)
7 (3)
10 (5)
4 (9)2 (5)
FIGURE 5 PROJECT AM (PM) PEAK HOUR TRIPS
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY7590 & 7650 Lone Tree WayCity of Brentwood Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

LONE TREE WAY
SAND

CREEK RD
SU

NSET RD

SHADY WILLOW LN

EMPIRE RD

BRENTWOOD BLVD
DELTA
RD
O’HARA AVE

DA MA S NL

ANDERSON LN

FREEDOM

HIGH SCHOOL

FAIRVIEW AVE

SMITH RD
2 PROJECT

LOCATION
1 2

PROJECT ACCESS

LONE TREE WAY
1 (3)337 (400)
4 (2)
269 (458)
2 (5)
5 (3)
1 SMITH RD

PROJECT ACCESS

LONE TREE WAY
2 (6)340 (397)2 (0)
7 (3)
0 (3)
0 (0)
8 (3) 264 (457) 14 (6)
4 (9)
0 (0)
10 (5)
FIGURE 6 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT AM (PM) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY7590 & 7650 Lone Tree WayCity of Brentwood Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

TABLE 5

EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CONDITIONS

INTERSECTION CONTROL PEAK
HOUR

EXISTING EXISTING PLUS

PROJECT
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 LONE TREE WAY & SMITH RD / WEST PROJECT
ACCESS
Side Street
Stop
AM 14.7 B 15.3 C
PM 15.5 C 16.1 C
2 LONE TREE WAY & EAST PROJECT ACCESS Side Street
Stop
AM N/A N/A 11.8 B
PM N/A N/A 13.6 B
SOURCE: Abrams Associates, 2022
NOTES: HCM LOS results are presented in terms of average intersection delay in seconds per vehicle. For stop controlled intersections the results for the worst side street approach are presented.

5.4 Baseline Intersection Capacity Conditions
The Baseline scenario evaluates the existing conditions with the addition of traffic from reasonably foreseeable projects in the area. For this analysis pre-covid traffic counts from the Brentwood General Plan EIR were used along with a one percent increase per year for two years based on the assumption the project could open in 2024. Figure 7 presents the resulting baseline volumes at each of the project study intersections.

Table 6 summarizes the associated LOS computation results for the Baseline and Baseline Plus Project weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions. The corresponding LOS analysis calculation sheets are presented in the Traffic Analysis Appendix. As shown in Table 6, with addition of traffic from the proposed project all study intersections would continue have acceptable conditions (LOS D or better) during the weekday AM and PM peak hours under Baseline Conditions.

TABLE 6

BASELINE PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CONDITIONS

INTERSECTION CONTROL PEAK
HOUR

BASELINE BASELINE

PLUS PROJECT
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 LONE TREE WAY & SMITH RD / WEST PROJECT
ACCESS
Side Street
Stop
AM 14.4 B 14.8 B
PM 19.5 C 20.5 C
2 LONE TREE WAY & EAST PROJECT ACCESS Side Street
Stop
AM N/A N/A 12.8 B
PM N/A N/A 14.4 B
SOURCE: Abrams Associates, 2022
NOTES: HCM LOS results are presented in terms of average intersection delay in seconds per vehicle. For stop-controlled intersections the results for the worst side street approach are presented.

LONE TREE WAY

SAND CREEK RD

SUNSET RD
S
H
A
D
Y
W
I
L
L
O
W L
N

EMPIRE RD
B
REN
T
W
O
O
D
B
L
V
D

DELTA RD
O
’
H
A
R
A
AV
E
DA
MA S
NL
A
N
D
E
R
S
O
N
L
N

FREEDOM

HIGH SCHOOL
F
A
I
R
V
I
E
W
AV
E

SMITH RD
2 PROJECT

LOCATION
1 2

PROJECT ACCESS

LONE TREE WAY
406 (414)
299 (522)
1 SMITH RD

PROJECT ACCESS

LONE TREE WAY
398 (406)7 (14)
12 (8)
18 (14)
281 (504)
15 (19)
FIGURE 7 BASELINE AM (PM) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY7590 & 7650 Lone Tree WayCity of Brentwood Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

5.5 Baseline Plus Project Intersection Capacity Conditions The Baseline plus proposed project traffic forecasts were developed by adding project-related traffic to the baseline traffic volumes. Figure 8 presents the Baseline Plus Project traffic volumes that were used in the analysis. Table 6 summarizes the LOS results for the Baseline Plus Project weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions. As shown in Table 6, both of the study intersections would continue to have acceptable conditions (LOS D or better) during the weekday AM and PM peak hours.

5.6 Cumulative Intersection Capacity Conditions
For the cumulative conditions, the intersection traffic volumes were based on the existing turning movements with the addition of traffic from all planned and approved projects plus the addition of growth estimated by the County’s traffic model and the City’s General Plan EIR.

Figure 9 presents the cumulative build-out traffic volumes without traffic from the proposed project. As shown in Table 7, the intersection of Lone Tree Way with Smith Road is forecast to operate at LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours if left turns are permitted there, regardless of whether or not the proposed project is implemented.

TABLE 7

CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CONDITIONS

INTERSECTION CONTROL PEAK
HOUR

CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE

PLUS PROJECT
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 LONE TREE WAY & SMITH RD / WEST PROJECT
ACCESS
Side Street
Stop
AM > 50.0 F > 50.0 F
PM > 50.0 F > 50.0 F
2 LONE TREE WAY & EAST PROJECT ACCESS Side Street
Stop
AM N/A N/A > 50.0 F
PM N/A N/A 40.8 E
SOURCE: Abrams Associates, 2022
NOTES: HCM LOS results are presented in terms of average intersection delay in seconds per vehicle. For stop-controlled intersections the results for the worst side street approach are presented.

5.7 Cumulative Plus Project Intersection Capacity Conditions Table 7 summarizes the LOS results for the Cumulative Plus Project (Year 2040) traffic conditions at each of the project study intersection with the planned widening of Lone Tree Way to four lanes. As shown on this table, both of the study intersections are forecast to have LOS F conditions on the side street approaches in the AM and LOS E conditions on the side street approaches in the PM Peak Hour. However, since these intersections would not meet Caltrans’ Peak Hour Signal Warrants (and the Smith Road intersection would operate at LOS F with or without the proposed project) this would not be considered a significant impact. It is important to note that the through movements on Lone Tree Way would not be forecast to be impacted.

The average delay for vehicles on the through movements on Lone Tree Way are forecast to be

LONE TREE WAY
SAND

CREEK RD
SU

NSET RD

SHADY WILLOW LN

EMPIRE RD

BRENTWOOD BLVD
DELTA
RD
O’HARA AVE

DA MA S NL

ANDERSON LN

FREEDOM

HIGH SCHOOL

FAIRVIEW AVE

SMITH RD
2 PROJECT

LOCATION
1 2

PROJECT ACCESS

LONE TREE WAY
1 (3)408 (420)
4 (2)
306 (525)
2 (5)
5 (3)
1 SMITH RD

PROJECT ACCESS

LONE TREE WAY
2 (6)403 (409)7 (14)
7 (3)
12 (8)
0 (0)
18 (14) 283 (509) 15 (19)
4 (9)
0 (0)
10 (5)
FIGURE 8 BASELINE PLUS PROJECT AM (PM) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY7590 & 7650 Lone Tree WayCity of Brentwood Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

LONE TREE WAY

SAND CREEK RD

SUNSET RD
S
H
A
D
Y
W
I
L
L
O
W L
N

EMPIRE RD
B
REN
T
W
O
O
D
B
L
V
D

DELTA RD
O
’
H
A
R
A
AV
E
DA
MA S
NL
A
N
D
E
R
S
O
N
L
N

FREEDOM

HIGH SCHOOL
F
A
I
R
V
I
E
W
AV
E

SMITH RD
2 PROJECT

LOCATION
1 2

PROJECT ACCESS

LONE TREE WAY
1583 (1073)
833 (1513)
1 SMITH RD

PROJECT ACCESS

LONE TREE WAY
1583 (1073)8 (15)
13 (9)
19 (15)
820 (1504)
16 (20)
FIGURE 9 CUMULATIVE AM (PM) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY7590 & 7650 Lone Tree WayCity of Brentwood Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

three tenths of a second or less, while the proposed project is forecast to increase the delay on these movements by no more than one tenth of a second. Figure 10 presents the cumulative build-out traffic volumes including the traffic from the proposed project.

5.8 Internal Circulation and Access
No internal site circulation or access issues have been identified that would cause a traffic safety problem or any unusual traffic congestion or delay. The volumes on the internal roadways would be light enough so that no significant conflicts would be expected within the project. At the project entrances on Lone Tree Way there would be poor operations on the side streets (LOS F) during the peak hour under cumulative conditions. However, as discussed in Section 5.7, since there would be no impacts to the delay on Lone Tree Way (only on the lowvolume side street movements) and because these intersections would not meet Caltrans’ Peak Hour Signal Warrants, this would not be considered a significant impact.

5.9 Parking Impacts
The proposed project would provide an adequate supply of off-street parking based on the City’s requirements. The project is currently proposing to meet the City’s parking requirements and based on our review of the proposed plan there would be no significant impacts to the surrounding properties.

5.10 Pedestrian and Bicycle Impacts
The proposed project would generate additional pedestrian and bicycle traffic in the area, thereby potentially increasing conflicts between vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. In general the proposed project would not generate a significant increase in pedestrian and bicycle traffic in the area in comparison to the existing volumes and given the size and nature of the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project would not create any new safety problems in the area.

The proposed project would also not significantly impact any existing bicycle facilities, including bike lanes, routes, or paths in the area. In general, the proposed project would not generate a significant increase in bicycle traffic in the area and would not significantly impact or change the design of any existing bicycle facilities.

5.11 Transit Impacts
The proposed project would not interfere with any existing bus routes and would not remove or relocate any existing bus stops. People from the project would be expected to utilize connections to Hillcrest Avenue E-BART station and would provide additional ridership for local bus companies. Therefore, the impact of the proposed Project on existing transit operations or adopted plans related to transit would be less than significant.

LONE TREE WAY
SAND

CREEK RD
SU

NSET RD

SHADY WILLOW LN

EMPIRE RD

BRENTWOOD BLVD
DELTA
RD
O’HARA AVE

DA MA S NL

ANDERSON LN

FREEDOM

HIGH SCHOOL

FAIRVIEW AVE

SMITH RD
2 PROJECT

LOCATION
1 2

PROJECT ACCESS

LONE TREE WAY
1 (3)1585 (1079)
4 (2)
840 (1516)
2 (5)
5 (3)
1 SMITH RD

PROJECT ACCESS

LONE TREE WAY
2 (6)1588 (1076)8 (15)
7 (3)
13 (9)
0 (0)
19 (15) 822 (1509) 16 (20)
4 (9)
0 (0)
10 (5)
FIGURE 10 CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT AM (PM) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY7590 & 7650 Lone Tree WayCity of Brentwood Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

5.12 Project-Specific Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Based on the project’s design and a detailed analysis conducted according to the required guidelines there would be no significant transportation impacts according to established traffic engineering standards and no off-site traffic or transportation mitigations would be required.

Impact #1 Impacts related to conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or potential decreases to the performance or safety of such facilities.

The project would not result in degradation of the level of service (or a significant increase in delay) on any roadway segments currently being utilized by bus transit in the area and would not increase ridership beyond existing capacity. As such, no significant impacts to bus transit would be expected to occur. In addition, the proposed project would not significantly impact or change the design of any existing pedestrian facilities and would not create any new safety problems for pedestrians in the area. The project will add some bicyclists in the area but the volumes added would not be expected to significantly impact any existing bicycle facilities. In relation to the existing conditions, the proposed project would not cause substantial changes to the pedestrian or bicycle traffic in the area and would not significantly impact or require changes to the design of any existing bicycle or pedestrian facilities.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

Impact #2 Impacts relating to demolition and construction activities The increase in traffic as a result of demolition and construction activities associated with the proposed project has been quantified assuming a worst-case single phase construction period of 12 months.

Heavy Equipment
Approximately three pieces of heavy equipment are estimated to be transported on and off the site each month throughout the demolition and construction of the proposed project. Heavy equipment transport to and from the site could cause traffic impacts in the vicinity of the project site during construction. However, each load would be required to obtain all necessary permits, which would include conditions. Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, the project applicant would be required to submit a Traffic Control Plan.

The requirements within the Traffic Control Plan include, but are not limited to, the following: truck drivers would be notified of and required to use the most direct

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

route between the site and the freeway, as determined by the City Engineering Department; all site ingress and egress would occur only at the main driveways to the project site and construction activities may require installation of temporary traffic controls as determined by the City Engineer; specifically designated travel routes for large vehicles would be monitored and controlled by flaggers for large construction vehicle ingress and egress; any debris and mud on nearby streets caused by trucks would be monitored daily and may require instituting a street cleaning program. In addition, the transport of heavy equipment being hauled to and from the site each month would be short-term and temporary.

Employees
The weekday work is expected to begin around 7:00 AM and end around 4:00 PM.

The construction worker arrival peak would occur between 6:30 AM and 7:30 AM, and the departure peak would occur between 4:00 PM and 5:00 PM. These peak hours are slightly before the citywide commute peaks. It should be noted that the number of trips generated during construction would not only be temporary, but would also be substantially less than the proposed project at buildout. Based on past construction of similar projects, construction workers could require parking for up to 30 vehicles during the peak construction period. Additionally, deliveries, visits, and other activities may generate peak non-worker parking demand of 10 to 15 trucks and automobiles per day.

Therefore, up to 45 vehicle parking spaces may be required during the peak construction period for the construction employees. Furthermore, the City’s construction traffic control guidelines require construction employee parking be provided on the project site to eliminate conflicts with nearby residential areas.

Because the construction of the project can be staggered so that employee parking demand is met by using on-site parking, the impacts of construction-related employee traffic and parking are considered less-than-significant.

Construction Material Import/Export
The project would also require removal of existing debris as well as the importation of construction material, including raw materials for the building pads, the buildings, and landscaping. During the maximum peak construction period, the project could generate approximately 10 truck trips per day. Furthermore, under the provisions of the Traffic Control Plan, if importation and exportation of material becomes a traffic nuisance, then the City Engineer may limit the hours the activities can take place.

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Traffic Control Plan
The Traffic Control Plan would indicate how parking for construction workers would be provided during construction and ensure a safe flow of traffic in the project area during construction. This analysis assumed construction of the entire project in one phase to identify the potential worst-case traffic effects. If the project is built in phases over time, the effects of each phase will be the same or less. Each phase will be subject to a Traffic Control Plan and oversight by the City Engineer. The last phase may require added worker parking measures, depending on the circumstances, as there will not be any remaining vacant land for parking.

Therefore, the demolition and construction activities associated with the proposed project or its individual phases would not lead to noticeable congestion in the vicinity of the site or the perception of decreased traffic safety resulting in a lessthan-significant impact.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

Impact #3 Impacts related to site access and circulation.

The proposed project would have driveways on Lone Tree Way that would continue to be controlled with stop signs on the side street approaches. The existing stop-controlled intersections providing access to the project are forecast to have acceptable operations under near-term conditions but would have poor operations on the side street approaches under cumulative conditions. However, the operations for through traffic on Lone Tree Way would not be significantly impacted (i.e. less than a one tenth of a second increase in delay) and the access intersections would not meet Caltrans Peak Hour Warrant for a traffic signal.

Based on a review of the proposed site plan it was determined that the site circulation should function well and would not cause any safety or operational problems. The project site design has been required to conform to City design standards and is not expected to create any significant impacts to pedestrians, bicyclists or traffic operations. Therefore, impacts related to access and circulation to the proposed project would be less-than-significant with implementation of the following mitigation measure.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

Impact #4 Impacts regarding emergency vehicle access on and surrounding the proposed project site.

Sufficient emergency access is determined by factors such as number of access points, roadway width, and proximity to fire stations. The land use plan for the proposed project would include two entrances on Lone Tree Way. All lane widths within the project would meet the minimum width that can accommodate an emergency vehicle; therefore, the width of the internal roadways would be adequate. In addition, the addition of traffic from project traffic would not result in any significant changes to emergency vehicle response times in the area.

Therefore, subject to approval from the City and the fire department, the development of the proposed project is expected to have less-than-significant impacts regarding emergency vehicle access.

Mitigation Measure(s)
None required.

Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

City of Brentwood
April 5, 2022
7590 & 7650 Lone Tree Way
Traffic Impact Study Technical Appendix
Prepared by:

Abrams Associates
1875 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 210
Walnut Creek CA 94596
Abrams Associates
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, INC.

