Docstoc

May 26_ 2009 CITY OF BRENTWOOD CITY COUNCIL

Document Sample
May 26_ 2009 CITY OF BRENTWOOD CITY COUNCIL Powered By Docstoc
					                                      May 26, 2009
                                 CITY OF BRENTWOOD
                    CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA
               City Council Chamber, 734 Third Street, Brentwood, CA 94513

       A complete packet of information is available for public review at City Hall or on our website at
                                          www.ci.brentwood.ca.us

Any disclosable public records related to an agenda item for the open session of this meeting distributed
to all or a majority of the City Council less than 72 hours before this meeting is available for inspection at
City Hall, located at 708 Third Street during normal business hours .These writings will also be available
for review at the City Council meeting in the public access binder in the entrance of the City Council
Chambers.


                                                    CLOSED SESSION
                                                       6:00 P.M.

CALL TO ORDER CITY COUNCIL
Roll Call

PUBLIC COMMENTS
At this time the public is permitted to address the Council on items that are on the Closed Session Agenda, or items not on the
agenda. Persons addressing the City Council are required to limit their remarks to five (5) minutes unless an extension of time is
granted by the Mayor subject to approval of the Council. Please file your name with the Mayor on the form provided at the podium.
Speakers desiring answers to questions should direct it to the Council and, if relevant, the Council may direct it to the appropriate
staff member.

ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION – 118 Oak Street, City Hall Conference Room

1.        CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION - CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
          Pursuant government Code Section 54957.6

          City Designated Representatives: Donna Landeros, City Manager
                                           Karen Chew, Assistant City Manager
                                           Mark Evenson, Police Chief

          Employee Organizations: Brentwood Police Officer’s Association
                                  Brentwood Police Lieutenants
                                  Middle-Management Employees’ Association
                                  Brentwood Employees’ Association/Miscellaneous Office Division
                                  Brentwood Employees’ Association/Public Works Division

          Unrepresented Employees: Police Captains; Director of Parks and Recreation; Chief of Police
                                   Director of Public Works/City Engineer; Director of Community
                                   Development; Assistant City Manager; Director of Finance and
                                   Information Systems; Assistant City Attorney
RECESS CITY COUNCIL
                     JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
                                          7:00 P.M.

RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL IN OPEN SESSION/CALL TO ORDER REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY – 734 Third Street, City Council Chamber

Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION (If any)

PRESENTATIONS
A.        Presentation of a Letter of Commendation to Patrick Hammon
B.        Recognize student winners of the City of Brentwood Youth Commission Scholarship. (B. Gary)
C.        Proclamation supporting the “Wellness City Challenge” (B. Taylor)

PUBLIC COMMENTS
At this time the public is permitted to address the City Council/Redevelopment Agency on items that are on the Consent Calendar,
Requests for Future Agenda Items, or items not on the agenda. Persons addressing the City Council/Redevelopment Agency are
required to limit their remarks to five (5) minutes unless an extension of time is granted by the Mayor subject to approval of the City
Council/Redevelopment Agency. Please file your name with the Mayor on the form provided at the podium. Speakers desiring
answers to questions should direct it to the City Council/Redevelopment Agency and, if relevant, the City Council/Redevelopment
Agency may direct it to the appropriate staff member.


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

1.        Approve minutes of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting of May 12, 2009. (M.
          Wimberly)

2.        Proclaim June 2009 as National Safety Month. (K. Chew)

3.        Approve dissolution of the Brentwood Redevelopment Agency’s Project Area Committee. (D.
          Kwong/C. McCann)

4.        Approval of the Arts Commission public art project to include the selection of photographers and
          photographs for the new Brentwood Library. (C. Bronzan/P. Scherff)

5.        Adopt a Resolution authorizing the cancellation of the July 14, 2009, City Council meeting to
          accommodate summer vacation schedules and the cancellation of the November 24, and
          December 22, 2009, meetings due to holidays. (D. Landeros/M. Wimberly)

6.        Adopt a Resolution making the necessary findings and determination in accordance with Health
          and Safety Code Section 33445 for financing of the City Park Project, CIP No. 352-52406. (C.
          McCann/ D. Kwong)

7.        Adopt a Resolution making the necessary findings and determination in accordance with Health
          and Safety Code Section 33445 for financing of the Downtown Infrastructure Project, CIP No.
          562-56382. (C. McCann/ D. Kwong)

8.        Adopt a Resolution making the necessary findings and determination in accordance with Health
          and Safety Code Section 33445 for financing of the Downtown Parking Solutions Project, CIP No.
          337-37204. (C. McCann/ D. Kwong)
9.    Adopt a Resolution making the necessary findings and determination in accordance with Health
      and Safety Code Section 33445 for financing of the Downtown Streetscape Project, CIP No. 337-
      37203. (C. McCann/ D. Kwong)

10.   Adopt a Resolution to award funding from the Business License Tax Grant Program in the
      amount of $130,543, as recommended by the Land Use and Development Committee. (C.
      McCann/H. Wetherford)

11.   Adopt a Resolution approving and authorizing City Manager or her designee to execute
      Amendment No. 6 to Purchase Agreement with Pizzagoni Family, Inc., for an extension of the
      City’s Option to Repurchase period and issuance of building permits for site at Sunset Industrial
      Complex by an additional 12 months from close date and directing staff to take actions and
      authorizing the City Manager to execute documents necessary for the amendment. (C. McCann/
      G. Rozenski)

12.   Adopt a Resolution accepting all off-site public improvements; accepting the Maintenance Bond;
      releasing the Improvement Securities; and directing the City Clerk to file this Resolution with the
      Recorder of Contra Costa County, for Conditional Use Permit No. 03-02, developed by In-Shape
      Management Company, Inc., located south of Balfour Road and west of Griffith Lane. (B.
      Grewal/H. Silfies)

13.   Adopt a Resolution approving the contract documents, awarding the bid and authorizing the City
      Manager or designee to execute a construction contract and necessary documents for Traffic
      Calming Installations (Shady Willow Lane AC Pathway), CIP Project No. 336-31360, with William
      G. McCullough Company in the amount of $52,495, plus a 10% contingency of $5,249.50, for a
      total amount of $57,744.50. (B. Grewal/S. Kersevan)

14.   Adopt a Resolution accepting the EBMUD trail public landscaping improvements for maintenance
      located within Subdivision No. 8470, Amber Park constructed by Mission Peak Construction, Inc.
      The Amber Park development is located at the southeast corner of Lone Tree Way and Empire
      Avenue and north of the EBMUD aqueduct. (C. McCann/D. Hill)

15.   Adopt a Resolution to approve Temporary Use Permit No. 09-07 to close First Street between
      Oak Street and Chestnut Street, as part of allowing the use of City-owned property for the staging
      of the Downtown Thursdays event sponsored by the Downtown Brentwood Coalition every
      Thursday night starting on May 28, 2009 and ending on October 1, 2009, between the hours of
      5:00 pm and 8:00 pm. (C. McCann/J. Zilm)

16.   Adopt a Resolution approving a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Brentwood
      and the Brentwood Arts Society regarding running a wide variety of community arts programs at
      the cost of $57,000 and authorizing the City Manager or her designee to execute the
      Memorandum of Understanding and make minor technical revisions to the MOU in consultation
      with the City Attorney. (C. Bronzan/P. Scherff)

17.   Adopt a Resolution approving, and authorizing the City Manager to sign, an Assignment and
      Assumption Agreement that 1) transfers landscape maintenance services of parks from American
      Civil Constructors, Inc. (ACC) to ACC Landscape Services, LP (ACCLS), to be effective upon
      ACCLS providing evidence, to the satisfaction of the City, of all necessary insurance, bonds and
      licenses and 2) allows for the subcontracting of the landscape maintenance services of parks
      from ACC to ACCLS prior to the assignment and assumption becoming effective.                  (C.
      Bronzan/R. Stromgren)

18.   Adopt a Resolution accepting the work performed by Majestic Floors Inc. for the Brentwood
      Senior Activity Center CIP No. 522-52280 and directing the City Clerk to file a Notice of
      Completion with the County Recorder. (C. Bronzan/P. Scherff)
19.      Adopt a Resolution amending City Council Administrative Policy No. 10-15, Collection Policy to
         update those sections related to Citations and Abatement Orders. (P. Ehler/D. Davies)

20.      Adopt a Resolution adopting the 2009/10 Prop 4 Appropriation Limit using the change in the City
         population factor of 2.62% to calculate the limit. (P. Ehler/K. Breen)

21.      Adopt a Resolution approving the reorganization of the Economic Development and Planning
         Divisions of the Community Development Department from two separate divisions combining
         them into one, to be known as the Planning and Economic Development Division and approve a
         classification description and salary range for Economic Development/Planning Manager. (D.
         Landeros/C. McCann/P. Standley)

22.      Introduce and waive the first reading of an Ordinance amending sections of Chapter 2.44 of the
         Brentwood Municipal Code (“Arts”) related to, among other provisions: Definitions; Powers and
         Duties; Purpose; Requirement to provide artwork or pay in lieu contribution; Public Art Fund; and
         Commission authority and approve by motion the procedural Public Art Program Guidelines. (C.
         Bronzan/P. Scherff)

Redevelopment Agency Consent Items:

23.      Adopt a Resolution making findings and determinations in accordance with Health and Safety
         Code Section 33445 for the financing of the City Park Project, CIP No. 352-52406. (C. McCann/
         D. Kwong)

24.      Adopt a Resolution making findings and determinations in accordance with Health and Safety
         Code Section 33445 for the financing of the Downtown Infrastructure Project, CIP No. 562-56382.
         (C. McCann/ D. Kwong)

25.      Adopt a Resolution making findings and determinations in accordance with Health and Safety
         Code Section 33445 for the financing of the Downtown Parking Solutions Project, CIP No. 337-
         37204. (C. McCann/ D. Kwong)

26.      Adopt a Resolution making findings and determinations in accordance with Health and Safety
         Code Section 33445 for the financing of the Downtown Streetscape Project, CIP No. 337-37203.
         (C. McCann/ D. Kwong)

27.      Approve RDA Warrant list. (P. Ehler/L. Schelbert)

PUBLIC HEARINGS
Persons addressing the Council/Redevelopment Agency are asked to file their name with the Mayor on the form provided at the
podium. The Council may adopt reasonable regulations at the onset of the public hearing to facilitate public testimony. These
regulations may include time limits. In the absence of such regulations, the public hearing shall follow the protocol for Public
Comments.

28.      PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF MAY 12, 2009, ITEMS (1) – (3) The
         Sciortino Ranch project: 1) Consideration of a resolution to certify the Final Environmental
         Impact Report; 2) Consideration of a resolution to approve a General Plan amendment (GPA 09-
         01) to modify the Land Use Element related to the text for Special Planning Area A and to make
         the associated change to the Land Use Map; 3) Consideration of an ordinance to approve a
         rezone (RZ 06-13) to establish a list of allowable uses and development standards, including site-
         specific design guidelines, for the Planned Development No. 55 Zone; and 4) Consideration of
         an appeal filed by the project applicant related to certain conditions of approval for Tentative
         Subdivision Map No. 9152. (C. McCann/E. Nolthenius)
29.       PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF MAY 12, 2009 - Consideration of an
          appeal by the applicant, Dan Mercado, of the Planning Commission denial of an application for a
          conditional use permit (CUP 08-33) to allow the operation of a landscaping contracting business
          at a single-family residential property located at 430 Lone Oak Court (APN 016-080-018). (C.
          McCann/J. Zilm)

30.       Consider an ordinance for a Rezone (RZ 09-05) to amend Chapter 17.455 of the Brentwood
          Municipal Code for the Planned Development No. 5 (PD-5) Subarea B zoning designation to alter
          the delivery hours for the Shops at Fairview commercial development by extending them on
          Sundays from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The Shops at Fairview
          commercial development is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Balfour Road
          and Fairview Avenue. (C. McCann/ D. Hill)

31.       Consider a Resolution Approving a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of
          Brentwood and the Brentwood Chamber of Commerce regarding the 2009 CornFest event and
          authorize the City Manager or her designee to execute the Memorandum of Understanding. (C.
          McCann/H. Wetherford)

32.       Consider a Resolution 1) Adopting the Negative Declaration and 2) Adopting the 2009/10 –
          2013/14 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the City of Brentwood including roadway, park,
          sewer, water and other municipal improvements to be constructed during the next five years. (P.
          Ehler/K. Breen)

INFORMATIONAL REPORTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS, SUBCOMMITTEES AND
LIAISONS: This portion of the agenda is to provide an opportunity for Council Members to report on
attendance at events, subcommittee meetings, and entities on which the Council Member has been
appointed as a liaison.

REQUEST FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:

      I   NEW REQUESTS (Council Members wishing to have an agenda item placed on a future agenda
          shall make a request under this section of the agenda. These items will be included on the
          agenda for the next Council meeting).

      ADJOURNMENT

                                                        NOTICE
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the meeting room is wheelchair accessible and disabled
parking is available at the City Hall Parking lot. If you are a person with a disability and you need disability-related
modifications or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (925) 516-
5440 or fax (925) 516-5441. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. {28 CFR 35.102-35, 104 ADA Title II}

                                              POSTING STATEMENT
On May 21, 2009, a true and correct copy of this agenda was posted on the City Hall Bulletin Board, outside City Hall,
708 Third Street, Brentwood, CA 94513 and at our website www.ci.brentwood.ca.us
       Letter of Commendation
                              Presented to
                   Patrick Hammon
A City Employee exhibited many of the City’s Core Values when he did
not hesitate to act as he noticed a citizen in need of assistance.

While enroute to work, Patrick witnessed an overturned vehicle lying in
the water on the highway. He showed uncompromising integrity as he
tried to help fellow rescuers get a trapped passenger out of the vehicle.
Patrick suggested cutting the passenger’s seatbelt. This enabled rescuers
to get the passenger out of the vehicle. The passenger was pulled onto the
bank; he was not breathing nor did he have a pulse. Patrick started CPR
on the man, giving him chest compressions and directing another rescuer
when to give breaths. Patrick successfully continued CPR until
emergency personnel arrived. Patrick used the training skills provided by
the City and showed the quality of our employees.

Through his willingness to get involved, Patrick demonstrated true
Integrity and Respect for others.


Presented this 26th Day of May 2009.




                                               __________________________
                                                    Robert Taylor, Mayor
                                  CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION B

Meeting Date:         May 26, 2009

Subject/Title:        Recognize student winners of the City of Brentwood Youth Commission
                      Scholarship

Prepared by:          Barbie Gary, Recreation Supervisor

Submitted by:     Craig D. Bronzan, Director of Parks & Recreation
____________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION
Recognize student winners of the City of Brentwood Youth Commission Scholarship.

PREVIOUS ACTION
The City of Brentwood Youth Commission was approved by the City Council on April 27, 1999
as an advisory body to the City Council and in support of the Parks and Recreation Department.

On March 11, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution 2008-64 approving the 2008 Youth
Commission Scholarship Application and criteria which awards up to four high school seniors
who have met scholarship requirements each with a $750 scholarship.

BACKGROUND
The Youth Commission established the Youth Commission Scholarship Application and criteria
on October 14, 2002 to assist high school seniors who prove financial need, meet a minimum
grade point average, live within the Brentwood city limits, and demonstrate future educational
goals. The Youth Commission awarded its first scholarships on May 27, 2003.

Funding for the scholarships is obtained by fundraising events offered by the Youth Commission
with the sole intent of raising funds for scholarships. Past fundraising events have included the
Spring to Life Fun Run and Tour de Starbucks Bike Ride. Youth Commissioners volunteer their
time to work at such events in exchange for a donation to the Youth Scholarship Fund.
Scholarship amount may vary from year to year based on the funds raised and available for that
year.

The Youth Commission Executive Team selected three qualified winners from a pool of five
applicants. The following students were awarded a $750 scholarship:

       Sabrina Dunbar: Freedom High School
       Michelle Favalora: Heritage High School
       Vannessa Rodriguez: Liberty High School

The students accepted their scholarship award at their respective high school award
ceremonies earlier in May.
Minutes for City Council and Redevelopment Agency Meeting                                       Page 1 of 7




                                                                            CITY OF BRENTWOOD
                                                                               CITY COUNCIL AND
                                                                        REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
                                                                               MEETING MINUTES
                                                                              TUESDAY, 7:00 P.M.
                                                                                     MAY 12, 2009
                                                                              COUNCIL CHAMBER

     Chris Becnel                           Robert Taylor, Mayor                      Brandon Richey
     Robert A. Brockman                                                             Erick Stonebarger



     CALL TO ORDER (6:00 PM)


     Roll Call
     Present: Becnel; Brockman; Richey; Stonebarger; Taylor


     PUBLIC COMMENTS (6:01 PM)


     Review Fiscal Year 2009/10 Operations Budget


     RECESS CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (6:47 PM)


     RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - 734 Third Street, City Council
     Chamber (07:01 PM)


     Pledge of Allegiance (07:02 PM)


     Roll Call (07:02 PM)


     Roll Call (07:02 PM)
     Present: Becnel; Brockman; Richey; Stonebarger; Taylor


     PUBLIC COMMENTS (07:03 PM)


     David Fowler, Byron Hot Springs Resort and Spa, asked to make a presentation to Council
     regarding three historical buildings.


     CONSENT CALENDAR (07:05 PM)


     1. Approved minutes of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting of April 28, 2009. (M.
     Wimberly)


     2. Accepted the Code Enforcement Program Update. (C. McCann/L. Kidwell)


     3. Set the date of May 26, 2009, to hear an appeal filed by New Urban Communities Partners of the




http://brentwood.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?print=1&clip_id=997&doc_id=f5f583... 5/21/2009
Minutes for City Council and Redevelopment Agency Meeting                                              Page 2 of 7



     Planning Commission’s approval of a tentative subdivision map (TSM 9152) application to create 11
     parcels on an approximate 65-acre site, known as Sciortino Ranch, located east of the intersection
     of Sand Creek Road and Brentwood Boulevard (APN 016-170-012 and APN 016-170-013) (C.
     McCann/E. Nolthenius)


     4. Adopted Resolution 2009-96 accepting the work performed by William G. McCullough Company,
     Inc. for the Brentwood Business Park Improvements, CIP Project No. 336-31682, and directing the
     City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder. (B. Grewal/A. Salam)


     5. Adopted Resolution 2009-97 approving the contract documents, awarding the bid and authorizing
     the City Manager or designee to execute a construction contract and necessary documents for the
     2009 Pavement Management Program (Slurry Seal), CIP Project No. 336-30830, with Bond
     Blacktop, Inc. in the amount of $276,068.05, plus a 10% contingency of $27,606.81, for a total
     amount of $303,674.86. (B. Grewal/A. Salam)


     6. Adopted Resolution 2009-98 approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign Amendment No. 1 to
     Cooperative Agreement No. 4-1885-C between the State of California and the State Route 4 Bypass
     Authority, County of Contra Costa, City of Antioch, City of Brentwood and City of Oakley to extend
     the term of the Agreement to December 31, 2010, and revise the indemnification language to current
     Caltrans’ standards. (B. Grewal/P. Eldredge)


     7. Waived second reading and adopted Ordinance No. 867 amending Brentwood Municipal Code
     Titles 1 and 8 to clarify methods of administrative citation fines and nuisance abatement cost
     collection; distinguish administrative citation procedures from other enforcement procedures; provide
     for an appeal of an administrative citation by an Enforcement Officer; declare graffiti and the disposal
     or spill of materials, both hazardous and otherwise, to be public nuisances; and, to delete outdated
     provisions from the Municipal Code. (D. Brower/C. McCann/D. Davies/R. Kidwell)


     8. Waived second reading and adopted Ordinance No. 868 amending in its entirety Chapter 3.30 of
     the Brentwood Municipal Code related to the California Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Act to
     provide informal bidding procedures for City construction contracts. (B. Grewal/C. Ehlers)


     9. Waived second reading and adopted Ordinance No. 869 approving a Rezone (RZ 07-03) for the
     Plaza at Balfour project, a proposed commercial office and retail development of approximately
     20,000 square feet on 2.17 acres, located south of Balfour Road and west of Armstrong Road (APN
     010-171-013). (C. McCann/T. Nielsen)


     10. Adopted Resolution 2009-99 amending the Balanced Billing Program to include all utility
     customers. (P. Ehler/D. Davies)

     Council Member Richey voted no on Item 10.


     11. REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA Adopt a Resolution replacing in its entirety City Council Policy
     No. 10-7, Purchasing Policy. (P. Ehler/D. Davies)


     CONSENT CALENDAR ACTIONS (07:06 PM)


     Motion: Approve Consent Calendar Items 1 - 10 as recommended and continuing Item 11 to a future
     date. Council Member Richey voted no on Item 10.
     The City Clerk read the titles of Ordinances 867, 868, and 869.




http://brentwood.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?print=1&clip_id=997&doc_id=f5f583... 5/21/2009
Minutes for City Council and Redevelopment Agency Meeting                                             Page 3 of 7



     Moved by Stonebarger, seconded by Becnel.

     Vote: Motion carried 5-0.
     Yes: Becnel; Brockman; Richey; Stonebarger; Taylor


     PUBLIC HEARINGS (07:07 PM)


     12. Consideration of an appeal by the applicant, Dan Mercado, of the Planning Commission denial of
     an application for a conditional use permit (CUP 08-33) to allow the operation of a landscaping
     contracting business at a single-family residential property located at 430 Lone Oak Court (APN 016-
     080-018). (C. McCann/J. Zilm)

     Motion: Continue Item 12 to the meeting of May 26, 2009 - Consideration of an appeal by the
     applicant, Dan Mercado, of the Planning Commission denial of an application for a conditional use
     permit (CUP 08-33) to allow the operation of a landscaping contracting business at a single-family
     residential property located at 430 Lone Oak Court (APN 016-080-018). (C. McCann/J. Zilm)
     Moved by Becnel, seconded by Stonebarger.

     Vote: Motion carried 5-0.
     Yes: Becnel; Brockman; Richey; Stonebarger; Taylor


     13. The Sciortino Ranch project: (1) consideration of a resolution certifying the Final Environmental
     Impact Report, (2) consideration of a resolution adopting a General Plan Amendment (GPA 09-01),
     and (3) an ordinance rezoning the property (RZ 06-13) - Staff is recommending a continuance to the
     meeting of May 26, 2009. (C. McCann/E. Nolthenius)

     Motion: Continue Item 13 to the meeting of May 26, 2009 - The Sciortino Ranch project: (1)
     consideration of a resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report, (2) consideration of a
     resolution adopting a General Plan Amendment (GPA 09-01), and (3) an ordinance rezoning the
     property (RZ 06-13) - Staff is recommending a continuance to the meeting of May 26, 2009. (C.
     McCann/E. Nolthenius)
     Moved by Becnel, seconded by Stonebarger.

     Vote: Motion carried 4-0.
     Yes: Becnel; Richey; Stonebarger; Taylor
     Abstain: Brockman


     OLD BUSINESS (7:08 PM)


     14. Accept the Labor Stability Study and provide direction to staff regarding negotiation of a Project
     Labor Agreement (PLA) for the Civic Center Project. If direction is to proceed with a PLA for the
     Civic Center Project 1) Adopt a Resolution directing staff to begin the negotiation process toward a
     PLA 2) authorize funding for negotiation services in an amount not to exceed $25,000 and 3)
     authorize the Director of Finance and Information Systems to facilitate internal loans for the Civic
     Center Project. (D. Landeros/G. Leech)

     Michael Vlamming, Scarth-Lyons and Associates, explained the purpose of the labor stability study
     for the Civic Center project, presented highlights of the project labor agreement (PLA) including a
     provision that called for local hiring preference and a way to meet that objective, as well as a way to
     include returning military veterans by utilizing such programs as Helmets to Hardhats. He spoke
     about the effects and costs of utilizing a PLA, and said the PLA would help achieve goals and
     provide the City with a minimum risk of delay.

     Vice Mayor Stonebarger asked if pre-job meetings could be accomplished without a PLA.

     Michael Vlamming, Scarth-Lyons, said meetings could be held.




http://brentwood.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?print=1&clip_id=997&doc_id=f5f583... 5/21/2009
Minutes for City Council and Redevelopment Agency Meeting                                         Page 4 of 7




     Vice Mayor Stonebarger felt the Labor Stability Study needed additional information on the makeup
     of the workforce.

     Mayor Taylor asked if the project labor agreement had a provision for a manager.

     Michael Vlamming, Scarth-Lyons, said the construction manager was Swinerton.

     Council Member Richey asked what would be included in the negotiation services.

     Michael Vlamming, Scarth-Lyons, said the negotiation would be the preparation of the PLA. The
     document would be prepared, meetings held to achieve the objectives and obtain the mutual
     agreement, have the agreement executed and present it back to Council.

     Council Member Richey asked if managing the PLA would be a staff issue.

     Michael Vlamming, Scarth-Lyons, said if staff was going to handle the administration, then it would
     be a staff issue. If Council wanted someone else to administer the PLA, it would be a separate
     issue.

     Mayor Taylor opened the public comments.

     Father Sean Murry, St. Anthony’s Catholic Church in Oakley, asked to honor returning military
     personnel and provide jobs for local skilled craftsman.

     Angel Luerano, National Vice President of League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC),
     spoke in support of the PLA.

     Argentina Luerano, State Director for California LULAC, spoke in support of the PLA.

     Laurie Olsen, Parties-4-U, spoke in opposition to the PLA.

     Mariano Fraire, Ironworkers Local 378, spoke in support of the PLA.

     Tony Thurmond spoke in support of the PLA.

     Jessie Juarez spoke in support of the PLA.

     Miguel Rodriguez, Ironworkers Local 378, spoke in support of the PLA.

     Robert Vincent spoke in opposition to the PLA.

     Mike Ludwig, a non-union contractor, spoke in opposition to the PLA.

     Benjamin Karnopp spoke in support of the PLA.

     Kevin Van Buskirk, Sheet Metal Workers and Building Trades, spoke in support of the PLA.

     Jack Fertado, Local 104 Sheet Metal Workers, spoke in support of the PLA.

     John Sisneros, retired Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, spoke in support of the PLA.

     William Stokem spoke in support of the PLA.

     Charles Madding, Local 104 Sheet Metal Workers, spoke in support of the PLA.

     Delia Colmeneres spoke in support of the PLA.

     Toby Cummings spoke in opposition to the PLA.




http://brentwood.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?print=1&clip_id=997&doc_id=f5f583... 5/21/2009
Minutes for City Council and Redevelopment Agency Meeting                                            Page 5 of 7



     Karen Rogge spoke in support of the PLA.

     Ruben Rodriguez spoke in support of the PLA.

     Pat Bartlett spoke in support of the PLA.

     Gil Guerrero, Contra Costa County Professional Firefighters Local 1230, spoke in favor of the PLA.

     Harry York, Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of the PLA.

     Steve Bishop, Ironworkers 377, spoke in support of the PLA.

     Brian Colombo, Ironworkers Local 378, spoke in support of the PLA.

     Richard Derr, Union Local No. 16, Heat & Frost Insulators, spoke in support of the PLA.

     Nicole Goehring, Associated Builders and Contractors, spoke in opposition to the PLA.

     Brian Johnson spoke in opposition to the PLA.

     Kevin Harwood spoke in opposition to the PLA.

     Jeff Olsen, a non-union electrical contractor, spoke in opposition to the PLA.

     Cherie Cabral, representative of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and National
     Electrical Contractors Association, spoke in support of the PLA.

     Erik Christen, Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction, spoke in opposition to the PLA.

     Rachel Leanos Lopez, Carpenters Local 152, spoke in favor of the PLA.

     Larry Proctor spoke in support of the PLA.

     Craig Brueckner spoke in opposition of the PLA.

     Joe Cabada spoke in support of the PLA.

     Ken Krescher, general engineering contractor and member of the Associated Builders and
     Contractors, spoke in opposition to the PLA.

     Ana Gutierrez spoke in support of the PLA.

     Chris Bowles, Local 378 Ironworkers, spoke in support of the PLA.

     Robert Martell, Local 378 Ironworkers, spoke in support of the PLA.

     Kevin Dayton, Associated Builders and Contractors, spoke in opposition to the PLA.

     Ignacio Vargas, Local Union No. 377, spoke in support of the PLA.

     Jim Halter Sheet Metal Workers spoke in support of the PLA.

     Greg Feere Contra Costa Building Trades Counsel, spoke in support of the PLA.

     Mel Lowney, Northwest Regional Director, Helmets to Hardhats and Wounded Warrior Programs,
     spoke in support of the PLA.

     Jason Gallia, Iron Workers 378, spoke in support of the PLA.

     Jeff McEuen, Iron Workers, spoke in support of the PLA.




http://brentwood.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?print=1&clip_id=997&doc_id=f5f583... 5/21/2009
Minutes for City Council and Redevelopment Agency Meeting                                            Page 6 of 7




     Angelina Montenegro, Plumbers Union 159, spoke in support of the PLA.

     David Fowler, Byron Hot Springs, spoke in support of the PLA.

     Carlos Soto, Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, spoke in support of the PLA.

     Justin Gomes spoke in support of the PLA.

     Luis Rodriguez, Iron Workers 378, spoke in support of the PLA.

     Celso Rodriguez spoke in support of the PLA.

     Annette Beckstrand said she believed projects should use the lowest responsible bid and that
     everyone should have an equal opportunity to bid.

     Dillon Richey spoke in support of the Helmets to Hardhats program and the PLA.

     Steve Greeson, Iron Workers 378, spoke in support of the PLA.

     GW Schwartz spoke in support of the PLA.

     Mayor Taylor closed public comments.

     Council Member Becnel said union or non-union contractors could bid on the contract. He wished to
     provide the opportunity to workers in the City. He felt the Civic Center Project needed to move
     forward quickly without time delays and said he was in support of moving forward and negotiating a
     PLA.

     Council Member Richey said he was in support of the PLA due to local preference and veterans.

     Council Member Brockman said he did not believe the City needed a PLA and felt that any
     contractor should be able to bid on the project, union or non-union, as long as they are a responsible
     bidder.

     Vice Mayor Stonebarger asked to provide the opportunity to residents and veterans. He spoke
     about benefits, concerns with non-union workers joining a union, competitive bidding, pensions, and
     the Labor Stability Study. He felt the Civic Center Project was premature.

     Mayor Taylor said the Civic Center Project was about jobs and local preference and was a stimulus
     package for the City.


     Motion: accept the Labor Stability Study and provide direction to staff through the Civic Center Ad
     Hoc Subcommittee regarding the negotiation of the project labor agreement (PLA); adopt Resolution
     2009-100 directing staff to begin the negotiation process toward a PLA; authorize funding for
     negotiation services, in an amount not to exceed $25,000, and authorize the Director of Finance and
     Information Systems to facilitate internal loans for the Civic Center Project. (D. Landeros/G. Leech)
     Moved by Becnel, seconded by Richey.

     Vote: Motion carried 3-2.
     Yes: Becnel; Richey; Taylor
     No: Brockman; Stonebarger


     INFORMATIONAL REPORTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS, SUBCOMMITTEES AND LIAISONS
     (09:38 PM)


     Vice Mayor Stonebarger spoke about his attendance at a meeting with Supervisors Glover and




http://brentwood.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?print=1&clip_id=997&doc_id=f5f583... 5/21/2009
Minutes for City Council and Redevelopment Agency Meeting                                            Page 7 of 7



     Piepho, and members of the Antioch and Oakley City Council pertaining to the Co-op Ag Extension
     Program, (Youth 4-H Program).

     Council Member Becnel said the California State Controller’s Office reported on the State deficit.

     Mayor Taylor spoke about the District Attorney, his attendance at the Farmer’s Market, and
     submitted a memo on the subject of mileage parking reimbursement.

     REQUEST FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: None (09:42 PM)


     ADJOURNMENT (09:43 PM)


     Motion: Adjourn
     Moved by Stonebarger, seconded by Brockman.

     Vote: Motion carried 5-0.
     Yes: Becnel; Brockman; Richey; Stonebarger; Taylor

     Respectfully submitted,



     Cynthia Garcia, CMC
     Assistant City Clerk




http://brentwood.granicus.com/MinutesViewer.php?print=1&clip_id=997&doc_id=f5f583... 5/21/2009
                        Proclamation
          Proclaiming June as National Safety Month

       WHEREAS, each year, more than 26 million Americans suffer disabling injuries
with 10,530 unintentional injury deaths occurring in the state of California alone; and

      WHEREAS, the goal of the National Safety Council is to raise public awareness
and seek opportunities to educate Americans about these alarming and preventable
mishaps through education; and

      WHEREAS, through the support and observance of National Safety Month,
employers help to reverse the increase in accidental injuries and deaths; and

       WHEREAS, the City of Brentwood supports national safety efforts and has taken
a pro-active stance in providing a safe and healthy work environment for its employees
through the formation of the Central Safety Advisory and Public Works Safety
Committees; and

       WHEREAS, the Central Safety Advisory and Public Works Safety Committees,
under the guidance of the Human Resources Division, work to assure the safety of all
City of Brentwood employees by setting and enforcing standards; providing training;
outreach, and education; and encouraging continual improvement in workplace safety
and health.

        THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I Robert Taylor, Mayor of the City of
Brentwood, proclaim June as National Safety Month and encourage all employees and
citizens to participate in raising their awareness in the practice of safe and healthy
behaviors in all aspects of their lives.


Dated this 26th day of May, 2009



                                                      ________________________
                                                      Robert Taylor
                                                      Mayor
                             CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 3


Meeting Date:    May 26, 2009

Subject/Title:   Approve dissolution of the Brentwood Redevelopment Agency’s Project Area
                 Committee

Prepared by:     Donald Kwong, Senior Redevelopment Analyst

Submitted by: Casey McCann, Community Development Director


RECOMMENDATION
Approve dissolution of the Brentwood Redevelopment Agency’s Project Area Committee.