HCM 6th TWSC Existing AM
1: Smith Road/Project Access & Lone Tree Way 04/05/2022 7590 and 7650 Lone Tree Way Synchro 10 Report
City of Brentwood Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 262 14 2 335 0800000
Future Vol, veh/h 0 262 14 2 335 0800000
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 ---------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 0 285 15 2 364 0900000
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 364 0 0 300 0 0 653 653 285 661 668 364 Stage 1 - - - - - - 285 285 - 368 368 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 368 368 - 293 300 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ----- 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ----- 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1195 - - 1261 - - 380 387 754 376 379 681 Stage 1 - - - - - - 722 676 - 652 621 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 652 621 - 715 666 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1195 - - 1261 - - 379 386 754 375 378 681 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 379 386 - 375 378 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 722 676 - 652 620 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 651 620 - 715 666 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 14.7 0

HCM LOS B A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 379 1195 - - 1261 - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.023 - - - 0.002 - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 14.7 0 - - 7.9 0 - 0
HCM Lane LOS B A - - A A - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - -

HCM 6th TWSC Existing AM
2: Lone Tree Way & Project Access 04/05/2022
7590 and 7650 Lone Tree Way Synchro 10 Report
City of Brentwood Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 262 335 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 262 335 0 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 285 364 0 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 364 0 - 0 649 364
Stage 1 - - - - 364 -
Stage 2 - - - - 285 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1195 - - - 434 681
Stage 1 - - - - 703 -
Stage 2 - - - - 763 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1195 - - - 434 681
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 434 -
Stage 1 - - - - 703 -
Stage 2 - - - - 763 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1195 ----
HCM Lane V/C Ratio -----
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 ----

HCM 6th TWSC Existing PM
1: Smith Road/Project Access & Lone Tree Way 04/05/2022 7590 and 7650 Lone Tree Way Synchro 10 Report
City of Brentwood Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 452 6 0 394 0303000
Future Vol, veh/h 0 452 6 0 394 0303000
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 ---------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 0 491 7 0 428 0303000
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 428 0 0 498 0 0 919 919 491 924 926 428 Stage 1 - - - - - - 491 491 - 428 428 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 428 428 - 496 498 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ----- 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ----- 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1131 - - 1066 - - 252 271 578 250 269 627 Stage 1 - - - - - - 559 548 - 605 585 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 605 585 - 556 544 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1131 - - 1066 - - 252 271 578 249 269 627 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 252 271 - 249 269 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 559 548 - 605 585 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 605 585 - 553 544 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 15.5 0

HCM LOS C A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 351 1131 - - 1066 - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.019 -------
HCM Control Delay (s) 15.5 0 - - 0 - - 0
HCM Lane LOS C A - - A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - -

HCM 6th TWSC Existing PM
2: Lone Tree Way & Project Access 04/05/2022
7590 and 7650 Lone Tree Way Synchro 10 Report
City of Brentwood Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 455 394 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 455 394 0 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 495 428 0 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 428 0 - 0 923 428
Stage 1 - - - - 428 -
Stage 2 - - - - 495 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1131 - - - 299 627
Stage 1 - - - - 657 -
Stage 2 - - - - 613 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1131 - - - 299 627
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 299 -
Stage 1 - - - - 657 -
Stage 2 - - - - 613 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1131 ----
HCM Lane V/C Ratio -----
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 ----

HCM 6th TWSC Existing +Project AM
1: Smith Road/Project Access & Lone Tree Way 04/05/2022 7590 and 7650 Lone Tree Way Synchro 10 Report
City of Brentwood Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 264 14 2 340 2 8 0 0 7 0 10
Future Vol, veh/h 4 264 14 2 340 2 8 0 0 7 0 10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 ---------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 4 287 15 2 370 2 9 0 0 8 0 11
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 372 0 0 302 0 0 676 671 287 678 685 371 Stage 1 - - - - - - 295 295 - 375 375 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 381 376 - 303 310 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ----- 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ----- 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1186 - - 1259 - - 367 378 752 366 371 675 Stage 1 - - - - - - 713 669 - 646 617 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 641 616 - 706 659 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1186 - - 1259 - - 359 376 752 364 369 675 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 359 376 - 364 369 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 710 666 - 643 616 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 629 615 - 703 656 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 15.3 12.5

HCM LOS C B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 359 1186 - - 1259 - - 499
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.024 0.004 - - 0.002 - - 0.037
HCM Control Delay (s) 15.3 8 0 - 7.9 0 - 12.5
HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.1

HCM 6th TWSC Existing +Project AM
2: Lone Tree Way & Project Access 04/05/2022
7590 and 7650 Lone Tree Way Synchro 10 Report
City of Brentwood Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.2
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 269 337 1 4 5
Future Vol, veh/h 2 269 337 1 4 5
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 2 292 366 1 4 5
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 367 0 - 0 663 367
Stage 1 - - - - 367 -
Stage 2 - - - - 296 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1192 - - - 426 678
Stage 1 - - - - 701 -
Stage 2 - - - - 755 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1192 - - - 425 678
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 425 -
Stage 1 - - - - 700 -
Stage 2 - - - - 755 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 11.8

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1192 - - - 536
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - - - 0.018
HCM Control Delay (s) 8 0 - - 11.8
HCM Lane LOS A A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1

HCM 6th TWSC Existing +Project PM
1: Smith Road/Project Access & Lone Tree Way 04/05/2022 7590 and 7650 Lone Tree Way Synchro 10 Report
City of Brentwood Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 457 6 0 397 6303305
Future Vol, veh/h 9 457 6 0 397 6303305
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 ---------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 10 497 7 0 432 7303305
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 439 0 0 504 0 0 955 956 497 958 960 436 Stage 1 - - - - - - 517 517 - 436 436 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 438 439 - 522 524 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ----- 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ----- 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1121 - - 1061 - - 238 258 573 237 257 620 Stage 1 - - - - - - 541 534 - 599 580 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 597 578 - 538 530 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1121 - - 1061 - - 234 255 573 233 254 620 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 234 255 - 233 254 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 535 528 - 592 580 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 592 578 - 529 524 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0 16.1 14.6

HCM LOS C B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 332 1121 - - 1061 - - 382
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.02 0.009 ----- 0.023
HCM Control Delay (s) 16.1 8.2 0 - 0 - - 14.6
HCM Lane LOS C A A - A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - - 0 - - 0.1

HCM 6th TWSC Existing +Project PM
2: Lone Tree Way & Project Access 04/05/2022
7590 and 7650 Lone Tree Way Synchro 10 Report
City of Brentwood Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 458 400 3 2 3
Future Vol, veh/h 5 458 400 3 2 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 5 498 435 3 2 3
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 438 0 - 0 945 437
Stage 1 - - - - 437 -
Stage 2 - - - - 508 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1122 - - - 291 620
Stage 1 - - - - 651 -
Stage 2 - - - - 604 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1122 - - - 289 620
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 289 -
Stage 1 - - - - 647 -
Stage 2 - - - - 604 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 13.6

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1122 - - - 425
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 - - - 0.013
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 0 - - 13.6
HCM Lane LOS A A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0

HCM 6th TWSC Baseline AM
1: Smith Road/Project Access & Lone Tree Way 04/05/2022 7590 and 7650 Lone Tree Way Synchro 10 Report
City of Brentwood Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 281 15 7 398 0 18 0 12 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 281 15 7 398 0 18 0 12 0 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 ---------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 0 305 16 8 433 0 20 0 13 0 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 433 0 0 321 0 0 754 754 305 769 770 433 Stage 1 - - - - - - 305 305 - 449 449 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 449 449 - 320 321 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ----- 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ----- 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1127 - - 1239 - - 326 338 735 318 331 623 Stage 1 - - - - - - 705 662 - 589 572 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 589 572 - 692 652 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1127 - - 1239 - - 324 335 735 310 328 623 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 324 335 - 310 328 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 705 662 - 589 567 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 584 567 - 680 652 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 14.4 0

HCM LOS B A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 417 1127 - - 1239 - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.078 - - - 0.006 - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 14.4 0 - - 7.9 0 - 0
HCM Lane LOS B A - - A A - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 0 - - 0 - - -

HCM 6th TWSC Baseline AM
2: Lone Tree Way & Project Access 04/05/2022
7590 and 7650 Lone Tree Way Synchro 10 Report
City of Brentwood Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 299 406 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 299 406 0 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 325 441 0 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 441 0 - 0 766 441
Stage 1 - - - - 441 -
Stage 2 - - - - 325 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1119 - - - 371 616
Stage 1 - - - - 648 -
Stage 2 - - - - 732 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1119 - - - 371 616
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 371 -
Stage 1 - - - - 648 -
Stage 2 - - - - 732 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1119 ----
HCM Lane V/C Ratio -----
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 ----

HCM 6th TWSC Baseline PM
1: Smith Road/Project Access & Lone Tree Way 04/05/2022 7590 and 7650 Lone Tree Way Synchro 10 Report
City of Brentwood Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 504 19 14 406 0 14 08000
Future Vol, veh/h 0 504 19 14 406 0 14 08000
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 ---------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 0 548 21 15 441 0 15 09000
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 441 0 0 569 0 0 1019 1019 548 1034 1040 441 Stage 1 - - - - - - 548 548 - 471 471 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 471 471 - 563 569 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ----- 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ----- 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1119 - - 1003 - - 215 237 536 210 230 616 Stage 1 - - - - - - 521 517 - 573 560 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 573 560 - 511 506 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1119 - - 1003 - - 212 232 536 203 225 616 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 212 232 - 203 225 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 521 517 - 573 549 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 562 549 - 503 506 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.3 19.5 0

HCM LOS C A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 272 1119 - - 1003 - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.088 - - - 0.015 - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 19.5 0 - - 8.6 0 - 0
HCM Lane LOS C A - - A A - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 0 - - 0 - - -

HCM 6th TWSC Baseline PM
2: Lone Tree Way & Project Access 04/05/2022
7590 and 7650 Lone Tree Way Synchro 10 Report
City of Brentwood Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 522 414 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 522 414 0 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 567 450 0 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 450 0 - 0 1017 450
Stage 1 - - - - 450 -
Stage 2 - - - - 567 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1110 - - - 263 609
Stage 1 - - - - 642 -
Stage 2 - - - - 568 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1110 - - - 263 609
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 263 -
Stage 1 - - - - 642 -
Stage 2 - - - - 568 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1110 ----
HCM Lane V/C Ratio -----
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 ----

HCM 6th TWSC Baseline +Project AM
1: Smith Road/Project Access & Lone Tree Way 04/05/2022 7590 and 7650 Lone Tree Way Synchro 10 Report
City of Brentwood Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 283 15 7 403 2 18 0 12 7 0 10
Future Vol, veh/h 4 283 15 7 403 2 18 0 12 7 0 10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 ---------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 4 308 16 8 438 2 20 0 13 8 0 11
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 440 0 0 324 0 0 777 772 308 786 787 439 Stage 1 - - - - - - 316 316 - 455 455 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 461 456 - 331 332 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ----- 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ----- 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1120 - - 1236 - - 314 330 732 310 324 618 Stage 1 - - - - - - 695 655 - 585 569 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 581 568 - 682 644 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1120 - - 1236 - - 306 326 732 301 320 618 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 306 326 - 301 320 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 692 652 - 583 564 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 566 563 - 667 641 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.1 14.8 13.7

HCM LOS B B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 399 1120 - - 1236 - - 431
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.082 0.004 - - 0.006 - - 0.043
HCM Control Delay (s) 14.8 8.2 0 - 7.9 0 - 13.7
HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 0 - - 0 - - 0.1

HCM 6th TWSC Baseline +Project AM
2: Lone Tree Way & Project Access 04/05/2022
7590 and 7650 Lone Tree Way Synchro 10 Report
City of Brentwood Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.2
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 306 408 1 4 5
Future Vol, veh/h 2 306 408 1 4 5
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 2 333 443 1 4 5
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 444 0 - 0 781 444
Stage 1 - - - - 444 -
Stage 2 - - - - 337 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1116 - - - 363 614
Stage 1 - - - - 646 -
Stage 2 - - - - 723 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1116 - - - 362 614
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 362 -
Stage 1 - - - - 645 -
Stage 2 - - - - 723 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 12.8

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1116 - - - 469
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - - - 0.021
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 0 - - 12.8
HCM Lane LOS A A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1

HCM 6th TWSC Baseline +Project PM
1: Smith Road/Project Access & Lone Tree Way 04/05/2022 7590 and 7650 Lone Tree Way Synchro 10 Report
City of Brentwood Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 509 19 14 409 6 14 08305
Future Vol, veh/h 9 509 19 14 409 6 14 08305
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - 0 ---------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 10 553 21 15 445 7 15 09305
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 452 0 0 574 0 0 1054 1055 553 1067 1073 449 Stage 1 - - - - - - 573 573 - 479 479 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 481 482 - 588 594 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ----- 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ----- 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1109 - - 999 - - 204 226 533 200 220 610 Stage 1 - - - - - - 505 504 - 568 555 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 566 553 - 495 493 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1109 - - 999 - - 197 219 533 192 213 610 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 197 219 - 192 213 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 498 497 - 561 544 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 550 542 - 481 487 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.3 20.5 16

HCM LOS C C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 256 1109 - - 999 - - 336
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.093 0.009 - - 0.015 - - 0.026
HCM Control Delay (s) 20.5 8.3 0 - 8.7 0 - 16
HCM Lane LOS C A A - A A - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 0 - - 0 - - 0.1

HCM 6th TWSC Baseline +Project PM
2: Lone Tree Way & Project Access 04/05/2022
7590 and 7650 Lone Tree Way Synchro 10 Report
City of Brentwood Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 525 420 3 2 3
Future Vol, veh/h 5 525 420 3 2 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 5 571 457 3 2 3
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 460 0 - 0 1040 459
Stage 1 - - - - 459 -
Stage 2 - - - - 581 -
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1101 - - - 255 602
Stage 1 - - - - 636 -
Stage 2 - - - - 559 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1101 - - - 253 602
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 253 -
Stage 1 - - - - 632 -
Stage 2 - - - - 559 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 14.4

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 1101 - - - 388
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.005 - - - 0.014
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.3 0 - - 14.4
HCM Lane LOS A A - - B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0

HCM 6th TWSC Cumulative AM
1: Smith Road/Project Access & Lone Tree Way 04/05/2022 7590 and 7650 Lone Tree Way Synchro 10 Report
City of Brentwood Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 820 16 8 1583 0 19 0 13 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 820 16 8 1583 0 19 0 13 0 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 100 - - 100 --------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 0 891 17 9 1721 0 21 0 14 0 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 1721 0 0 908 0 0 1779 2639 454 2185 2647 861 Stage 1 - - - - - - 900 900 - 1739 1739 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 879 1739 - 446 908 -
Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ----- 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ----- 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 364 - - 745 - - 52 23 553 25 23 299
Stage 1 - - - - - - 300 355 - 90 140 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 309 140 - 561 352 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 364 - - 745 - - 52 23 553 24 23 299
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 52 23 - 24 23 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 300 355 - 90 138 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 305 138 - 547 352 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 78 0

HCM LOS F A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 82 364 - - 745 - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.424 - - - 0.012 - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 78 0 - - 9.9 - - 0
HCM Lane LOS F A - - A - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.7 0 - - 0 - - -

HCM 6th TWSC Cumulative AM
2: Lone Tree Way & Project Access 04/05/2022
7590 and 7650 Lone Tree Way Synchro 10 Report
City of Brentwood Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 833 1583 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 833 1583 0 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 100 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 905 1721 0 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 1721 0 - 0 2174 861
Stage 1 - - - - 1721 -
Stage 2 - - - - 453 -
Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 364 - - - 40 299
Stage 1 - - - - 130 -
Stage 2 - - - - 607 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 364 - - - 40 299
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 40 -
Stage 1 - - - - 130 -
Stage 2 - - - - 607 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 364 ----
HCM Lane V/C Ratio -----
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 ----

HCM 6th TWSC Cumulative PM
1: Smith Road/Project Access & Lone Tree Way 04/05/2022 7590 and 7650 Lone Tree Way Synchro 10 Report
City of Brentwood Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1504 20 15 1073 0 15 09000
Future Vol, veh/h 0 1504 20 15 1073 0 15 09000
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 100 - - 100 --------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 0 1635 22 16 1166 0 16 0 10 0 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 1166 0 0 1657 0 0 2261 2844 829 2016 2855 583 Stage 1 - ----- 1646 1646 - 1198 1198 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 615 1198 - 818 1657 -
Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ----- 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ----- 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 595 - - 385 - - 22 17 314 34 17 456
Stage 1 - - - - - - 103 155 - 197 257 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 445 257 - 336 154 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 595 - - 385 - - 21 16 314 32 16 456
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 21 16 - 32 16 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 103 155 - 197 246 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 427 246 - 326 154 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.2 283.3 0

HCM LOS F A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 32 595 - - 385 - - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.815 - - - 0.042 - - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 283.3 0 - - 14.8 - - 0
HCM Lane LOS F A - - B - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.8 0 - - 0.1 - - -

HCM 6th TWSC Cumulative PM
2: Lone Tree Way & Project Access 04/05/2022
7590 and 7650 Lone Tree Way Synchro 10 Report
City of Brentwood Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 1513 1073 0 0 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 1513 1073 0 0 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 100 - - 0 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 0 1645 1166 0 0 0
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 1166 0 - 0 1989 1166
Stage 1 - - - - 1166 -
Stage 2 - - - - 823 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.63 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.83 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.219 - - - 3.519 3.319
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 597 - - - 60 235
Stage 1 - - - - 295 -
Stage 2 - - - - 393 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 597 - - - 60 235
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 60 -
Stage 1 - - - - 295 -
Stage 2 - - - - 393 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0

HCM LOS A
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 597 ----
HCM Lane V/C Ratio -----
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - - 0
HCM Lane LOS A - - - A
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 ----

HCM 6th TWSC Cumulative +Project AM
1: Smith Road/Project Access & Lone Tree Way 04/05/2022 7590 and 7650 Lone Tree Way Synchro 10 Report
City of Brentwood Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 4 822 16 8 1588 2 19 0 13 7 0 10
Future Vol, veh/h 4 822 16 8 1588 2 19 0 13 7 0 10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 100 - - 100 --------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 4 893 17 9 1726 2 21 0 14 8 0 11
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 1728 0 0 910 0 0 1791 2656 455 2200 2663 864 Stage 1 - - - - - - 910 910 - 1745 1745 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 881 1746 - 455 918 -
Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ----- 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ----- 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 361 - - 744 - - 51 22 552 25 22 297
Stage 1 - - - - - - 296 352 - 90 139 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 308 139 - 554 349 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 361 - - 744 - - 48 21 552 24 21 297
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 48 21 - 24 21 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 293 348 - 89 137 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 293 137 - 534 345 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 87.3 108.4

HCM LOS F F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 76 361 - - 744 - - 52
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.458 0.012 - - 0.012 - - 0.355
HCM Control Delay (s) 87.3 15.1 - - 9.9 - - 108.4
HCM Lane LOS F C - - A - - F
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.9 0 - - 0 - - 1.3

HCM 6th TWSC Cumulative +Project AM
2: Lone Tree Way & Project Access 04/05/2022
7590 and 7650 Lone Tree Way Synchro 10 Report
City of Brentwood Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.2
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 840 1585 1 4 5
Future Vol, veh/h 2 840 1585 1 4 5
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 100 - - - 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 2 913 1723 1 4 5
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 1724 0 - 0 2185 862
Stage 1 - - - - 1724 -
Stage 2 - - - - 461 -
Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - - 6.84 6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.84 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.84 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - - 3.52 3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 363 - - - 39 298
Stage 1 - - - - 129 -
Stage 2 - - - - 601 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 363 - - - 39 298
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 39 -
Stage 1 - - - - 128 -
Stage 2 - - - - 601 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 60.1

HCM LOS F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 363 - - - 75
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.006 - - - 0.13
HCM Control Delay (s) 15 - - - 60.1
HCM Lane LOS B - - - F
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.4

HCM 6th TWSC Cumulative +Project PM
1: Smith Road/Project Access & Lone Tree Way 04/05/2022 7590 and 7650 Lone Tree Way Synchro 10 Report
City of Brentwood Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 9 1509 20 15 1076 6 15 09305
Future Vol, veh/h 9 1509 20 15 1076 6 15 09305
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 100 - - 100 --------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 10 1640 22 16 1170 7 16 0 10 3 0 5
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 1177 0 0 1662 0 0 2288 2880 831 2046 2888 589 Stage 1 - ----- 1671 1671 - 1206 1206 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 617 1209 - 840 1682 -
Critical Hdwy 4.14 - - 4.14 - - 7.54 6.54 6.94 7.54 6.54 6.94 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - ----- 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - ----- 6.54 5.54 - 6.54 5.54 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.22 - - 2.22 - - 3.52 4.02 3.32 3.52 4.02 3.32 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 589 - - 383 - - 21 16 313 33 16 452
Stage 1 - - - - - - 100 151 - 195 255 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 444 254 - 326 149 -
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 589 - - 383 - - 20 15 313 31 15 452
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 20 15 - 31 15 -
Stage 1 - - - - - - 98 148 - 192 244 -
Stage 2 - - - - - - 420 243 - 310 146 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0.2 298.2 60

HCM LOS F F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 31 589 - - 383 - - 74
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.842 0.017 - - 0.043 - - 0.118
HCM Control Delay (s) 298.2 11.2 - - 14.8 - - 60
HCM Lane LOS F B - - B - - F
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 2.8 0.1 - - 0.1 - - 0.4

HCM 6th TWSC Cumulative +Project PM
2: Lone Tree Way & Project Access 04/05/2022
7590 and 7650 Lone Tree Way Synchro 10 Report
City of Brentwood Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 1516 1079 3 2 3
Future Vol, veh/h 5 1516 1079 3 2 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 100 - - 0 0 -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222
Mvmt Flow 5 1648 1173 3 2 3
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 1176 0 - 0 2007 1173
Stage 1 - - - - 1173 -
Stage 2 - - - - 834 -
Critical Hdwy 4.13 - - - 6.63 6.23
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.43 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.83 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.219 - - - 3.519 3.319
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 592 - - - 58 233
Stage 1 - - - - 293 -
Stage 2 - - - - 388 -
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 592 - - - 58 233
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 58 -
Stage 1 - - - - 291 -
Stage 2 - - - - 388 -
Approach EB WB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 40.8

HCM LOS E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1
Capacity (veh/h) 592 - - - 106
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.009 - - - 0.051
HCM Control Delay (s) 11.1 - - - 40.8
HCM Lane LOS B - - - E
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.2

CALIFORNIA | FLORIDA | TEXAS
Corporate Office 4305 Hacienda Drive, Suite 550, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925.463.0611 www.TJKM.com 1 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
The purpose of this memorandum is to present an analysis of the expected vehicle miles traveled (VMT) that would be generated by the proposed Orchard Grove II residential development on Adams Lane in the City of Brentwood. The proposed project would construct 30 single family homes and four duplex homes (34 total) on a currently vacant site located on Adams Lane north of Gracie Lane. TJKM previously studied the first phase of Orchard Grove, located immediately to the south, in 2022. The project site plan, dated July 11, 2023, is included in the Appendix.

As the City of Brentwood does not currently have an adopted policy document outlining VMT standards, study requirements, or methodology for conducting project VMT analysis, TJKM has based this analysis on requirements adopted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) in July 2020 as an amendment to the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Although jurisdictions may choose to enact methodologies or thresholds that are more stringent, all new projects within Contra Costa County are required to comply with requirements of the CCTA VMT methodology as part of fulfillment of local jurisdictions’ requirements under the CCTA GMP.

Project Trip Generation
TJKM developed estimated project trip generation for the proposed project based on published trip generation rates from the ITE publication Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition). TJKM used published trip rates for the ITE land uses Single Family Detached Housing (ITE Code 210) and Single Family Attached Housing (ITE Code 215) for this project. The project is expected to generate 362 daily trips, including 27 a.m. peak hour trips (7 inbound trips, 20 outbound trips) and 34 p.m. peak hour trips (21 inbound trips, 13 outbound trips.

Date: October 20, 2023
To: David Best
Community Development Manager
[email protected]
Shea Homes
From: Renee Reavis
Project Engineer
TJKM
Subject: VMT Analysis for the Orchard Grove II Residential Development Oct. 23,

2 Table 1. Project Trip Generation
Land Use (ITE Code) Size
Daily A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
Rate Trips Rate In:Out In Out Total Rate In:Out In Out Total Single-Family Detached
Housing (210) 30DU EQ 333 EQ 25:75 6 19 25 EQ 63:37 20 12 32 Single-Family Attached
Housing (215) 4DU 7.20 29 0.48 25:75 1 1 2 0.57 59:41 1 1 2 Net New Trips 362 7 20 27 21 13 34
Note:

Source: Calculated based on Trip Generation Manual 11th Ed., Institute of Transportation Engineers Multiple ITE land use codes (LUC) have fitted curve equations (EQ) for various analysis periods in addition to rates. The methodology in the ITE's Trip Generation Handbook (3rd Ed.) was utilized to determine which was used.

Project Vehicle Miles Traveled
The OPR Technical Advisory (December 2018) provides guidance to analysts and local jurisdictions for implementing VMT as a metric for determining the transportation impact for land use projects. The OPR guidelines state that for analysis purposes, “VMT” refers to automobile VMT, specifically passenger vehicles and light trucks. Heavy truck traffic is typically excluded. The adopted CCTA VMT analysis methodology provides specific procedures and thresholds for land use projects within Contra Costa County.

SCREENING CRITERIA
The CCTA VMT methodology provides standards for identifying which projects should be expected to prepare a detailed VMT analysis, based on characteristics such as their size, mix of uses, proximity to transit, or location. These screening criteria are used to quickly determine if a proposed project should be expected to prepare a detailed VMT analysis, as screened out projects can be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact on VMT. Projects are considered small if they would construct no more than 20 residential units or 10,000 sq. ft. of non-residential space. The project would construct 34 residential units, exceeding the screening criteria for size. Existing residential VMT in the project location must therefore be established in order to determine whether the project is located in a low VMT area, as other screening criteria do not apply. If a project does not meet any screening criteria, it would typically be required to prepare a detailed VMT analysis.

Under the CCTA VMT methodology, a low VMT area is defined as a city or unincorporated portion within one of the CCTA subregions where home-based VMT per resident is at least 15 percent below the countywide or where the commute VMT per employee is at least 15 percent below the regional average. A conservative reading of the methodology would indicate that when the citywide average VMT per resident is above the countywide average, projects cannot be screened out based on location, and a VMT analysis must be completed. In such cases, the appropriate significance thresholds based on countywide or regional average would be applied. The methodology also permits the applicable average VMT for the subject municipality or unincorporated CCTA subregion to be utilized instead of the countywide or regional average, if it is less stringent.

3 Under the residential use classification outlined in the OPR Technical Advisory, and the CCTA VMT methodology, home-based VMT includes all trips that begin or end at a residence, and home-work (commute) VMT includes trips between a residence and an employment-generating use. The CCTA travel demand model generates weekday VMT per capita by traffic analysis zone (TAZ) within Contra Costa County and throughout the Bay Area, for home-based VMT per resident and commute VMT per employee. For the year 2020, the Contra Costa County average home-based VMT per capita generated by the CCTA travel demand model is 19.78. The Brentwood average is 29.6, and the East Subarea average is 24.9, both higher than the countywide average. Using a conservative reading of the CCTA screening criteria, the proposed project is not located in a low-VMT area and would require a VMT analysis to determine if it has a significant VMT impact.

EXISTING VMT GENERATED PER RESIDENT
The project site east of Adams Lane is within the boundaries of two existing TAZs (#30327 and #30328), with the majority of the project area located within TAZ #30327. There is a small amount of geographic overlap between the project boundaries and the other TAZ, and it is expected that this is a minor misalignment between TAZ boundaries and actual roadways, and that the site would be entirely assigned to TAZ #30327 in future model revisions. Within these two TAZs, the majority of residential units are part of subdivisions similar to the proposed project: predominantly single family homes, with a small number of duplexes. Consistent with the analysis of Orchard Grove phase I, TJKM used a weighted average of both TAZs to establish the existing residential VMT at the project location. For these TAZs, based on model simulations for the year 2020, the existing home-based VMT per resident is 20.77 miles. Table 1 shows a summary of the TAZ data for this location. A map view showing these TAZ boundaries is included in the Appendix.

Table 1: Year 2020 VMT Generation
TAZ # Description Population Home-Based
VMT
Home Based
VMT per
Capita
30327 Bounded by Adams Ln., Grant St., Gracie Ln., and
Marsh Creek 561 10,740 19.1
30328
Bounded by Grant St., railroad tracks, Sand Creek
Rd., and TAZs #30326/30327 (approximately
following Adams Ln. and O’Hara Ave.)
568 12,710 22.4
Total 57.2 9.4 20.77
Notes:

Source: CCTA travel demand model, year 2020. Model revision 2016, Kittelson & Associates.

PROJECT-RELATED RESIDENTIAL VMT
The CCTA VMT methodology requires that baseline and baseline plus project scenarios be evaluated, using the most recent baseline CCTA travel demand model. In general, the baseline plus project scenario would be generated by adding the project to the appropriate TAZ and re-running the model simulations. However, the methodology states that for single-use projects that are very similar to the

4 existing uses in the TAZ, “the analyst may conclude that the project generated home-based VMT per capita or home-work VMT per worker will be the same as the existing VMT per capita or per worker in that TAZ,” and a new travel demand model run with the project is not required. This is the case for the proposed project, as noted above. It is expected that the project’s home-based VMT per capita would be 20.77, the same as the existing VMT per capita in the project location.

Although the proposed project is located entirely within the Brentwood city limits, the travel demand model data incorrectly identifies these two TAZs as being in unincorporated Contra Costa County in the East Subarea. As such, VMT generated at the project location was compared to the average VMT for both the City of Brentwood and the East Subarea, in addition to the countywide average.

For residential projects, CCTA establishes a significance threshold of 15 percent below the subject municipality (or unincorporated CCTA subregion outside of municipalities) average residential VMT, or below the countywide average VMT, whichever is less stringent. The Contra Costa County average home-based VMT per capita generated by the CCTA travel demand model is 19.78. The City of Brentwood average is 29.6, and the East Subarea average is 24.9, both higher than the countywide average and thus less stringent. The corresponding screening thresholds, 15 percent below the average, are 25.16 in the City of Brentwood and 21.16 in the East Subarea. These are both higher than the existing VMT at the project location. Based on CCTA significance thresholds, the project would produce a less-than-significant impact on VMT.

Conclusion
The proposed development of 34 homes on Adams Lane in Brentwood is expected to generate 362 daily vehicle trips, including 27 a.m. peak hour trips and 34 p.m. peak hour trips. Based on the existing residential VMT generated by other similar homes surrounding the project location, the project is expected to generate VMT per resident that is at least 15 percent below the Brentwood citywide average. Based on adopted CCTA thresholds, the project would produce a less-than-significant impact to VMT.

5 Appendix
Project Site Plan
TAZ boundaries in the project vicinity, CCTA travel demand model

ADAMS LANE LONE OAK ROAD

TRELLIS CIRCLE TRELLIS CIRCLE

DESIGNATED

REMAINDER BIORETENTION WATER QUALITY

NORTH LOOP WEST LOOP EAST LOOP
18 12 11
3 7 8 9
15 10
1 17
2 5
16 14
4 13
6 19
21 20
22 31 23 24 25 26 27 28
32 29 30
34 33

PARCEL A
F:\3170-010\ACAD\TM\TM01.DWG

OF SHEETS
SHEET NO.

CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS

SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM

ROSEVILLE
(925) 866-0322
(916) 788-4456

VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
ORCHARD GROVE NORTH - SUBDIVISION 9649

CITY OF BRENTWOOD CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
SCALE: 1"=50' DATE: JULY 11, 2023 JOB NO.: 3170-010
0 50 100 150 4

GENERAL NOTES,

DIMENSIONED SITE PLAN & SHEET INDEX DRAFT

GRANT STREET

ADAMS LANE MARSH CREEK

GRACIE LANE LONE OAK ROAD

LONE OAK ROAD

COUNTRY CT

CAPER DRIVE LONE OAK ROAD
SITE

VICINITY MAP

O'HARA AVENUE

TRELLIS CIRCLE
GENERAL NOTES: GENERAL NOTES (CONTINUED): GENERAL NOTES (CONTINUED):

LAND AREA SUMMARY

PARCEL / LOT LAND USE AREA
LEGEND

EXISTING PROPOSED

ABBREVIATIONS
1 Sheet List Table
Sheet Number Sheet Title
Repeat the notes
identifying existing
RW and Road
Easement
Delete this proposed
property line. Do not
dedicate additional
R/W on Designated
Remainder
Update remainder
property square
footage and property
line lengths
Extend property line
to existing property
boundary

RESOLUTION NO. 2026- 44

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BRENTWOOD: ADOPTING THE 2026/ 27- 2030/ 31 CAPITAL

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ( CIP)
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65400, et seq., provide that, after adoption of all or part of a general plan, the City is to identify reasonable and practical means for implementing the General Plan so that it serves as an effective guide for orderly growth and development, preservation and conservation of open -space land and natural resources, and the efficient expenditure of public funds relating to subjects addressed in the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 65401 requires proposed public works recommended for planning, initiation, or construction during the ensuing fiscal year to be submitted for review and report as to conformity with the adopted General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Brentwood adopted the most recent General Plan Update in July 2014, which states the City may include General Plan items in the Capital Improvement Program ( CIP) as the City deems appropriate; and WHEREAS, General Plan policy requires inclusion of certain capital projects sponsored by the City and necessary to achieve General Plan action items in the fiveyear CIP; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the CIP is to integrate capital planning with the General Plan and other City activities, and to ensure that planning for capital improvements is tied to realistic funding sources; and
WHEREAS, this CIP includes projects that have been carefully evaluated to ensure: ( 1) the City' s capital improvement needs are met, both now and in the future 2) the projects support the City' s Mission Statement, General Plan, and most recent City of Brentwood Strategic Plan, and ( 3) available funding sources are identified; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to define improvements and anticipated construction schedules to ensure proper pre -planning, design and community review before construction begins; and
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2026, City Finance staff met with the Budget and Debt Management Ad Hoc Committee and reviewed a preliminary draft of the 2026/ 27 - 2030/ 31 CIP; and
WHEREAS, on April 14, 2026, the proposed 2026/ 27 - 2030/ 31 CIP was presented to the City Council at the CIP Workshop and the draft CIP was updated to incorporate Council direction from that workshop; and
Attachment H - CIP Resolution

WHEREAS, on May 5, 2026, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed 2026/ 27- 2030/ 31 CIP and determined that it is consistent with the City's General Plan; and
WHEREAS, beginning May 15, 2026, a copy of the draft 2026/ 27- 2030/ 31 CIP was made available for public review on the City' s website; and WHEREAS, adoption of the 2026/ 27- 2030/ 31 CIP establishes the City' s capital improvement plan for the five- year period, but does not independently authorize any project -specific construction contract, final project approval, or future - year appropriation that otherwise requires separate City Council action.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood hereby adopts the 2026/ 27 - 2030/ 31 Capital Improvement Program as presented in Exhibit " A", including roadway, parks and trails, water, wastewater, and community facilities improvements to be constructed during the next five years.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that appropriations, transfers, and other budgetary actions necessary to implement the 2026/ 27- 2030/ 31 CIP shall be included in the applicable City budget or otherwise presented to the City Council for approval as required.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at a regular meeting held on the 26th day of May 2026 by the following vote:

AYES: Maloney, Pierson, Mendoza, Oerlemans, Mayor Meyer NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RECUSE: None
Approved:

ATTEST: sannah Meyer, Mayor
A-ra A AAa
Enda McVey, City CI

Attachment I - Transportation Systems Management Program

Attachment I - Transportation Systems Management Program

Attachment I - Transportation Systems Management Program

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 14
Meeting Date: March 10, 2009
Subject/Title: A City-initiated General Plan amendment (GPA 09-02) to amend the Growth Management Element of the City’s General Plan to incorporate the adopted Urban Limit Line (ULL) and related references to Measure J within this element in compliance with the terms of Measure J.

Prepared by: Heidi Kline, Planning Manager
Submitted by: Casey McCann, Community Development Director

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving a City-initiated General Plan amendment (GPA 09-02) to amend the Growth Management Element of the City’s General Plan to incorporate the adopted Urban Limit Line (ULL) and related references to Measure J within this element in compliance with the terms of Measure J.

BACKGROUND
In November 2004, voters in Contra Costa County extended the Measure C sales tax until 2034 through the passage of Measure J. On January 8, 2008, the City Council approved adoption of the County-approved Urban Limit Line (ULL) in compliance with the provisions of Measure J. In order for the City to be in compliance with the statutory requirements of Measure J by the deadline of April 1, 2009, the City’s Growth Management Element of its General Plan must be amended to include a reference to the adopted ULL. This is a requirement of all cities in Contra Costa County.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following text is proposed for insertion within the Growth Management Element of the City’s General Plan and a new Action Program 3.1.9 added referencing adherence of development within the City to the adopted Urban Limit Line (ULL). The purpose of including reference to the previously-adopted ULL is for compliance with Measure J which is required for the City to receive certain transportation revenue collected from the sales tax authorized by Measure J. “In November 2004, voters in Contra Costa County extended the Measure C sales tax until 2034 through the passage of Measure J. While this new measure retains many of the components of the Measure C GMP, there are some changes, most notably the requirement for the adoption of an Urban Limit Line (ULL) for each jurisdiction.