PREVIOUS ACTION
When adopting or amending a redevelopment plan, the legislative body (Council) must call upon
residents, property owners, business owners and community organizations to form a Project
Area Committee (“PAC”) when the plan will contain authority for the agency to acquire
residential property by eminent domain (CRL Section 33385a).

From October to December 2001, the Planning Commission, Brentwood Redevelopment
Agency and City Council took necessary actions to commence a boundary change and other
amendments to the official Redevelopment Plans for the Downtown and North Brentwood
Project Areas. The amendment included the authority of eminent domain to acquire residential
properties within the Redevelopment Project Areas. The amendment was adopted on July 9,
2002, by Ordinance 708.

On January 22, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution 2453, approving and adopting
procedures for the formation of and election of members to a PAC for the Merged Downtown
and North Brentwood Redevelopment Project Areas.

On March 26, 2002, the Council approved Resolution No. 2506 finding that election of members
to a PAC was conducted in accordance with adopted formation procedures, and announced and
confirmed the PAC election results. The PAC started to meet in 2002.

Community Redevelopment Law (“CRL”) Section 33386 and the PAC Bylaws provide for the
Council and Agency to consult with the PAC for at least three years after the Plan is amended
(in this case, July 2002 to July 2005). The PAC is thereafter subject to one-year extensions by
the Council.

On January 10, 2006, the City Council approved an extension of Brentwood Redevelopment
Agency’s Project Area Committee to July 9, 2006.

On July 25, 2006, the City Council approved a second one-year extension for the Project Area
Committee to July 9, 2007.

On June 26, 2007, the City Council approved a third one-year extension for the Project Area
Committee to July 9, 2008.

On June 24, 2008, the City Council approved a fourth one-year extension for the Project Area
Committee to July 9, 2009.
BACKGROUND
The PAC started meeting in 2002 and has received four annual extensions from the Council.
According to CRL, the PAC shall consist of seven members:

       two residential owner-occupants,
       two residential tenant-occupants,
       two business owners, and
       one member from a community organization (in our case, the Chamber of Commerce).

The PAC started with six members and one residential tenant-occupant vacancy. Shortly after
the PAC started, the sitting residential tenant-occupant resigned. Several attempts and public
advertisements to fill the two vacancies have proven unsuccessful; consequently, the two
tenant-occupant positions have been vacant since late 2002. The business owner member
from Downtown Project Area recently moved out of the Project Area in February 2009. The
PAC now has only four members.

The PAC is scheduled to meet monthly; however due to lack of quorums or lack of agenda
items, the Committee officially met 0 times in 2009, 2 times in 2008, 3 times in 2007, 4 times in
2006, 7 times in 2005, 4 times in 2004, and 6 times in 2003.

There are several reasons for not extending the Project Area Committee:

   1. Due to redevelopment reform acts and legislation since 1994 that restrict the ability to
      make the necessary findings and determinations necessary for the adoption of new or
      expanded redevelopment project areas, it’s unlikely that the Brentwood Redevelopment
      Agency would add new territory to its existing 1300+ acres of project areas, thus review
      and approval by a PAC is also unlikely.
   2. The Agency does not envision relocation and replacement housing needs in the near
      future, and therefore a need for review by PAC is doubtful.
   3. Affordable housing developments have decreased substantially due to the economy,
      and therefore the need for PAC review of potential Agency financial participation has
      also substantially decreased.
   4. The City is not considering preparation of another specific plan that covers the
      Redevelopment Project Areas that would benefit from PAC review.
   5. Of the 7 seats on the committee, the current membership is 4. Successful recruitment to
      fill the vacancies is doubtful if there are no meetings to attend.

Staff recommends the dissolution of the Project Area Committee due to the lack of items for the
Committee’s review and recommendation and lack of membership. The Project Area
Committee members unanimously agree with this recommendation. The current members
should be invited by the City Council to continue their involvement and contribution by
participating on other City commissions and committees.

FISCAL IMPACT
Since the Redevelopment Agency budget does not contain any direct expenditures or funds for
the PAC, there will be no savings in the dissolution of the Project Area Committee.
                             CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 4

Meeting Date: May 26, 2009

Subject/Title:   Approval of the Arts Commission public art project to include the selection of
                 photographers and photographs for the new Brentwood Library

Prepared by:     Poldina Scherff, Recreation Manager
                 Gail Leech, Management Analyst

Submitted by: Craig Bronzan, Director Parks and Recreation



RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the Arts Commission public art project to include the selection of photographers and
photographs for the new Brentwood Library.

PREVIOUS ACTION
On November 13, 2007, by Resolution No. 2007-269, City Council 1) endorsed the Civic Center
Conceptual Plans; 2) endorsed the City Hall and Community Center Building Plans; 3) endorsed
the History Walk concept as one of the Required Art Components of the Civic Center; and 4)
directed staff to proceed with this project to design development.

On February 26, 2008, LPA, Inc. gave a presentation to City Council on milestones and critical
decision points for the Civic Center project. The purpose was to inform City Council of when
they would be required to make decisions that will affect the progress of the project.

On May 13, 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-115, City Council approved the Swinerton
Management and Consulting contract for Construction Management services for the Civic
Center Project.

On May 13, 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-116, City Council approved Staff’s recommendation
for the type of fountain and the trees for the Civic Center Plaza.

On May 13 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-117, City Council endorsed the City Park Master Site
Plan.

On May 13, 2008, City Council continued the issue of consideration of a Resolution directing
staff to Prepare Temporary Space for the Interim Library and Council Chambers at the
Brentwood Education and Technology Center and directed staff to bring back a budget analysis
for the costs associated with moving the library.

On May 27, 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-136, the City Council adopted the 2008/09-2012/13
Capital Improvement Program.

On June 10, 2008, City Council directed staff to pursue the temporary space for the interim
library at the annex building.
On August 26, 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-219, City Council authorized the City Manager to
execute an agreement with Devcon Construction Incorporated for construction management
services related to the construction of the interim library at the Oak Street Annex.

On August 26, 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-220, City Council approved the Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Brentwood Civic Center project; by Resolution No. 2008-221, approved the
General Plan amendment (GPA 07-02) to change the land use designation on a portion of the
Civic Center site from Park to Downtown (mixed use); by Resolution No. 2008-222, approved a
Downtown Specific Plan amendment to add the Brentwood Civic Center District Zone, create
site development standards and permitted uses for the new district zone, and re-designate City
Park, the adjacent Maple Street and Third Street and two City-owned parcels to the new district
zone; and by Resolution No. 2008-223, approved a summary vacation for portions of Maple
Street and Third Street.

On October 14, 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-249, City Council approved the contract
documents, awarded the bid and authorized the City Manager to execute a construction
contract and necessary documents with Enterprise Roofing Service, Inc. for Bid Package #1,
Re-roofing work associated with the Library Relocation project, CIP No. 337-37194, and
adopted Resolution 2008-251 amending the CIP Budget Sheet for the Library Relocation
project.

On November 18, 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-268 City Council rejected the Bid of R.W.
Painting for Bid Package No. 3 (Tackable Panels and Painting) as non-responsive and
approved the contract documents, awarding the bids and authorizing the City Manager or
Designee to execute construction contracts and necessary documents for the Library Relocation
Project, CIP No. 337-37194, for Bid Packages #2 - #9 for $387,268, plus a 10% contingency of
$38,726.80, for a total amount of $425,994.80 and Authorize the Director of Finance and
Information Systems to facilitate internal loans for the Library Relocation Package.

On November 18, 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-269 City Council approved and authorized the
City Manager or designee to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement with Devcon
Construction Incorporated, in the amount of $18,348.00, plus a 10% contingency of $1,834.80
for a total contract amount of $255,830.80 for the Library Relocation project, CIP No. 337-37194
and authorizing the Director of Finance and Information Systems to facilitate internal loans for
the Library Relocation Package.


BACKGROUND
As directed by City Council on May 13, 2008, staff began the design work for the Interim Library
at the Oak Street Annex. LPA completed the design of this interim library and construction
started in mid-October. The first major elements of the project were the re-roofing work over
104 Oak Street and the early work construction package in 118 Oak Street that were approved
by City Council on October 14, 2008, and began on October 29, 2008.

The bid process was an informal process because the budgets on the bid packages were under
the formal bid threshold. Project bids for bid packages # 2 through # 9 were opened on October
29, 2008. A total of 27 bids were received. Of these 27 bids, 16 were from Brentwood
vendors. The other 11 were from Livermore, Tracy and Stockton areas. The bids were
reviewed and the lowest responsible bids were selected. Due to a favorable bidding climate,
the bids came in more than $100,000 under budget.
Construction of the new library at 104 Oak Street is nearing completion. The public art piece of
the project is one of the last remaining tasks. The library has three large areas (see attached
floor plan for wall art locations) on which to display photographs of various sizes and themes.

No theme for this wall art has been selected. Staff met with the Arts Commission at their May
20, 2009 Arts Commission meeting to present the idea and for the Arts Commission under the
Public Arts Program, to head up this project and work with the library on the selection of
photographers and photographs to use for this purpose. The idea is to commission local
photographers to take photos that are representative of Brentwood and that may reflect the
tagline of Heritage, Vision and Opportunity. The photos selected will be mounted under acrylic
and affixed to the walls.

Depending on which photographs are selected, there may be one large photo, or several photos
of varying sizes. The final images may be enlarged to a very large size, so overall image
resolution and clarity will be criteria for the selection of the images. The City requires a
minimum 6.0 megapixel SLR camera, set to maximum resolution, to produce the image. All
lens and filter types are allowed. LPA, Inc., the Civic Center architects, have contracted with a
vendor for the production and installation of the photographs. Artists should submit their
selected photographs on a CD-ROM for Arts Commission review.

The Arts Commission is recommending to City Council that they head up their first project and
work with City and library staff for the new Brentwood Library. The Arts Commission will return
to City Council with a final recommendation for approval for the specific artwork to be
purchased.

FISCAL IMPACT
The percent for art requirement on Public/Residential Development for remodeling, repair or
reconstruction projects is 4/10s of 1% of the project valuation which for this project equates to
$2,265.00 of which, 80% of that goes to fund the artwork, 20% funds administration of the public
art program. The project budget allows for the option to spend more than the minimum, based
on the Arts Commission recommendations for the project. These funds are available in the
Library Relocation Project, CIP No. 337-37194.

Attachment:
Annex Library Floor Plan
Wall
Art 3




                Wall
                Art 2




        Wall
        Art 1
                           CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 5



Meeting Date:    May 26, 2009

Subject/Title:    Adopt a Resolution authorizing the cancellation of the July 14, 2009 City
                  Council meeting to accommodate summer vacation schedules and the
                  cancellation of the November 24, and December 22, 2009, meetings due
                  to holidays.

Submitted by: Margaret Wimberly, City Clerk

Approved by:     Donna Landeros, City Manager


RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the cancellation of the July 14, 2009 City Council meeting to
accommodate summer vacation schedules and the cancellation of the November 24, and
December 22, 2009, meetings due to holidays.

PREVIOUS ACTION
None

BACKGROUND
Section 2.04.020 of the Brentwood Municipal Code states that the City Council shall meet
on the second and fourth Tuesday of every calendar month and that regular City Council
meetings shall commence at the time or times as specified by resolution adopted by the City
Council. This section also states that the City Council may, prior to a regularly scheduled
meeting, approve by resolution the cancellation of a regularly scheduled meeting.

Staff is recommending that the regular City Council meeting scheduled for July 14, 2009, be
cancelled to accommodate summer vacation schedules. Staff further recommends that the
meetings of November 24, and December 22, 2009 be cancelled due to holidays.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.


Attachment:

Resolution
                                 RESOLUTION NO.


      A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
      CANCELING THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED CITY COUNCIL MEETING
      OF JULY 14, 2009 TO ACCOMMODATE SUMMER VACATION
      SCHEDULES AND THE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS OF NOVEMBER 24,
      2009, AND DECEMBER 22, 2009 DUE TO HOLIDAYS

       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; and

       WHEREAS, in accordance Section 2.04.020 of the Brentwood Municipal Code, the
City Council may, prior to the regularly scheduled meeting, approve by resolution the
cancellation of a regularly scheduled meeting.

       NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Brentwood does hereby cancel the regular City Council meeting scheduled for July 14,
2009, to accommodate summer vacation schedules and the regularly scheduled meetings of
November 24, 2009, and December 22, 2009, due to holidays.

        PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood
at a regular meeting held on the 26th Day of May 2009, by the following vote:
                          CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 6


Meeting Date: May 26, 2009

Subject/Title:   Adopt a Resolution making the necessary findings and determination in
                 accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 33445 for the financing of the
                 City Park Project, CIP No. 352-52406.

Prepared by:     Donald Kwong, Senior Redevelopment Analyst

Submitted by: Casey McCann, Community Development Director


RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution making the necessary findings and determination in accordance with Health
and Safety Code Section 33445 for financing of the City Park Project, CIP No. 352-52406.

PREVIOUS ACTION
On May 27, 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-137, the City Council adopted the City’s 2008/09 –
2012/13 Capital Improvement Program that included the City Park Project, CIP No. 352-52406,
in the amount of $2,000,000.

BACKGROUND
This is a companion staff report to the Brentwood Redevelopment Agency’s staff report tonight
requesting adoption of a resolution authorizing making findings and determinations in
accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 33445 for the financing of City Park Project,
CIP 352-52406.

The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Brentwood intends to fund the City Park Project, CIP
No. 352-52406. As such, the City Council, acting as the legislative body of the Agency, and the
Agency, in accordance with Health & Safety Code Section 33445, must make the necessary
findings, including that there are no other reasonable means of financing the Project’s need.
This finding is based on the lack of sufficient funds in the capital improvement budget of the City
to fund the Project together with other urgently needed public improvements and facilities, and
the infeasibility of financing the Project through an assessment district, debt service or other
conventional method of financing public facilities.

FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts associated with the Council taking action on making the necessary
findings and determination in accordance with Health & Safety Code Section 33445. The City
Park Project, CIP 352-52406 is included in the proposed 2009/10-20013/14 Capital
Improvement Project Budget.


Attachment:
Resolution
                                     RESOLUTION NO.


       A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
       MAKING THE NECESSARY FINDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH HEALTH
       AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33445 FOR THE FINANCING OF THE CITY
       PARK PROJECT, CIP NO. 352-52406


        WHEREAS, on May 27, 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-137, the City Council adopted the
City’s 2008/09 – 2012/13 Capital Improvement Program that included the City Park Project, CIP
No. 352-52406, in the amount of $2,000,000; and

       WHEREAS, the City Park Project, located within the Merged Redevelopment Project
Areas, will provide a general renovation and upgrade to City Park. A conceptual plan is being
designed that identifies a number of elements including accommodations for outdoor
performances, event space, park history interpretive area, children play area, arboretum and
picnic area These public improvements will support the economic growth of Downtown
Brentwood; and

        WHEREAS, since the Agency intends to partially fund the City Park Project, CIP Project
No. 352-52406, the City Council, acting as the legislative body of the Agency, in accordance
with Health & Safety Code Section 33445, must make the necessary findings for financing the
project’s need by the Agency.

       NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood
hereby finds and determines

       1.   The City hereby finds and determines as follows:

            a. The payment of funds for the City Park Project will assist in the elimination of
            physical and economic blighting conditions inside the Project Area by providing
            necessary public improvements.

            b.   The City Park Project is consistent with the identified goals and objectives in
            the 2005-2009 Implementation Plan as follows:

                  Revitalize the Merged Project Areas through the improvement and installation
                  of public improvements, public safety provisions, transportation, circulation
                  and parking facilities to reduce congestion, improve public safety and
                  accommodate long-term growth and development patterns.

            c.    The City Park Project will be a significant benefit to the Project Area. This
            finding is based on the fact that the project will provide a stimulus for private
            economic investment, and will benefit not only the immediate Project Area but the
            community as a whole.

            d.    That there are no other reasonable means available to the City of financing
            the Project’s costs. This finding is based on the lack of sufficient funds in the
            capital improvement budget of the City to fund the Project together with other
            urgently needed public improvements and facilities, and the infeasibility of
           financing the Project through an assessment district, debt service or other
           conventional method of financing public facilities.

       PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at
a regular meeting held on the 26th day of May 2009 by the following vote:
                          CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 7


Meeting Date: May 26, 2009

Subject/Title:   Adopt a Resolution making the necessary findings and determination in
                 accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 33445 for the financing of the
                 Downtown Infrastructure Project, CIP No. 562-56382.

Prepared by:     Donald Kwong, Senior Redevelopment Analyst

Submitted by: Casey McCann, Community Development Director


RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution making the necessary findings and determination in accordance with Health
and Safety Code Section 33445 for financing of the Downtown Infrastructure Project, CIP No.
562-56382.

PREVIOUS ACTION
On May 24, 2005, by Resolution No. RDA-99, the Redevelopment Agency appropriated funds
for Downtown Infrastructure (sewer collection upgrade) for a total amount of $177,600.

On March 11, 2008, by Resolution No. RDA-138, the Redevelopment Agency appropriated
funds for Downtown Infrastructure for a total amount of $256,210.

On May 27, 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-137, the City Council adopted the City’s 2008/09–
2012/13 Capital Improvement Program that included the Downtown Infrastructure Project, CIP
No. 562-56382, in the amount of $4,953,600, which amount is partially funded by the Brentwood
Redevelopment Agency in the amount of $3,887,410. The remaining amount shall be funded
by City Enterprise funds.

On June 10, 2008, by Resolution 2008-140, the City Council approved the construction contract
for the Downtown Infrastructure, CIP Project No. 562-56382, with Delta Excavating for a total
amount of $869,077.

On June 24, 2008, by Resolution No. RDA-142, the Redevelopment Agency approved its two-
year operating budget, which included a budget amount of $1,739,070 in 2008/09, a partial
funding of the Agency’s expected contribution of $3,887,410 for the Downtown Infrastructure
Project.

On July 22, 2008, by Resolution No. CC-2008-178, the City Council made the necessary
findings for the Downtown Infrastructure Project.

On July 22, 2008, by Resolution No. RDA-144, the Redevelopment Agency made the necessary
findings and appropriated funds for the Downtown Infrastructure Project in the amount of
$1,739,070.

BACKGROUND
This is a companion staff report to the Brentwood Redevelopment Agency’s staff report tonight
requesting adoption of a resolution making findings and determinations in accordance with
Health and Safety Code Section 33445 for the financing of the Downtown Infrastructure Project,
CIP No. 562-56382.

Since the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Brentwood intends to partially fund the
Downtown Infrastructure Project, CIP No. 562-56382, the City Council, acting as the legislative
body of the Agency, and the Agency, in accordance with Health & Safety Code Section 33445,
must make the necessary findings, including that there are no other reasonable means of
financing the Project’s gap available to the City. This finding is based on the lack of sufficient
funds in the capital improvement budget of the City to fund the Project together with other
urgently needed public improvements and facilities, and the infeasibility of financing the Project
through an assessment district, debt service or other conventional method of financing public
facilities.

FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts associated with the Council taking action on making the necessary
findings and determination in accordance with Health & Safety Code Section 33445. The
Downtown Infrastructure Project, CIP 562-56382 is included in the proposed 2009/10-20013/14
Capital Improvement Project Budget.




Attachment: Resolution
                                     RESOLUTION NO.


       A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
       MAKING THE NECESSARY FINDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH HEALTH
       AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33445 FOR THE FINANCING OF THE
       DOWNTOWN INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT, CIP NO. 562-56382


      WHEREAS, on May 24, 2005, by Resolution RDA-99, the Agency appropriated funds for
Downtown Infrastructure (sewer collection upgrade) for a total amount of $177,600; and

       WHEREAS, on March 11, 2008, by Resolution RDA-138, the Agency appropriated funds
for Downtown Infrastructure (sewer collection upgrade) for a total amount of $256,210; and

         WHEREAS, on May 27, 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-137, the City Council adopted the
City’s 2008/09 – 2012/13 Capital Improvement Program that included the Downtown
Infrastructure Project, CIP No. 562-56382, in the amount of $4,953,600, which amount is
partially funded by the Brentwood Redevelopment Agency in the amount of $3,887,410. The
remaining amount shall be funded by City Enterprise funds; and

       WHEREAS, on June 10, 2008, by Resolution 2008-140, the City Council approved the
construction contract for the Downtown Infrastructure, CIP Project No. 562-56382, with Delta
Excavating for a total amount of $869,077; and

      WHEREAS, on June 24, 2008, by Resolution No. RDA-142, the Redevelopment Agency
approved its two-year operating budget, which included a budget amount of $1,739,070 in
2008/09, a partial funding of the Agency’s expected contribution of $3,887,410 for the
Downtown Infrastructure Project; and

       WHEREAS, on July 22, 2008, by Resolution No. CC-2008-178, the City Council made
the necessary findings for the Downtown Infrastructure Project; and

      WHEREAS, on July 22, 2008, by Resolution No. RDA-144, the Redevelopment Agency
made the necessary findings and appropriated funds for the Downtown Infrastructure Project in
the amount of $1,739,070; and

        WHEREAS, since the Agency intends to partially fund the Downtown Infrastructure
Project, CIP Project No. 562-56382, the City Council, acting as the legislative body of the
Agency, in accordance with Health & Safety Code Section 33445, must make the necessary
findings for financing the Project’s gap by the Agency.

       NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood
hereby finds and determines

       1.   The City hereby finds and determines as follows:

            a. The payment of funds for the Downtown Infrastructure Project will assist in the
            elimination of blighting conditions inside the Project Area by providing necessary
            public improvements.
           b.   The Downtown Infrastructure Project is consistent with the identified goals
           and objectives in the 2005-2009 Implementation Plan as follows:

                Revitalize the Merged Project Areas through the improvement and installation
                of public improvements, public safety provisions, transportation, circulation
                and parking facilities to reduce congestion, improve public safety and
                accommodate long-term growth and development patterns.

           c.    The Downtown Infrastructure Project will be a significant benefit to the Project
           Area. This finding is based on the fact that the project will upgrade and improve
           existing aged and deteriorated infrastructure systems, and will benefit not only the
           immediate Project Area but the community as a whole.

           d.    That there are no other reasonable means of financing the Project’s gap
           available to the City. This finding is based on the lack of sufficient funds in the
           capital improvement budget of the City to fund the Project together with other
           urgently needed public improvements and facilities, and the infeasibility of
           financing the Project through an assessment district, debt service or other
           conventional method of financing public facilities.

       PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at
a regular meeting held on the 26th day of May 2009 by the following vote:
                          CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 8


Meeting Date: May 26, 2009

Subject/Title:   Adopt a Resolution making the necessary findings and determination in
                 accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 33445 for the financing of the
                 Downtown Parking Solutions Project, CIP No. 337-37204.

Prepared by:     Donald Kwong, Senior Redevelopment Analyst

Submitted by: Casey McCann, Community Development Director


RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution making the necessary findings and determination in accordance with Health
and Safety Code Section 33445 for financing of the Downtown Parking Solutions Project, CIP
No. 337-37204.

PREVIOUS ACTION
On June 12, 2007, by Resolution No. 2007-179, the City Council amended the 2007/08 –
2011/12 Capital Improvement Project for Downtown Parking Structures.

On February 12, 2008, by Resolution RDA-137, the Redevelopment Agency appropriated funds
for Downtown Parking Structures in the amount of $300,000 for legal and appraisal services.

On April 8, 2008, by Resolution No. RDA-140, the Redevelopment Agency appropriated funds
for Downtown Parking Structures for a total amount of $50,000 for acquisition, relocation and
environmental services.

On May 27, 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-137, the City Council adopted the City’s 2008/09 –
2012/13 Capital Improvement Program that included the Downtown Parking Solutions Project,
CIP No. 337-37204, in the amount of $11,216,000, which amount is fully funded by the
Brentwood Redevelopment Agency.

On June 24, 2008, by Resolution No. RDA-142, the Redevelopment Agency amended its
2008/09 budget and authorized expenditures for fiscal year 2008/09, which included a budget
amount of $532,500, a partial funding of the Agency’s expected contribution of $11,216,000 for
the Downtown Parking Solutions Project.

On July 22, 2008, by Resolution No. CC-2008-180, the City Council made the necessary
findings for the Downtown Parking Solutions Project.

On July 22, 2008, by Resolution No. RDA-146, the Redevelopment Agency made the necessary
findings and appropriated funds for the Downtown Parking Solutions Project in the amount of
$532,000.

BACKGROUND
This is a companion staff report to the Brentwood Redevelopment Agency’s staff report tonight
requesting adoption of a resolution authorizing making findings and determinations in
accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 33445 for the financing of Downtown Parking
Solutions Project, CIP 337-37204.

The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Brentwood intends to fund the Downtown Parking
Solutions Project, CIP No. 337-37204. As such, the City Council, acting as the legislative body
of the Agency, and the Agency, in accordance with Health & Safety Code Section 33445, must
make the necessary findings, including that there are no other reasonable means of financing
the Project’s need. This finding is based on the lack of sufficient funds in the capital
improvement budget of the City to fund the Project together with other urgently needed public
improvements and facilities, and the infeasibility of financing the Project through an assessment
district, debt service or other conventional method of financing public facilities.

FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts associated with the Council taking action on making the necessary
findings and determination in accordance with Health & Safety Code Section 33445. The
Downtown Parking Solutions Project, CIP 337-37204 is included in the proposed 2009/10-
20013/14 Capital Improvement Project Budget.


Attachment:
Resolution
                                     RESOLUTION NO.


       A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
       MAKING THE NECESSARY FINDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH HEALTH
       AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33445 FOR THE FINANCING OF THE
       DOWNTOWN PARKING SOLUTIONS PROJECT, CIP NO. 337-37204


       WHEREAS, on June 12, 2007, by Resolution No. 2007-179, the City Council amended
the 2007/08 – 2011/12 Capital Improvement Project for Downtown Parking Structures.

       WHEREAS, on February 12, 2008, by Resolution RDA-137, the Redevelopment Agency
appropriated funds for Downtown Parking Structures in the amount of $300,000 for legal and
appraisal services; and

        WHEREAS, on April 8, 2008, by Resolution No. RDA-140, the Redevelopment Agency
appropriated funds for Downtown Parking Structures for a total amount of $50,000 for
acquisition, relocation and environmental services; and

        WHEREAS, on May 27, 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-137, the City Council adopted the
City’s 2008/09 – 2012/13 Capital Improvement Program that included the Downtown Parking
Solutions Project, CIP No. 337-37204, in the amount of $11,216,000, which amount is fully
funded by the Brentwood Redevelopment Agency; and

       WHEREAS, on June 24, 2008, by Resolution No. RDA-142, the Redevelopment Agency
amended its 2008/09 budget and authorized expenditures for fiscal year 2008/09, which
included a budget amount of $532,500, a partial funding of the Agency’s expected contribution
of $11,216,000 for the Downtown Parking Solutions Project; and

       WHEREAS, on July 22, 2008, by Resolution No. CC-2008-180, the City Council made
the necessary findings for the Downtown Parking Solutions Project; and

        WHEREAS, on July 22, 2008, by Resolution No. RDA-146, the Redevelopment Agency
made the necessary findings and appropriated funds for the Downtown Parking Solutions
Project in the amount of $532,000; and

        WHEREAS, the Downtown Parking Solutions Project, located within the Merged
Redevelopment Project Areas, will provide for a comprehensive plan for parking facilities and
solutions disbursed throughout the Downtown in strategic locations to address the parking
demands required for the growth of the Downtown. These public improvements will reduce
parking congestion and improve traffic circulation in the Downtown, and will support the
economic growth of Downtown Brentwood; and

        WHEREAS, since the Agency intends to partially fund the Downtown Parking Solutions
Project, CIP Project No. 337-37204, the City Council, acting as the legislative body of the
Agency, in accordance with Health & Safety Code Section 33445, must make the necessary
findings for financing the Project’s gap by the Agency.

       NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood
hereby finds and determines
1.   The City hereby finds and determines as follows:

     a. The payment of funds for the Downtown Parking Solutions Project will assist in
     the elimination of physical and economic blighting conditions inside the Project
     Area by providing necessary public improvements.

     •   An updated Downtown parking study commissioned in August 2006 re-affirmed
         the conclusions of the original 2005 Downtown Brentwood Parking Study that
         found an inadequate parking supply to support future growth and demands in
         the Downtown. The parking study concluded that the anticipated future
         development will result in an overall parking demand of 840 spaces in the
         Downtown for evening and approximately 1000 spaces for mid-day. Parking
         solutions, including surface lots and parking structures, should provide parking
         facilities that are convenient and safe and address existing and future parking
         needs to support the Civic Center and the economic growth of Downtown
         Brentwood.

         The planning for new and improved streetscape design in Downtown
         Brentwood began with workshops held in January, February and April 2008
         with the Chamber of Commerce, Downtown merchants and community
         members. These workshops provided the City with a clear direction of the
         Downtown district’s vision to widen sidewalks on the core shopping and dining
         streets for the purpose of providing opportunities for outdoor dining and
         merchandising, adding to the vibrancy and activity on the streets.
         Reconfiguration of Downtown core streets to accommodate wider sidewalks
         will displace approximately 50 to 60 existing angled, on-street parking with on-
         street parallel parking. New parking facilities are needed to address the
         potential loss of angled, on-street parking spaces.

     b.   The Downtown Parking Solutions Project is consistent with the identified
     goals and objectives in the 2005-2009 Implementation Plan as follows:

           Revitalize the Merged Project Areas through the improvement and installation
           of public improvements, public safety provisions, transportation, circulation
           and parking facilities to reduce congestion, improve public safety and
           accommodate long-term growth and development patterns.

     c.   The Downtown Parking Solutions Project will be a significant benefit to the
     Project Area. This finding is based on the fact that the project will reduce parking
     congestion and improve traffic circulation thus providing a stimulus for private
     economic investment, and will benefit not only the immediate Project Area but the
     community as a whole.

     d.    That there are no other reasonable means available to the City of financing
     the Project’s costs. This finding is based on the lack of sufficient funds in the
     capital improvement budget of the City to fund the Project together with other
     urgently needed public improvements and facilities, and the infeasibility of
     financing the Project through an assessment district, debt service or other
     conventional method of financing public facilities.
       PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at
a regular meeting held on the 26th day of May 2009 by the following vote:
                          CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 9


Meeting Date: May 26, 2009

Subject/Title:   Adopt a Resolution making the necessary findings and determination in
                 accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 33445 for the financing of the
                 Downtown Streetscape Project, CIP No. 337-37203.

Prepared by:     Donald Kwong, Senior Redevelopment Analyst

Submitted by: Casey McCann, Community Development Director


RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution making the necessary findings and determination in accordance with Health
and Safety Code Section 33445 for financing of the Downtown Streetscape Project, CIP No.
337-37203.

PREVIOUS ACTION
On January 23, 2007, by Resolution RDA-120, the Redevelopment Agency appropriated funds
for Downtown Streetscape Plan in the amount of $89,480 for plan preparation services.

On September 11, 2007, by Resolution No. 2007-211, the City Council amended the 2007/08 –
2011/12 Capital Improvement Project for Downtown Streetscape Plan.

On September 11, 2007, by Resolution No. RDA-130, the Redevelopment Agency appropriated
funds for Downtown Streetscape for a total amount of $103,105 for master plan preparation
services.

On May 27, 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-137, the City Council adopted the City’s 2008/09 –
2012/13 Capital Improvement Program that included the Downtown Streetscape Master Plan
Project, CIP No. 337-37203, in the amount of $6,000,000, which amount is fully funded by the
Brentwood Redevelopment Agency.

BACKGROUND
This is a companion staff report to the Brentwood Redevelopment Agency’s staff report tonight
requesting adoption of a resolution authorizing making findings and determinations in
accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 33445 for the financing of Downtown
Streetscape Project, CIP 337-37203.

The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Brentwood intends to fund the Downtown
Streetscape Project, CIP No. 337-37203. As such, the City Council, acting as the legislative
body of the Agency, and the Agency, in accordance with Health & Safety Code Section 33445,
must make the necessary findings, including that there are no other reasonable means of
financing the Project’s need. This finding is based on the lack of sufficient funds in the capital
improvement budget of the City to fund the Project together with other urgently needed public
improvements and facilities, and the infeasibility of financing the Project through an assessment
district, debt service or other conventional method of financing public facilities.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts associated with the Council taking action on making the necessary
findings and determination in accordance with Health & Safety Code Section 33445. The
Downtown Streetscape Project, CIP 337-37203 is included in the proposed 2009/10-20013/14
Capital Improvement Project Budget.


Attachment:
Resolution
                                     RESOLUTION NO.


       A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
       MAKING THE NECESSARY FINDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH HEALTH
       AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33445 FOR THE FINANCING OF THE
       DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE PROJECT, CIP NO. 337-37203


       WHEREAS, on January 23, 2007, by Resolution RDA-120, the Redevelopment Agency
appropriated funds for Downtown Streetscape Plan in the amount of $89,480 for plan
preparation services.

     WHEREAS, on September 11, 2007, by Resolution No. 2007-211, the City Council
amended the 2007/08 – 2011/12 Capital Improvement Project for Downtown Streetscape Plan.

       WHEREAS, on September 11, 2007, by Resolution No. RDA-130, the Redevelopment
Agency appropriated funds for Downtown Streetscape for a total amount of $103,105 for master
plan preparation services.

       WHEREAS, on May 27, 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-137, the City Council adopted the
City’s 2008/09 – 2012/13 Capital Improvement Program that included the Downtown
Streetscape Master Plan Project, CIP No. 337-37204, in the amount of $6,000,000, which
amount is fully funded by the Brentwood Redevelopment Agency; and

      WHEREAS, the Downtown Streetscape Project, located within the Merged
Redevelopment Project Areas, will provide for a comprehensive plan for streetscape facilities
and amenities disbursed throughout the Downtown. These public improvements will support the
economic growth of Downtown Brentwood; and

        WHEREAS, since the Agency intends to partially fund the Downtown Streetscape
Project, CIP Project No. 337-37203, the City Council, acting as the legislative body of the
Agency, in accordance with Health & Safety Code Section 33445, must make the necessary
findings for financing the project’s need by the Agency.

       NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood
hereby finds and determines

       1.   The City hereby finds and determines as follows:

            a. The payment of funds for the Downtown Streetscape Project will assist in the
            elimination of physical and economic blighting conditions inside the Project Area by
            providing necessary public improvements.

                The planning for new and improved streetscape design in Downtown
                Brentwood began with workshops held in January, February and April 2008
                with the Chamber of Commerce, Downtown merchants and community
                members. These workshops provided the City with a clear direction of the
                Downtown district’s vision to widen sidewalks on the core shopping and dining
                streets for the purpose of providing opportunities for outdoor dining and
                merchandising, adding to the vibrancy and activity on the streets.
              Reconfiguration of Downtown core streets to accommodate wider sidewalks
              will displace approximately 50 to 60 existing angled, on-street parking with on-
              street parallel parking.

           b.   The Downtown Streetscape Project is consistent with the identified goals and
           objectives in the 2005-2009 Implementation Plan as follows:

                Revitalize the Merged Project Areas through the improvement and installation
                of public improvements, public safety provisions, transportation, circulation
                and parking facilities to reduce congestion, improve public safety and
                accommodate long-term growth and development patterns.

           c.    The Downtown Streetscape Project will be a significant benefit to the Project
           Area. This finding is based on the fact that the project will provide a stimulus for
           private economic investment, and will benefit not only the immediate Project Area
           but the community as a whole.

           d.    That there are no other reasonable means available to the City of financing
           the Project’s costs. This finding is based on the lack of sufficient funds in the
           capital improvement budget of the City to fund the Project together with other
           urgently needed public improvements and facilities, and the infeasibility of
           financing the Project through an assessment district, debt service or other
           conventional method of financing public facilities.

       PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at
a regular meeting held on the 26th day of May 2009 by the following vote:
                                   CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 10



Meeting Date:      May 26, 2009

Subject/Title:    Adopt a Resolution to award funding from the Business License Tax Grant Program
                  in the amount of $130,543, as recommended by the Land Use and Development
                  Committee.

Prepared by:      Hazel Wetherford, Administrative Assistant II

Submitted by: Casey McCann, Community Development Director


RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution to award funding from the Business License Tax Grant Program in the amount of
$130,543, as recommended by the Land Use and Development Committee.

PREVIOUS ACTION
On November 5, 2002, citizens voted in a general election to amend Ordinance No. 707, Chapter
5.04 of the municipal code, changing the business license tax from a flat rate to a gross receipts tax
structure.

On May 25, 2004, by Resolution No. 2004-125, the City awarded $78,660 in the program’s first year
to various programs based on the ability to identify a direct nexus between the funding of these
programs and support of the Brentwood business community.

On June 28, 2005, by Resolution No. 2005-147, the City awarded $99,884 in the program’s second
year.

On June 13, 2006, by Resolution No. 2006-128, the City awarded $98,054 in the program’s third
year.

On June 26, 2007, by Resolution No. 2007-132, the City awarded $115,000 in the program’s fourth
year.

On May 13, 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-099, the City awarded $121,000 in the program’s fifth
year.

BACKGROUND
Since 2004 the City has operated a Business License Tax Grant Program. This Program has
provided approximately $400,000 in funding to local organizations, including the City, the Brentwood
Chamber of Commerce and others for – according to the Brentwood Municipal Code Section
5.04.060 – “economic development for the explicit purpose of business promotion and institutional
advertisement for the City.” Twenty percent of the business license tax collected by the City
provides the funding source for this program. Disbursement of these funds requires City Council
approval.

Criteria for award eligibility are as follows:

          A completed City Grant application must be filled out, detailing the project and the
          estimated project expenditures, and submitted to the City of Brentwood for
          approval.
         City Grant applications are due to the City by March 31st of each year for funds
         available July 1st of the next fiscal year. Recipients will be notified by July 1st if they
         are chosen to receive a City Grant. Recipients will be chosen based on priority of
         project and funds available in this program.
         Projects considered must be annual projects with a completion date of June 30th of
         the fiscal year, and should align with the current City Council Strategic Plan.
         Funds awarded but not used in that fiscal year may be rolled over by filing for an
         extension. Extensions must be filed no later than June 30th. The date the monies
         are intended to be used should be listed on the extension and approved by the City
         Manager or the Director of Finance. If those monies are not used by September
         30th of the same year, those monies will no longer be available to the Agency.
         However, exceptions may be made on a case by case basis.
         Grant monies awarded to applicants are reimbursed quarterly, via a completed
         reimbursement form and received by the deadline outlined on the form.
         A City Grant recipient shall not represent any program or project as a City of
         Brentwood program or project, or indicate any affiliation with the City of Brentwood,
         without the express written consent of the City of Brentwood.

A total of thirteen (13) applications were received for the 2009/10 Business License Tax Grant
Program, resulting in a request for funding of $252,038. The applications are as follows:
                                                                                                   Funding
                Organization                                   Project/Program                    Requested
Chamber of Commerce                             Banner Program                                     $26,875
Chamber of Commerce                             “Experience Brentwood” Advertising Campaign        $26,875
Chamber of Commerce                             Downtown Merchants Committee Seed Money            $29,093
Chamber of Commerce                             Hometown Halloween                                  $4,150
Chamber of Commerce                             Holiday Parade                                      $9,545
Chamber of Commerce                             CornFest Fireworks                                 $21,500
City of Brentwood – Community Development       Outdoor Dining Furniture Program                   $10,000
City of Brentwood – Parks & Recreation          Summer Concerts in the Park                        $25,000
City of Brentwood – Economic Development        SBDC New Venture Training Program                  $10,000
Brentwood’s Co. Co. Co. Wine Company            Co. Co. County Marketing Plan                       $4,000
Brentwood Art Society                           Brentwood Art, Wine & Jazz Festival                 $5,000
California Business Solutions                   Brentwood’s “Spring Business Expo” & “Fall         $35,000
                                                Business Far”
A Place of Learning                             A Place of Learning Literacy Project               $45,000
                                                TOTAL                                             $252,038

Staff evaluated the applications with an internal review team and submitted its funding
recommendations to the Land Use and Development Committee on May 4, 2009. Applicants were
notified of the public meeting and were encouraged to attend. After review of the applications and
discussion about the intent of the program and the merits of each application, the Land Use and
Development Committee have made the following recommendations to the City Council for
approval:

                                                                     Requested         Recommended
       Organization                     Project/Program
                                                                      Funding             Funding
Chamber of Commerce            Banner Program                          $26,875                   $10,000
Chamber of Commerce            “Experience Brentwood” Advertising      $26,875                   $10,000
                               Campaign
Chamber of Commerce            Downtown Brentwood Merchants              $29,093                   $19,043
                               Committee
Chamber of Commerce            Hometown Halloween                         $4,150                    $3,500
Chamber of Commerce            Holiday Parade                             $9,545                    $7,500
Chamber of Commerce            CornFest Fireworks                        $21,500                   $21,500
City of Brentwood –             Outdoor Dining Furniture Program      $10,000                  $10,000
Community Development
City of Brentwood – Parks &     Summer Concerts in the Park           $25,000                  $25,000
Recreation
City of Brentwood –             SBDC New Venture Training             $10,000                  $10,000
Economic Development            Program
Division
Brentwood’s Co. Co. County      Co. Co. County Marketing Plan          $4,000                   $4,000
Wine Company
Brentwood Art Society           Brentwood Art, Wine & Jazz Festival    $5,000                   $5,000
California Business Solutions   Brentwood’s “Spring Business Expo”    $35,000                   $5,000
                                & “Fall Business Fair”
                                TOTAL                                                         $130,543


The total award recommended by the Land Use and Development Committee is based on the
available funding of $130,543. All applicants were notified of the Committee’s recommendation and
were invited to attend tonight’s Council meeting. Further, applicants are notified of award or denial
of application via written notice following City Council approval. Copies of the applications submitted
can be viewed by contacting the Economic Development Division of the City of Brentwood.

FISCAL IMPACT
The recommended award amount of $130,543 is the maximum amount of current available funding
for this program.

Attachments
Resolution
Exhibit A
                                  RESOLUTION NO. 2009-____

       A RESOLUTION AWARDING FUNDS FROM THE BUSINESS LICENSE TAX GRANT
       PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $130,543 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE LAND USE
       AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

       WHEREAS, on November 5, 2002, citizens voted in a general election to amend Ordinance
No. 707, Chapter 5.04 of the municipal code, changing the business license tax from a flat rate to a
gross receipts tax structure; and

       WHEREAS, on May 25, 2004, by Resolution No. 2004-125, the City awarded $78,660 in the
program’s first year to various programs based on the ability to identify a direct nexus between the
funding of these programs and support of the Brentwood business community; and

      WHEREAS, on June 28, 2005, by Resolution No. 2005-147, the City awarded $99,884 in the
Program’s second year; and

      WHEREAS, on June 13, 2006, by Resolution No. 2006-128, the City awarded $98,054 in the
Program’s third year; and

       WHEREAS, on June 26, 2007, by Resolution No. 2007-132, the City awarded $140,000 in
the Program’s fourth year; and

       WHEREAS, on May 13, 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-099, the City awarded $121,000 in
the Program’s fifth year; and

        WHEREAS, the purpose of the Program is to provide funding to local organizations,
including the City, the Brentwood Chamber of Commerce and others for economic development for
the explicit purpose of business promotion and institutional advertisement for the City. Twenty
percent of the business license tax collected by the City provides the funding source for this
program. Disbursement of these funds requires City Council approval; and

       WHEREAS, the City received a total of thirteen (13) applications, resulting in a request for
funding of $252,038; and

       WHEREAS, the Land Use and Development (LUD) Committee reviewed the applications,
discussed their merits and the intent of the program and has recommended funding in the amount of
$130,543.

       NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood
hereby awards funding from the Business License Tax Grant Program in the amount of $130,543 to
the local organizations and in the amounts listed in the Attached Exhibit A and authorizes the
Director of Community Development to implement this year’s Program.

        PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at a
regular meeting held on the 26th day of May 2009 by the following vote:
                                            EXHIBIT A


Local Organizations and Projects/Programs Receiving Full Funding

                                                                                               Funding
                                                                                              Requested
                Organization                                Project/Program
                                                                                                 and
                                                                                              Received
Chamber of Commerce                           CornFest Fireworks                                $21,500
City of Brentwood – Community Development     Outdoor Dining Furniture Program                  $10,000
City of Brentwood – Parks & Recreation        Summer Concerts in the Park                       $25,000
City of Brentwood – Economic Development      SBDC New Venture Training Program                 $10,000
Brentwood’s Co. Co. Co. Wine Company          Co. Co. County Marketing Plan                       $4,000
Brentwood Art Society                         Brentwood Art, Wine & Jazz Festival                 $5,000
                                              TOTAL                                             $75,500

Local Organizations and Projects/Programs Receiving Partial Funding

                                                                               Funding         Funding
         Organization                        Project/Program                                   Received
                                                                              Requested
Chamber of Commerce             Banner Program                                   $26,875         $10,000
Chamber of Commerce             “Experience Brentwood” Advertising               $26,875         $10,000
                                Campaign
Chamber of Commerce             Downtown Merchants Committee                        $29,093      $19,043
Chamber of Commerce             Hometown Halloween                                   $4,150       $3,500
Chamber of Commerce             Holiday Parade                                       $9,545       $7,500
California Business Solutions   Brentwood’s “Spring Business Expo” & “Fall          $35,000       $5,000
                                Business Fair”
                                TOTAL                                           $131,538         $55,043

Local Organizations and Projects/Programs Denied Funding

                                                                                               Funding
         Organization                                Project/Program
                                                                                              Requested
A Place of Learning             A Place of Learning Literacy Project                             $45,000
                                TOTAL                                                            $45,000
                             CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 11

Meeting Date:    May 26, 2008

Subject/Title:   Adopt a Resolution approving and authorizing City Manager or her designee
                 to execute Amendment No. 6 to Purchase Agreement with Pizzagoni Family,
                 Inc., for an extension of the City’s Option to Repurchase period and issuance
                 of building permits for site at Sunset Industrial Complex by an additional 12
                 months from close date and directing staff to take actions and authorizing the
                 City Manager to execute documents necessary for the amendment.

Prepared by:     Gina Rozenski, Redevelopment Manager

Submitted by: Casey McCann, Community Development Director


RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving and authorizing City Manager or her designee to execute
Amendment No. 6 to Purchase Agreement with Pizzagoni Family, Inc., for an extension of the
City’s Option to Repurchase period and issuance of building permits for site at Sunset Industrial
Complex by an additional 12 months from close date and directing staff to take actions and
authorizing the City Manager to execute documents necessary for the amendment.

PREVIOUS ACTION
  •  On September 14, 2004, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a
     Purchase Agreement for the sale of Lot 22 to Pizzagoni Family, Inc., with escrow to
     close no later than January 14, 2005.

   •   On January 24, 2006, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute
       Amendment No. 1 to the Purchase Agreement with Pizzagoni Family, Inc. to extend
       escrow to May 1, 2006.

   •   On May 23, 2006, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute Amendment
       No. 2 to the Purchase Agreement with Pizzagoni Towing to extend escrow to September
       30, 2006.

   •   On September 26, 2006, the City Council authorized the City Manger to execute
       Amendment No. 3 to the Purchase Agreement with Pizzagoni Family, Inc. to extend
       escrow to December 15, 2006.

   •   On January 9, 2007, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute
       Amendment No. 4 to the Purchase Agreement with Pizzagoni Family, Inc. to extend
       escrow to February 15, 2007.

   •   Escrow closed on May 3, 2007.

   •   On December 9, 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-285, the Council authorized the City
       Manager to execute Amendment No. 5 to the Purchase Agreement with Pizzagoni
       Family, Inc., to extend the date of the City’s Option to Repurchase period and to pull
       building permits by 180 days (6 months), and reduce the time period for certificate of
       occupancy by 180 days (6 months).
BACKGROUND
Amendments 1 through 4 were necessary to provide Pizzagoni time to close escrow due to
delays in design review approvals, civil engineering and architect drawings, construction bids,
and provision of evidence of mortgage and equity financing from Pizzagoni’s lender.

Amendment 5 was necessary to provide Pizzagoni an additional 6 months to obtain construction
financing. Specifically, Amendment 5 modified Section 3.01 of the Purchase Agreement to
allow the City the right, at its option, to repurchase the site if the purchaser fails to obtain
building permits for construction of the proposed business operation within twenty-four (24)
months after the escrow closing date. The expiration of the twenty-four (24) month period to
pull permits by Pizzagoni was May 3, 2009.

However, the current tight credit markets have made the availability of construction loans, for
even the best customers, nearly impossible. Pizzagoni’s lender is now requiring revenue to be
generated from the site and a reduction of the original building plans before it approves a
construction loan. Pizzagoni will submit a temporary use permit application for a recreational
vehicle storage yard to generate income and a conditional use permit application to re-establish
its previously approved entitlements for their towing business. Pizzagoni is committed to
moving forward with their plans to move their towing operations off Brentwood Boulevard to
2175 Elkins Way, but the need to modify their plans for the purpose of securing construction
financing necessitates a revision of the time conditions in the Purchase Agreement. Pizzagoni
is requesting an additional one-year time extension to pull building permits for their modified
plans, from May 3, 2009 (24 months) to May 3, 2010 (36 months).

Pizzagoni is a prime example of the type of business that the City envisioned for Sunset
Industrial Complex, in addition to voluntarily relocating their primary business from Brentwood
Boulevard.

Staff recommends the Council approve Amendment No. 6 to extend the time period to pull
building permits by an additional one year for Pizzagoni, and direct staff to take actions and
authorize the City Manager to execute documents necessary to memorialize the extension.
This would allow Pizzagoni until May 3, 2010 to pull their building permits for their permanent
land use plans. Staff further recommends that the 12 month period for the certificate of
occupancy remain the same and not be amended. Pizzagoni has agreed to this condition.


FISCAL IMPACT
None at this time.

Attachments:
Resolution
Amendment No. 6
                                       RESOLUTION NO.

       A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
       APPROVING A SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR
       SUNSET INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX WITH PIZZAGONI FAMILY, INC. FOR AN
       EXTENSION OF THE CITY’S OPTION TO REPURCHASE PERIOD AND
       ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR SITE AT SUNSET INDUSTRIAL
       COMPLEX BY AN ADDITIONAL 12 MONTHS FROM CLOSE DATE AND
       DIRECTING STAFF TO TAKE ACTIONS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
       MANAGER TO EXECUTE DOCUMENTS NECESSARY FOR THE
       AMENDMENT.


       WHEREAS, on September 14, 2004, the City Council authorized the City Manager to
execute the Purchase Agreement with Pizzagoni Family, Inc. (“Pizzagoni”). The Purchase
Agreement was executed on October 12, 2004; and

      WHEREAS, on January 24, 2006, the City Council approved Amendment No. 1 to the
Purchase Agreement with Pizzagoni to extend the escrow to May 1, 2006; and

      WHEREAS, on May 23, 2006, the City Council approved Amendment No. 2 to the
Purchase Agreement with Pizzagoni to extend the escrow to September 30, 2006; and

      WHEREAS, on September 26, 2006, the City Council approved Amendment No. 3 to the
Purchase Agreement with Pizzagoni to extend the escrow to December 15, 2006; and

      WHEREAS, on January 9, 2007, the City Council approved Amendment No. 4 to the
Purchase Agreement with Pizzagoni to extend the escrow to February 15, 2007; and

       WHEREAS, on May 3, 2007, escrow closed with Pizzagoni for 3.7 acres known as 2175
Elkins Way at Sunset Industrial Complex; and

         WHEREAS, on December 9, 2008, the City Council approved Amendment No. 5 to the
Purchase Agreement with Pizzagoni to extend the City’s Option to Repurchase Period and
issuance of building permits by 180 days to May 3, 2009, and to reduce the time to obtain a
certificate of occupancy by 180 days.

        WHEREAS, the amended Purchase Agreement includes Section 2.06 that states the
purchaser shall obtain building permits from the City for the construction or development of any
buildings, structures or other work of improvements upon the Site within twenty-four (24) months
after the close of escrow; and

         WHEREAS, the Purchase Agreement includes Section 3.01 that allows the City the
right, at its option, to repurchase the site if the purchaser fails to comply with Section 2.06; and
      WHEREAS, the Purchase Agreement includes Section 19 that allows the Purchase
Agreement to be amended only by written instrument executed by City and Purchaser; and

        WHEREAS, the City and Pizzagoni have made good faith efforts to comply with their
respective obligations as provided in the Purchase Agreement, and each desire to extend the
City’s Option to Repurchase period for this transaction; and

       WHEREAS, the City and Pizzagoni Family, Inc. desire to amend Section 2.06 to extend
the time period for the issuance of a building permit by an additional 12 months and amend
Section 3.01 accordingly; and

         NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood
hereby approves and authorizes the City Manager or her designee to execute the sixth
amendment to the purchase agreement for Sunset Industrial Complex with Pizzagoni Family,
Inc. for an extension of the City’s Option to Repurchase period and issuance of building permits
for site at Sunset Industrial Complex by an additional one year, and directs staff to take actions
and authorizes the City Manager to execute documents necessary for the amendment.

       PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at
a regular meeting held on the 26th day of May 2009 by the following vote:
       Amendment No. 6 to Purchase Agreement and City’s Option to Repurchase
                              (Pizzagoni Family, Inc.)

       This Amendment No. 6 is entered into and effective as of the ____ day of ___________
2009, amending the Purchase Agreement and City’s Option to Repurchase dated October 12,
2004 (the “Agreement”) by and between the City of Brentwood, a municipal corporation, (“City”),
and Pizzagoni Family, Inc. (“Purchaser”) (collectively, the “Parties”) for the purchase and option
to repurchase certain real property (the “Property”) situated in the City of Brentwood.

                                             Recitals

       A.      The Parties amended the Agreement by executing Amendment No. 1 on January
24, 2006, to extend the period of time in which to close escrow on the Property to May 1, 2006.

       B.    The Parties amended the Agreement a second time by executing Amendment
No. 2 on May 23, 2006, to extend the period of time in which to close escrow on the Property to
September 30, 2006.

      C.     The Parties amended the Agreement a third time by executing Amendment No. 3
on September 26, 2006, to extend the period of time in which to close escrow on the Property to
December 15, 2006.

       D.    The Parties amended the Agreement a fourth time by executing Amendment No.
4 on January 9, 2007, to extend the period of time in which to close escrow to February 15,
2007.

        E.     The Parties amended the Agreement a fifth time by executing Amendment No. 5
on December 9, 2008, to extend the amount of time to obtain building permits by six (6) months
and to reduce the amount of time required to obtain a certificate of occupancy by six (6) months.

        F.     The Parties desire to amend the Agreement a sixth time to extend the amount of
time to obtain building permits by an additional one year.

        G.     City and Purchaser have made good faith efforts to comply with their respective
obligations as provided in the Agreement, as amended.

      H.       The Parties have reached agreement on specific language for the amendment
and desire to memorialize it herein.

               Now, therefore it is agreed as follows:

         1.      That the third paragraph of Section 2.06 of the Agreement is hereby amended in
its entirety to read as follows:

                The Purchaser shall obtain building permits from the City for the construction or
development of any buildings, structures or other work of improvements upon the Site within
thirty-six (36) months after the Closing Date. Failure to obtain a building permit within thirty-six
(36) months after the Closing Date shall trigger the City’s option to repurchase the Site. A
reasonable extension of time may be granted by the City to purchase if Purchaser has
submitted an application to another governmental agency other than the City that is required to
                         CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 12

Meeting Date: May 26, 2009

Subject/Title:   Adopt a Resolution accepting all off-site public improvements; accepting the
                 Maintenance Bond; releasing the Improvement Securities; and directing the
                 City Clerk to file this Resolution with the Recorder of Contra Costa County, for
                 Conditional Use Permit No. 03-02, developed by In-Shape Management
                 Company, Inc., located south of Balfour Road and west of Griffith Lane.

Prepared by:     Heather Silfies, Technical Assistant

Submitted by: Bailey Grewal, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
____________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution accepting all off-site public improvements for maintenance; accepting the
Maintenance Bond; releasing the Improvement Securities; and directing the City Clerk to file this
Resolution with the Recorder of Contra Costa County, for Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) No.
03-02, developed by In-Shape Management Company, Inc. (“Developer”), located south of
Balfour Road and west of Griffith Lane.

PREVIOUS ACTION
On August 5, 2004, by Resolution No. 03.58, Planning Commission approved CUP No. 03-02,
to allow for the development of a 31,000 Square Foot (“SF”) health club facility.

BACKGROUND
This project located south of Balfour Road and west of Griffith Lane, was approved for a 31,000
SF health club facility on a 2.45 acre site. At this location, most surrounding public
improvements to service the site were previously constructed. Modifications to those public
improvements, such as driveway access, sidewalk, and traffic signal modifications have been
constructed by the Developer and inspected for conformance with the approved improvement
plans and project Conditions of Approval.

As a part of the project, the Developer has installed the following improvement quantities: 500
SF of paving and 84 Linear Feet (“LF”) of 8” waterline.

With the improvements now installed to the satisfaction of the City, it is the appropriate time to
accept the public improvements and begin the warranty period.

FISCAL IMPACT
Most of the improvements associated with this project are privately owned and maintained;
therefore, upon acceptance the City will incur only minimal annual costs, estimated at $157.42,
associated with necessary maintenance of the public paving and concrete. Routine roadway
maintenance will be funded by the General Fund and Measure “J” transportation sales tax.

Attachments:
Resolution
Site Map
                                    RESOLUTION NO.


      A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
      ACCEPTING ALL OFF-SITE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR MAINTENANCE;
      ACCEPTING THE MAINTENANCE BOND; RELEASING THE IMPROVEMENT
      SECURITIES; AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO FILE THIS RESOLUTION
      WITH THE RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, FOR CONDITIONAL USE
      PERMIT (“CUP”) NO. 03-02, DEVELOPED BY IN-SHAPE MANAGEMENT
      COMPANY, INC. (“DEVELOPER”), LOCATED SOUTH OF BALFOUR ROAD AND
      WEST OF GRIFFITH LANE.


      WHEREAS, on August 5, 2004, by Resolution No. 03.58, Planning Commission
approved CUP No. 03-02, with conditions; and

       WHEREAS, the required improvements have been completed and constructed in
substantial conformance with the approved improvement plans.

        NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood
with respect to CUP No. 03-02, developed by In-Shape Management Company, Inc. that:

      1. All off-site public improvements are hereby accepted for maintenance.
      2. The Maintenance Bond is hereby accepted.
      3. The Improvement Securities will be released within sixty (60) days of the passage of
         this Resolution.
      4. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file this Resolution with the Recorder of Contra
         Costa County.

       PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at
a regular meeting held on the 26th day of May 2009 by the following vote:
                          CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 13


Meeting Date: May 26, 2009

Subject/Title:   Adopt a Resolution approving the contract documents, awarding the bid and
                 authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute a construction contract
                 and necessary documents for Traffic Calming Installations (Shady Willow Lane
                 AC Pathway), CIP Project No. 336-31360, with William G. McCullough
                 Company in the amount of $52,495, plus a 10% contingency of $5,249.50, for a
                 total amount of $57,744.50.

Prepared by:     Steve Kersevan, Traffic Engineering Manager

Submitted by: Bailey Grewal, Director of Public Works/City Engineer


RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the contract documents, awarding the bid and authorizing the City
Manager or designee to execute a construction contract and necessary documents for Traffic
Calming Installations (Shady Willow Lane AC Pathway), CIP Project No. 336-31360, with
William G. McCullough Company in the amount of $52,495, plus a 10% contingency of
$5,249.50, for a total amount of $57,744.50.

PREVIOUS ACTION
On May 27, 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-137, City Council adopted the City’s 2008/09 –
2012/13 Capital Improvement Program, which included the Traffic Calming Installations, CIP
Project No. 336-31360.

On April 14, 2009, by Resolution No. 2009-65, City Council approved and authorized the City
Manager to execute a Purchase Agreement for a fee parcel with Robert and Janice Miles for a
portion of real property, generally located on the east side of Shady Willow Lane at Amber Lane,
for the Safe Route to School Grant (“SR2S”) – AC Pathway – Shady Willow Lane, Traffic
Calming Installations, CIP Project No. 336-31360.

BACKGROUND
The Traffic Calming and Safety Installations project sets aside funds to be used on various
traffic calming issues within the City. Its purpose is to install physical barriers such as speed
humps, diverters, etc. to reduce and manage vehicle speed for public safety and is to enhance
pedestrian safety. The majority of the improvements are driven by resident requests.

One area that has been a concern is on the east side of Shady Willow Lane between Pioneer
Elementary School at Amber Lane and the Arbor Ridge Apartments. Currently students from
the school and other pedestrians have been forced to walk along a dirt path or within the bike
path to and from school. During the raining season, the dirt path is no longer an option for
them.

This project will construct an approximately 750-foot long, 4-foot wide asphalt concrete
sidewalk, 4-foot high fence (matching the existing fence) and an ADA compliant handicap ramp.
The work is tentatively scheduled to be completed within 15 working days and will take place
during the school’s summer break. The completion of this project will provide a safer
environment for all pedestrian traffic in the area.

Staff advertised the project on April 15, 2009, and bids were opened on May 14, 2009. A total
of four (4) bids were received and are listed below:

       William G. McCullough Company       $52,495.00
       Cinray Construction, Inc.           $57,575.00
       Granite Construction Company        $68,200.00
       Sposeto Engineering, Inc.           $70,458.00

After review of the bid proposals, staff recommends the award of the construction contract for
the Traffic Calming Installations (Shady Willow Lane AC Pathway), CIP Project No. 336-31360,
to William G. McCullough Company for submitting the lowest responsible, responsive bid.

FISCAL IMPACT
The total bid amount is $52,495, plus a 10% contingency of $5,249.50, for a total amount of
$57,744.50. The funds associated with this work will come from a Safe Route to School Grant
in an amount up to $76,390, and are included in the adopted 2008/09 – 2012/13 Capital
Improvement Program, which includes Traffic Calming Installations, CIP Project No. 336-31360.

Attachments:
Resolution
Agreement
                                       RESOLUTION NO.


       A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
       APPROVING THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, AWARDING THE BID AND
       AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE A
       CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AND NECESSARY DOCUMENTS FOR TRAFFIC
       CALMING INSTALLATIONS (SHADY WILLOW LANE ASPHALT PATHWAY), CIP
       PROJECT NO. 336-31360, WITH WILLIAM G. MCCULLOUGH COMPANY IN THE
       AMOUNT OF $52,495, PLUS A 10% CONTINGENCY OF $5,249.50, FOR A TOTAL
       AMOUNT OF $57,744.50.


        WHEREAS, on May 27, 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-137, City Council adopted the
City’s 2008/09 – 2012/13 Capital Improvement Program, which included Traffic Calming
Installations, CIP Project No. 336-31360; and

       WHEREAS, on April 14, 2009, by Resolution No. 2009-65, City Council approved and
authorized the City Manager to execute a Purchase Agreement for a fee parcel with Robert and
Janice Miles for a portion of real property, generally located on the east side of Shady Willow
Lane at Amber Lane, for the Safe Route to School Grant (“SR2S”) – AC Pathway – Shady
Willow Lane, Traffic Calming Installations, CIP Project No. 336-31360; and

       WHEREAS, the Traffic Calming Installations project sets aside funds to be used on
various traffic calming issues within the City. Its purpose is to install physical barriers such as
speed humps, diverters, etc. to reduce and manage vehicle speed for public safety and is to
enhance pedestrian safety; and

      WHEREAS, one area that has been a concern is on the east side of Shady Willow Lane
between Pioneer Elementary School at Amber Lane and the Arbor Ridge Apartments; and

       WHEREAS, this project will construct an approximately 750-foot long, 4-foot wide
asphalt concrete sidewalk, 4-foot high fence (matching the existing fence) and an ADA
compliant handicap ramp; and

       WHEREAS, the work is scheduled to be completed within 15 working days and will take
place during the school’s summer break; and

          WHEREAS, completion of this project will provide a safer environment for all pedestrian
traffic in the area; and

       WHEREAS, staff advertised the project on April 15, 2009, and bids were opened on May
14, 2009, and a total of four (4) bids were received with William G. McCullough Company
submitting the lowest responsible, responsive bid.

        NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood
does hereby approve the contract documents, award the bid and authorize the City Manager or
designee to execute a construction contract and necessary documents for Traffic Calming
Installations (Shady Willow Lane AC Pathway), CIP Project No. 336-31360, with William G.
McCullough Company in the amount of $52,495, plus a 10% contingency of $5,249.50, for a
total amount of $57,744.50.
      PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at a
regular meeting held on the 26th day of May 2009 by the following vote:
                              TRAFFIC CALMING INSTALLATIONS
                             (SHADY WILLOW LANE AC PATHWAY)
                                 CIP PROJECT NO. 336-31360


THIS AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION is made and entered into this _____ day of
______________, 2009 by and between the City of Brentwood (herein called City) and William G.
McCullough Company, a California corporation, a partnership or an individual (circle one) located at
2625 E. 18th Street, Antioch, CA 94509, (925) 755-5403, herein called Contractor.
The City and the Contractor agree as follows:

(1)    CONTRACT SUM: The City agrees to pay, and the Contractor agrees to accept, in full
       payment for constructing the Project in strict accordance with the Contract Documents and
       performing all other requirements of the Contract Documents, the sum of Fifty-Two
       Thousand Four Hundred Ninety-Five Dollars ($52,495) to be paid in accordance with the
       Contract Documents.

(2)    COMPLIANCE WITH LAW: The City is a public agency. All provisions of law applicable to
       public contracts are a part of this contract to the same extent as though set forth herein and
       will be complied with by the Contractor.

(3)    CONTRACT DOCUMENTS: The following Contract Documents relating to this Agreement are
       hereby made a part of and incorporated by reference into this Agreement: The Notice Inviting
       Bids, Invitation to Bid, Information for Bidders, Contract Proposal, Faithful Performance Bond,
       Labor and Materials Payment Bond, Contractor's Certificate Regarding Worker's
       Compensation, Certificate of Insurance and Endorsement (Worker's Compensation),
       Certificate of Insurance and Endorsement (General Liability), General Conditions, Special
       Provisions, Plans and Specifications, Caltrans Standard Plans and Specifications (May 2006),
       City of Brentwood Standard Plans and Specifications (current version), Plans, and
       supplemental agreements, certifications, and endorsements applicable to this work, with all
       modifications incorporated in said documents prior to receipt of the Contract Proposals. Any
       work called for in one Contract Document not mentioned in another is to be performed and
       executed the same as if mentioned in all Contract Documents.

       CONTRACTORS ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE LICENSED AND REGULATED BY THE
       CONTRACTORS’ STATE LICENSE BOARD WHICH HAS JURISDICTION TO
       INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS AGAINST CONTRACTORS IF A COMPLAINT REGARDING
       A PATENT ACT OR OMISSION IS FILED WITHIN FOUR YEARS OF THE DATE OF THE
       ALLEGED VIOLATION. A COMPLAINT REGARDING A LATENT ACT OR OMISSION
       PERTAINING TO STRUCTURAL DEFECTS MUST BE FILED WITHIN 10 YEARS OF THE
       DATE OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION.          ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING A
       CONTRACTOR MAY BE REFERRED TO THE REGISTRAR, CONTRACTORS’ STATE
       LICENSE BOARD, P.O. BOX 26000, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95826.
This Agreement is executed by the City upon approval by the City Council at their regular scheduled
meeting of ____________________, 2009, and the Contractor has caused this Agreement to be duly
executed.