At its January 8, 2008 meeting, the City Council adopted the Contra Costa Measure L Voterapproved Urban Limit Line (Resolution 2008-03) as the City of Brentwood’s Urban Limit Line which was approved by the majority of Brentwood voters in November 2006. This Urban Limit Line for Brentwood is hereby incorporated within the City’s Growth Management Element and the configuration is as shown on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map. Any changes to the ULL must be completed in accordance with City Council Resolution 08-03 and consistent with Attachment J - Voter-Approved ULL and Measure J Growth Management Element

2 the provisions of Measure J. As with Measure C, compliance with Measure J requires the City continue to participate in the regional fee program (ECCRFFA & ECFA) and collect regional fees for improvements to regional routes (SR 4 ByPass and SR 4). Action program 3.1.9 would ensure that all new development occurs within the City’s adopted ULL.” Added: Action Program 3.1.9 Urban Limit Line (ULL): Ensure that all new development shall occur within the City’s adopted Urban Limit Line.

Additionally, replaced “basic routes” with “non-regional routes” throughout the text. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) is trying to discontinue use of the term “basic” routes, since it is a non-standard and confusing term.

DISCUSSION
The proposed General Plan amendment is a fairly straightforward item in that it incorporates the previously-adopted ULL into the City’s Growth management Element. This amendment is merely a technical clean-up item done to ensure that the City is in compliance with all the requirements of Measure J by April 1, 2009 and remains eligible for its portion of transportation funding. Brentwood’s share of funding in the past fiscal year was $473,961. The draft revisions to the City’s Growth Management Element have been reviewed by CCTA staff who has determined that it is consistent with the intent of Measure J.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Consideration of this application is determined to be covered by the general rule that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. In this case, where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)), in that the project is a technical update to incorporate the reference to the previously-adopted ULL into the City’s Growth Management Element of its General Plan. A negative declaration was adopted at the time of approval of the ULL by the City Council in January 2008.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with approval of this General Plan amendment per se.

However, should the amendment not be approved, the City may become ineligible to receive approximately $11,849,025 of Measure J funds over the next 25 years.

Attachments:

1. Draft Resolution

2. Revised Growth Management Element

3. Land Use map showing Urban Limit Line
Attachment J - Voter-Approved ULL and Measure J Growth Management Element

1 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA 09-02) TO AMEND THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT OF THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN TO

INCORPORATE THE ADOPTED URBAN LIMIT LINE (ULL) AND RELATED

REFERENCES TO MEASURE J WITHIN THE ELEMENT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE

TERMS OF MEASURE J
WHEREAS, the Measure J (2004) Transportation Expenditure Plan includes a Growth Management Program which contains an urban limit line component mandating that local jurisdictions must adopt and continuously comply with a voter approved urban limit line no later than April 1, 2009 in order to receive their shares of Measure J Local Street Maintenance and Improvement Funds and to be eligible to receive Measure J Transportation for Livable Community funds; and
WHEREAS, Measure J also includes Principles of Agreement for Establishing the Urban Limit Line (the ULL Principles) as Attachment A to the Growth Management Program, incorporated therein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the ULL Principles, as amended by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority on November 15, 2006, state that a local jurisdiction may adopt a County Urban Limit Line, which is defined as the Urban Limit Line adopted by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and passed by the voters at a countywide election (after November 2004); and WHEREAS, Measure L (2006), the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisor Urban Limit Line, was passed by a majority of voters in Contra Costa at the November 7, 2006 election; and
WHEREAS, the Measure L Urban Limit Line was also approved by a majority of the voters in the City of Brentwood at the November 7, 2006 election, as certified by the County Clerk; and
WHEREAS, on October 18, 2007, the City of Brentwood Land Use and Development Committee members recommended that the County voter-approved Urban Limit Line be adopted by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on January 8, 2008, the City of Brentwood adopted the Measure L Urban Limit Line (referred hereinafter as the County Urban Limit Line) as its Urban Limit Line specifically as it applies to the City of Brentwood boundaries for the purpose of compliance with the Measure J Growth Management Program; and
WHEREAS, the City of Brentwood now amends the General Plan’s Growth Management Element to incorporate the adopted Urban Limit Line (ULL) and related references to Measure J within this Element in compliance with the terms of Measure J; and WHEREAS, on February 3, 2009, the Planning Commission the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood considered this amendment at a public hearing and considered the staff report, all accompanying information, and testimony received, and recommended that the City Council approve the general plan amendment, by adopting Resolution No. 09-03; and Attachment J - Voter-Approved ULL and Measure J Growth Management Element

2 WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing was distributed to all property owners of record within 300 feet of the project site, and published in the Brentwood Press on February 27, 2009, in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090; and WHEREAS, consideration of this application is determined to be covered by the general rule that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. In this case, where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)), in that the project is a technical update to incorporate the reference to the previously-adopted ULL into the City’s Growth Management Element of its General Plan. A negative declaration was adopted at the time of approval of the ULL by the City Council in January 2008; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered this request at a public hearing at its regular meeting of March 10, 2009, and considered the staff report, the Planning Commission recommendation, all accompanying information, and testimony received from all interested parties.

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

A. Hereby finds that:

1. The proposed amendment is deemed to be in the public interest. The amendment would fulfill the requirements of the voter-approved Measure J passed in November 2004.

2. The proposed General Plan amendment is consistent and compatible with the rest of the General Plan, including the Circulation Element, and any implementation programs that may be affected.

3. The potential impacts of the proposed amendment have been assessed and have been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare in that this text amendment is simply codifies a previously-approved ballot measure.

4. The proposed amendment has been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In this case, where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)), in that the project is a technical update to incorporate the reference to the previously-adopted ULL into the City’s Growth Management Element of its General Plan.

B. Hereby approves General Plan Amendment No. 09-02 to amend the Growth Management Element of the City’s General Plan as reflected in the attached Exhibit “A”.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at its regular meeting held on the 10th day of March, 2009, by the following vote:

Attachment J - Voter-Approved ULL and Measure J Growth Management Element

1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Updated November 2001 and March 2009
Attachment J - Voter-Approved ULL and Measure J Growth Management Attachment #2 Element

2 GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT

SETTING
Growth management is the use of a wide range of techniques to determine the amount, type, and rate of development desired by the community and to channel that growth into designated areas.

A growth management system is commonly organized into a set of goals, objectives, policies, and performance standards that guide the physical development of a community.

Growth management systems promote a variety of environmental, social, and economic goals, including balancing the service costs and revenues associated with development; protecting environmental and aesthetic qualities; encouraging efficient land, water and energy resources; preserving community identity; and protecting the economic base of the community.

Development pressures continue to increase as Brentwood is considered a high quality, affordable alternative to housing located elsewhere in the Bay Area. While this development pressure is increasing, Brentwood has retained its small town nature, including features such as a stable downtown commercial core and large tracts of undeveloped land surrounding the community.

Nonetheless, development has increased traffic levels and the need for improved facilities and services. For instance, more traffic signalization is now necessary, and additional roadway improvements will soon be needed. Other community facilities, further addressed in the Public Facilities Chapter of this General Plan, also require improvements and expansion.

Brentwood citizens have indicated overall goals for the future of the City, which can be attained through development of a growth management system. These goals include:
• Retaining the small town character of Brentwood;
• Strengthening the downtown as a destination point;
• Providing a higher number of jobs while limiting annual housing growth; and • Providing adequate public facilities and services.

This Growth Management Element is part of the General Plan because the City wants to reach these goals and because Contra Costa County voters approved a 0.5% sales tax increase in November 1988, commonly known as “Measure C,” that includes both Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Programs. The overall goals of the Measure C program are:
• To relieve congestion created by past development through road and transit improvements funded by the proceeds of the sales tax increase.
• To prevent future development decisions resulting in deterioration of public services and acceptable traffic performance standards.

To be eligible for its share of revenue generated under Measure C, the City of Brentwood must commit itself, as matter of public policy, to carrying out the following objectives:

Attachment J - Voter-Approved ULL and Measure J Growth Management Element

3 • Manage congestion by adopting and applying traffic service standards for streets, roads, and Regional Routes.
• Adopt policies for fire protection, police, parks, water, flood control, and sanitary sewer service level standards that will be met as the City grows.

The City of Brentwood continues to demonstrate a commitment to growth management while providing adequate levels of public services. This commitment is demonstrated through adoption of this element, which conforms to Measure C (Contra Costa Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Program) and Proposition 111, a state measure that provides funding to local governments on the basis of compliance with the Congestion Management Program (CMP).

In Contra Costa County, the CMP requirements have been incorporated into the Action Plan for East Contra County. Brentwood is participating in the preparation of the Action Plan for East Contra Costa County, along with the cities of Pittsburg, Antioch, and with Contra Costa County.

The key objective of the Action Plan is to maintain levels of service for roads and other public facilities. Failure to meet established standards could result in a reduced level of funding from Measure C and State sources.

The enactment of a Residential Growth Management Program (RGMP) in July 2001 illustrates the City’s commitment to growth management. The RGMP establishes a residential growth allocation system that ensures that growth is high quality, orderly and efficient, while simultaneously achieving the City’s appropriate share of the regional need for housing.

In November 2004, voters in Contra Costa County extended the Measure C sales tax until 2034 through the passage of Measure J. While this new measure retains many of the components of the Measure C GMP, there are some changes, most notably the requirement for the adoption of an Urban Limit Line (ULL) for each jurisdiction.

At its January 8, 2008 meeting, the City Council adopted the Contra Costa Measure L Voterapproved Urban Limit Line (Resolution 2008-03) as the City of Brentwood’s Urban Limit Line which was approved by the majority of Brentwood voters in November 2006. This Urban Limit Line for Brentwood is hereby incorporated within the City’s Growth Management Element and the configuration is as shown on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map. Any changes to the ULL must be completed in accordance with City Council Resolution 08-03 and consistent with the provisions of Measure J. As with Measure C, compliance with Measure J requires the City continue to participate in the regional fee program (ECCRFFA & ECFA) and collect regional fees for improvements to regional routes (SR 4 ByPass and SR 4). Action program 3.1.9 would ensure that all new development occurs within the City’s adopted ULL.

FORECAST
The City of Brentwood shares Contra Costa County's concern about managing and planning for future growth and development. The City’s intent is to ensure that roadways, parks, police, fire protection, sanitary sewer, water and flood control facilities are provided in an amount and manner that best serves the existing and future residents of the community.

Attachment J - Voter-Approved ULL and Measure J Growth Management Element

4 The City of Brentwood plans to provide for orderly and efficient growth within the Brentwood Planning Area. The City’s planned buildout population is approximately 76,226 people. The City intends to ensure that new developments will be served with adequate public infrastructure and that future services and infrastructure will be provided without placing a burden on existing residents and businesses.

This Growth Management Element establishes performance standards for public facilities and services. Traffic levels of service (LOS) and performance standards for fire protection, police, parks, sanitary facilities, water and flood control are included. By adopting and implementing this element, the City of Brentwood establishes a comprehensive, long-range program to meet the demands for public facilities generated by new development through master plans, capital improvement programs and development mitigation programs.

New growth and development in the City of Brentwood will increase the service and facility requirements within the City as well as those of other public agencies. All land use decisions have an effect on future municipal tax revenues and on the costs of delivering services. As long as Brentwood continues to grow in population and expand its economic base, the City's operating and capital budget will have to respond to an increased demand for services and improvements.

However, the fiscal burden to the City’s operating budget will be offset by increased revenue, primarily in the form of sales and property tax, from new development. Fiscal impact estimates suggest that if the General Plan Update buildout is achieved, the City’s operating budget will experience a surplus. The continued growth of single family housing as the predominant development patterns in the General Plan will have a significant positive impact on property tax revenue to the City. Additionally, the targeted growth in retail space, and therefore in sales tax, will contribute to the positive net outcome of the Plan at buildout. The gains in these two revenue sources will contribute to offsetting the expected cost increases of serving new residents and new employment generating development, resulting in an estimated fiscal surplus for the City. The City also has in place development fees intended to offset the impact to the City’s capital budget. The growth management program will allow the City of Brentwood to manage urban expansion without burdening the community's resources and revenues, and constraining economic development.

Attachment J - Voter-Approved ULL and Measure J Growth Management Element

5 GOALS AND POLICIES
The following goals, policies, action programs and implementation mechanisms embody the direction and requirements of the City of Brentwood’s Growth Management Program.

GOAL 1: FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Adequate public facilities and services that are maintained or improved as Brentwood grows.

Policy 1.1 Municipal Services: Provide adequate public infrastructure (i.e. sewer, water, and storm drain) to meet the needs of existing and future development. (See Infrastructure Element.) Action Program
Responsible
Agency/
Department
Time Frame
Implementation
Mechanism
(Numbers refer to descriptions of
mechanisms, which follow table)

1.1.1 Master Infrastructure Plan:

The City shall only approve
developments which are in
conformance with the following
performance standards provided in the
Master Infrastructure Plan:
a) For sanitary facilities: The
capability to collect and treat
sewage according to the standards
set forth in the City’s National
Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit issued by
the Regional Water Quality Control
Board. Average daily effluent
flows have been determined for
various land use types in the City’s
Sewer Master Plan.
b) For water facilities: The City shall
assure sufficient capacity to
provide quality water that meets or
exceeds the standards set forth by
the California Department of
Health Services to all potable water
customers in the City.
c) For flood control facilities: Until
and unless FEMA maps flood zone
areas within Brentwood, standards
for the containment of flood events
will be based upon the size of the
effected watershed.

City of
Brentwood
Engineering
Department
Modify and
update the
Master
Infrastructure
Plan as needed
Other actions
are ongoing
ƒ Master Infrastructure
Plans: Sewer Master
Plan; Water Master
Plan; and Reclaimed
Water Master Plan (18,
22)
ƒ Capital Improvements
Program (4)
ƒ Intergovernmental
Coordination (16)
Attachment J - Voter-Approved ULL and Measure J Growth Management Element

6 GOAL 1: FACILITIES AND SERVICES (continued)
Policy 1.1 Municipal Services (continued)
Action Program
Responsible
Agency/
Department
Time Frame Implementation
Mechanism

1.1.2 Sizing of Utilities: Through
development review, the City shall
ensure that utilities are adequately
sized to accommodate the proposed
development and, if applicable, allow
for anticipated future extensions.

City of
Brentwood
Engineering
Department
Ongoing ƒ Capital Improvements
Program (4)
ƒ Development Review
(9)

1.1.3 Development Proposals:

Individual developments shall be
required to develop comprehensive
infrastructure plans for City review and
approval as part of an application
submittal.

City of
Brentwood
Engineering
Department
Ongoing ƒ Development Review
(9)
ƒ CEQA Review (2)

1.1.4 Infrastructure Capacity:

Existing water and wastewater
facilities shall be expanded to
accommodate existing and planned
future development.

City of
Brentwood
Engineering
Department
Ongoing ƒ Capital Improvements
Program (4)
ƒ Intergovernmental
Coordination (16)

1.1.5 Correct Inadequacies: The
City shall continue to utilize a Capital
Improvements Program that establishes
priorities and corrects existing
inadequacies in the City’s
infrastructure system.

City of
Brentwood
Administration,
Community
Development,
Engineering,
Finance, and
Parks and
Recreation
Departments
Adopt CIP
annually
ƒ 5-year Capital
Improvements Program
(4)

1.1.6 Cost of Infrastructure: Require
new development to pay its fair share
of the cost of on- and off-site public
infrastructure and services generated
by new demand. This shall include
installation of necessary public
facilities, payment of impact fees, and
participation in a Capital Improvement
Financing Program (CIFP).

City of
Brentwood
Engineering
and Finance
Departments
Ongoing ƒ Capital Improvements
Program (4)
ƒ Capital Improvement
Financing Program (3)
Attachment J - Voter-Approved ULL and Measure J Growth Management Element

7 GOAL 1: FACILITIES AND SERVICES (continued)
Policy 1.1 Municipal Services (continued)
Action Program
Responsible
Agency/
Department
Time Frame Implementation
Mechanism

1.1.7 Reimbursement: The City may
require developments to install off-site
facilities that are in excess of a
development’s fair share. However, the
City shall establish a funding
mechanism to reimburse the developer
for the amount in excess of the fair
share costs.

City of
Brentwood
Community
Development,
Engineering
and Finance
Departments
Ongoing ƒ Capital Improvements
Program (4)
ƒ Capital Improvement
Financing Program (3)
ƒ Fee Credits (11)

1.1.8 Other Funding Sources: The
City shall apply for State, Federal, and
regional funding sources set aside to
finance infrastructure costs.

City of
Brentwood
Community
Development
and Parks and
Recreation
Departments
Ongoing ƒ Grant Programs (15)

1.1.9 Orderly Growth: Ensure that the
rate of growth is consistent with the
ability to provide adequate municipal
services.

City of
Brentwood
Community
Development
Department
Ongoing ƒ Residential Growth
Management Program
(21)
Attachment J - Voter-Approved ULL and Measure J Growth Management Element

8 GOAL 1: FACILITIES AND SERVICES (continued)
Policy 1.2 School Facilities: The City shall continue to work cooperatively with responsible Brentwood school districts to ensure needed school facilities are provided in conjunction with new residential development.

Action Program
Responsible
Agency/
Department
Time Frame Implementation
Mechanism

1.2.1. Coordination: The City shall
work cooperatively with responsible
Brentwood school districts to
coordinate development to ensure the
adequate provision of school facilities
and encourage the establishment of a
School Facility Master Plan.

City of
Brentwood,
LUHSD,
BUSD
Review future
school sites on
the General
Plan Land Use
Map and revise
as needed
Ongoing
ƒ Intergovernmental
Coordination (16)

1.2.2 Fees: The City shall ensure that
school facility impact fees are collected
and shall work with the developers and
the school districts to establish
mitigation measures to ensure that
adequate school facilities will be
available.

City of
Brentwood
Community
Development
Department
Ongoing ƒ Intergovernmental
Coordination (16)
ƒ Development Review (9)

1.2.3 Financing Programs: The City
shall require developer financing
through a Capital Improvement
Financing Program (i.e., Assessment
District, etc.) in accordance with
Zoning Ordinance 17.805, Phased
Development Plan.

City of
Brentwood
Engineering
and Finance
Departments
Ongoing ƒ Capital Improvement
Financing Program (3)
ƒ Development
Regulations (Zoning) (8)

1.2.4 Alternative Funding: The City
shall work with the school districts to
consider alternative funding programs
for school facilities construction and
provision of educational programs.

City of
Brentwood,
LUHSD,
BUSD
Ongoing ƒ Intergovernmental
Coordination (16)

1.2.5 Distribution: Strongly
encourage dispersal of schools
throughout the City based on ongoing
discussions with the local school
districts.

City of
Brentwood
Community
Development
Department
Ongoing ƒ General Plan Land Use
Map
ƒ Intergovernmental
Coordination

1.2.6 Orderly Growth: Ensure that the
rate of growth is consistent with the
ability to provide adequate school
services.

City of
Brentwood
Community
Development
Department
Ongoing ƒ Residential Growth
Management Program
(21)
Attachment J - Voter-Approved ULL and Measure J Growth Management Element

9 GOAL 1: FACILITIES AND SERVICES (continued)
Policy 1.3 Park Planning: A variety of park facilities shall be provided in a timely manner in accordance with the pace of development as per the Parks, Trails, and Recreation Master Plan.

Action Program
Responsible
Agency/
Department
Time Frame Implementation
Mechanism

1.3.1 Master Plan: The City shall
prepare a Parks, Trails and Recreation
Master Plan that:
ƒ Establishes funding;
ƒ Adopts standards; and
ƒ Addresses maintenance.

City of
Brentwood
Parks and
Recreation
Department
Adopt the
Parks, Trails
and Recreation
Master Plan
concurrently
with the
General Plan
Once adopted,
update every 2
years and
modify as
needed
ƒ Parks, Trails and
Recreation Master Plan
(19)

1.3.2 Conditions: The City shall
consider the effects of new
development on park, trail and
recreation facilities and programs, and
apply conditions to ensure
development satisfies the policies of
the Parks, Trails and Recreation
Master Plan.

City of
Brentwood
Parks and
Recreation and
Community
Development
Departments
Ongoing ƒ Development Review (9)

1.3.3 Coordination: The City shall
work with the East Bay Regional Park
District to coordinate development
with the provision of adequate regional
park and recreation facilities. The City
shall support the dedication and/or
acquisition of land for regional park
and trail purposes, as identified in the
EBRPD Master Plan, when consistent
with the City Parks, Trails and
Recreation Master Plan, as a condition
of new development.

City of
Brentwood
Parks and
Recreation and
Community
Development
Departments
Ongoing ƒ Intergovernmental
Coordination (16)
ƒ Development Review (9)

1.3.4 Fees: The City shall ensure that
park facility impact fees are collected
for new development that increases
demand for parks and recreation
facilities.

City of
Brentwood
Parks and
Recreation and
Finance
Departments
Ongoing ƒ Development Review (9)
ƒ Development Fees and
Dedications (7)
Attachment J - Voter-Approved ULL and Measure J Growth Management Element

10 GOAL 1: FACILITIES AND SERVICES (continued)
Policy 1.3 Park Planning (continued)
Action Program
Responsible
Agency/
Department
Time Frame Implementation
Mechanism

1.3.5 CIFP: The City shall require all
new developments to participate in a
Capital Improvement Financing
Program and shall make the required
findings of Section 17.805 of the City
Zoning Ordinance (Phased
Development Plan) that the project will
not create excess demand for park
facilities.

City of
Brentwood
Engineering
and
Community
Development
Departments
Ongoing ƒ Capital Improvement
Financing Program (3)
ƒ Development
Regulations (Zoning) (8)

1.3.6 Park Acreage: The City shall
provide at least five acres of parkland
citywide per 1,000 population to
accommodate recreational open space
needs. The City shall consider the
effects of new development on park
facilities and recreation programs and
condition them appropriately.

City of
Brentwood
Community
Development
and Parks and
Recreation
Departments
Ongoing ƒ General Plan Land Use
Map (14)
ƒ Parks, Trails and
Recreation Master Plan
(19)
ƒ Development Review (9)
ƒ Development Fees and
Dedications (7)

1.3.7 Maintenance Costs: The City
shall pursue all available funding
sources for maintenance of parks,
including but not limited to user fees,
assessment districts, and homeowners’
associations.

City of
Brentwood
Parks and
Recreation and
Finance
Departments
Ongoing ƒ Capital Improvement
Financing Program (3)
ƒ Landscape and Lighting
District (17)

1.3.8 Joint Use: Pursue joint use of
schools and parks and stormwater
detention facilities as secondary
recreational uses.

City of
Brentwood,
LUHSD,
BUSD
Ongoing ƒ Development Review (9)
ƒ Intergovernmental
Coordination (16)

1.3.9 Distribution: Encourage the
dispersal of parks and recreation
facilities throughout the City.

City of
Brentwood
Parks and
Recreation and
Community
Development
Departments
Review Parks,
Trails and
Recreation
Master Plan
every 2 years
and update as
needed
Ongoing
ƒ General Plan Land Use
Map (14)
ƒ General Plan Bikeways
and Trails Map (13)
ƒ Development Review (9)
ƒ Parks, Trails and
Recreation Master Plan
(19)
Attachment J - Voter-Approved ULL and Measure J Growth Management Element

11 GOAL 1: FACILITIES AND SERVICES (continued)
Policy 1.3 Park Planning (continued)
Action Program
Responsible
Agency/
Department
Time Frame Implementation
Mechanism

1.3.10 Orderly Growth: Ensure that
the rate of growth is consistent with the
ability to provide adequate parks.

City of
Brentwood
Community
Development
Department
Ongoing ƒ Residential Growth
Management Program
(21)
Attachment J - Voter-Approved ULL and Measure J Growth Management Element

12 GOAL 1: FACILITIES AND SERVICES (continued)
Policy 1.4 Public Safety (Police and Fire): Police and fire protection services shall be provided in a manner that ensures that adequate response times are maintained for emergencies.

Action Program
Responsible
Agency/
Department
Time Frame Implementation
Mechanism

1.4.1 Police Services: Capital
facilities and personnel shall be
provided sufficient to maintain a force
level of at least 1.5 officers per 1,000
population.

City of
Brentwood
Police
Department
Ongoing ƒ Annual City Budget (1)

1.4.2 Fire Protection Services: The
Fire District shall strive to reach a
maximum driving time of 3 minutes
and/or 1.5 miles from the first-due
station, and three (3) paid firefighters
(per apparatus) to be maintained in all
central business district (CBD), urban
and suburban areas.

City of
Brentwood,
East Diablo
Fire Protection
District and
Contra Costa
County
Ongoing ƒ Intergovernmental
Coordination (16)
ƒ Fire Service Response
Coverage Study (12)
ƒ Development Review (9)
ƒ General Plan Land Use
Map (14)

1.4.3 Response Time: The Fire
District shall strive to achieve a total
response time (dispatch plus running
and set-up time) of five minutes in
CBD, urban and suburban areas for 90
percent of all emergency responses.

East Diablo
Fire Protection
District, Contra
Costa County,
and City of
Brentwood
Daily on an
ongoing basis
ƒ Intergovernmental
Coordination (16)
ƒ Fire Service Response
Coverage Study (12)
ƒ Development Review (9)
ƒ General Plan Land Use
Map (14)

1.4.4 Upgrades: Needed upgrades to
fire facilities and equipment shall be
identified as part of project
environmental review and area
planning activities, in order to reduce
fire risk and improve emergency
response in the City of Brentwood.

City of
Brentwood and
East Diablo
Fire Protection
District
Ongoing ƒ Capital Improvements
Program (4)
ƒ Development Review (9)
ƒ Intergovernmental
Coordination (16)

1.4.5 Coordination: The City shall
work with the Fire District and Police
Department for review and comments
on all development plans.

City of
Brentwood
Community
Development
and Police
Departments,
East Diablo
Fire District
Ongoing ƒ Development Review (9)
ƒ Intergovernmental
Coordination (16)
Attachment J - Voter-Approved ULL and Measure J Growth Management Element

13 GOAL 1: FACILITIES AND SERVICES (continued)
Policy 1.4 Public Safety (Police and Fire) (continued)
Action Program
Responsible
Agency/
Department
Time Frame Implementation
Mechanism

1.4.6 Fees: The City shall ensure that
impact fees are collected and shall
work with the developers to establish
mitigation measures to ensure that
adequate facilities will be available.

City of
Brentwood
Community
Development
Department
Ongoing ƒ Development Review (9)
ƒ Development Fees and
Dedications (7)
ƒ Intergovernmental
Coordination (16)

1.4.7 Capital Improvement
Financing Program (CIFP): The
City shall require all new developments
to participate in a Capital Improvement
Financing Program and shall make the
required findings of Section 17.805 of
the City Zoning Ordinance (Phased
Development Plan) that development
projects will not create excess demand
for police and fire services.

City of
Brentwood
Engineering
and
Community
Development
Departments
Ongoing ƒ Capital Improvement
Financing Program (3)
ƒ Development
Regulations (Zoning) (8)
ƒ Development Review (9)

1.4.8 Needs Study: Within 12 months
of adoption of this Growth
Management Element, a Standards of
Response Coverage Study shall be
prepared to analyze the equipment,
personnel, and facility requirements for
various levels of service and associated
costs to ensure that adequate fire and
emergency services are maintained as
the City grows. The study shall be
periodically reviewed and updated as
needed.

City of
Brentwood and
East Diablo
Fire District
Complete study
within 12
months of
General Plan
Update
adoption
Once study is
completed,
review and
update as
needed
ƒ Fire Service Response
Coverage Study (12)
ƒ Intergovernmental
Coordination (16)
ƒ Development Review (9)

1.4.9 Orderly Growth: Ensure that
the rate of growth is consistent with the
ability to provide adequate public
safety services
City of
Brentwood
Community
Development
Department
Ongoing ƒ Residential Growth
Management Program
(21)
Attachment J - Voter-Approved ULL and Measure J Growth Management Element

14 GOAL 1: FACILITIES AND SERVICES (continued)
Policy 1.5 Traffic Service Standards: Roadways shall be provided in the City to maintain the following service standards:

Routes of Regional Significance. The following routes in Brentwood shall be considered Routes of Regional Significance and the City shall work with the TRANSPLAN Committee and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) to ensure they are designated appropriately. ƒ State Highway 4
ƒ Brentwood Boulevard / State Highway 4
ƒ Highway 4 Bypass
ƒ Walnut Boulevard / Vasco Road
ƒ Lone Tree Way
ƒ Balfour Road
The City will participate with both agencies in developing Action Plans for each of these routes.

These Action Plans will set Traffic Service Objectives to be met for each of these routes.

Non-regional Routes. All roads not designated as Routes of Regional Significance are considered to be Non-regional Routes. Signalized intersections on Non-regional Routes are required to meet the level of service standards shown in the following chart.

LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS

FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS OF NON-REGIONAL ROUTES
Route Classification Level of Service Volume to Capacity Ratio (in %)* Rural (Rural Byway) C 71-75%
Semi-Rural (Collector) C 76-80%
Suburban (Minor Arterial ) D 81-85%
Urban (Major Arterial ) D 86-90%
Central Business District E 91-95%
*Note: Volume to Capacity ratios are determined by CCTA and may change over time.

Levels of service standards are considered to be met if:

1. Measurement of actual conditions at the intersections indicates that operations are equivalent to or better than those specified in the standard, or

2. The City has, in its adopted five-year Capital Improvements Program or Fee Program, included project(s) which, when constructed, will result in operations better than or equivalent to those specified in the standard.

No project shall cause the level of service standards specified above to be exceeded unless a Finding of Special Circumstances is made by the City.

Attachment J - Voter-Approved ULL and Measure J Growth Management Element

15 GOAL 1: FACILITIES AND SERVICES (continued)
Policy 1.5 Traffic Service Standards (continued)
Action Program
Responsible
Agency/
Department
Time Frame Implementation
Mechanism

1.5.1 Mitigation Fee: The City will
adopt, implement, and maintain a
development mitigation fee that covers
the cost of mitigating the
development's share of improvements
on non-regional and regional routes as
well as the cost of maintaining
Brentwood's identified service and/or
performance standards.

City of
Brentwood
Engineering
and Finance
Departments
Modify fee
within 12
months of
General Plan
Adoption if
necessary and
annually
monitor
thereafter
ƒ Development fees and
dedications (7)
ƒ Capital Improvement
Financing Program (3)

1.5.2 Action Plans: The City may
consider amendments to its General
Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Capital
Improvements Program or other
relevant documents to ensure the East
County Action Plan is implemented
and to ensure standards on Nonregional Routes are met.

City of
Brentwood
Community
Development
Department,
CCTA and

TRANSPLAN
Ongoing ƒ Capital Improvements
Program (4)
ƒ Intergovernmental
Coordination (16)

1.5.3 Project Funding: Transportation
projects intended to meet or maintain
Level of Service standards, to
implement Action Plans for Regional
Routes, and to provide mitigation for
Intersections Subject to Findings of
Special Circumstances, may be funded
through use of Local Road
Improvement and Maintenance Funds
allocated by the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority. In no case
will revenue from this source replace
private developer funding for
transportation projects determined to
be required for new development to
meet or maintain existing standards.

City of
Brentwood
Community
Development
and
Engineering
Departments,
CCTA
Ongoing ƒ Intergovernmental
Coordination (16)
ƒ Development Review (9)
ƒ Capital Improvement
Financing Program (3)
Attachment J - Voter-Approved ULL and Measure J Growth Management Element

16 GOAL 1: FACILITIES AND SERVICES (continued)
Policy 1.5 Traffic Service Standards (continued)
Action Program
Responsible
Agency/
Department
Time Frame Implementation
Mechanism

1.5.4 Capital Improvement
Programs (CIP): Capital projects
sponsored by the City and necessary to
maintain and improve traffic operations
will be included in the five year Capital
Improvements Program that is annually
reviewed by the City Council. Funding
sources for such projects as well as
intended project phasing will be
generally identified in the CIP.

City of
Brentwood
Engineering
and Finance
Departments
Review and
revise the CIP
as needed
annually
Ongoing
ƒ 5-year Capital
Improvements Program
(4)

1.5.5 Conflict Resolution: The City
will participate in the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority's conflict
resolution process as needed to resolve
disputes related to the development and
implementation of Actions Plans and
their programs described in this
Element.

City of
Brentwood and
CCTA
Ongoing ƒ Intergovernmental
Coordination (16)

1.5.6 Local Actions: Following
adoption of Regional Route Action
Plans by TRANSPLAN and the Contra
Costa Transportation Authority, the
City will implement specified local
actions in a timely manner, consistent
with adopted Action Plans.

City of
Brentwood,

TRANSPLAN,
and CCTA
Implement
local actions
within 12
months of
Regional Route
Action Plans
adoption
ƒ Intergovernmental
Coordination (16)

1.5.7 Orderly Growth: Ensure that
the rate of growth is consistent with the
ability to provide adequate
transportation services.

City of
Brentwood
Community
Development
Department
Ongoing ƒ Residential Growth
Management Program
(21)
Attachment J - Voter-Approved ULL and Measure J Growth Management Element

17 GOAL 1: FACILITIES AND SERVICES (continued)
Policy 1.6 Growth Management: The City will require provision of concurrent infrastructure to address the impacts of development projects.

Action Program
Responsible
Agency/
Department
Time Frame Implementation
Mechanism

1.6.1 Concurrent Infrastructure:

The City will ensure that final
development approvals (tentative
maps, final maps, building permits,
occupancy permits) are not issued
unless the City is assured that adequate
infrastructure (wastewater, water, flood
control, parks, trails, police, fire,
emergency services, and public
utilities) is in place or will be in place
concurrent with the need for such
infrastructure. Adequacy of roadways
is addressed by Policy 1.5.

City of
Brentwood
Community
Development,
Engineering,
Parks and
Recreation, and
Police
Departments
and East Diablo
Fire District
Ongoing ƒ Development
Regulations (Zoning) (8)
ƒ Development Review (9)
ƒ Intergovernmental
Coordination (16)
Attachment J - Voter-Approved ULL and Measure J Growth Management Element

18 GOAL 2: JOB DEVELOPMENT
Job growth that balances the existing and expected future residential growth within the City.

Policy 2.1 Adequate Land: Ensure that adequate land is available for a variety of job-creating uses within the City in order to ensure 1.5 jobs per household.

Action Program
Responsible
Agency/
Department
Time Frame Implementation
Mechanism

2.1.1 General Plan: The City shall
maintain adequate land in the General
Plan Land Use Map for new jobcreating uses and expansion of existing job-creating uses.

City of
Brentwood
Community
Development
Department and
Economic
Development
Staff
Revise the
General Plan
every 5 years
Ongoing
ƒ General Plan Land Use
Map (14)
ƒ Development
Regulations (Zoning) (8)

2.1.2 Zoning: Ensure that adequate
land is zoned for industrial,
commercial, office and mixed-use
development.

City of
Brentwood
Community
Development
Department and
Economic
Development
Staff
Review the
Zoning Map
and revise as
needed on an
ongoing basis
ƒ Development
Regulations (Zoning) (8)
ƒ Specific Plans (23)

2.1.3 Land Ratio: Maintain a specific
ratio of the amount of land zoned for
commercial, office and business park
development compared with land for
residential development. Determine
and update the ratio based on the
average number of jobs created per
square feet of various types of jobcreating uses. Review the application of the ratio annually to ensure that the
intent of the General Plan is being
achieved.