WILLIAM G. MCCULLOUGH COMPANY                        CITY:


* By:                                _______         By:
                                                             Donna Landeros, City Manager
 Printed Name:                              _
                                                     ATTEST:
 Title:                                     _

                                                     By:
** By:                                      _                Margaret Wimberly, City Clerk

  Printed Name:                             _        APPROVED AS TO FORM:

  Title:                                    _
                                                     By:
                                                             Damien Brower, City Attorney

If required by City, proper notarial acknowledgment of execution by Consultant must be attached. If a
Corporation, Agreement must be signed by one corporate officer from each of the following two
groups.

*Group A.                                           **Group B.
 Chairman,                                           Secretary,
 President, or                                       Assistant Secretary,
 Vice-President                                      CFO or Assistant Treasurer

Otherwise, the corporation must attach a resolution certified by the secretary or assistant secretary
under corporate seal empowering the officer(s) signing to bind the corporation.
                             CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 14


Meeting Date:         May 26, 2009

Subject/Title:        Adopt a Resolution accepting the EBMUD trail public landscaping
                      improvements for maintenance located within Subdivision No. 8470,
                      Amber Park, constructed by Mission Peak Construction, Inc. The Amber
                      Park development is located at the southeast corner of Lone Tree Way
                      and Empire Avenue and north of the EBMUD aqueduct.

Prepared By:          Debbie Hill, Associate Planner

Submitted By:         Casey McCann, Community Development Director


RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution accepting the EBMUD trail public landscaping improvements for
maintenance located within Subdivision No. 8470, Amber Park, constructed by Mission Peak
Construction, Inc.

PREVIOUS ACTIONS
On January 15, 2002, by Resolution No. 02-03, the Planning Commission approved Tentative
Subdivision Map No. 8470, a 162-lot subdivision, subject to various conditions of approval.

In association with the recordation of the Final Map for this project, the City Manager approved
the Subdivision Map, and executed the Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Subdivision
8470 on August 12, 2003.

On August 26, 2003, the City Manager approved a Reimbursement Agreement for Subdivision
8470, which included two parks located within the project and the trail along the EBMUD
aqueduct.

On December 11, 2007, the City Council accepted the public landscaping improvements for
Amber Park within Phase I of the Amber Park subdivision.

On January 27, 2009, the City Council accepted the public landscaping improvements for Topaz
Park within the Amber Park subdivision.

BACKGROUND
The Amber Park subdivision includes a total of 162 lots for single family residential
development. Also included in the project are two pocket parks, identified as Parcels A and B
on the tentative map, totaling 0.28 and 0.27 acres, respectively. Parcel A, Amber Park, was
accepted as part of the public landscaping improvements on December 11, 2007, and Parcel B,
Topaz Park, was accepted on January 27, 2009.

As conditioned as part of Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8470, the developer has now
constructed the landscape improvements for the EBMUD trail of Subdivision No. 8470, which is
located along the southern portion of the subdivision.
DISCUSSION
The landscaping and other ancillary improvements to the trail are complete and have been
inspected and are in substantial conformance with the approved plans including plantings,
materials, construction, irrigation and equipment. As shown on the approved landscaping plans,
the developer has installed all irrigation devices, plant materials, and trees in substantial
conformance with the City of Brentwood Parks and Recreation specifications.

Staff recommends that the trail be accepted so it is available for public use and as the
necessary funds for maintenance have been budgeted in the 2009/10 adopted Landscape and
Lighting Assessment District for this subdivision.

The necessary public landscaping offers of dedication and easements required for maintenance
were offered to the City and accepted as part of Final Map No. 8470. With the trail
improvements now completed, staff recommends accepting these improvements and beginning
maintenance immediately.

FISCAL IMPACT
Upon acceptance of the EBMUD landscaping improvements, the City will incur annual costs
associated with the necessary maintenance of the landscape improvements of approximately
$95,000. Landscape and Lighting Assessment District No. 02-3 has been formed for this
subdivision in order to pay for these maintenance costs.

Attachments:
    1. Resolution
    2. Vicinity Map




                                              2
                                    RESOLUTION NO.

      A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
      ACCEPTING THE EBMUD TRAIL LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS FOR
      MAINTENANCE FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 8470, AMBER PARK, LOCATED AT THE
      SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LONE TREE WAY AND EMPIRE AVENUE AND NORTH
      OF THE EBMUD AQUEDUCT, AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO FILE THIS
      RESOLUTION WITH THE RECORDER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY.

      WHEREAS, on January 15, 2002, by Resolution No. 02-03, the Planning Commission
approved Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8470, with conditions; and

        WHEREAS, on August 26, 2003, the City Council was notified through an informational
report of the City Manager’s approval of Final Subdivision Map No. 8470, and acceptance and
approval of the Subdivision Agreement; and

       WHEREAS, the required EBMUD trail improvements have been completed and
constructed in substantial conformance with the approved landscaping improvement plans.

       NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Brentwood
with respect to Subdivision No. 8470 EBMUD trail improvements, Amber Park, constructed by
Mission Peak Construction, Inc.:

      1.     Accepts all public trail landscaping improvements and materials located on the
             EBMUD trail of Subdivision No. 8470, identified as the EBMUD trail for
             maintenance.
      2.     Directs the City Clerk to file this resolution with the Recorder of Contra Costa
             County.

       PASSED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at a regular meeting held on May
26, 2009, by the following vote:




                                             1
                                                                                  Red Rock Road
                                                                                  Red Rock Road




                                                                  Mojave Drive
                                                                                                                                                        E.B.M.U.D.
                                                                                                                                                        E.B.M.U.D.
                                                El Dorado Avenue
                                                El Dorado Avenue




                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Amber Lane
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Lone Tree Way
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Lone Tree Way
                                                         White Sands Street
                                                         White Sands Street




                                                                                                                                       Grant Street
                                                                                                                                       Grant Street




     Blue Ridge Avenue
     Blue Ridge Avenue
                                                      Tamalpais Avenue
                                                      Tamalpais Avenue




                             Tamalpais Avenue
                             Tamalpais Avenue
                                                                  Shady Willow Lane
                                                                  Shady Willow Lane
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Shady Willow Lane
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Shady Willow Lane                                                                             Sla
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Sla
               Keysto ne W
               Keysto W
                          ay
                           ay



        Capital Drive
        Capital Drive




                                                                                                   Tremont Court
                                                                                                           Court
                                                                                                                                  Grant Street
                                                                                                                                  Grant Street




                                                  Barcelona Way
                                                  Barcelona Way
             Co
              Co
             Co
             Co
         SpanCourtt
         Spanish ur
                  Tr
                  Tr
                  T
             ish Tr
              ish Tr                                       Spanish Trail
                                                           Spanish


     p
    Sp
    Corriin
     ou ng
       urr s
          tt s




                                                                                        Ar ch Co



                                                Barcelona Court
                                                Barcelona Court
                                                                                        Ar ch Co ur
                                                                                                   tt
                                                Empire Avenue
                                                Empire Avenue                                                                                                                                                                                          Empire Avenue
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Empire Avenue

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       DeMartini Lane
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       DeMartini Lane




2
                            Tanglewood Lane
                            Tanglewood Lane                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               DeMartini Lane
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          DeMartini Lane




                                                                                                                                             EBMUD Trail
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Hilda
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Hilda
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Court
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Court
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ethan




                            Moreau Way
                            Moreau Way                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Brandon Miles Way
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Miles Way
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               DeMartini Lane
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               DeMartini Lane




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Hilda Way


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Eva Way
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Eva Way
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Hilda Way
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       VICINITY MAP

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       EBMUD TRAIL




                                                                                                                        Grant Street
                                                                                                                        Grant Street
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ethan Allen Drive
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Rosie




                                                                                                                                                                                                              Amber Park
                                                                                                                                                                                         Subdivision
                                    Romulus Place
                                    Romulus Place
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Rosie Lane




                                                                                   Toulouse Lane
                                                                                   Toulouse Lane
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Henry Hart Drive
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Henry Hart Drive



                               Mediterra neo Way
                               Mediterra neo Way


                                                                                                                                                                                                          Windy Springs Lane
                                                                                                                                                                                                          Windy Springs Lane                                                                                                                                  Windy Springs Lane
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Windy Springs Lane
                         La Fonte Drive
                         La Fonte Drive
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              SUBDIVISION 8470 – AMBER PARK




                                                                                                                                       E. B. M. U. D.
                                                                                                                                       E. B. M. U. D.


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Harmony
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Harmony                                 Boulder Street
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Boulder Street
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Court
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Court
                                                                                                                                                                                                       Amber Lane
                                                                                                                                                                                                       Amber Lane
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Lemon Street
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Lemon Street




                Sofia Way
                Sofia Way
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Lillian Street
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Vision Lane
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Harmony Street
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Harmony Street




                                                                                                                                                                                        Martin Street
                                                                                                                                                                                        Martin Street
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Rosie Lane
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Rosie Lane




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Cobalt Lane
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Cobalt Lane                                Cobalt
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Cobalt Lane                                Cobalt Lane
                                                                                                                                                                     Celestine Street
                                                                                                                                                                     Celestine Street
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Lone Tree Way
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Lone Tree Way



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Boulder Street
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Boulder Street




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Fairview Avenue
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Fairview
                                                                                 Giott
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Pierce Street


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Cathy Court




                                                                                 Giott o Drive
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Cathy Court




                                                                                                                   Grant Street
                                                                                                                   Grant Street




                               Albani Place
                                      Place
                                                                                                                                                                         Soliz Drive
                                                                                                                                                                         Soliz Drive




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ca
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 an a
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   na
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    a
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    aL
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    aL
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       n
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       n
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       n
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Fairview Avenue
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Fairview Avenue                                                                            Fairview Court
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Fairview Court                                                            n
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      n..
                              CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 15


Meeting Date: May 26, 2009

Subject/Title:   Adopt a resolution to approve Temporary Use Permit No. 09-07 to close First
                 Street between Oak Street and Chestnut Street, as part of allowing the use of
                 City-owned property for the staging of the Downtown Thursdays event
                 sponsored by the Downtown Brentwood Coalition every Thursday night starting
                 on May 28, 2009 and ending on October 1, 2009, between the hours of 5:00
                 pm and 8:00 pm.

Prepared by:     Jeff Zilm, Senior Planner

Submitted by: Casey McCann, Community Development Director


RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution to approve Temporary Use Permit No. 09-07 to close First Street between
Oak Street and Chestnut Street, as part of allowing the use of City-owned property for the
staging of the Downtown Thursdays event sponsored by the Downtown Brentwood Coalition
every Thursday night starting on May 28, 2009 and ending on October 1, 2009, between the
hours of 5:00 pm and 8:00 pm.

PREVIOUS ACTION
This is the first time this event has been staged; therefore no previous action has taken place.

DISCUSSION
On April 23, 2009, the Downtown Brentwood Coalition submitted a temporary use permit (TUP
09-07) application to close First Street between Oak Street and Chestnut Street, as part of
allowing the use of City-owned property for the staging of the Downtown Thursdays event
sponsored by the Downtown Brentwood Coalition.

Section 17.850.004 of the Brentwood Municipal Code requires that any temporary use seeking
closure of City right-of-way must be approved by the City Council. The criteria for approval,
when evaluating a request for a TUP, includes consideration of impacts on traffic, circulation,
parking, visibility, noise, harmful effects on adjoining property and any other relevant impacts or
considerations of the proposed use. The proposed use may be reasonably conditioned to
mitigate identified impacts or to ensure public health, safety or welfare.

The Downtown Thursdays event would be located within the Downtown Core commercial area
of the Downtown Specific Plan. The event will include artists, crafters, organized youth groups
and charitable fundraisers positioned down along both sides of First Street in order to maintain
access, visibility and maximum exposure to the First Street merchants and to allow access in
and around the vendors for emergency personnel and vehicles.

The plan calls for music and special entertainment to be provided by local youth bands or DJ’s.
The electricity will be provided for by the closest business and the extension cords will be taped
down and not run where anyone would walk.
There may be a specific themed car show for some of the individual events. There will also be
four special larger themed events planned for the following specific dates:

       June 18th – Cherry Jubilee
       August 13th – Hot August Nights (car revival)
       September 3rd – Harvest Festival
       October 1st – OktoberFEST

These four dates are expected to draw roughly 1500 people per event while the other dates are
expected to draw around 500 people per event.

The street closure would include First Street from the intersection of Oak Street to a point
approximately 65 feet north of Chestnut Street. This is the same section of street that is closed
every Saturday morning for the Farmers’ Market. The Downtown Brentwood Coalition is
requesting to have the streets closed every Thursday night starting on May 28, 2009 through
October 1, 2009 from 5:00 pm to 8:00 pm. The actual street closure will begin at 4:00 pm and
re-open at 8:30 pm on each Thursday night in order to accommodate the necessary setup and
tear-down associated with the event.

Downtown Brentwood Coalition volunteers will be responsible for facilitating the street closure,
by placing safety cones, blocking First Street to through traffic, and by putting up and taking no
parking signs, and event and activity signs. Merchants will provide the clean up after each
event and the restaurants have agreed to offer their restrooms to attendees.

For the most part the proposed Downtown Thursdays event should have minimal impact upon
surrounding business establishments. Businesses located along the portions of First Street and
Oak Street being used for the event will remain accessible to pedestrians. Additionally, the
Downtown Thursdays event is likely to draw many people who typically do not frequent the
Downtown on a regular basis, increasing exposure for local merchants.

Traffic should be minimally impacted in the event area, as other streets through the downtown
will not be affected. First Street will be blocked at each end with a car and orange cones, along
with “Downtown Festival” banners. The cones will be removable if needed for fire/police
access. The Downtown Brentwood Coalition will be responsible for managing the street closure
and escorting privately owned cars out of the event area after 4:00 p.m. to ensure the safety of
the pedestrians and drivers.

FISCAL IMPACT
The applicant has paid the $489.00 processing fee associated with approval of the temporary
use permit.


Attachments:
    1. TUP Resolution with Conditions of Approval and Street closure map
    2. Letter from the Downtown Brentwood Coalition, stamped “Received April 23, 2009”
                                      RESOLUTION NO.

       A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
       APPROVING TEMPORARY USE PERMIT (TUP 09-07) TO CLOSE FIRST STREET
       BETWEEN OAK STREET AND CHESTNUT STREET, AS PART OF ALLOWING THE
       USE OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY FOR THE STAGING OF THE DOWNTOWN
       THURSDAYS EVENT SPONSORED BY THE DOWNTOWN BRENTWOOD
       COALITION EVERY THURSDAY NIGHT STARTING ON MAY 28, 2009 AND ENDING
       ON OCTOBER 1, 2009, BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 5:00 PM AND 8:00 PM.

        WHEREAS, the Downtown Brentwood Coalition desires to hold the Downtown
Thursdays event sponsored by the Downtown Brentwood Coalition every Thursday night
starting on May 28, 2009 and ending on October 1, 2009, between the hours of 5:00 pm and
8:00 pm; and

      WHEREAS, the Downtown Brentwood Coalition has applied for a Temporary Use Permit
pursuant to Section 17.850.004 of the Brentwood Municipal Code; and

        WHEREAS, to accommodate the Downtown Thursdays event, it is requested that the
following street be closed to traffic between 4:00 pm and 9:00 pm starting on May 28, 2009 and
ending on October 2, 2009; and

      First Street from Oak Street to a point approximately 65 feet north of Chestnut Street (as
shown on Attachment 1 of Exhibit A); and

        WHEREAS, pursuant to Vehicle Code Section 21101(e), the City may temporarily close
portions of streets for local special events such as the Downtown Thursdays event, when the
closing is necessary for the safety and protection of persons who are to use those portions of
the street during the temporary closure; and

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

       1. Hereby approves TUP 09-07 subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit
          A, attached hereto, and authorizes the closure of First Street every Thursday night
          starting on May 28, 2009 and ending on October 1, 2009, between the hours of 4:00
          pm and 9:00 pm; and

       PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at
an adjourned regular meeting held on May 26, 2009, by the following vote:
                                  EXHIBIT A
                      CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TUP 09-07


1. All aspects of the proposed use and street closures shall be in substantial conformance
   with the Brentwood Downtown Committee letter dated “Received April 23, 2009”.

2. No parking shall be allowed in front of any street closure signs or barricades.

3. This temporary use permit shall be valid from May 28, 2009 through October 1, 2009.

4. Hours of operation shall be limited to 5:00 pm through 8:00 pm.

5. Setup may not begin prior to closure of the streets at 4:00 pm.

6. Barricades must be placed as shown on ‘Attachment 1’ of this exhibit.

7. The street must be restored to its normal status and all event-related tear-down must be
   completed no later than 8:30 pm.

8. A clear fire-lane must be maintained through the event site meeting Fire District
   requirements, or a minimum dimension of 16 feet, whichever is greater. A copy of a Fire
   District-approved site plan must be provided to the Community Development
   Department prior to May 28, 2009.

9. In the event the Downtown Brentwood Coalition does not clean up the trash from the
   event, the applicant must work with the City of Brentwood Solid Waste Division to
   schedule a garbage pick-up after every event.

10. A representative from the Downtown Brentwood Coalition must be present at each event
    to monitor setup and tear-down.

11. The applicant shall provide proof of liability insurance coverage naming the City of
    Brentwood as additionally insured in the amount of $1,000,000.00 per occurrence prior
    to May 28, 2009.

12. The applicant shall post and maintain a clean-up/repair bond in the amount of $1,000.00
    with the Director of Public Works/City Engineer, prior to May 28, 2009.

13. The applicant shall repair any damage caused by these events or the Public Works
    Department will repair the damage and cash the posted bond.

14. The applicant shall provide a written agreement with a business owner occupying space
    fronting the market area allowing event patrons the use of restroom facilities or provide
    proof of contract for portable toilet facilities. Prior to installation of any portable restroom
    facilities, the applicant shall submit a site plan showing the proposed restroom locations
    for the review and approval of the Community Development Director.

15. The applicant shall provide a statement to the City stating that the applicant agrees to
    indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the City, its officers, agents and employees from
    any and all liability or claims that may be brought against the City arising out of its
   approval of this permit, or the environmental determination rendered in connection with
   the permit approval, or arising out of the operation of the use or uses allowed under the
   permit, save and except that causes solely by the City’s active negligence.

16. The Downtown Brentwood Coalition shall make a good faith effort to work with City staff
    in addressing any concerns that arise relating to the placement or operation of the
    Downtown Thursdays event.

17. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department,
    prior to May 28, 2009.

18. Any food being prepared and/or served beyond what is allowed by a County Health
    Department permit for food service for the businesses, participating in the Downtown
    Thursdays event, the Downtown Brentwood Coalition shall obtain approval for the proper
    food service permits from the County Health Department and submit documentation of
    approval to the Community Development Department prior to May 28, 2009.

19. The Downtown Brentwood Coalition shall make sure that the resident at 609 First Street
    will have access into and out of her designated parking stall on First Street during all of
    the Downtown Thursdays event dates.

20. Subject to the approval of the Chief of Police, vehicles and/or other appropriate
    mechanisms must be placed at both ends of the event (within the barricaded area),
    blocking First Street to through-traffic. These vehicles must be in place by 4 pm and the
    drivers must be readily on-hand to move them in the event of an emergency. Temporary
    signage must be placed on these vehicles identifying the area beyond them as being
    utilized for the Downtown Thursdays event.

21. As per Section 17.850.008 of the City of Brentwood’s Municipal Code the Police
    Department may close the event due to failure to satisfy conditions of this permit.
       “ATTACHMENT 1”
          EXHIBIT A
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.___




           TUP 09-07
“ATTACHMENT 2”
                             CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 16



Meeting Date: May 26, 2009

Subject/Title:   Adopt a Resolution approving a Memorandum of Understanding between the
                 City of Brentwood and the Brentwood Arts Society regarding running a wide
                 variety of community arts programs at the cost of $57,000 and authorizing the
                 City Manager or her designee to execute the Memorandum of Understanding
                 and make minor technical revisions to the MOU in consultation with the City
                 Attorney

Prepared by:     Poldina Scherff, Recreation Manager

Submitted by: Craig Bronzan, Director of Parks and Recreation


RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Brentwood
and the Brentwood Arts Society regarding running a wide variety of community arts programs at
the cost of $57,000 and authorize the City Manager or her designee to execute the
Memorandum of Understanding and make minor technical revisions to the MOU in consultation
with the City Attorney.

PREVIOUS ACTION
On September 12, 2000, City Council approved Chapter 2.44 Arts Commission of the
Brentwood Municipal Code which established the present Arts Commission.

On September 23, 2003, City Council waived the second reading of Ordinance No. 760
amending Chapter 2.44 Arts Commission to amend officers (adding position of Past-Chair), add
the position of poet laureate, and establish the Public Art Program.

On February 27, 2007 City Council discussed the future filling of Commission vacancies.

On September 11, 2007, the City Council introduced and waived the first reading and on
September 25, 2007 waived the second reading and adopted Ordinance 847 amending in its
entirety, Chapter 2.44 of Title 2 of the Brentwood Municipal Code entitled “Arts Commission”
with a new Chapter 2.44 entitled “Arts”.

On November 13, 2007, City Council approved Resolution 2007-237 a Memorandum of
Understanding between the City of Brentwood and the Brentwood Arts Society regarding
running a wide variety of community arts programs and authorized the City Manager or her
designee to execute the Memorandum of Understanding and make minor technical revisions to
the MOU after review by the City Attorney.

BACKGROUND
The September 25, 2007 City Council action adopted Ordinance No. 847 amending in its
entirety, Chapter 2.44 of Title 2 of the Brentwood Municipal Code entitled “Arts Commission”
with a new Chapter 2.44 entitled “Arts”. As a result of that action, the Arts Commission no
longer runs art programs. City Council approved the Memorandum of Understand for the 2008
Art, Wine and Jazz Festival that concluded on October 11 & 12, 2008 at City Park as well as
other programs such as Art Walk, Poetry Reading/Open Mic, City Read and Art Shows.
Currently funds are available in the Arts Commission Program Fund. It is from these funds that
staff is recommending a Memorandum of Understanding with the Brentwood Arts Society or
another arts related 501(c)(3) non-profit to continue programs until the funding ends.

As outlined in the MOU the City will release all rights to the Art, Wine and Jazz Festival Logo to
the Brentwood Arts Society. The City will fund the events listed in the MOU that include the
following: Art, Wine and Jazz Festival, Art Walk, Poetry Reading/Open Mic, Art Shows and City
Read in the amount of $57,000. The Arts Society would be responsible for payment of
application fees, deposits, facility and equipment rentals, and cleaning fees.

At the April 15, 2009 Arts Commission meeting the Arts Commission recommended to City
Council the Brentwood Arts Society Memorandum of Understanding for 2009. The Arts
Commission is recommending that the City continue to enter into these agreements annually as
a means of properly projecting costs and services for a variety of community wide arts programs
until the balance of the account is zero. At that time, the City will no longer fund arts related
programs unless specific funding is identified upfront. This MOU outlines the various
responsibilities and costs associated with art program events.

FISCAL IMPACT
This MOU, if approved, will authorize the disbursement of $57,000 to the Arts Commission for
events for fiscal year 2009/10. This appropriation will be included in the 2009/10 Operating
Budget.



Attachments:
Resolution
Memorandum of Understanding
                                     RESOLUTION NO.


       A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
       APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY
       OF BRENTWOOD AND THE BRENTWOOD ARTS SOCIETY REGARDING
       RUNNING A WIDE VARIETY OF COMMUNITY ARTS PROGRAMS AT A
       COST OF $57,000 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HER
       DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AND
       MAKE MINOR TECHNICAL REVISIONS TO THE MOU IN CONSULTATION
       WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY

     WHEREAS, on September 12, 2000, City Council approved Chapter 2.44 Arts
Commission of the Brentwood Municipal Code which established the present Arts Commission;
and

       WHEREAS, on September 23, 2003, City Council waived the second reading of
Ordinance No. 760 amending Chapter 2.44 Arts Commission to amend officers (adding position
of Past-Chair), add the position of poet laureate, and establish the Public Art Program; and

     WHEREAS, on February 27, 2007, City Council discussed the future filling of
Commission vacancies; and

       WHEREAS, on September 11, 2007, the City Council introduced and waived the first
reading and on September 25, 2007 waived the second reading and adopted Ordinance No.
847 amending in its entirety, Chapter 2.44 or Title 2 of the Brentwood Municipal Cod entitled
“Arts Commission” with a new Chapter 2.44 entitled “Arts”; and

        WHEREAS, on November 13, 2007 City Council approved Resolution 2007-237 a
Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Brentwood and the Brentwood Arts Society
regarding running a wide variety of community arts programs and authorized the City Manager
or her designee to execute the Memorandum of Understanding; and

       WHEREAS, the City desires to continue its support of the arts programs that were
previously run by the Arts Commission through the currently available budgeted arts program
money; and

      WHEREAS, the Arts Society has expressed an interest in running a wide variety of arts
programs at the cost of $57,000 for Fiscal Year 2009/2010; and

        WHEREAS, the Parties further desire to memorialize their relationship in this MOU and
to set forth their respective roles and obligations; and

       NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood
approves a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Brentwood Arts Society
regarding running a wide variety of arts programs at a cost of $57,000 for Fiscal Year
2009/2010 and authorizes the City Manager or her designee to execute the Memorandum of
Understanding and make minor technical revisions to the MOU in consultation with the City
Attorney.
       PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at
a regular meeting held on 26th day of May, 2009 by the following vote:
                       CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 17



Meeting Date: May 26, 2009

Subject/Title:   A Resolution approving, and authorizing the City Manager to sign, an
                 Assignment and Assumption Agreement that 1) transfers landscape
                 maintenance services of parks from American Civil Constructors, Inc. (ACC) to
                 ACC Landscape Services, LP (ACCLS), to be effective upon ACCLS providing
                 evidence, to the satisfaction of the City, of all necessary insurance, bonds and
                 licenses and 2) allows for the subcontracting of the landscape maintenance
                 services of parks from ACC to ACCLS prior to the assignment and assumption
                 becoming effective

Prepared by:     Roger Stromgren, Landscape/Facilities Manager

Submitted by: Craig D. Bronzan, Director of Parks and Recreation


RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving, and authorizing the City Manager to sign, an Assignment and
Assumption Agreement that 1) transfers landscape maintenance services of parks from
American Civil Constructors, Inc. (ACC) to ACC Landscape Services, LP (ACCLS), to be
effective upon ACCLS providing evidence, to the satisfaction of the City, of all necessary
insurance, bonds and licenses and 2) allows for the subcontracting of the landscape
maintenance services of parks from ACC to ACCLS prior to the assignment and assumption
becoming effective.

PREVIOUS ACTION
On June 26, 2007, by Resolution 2007-150, City Council adopted the 2007/08 – 2008/09
Operating Budget.

On December 9, 2008, by Resolution 2008-288, City Council awarded a Contract for Landscape
Maintenance Services to American Civil Constructors, Inc. for landscape maintenance services
in City parks.

BACKGROUND
On September 29, 2008 Parks and Recreation Department staff issued a Request for Proposal
(RFP) for Landscape Maintenance Services for Parks, Street Medians, Open Space, and Right-
of-Ways.

Contractors were offered the opportunity to submit proposals for any portion, or the entire
amount of the landscape maintenance work. Proposals were received from the following eight
(8) companies: ACC Landscape, Cagwin & Dorward, Diamond T. Tractor, East Bay
Construction, LaBat’s Tree Care, MCE, Pacheco Bros. Landscaping, and Sycamore Landscape.
All eight contractors that submitted proposals were interviewed on Friday, November 7, 2008.

As a result of the proposals received, the interview process, and a checking of like references,
staff met with the companies who best meet the City’s requirements for services. At the City
Council meeting on December 9, 2008, staff recommended awarding the Contract for
Landscape Maintenance Services for Parks to ACC.
The term of the contract is January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2010 with two two-year
renewable options if chosen by the City. The total not to exceed contract amount for the term of
the contract is $2,223,880.36, which includes a 10% contingency for vandalism, additional
areas, and other items that come up that are not in the scope of services. This amount allows
for the Contractor to perform the described work for the prices indicated in the proposal and
markup stipulated in the Contract or as negotiated by City for a period of six (6) months from the
start of Contract (January 1, 2009 through June 30, 2009). The City will revise price to be
effective for the next 12-month period on July 1st of each year based on the Bureau of Labor
Statistics – Consumer Price Index – Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers for the San
Francisco – Oakland – San Jose metropolitan area as of April 30th of each year. This increase
shall not exceed 3% in any one year, including any extensions in term of Contract. The City also
agreed to adjust payments to reflect changes in work quantities and to pay for new work
assigned to Contractor at the contract rates then in effect.

On April 21, 2009 the City was notified that ACC was going through a corporate reorganization.
Part of the reorganization includes the formation of a new company called ACC Landscape
Services, LP to handle the landscape-related work that has previously been performed by ACC
and that will now be discontinued by that organization.

Staff met with representatives of ACCLS on April 23, 2009 to discuss any impacts in service that
could be created by this reorganization. Staff has been assured that ACCLS will be able to
continue to fulfill all of the requirements of the Contract for Landscape Maintenance Services of
Parks the City executed with ACC in December 2008. This will include keeping all staff and
equipment that are currently dedicated to the City of Brentwood contract.

To start the transition of its landscape maintenance services, ACC is requesting to first
subcontract the landscape maintenance services to ACCLS. The bonding company will only
issue a bond to the prime contractor. While ACCLS is starting up and obtaining all of the
necessary documentation, ACC would like to subcontract the landscape services to them until
they can be bonded on their own.

Prior to the assignment and assumption becoming effective, ACCLS must provide to the City
proper insurance documentation, a faithful performance bond, a City of Brentwood business
license and proof of C27 license certification from the State of California. In the meantime, the
responsibility for the master contract will remain with ACC.

In the almost six months that the current contract has been in place, ACC has done an excellent
job in City parks and the City is pleased with their work. ACCLS will continue to use the exact
same staff and equipment as has been used in this contract to date. The City should not notice
any different in service levels; therefore, staff recommends that the landscape maintenance
services of parks be assigned to ACCLS.

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact of this Assignment and Assumption Agreement will not result in any changes
to the contract or budget amounts originally approved by City Council on December 9, 2008.

ATTACHMENT
Resolution
Assignment and Assumption Agreement
                                 RESOLUTION NO.


       A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
       AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN, AN ASSIGNMENT AND
       ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT THAT 1) TRANSFERS LANDSCAPE
       MAINTENANCE SERVICES OF PARKS FROM AMERICAN CIVIL
       CONSTRUCTORS, INC. (ACC) TO ACC LANDSCAPE SERVICES, LP
       (ACCLS), TO BE EFFECTIVE UPON ACCLS PROVIDING EVIDENCE, TO THE
       SATISFACTION OF THE CITY, OF ALL NECESSARY INSURANCE, BONDS
       AND LICENSES AND 2) ALLOWS FOR THE SUBCONTRACTING OF THE
       LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES OF PARKS FROM ACC TO ACCLS
       PRIOR TO THE ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION BECOMING EFFECTIVE

      WHEREAS, on June 26, 2007, by Resolution 2007-150, City Council adopted the
2007/08 – 2008/09 Operating Budget; and

      WHEREAS, staff issued a Request for Proposals on September 29, 2008 for Landscape
Maintenance Services for Parks, Street Medians, Open Space, and Right-of-Ways; and

      WHEREAS, the proposal process was executed in a manner which allowed for the fair
competition of this work; and

       WHEREAS, a total of eight (8) proposals were received from companies on the October
31, 2008 proposal due date; and

      WHEREAS, the Contract for Landscape Maintenance for Parks was awarded to
American Civil Constructors, Inc. (ACC) on December 9, 2008;

        WHEREAS, ACC notified the City of its company reorganization and requested that
landscape services of City parks be subcontracted by ACC to ACC Landscape Services, LP
(ACCLS) until such time an Assignment and Assumption Agreement be executed for a transfer
of services from ACC to ACCLS;

       NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood
hereby approves, and authorizes the City Manager to sign, an Assignment and Assumption
Agreement that 1) transfers landscape maintenance services of parks from ACC to ACCLS, to
be effective upon ACCLS providing evidence, to the satisfaction of the City, of all necessary
insurance, bonds and licenses and 2) allows for the subcontracting of the landscape
maintenance services of parks from ACC to ACCLS prior to the assignment and assumption
becoming effective.

       PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at
a regular meeting held on May 26, 2009 by the following vote:
                             CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 18


Meeting Date: May 26, 2009

Subject/Title:   Adopt a Resolution accepting the work performed by Majestic Floors Inc. for
                 the Brentwood Senior Activity Center CIP No. 522-52280 and directing the City
                 Clerk to file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder

Prepared by:     Poldina Scherff, Recreation Manager

Submitted by: Craig D. Bronzan, Director of Parks and Recreation


RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution accepting the work performed by Majestic Floors Inc. for the Brentwood
Senior Activity Center CIP No. 522-52280 and directing the City Clerk to file a Notice of
Completion with the County Recorder.

PREVIOUS ACTION
On June 12, 2007, by Resolution 2007-126, City Council adopted the 2007/08 – 2011/12 CIP,
which included the Aquatic Complex/Concession Stand and Senior Adult Education Center
projects.

On February 12, 2008, by Resolution 2008-20, City Council approved the contract documents,
and awarded the Construction Contracts (Exhibit “A”) and authorized the City Manager or
designee to execute necessary documents for Senior Adult Education Center CIP 522-52280
and Aquatic Complex/Concession Stand CIP No. 522-52300 (Group C) plus 10% contingencies.
City Council also rejected all bids submitted for Bid Packages #11 – Fire Sprinkler and #12 –
Storefront and Glazing and directed staff to re-bid these bid packages.