City of
Brentwood
Community
Development
Department and
Economic
Development
Staff
Review the
Zoning Map
and revise as
needed on an
ongoing basis
ƒ General Plan Land Use
Map (14)
ƒ Development
Regulations (Zoning) (8)
ƒ Specific Plans (23)
ƒ Economic Development
Strategic Plan (10)
Policy 2.2 Link between Residences and Jobs: Create a system which links the number of residential units approved to the amount of job-generating development that is approved.

Policy 2.3 Funding for Economic Development: Pursue funding for existing and new economic development programs.

Attachment J - Voter-Approved ULL and Measure J Growth Management Element

19 GOAL 3: DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS
Balanced, efficient, diverse and high quality development patterns within the boundaries of the City.

Policy 3.1 Smart Growth Principles: Encourage development patterns based on Smart Growth and the Ahwahnee Principles.

Action Program
Responsible
Agency/
Department
Time Frame Implementation
Mechanism

3.1.1 Mixed-Use Development:

Strongly encourage mixed-use
development that includes a variety of
housing types, office and retail use.

Ensure land use designations are in
place to provide for mixed use
development that meets community
needs and enables complementary uses
to be placed in close proximity to one
another on the same site or adjacent
sites.

City of
Brentwood
Community
Development
Department and
Economic
Development
Staff
Review the
Zoning Map
and General
Plan every 5
years and revise
as necessary
Ongoing
ƒ Development
Regulations (Zoning) (8)
ƒ Development Review
(9)
ƒ Design Guidelines (6)
ƒ Specific Plans (23)

3.1.2 Transit Oriented Development:

Encourage new development that is
convenient to transit lines in order to
reduce automobile reliance.

City of
Brentwood and
Tri Delta
Transit
Ongoing ƒ Development Review
(9)
ƒ Development
Regulations (Zoning) (8)
ƒ Specific Plans (23)
ƒ Intergovernmental
Coordination (16)

3.1.3 Well-Defined Edges: Maintain
well-defined edges around the City in
the form of natural buffers, open space
or agricultural land.

City of
Brentwood,
City of
Antioch, City
of Oakley and
Contra Costa
County
Ongoing ƒ General Plan Land Use
Map (14)
ƒ Development
Regulations (Zoning) (8)
ƒ Design Guidelines (6)
ƒ Intergovernmental
Coordination (16)
ƒ Development Review
(9)

3.1.4 Downtown Focus: Maintain the
Downtown as a center of commercial,
civic and recreational uses, and
preserve the character of the City’s
Downtown.

City of
Brentwood
Community
Development,
Parks and
Recreation and
Engineering
Departments
Ongoing ƒ Redevelopment Plan
(20)
ƒ Development
Regulations (Zoning) (8)
ƒ Development Review
(9)
ƒ Design Guidelines (6)
ƒ Specific Plans (23)
Attachment J - Voter-Approved ULL and Measure J Growth Management Element

20 GOAL 3: DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS (continued)
Policy 3.1 Smart Growth Principles (continued)
Action Program
Responsible
Agency/
Department
Time Frame Implementation
Mechanism

3.1.5 Greenbelts: Preserve the
natural creeks and vegetation in
the City through a system of
greenbelts that connect
destination points and can be
used for recreation and nonmotorized circulation.

City of
Brentwood
Parks and
Recreation and
Community
Development
Departments
Ongoing ƒ General Plan
Bikeways and Trails
Map (13)
ƒ Parks, Trails and
Recreation Master
Plan (19)
ƒ Development Review
(9)

3.1.6 Balanced Development:

Strongly encourage residential
development in the city in a
balanced and efficient pattern
that reduces sprawl, preserves
open space and creates
convenient connections to other
land uses.

City of
Brentwood
Community
Development
and
Engineering
Departments
Ongoing ƒ Development
Regulations (Zoning)
(8)
ƒ Development Review
(9)
ƒ Design Guidelines (6)
ƒ Specific Plans (23)

3.1.7 Trails and Bikeways:

Develop and maintain a
continuous pedestrian,
equestrian and bicycle trails
network to facilitate recreation
and transportation that serves
neighborhoods, employment
centers, Downtown, schools and
other institutions and minimizes
conflict between pedestrians,
bicyclists, other non-motorized
users and automobiles.

City of
Brentwood,
LUHSD,
BUSD,
EBRPD and
ECCID
Adopt the
Parks, Trails
and Recreation
Master Plan
concurrently
with the
General Plan
Adoption
Ongoing
ƒ General Plan
Bikeways and Trails
Map (13)
ƒ Parks, Trails and
Recreation Master
Plan (19)
ƒ Development Review
(9)
ƒ Capital Improvements
Program (4)
ƒ Intergovernmental
Coordination (16)

3.1.8 Transit: Strongly
encourage the provision of
convenient, frequent,
dependable, efficient and
demand-responsive scheduled
transit for the City’s residents.

City of
Brentwood, Tri
Delta Transit
and BART
Ongoing ƒ Intergovernmental
Coordination (16)

3.1.9 Urban Limit Line
(ULL): Ensure that all new
development shall occur within
the City’s adopted ULL.

City of
Brentwood
Ongoing ƒ Development Review
(9)
ƒ Intergovernmental
Coordination (16)
Attachment J - Voter-Approved ULL and Measure J Growth Management Element

21 SUMMARY OF IMPLEMENTATION MECHANISMS
The following summary of implementation measures relate to the last column of the previous table.

1. Annual Budget. The City prepares a budget for a two-year period with an annual review.

The budget provides a comprehensive financial framework for all City activities by specifying how City financial resources will be allocated to meet existing capital and services needs.

2. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. This statute prescribes state mandated environmental review process for proposed development. This review process entails an evaluation of how a proposed project will impact the environment. Depending on the extent and magnitude of anticipated impacts, different kinds of environmental studies are prepared to analyze the impact of projects and inform the public and decision-makers about the significance a of development proposal’s impact on the environment. As part of the CEQA review, measures are developed to prevent or minimize adverse environmental impacts resulting from proposed projects. Examples of analyzed topics addressed through the CEQA review process include transportation, public services, and natural resources.

3. Capital Improvement Financing Program. The City prepares a Five-Year Capital Improvement Financing Program which is designed, in part, to ensure that traffic levels of service and other public infrastructure and service standards are met and/or maintained.

4. Capital Improvements Program. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a compilation of the capital improvement planned for construction over the next five years. It includes cost estimates, the phasing of specific improvement and associated costs and methods with which specific improvement will be financed. The City conducts an annual review of the CIP and allocates money for transportation, infrastructure, and public facility improvements based upon available funding and existing priorities. The CIP also provides the basis for planning for funding of civic and community facilities.

5. City Procedures. The City can implement policies by making changes in its internal operating procedures. Examples include updating development application submittal requirements to better achieve the goals and policies set forth in the General Plan.

6. Design Guidelines. Design guidelines are a tool for ensuring that new development is compatible with the surrounding area and that it functions well for the community.

Guidelines convey community design expectations, help provide visual continuity, and ensure high design quality. To the extent possible, the guidelines shall be specific to Brentwood. Guidelines that are quantifiable shall be considered for incorporation into zoning regulations.

7. Development Fees. The City has adopted a development fee program to fund public facilities and infrastructure necessary to meet service standards and protect public health and safety.

Attachment J - Voter-Approved ULL and Measure J Growth Management Element

22 8. Development Regulations. The development regulations, primarily the zoning regulations and subdivision ordinance, provide the standards for development, prescribe allowable uses, contain specific incentive provisions, and include other standards and procedures related to requirements for approval of development projects.

9. Development Review. This is the process used by the City to assess conformance with development regulations, conduct CEQA review, and route development proposals through different City departments and affected public agencies for comments. The review process identifies the impacts of new development on the demand for services, public facilities, and infrastructure and includes the development of project-specific mitigation measures and other mechanisms to help finance needed improvement. Through this process the City assesses the public safety features of the design of proposed development projects. All projects, including public-sponsored projects are reviewed for consistency with the General Plan and other development regulations as early as possible in order to minimize wasted effort on projects deemed not to be in conformance.

10. Economic Development Strategy. The City of Brentwood’s Economic Development Strategy is a plan to attract and retain high quality industry and job generating uses in the City.

11. Fee Credits. The City uses fee credits to compensate developers who construct improvements beyond what is needed to serve their own development. Examples may include road development, extension of utilities, or construction of parks.

12. Fire Service Response Coverage Study. This is a study to determine the location and type of fire service delivery facilities needed to meet planned service objectives.

13. General Plan Bikeways and Trails Map. The General Plan Bikeways and Trails Map indicates the existing and future locations of bikeways and trails in the City of Brentwood.

The map illustrates plans for a complete linked trails system in Brentwood, with linkages to parks and schools. This system will help to create and maintain a walkable environment that is conducive to alternative modes of transportation.

14. General Plan Land Use Map. The General Plan Land Use Map indicates where future development and growth is going to occur as well as the density and intensity of this growth.

This is critical information in terms of planning for circulation systems within the City, since it is necessary to link future circulation needs with Brentwood’s projected future growth patterns.

15. Grant Programs. The city pursues available grant funding opportunities to supplement local revenue and assist with the completion of capital projects, programs or studies. Grant funds are available to cities from federal and state agencies as well as from non-profit organizations and private foundations.

16. Intergovernmental Coordination. The City shall coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions, Contra Costa County, Caltrans, Tri Delta Transit, and other agencies and organizations to Attachment J - Voter-Approved ULL and Measure J Growth Management Element

23 ensure that development occurs in an orderly fashion and that public services and utilities keep pace with future growth and development in Brentwood.

17. Landscape and Lighting District. Landscape and Lighting Districts (LLDs) are a funding mechanism for ongoing maintenance of public amenities. The City uses this mechanism to pay the cost incurred by the City for landscape and street lighting maintenance.

18. Master Infrastructure Plan. The Master Infrastructure Plans identify existing needs and future facility requirements to accommodate growth and coordinate construction of necessary facility improvements.

19. Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan. The Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan sets a framework for future parks, trails and recreation facilities in the City of Brentwood based on the existing facilities and the projected future need. The Master Plan also helps to create integrated parks, trails, and recreation systems throughout the City.

20. Redevelopment Plan. The City has adopted a redevelopment plan to eliminate blight, upgrade public facilities and utilities, and assist low- and moderate-income households. The redevelopment plan enables the City to generate additional revenue to address existing capital facility and infrastructure needs.

21. Residential Growth Management Program. The Residential Growth Management Program (RGMP) provides for the orderly residential development of the City.

Implementation of this program will result in a better linkage between rates of growth and the provision of infrastructure and services.

22. Sewer Master Plan. Infrastructure master plans evaluate the capacity and limitations of existing facilities and identify new facilities necessary to meet future planned service needs.

The Sewer Master Plan evaluates the City’s existing sewer facilities and wastewater treatment needs. The plan identifies the projected service levels, describes required facility improvements, and discusses funding considerations based on the anticipated growth in the General Plan.

23. Specific Plans. Certain geographic areas need to be planned comprehensively, but in more detail than can be accomplished through the general plan. A specific plan provides an implementation tool that integrates land use, design, transportation, and utilities to produce a comprehensive strategy for development of a defined area.

Attachment J - Voter-Approved ULL and Measure J Growth Management Element

24 MONITORING AND COORDINATION
An important component in the success of Brentwood's Growth Management Program is to conduct regular evaluations of the effectiveness of the program. Information such as the amount of development that has occurred, the supply of vacant land, the status of current service levels, and programmed improvements to the infrastructure system will need to be reported to decision makers on a regular basis. Only in this way can Brentwood ensure that the goals and policies of the Growth Management Program are being met. Also key in the success of the program is coordinating with other agencies in the region, as many of the issues facing Brentwood are regional in nature.

Following are monitoring and coordination strategies to ensure the success of Growth Management Program.

1. The City shall conduct a regular review to determine the status of compliance with the adopted level of service and performance standards. A report shall be presented to the City Council as part of the capital improvement budget process identifying the current and projected levels of service, taking into account approved development and any mitigation measures required to offset project impacts. This report shall be utilized in the review of the City's five-year capital improvement program.

2. The City shall prepare a Five-Year Capital Improvement Program, which shall be designed, in part, to ensure that traffic levels of service and other public infrastructure and service standards are met and/or maintained.

3. The City shall coordinate developer financing with the City's Five-Year Capital Improvement Program to ensure adequate capacity for future growth. Developers shall be required to pay for their fair share of existing and future capacity to be used by their development.

4. The City shall cooperate with other jurisdictions in the County to reduce transportation congestion by participating in the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's Growth Management and Congestion Management Programs, by serving on the TRANSPLAN Committee, by encouraging public input into that process, by participating in the development of the Regional Route Action Plan, and by cooperating in planning for intersections subject to Findings of Special Circumstance.

5. The City shall work with surrounding jurisdictions as the need arises to resolve issues concerning establishing appropriate boundaries, the nature of development at boundaries, and other related regional issues.

6. The City shall regularly review its progress in attaining the desired jobs to housing ratio of 1.5 jobs per household.

Attachment J - Voter-Approved ULL and Measure J Growth Management Element

Attachment J - Voter-Approved ULL and Measure J Growth Management Element

Attachment K
Maintenance of Effort
City of Brentwood’s maintenance of effort requirement is $146,872 Expenditures in FY 2023/24: $1,244,467.02
Expenditures in FY 2024/25: $1,411,459.39

ANNUAL LSM SUMMARY REPORTING FORM

ANNUAL REPORTING FORM
for MEASURE J LOCAL STREET MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENTS (LSM) FUNDS (18% LSM FUNDS & 2.09% ADDITIONAL FUNDS)
FOR ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES DURING FISCAL YEAR 202ϯ-2ϰ
Jurisdiction: ______________________________________
If you have any questions regarding this form, please contact Matt Kelly at CCTA, [email protected].

Please return the form to CCTA, along with the LSM Audit Reporting Form spreadsheet, Attn: Jackie Reyes (at address listed below or [email protected])
Total for FY 202ϯ-2ϰ
Starting Balance as of July 1, 202ϯ
18% + 2.09% Funds Received during FY 202ϯ-2ϰ (actual, not accrued) LSM Eligible Expenditures(Please describe all expenditures in excess of $10,000 on the LSM Audit Reporting spreadsheet)
Local Street and Roads
Growth Management Planning and Compliance
Transit Capital and Operations
Trails
Parking Facilities
Transportation Demand Management/Transportation Systems Management
Total LSM Expenditures during FY 202ϯ-2ϰ
Funds Remaining
Interest Earned
Ending Balance as of June 30, 202ϰ
Form prepared by: ______________________________ Phone: _______________________ Email: _______________________
Title: _________________________________________
Date: ________________
$2,066,041.25
$1,194,852.00
$1,229,213.02
$15,254.00
$1,244,467.02
$2,016,426.23
$73,393.60
$2,089,819.83
Deirdre Robinson (925) 516-5105
Accounting Technician
[email protected]
1/17/2025
City of Brentwood
Attachment L - 2023-24 City of Brentwood LSM Report - CCTA

Jurisdiction: City of Brentwood
Reporting Period: FY 2023‐2024
Project Type Project Name Project Description (Location, Limits) Measure J Funds
Expended ($) Reporting Metric (see instructions)
Local Streets and Roads
Asphalt Maintenance/Street Light Maintenance &
Repairs/Sidewalk Repair
Various Asphalt Maintenance/Street Light Maintenance &
Repairs/Sidewalk Repair throughout the City. Includes supplies and staff time. $ 1,229,213
Includes various streets throughtout 192 street
miles within City limits, as well as various street
lights amongst the 7,411 City street lights.

CCTA Measure J Local Streets & Roads Maintenance Audit Reporting Form (for expenditures of $10,000 or more)

ANNUAL LSM SUMMARY REPORTING FORM

ANNUAL REPORTING FORM
for MEASURE J LOCAL STREET MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENTS (LSM) FUNDS (18% LSM FUNDS & 2.09% ADDITIONAL FUNDS)
FOR ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES DURING FISCAL YEAR 202 -2
Jurisdiction: ______________________________________
If you have any questions regarding this form, please contact Matt Kelly at CCTA, [email protected]. Please return the form to CCTA, along with the LSM Audit Reporting Form spreadsheet, Attn: Jackie Reyes (at address listed below or [email protected])
Total for FY 202 -2
Starting Balance as of July 1, 202
18% + 2.09% Funds Received during FY 202 -2 (actual, not accrued) LSM Eligible Expenditures(Please describe all expenditures in excess of $10,000 on the LSM Audit Reporting spreadsheet)
Local Street and Roads
Growth Management Planning and Compliance
Transit Capital and Operations
Trails
Parking Facilities
Transportation Demand Management/Transportation Systems Management
Total LSM Expenditures during FY 202 -2
Funds Remaining
Interest Earned
Ending Balance as of June 30, 202
Form prepared by: ______________________________ Phone: _______________________ Email: _______________________
Title: _________________________________________
Date: ________________
Attachment L - 2024-25 City of Brentwood LSM Report - CCTA

Jurisdiction: City of Brentwood Reporting Period: FY 2024-2025 Project Type Project Name Project Description (Location, Limits) Measure J Funds Expended ($) Reporting Metric (see instructions) Local Streets and Roads Asphalt Maintenance/Street Light Maintenance & Repairs/Sidewalk Repair Various Asphalt Maintenance/Street Light Maintenance & Repairs/Sidewalk Repair throughout the City. Includes supplies and staff time. $ 1,401,518 Includes various streets throughtout 226 street miles within City limits, as well as various street lights amongst the 7,463 City street lights. CCTA Measure J Local Streets & Roads Maintenance Audit Reporting Form (for expenditures of $10,000 or more) Page 221 of 249 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. E.6
09/08/2026
SUBJECT: A Resolution rescheduling the regular City Council meeting of September 22, 2026, to September 21, 2026
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office
STAFF: Terrance Davis, Acting City Manager
Amanda McVey, City Clerk

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution rescheduling the regular City Council meeting of September 22, 2026, to September 21, 2026, at 7:00 p.m.

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

BACKGROUND
Section 2.04.020 of the Brentwood Municipal Code states that City Council shall meet on the second and fourth Tuesday of every calendar month for regular Council meetings, except in July when the City Council's regular meeting shall be on the fourth Tuesday, and in November and December, when the City Council's regular meeting shall be on the second Tuesday.”
Section 2.04.020 of the Municipal Code further provides that, before a regularly scheduled meeting, to approve by resolution the cancellation or rescheduling of that meeting.

The 2026 League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo will be held in Anaheim from September 23 through September 25, 2026, with sessions beginning as early as 8:30 a.m. on September 23. City Council members intend to participate in the morning sessions, which requires them to travel to Anaheim on September 22, 2026, and makes them unavailable to attend the regularly scheduled meeting that evening. Staff recommends rescheduling the meeting to Monday, September 21, 2026, at 7:00 p.m.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. E.6
09/08/2026
Not Applicable.

PREVIOUS ACTION
Not Applicable.

DATE OF NOTICE
Not Applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Not Applicable.

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

1. Do not adopt the Resolution and retain the regular City Council meeting scheduled for September 22, 2026, at 7:00 p.m.

2. Cancel the September 22, 2026, regular City Council meeting without rescheduling it.

3. Reschedule the meeting to a date other than September 21, 2026.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Resolution

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

BRENTWOOD RESCHEDULING THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED
CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2026, TO
SEPTEMBER 21, 2026
WHEREAS, Section 2.04.020 of the Brentwood Municipal Code states that City Council shall meet on the second and fourth Tuesday of every calendar month for regular Council meetings, except in July when the City Council's regular meeting shall be on the fourth Tuesday, and in November and December, when the City Council's regular meeting shall be on the second Tuesday; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.04.020 further provides that regular City Council meetings shall commence at the time or times as specified by resolution adopted by the City Council pursuant to Brentwood Municipal Code chapter 2.04; and WHEREAS, Section 2.04.020 authorizes the City Council, prior to the regularly scheduled meeting, to approve by resolution the cancellation or rescheduling of a regularly scheduled meeting; and
WHEREAS, the 2026 League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo will be held in Anaheim from September 23 through September 25, 2026, with sessions beginning as early as 8:30 a.m. on September 23; and
WHEREAS, members of the City Council intend to participate in sessions scheduled for the morning of September 23, 2026, requiring them to travel to Anaheim on September 22, 2026, and making them unavailable to attend the regularly scheduled meeting that evening; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to reschedule the regular City Council meeting to September 21, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. so that its members may participate in the Annual Conference and Expo while allowing the City Council to conduct its regular business; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood as follows:

1. The regular City Council meeting of Tuesday, September 22, 2026, at 7 p.m. is hereby rescheduled to
Monday, September 21, 2026, at 7:00 p.m.

2. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to take all actions necessary to implement this resolution, including providing notice and posting the agenda for the rescheduled regular meeting in accordance with applicable law.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of September 2026 by the following vote:

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.1
09/08/2026
SUBJECT: Amendment to 2025/26 Cost Allocation Plan and Schedule of City Fees to Change the Effective Date of Second Street Event Lot Rental Fees
DEPARTMENT: Parks and Recreation
STAFF: E. Harith Aleem Jr., Director of Parks and Recreation Thien Nguyen, Recreation Manager

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution amending Resolution No. 2026-66 and the City of Brentwood 2025/26 Cost Allocation Plan and Schedule of City Fees to change the effective date of the Second Street Event Lot rental fees from November 1, 2026, to September 8, 2026.

FISCAL IMPACT
No new or increased fees are proposed. The proposed amendment changes only the effective date of the Second Street Event Lot rental fees previously approved by the City Council on June 23, 2026. If the proposed resolution is adopted, the City may begin assessing the previously approved fees on September 8, 2026, rather than November 1, 2026, which may result in additional General Fund revenue during that period.

BACKGROUND
Annually, the Parks and Recreation Department brings proposed changes before the City Council prior to the adoption of the Cost Allocation Plan (“CAP”) for implementation of new fees after the conclusion of each seasonal program.

On June 23, 2026, following a public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-66, amending the FY 2025/26 Cost Allocation Plan and Schedule of City Fees, including establishing a new daily rental fee for the use of the Second Street Event Lot, a City-leased parking lot that will be utilized for special events in accordance with City Council direction. Fees for the Second Street Event Lot were set as follows:

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.1
09/08/2026
Second Street Event Lot Fees
Resident (Per Day) $1,268.00
Non-Resident (Per Day) $1,394.00
Commercial (Per Day) $1,648.00
Non-Profit (Per Day) $887.00
In the action approved by City Council on June 23, 2026, the newly established Second Street Event Lot fees were inadvertently assigned a November 1, 2026, effective date, along with the annual Parks and Recreation fee adjustments. The November 1, 2026, effective date was not intended to be applied to the newly established Second Street Event Lot rental fees. This error can be corrected tonight through action by the City Council to establish an earlier effective date, the adoption of tonight’s resolution, so that the fees may be applied to qualifying rentals.

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution amending the City of Brentwood 2025/26 Cost Allocation Plan and Schedule of City Fees to update the effective date of the Second Street Event Lot rental fees.

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Not Applicable.

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

DATE OF NOTICE
The City of Brentwood published public hearing notices in the Brentwood Press on Friday, August 28, 2026 and Friday, September 4, 2026.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The proposed action does not constitute a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4), because it is a governmental fiscal activity that does not involve a commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. Alternatively, the proposed action is exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15273.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. F.1
09/08/2026

ALTERNATIVE OPTION(S)

1. The City Council may choose not to adopt the resolution to amend Resolution No. 2026-66 and the FY 2025/26 City of Brentwood Cost Allocation Plan and Schedule of Fees. If the resolution is not adopted, the Second Street Event Lot fees will not be assessed until November 1, 2026, impacting the ability for the lot to be used until November.

2. The City Council may also choose to continue this item to a future meeting and direct staff to return with additional information. In this case, the Second Street Event Lot fee will still not be assessed until further action by the City Council, or November 1, 2026 (whichever is sooner).

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Previous Action

2. Resolution

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

On April 23, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution 2019-54, amending the City of Brentwood 2018/19 Cost Allocation Plan and Schedule of City Fees related to: 1) the implementation and timing of Consumer Price Index adjustments and 2) proposed adjustments to Parks and Recreation permit, athletic leagues, recreation programs, activities, and aquatic fees.

On September 10, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution 2019-103, adopting the 2019/2020 Cost Allocation Plan and Schedule of City fees and repealing Resolution 2018-128.

On June 9, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution 2020-74, amending the City of Brentwood 2019/20 Cost Allocation Plan and Schedule of City Fees related to the timing of Consumer Price Index adjustments; and revisions to Park Planning and Landscape Review Fees; and finding that the proposed amendments do not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act.

On August 25, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution 2020-116, adopting the FY 2020/21 Cost Allocation Plan and Schedule of City Fees; making certain supporting findings, including the inapplicability of the California Environmental Quality Act to these actions; imposing said fees; establishing a process for waiving or adjusting certain fees; and repealing Resolution No. 2019-103 which adopted the FY 2019/20 Cost Allocation Plan and Schedule of City Fees.

On May 11, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution 2021-49, amending the FY 2020/21 Cost Allocation Plan and Schedule of City Fees related to the timing of Consumer Price Index adjustments; and revisions to Parks and Recreation fees; and finding that the proposed amendments do not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act.

On June 14, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution 2022-78, amending the City of Brentwood 2022/2023 Cost Allocation Plan and Schedule of City Fees related to the timing of Consumer Price Index adjustments; and revisions to Park and Recreation fees; and finding that the proposed amendments do not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act.

On September 27, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution 2022-122, adopting the FY 2022/23 Cost Allocation Plan and Schedule of City Fees; making certain supporting findings, including the inapplicability of the California Environmental Quality Act to

these actions; imposing said fees; establishing a process for waiving or adjusting certain fees; and repealing Resolution No. 2021-137, which adopted the FY 2021/22 Cost Allocation Plan and Schedule of City Fees; considering the inclusion of two new fees for 1) City owned electric vehicle charging stations, and 2) credit card processing.

On February 28, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution 2023-22, amending the 2022/23 Cost Allocation Plan and Schedule of City Fees to adopt, change and eliminate certain permitting fees; and finding that the proposed amendments do not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act.

On June 13, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution 2023-81, amending the 2023/2024 Cost Allocation Plan and Schedule of City Fees related to the timing of Consumer Price Index adjustments; and revisions to Park and Recreation fees; and finding that the proposed amendments do not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act.

On September 12, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution 2023-113, 1) adopting the FY 2023/24 Cost Allocation Plan and Schedule of City Fees; 2) making certain supporting findings, including the inapplicability of the California Environmental Quality Act to these actions; 3) establishing a process for waiving or adjusting certain fees; 4) adding certain new Community Development, Police and Public Works fees; and 5) repealing Resolution 2022-122, which adopted the FY 2022/23 Cost Allocation Plan and Schedule of City Fees.

On June 11, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution 2024-62, amending the City of Brentwood 2023/24 Cost Allocation Plan and Schedule of City Fees related to the timing of Consumer Price Index adjustments and revisions to Parks and Recreation fees; and finding that the proposed amendments do not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act.

On July 22, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution 2025-81, amending the City of Brentwood 2023/24 Cost Allocation Plan and Schedule of City Fees related to the timing of Consumer Price Index adjustments and revisions to Parks and Recreation fees; and finding that the proposed amendments do not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act.

On October 28, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution 2025-109, 1) adopting the FY 2025/26 Cost Allocation Plan and Schedule of City Fees; 2) making certain supporting findings, including the inapplicability of the California Environmental Quality Act to these actions; 3) imposing said fees; 4) adding new police carry concealed weapon permit fees; 5) modifying Police VIN Verification and Citation SignOff – Non-Residential fees; and 6) repealing resolution 2023-113, which adopted the FY 2023/24 Cost Allocation Plan and Schedule of City Fees.

On May 12, 2026, the City Council by motion, directed staff to 1) move forward with Option 2 as detailed in the staff report; and 2) return to Council with a cost/staff time analysis for a) events which require street closures; and b) potential alternative event

locations; and c) feasibility of 2nd Street closures between Maple and Oak; and d) feasibility of moving existing events from the grass at City Park to the 2nd Street parking lot.

On June 23, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution 2026-66, amending the City of Brentwood 2025/26 Cost Allocation Plan and Schedule of City Fees related to the timing of Consumer Price Index adjustments and revisions to Parks and Recreation fees; and finding that the proposed amendments do not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act.

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BRENTWOOD, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2026-66 AND THE
2025/26 COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND SCHEDULE OF CITY FEES

TO CHANGE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE SECOND STREET
EVENT LOT RENTAL FEES FROM NOVEMBER 1, 2026 TO
SEPTEMBER 8, 2026
WHEREAS, on October 28, 2025, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-109 adopting the FY 2025/26 Cost Allocation Plan and Schedule of City Fees; and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2026, following a public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-66, amending the FY 2025/26 Cost Allocation Plan and Schedule of City Fees, including establishing daily rental fees for the Second Street Event Lot; and
WHEREAS, Second Street Event Lot rental fees apply to a maximum rental period of ten (10) hours per day and are intended to support event-related use of the facility while helping offset associated operational and administrative costs; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 2026-66 established November 1, 2026, as the effective date for the Parks and Recreation fee adjustments approved by that resolution, which also applied to the newly established Second Street Event Lot rental fees; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends the City Council change the effective date of the Second Street Event Lot rental fees from November 1, 2026, to September 8, 2026, without changing the previously approved fee amounts or other terms; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that changing the effective date of the Second Street Event Lot rental fees will allow the City to assess the previously approved fees for qualifying rentals beginning September 8, 2026.

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

1. The recitals above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution.

2. Resolution No. 2026-66 and the FY 2025/26 Cost Allocation Plan and Schedule of City Fees are amended solely to provide that the Second Street Event Lot rental fees approved by the City Council on June 23, 2026, are effective as of September 8, 2026, rather than November 1, 2026. The amounts and other terms of the Second Street Event Lot rental fees remain unchanged.

3. Except as expressly amended by this Resolution, all other fees, effective dates, terms, and provisions established by Resolution No. 2026-66 remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

4. The City Council finds that the adoption of this Resolution does not constitute a project for purposes of CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4). The City Council further finds that the adoption of this Resolution is exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15273.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of September 2026 by the following vote:

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.1
09/08/2026
SUBJECT: Downtown Specific Plan Amendment discussion related to Body Art including permanent makeup and tattoo facilities
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
STAFF: Alexis Morris, Director of Community Development Erik Nolthenius, Planning Manager
Jennifer Hagen, Principal Planner

TITLE/RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction to staff on potential new regulations related to text amendments to the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) to regulate body art including permanent makeup and tattoo facilities.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to amending the DSP, other than the time spent for staff to process it.

BACKGROUND
On January 28, 2025, Vice Mayor Pierson and Council Member Oerlemans brought forth a future agenda item request to the City Council for consideration and discussion of a potential amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan to remove the prohibition on tattoo parlors and allow them as a permitted use. The City Council motion directed staff to provide background information on the pros and cons of allowing tattoo studios in the Downtown, specifically as it relates to economic development impacts, as well as potential legal implications. A summary of the initial questions and concerns that were raised at the meeting can be found within the July 28, 2026 City Council agenda report.

On May 27, 2025, the City Council further considered the possibility of amending the DSP. This was followed by a in-depth discussion amongst the City Council, including the merits of the previously requested analysis provided by staff as to both the economic development impacts and potential legal implications of an amendment.

This analysis was provided in the May 27, 2025, staff report. Ultimately, the City Council voted to direct staff to amend the DSP to allow tattoo parlors as a permitted use, subject to an Administrative Design Review.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.1
09/08/2026
On August 5, 2025, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment. After consideration of the pros and cons of amending the DSP, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council not adopt the draft ordinance to amend to DSP.

On July 28, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed amendments. After a lengthy discussion, the City Council provided additional direction to staff to prepare additional information and return with further discussion by September 8, 2026. The final motion requested the following information to be brought back for discussion:
 Further discussion on the legality of regulating or requiring new personal service vendors to obtain a Conditional Use Permit;
 A revised definition for personal services;
 A process that would allow existing personal services as defined by the new definition with the Downtown Specific Plan to be “grandfathered” in;  A cap on new personal service as defined by the new definition to two; and  Prohibit future personal service providers along Oak Street or First Street storefronts.

DISCUSSION
Based on the City Council discussion on July 28, 2026, staff has provided further information on the following topics summarized below. As requested, staff have provided potential options to move forward. The key areas for discussion are as follows:

A. Legal Framework for Regulating Body Art
B. Body Art and/or Personal Services Definitions
C. Permitted/Conditionally Permitted/Prohibited Locations D. Regulating Process including Potential Future Cap
A. Legal Framework for Regulating Body Art
The July 28, 2026 agenda report provided a summary of the potential legal implications related to regulating body art specifically related to Anderson v. City of Hermosa Beach (9th Cir. 2010). The Ninth Circuit has recognized tattooing and the business of tattooing as protected expression under the First Amendment. Local governments may apply content-neutral land-use regulations to tattoo establishments, subject to applicable constitutional requirements. The City can consider content-neutral land-use regulations addressing the location of body art facilities within the Downtown area, which is a uniquely important geographic area

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.1
09/08/2026
within the City. The court decision in Anderson v. City of Hermosa Beach does not prevent a city from regulating the location of tattoo parlors. While the court expressly recognized that tattooing and the business of tattooing are protected expression, it also expressly held that the business remains subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. Location restrictions can be analyzed as time, place, and manner regulations. (Anderson v. City of Hermosa Beach (9th Cir. 2010) 621 F.3d 1051, 1059–1060, 1064; Real v. City of Long Beach (9th Cir. 2017) 852 F.3d 929, 934– 936.)
Based on Council direction, staff has not proposed modifications to land-use regulations outside of the Downtown Specific Plan; the zoning designations in the majority of the City allow tattoo parlors subject to Conditional Use Permit approval.

The City is considering regulating the location of tattoo businesses within a particular geographic area based on legitimate, content-neutral land-use objectives associated with the Downtown.

The Downtown is a distinct commercial district with a particular economic development function, pedestrian environment, business mix, and community character. If the City Council finds that certain land uses, such as tattoo establishments, should be limited within the Downtown in order to preserve and strengthen the Downtown's economic vitality and its intended role as one of the City's primary destinations for retail, dining, entertainment, civic, cultural, and pedestrianoriented activities, it may consider regulating them accordingly. A narrowly tailored, content-neutral regulation could be drafted, without reference to the content of tattooing, to serve the City's significant interests in maintaining an active pedestrianoriented commercial environment and protecting the economic vitality and distinctive character of the Downtown, while leaving open alternative locations for tattoo establishments and the expressive activity of tattooing.

B. Body Art and/or Personal Services Definitions
State Legislation Regulating Body Art
On October 9, 2011, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill 300 (Ma) The Safe Body Art Act into law. This law modernized California’s body art regulation by shifting from a one-time registration to an annual compliance system, strengthening sanitation and safety standards, and clarifying exemptions for certain piercings. In California, body art practitioners and body art facilities are required to comply with the state law. While this is state law (Chapter 7 (Body Art) of Part 15 of the California Health and Safety Code (HSC)), authority has been delegated to the local enforcement agency, in our case, the Contra Costa County Health Department to implement.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.1
09/08/2026
Within Contra Costa County, each location where body art is practiced has to be licensed as an approved Body Art Facility and each person administering body art must receive an approved practitioner license.