On May 13, 2008, by Resolution 2008-110 City Council declared official intent to reimburse
certain expenditures for the Brentwood Senior Activity Center, Downtown Streetscape Plan,
Downtown Infrastructure, Downtown Parking Structure, New City Hall, Civic Center Parking
Facility, New Community Center, Library Relocation, Civic Center Plaza and City Park projects
in an amount not-to-exceed $72,000,000, from proceeds of indebtedness.

On May 27, 2008, by Resolution 2008-137 City Council 1) Adopted the Negative Declaration
and 2) Adopted the 2008/09-2012/13 Capital Improvement Program.

BACKGROUND
This project is a multi-prime project with the first major element of construction being the pre-
engineered construction design and construction contract (Group A), which has been
completed. The second element is the “Sitework” project (Group B) which includes furnishing all
labor, materials, equipment, and performing all work necessary and incidental to the Brentwood
Senior Activity Center and Aquatic Complex/Concession Stand. The third element is Group C,
for jobs 3-18 and the following bid packages were awarded; Bid Packages #3 – Concrete, #4 –
Masonry, #6 – Carpentry, #7 – Metal Stud & Gypsum, #8 – Mechanical/HVAC, #9 – Plumbing,
#10 – Electrical, #13 – Painting, #14 – Specialty Ceiling, #15 – Casework, #16 Flooring, #17 –
Tile.
All the work is complete per the plans and specifications and Majestic Floors Inc. has met its
contractual obligation. Staff is making the recommendation that the work performed by Majestic
Floors Inc. be accepted and the Notice of Completion be filed with the County Clerk.
CY
FISCAL IMPACT
The total contract amount for the work performed by Majestic Floors Inc. for the Brentwood
Senior Activity Center CIP No. 522-52280 is as follows:

                                                                 City Council
Contractor                                 Actual Amount         Approved Amount

Majestic Floors Inc.                       $27,900.00            $30,690.00

The final cost was approximately 9% below the City Council approved amount for this project
and was budgeted in the adopted 2008/09-2012/13 Capital Improvement Program.

Attachments:
Resolution
Notice of Completion
                                       RESOLUTION NO.

       A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE WORK PERFORMED BY MAJESTIC
       FLOORS INC. FOR THE BRENTWOOD SENIOR ACTIVITY CENTER CIP NO.
       522-52280 AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO FILE A NOTICE OF
       COMPLETION WITH THE COUNTY RECORDER

       WHEREAS, on June 12, 2007, by Resolution 2007-126, City Council adopted the
2007/08 – 2011/12 CIP, which included the Aquatic Complex/Concession Stand and Senior
Adult Education Center projects; and

        WHEREAS, on February 12, 2008, by Resolution 2008-20, City Council approved the
contract documents, awarding the bids and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute
necessary documents for (Group C) Packages 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17; rejected
Packages #11 – Fire Sprinklers and #12 – Storefront & Glazing due to the amount being
significantly higher than the engineer’s estimate and re-bid these packages; and

        WHEREAS, on May 13, 2008, by Resolution 2008-110 City Council declared official
intent to reimburse certain expenditures for the Brentwood Senior Activity Center, Downtown
Streetscape Plan, Downtown Infrastructure, Downtown Parking Structure, New City Hall, Civic
Center Parking Facility, New Community Center, Library Relocation, Civic Center Plaza and
City Park projects in an amount not-to-exceed $72,000,000, from proceeds of indebtedness;
and

       WHEREAS, On May 27, 2008, by Resolution 2008-137 City Council 1) Adopted the
Negative Declaration and 2) Adopted the 2008/09-2012/13 Capital Improvement Program; and

        WHEREAS, the funding of the Brentwood Senior Activity Center Project is contingent
upon the issuance of bonds. Staff anticipates that the issuance of bonds will occur in the
2008/09 or early in the 2009/10 Fiscal Year. In the interim, staff initiated the requisite internal
loans to allow commencement of the Brentwood Senior Activity Center project; and

        WHEREAS, all the work is complete per the plans and specifications and Majestic
Floors Inc. has met its contractual obligation; and

        WHEREAS, staff is making the recommendation that the work performed by Majestic
Floors Inc. be accepted and the Notice of Completion be filed with the County Recorder.

       NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood that
the work performed by Majestic Floors Inc. for the Brentwood Senior Activity Center CIP No.
522-52280 is hereby accepted and the City Clerk is directed to file a Notice of Completion with
the County Recorder.

       PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at
a regular meeting held on the 26th day of May 2009 by the following vote:
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
   CITY OF BRENTWOOD

WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
   CITY CLERK
   CITY OF BRENTWOOD
   708 THIRD STREET
   BRENTWOOD, CA 94513


                                 NOTICE OF COMPLETION


NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:

THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD, a general law city, in the County of Contra Costa, State of
California, did enter into an agreement on February 12, 2008 with Majestic Floors Inc. or work
performed for the Brentwood Senior Activity Center CIP No. 522-52280.

The work described in the contract documents was to furnish any and all labor, materials,
equipment and services for the completion of work for the Brentwood Senior Activity Center 193
Griffith Lane, Brentwood, CA 94513.

On the 26th day of May 2009, said contract, as a whole was completed and the work was
accepted by the City Council of the City of Brentwood.

I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the facts set forth in the foregoing Notice of
Completion are true and correct.

Executed at Brentwood, Contra Costa County, State of California, on May 26, 2009.



By: __________________________
    Margaret Wimberly, City Clerk
    City of Brentwood, California
                                 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 19


Meeting Date: May 26, 2009

Subject/Title:   A Resolution Amending City Council/Administrative Policy No. 10-15, Collection
                 Policy to update those sections related to Citations and Abatement Orders

Prepared by:     Denise Davies, Chief Financial Operations Officer

Submitted by: Pamela Ehler, Director of Finance and Information Systems



RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution Amending City Council/Administrative Policy No. 10-15, Collection Policy to
update those sections related to Citations and Abatement Orders.

PREVIOUS ACTION
On February 12, 2008, the City Council approved Ordinance 856 amending Chapter 1.08 of the
Brentwood Municipal Code to add Section 1.08.115 (Recordation of Notices and Assessments) and to
amend section 1.08.30 (Recovery of Administrative Fines and Costs).

On May 13, 2008, the City Council approved Resolution 2008-113 adopting the Collection Policy (City
Council/Administrative Policy No. 10-15).

On November 18, 2008, the City Council approved Resolution 2008-267 amending City
Council/Administrative Policy No. 10-15 allowing the Director of Finance and Information Systems to
Approve, File and Release Liens for Past Due Property Related to Administrative Citations.

On May 12, 2009, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 867 amending Brentwood Municipal Code
Titles 1 and 8 to clarify methods of administrative citation fines and nuisance abatement cost
collections; distinguish administrative citation procedures from other enforcement procedures; provide
for an appeal of an administrative citation by enforcement officer; declare graffiti and the disposal or
spill of materials, both hazardous and otherwise, to be public nuisances; and to delete outdated
provisions from the Municipal Code.

BACKGROUND
On April 28, 2009 Ordinance 867 amending Brentwood Municipal Code Titles 1 and 8 went before
City Council which includes collection activities associated with the methods of administrative citation
fines and nuisance abatement cost collections. Staff recommends removing the redundant
information included within the Collection Policy. The Policy now states that collections will be
administered pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 1.12 for administrative citations and Chapter 8.0 for
abatement orders and/or nuisances.           The changes are shown in red for your review and
consideration.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the amendment of City Council/Administrative Policy No. 10-
15, Collection Policy.

Attachments:
Resolution
City Council/Administrative Policy No. 10-15, Collection Policy
                                        RESOLUTION NO.


       A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
       AMENDING CITY COUNCIL/ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY NO. 10-15, COLLECTION
       POLICY TO UPDATE THOSE SECTIONS RELATED TO CITATIONS AND
       ABATEMENT ORDERS

      WHEREAS, on February 12, 2008, the City Council approved Ordinance 856 amending
Chapter 1.08 of the Brentwood Municipal Code to add Section 1.08.115 (Recordation of Notices
and Assessments) and to amend section 1.08.30 (Recovery of Administrative Fines and Costs);
and

       WHEREAS, on May 13, 2008, the City Council approved Resolution 2008-113 adopting
the Collection Policy (City Council/Administrative Policy No. 10-15); and

       WHEREAS, on November 18, 2008, the City Council approved Resolution 2008-267
amending City Council/Administrative Policy No. 10-15 allowing the Director of Finance and
Information Systems to Approve, File and Release Liens for Past Due Property Related to
Administrative Citations; and

         WHEREAS, on May 12, 2009, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 867 amending
Brentwood Municipal Code Titles 1 and 8 to clarify methods of administrative citation fines and
nuisance abatement cost collections; distinguish administrative citation procedures from other
enforcement procedures; provide for an appeal of an administrative citation by enforcement
officer; declare graffiti and the disposal or spill of materials, both hazardous and otherwise, to be
public nuisances; and to delete outdated provisions from the Municipal Code; and

       WHEREAS, Ordinance 867 amends Brentwood Municipal Code Titles 1 and 8 which
includes collection activities associated with the methods of administrative citation fines and
nuisance abatement cost collections; and

        WHEREAS, staff recommends removing the redundant information included within the
Collection Policy and directs staff to administer collections pursuant to the Municipal Code
Chapter 1.12 for administrative citations and Chapter 8.0 for abatement orders and/or
nuisances; and

      WHEREAS, if approved, the Collection Policy changes will go into effect when
Ordinance 867 goes into effect.

        NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Brentwood
hereby amends, effective June 15, 2009, City Council/Administrative Policy 10-15 Collection
Policy as detailed in the attached “Exhibit A”.

       PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at
a regular meeting held on May 26, 2009, by the following vote:
                                Council /Administrative Policy
 Subject:                                 Policy No: 10-15     Date: May 26, 2009

 Collection Policy                          Resolution No:            Page 1 of 6
                                            DRAFT

1.   PURPOSE

      The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines to maximize the collection of
      accounts receivable in a professional and consistent manner.

2.   POLICY

       2.1    Applicability

      The provision of this policy applies to the collection of all accounts receivable. City staff
      will utilize all legal means to collect payments due to the City under Federal and State
      Statutes that govern collection practices, including: The Fair Debt Collection Practices
      Act, The Fair Credit Reporting Act, California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices
      Act under Civil Code 1788, and the Brentwood Municipal Code (“Code”).

3.   PROCEDURES

      The Business Services Division of the Finance and Information Systems Department
      (“Finance”) is responsible for the collection of revenues that are owed to the City. When
      accounts become past due, the City will take certain collection actions that may include,
      but are not limited to: invoicing, sending statements or notices, making phone calls, and
      placing special assessments, liens or court judgments. The City may also utilize a
      collection agency to assist in the collection process.

      The collection action taken will depend on the type of account being collected.

      Certain types of accounts receivable are listed below with guidelines on how to proceed
      with the collection process.

 4. TYPES OF ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE

      4.1     Utility Billing

      The due date for utility bills is dictated by Code. If the invoice for utilities is not paid by
      the due date, the collection process is initiated. The next course of action will depend
      upon whether the customer account is active or closed.

              4.1.1   Active Accounts

                      •   If payment is not received by the due date, notices are mailed to
                          account holders on the thirtieth and the thirty-seventh day after the
                          original bill date.

                      •   Service will be disconnected if not paid by the fortieth day after the
                          original bill date. (Code Section 14.01.580)




                                    CITY OF BRENTWOOD
                            Council /Administrative Policy
Subject:                              Policy No: 10-15     Date: May 26, 2009

Collection Policy                         Resolution No:             Page 2 of 6
                                          DRAFT


            4.1.2   Closed Accounts

                    •   If payment is not received by the due date, notices are mailed to
                        account holders on the thirtieth day after the original bill date.

                    •   If not paid by the sixtieth day after the original bill date, the account is
                        scheduled to be assigned to collections.

                    •   Prior to assigning to collections, Utility Billing staff will review existing
                        accounts to determine if former account holder(s) has/have an active
                        account. If an active account exists, the final balance on the closed
                        account will be transferred to the active account and the customer is
                        notified. (Code Section 14.01.160)

                    •   If no active account exists, the account is assigned to collections

                    •   If a former account holder with an outstanding balance or a prior
                        account tries to open a new account, water service shall be refused
                        until all outstanding charges are paid.

     4.2    Citations & Abatement Orders

     Designated enforcement officers have the authority to issue citations for violations of
     Municipal Code. Payment of a citation is required within 30 days from the date of
     citation issuance. (Code Sections 1.08.040 & 1.08.060)

     Payment for costs associated with an abatement order is required by the due date
     indicated on the invoice. (Code Section 8.00.040)

     The designated enforcement officer will forward the following to Finance so that an
     invoice can be issued:
                • all citations
                • all abatement orders, if costs are associated with them, including
                    supporting documentation for those costs

     If the invoice is not paid by the due date, the next course of action is based on whether
     the amount owed is for a citation or abatement.

            4.2.1   Citations

                    Citation collections will be administered pursuant to Municipal Code
                    Chapter 1.12 Administrative Citation.

                    •   Citation fines shall be paid to the City within (30) thirty days from the
                        date of the citation. (Code Section 1.08.060)




                                  CITY OF BRENTWOOD
                            Council /Administrative Policy
Subject:                              Policy No: 10-15     Date: May 26, 2009

Collection Policy                         Resolution No:           Page 3 of 6
                                          DRAFT

                    •   Any recipient of a citation may contest the violation of the Code or that
                        he/she is the responsible person. The individual shall deliver a letter
                        to the City Clerk within (30) thirty days from the date of the citation to
                        request a hearing. Payment due for the citation must be included with
                        the hearing request. (Code Section 1.08.070)

                    •   The City Clerk will notify Finance of hearing requests and decisions of
                        the hearing officer.

                    •   If the citation is cancelled, a refund will be issued. If the citation is
                        upheld the City will retain the fine amount. (Code Section 1.08.110)

                    •   If a hearing is not requested, collection actions will proceed if the
                        citation is not paid by the due date. Finance will determine the most
                        effective way to proceed with the collection options available,
                        including collections actions used for Other Accounts Receivable.
                        (Section 5 of this Policy)

                    •   The designated enforcement officer may record a notice of pending
                        action with Contra Costa County’s Recorders Office. (Code Section
                        1.08.015)

                    •   The City may use all available legal means which includes, but is not
                        limited to: recovery through the small claims court or a lien and or
                        placement of a special assessment on the real property upon which
                        the citation was issued. A lien against the real property must be
                        recorded with the County Recorder’s office prior to the placement of a
                        special assessment. (Code Section 1.08.130)

                    •   Before a lien can be placed on a property, the Director of Finance and
                        Information Systems must approve the lien listing authorizing the
                        recording of the lien.

                    •   Before a special assessment can be placed on a property, the City
                        Council must adopt a resolution authorizing the recording of the
                        special assessment.

                    •   After the Director of Finance and Information Systems has authorized
                        the placement of the lien on the property, the City Clerk will follow the
                        necessary procedures to place the lien on the property for the unpaid
                        fines. (Code Section 1.08.130)

                    •   In order to release a lien, a payment in cash or certified funds must be
                        submitted to the City. After payment is received, the Director of
                        Finance and Information Systems or designee will sign the Release of
                        Lien which will be given to the property owner for filing with the
                        County Recorder’s Officer.




                                  CITY OF BRENTWOOD
                            Council /Administrative Policy
Subject:                              Policy No: 10-15     Date: May 26, 2009

Collection Policy                         Resolution No:           Page 4 of 6
                                          DRAFT

                    •   After Council has authorized the placement of the special assessment
                        on the property, Finance will follow the necessary procedures to place
                        the fines due for the citation as a special assessment on the real
                        property. (California Government Code 38773.1 and 38773.5 and
                        53069.4) (Code Section 1.08.130)

            4.2.2   Abatement Orders

                    Abatement collections will be administered pursuant to Municipal Code
                    Chapter 8.00 Nuisances.

                    •   The responsible party who has received an abatement notice/order
                        may file an appeal with the City Clerk within seven days from the date
                        of the notice/order. A hearing will be scheduled and a hearing officer
                        appointed. (Code Section 8.00.060)

                    •   If there are costs associated with the abatement order and an appeal
                        is upheld by the hearing officer, the City Clerk will submit a copy of the
                        report of action and an accurate accounting of the cost of abatement
                        including supporting documentation to Finance and an invoice will be
                        issued. (Code Section 8.00.110)

                    •   The designated enforcement officer may record a notice of pending
                        action with Contra Costa’s County Recorders Office. (Code Section
                        1.08.015)

                    •   If the responsible party does not pay the cost of abating the nuisance
                        within thirty calendar days after receiving the invoice for abatement
                        cost, the cost can become a lien and or special assessment against
                        the real property upon which the nuisance was abated. (California
                        Government Code 38773.1 and 38773.5 and 53069.4) (Code Section
                        8.00.130)

                    •   Before a lien or special assessment can be placed on a property, the
                        City Council must adopt a resolution authorizing the recording of the
                        lien or special assessment.

                    •   After Council has authorized the placement of the lien on the property,
                        the City Clerk will follow the necessary procedures to place the lien for
                        the abatement cost. (California Government Code 38773.1 and
                        38773.5 and 53069.4) (Code Section 1.08.130)

                    •   After Council has authorized the placement of the special assessment
                        on the property, Finance will follow the necessary procedures to place
                        a special assessment for the abatement cost (California Government
                        Code 38773.1 and 38773.5 and 53069.4) (Code Section 1.08.130)




                                  CITY OF BRENTWOOD
                             Council /Administrative Policy
 Subject:                              Policy No: 10-15     Date: May 26, 2009

 Collection Policy                        Resolution No:            Page 5 of 6
                                          DRAFT

      4.3    Overtime Inspection

             Overtime Inspection is a service provided by the City for inspections that are
             done after normal working hours. Departments are responsible for providing
             Finance with the overtime hours and billing information so that an invoice can be
             generated. Payment is due within 30 days from the invoice date.

             If the invoice is not paid within 30 days, overtime inspections will be stopped until
             payment in full is made and the standard collection process is followed as
             indicated in Other Accounts Receivable. (Section 5 of this Policy)

5.    OTHER ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE

      Accounts not list above will follow the standard collection practice as noted below and in
      a manner consistent with this policy.

             Collection Action

             •   At 30 days past the invoice date, a reminder notice is sent to the responsible
                 party requesting payment upon receipt.

             •   At 60 days past the invoice date, a past due notice is sent to the responsible
                 party requesting payment within 10 days of receipt.

             •   At 90 days past the invoice date, an urgent demand notice is sent to the
                 responsible party requesting payment within 5 days of receipt.

             •   If at 120 days the citation is not paid, upon approval of the Director or his/her
                 designee, a notice is sent informing the customer that their account is being
                 referred to a collection agency.

             •   At 120 days the account will be forwarded to the collection agency including
                 any identifying customer information on file such as address, telephone
                 number, driver’s license and social security number.

6.    COLLECTION FEES/PENALITES

      The Cost Allocation Plan and Schedule of Fees will allow the City to recover costs for
      attorney services, collection agency services and costs associated with liens and
      assessments. Staff will recover the applicable fees which is determined by the type of
      collection item.

7.    PAYMENT PLAN

      In order to utilize all means available to collect outstanding receivables, the Director or
      his/her designee has the authority to execute payment plan agreements.




                                   CITY OF BRENTWOOD
                              Council /Administrative Policy
 Subject:                               Policy No: 10-15     Date: May 26, 2009

 Collection Policy                         Resolution No:            Page 6 of 6
                                           DRAFT

8.    UNCOLLECTIBLE RECEIVABLES

      It is the intent of the City to reflect the value of its receivables and ensure that resources
      are used efficiently and not devoted to the recovery of uncollectible receivables;
      therefore, the City will not assign an account to a collection agency for an amount less
      then $25.00.

      The timely identification of losses is an essential element in appropriately measuring the
      value of the City’s assets. When an outstanding receivable is determined to be
      uncollectible, a write-off will be accomplished pursuant to Council Administrative Policy
      10-5 Budget and Fiscal Policies.

      The Director or his/her designee has the authority to settle uncollectible accounts up to
      the limit granted for write-offs in Policy 10-5 Budget and Fiscal Policies.




                                    CITY OF BRENTWOOD
                              CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 20



Meeting Date:    May 26, 2009

Subject/Title:   A resolution adopting the 2009/10 Prop 4 Appropriations Limit using the
                 change in the City population factor of 2.62% to calculate the Limit.

Prepared by:     Kerry Breen, Business Services Manager

Submitted by: Pamela Ehler, Director of Finance and Information Systems



RECOMMENDATION
Approve a resolution adopting the 2009/10 Prop 4 Appropriations Limitation using the change in
the City population factor of 2.62% to calculate the limit.

PREVIOUS ACTION
On June 10th, 2008 the City Council approved Resolution No. 2008-144 adopting the 2008/09
Prop 4 Appropriations Limit.

BACKGROUND
Article XIIIB of the California State Constitution, more commonly referred to as the Gann
Initiative, was adopted by California voters in 1980 and placed limits on the amount of proceeds
of taxes that state and local governmental agencies can appropriate each fiscal year. The
Appropriations Limitation does not apply to enterprise funds, redevelopment or bond issues.

The Limit is based on actual appropriations during the 1986/87 fiscal year, and is increased
each year using the growth of population and inflation. In June 1990, the voters approved
Proposition 111 which provided new adjustment formulas which makes the Appropriations Limit
more responsive to local growth issues. The annual adjustment made to the Limit is based on a
formula which includes the following factors:

Change in City population               or        Change in population for the entire County
                                       AND
Change in State per capita income       or        Change in non-residential assessed valuation

Typically, an agency selects the factors which provide for the largest growth in the Limit. For
the calculation of the 2008/09 Limit, the Change in the City Population is used as it provides a
greater Limit.

Article XIIIB specifies that local jurisdictions select their cost-of-living factor to compute their
appropriation limit by vote of their governing body. The cost of living factor provided here is per
capita personal income at 0.62%. If the percentage change in per capita personal income is
selected, the percentage changes to be used in setting the 2008/09 appropriation limit are:
Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2007/08                     $ 51,778,581

         Population in January 2007                                    50,581
         Population in January 2008                                    51,908
         Percentage Increase in Population - City of Brentwood          2.62%
         Percentage Increase in Contra Costa County                    1.16%

         California Per Capita Personal Income                         0.62%
         Factor to be applied to Prior Year                        1.0325624
          (Population Factor x Per Capita Factor)

Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2008/09                     $ 53,464,618


FISCAL IMPACT
None


Attachment:
Resolution
                                      RESOLUTION NO.


        A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
        ADOPTING THE 2009/10 PROP 4 APPROPRIATION LIMIT USING THE CHANGE IN
        CITY POPULATION FACTOR OF 2.62% TO CALCULATE THE LIMIT.

        WHEREAS, the Department of Finance staff have notified the City of the change in the
California per capita personal income and the change in the local assessment roll due to local
nonresidential construction in which the City has the option to use the greater percentage
change, which change is an increase of 0.62% in the California per capita personal income for
the prior calendar year, and;

        WHEREAS, the Department of Finance staff have notified the City of the change in
population of the City and the entire Contra Costa County in which the City has the option to use
the greater percentage change, which change is an increase of 2.62% for the City of Brentwood
for the prior calendar year, and;

       WHEREAS, On June 10, 2008 the City Council approved Resolution No. 2008-144
adopting the 2008/09 Prop 4 Appropriations Limit, and;

       WHEREAS, pursuant to California Constitution Article XIIIB, Section 1 and Government
Code sections 7900 et seq., and pursuant to the guidelines set forth by Proposition 111, the City
appropriations limit must be adjusted for changes from the base year of 1986-87 to the fiscal
year ending June 30, 2009.

      NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood,
the appropriations limit for the City of Brentwood for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010 is
$53,464,618.

       PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at
a regular meeting held on May 26, 2009 by the following vote:
                               CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 21



Meeting Date: May 26, 2009

Subject/Title:   Adopt a Resolution approving the reorganization of the Economic Development
                 and Planning Divisions of the Community Development Department from two
                 separate divisions combining them into one, to be known as the Planning and
                 Economic Development Division and approve a classification description and
                 salary range for Economic Development/Planning Manager

Prepared by:     Casey McCann, Community Development Director
                 Patti Standley, Human Resources Manager

Submitted by: Donna Landeros, City Manager


RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the reorganization of the Economic Development Division and
Planning Divisions of the Community Development Department from two separate divisions
combining them into one, to be known as the Planning and Economic Development Division and
approve a classification description and salary range for Economic Development/Planning
Manager.

PREVIOUS ACTION
None.

BACKGROUND
Based upon business necessity and to further City goals of maintaining Economic Development
as a high priority in these difficult economic times, staff recommends the merger of the
Economic Development and Planning Divisions of the Community Development Department.

The Economic Development/Planning Manager classification description, attached as Exhibit A,
defines the scope of work for this position with the primary focus on Economic Development
related duties. This Manager classification will also provide general oversight of day-to-day
Planning-related work and coordination with other divisions, departments, and outside agencies.

Based on internal equity with comparable classifications in the City classification/compensation
plan, recommends setting the annual salary range as follows:

       Economic Development/Planning Manager                             $106,666 - $129,651

Staff requests City Council authorization to begin recruitment and selection efforts to fill this
position. Upon approval by City Council, staff will utilize the services of a recruiting firm to
locate the best qualified candidate. This classification will require a unique skill set that is likely
challenging to find.

FISCAL IMPACT
The impact to the 2009/10 Operating Budget due to the reorganization of the Economic
Development and Planning Divisions is a budget decrease to the General Fund in the amount of
approximately $169,978 and an increase to the Redevelopment Agency of $2,838.

Attachments:
Exhibit A – Economic Development/Planning Manager classification description
Resolution
                                   RESOLUTION NO.


      A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
      APPROVING REORGANIZATION OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND
      PLANNING DIVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT INTO
      ONE DIVISION TO BE KNOWN AS THE PLANNING AND ECONOMIC
      DEVELOPMENT DIVISION AND APPROVING A CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION
      AND SALARY RANGE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING MANAGER


      WHEREAS, based upon business necessity and to further City goals staff
recommends the merger of the Economic Development and Planning Divisions; and

       WHEREAS, the reorganization and merger of the Economic Development and
Planning Divisions will result in one Division to be known as the Planning and Economic
Development Division; and

      WHEREAS, staff       prepared a   classification description for  Economic
Development/Planning Manager to be responsible for the newly merged Planning and
Economic Development Division; and

      WHEREAS, the new classification description is attached as Exhibit A (Economic
Development/Planning Manager); and

         WHEREAS, staff recommends approval of the new classification description as
defined and based upon internal equity with comparable classifications in the City
classification/compensation plan, recommends setting the annual salary range as follows:

      Economic Development/Planning Manager         $106,666 - $129,651

       WHEREAS, City Council authorizes staff to move forward with efforts to locate the
best qualified candidate; and

      NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
      1.   That the City Council approves the reorganization and merger of the Economic
           Development and Planning Divisions into one Division to be known as the
           Planning and Economic Development Division.
      2.   That the City Council approves the classification and salary range provided
           above, effective immediately.
      3.   That the City Council authorizes staff to move forward with efforts to locate the
           best qualified candidate.


       PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at
a regular meeting held on the 26th of May, 2009, by the following vote:
                                                                                          CITY OF BRENTWOOD

                       ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING MANAGER

Class specifications are intended to present a descriptive list of the range of duties performed by employees in the
class. Specifications are not intended to reflect all duties performed within the job.


SUMMARY DESCRIPTION
Under administrative direction of the Director of Community Development, directs, manages, supervises,
and coordinates the activities and operations of the City’s Planning and Economic Development Division
within the Community Development Department including: 1) to coordinate activities that encourage a
healthy and stable business environment and a strong City revenue base; prepares and implements long
range economic development plans; coordinates assigned activities with other divisions, departments, and
outside agencies; 2) to oversee current and advanced planning services and activities; and 3) providing
highly responsible and complex administrative support to the Director of Community Development.

IDENTIFYING CHARACTERISTICS
The Economic Development/Planning Manager is considered a Division Manager with responsibility for
the management of a Division that includes several line areas/sections or functional work groups of
significant depth and complexity. Responsibilities include overall administration and implementation of a
Division including development of Division objectives and design and implementation of supporting
units, programs, processes, policies, and/or procedures to successfully achieve those objectives. A
Division Manager is also responsible for the development, administration, and control of the associated
budget(s).

REPRESENTATIVE DUTIES
The following duties are typical for this classification. Incumbents may not perform all of the listed duties and/or
may be required to perform additional or different duties from those set forth below to address business needs and
changing business practices.

1. Assumes management responsibility for assigned services and activities of the Planning and
   Economic Development Division; develops and implements the City’s comprehensive economic
   development program aimed at promoting the retention and expansion of business activity within the
   community.

2. Assumes management responsibility for the services and activities of the Division including current
   and advanced planning functions and programs.

3. Manages and participates in the development and implementation of goals, objectives, policies, and
   priorities for assigned programs; recommends and administers policies and procedures.

4. Monitors and evaluates the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery methods and procedures;
   recommends, within departmental policy, appropriate service and staffing levels.

5. Plans, directs, coordinates, and reviews the work plan for assigned staff and contract service
   providers; assigns work activities, projects, and programs; reviews and evaluates work products,
   methods, and procedures; meets with staff to identify and resolve problems.

6. Selects, trains, motivates, and evaluates assigned personnel and contract service providers; provides
   or coordinates staff training; works with employees to correct deficiencies; implements discipline and
   termination procedures.

7. Assists the Director in conducting the formal selection of required consultants; negotiates and
   prepares contracts with outside consultants.
CITY OF BRENTWOOD
Economic Development/Planning Manager (Continued)


8. Oversees and participates in the development and administration of the Division’s annual budget;
   participates in the forecast of funds needed for staffing, equipment, materials, and supplies; monitors
   and approves expenditures; implements adjustments.

9. Serves as City resource on economic development financing methods; prepares financial data,
   forecasts and plans.

10. Assists in redevelopment programs.

11. Develops and administers the job creation program.

12. Provides assistance for new business start-ups and existing business expansions; provides service and
    support for the businesses that supply goods, services, and jobs to the community.

13. Provides management of and assistance to the business incubator program.

14. Participates in the review and development of commercial and industrial design guidelines.

15. Develops, submits to the Director, and implements a comprehensive economic development strategic
    action plan including targeted marketing programs for identified business development and retention
    programs and for the attraction and retention of general retail, manufacturing, and non-manufacturing
    businesses; aggressively recruits business and commercial enterprises to the City; updates and keeps
    the adopted strategy current.

16. Compiles and monitors labor market information and trends; develops presentations and promotional
    materials on economic development including supervising the development and maintenance of a
    website and related information systems.

17. Serves as the liaison for the Planning and Economic Development Division with other divisions,
    departments, and outside agencies; negotiates and resolves sensitive and controversial issues.

18. Ensures coordination of economic development activities with other private and public sector
    agencies through participation on task forces and committees; identifies partnering opportunities for
    various programs.

19. Serves as staff on a variety of boards, commissions, and committees; prepares and presents staff
    reports and other necessary correspondence.

20. Provides responsible staff assistance to the Director of Community Development; conducts a variety
    of organizational studies, investigations, and operational studies; recommends modifications to
    economic development programs, policies, and procedures as appropriate.

21. Attends and participates in professional group meetings; maintains awareness of new trends and
    developments in the field of economic development; incorporates new developments as appropriate.

22. Responds to and resolves difficult and sensitive citizen inquiries and complaints.

23. Performs related duties as required.

QUALIFICATIONS
The following generally describes the knowledge and ability required to enter the job and/or be learned within a
short period of time in order to successfully perform the assigned duties.
CITY OF BRENTWOOD
Economic Development/Planning Manager (Continued)


   Knowledge of:
   Operational characteristics, services, and activities of an economic development program.
   Principles of city planning, including the general plan, zoning, and design review.
   Principles and practices of program development and administration.
   Principles, practices and methods of economic development and job creation.
   Business, economic, and market forces and indicators.
   Labor market trends.
   Marketing, public information, and promotional techniques used in economic development.
   Principles, practices, and techniques used in real estate appraisals, prospect management, preparing
       and reviewing business plans, and the real estate development process.
   Land use planning and related regulations.
   Long range economic development planning.
   Principles and practices of contract development and administration.
   Principles and practices of municipal budget preparation and administration.
   Principles of supervision, training, and performance evaluation.
   Office procedures, methods, and equipment including computers and applicable software applications
       such as word processing, spreadsheets, and databases.
   Pertinent federal, state, and local laws, codes, and regulations including those related to commercial
       and industrial development and redevelopment.


   Ability to:
   Oversee and participate in the management of a comprehensive economic development program.
   Oversee, direct, and coordinate the work of lower level staff and contractors.
   Select, supervise, train, and evaluate staff.
   Participate in the development and administration of division goals, objectives, and procedures.
   Coordinate multiple contracts, projects and cooperative ventures.
   Collect, analyze, compile and present information and data.
   Prepare and administer large program budgets.
   Prepare clear and concise administrative and financial reports.
   Analyze problems, identify alternative solutions, project consequences of proposed actions and
       implement recommendations in support of goals.
   Research, analyze, and evaluate new service delivery methods and techniques.
   Interpret and apply federal, state, and local policies, laws, and regulations.
   Operate office equipment including computers and supporting word processing, spreadsheet, and
       database applications.
   Communicate clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing.
   Establish and maintain effective working relationships with those contacted in the course of work.
   Education and Experience Guidelines - Any combination of education and experience that would likely
   provide the required knowledge and abilities is qualifying. A typical way to obtain the knowledge and abilities
   would be:

           Education/Training:
           A Bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university with major course work in
           business administration, public administration, economics, marketing, planning or a related
           field.
           Experience:
           Five years of increasingly responsible experience in economic development related activities
           including two years of project management and supervisory responsibility.
CITY OF BRENTWOOD
Economic Development/Planning Manager (Continued)


    License or Certificate:
    Possession of an appropriate driver’s license.

PHYSICAL DEMANDS AND WORKING ENVIRONMENT
The conditions herein are representative of those that must be met by an employee to successfully perform the
essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to
perform the essential job functions.

    Environment: Work is performed primarily in a standard office environment with some travel to
    different sites; incumbents may be required to work extended hours including evenings and weekends
    and may be required to travel outside City boundaries to attend meetings.

    Physical: Primary functions require sufficient physical ability and mobility to work in an office
    setting; to stand or sit for prolonged periods of time; to occasionally stoop, bend, kneel, crouch, reach,
    and twist; to lift, carry, push, and/or pull light to moderate amounts of weight; to operate office
    equipment requiring repetitive hand movement and fine coordination including use of a computer
    keyboard; to travel to other locations using various modes of private and commercial transportation;
    and to verbally communicate to exchange information.

    Vision: See in the normal visual range with or without correction.

    Hearing: Hear in the normal audio range with or without correction.

FLSA Designation: Exempt




May, 2009
                             CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 22



Meeting Date:    May 26, 2009

Subject/Title:   Introduce and waive the first reading of an ordinance amending sections of
                 Chapter 2.44 of the Brentwood Municipal Code (“Arts”) related to, among other
                 provisions: Definitions; Powers and Duties; Purpose; Requirement to provide
                 artwork or pay in lieu contribution; Public Art Fund; and Commission authority
                 and approve by motion the procedural Public Art Program Guidelines

Prepared by:     Poldina Scherff, Recreation Manager

Submitted by: Craig D. Bronzan, Director of Parks and Recreation


RECOMMENDATION
Introduce and waive the first reading of an ordinance amending sections of Chapter 2.44 of the
Brentwood Municipal Code (“Arts”) related to, among other provisions: Definitions; Powers and
Duties; Purpose; Requirement to provide artwork or pay in lieu contribution; Public Art Fund;
and Commission authority and approve by motion the procedural Public Art Program
Guidelines.

PREVIOUS ACTION
On September 12, 2000, City Council approved Chapter 2.44 Arts Commission of the
Brentwood Municipal Code which established the present Arts Commission.

On September 23, 2003, City Council waived the second reading of Ordinance 760 amending
Chapter 2.44 Arts Commission to amend officers (adding position of Past-Chair), add the
position of poet laureate, and establish the Public Art Program.

On February 27, 2007, City Council reappointed 3 members/appointed 2 new members and
approved recommendations related to future Commissioner interviews, appointment of a City
Council Art Commission liaison (Mayor Taylor) and alternate (Councilmember Stonebarger),
and the future filling of Commission vacancies.

On September 11, 2007 City Council introduced and waived the first reading of Ordinance 847
amending in its entirety Chapter 2.44 of Title 2 of the Brentwood Municipal Code entitled “Arts
Commission” with a new Chapter 2.44 entitled “Arts”.

On September 25, 2007 City Council waived second reading and adopted Ordinance 847
amending in its entirety Chapter 2.44 of Title 2 of the Brentwood Municipal Code entitled “Arts
Commission” with a new Chapter 2.44 entitled “Arts”.

BACKGROUND
On May 23, 2007 the Arts Commission ad-hoc committee returned to the Arts Commission
meeting to discuss recommendations that would: repeal the current Arts Commission ordinance
to reformat the existing Arts Commission from 12 to 5 members as an advisory Commission to
City Council; require all interested individuals to apply/reapply for the new Commission; the new
Commission would have, as it’s main duties, oversight (with Council approval) of the public art
program, recommend to City Council the re-granting of any money that comes available, make
recommendations to City Council related to art in general, and oversee the completion of the
Cultural Arts Master Plan at a scope, timing and purpose as approved by City Council; and
move arts programs to the Arts Society or another 501(c)3 that is interested.
At the June 27, 2007 Arts Commission meeting, the Arts Commission unanimously approved
the ad hoc committee’s recommendation to City Council as follows:

“In order to meet the growing needs of our community the Brentwood Arts Commission
is being reorganized with current membership brought to zero in order to allow for
restructuring which will include: reducing the number of Arts Commissioners to five (5),
refocus the purpose of the Arts Commission to a policy based board that will oversee the
public art program, regranting City funds for arts programming, and the transfer of all
current programming to a 501(c)3. The Art Society may assume these current Arts
Commission programs as they are an arts based 501(c)3. A Memo of Understanding
(MOU) is being drafted that will allow both organizations to benefit from the relationship.”

The Executive Committee was asked to meet with the City Council liaisons to request that they
take forward this recommendation to City Council. The Arts Commission Executive Committee
met on July 19, 2007 with Mayor Taylor, Councilmember Stonebarger, City Manager Donna
Landeros, and Parks and Recreation Department staff to review the recommendation. Staff
was directed to take the recommendation forward for City Council consideration.

On September 25, 2007 staff took the recommendation of the Arts Commission and attached a
recommended Ordinance amending in its entirety, Chapter 2.44 of Title 2 of the Brentwood
Municipal Code entitled “Arts Commission” with a new Chapter 2.44 entitled “Arts”.

One of the first orders of business for the new Arts Commission was to review the ordinance
and clearly explain the purpose, policies and procedures for the City Public Art Program. The
new Arts Commission has been functioning for the last year and has worked diligently in its
review of the ordinance and revision of the guidelines so as to captivate the new purpose of the
Arts Commission. This new purpose has aligned the program with the City’s use of the words
“Heritage, Vision, and Opportunity”. Additionally, the Arts Commission has been working on
revising and simplifying the Public Art Program Guidelines that spell out the process for
implementation of the program.

On March 18, 2009 the Arts Commission met and voted to recommend that the City Council
amend Chapter 2.44 of the Brentwood Municipal Code (“Arts”) and to approve the procedural
Public Art Program Guidelines.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact as a result of this action.

Attachment:
Ordinance
Revised Public Art Program Guidelines
      AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
      AMENDING CHAPTER 2.44 (ARTS) OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL
      CODE RELATED TO, AMONG OTHER PROVISIONS:        DEFINITIONS;
      POWERS AND DUTIES; PURPOSE; REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE
      ARTWORK OR PAY IN LIEU CONTRIBUTION; PUBLIC ART FUND; AND
      COMMISSION AUTHORITY.

     THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:


SECTION 1. Subsection 2.44.020 A1 (Powers and duties) of the Brentwood Municipal Code is
hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

              “A.     Encourages, stimulates, promotes and fosters the cultural enrichment of
        the city, and thereby contributes to the quality of life in the city and develops
        awareness in the business community, in local government and in the general public of
        the value of the arts in the city by:
                      1.      Overseeing the development of a city cultural arts master plan at
                      the direction of the city council,”

SECTION 2. Section 2.44.120 (Purpose) of the Brentwood Municipal Code is hereby amended
in its entirety to read as follows:

              “2.44.120 Purpose.
              A.     The city has formed an arts commission to encourage, stimulate, promote
        and foster programs for the cultural enrichment of the city and its inhabitants. The city
        accepts the responsibility for expanding the experience with visual art. Such art has
        enabled people in all societies to better understand their communities and individual
        lives. Therefore, a policy is established to require the inclusion of art in public capital
        projects and private construction and development projects.
              B.     In the commissioning and approval of public art projects, through the
        establishment of a city public art collection, and/or in the establishment of a city art
        gallery, the public art should be in harmony with the city’s heritage, vision, and/or
        opportunity. Public art should strive to say “this is Brentwood”.
              C.     Relating “heritage” to public art can mean:
                     1.      Work that advances the public understanding of the arts in the
                     city’s past or present.
                     2.      Work that enhances what has been the city’s aesthetic quality.
              D.     Relating “Vision” to public art can mean:
                     1.      Work that can connect the city’s past to the future.
                     2.      Work that connects directly to the future of where the city is going.
                     3.      Work that is visionary and captures the aspiration, imagination, or
                     beauty of the city.
              E.     Relating “Opportunity” to public art can mean:
                     1.      Work that provides interaction with people.
                     2.      Work that provides interaction with the place it is located.
                     3.      Work that can be placed in a key location in the community.
                     4.      Work that has a broad geographic distribution in the city to
                     increase exposure.
                     5.      Work that is a part of a collection in a city art gallery that
                     encourages local artists from the Brentwood area.”
SECTION 3. Section 2.44.130 (Requirement to provide artwork or pay in lieu contribution) of
the Brentwood Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

               “2.44.130 Requirement to provide artwork or pay in lieu contribution.
               A.      Percent for Public Art. When a project is subject to the provisions of this
        chapter, the options are as follows:
                       1.      Acquire and install artwork in public places on or in the vicinity of
                       the project site, as approved by the city council. The cost or value of such
                       art should be as per resolution of the city council.
                       2.      Pay in-lieu contribution for acquiring and installing an artwork
                       project by contributing to the city municipal art fund as per resolution of
                       the city council.
               B.      Eligible Projects. Residential subdivisions or more than four lots or units
        of any nature, including the repair and remodeling and renovation of same with a value
        as per resolution of the city council. City Capital Improvement Program such as
        bridges, viaducts, elevated ways, gates and other structures owned by the city within
        the city with a value as per resolution of the city council.
               C.      Exempt Projects. All underground projects, utility projects, seismic
        upgrades, mechanical and electrical work, and construction due to fire or other natural
        causes.
               D.      Eligible Costs. Acquisition of artwork and staff and consultant costs
        associated with the acquisition and installation of the artwork, artist and design fees,
        artist travel and hotel expenses, the transportation and installation of artwork, lighting,
        landscaping directly associated with the artwork and identification plaques. Plus all
        costs directly related to utility relocation, site preparation and repairs and staff time
        associated with the installation of the artwork.
               E.      Non-Eligible Costs. Landscaping and public works and staff costs not
        directly associated with the artwork.
               F.      Method of Calculation. The minimum amount to be appropriated to the
        municipal arts fund shall be the total capital project appropriation including all
        construction costs as per resolution of the city council. Excluded are amounts
        budgeted for real property acquisition, demolition, redemption, architectural and
        engineering fees, site work (work related to clearing, grubbing, and earthwork),
        contingency allowances, equipment, finance costs, grant funded costs, publicly
        assisted residential construction or rehabilitation projects and site survey-related costs.
               G.      In order to qualify, any artwork on property shall include a maintenance
        and longevity agreement written to the satisfaction of the parks and recreation director
        in consultation with the city attorney.”

SECTION 4. Section 2.44.140 (Municipal art fund) of the Brentwood Municipal Code is hereby
amended in its entirety to read as follows:

              “2.44.140 Public art funds.
              All funds appropriated for public art shall be deposited into a public art fund. The
        city council shall authorize projects for funding as prescribed in the public art program
        guidelines. In circumstances where it is not feasible to incorporate artistic features into
        a particular project, such money appropriated may be pooled and used for art in other
        projects. Disbursement of such funds shall be made in connection with projects
        approved by the city council. Nothing herein prohibits the arts commission or the city
        from soliciting or receiving grants, donations, bequests or gifts from private or public
        sources from depositing monies received in the public art program fund to be
        expended in a manner consistent with the public art program guidelines”
SECTION 5. Section 2.44.150 (Commission authority) of the Brentwood Municipal Code is
hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:

              “2.44.150 Commission authority.
              To carry out its responsibility hereunder, the commission shall:
              A.      Prepare, and recommend for city council’s approval “The Public Art
        Program Guidelines” which shall implement the city’s public art program which shall
        include but not be limited to a method or methods of selecting artists or works of art,
        and the placement of works of art.
              B.      Recommend to city council for approval the purchase of or commission
        the design execution or placement of works of art.
              C.      The commission shall work with the developer or staff responsible for a
        particular project to review the recommendations regarding the design, execution
        and/or placement of works of art in connection with the project.
              D.      The commission shall promulgate rules and regulations consistent with
        this chapter to facilitate the implementation of its responsibilities hereunder.”

SECTION 6. Section 2.44.160 (Definitions) of the Brentwood Municipal Code is hereby
amended in its entirety to read as follows:

              ““Artist” means a practicing professional, skilled in the design and/or creative
      production of aesthetic objects whose qualifications are demonstrated by recognition or
      stature within their field and/or through reputation and/or exhibits.

              “Artworks” means context of the work as related to its creation, content, and
      form.

             “City” means the city of Brentwood, a municipal corporation and general law city
      organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the state of California.

              “Commission” means the Brentwood arts commission

              “City Council” means the City Council of the city of Brentwood.

              “Deaccession” means to remove an object from a permanent collection of the
      city, usually through a sale or trade.

             “Public Art” means artwork that is visually and physically accessible to the
      public and may include performing, musical, visual, cultural, physical, permanent, or
      temporary works.
             “Public Art Collection” means all city owned artworks.
            “Public Art Plan” means the plan required by Section 2.44.150A of the
      Brentwood Municipal Code.

              “Public Art Program Acquisition” means an amount equal to eighty percent
      (80%) of the monies allocated for public art through the public art program shall be
      utilized for all costs related to selection, acquisition, placement, installation, display and
      maintenance of artwork.
              “Public Art Program Administration” means an amount equal to twenty
       percent (20%) of the monies allocated for public art through the public art program shall
       be specifically designated for community education programs, publicity, dedications, and
       administration of the public art program.

              “Public Art Program Fund” means a separate fund established by the city to
       receive monies for the public art program, generated through a percentage for art
       ordinance and contributions from private and public sectors.

               “Public Art Program Plan” means a plan developed by the Commission,
       following review of the proposed capital projects, including a prioritized list of visual
       projects with budgets and recommended inclusion of an art element or a design
       approach, developed in consultation with staff and approved annually by the city council.
       The public art plan may include a section on key marketing and educational programs
       for the year.

              “Public Places” means all city-owned spaces, indoor and outdoors, which are
       generally accessible to the public.”

SECTION 7. That this Ordinance shall be published in accordance with Government Code
Section 36933 by either posting or publishing the Ordinance in accordance with that law.
Further, the City Clerk is directed to cause Sections 1 through 6 of this Ordinance to be entered
in the City of Brentwood Municipal Code. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30
days following its adoption.

SECTION 8. That if any section subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for
any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of a court of competent
jurisdiction, the holding shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining provisions,
and the council declares that it would have adopted each provision of this ordinance irrespective
of the validity of any other provision.

       THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced with the first reading waived at a
regular meeting of the Brentwood City Council on the 26th day of May, 2009 by the following
vote:
                          Public Art Program Guidelines
                                City of Brentwood


I.    PUBLIC ART PROGRAM GUIDELINES PURPOSE
These Public Art Program Guidelines establish procedures for implementing a public art
program as adopted by the City of Brentwood City Council, Section 2.44.120 of Ordinance 2.44
Arts.


II.     PUBLIC ART PROGRAM
The public art program is stipulated in Section 2.44.120 of the Brentwood Municipal Code as
follows:

       2.44.120      Purpose

       A.   The City has formed an Arts Commission to encourage, stimulate, promote and
            foster programs for the cultural enrichment of the City and its inhabitants. The City
            accepts the responsibility for expanding the experience with visual art. Such art
            has enabled people in all societies to better understand their communities and
            individual lives. Therefore, a policy is established to require the inclusion of art in
            public capital projects and private construction and development projects.

       B.   In the commissioning and approval of public art projects, through the establishment
            of a City public art collection, and/or in the establishment of a City art gallery, the
            public art should be in harmony with the City’s heritage, vision, and/or opportunity.
            Public art should strive to say “this is Brentwood”.

       C.   Relating “Heritage” to public art can mean:
            1. Work that advances the public understanding of the arts in Brentwood’s         past
               or present.
            2. Work that enhances what has been Brentwood’s aesthetic quality.

       D.   Relating “Vision” to public art can mean:
            1. Work that can connect Brentwood’s past to the future.
            2. Work that connects directly to the future of where Brentwood is going.
            3. Work that is visionary and captures the aspiration, imagination, or beauty of
               Brentwood

       E.   Relating “Opportunity” to public art can mean:
             1. Work that provides interaction with people.
             2. Work that provides interaction with the place it is located.
             3. Work that can be placed in a key location in the community.
             4. Work that has a broad geographic distribution in the city to increase
                  exposure.
             5. Work that is part of a collection in a city art gallery that encourages local
                  artists from the Brentwood area.
III   DEFINITIONS

      Artists:
      A practicing professional, skilled in the design and/or creative production of aesthetic
      objects whose qualifications is demonstrated by recognition or stature within their field
      and/or through reputation and/or exhibits.

      Artworks:
      The context of the work as related to its creation, content, and form.

      City:
      The city of Brentwood, a municipal corporation and general law city organized and
      existing under the Constitution and laws of the state of California.

      City Council:
      The City Council of the city of Brentwood.

      Commission:
      The Brentwood Arts Commission

      Deaccession:
      To remove an object from a permanent collection of the City, usually through a sale or
      trade.

      Project Value:
      The project valuation as calculated on a City of Brentwood building permit.

      Public Art:
      Artwork that is visually and physically accessible to the public and may include
      performing, musical, visual, cultural, physical, permanent, or temporary works.

      Public Art Acquisition :
      An amount equal to eighty percent (80%) of the monies allocated for public art through
      the public art program shall be utilized for all costs related to selection, acquisition,
      placement, installation, display and maintenance of artwork.

      Public Art Collection: All City-owned artworks.

      Public Art Plan:
      The plan required by Section 2.44.150A of the Brentwood Municipal Code.

      Public Art Program Administration:
      An amount equal to eighty percent (20%) of the monies allocated for public art through
      the public art program shall be specifically designated for educational activities and
      administration of the public art program.

      Public Art Program Fund:
      A separate fund established by the City to receive monies for the public art program,
      generated through a percentage for art ordinance and contributions from private and
      public sectors.
     Public Places: All City-owned spaces, indoor and outdoors, which are generally
     accessible to the public.


IV   HOW MONEY IS APPROPRIATED/FUNDED

     A.     Public Art Plan:

            1)     The Commission, in consultation with appropriate staff from City
            departments shall develop a Public Art Plan, including budget and recommended
            design approaches for each project.

            2)      The Public Art Plan shall be submitted to the City Council for approval in
            July of each year.

            3)    The Commission may from time to time during the course of the year,
            recommend that the City Council modify the Public Art Plan.

     B.     Eligible and Exempt Projects:
            See Section 2.44.130 (Requirement to provide artwork or pay in lieu contribution)
            of the Brentwood Municipal Code.

V    USE OF FUNDS
     All funds appropriated for public art shall be deposited into the public art program funds.
     The City Council shall authorize projects for funding as prescribed in the public art
     guidelines. In circumstances where it is not feasible to incorporate artistic features into a
     particular project, such money appropriate may be pooled and used for art in other
     projects. Disbursement of such funds shall be made in connection with projects
     approved by the City Council. Nothing herein prohibits the Commission or City from
     soliciting or receiving grants, donations, bequests or gifts from private or public sources
     from depositing monies received in the public art fund to be expended in a manner
     consistent with the public art guidelines.

     A.     Public Art Program Funds:

            1)      Public Art Program Acquisition Fund
                    Eighty percent (80%) of the fee shall be directed to the Public Art
                    Program Acquisition and may be spent for the following purposes:
                    i. Artists’ services and fees.
                    ii. Acquisition of art.
                    iii Artist selection processes, including jury selection costs and model or
                        design fees.
                    iv. Identifying plaques.
                    v. Repair, maintenance, surveys, curatorial services, and other
                        conservation work necessary to keep all artworks in the City collection
                        in standard condition.
            2)     Public Art Program Administration Fund
                   Twenty percent (20%) of the fee shall be directed to the Public Art
                   Program Administration account and may be spent for the following
                   purposes:
                   i. Project administration.
                   ii. Community education programs, publicity, dedications, and other
                       purposes as recommended by the Arts Commission to the city council
                       for approval.


VI   ARTWORKS
     A.  Eligible Artworks:
         All artworks commissioned or acquired under the public art program shall be
         designed, or the process facilitated by, artist(s). Such artworks may include, but
         are not limited to:

            1)     Design work provided by the artists, including but not limited to:
                   i. Interior or exterior surfaces, fixtures and functional elements.
                   ii. Outdoor space design elements in areas such as plazas, arcades and
                        pedestrian passageways.
                   iii. Artistic design of roadways, parkways, pedestrian or bicycle paths
                        ways, transit system improvements, water and watershed facilities,
                        solid waste transfer stations and sites with historic, archeological, and
                        unique geological features.

            2)     Forms of visual art such as, but not limited to:
                   i. Sculptures, including but not limited to bas-relief, mobile, fountain,
                        environmental, kinetic and electronic, in any material or combination
                        of materials.
                   ii. Painting all media, including portable and permanently affixed works
                        such as murals and frescoes.
                   iii. Photography, filmmaking, graphic arts; printmaking; drawing and
                        calligraphy.
                   iv. Art forms in clay, fiber and textile woods, metal, plastics, glass
                        mosaics and other material; mixed media; any combination or forms
                        of media.

            3)     Other categories or new technologies that may develop through artistic
                   pursuit such as computer-audio or video-generated work and/or use of
                   lasers.

            4)     Elements such as sound-walls, utility structures, roadway elements and
                   other items designed by an artist or design team that includes artists.

     B.     Ineligible Artworks:

            1)     “Art objects” which are mass-produced of standard design such as
                   playground equipment, fountains, or statuary objects, unless incorporated
                   into the artwork by a project artist.
           2)     Directional elements such as graphics, signage or color-coding except
                  where these elements are integral parts of the original work of art or
                  public art project.

           3)     Reproductions, by mechanical or other means, of original works of art,
                  except in cases where such reproduction is inherent in the art-making
                  process, such as films, video, photography, printmaking, computer
                  imagery or other media arts.

           4)     Decorative, ornamental or functional elements or architecture except
                  where these elements are designed by the artist and/or are an integral
                  part of the artwork by the artist or are the results of collaboration among
                  design professionals, including at least one artist.

           5)     Landscape architecture and landscape gardening except where these
                  elements are designed by the artist and/or are an integral part of the
                  artwork by the artist or are the result of collaboration among design
                  professionals, including an artist.

           6)     Services or utilities necessary to operate or maintain the artwork in
                  perpetuity.

           7)     For residential projects, artwork on dwelling units is excluded.


VII   PROCESS FOR APPROVAL OF ART PROJECTS

      A.   When a project is to be brought forward to the Commission by staff or a
           developer and an artist has already been recommended for the project, the
           following process applies:

           1)     Developer or staff to have artist invited to a regular Commission meeting
                  to make a presentation to the Commission related to their background
                  and qualifications, and to present the proposed project(s).

           2)     Commission votes to accept or reject the artist/concept/project and
                  makes recommendation to City Council for approval.

      B.   When there is a project that needs an artist to be chosen from a pool of artists,
           the following process applies:

           1)     Staff to send out request for proposals (including required City contract)
                  to artists.

           2)     Commission to consider setting up an advisory group of no more than 4
                  persons to assist in choosing the artist, to include from the following
                  categories:

                  i.  One representative from the neighborhood in which the artwork will be
                      sited.
                  ii. One artist and/or one arts professional such as a designer, curator,
                      collector, or art administrator.
                     iii. The design architect, if selected at this point.
                     iv. The project manager from the City department or agency
                          collaborating on the project.
                     v. A representative from any organization partnering with the City on a
                          capital project (e.g. government agency, school, or private developer).

            3)       Commission and advisory group review proposals and select artists to
                     interview at a regular Commission meeting.

            4)       Selected artists are invited to a regular Commission meeting to be
                     interviewed by the Commission and advisory group.

            5)       After interviews, the Commission will ask for input from advisory group.
                     Advisory group members will have no final vote on the selection and
                     recommendation to the City Council. The Commission will vote to
                     recommend to City Council for approval.


VIII   ARTIST QUALIFICATIONS

       A.   Artist Eligibility:

            1)       Artists may be selected on the basis of their qualifications as
                     demonstrated by past work, appropriateness of the proposal to the
                     particular project and probability of successful completion. Selection may
                     be based on those factors listed below and any additional criteria set forth
                     by the Commission.

            2)       Specifically excluded are artworks done by: students under the
                     supervision of art instructors or done to satisfy course requirements; city
                     employees; City Council members; Commission members; and/or, other
                     board and commission members.

       B.   Artist Responsibilities:

            1)       Submit credentials, proposals, and/or        materials   as   directed   for
                     consideration by the Commission.

            2)       Conduct necessary research, including attending project orientations and
                     touring project sites and meetings with the public, when possible.

            3)       Sign an agreement with the City. This agreement will include language
                     requiring that the artist waive rights under the Visual Artists Rights Act
                     (VARA) and state law.

            4)       Complete project within the budget, including furnishing all labor,
                     equipment, and materials.

            5)       If selected, execute and complete the work, or transfer title of existing
                     work, in a timely and professional manner.
     6)    Work closely with the project manager and/or other design professionals
           on commissioned projects.

     7)    Submit to the Commission for review and approval any significant change
           in the scope of the project.

     8)    Be responsible for all phases of the project as stipulated in the contract.

     9)    If required by contract, make public presentation and/or, conduct a
           community education workshop where the artwork will be placed.

C.   Criteria for Selection of Artworks:
     The Commission and advisory group, if used, should consider how the piece
     meets the requirements of the public art program as follows:

     1)    The piece’s relation to Heritage, Vision, and Opportunity as described in
           Section 2.44.120 of the Brentwood Municipal Code.

     2)    Quality: of highest priority are design capabilities of the artist and the
           inherent quality of the artwork.

     3)    Style: artworks of all schools, styles and tastes should be considered for
           the city’s collection.

     4)    Nature: artworks should be in good taste, suitable for public viewing, and
           should be appropriate in scale, material, form and content for the
           immediate, general, social and physical environments with which they are
           to relate.

     5)    Permanence: consideration should be given to structural and surface
           integrity, and protection against theft, vandalism, weathering, excessive
           maintenance and repair costs.

     6)    Elements of design: consideration should take into account that public art,
           in addition to its aesthetic value, may also serve to establish focal points,
           modify, enhance or define certain spaces, or establish identity.

     7)    Public liability: artworks should be examined for unsafe conditions or
           factors that may bear on public liability.

     8)    Diversity: public art should strive for diversity of style, scale, media, and
           artists - including ethnicity and gender – and equitable distribution of
           artworks throughout the City.

     9)    Artist’s workshop: the public art program encourages artist’s involvement
           with the community and other design professionals. In general, artists
           who have experience working successfully on design teams and working
           with the public are preferred.
IX   PUBLIC ART COLLECTION REVIEW STANDARD

     A.   With the approval of City Council, at least once every ten years, the City art
          collection should be evaluated by the Commission for purposes of collection
          management and in order to assess it’s future. The City shall retain the right to
          deaccession a work of art accessioned into the City’s collection regardless of
          funding source for the work.

     B.   A review shall be established by the Commission with City Council approval to
          meet the following objectives:

          1)     Establish a regular procedure for evaluating artwork in the City’s
                 collection.

          2)     Establish standards for the acquisition of artwork.

          3)     Insure that the deaccessioning of artwork is governed by careful
                 procedures.

          4)     Insulate the deaccessioning process from fluctuations in taste.

     C.   A review process for acquisitions to the City’s art collection shall follow the City’s
          stated purpose and use the following criteria:

          1)     Acquisitions should be directed toward artwork of the highest quality.

          2)     Acquisition of artwork implies a commitment to preservation, protection
                 and maintenance, and display for public benefit.

          3)     Acquisition of artwork, whatever the source of funds, should imply
                 permanency within the City collection, so long as physical integrity,
                 identity and authenticity are retained, as long as physical settings remain
                 intact; and so long as they remain useful to the purpose of the people of
                 the City.

          4)     In general, artworks should be acquired without legal or ethical
                 restrictions as to future use and disposition, except with respect to
                 copyrights and certain clearly defined residual rights that are part of a
                 contract with the artist.

          5)     The acquisition procedures should insure that the interests of all
                 concerned parties are represented, including the public, the arts
                 community and the receiving agency.

          6)     A legal instrument of conveyance, transferring title of the artwork and
                 clearly defining the rights and responsibilities of all parties should
                 accompany all acquisitions. Complete acquisition records should be
                 made and maintained for all artwork.

     D.   Artwork may be considered for review toward deaccessing if one or more of the
          conditions, such as the following apply:
         1)     The site of the artwork has become inappropriate because the site is no
                longer accessible to the public or the physical setting is to be destroyed.

         2)     It has received consistent adverse public reaction from a measurable
                number of individuals and/or organizations.

         3)     Deaccessing has been requested by the agency that displays the work.

         4)     It is found to be fraudulent or not authentic.

         5)     It possesses faults of design or workmanship.

         6)     It causes excessive or unreasonable maintenance.

         7)     It is damaged irreparably, or to an extent where repair is unreasonable or
                impractical.

         8)     It represents a physical threat to public safety.     .

         9)     A suitable place for display no longer exists.


X   GIFTS OR LOANS OF ARTWORKS

    A.   With the approval of the City Council, the Commission shall have the
         responsibility to accept or decline any artworks donated to the City, and they
         shall develop a review process to meet the following objectives:

         1)     Provide uniform procedures for the review and acceptance of gifts and
                loans of artwork.        Financial considerations are based on cost of
                implementation, sources of funding, and estimated cost to the City over
                the life of the artwork.

         2)     Be responsible for insuring the management and maintenance of the
                City’s public artwork.

         3)     Maintain high artistic standards in works of art displayed.

         4)     Provide appropriate recognition of donor’s artwork.

    B.   The review process shall use the following criteria:

         1)     Aesthetic considerations, to assure the artwork are of the highest quality.
                Based on a detailed written proposal, or concept drawing for the project,
                photographs of the artwork if existing, and any other documentation.

         2)     Environmental considerations based on physical appropriateness to the
                site and scale of the artwork.
      C.     Exceptions to the review process:

             1)     Gifts of state presented to the city by foreign governments, municipal,
                    state or national, which may be accepted by the Mayor, the City Council,
                    or the City Manager on behalf of the City.

             2)     Artwork or exhibitions loaned for display on City property for 60 days or
                    less shall not be subject to the standard review process. However, the
                    subject matter of the artwork will be reviewed to assure public decency for
                    display.

             3)     Displays at cultural centers and art museums are not subject to review.


XI    PROVISIONS FOR REVIEW AND AMENDMENT

The Commission will recommend to the City Council any amendment, additions, or deletions
and repeal portions or all of these public art program guidelines.
                       REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA ITEM NO. 23


Meeting Date: May 26, 2009

Subject/Title:   Adopt a Resolution making findings and determinations in accordance with
                 Health and Safety Code Section 33445 for the financing of the City Park
                 Project, CIP No. 352-52406.

Prepared by:     Donald Kwong, Senior Redevelopment Analyst

Submitted by: Casey McCann, Community Development Director


RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution making findings and determinations in accordance with Health and Safety
Code Section 33445 for the financing of the City Park Project, CIP No. 352-52406.

PREVIOUS ACTION
On May 27, 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-137, the City Council adopted the City’s 2008/09 –
2012/13 Capital Improvement Program that included the City Park Project, CIP No. 352-52406,
in the amount of $2,000,000.

BACKGROUND
The City Park CIP will provide a general renovation and upgrade to City Park. A conceptual
plan identifies a number of elements including accommodations for outdoor performances,
event space, park history interpretive area, children play area, arboretum and group picnic area
These public improvements will support the economic growth of Downtown Brentwood.

The payment of Redevelopment Agency funds towards this project will assist in the elimination
of blighting conditions inside the Merged Redevelopment Project Areas by providing necessary
public improvements that, in turn, will provide a stimulus for private economic investment that
encourages development in the Civic Center and Downtown district. The City Park project is
consistent with the identified goals and objectives in the Agency’s 2005-2009 Implementation
Plan and will benefit not only the Project Area but the community as a whole.

Community Redevelopment Law Section 33445 states that a redevelopment agency may, with
the consent of the legislative body, pay all or part of the cost for the planning and construction of
publicly owned buildings and improvements upon making findings and determinations including
a finding that no other reasonable means of financing the improvements are available to the
City. Such findings and determination are included in the Agency’s resolution for this item, as
well as a reciprocal staff report and resolution for the City Council on tonight’s agenda.

FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts associated with the Agency taking action on making the necessary
findings and determination in accordance with Health & Safety Code Section 33445. The City
Park Project, CIP 352-52406 is included in the proposed 2009/10-20013/14 Capital
Improvement Project Budget.

Attachment:
Resolution
                                  RESOLUTION NO. RDA-

       A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
       BRENTWOOD     MAKING    FINDINGS   AND     DETERMINATIONS IN
       ACCORDANCE WITH HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33445 FOR
       THE FINANCING OF CITY PARK PROJECT, CIP NO. 352-52406


        WHEREAS, on May 27, 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-137, the City Council adopted the
City’s 2008/09 – 2012/13 Capital Improvement Program that included the City Park Master Plan
Project, CIP No. 352-52406, in the amount of $2,000,000; and

        WHEREAS, the City Park Project, located within the Merged Redevelopment Project
Areas, will provide a general renovation and upgrade to City Park. A conceptual plan identifies
a number of elements including accommodations for outdoor performances, event space, park
history interpretive area, children play area, arboretum and group picnic area These public
improvements will support the economic growth of Downtown Brentwood.

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

       1.   The Agency hereby finds and determines as follows:

            a.     The payment of funds for the City Park Project will assist in the elimination of
            physical and economic blighting conditions inside the Project Area by providing
            necessary public improvements.

            b.     The City Park Project is consistent with the identified goals and objectives in
            the 2005-2009 Implementation Plan as follows:

                  Revitalize the Merged Project Areas through the improvement and installation
                  of public improvements, public safety provisions, transportation, circulation
                  and parking facilities to reduce congestion, improve public safety and
                  accommodate long-term growth and development patterns.

            c.      The City Park Project will be a significant benefit to the Project Area. This
            finding is based on the fact that the project will provide a stimulus for private
            economic investment, and will benefit not only the immediate Project Area but the
            community as a whole.

            d.     There are no other reasonable means available to the City of financing the
            Project’s costs. This finding is based on the lack of sufficient funds in the capital
            improvement budget of the City to fund the Project together with other urgently
            needed public improvements and facilities, and the infeasibility of financing the
            Project through an assessment district, debt service or other conventional method
            of financing public facilities.

      PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Brentwood at a regular meeting held on the 26th day of May 2009 by the following vote:
                      REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA ITEM NO. 24


Meeting Date: May 26 2009

Subject/Title:   Adopt a Resolution making findings and determinations in accordance with
                 Health and Safety Code Section 33445 for the financing of the Downtown
                 Infrastructure Project, CIP No. 562-56382.

Prepared by:     Donald Kwong, Senior Redevelopment Analyst

Submitted by: Casey McCann, Community Development Director


RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution making findings and determinations in accordance with Health and Safety
Code Section 33445 for the financing of the Downtown Infrastructure Project, CIP No. 562-
56382.

PREVIOUS ACTION
On May 24, 2005, by Resolution No. RDA-99, the Redevelopment Agency appropriated funds
for Downtown Infrastructure (sewer collection upgrade) for a total amount of $177,600.

On March 11, 2008, by Resolution No. RDA-138, the Redevelopment Agency appropriated
funds for Downtown Infrastructure for a total amount of $256,210.

On May 27, 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-137, the City Council adopted the City’s 2008/09–
2012/13 Capital Improvement Program that included the Downtown Infrastructure Project, CIP
No. 562-56382, in the amount of $4,953,600, which amount is partially funded by the Brentwood
Redevelopment Agency in the amount of $3,887,410. The remaining amount shall be funded
by City Enterprise funds.

On June 10, 2008, by Resolution 2008-140, the City Council approved the construction contract
for the Downtown Infrastructure, CIP Project No. 562-56382, with Delta Excavating for a total
amount of $869,077.

On June 24, 2008, by Resolution No. RDA-142, the Redevelopment Agency approved its two-
year operating budget, which included a budget amount of $1,739,070 in 2008/09, a partial
funding of the Agency’s expected contribution of $3,887,410 for the Downtown Infrastructure
Project.

On July 22, 2008, by Resolution No. CC-2008-178, the City Council made the necessary
findings for the Downtown Infrastructure Project.

On July 22, 2008, by Resolution No. RDA-144, the Redevelopment Agency made the necessary
findings and appropriated funds for the Downtown Infrastructure Project in the amount of
$1,739,070.
BACKGROUND
The Downtown Infrastructure CIP will provide for the installation of new water and sewer
facilities, rehabilitation of existing facilities or the removal and replacement of existing
infrastructure to support redevelopment of the Downtown and correct aged, deteriorating
facilities.

The payment of Redevelopment Agency funds towards this project will assist in the elimination
of blighting conditions inside the Merged Redevelopment Project Areas by providing necessary
public improvements that, in turn, will upgrade and improve existing aged and deteriorated
infrastructure systems. The Downtown Infrastructure project is consistent with the identified
goals and objectives in the Agency’s 2005-2009 Implementation Plan and will benefit not only
the Project Area but the community as a whole.

Community Redevelopment Law Section 33445 states that a redevelopment agency may, with
the consent of the legislative body, pay all or part of the cost for the planning and construction of
infrastructure improvements upon making findings and determinations including a finding that no
other reasonable means of financing the improvements are available to the City. Such findings
and determination are included in the Agency’s resolution for this item, as well as a reciprocal
staff report and resolution for the City Council on tonight’s agenda.

FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts associated with the Agency taking action on making the necessary
findings and determination in accordance with Health & Safety Code Section 33445. The
Downtown Infrastructure Project, CIP 562-56382 is included in the proposed 2009/10-20013/14
Capital Improvement Project Budget.




Attachment:
Resolution
                                  RESOLUTION NO. RDA-

       A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
       BRENTWOOD    MAKING   FINDINGS AND   DETERMINATIONS    IN
       ACCORDANCE WITH HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33445 FOR
       THE FNANCING OF DOWNTOWN INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT, CIP NO.
       562-56382


      WHEREAS, on May 24, 2005, by Resolution RDA-99, the Agency appropriated funds for
Downtown Infrastructure (sewer collection upgrade) for a total amount of $177,600; and

       WHEREAS, on March 11, 2008, by Resolution RDA-138, the Agency appropriated funds
for Downtown Infrastructure (sewer collection upgrade) for a total amount of $256,210; and

         WHEREAS, on May 27, 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-137, the City Council adopted the
City’s 2008/09 – 2012/13 Capital Improvement Program that included the Downtown
Infrastructure Project, CIP No. 562-56382, in the amount of $4,953,600, which amount is
partially funded by the Brentwood Redevelopment Agency in the amount of $3,887,410. The
remaining amount shall be funded by City Enterprise funds; and

       WHEREAS, on June 10, 2008, by Resolution 2008-140, the City Council approved the
construction contract for the Downtown Infrastructure, CIP Project No. 562-56382, with Delta
Excavating for a total amount of $869,077; and

      WHEREAS, on June 24, 2008, by Resolution No. RDA-142, the Redevelopment Agency
approved its two-year operating budget, which included a budget amount of $1,739,070 in
2008/09, a partial funding of the Agency’s expected contribution of $3,887,410 for the
Downtown Infrastructure Project; and

       WHEREAS, on July 22, 2008, by Resolution No. CC-2008-178, the City Council made
the necessary findings for the Downtown Infrastructure Project; and

      WHEREAS, on July 22, 2008, by Resolution No. RDA-144, the Redevelopment Agency
made the necessary findings and appropriated funds for the Downtown Infrastructure Project in
the amount of $1,739,070; and

        WHEREAS, the Downtown Infrastructure Project, located within the Merged
Redevelopment Project Areas, will provide for the installation of new water and sewer facilities,
rehabilitation of existing facilities or the removal and replacement of existing infrastructure to
support redevelopment of the Downtown and correct aged, deteriorating facilities.

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

       1.   The Agency hereby finds and determines as follows:

             a. The payment of funds for the Downtown Infrastructure Project will assist in the
             elimination of blighting conditions inside the Project Area by providing necessary
             public improvements.
           b.   The Downtown Infrastructure Project is consistent with the identified goals
           and objectives in the 2005-2009 Implementation Plan as follows:

                Revitalize the Merged Project Areas through the improvement and installation
                of public improvements, public safety provisions, transportation, circulation
                and parking facilities to reduce congestion, improve public safety and
                accommodate long-term growth and development patterns.

           c.    The Downtown Infrastructure Project will be a significant benefit to the Project
           Area. This finding is based on the fact that the project will upgrade and improve
           existing aged and deteriorated infrastructure systems, and will benefit not only the
           immediate Project Area but the community as a whole.

           d.     There are no other reasonable means of financing the Project’s gap available
           to the City. This finding is based on the lack of sufficient funds in the capital
           improvement budget of the City to fund the Project together with other urgently
           needed public improvements and facilities, and the infeasibility of financing the
           Project through an assessment district, debt service or other conventional method
           of financing public facilities.

      PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Brentwood at a regular meeting held on the 26th day of May 2009 by the following vote:
                      REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA ITEM NO. 25


Meeting Date: May 26, 2009

Subject/Title:   Adopt a Resolution making findings and determinations in accordance with
                 Health and Safety Code Section 33445 for the financing of the Downtown
                 Parking Solutions Project, CIP No. 337-37204.

Prepared by:     Donald Kwong, Senior Redevelopment Analyst

Submitted by: Casey McCann, Community Development Director


RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution making findings and determinations in accordance with Health and Safety
Code Section 33445 for the financing of the Downtown Parking Solutions Project, CIP No. 337-
37204.

PREVIOUS ACTION
On June 12, 2007, by Resolution No. 2007-179, the City Council amended the 2007/08 –
2011/12 Capital Improvement Project for Downtown Parking Structures.

On February 12, 2008, by Resolution RDA-137, the Redevelopment Agency appropriated funds
for Downtown Parking Structures in the amount of $300,000 for legal and appraisal services.

On April 8, 2008, by Resolution No. RDA-140, the Redevelopment Agency appropriated funds
for Downtown Parking Structures for a total amount of $50,000 for acquisition, relocation and
environmental services.

On May 27, 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-137, the City Council adopted the City’s 2008/09 –
2012/13 Capital Improvement Program that included the Downtown Parking Solutions Project,
CIP No. 337-37204, in the amount of $11,216,000, which amount is fully funded by the
Brentwood Redevelopment Agency.

On June 24, 2008, by Resolution No. RDA-142, the Redevelopment Agency amended its
2008/09 budget and authorized expenditures for fiscal year 2008/09, which included a budget
amount of $532,500, a partial funding of the Agency’s expected contribution of $11,216,000 for
the Downtown Parking Solutions Project.

On July 22, 2008, by Resolution No. CC-2008-180, the City Council made the necessary
findings for the Downtown Parking Solutions Project.

On July 22, 2008, by Resolution No. RDA-146, the Redevelopment Agency made the necessary
findings and appropriated funds for the Downtown Parking Solutions Project in the amount of
$532,000.

BACKGROUND
The Downtown Parking Solutions CIP will provide for a comprehensive plan for parking facilities
and solutions disbursed throughout the Downtown in strategic locations to address the parking
demands required for the growth of the Downtown. These public improvements will reduce
parking congestion and improve traffic circulation in the Downtown, and will support the
economic growth of Downtown Brentwood.

The payment of Redevelopment Agency funds towards this project will assist in the elimination
of blighting conditions inside the Merged Redevelopment Project Areas by providing necessary
public improvements that, in turn, will reduce parking congestion and improve traffic circulation,
and provide stimulus for private economic investment that encourages development in the Civic
Center and Downtown district. The Downtown Parking Solutions project is consistent with the
identified goals and objectives in the Agency’s 2005-2009 Implementation Plan and will benefit
not only the Project Area but the community as a whole.

Community Redevelopment Law Section 33445 states that a redevelopment agency may, with
the consent of the legislative body, pay all or part of the cost for the planning and construction of
publicly owned buildings and improvements upon making findings and determinations including
a finding that no other reasonable means of financing the improvements are available to the
City. Such findings and determination are included in the Agency’s resolution for this item, as
well as a reciprocal staff report and resolution for the City Council on tonight’s agenda.

FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts associated with the Agency taking action on making the necessary
findings and determination in accordance with Health & Safety Code Section 33445. The
Downtown Parking Solutions Project, CIP 337-37204 is included in the proposed 2009/10-
20013/14 Capital Improvement Project Budget.


Attachment:
Resolution
                                RESOLUTION NO. RDA-

       A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
       BRENTWOOD     MAKING  FINDINGS AND   DETERMINATIONS    IN
       ACCORDANCE WITH HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33445 FOR
       THE FINANCING OF DOWNTOWN PARKING SOLUTIONS PROJECT, CIP
       NO. 337-37204


       WHEREAS, on June 12, 2007, by Resolution No. 2007-179, the City Council amended
the 2007/08 – 2011/12 Capital Improvement Project for Downtown Parking Structures.

       WHEREAS, on February 12, 2008, by Resolution RDA-137, the Redevelopment Agency
appropriated funds for Downtown Parking Structures in the amount of $300,000 for legal and
appraisal services; and

        WHEREAS, on April 8, 2008, by Resolution No. RDA-140, the Redevelopment Agency
appropriated funds for Downtown Parking Structures for a total amount of $50,000 for
acquisition, relocation and environmental services; and

        WHEREAS, on May 27, 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-137, the City Council adopted the
City’s 2008/09 – 2012/13 Capital Improvement Program that included the Downtown Parking
Solutions Project, CIP No. 337-37204, in the amount of $11,216,000, which amount is fully
funded by the Brentwood Redevelopment Agency; and

       WHEREAS, on July 22, 2008, by Resolution No. CC-2008-180, the City Council made
the necessary findings for the Downtown Parking Solutions Project; and

        WHEREAS, on July 22, 2008, by Resolution No. RDA-146, the Redevelopment Agency
made the necessary findings and appropriated funds for the Downtown Parking Solutions
Project in the amount of $532,000; and

       WHEREAS, on June 24, 2008, by Resolution No. RDA-142, the Redevelopment Agency
amended its 2008/09 budget and authorized expenditures for fiscal year 2008/09, which
included a budget amount of $532,500, a partial funding of the Agency’s expected contribution
of $11,216,000 for the Downtown Parking Solutions Project; and

        WHEREAS, the Downtown Parking Solutions Project, located within the Merged
Redevelopment Project Areas, will provide for a comprehensive plan for parking facilities and
solutions disbursed throughout the Downtown in strategic locations to address the parking
demands required for the growth of the Downtown. These public improvements will reduce
parking congestion and improve traffic circulation in the Downtown, and will support the
economic growth of Downtown Brentwood.

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

       1.   The Agency hereby finds and determines as follows:
          a.     The payment of funds for the Downtown Parking Solutions Project will assist
          in the elimination of physical and economic blighting conditions inside the Project
          Area by providing necessary public improvements.

           •   An updated Downtown parking study commissioned in August 2006 re-affirmed
               the conclusions of the original 2005 Downtown Brentwood Parking Study that
               found an inadequate parking supply to support future growth and demands in
               the Downtown. The parking study concluded that the anticipated future
               development will result in an overall parking demand of 840 spaces in the
               Downtown for evening and approximately 1000 spaces for mid-day. Parking
               solutions, including surface lots and parking structures, should provide parking
               facilities that are convenient and safe and address existing and future parking
               needs to support the Civic Center and the economic growth of Downtown
               Brentwood.

               The planning for new and improved streetscape design in Downtown
               Brentwood began with workshops held in January, February and April 2008
               with the Chamber of Commerce, Downtown merchants and community
               members. These workshops provided the City with a clear direction of the
               Downtown district’s vision to widen sidewalks on the core shopping and dining
               streets for the purpose of providing opportunities for outdoor dining and
               merchandising, adding to the vibrancy and activity on the streets.
               Reconfiguration of Downtown core streets to accommodate wider sidewalks
               will displace approximately 50 to 60 existing angled, on-street parking with on-
               street parallel parking. New parking facilities are needed to address the
               potential loss of angled, on-street parking spaces.

          b.     The Downtown Parking Solutions Project is consistent with the identified
          goals and objectives in the 2005-2009 Implementation Plan as follows:

                Revitalize the Merged Project Areas through the improvement and installation
                of public improvements, public safety provisions, transportation, circulation
                and parking facilities to reduce congestion, improve public safety and
                accommodate long-term growth and development patterns.

          c.     The Downtown Parking Solutions Project will be a significant benefit to the
          Project Area. This finding is based on the fact that the project will reduce parking
          congestion and improve traffic circulation thus providing a stimulus for private
          economic investment, and will benefit not only the immediate Project Area but the
          community as a whole.

          d.     There are no other reasonable means available to the City of financing the
          Project’s costs. This finding is based on the lack of sufficient funds in the capital
          improvement budget of the City to fund the Project together with other urgently
          needed public improvements and facilities, and the infeasibility of financing the
          Project through an assessment district, debt service or other conventional method
          of financing public facilities.

      PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Brentwood at a regular meeting held on the 26th day of May 2009 by the following vote:
                       REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA ITEM NO. 26


Meeting Date: May 26, 2009

Subject/Title:   Adopt a Resolution making findings and determinations in accordance with
                 Health and Safety Code Section 33445 for the financing of the Downtown
                 Streetscape Project, CIP No. 337-37203.

Prepared by:     Donald Kwong, Senior Redevelopment Analyst

Submitted by: Casey McCann, Community Development Director


RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution making findings and determinations in accordance with Health and Safety
Code Section 33445 for the financing of the Downtown Streetscape Project, CIP No. 337-
37203.

PREVIOUS ACTION
On January 23, 2007, by Resolution RDA-120, the Redevelopment Agency appropriated funds
for Downtown Streetscape Plan in the amount of $89,480 for plan preparation services.

On September 11, 2007, by Resolution No. 2007-211, the City Council amended the 2007/08 –
2011/12 Capital Improvement Project for Downtown Streetscape Plan.

On September 11, 2007, by Resolution No. RDA-130, the Redevelopment Agency appropriated
funds for Downtown Streetscape for a total amount of $103,105 for master plan preparation
services.

On May 27, 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-137, the City Council adopted the City’s 2008/09 –
2012/13 Capital Improvement Program that included the Downtown Streetscape Master Plan
Project, CIP No. 337-37203, in the amount of $6,000,000, which amount is fully funded by the
Brentwood Redevelopment Agency.

BACKGROUND
The Downtown Parking Solutions CIP will provide for a comprehensive plan for streetscape
facilities and amenities disbursed throughout the Downtown. These public improvements will
will support the economic growth of Downtown Brentwood.

The payment of Redevelopment Agency funds towards this project will assist in the elimination
of blighting conditions inside the Merged Redevelopment Project Areas by providing necessary
public improvements that, in turn, will provide a stimulus for private economic investment that
encourages development in the Civic Center and Downtown district.                The Downtown
Streetscape project is consistent with the identified goals and objectives in the Agency’s 2005-
2009 Implementation Plan and will benefit not only the Project Area but the community as a
whole.

Community Redevelopment Law Section 33445 states that a redevelopment agency may, with
the consent of the legislative body, pay all or part of the cost for the planning and construction of
publicly owned buildings and improvements upon making findings and determinations including
a finding that no other reasonable means of financing the improvements are available to the
City. Such findings and determination are included in the Agency’s resolution for this item, as
well as a reciprocal staff report and resolution for the City Council on tonight’s agenda.

FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts associated with the Agency taking action on making the necessary
findings and determination in accordance with Health & Safety Code Section 33445. The
Downtown Streetscape Project, CIP 337-37203 is included in the proposed 2009/10-20013/14
Capital Improvement Project Budget.


Attachment:
Resolution
                                 RESOLUTION NO. RDA-

       A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
       BRENTWOOD     MAKING  FINDINGS  AND   DETERMINATIONS     IN
       ACCORDANCE WITH HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33445 FOR
       THE FINANCING OF DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE PROJECT, CIP NO. 337-
       37203


       WHEREAS, on January 23, 2007, by Resolution RDA-120, the Redevelopment Agency
appropriated funds for Downtown Streetscape Plan in the amount of $89,480 for plan
preparation services.

     WHEREAS, on September 11, 2007, by Resolution No. 2007-211, the City Council
amended the 2007/08 – 2011/12 Capital Improvement Project for Downtown Streetscape Plan.

       WHEREAS, on September 11, 2007, by Resolution No. RDA-130, the Redevelopment
Agency appropriated funds for Downtown Streetscape for a total amount of $103,105 for master
plan preparation services.

       WHEREAS, on May 27, 2008, by Resolution No. 2008-137, the City Council adopted the
City’s 2008/09 – 2012/13 Capital Improvement Program that included the Downtown
Streetscape Master Plan Project, CIP No. 337-37204, in the amount of $6,000,000, which
amount is fully funded by the Brentwood Redevelopment Agency; and

      WHEREAS, the Downtown Streetscape Project, located within the Merged
Redevelopment Project Areas, will provide for a comprehensive plan for streetscape facilities
and amenities disbursed throughout the Downtown. These public improvements will support the
economic growth of Downtown Brentwood.

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

       1.   The Agency hereby finds and determines as follows:

            a.     The payment of funds for the Downtown Streetscape Project will assist in the
            elimination of physical and economic blighting conditions inside the Project Area by
            providing necessary public improvements.

                The planning for new and improved streetscape design in Downtown
                Brentwood began with workshops held in January, February and April 2008
                with the Chamber of Commerce, Downtown merchants and community
                members. These workshops provided the City with a clear direction of the
                Downtown district’s vision to widen sidewalks on the core shopping and dining
                streets for the purpose of providing opportunities for outdoor dining and
                merchandising, adding to the vibrancy and activity on the streets.
                Reconfiguration of Downtown core streets to accommodate wider sidewalks
                will displace approximately 50 to 60 existing angled, on-street parking with on-
                street parallel parking.
          b.     The Downtown Streetscape Project is consistent with the identified goals
          and objectives in the 2005-2009 Implementation Plan as follows:

                Revitalize the Merged Project Areas through the improvement and installation
                of public improvements, public safety provisions, transportation, circulation
                and parking facilities to reduce congestion, improve public safety and
                accommodate long-term growth and development patterns.

          c.      The Downtown Streetscape Project will be a significant benefit to the Project
          Area. This finding is based on the fact that the project will provide a stimulus for
          private economic investment, and will benefit not only the immediate Project Area
          but the community as a whole.

          d.     There are no other reasonable means available to the City of financing the
          Project’s costs. This finding is based on the lack of sufficient funds in the capital
          improvement budget of the City to fund the Project together with other urgently
          needed public improvements and facilities, and the infeasibility of financing the
          Project through an assessment district, debt service or other conventional method
          of financing public facilities.

      PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Brentwood at a regular meeting held on the 26th day of May 2009 by the following vote:
                     REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA ITEM NO. 27


Meeting Date:    May 26, 2009

Subject/Title:   Approve Warrant Numbers: 320385, 320454, 320480,    320498,   320502,   320509,
                 320517, 320589, 320615, 320618, 320628, 320630,     320634,   320669,   320685,
                 320702, 320707, 320722, 320732, 320753, 320757,     320758,   320820,   320837,
                 320850, 320870, 320918, 320931, 320955, 320969,     320976,   320977,   320981,
                 320989, 321008, 321011, 321029, 321038, 321057

Prepared by:     Laura Schelbert; Administrative Supervisor

Submitted by:    Pamela Ehler; Agency Treasurer

       ______         ___


RECOMMENDATION – Approve warrants from warrant lists dated April 15, 2009, April 22, 2009,
April 29, 2009, May 6, 2009, May 13, 2009, and May 20, 2009.

4/15/2009   320385      AT&T MOBILITY (3-09)                                        $71.01
4/15/2009   320454     OFFICE DEPOT (Office Supplies)                                $1.26
4/15/2009   320480     TLC ADMINISTRATORS (Flexible Benefits Plan)                  $12.50
4/22/2009   320498     ARROWHEAD WATERS (FY 08/09 bottled water service)             $8.90
4/22/2009   320502     AT&T CALNET 2 (03/09)                                        $38.90
4/22/2009   320509     BOWMAN & SON BUILDERS (Grant Programs)                    $3,200.00
4/22/2009   320517     CCC AUDITOR CONT (Pass-Through Pmt subsequently voided) $540,397.00
4/22/2009   320589     OFFICE DEPOT (Office Supplies)                               $24.16
4/22/2009   320615     U S BANK CORPORATE TRUST SVCS (Interest Expense)        $454,634.39
4/22/2009   320618     WACHOVIA MORTGAGE (Land/Right-Of-Way)                     $4,593.30
4/29/2009   320628     ASSOCIATED RIGHT OF WAY SVCS (Reloc. Svc for 7030 B)        $701.25
4/29/2009   320630     AT&T MOBILITY (Communication)                                 $5.56
4/29/2009   320634     BELLECCI & ASSOCIATES INC. (Professional Services)          $256.00
4/29/2009   320669     FAIRVIEW HEATING & AIR COND. Grant Programs                 $425.00
4/29/2009   320685     LIPMAN CO, THE (CHIPRA 2009)                                  $8.34
4/29/2009   320702     OFFICE DEPOT (Office Supplies)                                $0.22
4/29/2009   320707     PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC (4-09 CDD)                            $31.52
4/29/2009   320722     TOSHIBA BUSINESS -MBA (FY 08/09 - Continuing 36 month)       $54.52
4/29/2009   320732     XEROX (FY 08/09 Lease, maintenance)                          $20.63
5/6/2009    320753     BOWMAN & SON BUILDERS (Grant Programs)                      $450.00
5/6/2009    320757     BRENTWOOD PRESS (Advertising)                               $217.00
5/6/2009    320758     BRENTWOOD PRINTING (Misc. forms, envelopes & letter)         $21.14
5/6/2009    320820     OFFICE DEPOT (Office Supplies)                               $14.00
5/6/2009    320837     SEIFEL CONSULTANTS INC. (Redevelopment Consulting Svc.) $4,054.93
5/6/2009    320850     TOSHIBA BUSINESS -MBA (FY 08/09 - Continuing 36 month)       $29.87
5/13/2009   320870     AT&T MOBILITY (Communication)                                 $0.47
5/13/2009   320918     KWONG, DONALD (Travel, Lodging & Meals)                      $32.13
5/13/2009   320931     OFFICE DEPOT (Office Supplies)                                $5.17
5/13/2009   320955     TLC ADMINISTRATORS (Flexible Benefits Plan)                  $12.50
5/20/2009   320969   A. RAMOS CONSTRUCTION (Grant Programs)                 $3,480.00
5/20/2009   320976   AT&T CALNET 2 (Communication)                             $38.78
5/20/2009   320977   AT&T MOBILITY (Wireless Services)                         $96.28
5/20/2009   320981   BANK OF NEW YORK (Special Services)                      $484.98
5/20/2009   320989   BRENTWOOD REPROGRAPHICS (Building/Facility Maintenance) $202.55
5/20/2009   321008   FIRST CHOICE SERVICES (FY08/09 Coffee Services)            $4.25
5/20/2009   321011   GALAXY PRESS (Business Cards)                            $200.67
5/20/2009   321029   MC DONOUGH HOLLAND & ALLEN (Legal Services)              $473.72
5/20/2009   321038   OFFICE DEPOT (Office Supplies)                             $0.75
5/20/2009   321057   SDG ARCHITECTS INC (Professional Services)             $2,205.00


            TOTAL                                                        $1,016,508.65
                            CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 28


Meeting Date:        May 26, 2009

Subject/Title:       The Sciortino Ranch project: 1) Consideration of a resolution to certify
                     the Final Environmental Impact Report; 2) Consideration of a resolution
                     to approve a General Plan amendment (GPA 09-01) to modify the Land
                     Use Element related to the text for Special Planning Area A and to make
                     the associated change to the Land Use Map; 3) Consideration of an
                     ordinance to approve a rezone (RZ 06-13) to establish a list of allowable
                     uses and development standards, including site-specific design
                     guidelines, for the Planned Development No. 55 Zone; and 4)
                     Consideration of an appeal filed by the project applicant related to certain
                     conditions of approval for Tentative Subdivision Map No. 9152.

Prepared by:         Erik Nolthenius, Principal Planner

Submitted by:        Casey McCann, Community Development Director


RECOMMENDATION

   1) Adoption of a resolution to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the
      Sciortino Ranch project.

   2) Adoption of a resolution to approve a General Plan amendment (GPA 09-01) to modify
      the Land Use Element related to the text for Special Planning Area A and to make the
      associated change to the Land Use Map.

   3) Introduction and waiving of the first reading of an ordinance to approve a rezone (RZ
      06-13) to establish a list of allowable uses and development standards, including site-
      specific design guidelines, for the Planned Development No. 55 Zone.

   4) Approval of an appeal, in part, and denial of an appeal, in part, related to certain
      conditions of approval for Tentative Subdivision Map No. 9152.

PREVIOUS ACTION

   •   On April 21st, the Planning Commission voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Bristow recused) to
       recommend that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report and
       approve both the General Plan amendment and rezone, by adopting Resolution No. 09-
       013, 09-014, and 09-015, respectively. The Planning Commission also voted 4-0-1
       (Commissioner Bristow recused) to conditionally approve the tentative subdivision map
       application for the Sciortino Ranch project.

   •   On May 12th, the City Council continued the public hearing on the Final Environmental
       Impact Report, the General Plan amendment, and the rezone to the meeting of May 26th.
       The City Council also set the date of May 26th for consideration of the appeal that was
       filed by the project applicant with respect to the tentative subdivision map.
BACKGROUND

2007 Joint Workshops

The development of the Sciortino Ranch project has been evolving for the last few years, and
particularly since October 2006, when a formal application was first submitted. Joint workshops
were subsequently held in February and March of 2007 with the City Council and Planning
Commission to discuss the proposed land use plan. Staff was ultimately directed by the Council
and Commission to modify the plan to eliminate big box retail uses (i.e. Home Depot, Costco,
Target Greatland, Wal-Mart Supercenter, Lowe’s, etc.) and study predominantly medium density
residential use for the site, as well as to include the project into the draft Brentwood Boulevard
Specific Plan (BBSP) area. When the draft BBSP was released for public review and comment
in April of 2008, the most significant comments that were received were submitted by the
property owner of the Sciortino Ranch site, who stated the draft Plan placed too many
restrictions on the development of the site.

Land Use and Development Committee

The Land Use and Development Committee met on July 15, 2008, and the general consensus
was that while the draft BBSP was very comprehensive, it should be revised to include more
flexibility for property owners and developers in terms of the proposed development standards
and the list of allowable land uses. It was later determined that a City Council ad hoc
subcommittee comprised of Mayor Taylor and Council Member Becnel, the BBSP
Subcommittee, should be established to guide the processing of the draft BBSP.

BBSP Subcommittee

Two BBSP Subcommittee meetings were held late last year, with the first on September 18th
and the second on December 18th. The applicant presented a new land use plan and overall
project concept to the Subcommittee, since the Sciortino Ranch site was part of the draft BBSP.
In order to expedite the project, the applicant asked that Sciortino Ranch be processed
independent of the draft BBSP, to which the Subcommittee agreed. No significant concerns
were raised by the Subcommittee, other than whether to allow big box retail uses on the project
site. It was generally agreed to that one big box retail use would be allowed, but that any
additional such uses would require a conditional use permit.

Draft BBSP Comparison

The proposed Sciortino Ranch project would allow for a different land use pattern than what was
contemplated in the draft BBSP, which includes two-story buildings located along the right-of-
way edge, with parking located behind buildings whenever possible. The proposed project,
while not precluding this pattern, does not require it. The overall land use plan for the BBSP
was based on the purposeful reduction in the amount of retail-designated zoning as a result of
both the BBSP economic analysis and the citywide Economic Strategic Plan determining that an
excess would result in substandard retail uses and vacancies.

Planning Commission Workshop

On March 3, 2009, the Planning Commission conducted a workshop to discuss the project.
During the workshop, the Commission agreed that, overall, the proposed Sciortino Ranch
project was satisfactory. The public was afforded an opportunity to comment on the project, at


                                                2
which time two residents of nearby neighborhoods spoke. Concerns were raised about the
number of apartments that could potentially be built on the site as well as the potential impact to
the surrounding area from increased traffic generated by development of the site.

Parks & Recreation Commission Workshop

During the Planning Commission workshop, it was suggested that the applicant meet with the
Parks & Recreation Commission in order to review the proposed park standards for the project
before it was considered again by the Planning Commission. On March 26, 2009, the Parks &
Recreation Commission conducted a workshop to discuss the project as it relates to parks and
open space. The Commission reviewed the overall project and at the request of the applicant
considered whether six existing citywide park standards should be modified for the
development, including such things as receiving credit for parks less than 100 feet wide and
receiving half-credit for pedestrian connections. The Parks & Recreation Commission indicated
a general support for the small open spaces and connectivity that are proposed as part of the
project, but not at the expense of modifying the current citywide park standards that have been
used in Brentwood so successfully over the last several years.

Planning Commission Public Hearing

On April 21, 2009, the Planning Commission considered the Sciortino Ranch project as a public
hearing item. Approximately 10 residents spoke, all of whom had concerns about future
development of the site. While the concerns were varied, they centered around the potential
number of apartments that could be built on the site and how that could affect crime rates and
property values in the surrounding residential area. After a lengthy deliberation, the
Commission voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Bristow recused) to recommend that the City Council
certify the Final Environmental Impact Report and approve both the General Plan amendment
and the rezone, in general accordance with the recommendations made by staff. The most
noteworthy change was modifying the proposed land use plan to reduce the number of acres
devoted to future apartment development from 33 to 10, thereby reducing the maximum number
of apartments from approximately 990 to 300, based on a potential density of 30 dwelling units
per acre. The Commission also voted 4-0-1 (Commissioner Bristow recused) to conditionally
approve the tentative subdivision map application for the project, which, once recorded, will
create 11 parcels on the project site.

DISCUSSION

Introduction

The proposed Sciortino Ranch project represents a different approach to land use planning and
regulation than has previously been utilized in the city of Brentwood. The applicant is
requesting that the City approve land use regulations which afford an unprecedented range of
land uses with a limited extent of subsequent entitlement processing. The applicant has
insisted that flexibility is imperative to develop the project site in a highly volatile market;
flexibility which the BBSP Subcommittee has supported. If adopted, the Planned Development
rezone and the Sciortino Ranch Design Guidelines will establish the parameters for a wide
range of permitted uses – residential (medium, high, and very high density), commercial,
business park, office, and service commercial – from which future parcel owners may select,
with City input limited to design of these uses. The intent of the zoning and the corresponding
guidelines is to provide the framework for the processing of future development at this site,
essentially precluding the need for conditional use permits and other associated regulations.


                                                3
Existing Site

The project site is essentially vacant, with the exception of a gas well located in the northeast
corner, and totals approximately 65 acres located directly east of the intersection of Sand Creek
Road and Brentwood Boulevard. The site is bounded on the north by single-family homes in the
Havenwood neighborhood, on the east by future single-family homes, a fire station, and Black
Elementary School in the Barrington neighborhood, on the south by single-family homes in the
Rhapsody neighborhood and by the Sunset Plaza neighborhood commercial development, and
on the west by Brentwood Boulevard.

Environmental Determination

An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to assess the potential impacts of the
project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The EIR details a number
of potentially significant impacts resulting from the proposed project, each of which can be
mitigated to a level of less-than-significant, with the exception of impacts on air quality. This has
been identified as a significant and unavoidable impact that would require a statement of
overriding considerations to be adopted.            For the purpose of analyzing the potential
environmental impacts of the project, a development scenario provided by the applicant was
used. That scenario includes 5.1 acres of parks, 468 apartments, 140 single-family detached
units, 107,267 square-feet of retail uses, 87,991 square-feet of office uses, and 228,690 square-
feet of institutional uses.