Under the Safe Body Art Act, “Body Art” is defined as body piercing, tattooing, branding, or application of permanent cosmetics (HSC § 119301). Under State and County regulations, both the acts of traditional tattooing and permanent cosmetics are regulated and licensed the same. It should be noted that County approval is clearly distinguished as an approval related to health regulations and not an approval of a land-use regulation, which can only be issued by the City. Therefore, a Contra Costa County Body Art Facility Permit does not constitute approval of the use under the City's zoning or land-use regulations. To date, there are currently only two facilities that have approved County Body Art Facility Permits located within the Downtown (Studio V, 642 First Street and Golden Heart Gallery, 737 Second Street).

The Safe Body Art Act further defines each of the subcategories as follows:
(e) “Body piercing” means the creation of an opening in a human body for the purpose of inserting jewelry or other decoration. “Body piercing” includes, but is not limited to, the piercing of an ear, including the tragus, lip, tongue, nose, or eyebrow. “Body piercing” does not include the piercing of an ear, except for the tragus, with a disposable, singleuse, presterilized stud and clasp or solid needle that is applied using a mechanical device to force the needle or stud through the ear. (f) “Branding” means the process in which a mark or marks are burned into human skin tissue with a hot iron or other instrument, with the intention of leaving a permanent scar.
(r) “Permanent cosmetics” means the application of pigments in human skin tissue for the purpose of permanently changing the color or other appearance of the skin. This includes, but is not limited to, permanent eyeliner, eyebrow, or lip color.
(aa) “Tattooing” means the insertion of pigment in human skin tissue by piercing with a needle.

Review of the HSC definition leaves very little distinguishable or objective difference between tattooing and permanent cosmetics outside of the intent of the application.

Based on these definitions, permanent cosmetics can often qualify under the tattoo definition since many permanent cosmetics are commonly performed by inserting pigment into the skin with needles. Since it is difficult to enforce the intent and what

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.1
09/08/2026
the procedure is intended to accomplish, land-use regulations rarely, if ever, differentiate between the two and typically categorize them all under the bundled category of body art.

Personal Services Definition
Currently, the DSP does not include definitions in all districts for specific use classifications, which may lead to ambiguity and inconsistent administering of the plan. To provide clarity, an updated definition for personal services is relevant to policy consideration. The suggested definition below is similar to what is included in the Priority Area One Specific Plan:
"Personal services" means a use that provides individual services generally related to personal, non-medical needs, including, but not limited to: barbers; beauty salons; day spas; body art (tattoo, body piercing and/or permanent cosmetic services); holistic healing centers; nail salons; hair removal and/or replacement; massage establishments; acupressure services; tanning; seamstress; tailor; shoe repair; dry cleaning agency (excluding dry cleaning plants); and other services of a similar nature. Accessory retail sales of related products may also be sold.

While the City Council may consider including Body Art as a Personal Services as defined above, grouping them together and creating additional geographical restrictions may have additional unintended consequences for the existing personal services in the Downtown, such as beauty salons and dry cleaners, that have been operating as permitted uses for years. If the City Council can reasonably find a significant governmental interest in maintaining the economic vitality, pedestrianoriented character, and distinctive commercial function of certain geographic areas, it may consider providing a distinction between the two land-uses with separate definitions, which could help prevent unintended consequences for existing businesses downtown. Below is an example of a separate definition of Body Art:
“Body Art” is defined as body piercing, tattooing, branding, or application of permanent cosmetics (HSC § 119301).

C. Permitted/Conditionally Permitted/Prohibited Locations The DSP establishes the Downtown Core (see Figure 1) as a distinct commercial and pedestrian-oriented district within the City. The DSP identifies the Downtown Core as including Oak Street between Brentwood Boulevard and Third Street and First Street between Chestnut and Maple Streets and expressly describes the area as "the heart

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.1
09/08/2026
of the pedestrian-oriented shopping district." The Specific Plan further identifies Oak Street as Downtown's "primary shopping street" and states that the intersection of Oak and First Streets is Downtown's "most vibrant intersection," where "activitygenerating shops and services" form "the crossroads of the Downtown's shopping experience." The DSP similarly identifies the portion of First Street south of Oak Street as a "vibrant setting for Downtown shopping and strolling" and describes the west side of First Street between Oak and Chestnut Streets as "perhaps Downtown's most appealing pedestrian shopping environment."
As discussed on July 28, 2026, the City Council seeks to evaluate the feasibility of prohibiting personal services and/or body art facilities along the first-floor street frontage on First Street and Oak Street. Consistent with previous Council discussion, future tattoo studios may be considered on the second floor and throughout the remainder of the Downtown commercial districts. As discussed on July 28, 2026, these restrictions are intended to further the DSP's existing objectives relating to an active pedestrian-oriented commercial environment and maintaining the economic vitality and distinctive character of the Downtown Core.

Any implementing regulations would narrowly tailor the restrictions to serve the City's significant governmental interests in maintaining an active pedestrian-oriented commercial environment and protecting the economic vitality and distinctive character of the Downtown Core with appropriate findings. This type of restriction would be consistent with the restrictions the DSP already places on office uses in the Downtown Core. The DSP includes a “Retail Required Zone” which is an overlay within the Downtown Core. This overlay covers the first 65 feet as measured perpendicular to the street frontage to be reserved for retail and pedestrian oriented businesses.

Although professional offices are typically permitted in the Downtown Core, they are prohibited within the “Retail Required Zone” and therefore only allowed outside of the 65-foot frontage and on the second floor.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.1
09/08/2026
Figure 1 – Downtown Specific Plan Land Use Map
D. Regulating Process, Potential Future Cap and Existing Facilities Conditional Use Permit
Typically land-use classifications are regulated as permitted uses or conditionally permitted uses. As conditionally permitted uses, new establishments would be required to apply for discretionary approval that would be reviewed by the Planning Commission. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would run with the land and would not be specific to the business or operator. Through this process the Planning Commission would be able to review each application under the applicable DSP criteria on a caseby-case basis, taking into consideration each individual location and setup and operational characteristics while taking public comments into consideration. Existing uses could be addressed through transition provisions adopted as part of the DSP amendment or implementing regulations and could potentially be considered legal nonconforming if amendments to the DSP nonconforming regulations are adopted.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.1
09/08/2026
Personal Services or Body Art License/Permit
Alternatively, the City Council could consider establishing a Downtown Personal Services or Body Art License/Permit, similar to the Tobacco Retail License (the type of license would depend on whether Council decides to use one definition of Personal Services or to have a separate definition for Body Art). This type of license could run with the business or operator and not run with the land. A license or permit could be reviewed and renewed on annual basis based on set standards (typically linked to public health and safety and operational characteristics) and could be more easily revoked in cases where an operator violates any of the requirements, conditions, or prohibitions of the permit.

At the direction of the Council, existing businesses in the Downtown could be allowed to apply for a Personal Services or Body Art License Permit first. This could allow existing businesses operating in the Downtown with a City of Brentwood Business Tax Certificate to have 30-days to apply for a License. Staff could process applications within those 30 days. If there is a numeric cap on licenses that is not reached within those 30 days, then businesses not currently operating in the City would have a 30 day, first-come, first serve application period.

Cap On Number of Businesses
A numeric cap on the number of Personal Services or Body Art to be issued in the DSP could be considered at any number above the current number of existing and licensed businesses. If the City Council would like to consider regulating only Body Art establishments, the Council could implement a numeric cap and allow existing Body Art facilities operating in the Downtown with a Contra Costa County Body Art Facility Permit to remain. If a CUP is recommended for regulation, existing businesses could be allowed to remain by amending the legal nonconforming section of the DSP, and if a license/permit is recommended for regulation, existing businesses could be allowed to remain by requiring them to obtain a license/permit. As previously noted, there are currently only two facilities that have approved County Body Art Facility permits located within the Downtown (Studio V, 642 First Street and Golden Heart Gallery, 737 Second Street).

If the City Council would like to consider regulating all future Personal Services establishments under one definition, the Council could consider allowing existing personal services legally operating in the Downtown with a City of Brentwood Business Tax Certificate to remain as described above. To understand the number of uses currently operating, staff generated a report as of August 2026, and there are currently 23 Business Tax Certificates issued for Personal Services on First Street and 16 Business Tax Certificates issued for Personal Services on Oak Street.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.1
09/08/2026

COUNCIL OPTIONS
The following outlines several questions that staff seek final direction. This section includes the initial City Council motion and provides staff recommendations along with the analysis associated with the recommendation.

Staff requests that the City Council provide direction on how to proceed. Once direction is received, staff can return with a final Ordinance or Resolution for consideration.

1. What is being defined?
City Council Motion. The City Council requested that staff draft a definition for Personal Services that includes Body Art. A draft definition that could be considered is provided below:
"Personal services" means a use that provides individual services generally related to personal, non-medical needs, including, but not limited to: barbers; beauty salons; day spas; body art (tattoo, body piercing and/or permanent cosmetic services); holistic healing centers; nail salons; hair removal and/or replacement; massage establishments; acupressure services; tanning; seamstress; tailor; shoe repair; dry cleaning agency (excluding dry cleaning plants); and other services of a similar nature. Accessory retail sales of related products may also be sold.

Staff Recommendation – Define Body Art separately. After review of potential unintended consequences to existing personal service uses, staff recommends that Body Art be defined separately and classified as a separate land use. Staff believes that the City Council can reasonably find a significant governmental interest in maintaining the economic vitality, pedestrian-oriented character, and distinctive commercial function of certain geographic areas, to provide a distinction between the two land-uses with separate definitions. If the City Council would like to consider this alternative, a definition for personal services would still be added to the DSP (excluding body art), with a new, separate Body Art definition as well:
“Body Art” is defined as body piercing, tattooing, branding, or application of permanent cosmetics (HSC § 119301).

Implementation. This change would require adding new text to the DSP and City Council approval, which could be scheduled for October 13, 2026, due to public noticing requirements.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.1
09/08/2026

2. Where should it be allowed?
City Council Motion. The City Council requested that staff draft changes that would prohibit future personal service providers along Oak Street or First Street storefronts.

Staff Recommendation—Only Limit Location of Body Art Businesses. After review of potential unintended consequences to existing personal service uses, staff recommends that only Body Art be prohibited along Oak Street or First Street storefronts and to be further clarified that they would only be prohibited within the first 65 feet of the first floor as measured perpendicular to the street frontage (consistent with the DSP Retail Required1 measurements). It should be noted that under this recommendation, Studio V, which is located at 642 First Street, could be permitted because, although it is located on First Street, it is located beyond 65 feet from the frontage.

Implementation. This change would require adding new text to the DSP, amending the DSP land use map, and City Council approval, which could be scheduled for October 13, 2026, due to public noticing requirements.

3. How is it regulated?
City Council Motion. The City Council requested that staff provide additional information on the legality of requiring new personal service vendors, including body art, to obtain a Conditional Use Permit, with existing facilities allowed to remain through a grandfather/existing use clause. In addition, the City Council requested that future personal service vendors be capped at two.

Staff Recommendation—Require Only Body Art Businesses to Obtain a License/Permit. As previously discussed, staff has concluded that the City Council can reasonably find a significant governmental interest in maintaining economic vitality, pedestrian-oriented character, and distinctive commercial function of certain geographic areas, to require additional review of certain businesses. However, after review of potential unintended consequences to existing personal service uses, staff recommends that only Body Art facilities be required to obtain either a Conditional Use Permit or an administrative Body Art Facilities license. As noted, there are currently only two facilities that have approved County Body Art Facility Permits located within the Downtown (Studio V, 642 First Street and Golden Heart Gallery,

1 The Downtown Core district zone includes properties along First Street and Oak Street which are located within a “Retail Required Zone” and shown in Figure 1 with hashed red marks on the map. This overlay covers the first 65 feet as measured perpendicular to the street frontage to be reserved for retail and pedestrian oriented businesses.

Although professional offices are typically permitted in the Downtown Core, they are prohibited within the “Retail Required Zone” and therefore only allowed outside of the 65-foot frontage and on the second floor.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.1
09/08/2026
737 Second Street). Although neither of these businesses have land-use approval under the current zoning, they each have been inspected related to health and safety standards and have gone through the proper County approval process to be permitted under the Safe Body Art Act. Staff recommends allowing each of these uses to continue, unaffected by the cap, with the allowance of two more future establishments under the cap.

Although traditionally processed through a Conditional Use Permit, staff recommends that a Body Art license or permit be created if the City Council directs that a cap be created to better regulate existing and future facilities. This would allow each facility to be reviewed and renewed on an annual basis based on set standards related to public health and safety, locational requirements, state licensing requirements, etc.

The benefit of a License compared to a CUP is that a license is not a land use entitlement and is more easily revoked than a CUP in cases where an operator violates any of the requirements, conditions, or prohibitions of the permit. In addition, Licenses would be up for review for compliance with standards annually versus a CUP which never expires and runs with the land in perpetuity unless revoked.

Implementation. Implementing a Body Art License would require drafting a new ordinance and creating a license processing fee, and City Council approval; similar to the Tobacco Retail License Ordinance process. The earliest a new ordinance and fee could be brought back to Council is November 10, 2026, to allow sufficient time to draft an ordinance and obtain legal review.

CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that Body Art establishments be approved through an administrative license throughout the Downtown with a cap of four (4) total licenses (to include two existing facilities and two new facilities), subject to locational restrictions.

A Council Decision Matrix and staff recommendations are provided below:

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.1
09/08/2026
Decision
Area
Council’s Original Motion Options for Council Direction Staff Recommendation Council Selection

1. What is
being
defined?
Draft a definition for Personal
Services that includes Body Art.

A. One definition of Personal
Services that includes Body Art.

B. Two separate definitions:

Personal Services (excluding Body
Art) and Body Art.

B. Define Body Art
separately and classify it
as a separate land use.
☐ A
☐ B

2. Where
should it be
allowed?
Draft changes that would
prohibit future service providers
along Oak Street or First Street
storefronts.

A. Prohibit services along Oak
Street or First Street storefronts.

B. Prohibit services only within the
first 65 feet of the first floor,
measured perpendicular to the
street frontage.

C. Other geographic location
restriction.

B. Prohibit Body Art within
the first 65 feet of the
first floor along Oak
Street and First Street.

This is consistent with the
DSP Retail Required
measurement.
☐ A
☐ B
☐ C

3. How is it
regulated?
Provide additional information
on the legality of requiring new
personal service vendors,
including body art, to obtain a
CUP, with existing facilities
allowed to remain through a
grandfather/existing use
clause.

A. Require a CUP for all Personal
Services.

B. Require a CUP only for Body
Art.

C. Create an administrative Body
Art license/permit for Body Art.

D. Create an administrative
Personal Services license/permit
for all Personal Services.

C. Require an
administrative Body Art
license/permit. The two
existing Downtown Body
Art facilities would
continue; allow two
additional Body Art
establishments, for a total
of four.
☐ A
☐ B
☐ C
☐ D

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.1
09/08/2026
Implementation timing
Definition and location changes to the DSP could be scheduled for October 13, 2026.

An administrative Body Art license/permit would require a new ordinance and fee and could be brought back as early as November 10, 2026.

If the Council moves forward with staff’s recommendation, the DSP would be amended to allow the following:

Personal Services
Excluding Body Art Body Art
Brentwood Civic
Center Not Permitted Not Permitted
Downtown Core Permitted
Requires a License, excluding first 65
feet of the first floor as measured
perpendicular to the street frontage
Civic Core Permitted
Requires a License, excluding first 65
feet of the first floor as measured
perpendicular to the street frontage
Downtown
General Permitted
Requires a License, excluding first 65
feet of the first floor as measured
perpendicular to the street frontage
Downtown
Boulevard Permitted Requires a License
Western
Gateway Permitted Requires a License
Residential
Neighborhood Not Permitted Not Permitted

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. G.1
09/08/2026

CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC INITIATIVE
Not Applicable.

PREVIOUS ACTIONS
Previous actions taken by the City Council are included in Attachment 1.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Previous Actions

2. Downtown District Zones Map – Page 67 of the Downtown Specific Plan

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

On November 16, 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2005-276 adopting the Downtown Specific Plan (GPA 05-05).

On August 26, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2008-222 amending the Downtown Specific Plan (GPA 07-02) to add the Brentwood Civic Center District Zone to accommodate the Civic Center project.

On June 24, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2014-95 amending the Downtown Specific Plan (GPA 14-001) to address technical amendments and land use policies such as applicability, signage, use categories, and prohibited uses or uses of particular concern.

On September 13, 2016, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2016-126 amending the Downtown Specific Plan (GPA 16-001) to modify the development standards within the Civic Core District Zone to accommodate the Brentwood library project.

On September 26, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2017-132 amending the Downtown Specific Plan (GPA 17-003) to temporarily suspend the in-lieu parking fee and parking requirements for non-residential projects, as well as a technical clean-up of the development regulations associated with the Civic Core District Zone.

On January 28, 2025, the City Council considered a future agenda item request from Vice Mayor Pierson and Council Member Oerlemans to study the possibility of amending the Downtown Specific Plan for the purpose of allowing tattoo studios.

On May 27, 2025, the City Council further considered the future agenda item request that was presented on January 28, 2025. Ultimately, by a 3-2 vote, the City Council directed staff to amend the Downtown Specific Plan to allow tattoo parlors as a permitted use, subject to an Administrative Design Review.

On August 5, 2025, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider amending the Downtown Specific Plan. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 25-012 by a 3-2 vote (with Commissioners Johnson and Jones voting no) recommending that the City Council not adopt an ordinance amending the Downtown Specific Plan.

2.2.2 Downtown District Zone
Do w
BOOK
s Map
II – DEVE
ntown Sp

LOPMENT
ecific Pla

REGULATIO
n
NS