The public review period for the Draft EIR began on February 13th and ended on March 30th. A
total of three comment letters (including one from the applicant) were received, all on March
30th. Responses to each of these comments have been prepared and are part of the Final EIR.
The EIR includes approximately 60 mitigation measures that would reduce potentially significant
impacts related to the broad topics of Land Use, Aesthetics, Transportation and Circulation, Air
Quality and Climate Change, Noise, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hazards, and
Public Services and Utilities.

It is intended that future development of the project site would be streamlined from a CEQA
perspective by relying on the analysis and conclusions in the EIR, provided that development is
consistent with the land use scenario studied for this project. To that end, all future
development would be reviewed to determine conformance with the analysis and conclusions of
the EIR. If the scope of any future development is different than what was studied in the EIR,
individual projects would be reviewed pursuant to CEQA in order to determine what level of
review is necessary (i.e. consistent with the EIR, categorically exempt, negative declaration,
mitigated negative declaration, or subsequent EIR). The Planning Commission reviewed the
Final EIR and has recommended that it be certified by the City Council, with a substitution of
certain mitigation measures related to traffic improvements along Brentwood Boulevard.

General Plan Amendment

The General Plan currently designates the project site as a Special Planning Area (SPA A) with
a suggested land use mix of business park (47 acres), general commercial (13 acres), and very
high density residential (7 acres – maximum of 210 dwelling units). The requested amendment
to the General Plan was made to allow a wider variety of uses. A comparison table showing the
different land use types and acreages for the current General Plan and the requested General
Plan amendment is shown below. What this table shows, in part, is the degree of proposed
land use flexibility for the project.


                                                 4
      Land Use Category             Current General Plan                Sciortino Ranch
        Business park                     47 acres                      Up to 34.5 acres
      General commercial                  13 acres                      Up to 30.9 acres
       Very high density                   7 acres                       Up to 33 acres
         High density                         -                         Up to 22.9 acres
        Medium density                        -                         Up to 30.1 acres
             Park                             -                            5.1 acres

Changes to the SPA A text, based on the proposed project, were considered by the Planning
Commission. The only significant change that the Commission made, as previously referenced,
was to reduce the number of acres that apartments (i.e. very high density residential) could be
built on from 33 to 10. It should be noted that the 10 acres, while fixed, does coincide with the
minimum number of acres in the range that was originally requested by the applicant.

Rezone

The project site is currently zoned PD-55, although it is essentially a “shell” PD zone, in that no
uses or development standards have been adopted, with the exception of the development
standards adopted in 2005 for the seven acres of Very High Density Residential-designated
property located along Brentwood Boulevard, both north and south of Sand Creek Road.
Traditionally, a “shell” PD zone allows the applicant and the City a wide degree of flexibility to
create a list of uses and development standards that are unique to the specific development
proposal. The applicant requested to amend the PD-55 Zone by establishing a list of allowable
uses and development standards for the project site. In accordance with the proposed land use
plan that was considered by the Planning Commission, the applicant proposed to create 11 sub
areas within the PD-55 Zone, more particularly described as follows:

 Sub Area     Acres                                   Types of Uses
    1          9.4                     Commercial, retail, office, and institutional
   2A           5.5                           Commercial, retail, and office
   2B          10.5          “Flex” (apartments, single-family detached, commercial, retail,
                                                 institutional, and office)
     3A         3.4                              Single-family detached
     3B         3.3                      Single-family detached and apartments
      4        10.1                                     Apartments
     5A         4.6                                        Parks
     5B         0.5                                        Parks
      6         5.5          “Flex” (apartments, single-family detached, commercial, retail,
                                                 institutional, and office)
     7A         3.8                              Single-family detached
     7B         3.6               Single-family detached, apartments, and institutional

These sub areas correspond to the various land use types referenced in the General Plan
amendment discussion. The applicant also proposed that minor deviations in the sub area
boundaries be allowed to accommodate future development submittals, since a detailed
development proposal has not been submitted at this time. The only change that the
Commission made with respect to the sub areas was to remove apartments from the list of
allowable uses in Sub Areas 2B, 3B, 6, and 7B.




                                                5
There were a few key differences between the ordinance requested by the applicant and other
properties in the city.     These differences, followed by the Planning Commission’s
recommendations, are briefly described as follows:

             Issue                   Applicant Request                 PC Recommendation
             RGMP                   Exempt all residential             Exempt all residential
                                 development from the RGMP         development from the RGMP
                                                                            for five years
      Mid-range density               Exempt all residential        All residential development
                                     development from this            should be subject to this
                                       General Plan policy               General Plan policy
      Parking standards           Establish new standards for            Retain existing City
                                     certain uses (i.e. retail)        standards for all uses
         Noise standards          Establish new standards for            Retain existing City
                                           certain uses                standards for all uses
         Permitted uses          Allow wide variety of permitted      Several uses should be
                                   uses (i.e. gas stations and      conditionally permitted (i.e.
                                     entertainment venues)          gas stations, entertainment
                                                                   venues, hotels, tobacco and
                                                                    cigar lounges, health clubs,
                                                                   and check cashing facilities)

In conjunction with the rezone, the applicant requested approval of a set of site-specific design
guidelines for Sciortino Ranch. These guidelines would supersede the City’s two existing
design guideline documents (residential and non-residential) and would form the basis for future
development of the project site. The applicant has incorporated portions of the City’s design
guideline documents into the proposed set of Sciortino Ranch Design Guidelines. This would,
however, represent the first time since the City’s respective documents were approved that any
single project was exempted from these citywide standards. The Planning Commission
considered the proposed design guidelines and recommended that several changes be made to
them, in order to achieve a greater degree of consistency with the City’s existing documents.
These guidelines, as approved, would be included as an exhibit to the PD-55 Zone and would
be used in evaluating all future development projects within Sciortino Ranch.

Appeal

On April 30th, the project applicant for Sciortino Ranch (New Urban Communities Partners) filed
an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the tentative subdivision map for
the project, relating to the wording of eight separate conditions of approval. Staff met with the
applicant subsequent to the filing of the appeal in order to understand what specific changes to
the conditions were requested. The applicant then prepared a letter to the City Council dated
May 12th that details the proposed changes. The letter is attached to this staff report for the
Council’s review and reference.

Staff has reviewed the applicant’s letter and agrees that seven of the conditions should be
changed as requested, as they are minor in nature and do not significantly alter the intent or
scope of the conditions that were originally approved by the Planning Commission. These
conditions are numbers 9, 16, 21, 30, 32, 33, and 38. The one exception is condition number
53, which was written by staff and approved by the Planning Commission as follows:




                                               6
       “Urban plazas, village greens, landscape paseos, private recreation spaces, and
       open space areas are encouraged as a part of the development, however they
       are not fee creditable for park development fees, nor can they be counted as
       park acreage under the City’s standard of 5-acres per 1,000 population if they do
       not meet City park standards.”

The applicant is requesting that the above mentioned areas be fee creditable in the City’s
Development Fee Program and count toward City park acreage even though they would not
meet City park standards. Condition number 53 was written based on past experience with park
development in the city, as well as input from the Parks & Recreation Commission at the
previously referenced workshop that was held on March 26th. At that time, the Commission
confirmed its support for the areas presented as a part of the development, but not in place of
the necessary park requirement or park standards. This unanimous recommendation was
forwarded on to the Planning Commission for consideration, ultimately resulting in the approval
of condition number 53 as shown above.

It should be noted that a certain level of flexibility has been built in to the approval of the
subdivision map, as two other conditions will assist the project if problems arise in terms of
meeting the City park standards. It should also be noted that numerous residents of the
surrounding area have attended both the Parks & Recreation Commission and Planning
Commission meetings in the past couple of months, asking that the same standards for parks
that the City has approved and built in the other parts of Brentwood be retained and
incorporated for this project.

Though staff and two Commissions support the use of urban plazas, village greens, landscape
paseos, private recreation spaces, and open spaces, the applicant should not receive
development fee credits or be able to count them as park spaces in the City’s standard of 5-
acres per 1,000 population. Staff understands that there may be new influences on this
development that have not happened in the past. However, the conditions of approval for the
project, as approved by the Planning Commission, do provide flexibility for the development to
meet neighborhood park standards and work with the City on community serving parks and
clean water requirements. A detailed response to this issue was prepared by the Director of
Parks & Recreation in the form of a memo, and is included as an attachment to this staff report
for the Council’s review and reference.

SUMMARY

Much is unknown about the ultimate development of the Sciortino Ranch project, including the
total square footage of non-residential development, the total number of housing units and how
they would be divided between single-family and multi-family units, and the specific businesses
or non-residential tenants that would locate there (i.e. a community college campus, a
supermarket, a discount big box retailer, a gas station, or fast-food restaurants). What is known
is that the applicant intends to put the pieces in place that would facilitate the future
development of the site, including determining the final mix of allowable land uses. The
uniqueness and importance of this project cannot be overstated, especially considering its
strategic location along what is expected to be a revitalized portion of the Brentwood Boulevard
corridor, its large size, its location at a key intersection, the built-in flexibility for future
development, and the fact that it is surrounded on all sides by either existing or approved
development.




                                               7
As previously stated, the proposed project represents a unique situation in land use planning
and regulation for the City of Brentwood. The applicant has insisted that flexibility is imperative
in order to market and develop the project site in a highly volatile market. If adopted, the
Planned Development rezone and the Sciortino Ranch Design Guidelines will establish the
parameters for a wide range of permitted uses – including medium, high, and very high density
residential, commercial, business park, office, and service commercial. The intent of the zoning
and the corresponding guidelines is to provide the framework for the processing of future
development of this site, with different standards than other areas of the community. The
Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council approve the project in
accordance with the attached resolutions and ordinance.

While the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project, the applicant remains
concerned about several issues relating to the General Plan amendment and the rezone.
These concerns, and the proposed changes to the Planning Commission’s recommendations,
are detailed in a letter to the City Council dated May 15th, which is attached to this report for the
Council’s review and reference. In the event that the Council decides to approve the changes
requested by the applicant, a separate resolution for the General Plan amendment and a
separate ordinance for the rezone have been prepared and attached to this report that reflect
the applicant’s specific requests and which can be adopted by the Council. The attached
resolution for the appeal of the tentative subdivision map includes all of the requested changes
by the applicant, with the exception of condition number 53, which remains the same as it was
approved by the Planning Commission.

FISCAL IMPACT

There is no fiscal impact associated with certification of the Final EIR or with the approval of the
General Plan amendment or the rezone. The applicant has paid the required $126 filing fee for
the appeal of the tentative subdivision map. All appropriate application and impact fees will be
paid in conjunction with future development projects within Sciortino Ranch.

Attachments:

   1.  Resolution – EIR
   2.  Resolution – GPA (Planning Commission Recommendation)
   3.  Ordinance – RZ (Planning Commission Recommendation)
   4.  Resolution – TSM appeal
   5.  Resolution – GPA (Applicant Requested Changes)
   6.  Ordinance – RZ (Applicant Requested Changes)
   7.  Sciortino Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report, April 2009
   8.  Sciortino Ranch Design Guidelines, Public Review Draft, April 2009, dated “Received
       April 6, 2009”
   9. Planning Commission Staff Report, April 21, 2009
   10. Planning Commission minutes, April 21, 2009
   11. Memo from Craig Bronzan, Director of Parks & Recreation, dated May 19, 2009
   12. Letter to the City Council from New Urban Communities Partners, dated May 15, 2009,
       titled “Sciortino Ranch – Request for Text Revisions (GPA 09-01 & RZ 06-13)”
   13. Letter to the City Council from New Urban Communities Partners, dated May 12, 2009,
       titled “Sciortino Ranch – Application for Appeal of TSM 9152”




                                                 8
                              CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.

       A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
       CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, INCLUDING
       FINDINGS OF FACT AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
       RELATED TO CUMULATIVE AIR QUALITY IMPACTS, AND ADOPT THE
       MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR THE SCIORTINO RANCH
       PROJECT, LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 65 ACRES DIRECTLY EAST OF THE
       SAND CREEK ROAD AND BRENTWOOD BOULEVARD INTERSECTION (APN 016-
       170-012 AND 016-170-013).

        WHEREAS, New Urban Communities Partners has requested the following approvals
for the Sciortino Ranch project:

       1. A Final Environmental Impact Report; and

       2. A General Plan amendment (GPA 09-01); and

       3. A Rezone (RZ 06-13); and

       4. A Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM 9152).

       WHEREAS, the City of Brentwood has determined that an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) should be prepared to analyze both the potential impacts and any necessary mitigation
measures for the Sciortino Ranch project; and

        WHEREAS, the EIR evaluates impacts, mitigation, and alternatives at the project level
for the Sciortino Ranch project; and

       WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was circulated pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) prior to preparation of the EIR; and

       WHEREAS, a Draft EIR was prepared per CEQA, and all comments in response to the
Notice of Preparation (NOP) were incorporated into the Draft EIR; and

       WHEREAS, the Draft EIR has been circulated to the State Clearinghouse, all relevant
agencies and interested parties for a 45-day public comment period, per CEQA; and

      WHEREAS, all comments received during the public comment period and written
responses to those comments, taken together with the Draft EIR, constitute the Final EIR, per
CEQA; and

        WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (“MMRP”)
which includes the mitigation measures proposed for adoption as conditions of approval to the
Sciortino Ranch project; and

        WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that the mitigation measures
related to transportation impacts in the Final EIR should be substituted with mitigation measures
that are equivalent or more effective, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15074.1;
and



                                               1
       WHEREAS, on April 21, 2009, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing to consider the following:

       1. The recommendation that the City Council certify the Final EIR and adopt the MMRP
          for the Sciortino Ranch project; and

       2. The recommendation that the City Council approve a General Plan amendment
          (GPA 09-01) to modify the Land Use Element related to the text for Special Planning
          Area A, and make the associated change to the Land Use Map; and

       3. The recommendation that the City Council approve a rezone (RZ 06-13) to establish
          a list of allowable uses and development standards for the PD-55 Zone, to be
          incorporated within Chapter 17.505 of the Brentwood Municipal Code; and

       4. The approval of a tentative subdivision map (TSM 9152) to create 11 parcels on the
          65-acre project site.

       WHEREAS, on May 26, 2009, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to
consider the project, including the Final EIR.

        NOW, THEREFORE, after consideration of the record in these proceedings, including
the testimony, exhibits and materials presented at the hearing, the City Council resolves as
follows:

       1. The City Council certifies that the Environmental Impact Report for the Sciortino
          Ranch Project (herein EIR) which consists of the Draft EIR and the Final EIR
          (Response to Comments) (collectively the “EIR”) has been completed in accordance
          with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
          State CEQA Guidelines.

       2. The City Council certifies that the EIR was prepared, published, circulated and
          reviewed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA
          Guidelines, and constitutes an adequate, accurate, objective and complete Final
          Environmental Impact Report in full compliance with the requirements of CEQA and
          the State CEQA Guidelines.

       3. The City Council certifies that the EIR has been presented to this body, that the City
          Council has reviewed the EIR and has considered the information contained in the
          EIR prior to acting on the proposed Project, and that the EIR reflects the City
          Council’s independent judgment and analysis.

       4. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093, and in support of its
          approval of the Project, the City Council adopts the attached Findings of Fact and
          Statement of Overriding Considerations in support of approval of the Project as set
          forth in the attached Exhibit “A” of this Resolution.

       5. Pursuant to CEQA Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, and in
          support of its approval of the Project, the City Council certifies the EIR and adopts
          the Mitigation Monitoring Program to require all reasonably feasible mitigation
          measures be implemented by means of Project conditions, agreements, or other



                                               2
          measures, as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program as set forth in Exhibit B
          of this Resolution.

       6. The City Council substitutes the mitigation measures related to transportation
          impacts in the Final EIR with mitigation measures that are equivalent or more
          effective, attached hereto, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15074.1.

       7. The City Council directs that, upon approval of the Project, the City’s Community
          Development Department shall file a notice of determination with the County Clerk of
          Contra Costa and, if the Project requires a discretionary approval from any State
          agency, with the State Office of Planning and Research, pursuant to the provisions of
          CEQA Section 21152.

       8. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e), the documents and other materials
          that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council has based its
          decision are located in, and may be obtained from, the City of Brentwood Community
          Development Department at 118 Oak Street, Brentwood, California.

       ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at its regular meeting of May 26,
2009, by the following vote:




                                              3
                               EXHIBIT "A" TO
                        CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
       FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS


Description of the Project

The proposed project site is located within the North Brentwood Redevelopment Area and also
within the limits of the proposed Brentwood Boulevard Specific Plan (BBSP) area. The project
site, which encompasses approximately 65 acres, is located at the intersection of Sand Creek
Road and Brentwood Boulevard (State Route 4). Sand Creek Road is planned to extend
through the project site in the future. The project site consists of two parcels identified by
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 016-170-012 and -013. The proposed project would include
the development of up to up to 468 multi-family apartments, 140 single-family detached homes,
107,267 square feet of retail/office/commercial uses, 228,690 square feet of institutional uses,
and 5.1 acres of park uses. The proposed project requires approval of a General Plan
amendment, approval of an amendment to the PD-55 Zone (inclusive of a Sub Area Map,
Zoning Matrix, and associated Design Guidelines), and approval of a tentative subdivision map
to subdivide the site into 11 parcels.

Findings Required Under CEQA

1.     Procedural Findings

The City Council of the City of Brentwood finds as follows:

Based on the Initial Study conducted for the Sciortino Ranch Project, SCH #2008112041
(Project), the City of Brentwood’s Community Development Department determined, based on
substantial evidence, that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment, and an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the Project. The EIR was prepared,
noticed, published, circulated, reviewed, and completed in full compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq. (CEQA) and the CEQA
Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §15000 et seq.), as follows:

        a.      A Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Draft EIR was filed with the Office of
Planning and Research and each responsible and trustee agency November 10, 2008 and was
circulated for public comments from November 10, 2008 through December 9, 2008.

         b.    A Notice of Availability (NOA) and copies of the Draft EIR were distributed to the
Office of Planning and Research on February 13, 2009 to those public agencies that have
jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project, or which exercise authority over resources that
may be affected by the Project, and to other interested parties and agencies as required by law.
The comments of such persons and agencies were sought.

        c.    An official 45-day public comment period for the Draft EIR was established by the
Office of Planning and Research. The public comment period began on February 13, 2009 and
ended on March 30, 2009.

        d.     A NOA of the Draft EIR was mailed to all interested groups, organizations, and
individuals who had previously requested notice in writing on February 13, 2009. The NOA
stated that the City of Brentwood had completed the Draft EIR and that copies were available at


                                                4
the City of Brentwood Community Development Department at 118 Oak Street, Brentwood,
California. The letter also indicated that the official 45-day public review period for the Draft EIR
would end on March 30, 2009.

        e.     A public notice was placed in the Brentwood Press on February 13, 2009, which
stated that the Draft EIR was available for public review and comment.

       f.    A public notice of availability was posted in the office of the Contra Costa County
Clerk on February 13, 2009.

        g.   Following closure of the public comment period, all comments received on the
Draft EIR during the comment period and the City’s written responses to the significant
environmental points raised in those comments were added to the Draft EIR to produce the
Final EIR.

2.     Record of Proceedings

The following information is incorporated by reference and made part of the record supporting
these findings:

       a.      The Project Draft and Final Environmental Impact Reports and all documents
               relied upon or incorporated by reference.

       b.      The City of Brentwood General Plan, City of Brentwood, amended through
               January 2009.

       c.      City of Brentwood General Plan Update EIR, City of Brentwood, November 2001
               and all updates.

       d.      The Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
               Adoption of the Brentwood General Plan, City of Brentwood, amended through
               January 2009.

       e.      The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Brentwood.

       f.      The Brentwood Boulevard Draft Specific Plan, City of Brentwood, April 2008.

       g.      The Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Project.

       h.      The Project application materials, including application information, PD-55
               Zoning Matrix, and Tentative Subdivision Map.

       i.      All records of decision, staff reports, memoranda, maps, exhibits, letters,
               synopses of meetings, and other documents approved, reviewed, relied upon, or
               prepared by any City commissions, boards, officials, consultants, or staff relating
               to the Project.




                                                 5
3.     Findings

CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible,
to substantially lessen or avoid significant environment impacts that would otherwise occur.
Mitigation measures or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are
infeasible or where the responsibility for the project lies with some other agency. (CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15091, sub. [a], [b].)

With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened,
a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the
agency first adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations setting forth the specific reasons
why the agency found that the project’s “benefits” rendered “acceptable” its “unavoidable
adverse environmental effects.” (CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15093, 15043, sub. [b]; see also
Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, sub. [b].)

In seeking to effectuate the substantive policy of CEQA to substantially lessen or avoid
significant environmental effects to the extent feasible, an agency, in adopting findings, need not
necessarily address the feasibility of both mitigation measures and environmentally superior
alternatives when contemplating approval of a proposed project with significant impacts. Where
a significant impact can be mitigated to an “acceptable” level solely by the adoption of feasible
mitigation measures, the agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation to consider the
feasibility of any environmentally superior alternative that could also substantially lessen or
avoid that same impact – even if the alternative would render the impact less severe than would
the proposed project as mitigated. (Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978)
83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521; see also Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221
Cal.App.3d 692, 730-731; and Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the
University of California (“Laurel Heights I”) (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 400-403.)

In these Findings, the City first addresses the extent to which each significant environmental
effect can be substantially lessened or avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation
measures. Only after determining that, even with the adoption of all feasible mitigation
measures, an effect is significant and unavoidable does the City address the extent to which
alternatives described in the EIR are (i) environmentally superior with respect to that effect and
(ii) “feasible” within the meaning of CEQA.

In cases in which a project’s significant effects cannot be mitigated or avoided, an agency, after
adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if it first adopts a Statement of
Overriding Considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency finds that the
“benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment.” (Public Resources
Code, Section 21081, sub. [b]; see also, CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15093, 15043, sub. [b].) In
the Statement of Overriding Considerations found at the end of these Findings, the City
identifies the specific economic, social, and other considerations that, in its judgment, outweigh
the significant environmental effects that the Project will cause.

The California Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he wisdom of approving ... any development
project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound
discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions.
The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and
therefore balanced.” (Goleta II (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553 at 576.)




                                                6
In support of its approval of the Project, the City council makes the following findings for each of
the significant environmental effects and alternatives of the Project identified in the EIR pursuant
to Section 21080 of CEQA and Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines:

       A.     Significant or Potentially Significant Impacts Mitigated to a Less-Than-
Significant Level.

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

Land Use

4.1-1 Compatibility with existing or planned surrounding land uses. Development of the Project
could include certain permitted retail uses (such as businesses that sell alcohol, fast food drive-
thrus, or other uses that may have extended hours of operation) to be constructed adjacent to
residential uses, which may require security measures. Without mitigation, this is a significant
impact.

Mitigation Measure (From MMP):        The following mitigation measure has been adopted to
address this impact:

       4.1-1           Prior to the approval of any permitted use involving the sale of alcohol as
                       the primary means of business (i.e., convenience markets, bars,
                       nightclubs, liquor stores, etc.), drive-thrus, or hours of operation beyond
                       10:00 pm, the applicant shall be required to prepare a plan detailing the
                       operational and security-related characteristics of the proposed use. Said
                       plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Community
                       Development Director and the Chief of Police, and shall be incorporated
                       into the respective design review or tenant improvement permit approval.

Finding:       The Project includes preparation of a plan detailing the operational and security-
               related characteristics of any drive-thrus, uses with hours of operations beyond
               10:00 pm, or proposed uses involving the sale of alcohol as the primary means of
               business. This prevents incompatibility with surrounding residential uses by
               ensuring the provision of security measures at uses that could need additional
               security.

With implementation of the mitigation measure, this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant
level.




                                                 7
Transportation and Circulation

4.3-1 Impacts to the unsignalized intersection of Brentwood Boulevard and Homecoming Way.
Construction of the proposed project would increase the volume of traffic at this intersection.
Without mitigation, this is a significant impact.

Mitigation Measure (From MMP):        The following mitigation measure has been adopted to
address this impact:

       4.3-1          The Brentwood Boulevard / Homecoming Way intersection shall be
                      modified by eliminating left turns from the intersection’s westbound
                      approach, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. If the improvement is
                      included in the City’s Development Fee Program upon issuance of the
                      project’s first building permit, then the project shall contribute to the
                      mitigation by paying its fair share of the cost through the payment of the
                      City’s Transportation Impact Fee with the issuance of each building
                      permit. In the event the improvement has not been added to the City’s
                      Development Fee Program upon issuance of the first building permit, then
                      the proposed project shall include installation of the improvement and be
                      eligible for reimbursement.

Finding:       The Project applicant would either install the improvement to the intersection and
               be eligible for reimbursement or pay fair share fees for the improvement to the
               intersection. According to the traffic report, after construction of the improvement,
               the affected intersection would operate within acceptable levels.

With implementation of the mitigation measure, this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant
level.

4.3-2 Impacts to the signalized intersection of Brentwood Boulevard and Grant Street / Sunset
Road. Construction of the proposed project would increase the traffic volume at this intersection.
Without mitigation, this is a significant impact.

Mitigation Measure (From MMP):        The following mitigation measure has been adopted to
address this impact:

       4.3-2          The Brentwood Boulevard / Grant Street / Sunset Road intersection shall
                      be modified by converting the northbound right-turn lane into a through-
                      right lane and adding a southbound through lane. If the modification is not
                      already completed by others, then the developer shall be responsible for
                      completing it prior to issuance of the first residential building permit and/or
                      prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the first non-residential
                      building permit, and be eligible for reimbursement per the City’s
                      Development Fee Program. If the modification is completed prior to any
                      development of the site, then the developer shall pay the project’s fair
                      share, with each building permit, through the transportation impact fee.
                      The modification shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City
                      Engineer.

Finding:       The Project applicant would either install the improvement to the intersection and
               be eligible for reimbursement or pay fair share fees for the improvement to the


                                                 8
               intersection. According to the traffic report, after construction of the improvement,
               the affected intersection would operate within acceptable levels.

With implementation of the mitigation measure, this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant
level.

4.3-3 Impacts to the unsignalized intersection of Brentwood Boulevard and Havenwood
Avenue. Construction of the proposed project would increase the traffic volume at this
intersection. Without mitigation, this is a significant impact.

Mitigation Measure (From MMP):        The following mitigation measure has been adopted to
address this impact:

       4.3-3           Prior to issuance of the first residential building permit and/or Certificate
                       of Occupancy for the first non-residential building permit, the Brentwood
                       Boulevard / Havenwood Avenue intersection shall be modified by
                       eliminating through and left-turn movements from the intersection’s
                       westbound approach, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

Finding:       The Project applicant would install the improvement to the intersection.
               According to the traffic report, after construction of the improvement, the affected
               intersection would operate within acceptable levels.

With implementation of the mitigation measure, this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant
level.

4.3-4 Impacts to the unsignalized intersection of Brentwood Boulevard and Village Drive.
Construction of the proposed project would increase the traffic volume at this intersection.
Without mitigation, this is a significant impact.

Mitigation Measure (From MMP):        The following mitigation measure has been adopted to
address this impact:

       4.3-4           Prior to issuance of the first residential building permit and/or Certificate
                       of Occupancy for the first non-residential building permit, the Brentwood
                       Boulevard / Village Drive intersection shall be modified by eliminating left
                       turns from the intersection’s westbound approach, to the satisfaction of
                       the City Engineer.

Finding:       The Project applicant would install the improvement to the intersection.
               According to the traffic report, after construction of the improvement, the affected
               intersection would operate within acceptable levels.

With implementation of the mitigation measure, this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant
level.

4.3-7 Cumulative impacts to study intersections. Construction of the proposed project would
cumulatively impact intersections in the vicinity of the project site. Without mitigation, this is a
significant impact.




                                                 9
Mitigation Measures (From MMP): The following mitigation measures have been adopted to
address this impact:

       4.3-7(a)       The Brentwood Boulevard / Lone Tree Way intersection shall be modified
                      by converting the southbound through-right lane to a through lane and
                      adding a dedicated right-turn lane. If the modification is not already
                      completed by others, then the developer shall be responsible for
                      completing it prior to issuance of the first residential building permit and/or
                      prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the first non-residential
                      building permit. If the modification is completed prior to any development
                      of the site, then the developer shall pay the project’s fair share, with each
                      building permit, through the transportation impact fee. The modification
                      shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

       4.3-7(b)       Prior to issuance of the first residential building permit and/or Certificate
                      of Occupancy for the first non-residential building permit, the Brentwood
                      Boulevard / Sunrise Drive intersection shall be modified by eliminating all
                      left- and right-turn movements at the intersection.

       4.3-7(c)       Prior to issuance of the first residential building permit and/or Certificate
                      of Occupancy for the first non-residential building permit, the Brentwood
                      Boulevard / Gregory Lane intersection shall be modified by installation of
                      a traffic signal for the intersection. The traffic signal shall be designed to
                      include the Brentwood Boulevard / Beverly Place intersection.

       4.3-7(d)       The Brentwood Boulevard / Grant Street / Sunset Road intersection shall
                      be modified by converting the northbound right-turn lane into a through-
                      right lane and adding a southbound through lane. If the modification is not
                      already completed by others, then the developer shall be responsible for
                      completing it prior to issuance of the first residential building permit and/or
                      prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the first non-residential
                      building permit. If the modification is completed prior to any development
                      of the site, then the developer shall pay the project’s fair share, with each
                      building permit, through the transportation impact fee. The modification
                      shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

       4.3-7(e)       The Brentwood Boulevard / Sand Creek Road intersection shall be
                      modified by converting the southbound through-right lane to a through
                      lane and adding a southbound right turn lane. The developer shall
                      complete the modification prior to issuance of the first residential building
                      permit and/or prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the first
                      non-residential building permit. The modification shall be completed to the
                      satisfaction of the City Engineer.

Finding:      The Project applicant would either install the improvements to the intersections
              and be eligible for reimbursement or pay fair share fees for the improvements to
              the intersections. According to the traffic report, after construction of the
              improvements, the affected intersections would operate within acceptable levels.

With implementation of the mitigation measures, this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant
level.


                                                10
Air Quality

4.4-1 Short-term construction-related air quality impacts. PM10 and PM2.5 emissions associated
with construction of the Project have the potential for creating a nuisance at nearby properties.
Without mitigation, this is a significant impact.

Mitigation Measure (From MMP):       The following mitigation measure has been adopted to
address this impact:

       4.4-1      Consistent with guidance from the BAAQMD, prior to issuance of any grading
                  permits, the applicant shall incorporate the following mitigation measures into
                  the construction contract documents, which shall be submitted for the review
                  and approval of the City Engineer:

                  •   Water all active construction areas at least twice daily and more often
                      during windy periods; active areas adjacent to existing land uses shall be
                      kept damp at all times, or shall be treated with non-toxic stabilizers or
                      dust palliatives;
                  •   Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all
                      trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard;
                  •   Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on
                      all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at
                      construction sites;
                  •   Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads,
                      parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites; water sweepers
                      shall vacuum up excess water to avoid runoff-related impacts to water
                      quality;
                  •   Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil
                      material is carried onto adjacent public streets;
                  •   Apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas;
                  •   Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to
                      exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.);
                  •   Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph;
                  •   Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to
                      public roadways; and
                  •   Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.

                  The above measures include all feasible measures for construction emissions
                  identified by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

3.     Finding:       As outlined in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, implementation of
              Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 would reduce the impact related to construction dust
              emissions to a less-than-significant level by preventing fugitive particulate matter
              emissions from being generated as a result of wind blowing over exposed earth
              on the Project site.

With implementation of the mitigation measure, this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant
level.



                                               11
Noise

4.5-1 Impact of traffic noise at future noise-sensitive land uses developed on project site. The
project is anticipated to have traffic noise greater than the 60 dB Ldn exterior noise level
standard at proposed project residential uses. Without mitigation, this is a significant impact.

Mitigation Measure (From MMP):         The following mitigation measure has been adopted to
address this impact:

        4.5-2          Prior to approval of tentative maps or site plans, the tentative maps or site
                       plans of residential uses, transient lodging, hospitals, churches/meeting
                       halls, office buildings and schools affected by roadway traffic noise shall
                       comply with the exterior noise level standard of 60 dB Ldn/CNEL at the
                       primary outdoor activity area where good speech intelligibility is required.
                       Compliance with the exterior noise level standard shall be achieved
                       through the site design measures (i.e., setbacks, barriers, site design,
                       building façades, and vegetation). Preliminary barrier calculations indicate
                       that barrier heights of approximately 10 feet would be required along
                       Brentwood Boulevard and seven feet along Sand Creek Road. Future
                       detailed analysis may be required by the Community Development
                       Director per future site plan submittals. Where no primary outdoor activity
                       area is included in the project design, the exterior noise level standard
                       may not be applicable. For instance offices, transient lodging, hospitals,
                       etc. may not include or require outdoor activity areas. The City criterion
                       does not apply to commercial uses.

Finding:        Implementation of the site design measures recommended in the mitigation
                measure, such as setbacks, barriers, site design, building façades, and
                vegetation would reduce exterior noise levels at sensitive receptors and achieve
                compliance with the exterior noise level standard of 60 dB Ldn/CNEL.

With implementation of the mitigation measure, this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant
level.

4.5-2 Impacts related to excessive interior noise levels at future noise-sensitive receptors
within the project site. The Project could expose new dwelling units to interior traffic noise levels
in excess of the City’s interior noise level standards. Without mitigation, this is a significant
impact.

Mitigation Measures (From MMP): The following mitigation measures have been adopted to
address this impact:

        4.5-3(a)       Prior to the issuance of building permits for residential uses constructed
                       at the minimum setback along Brentwood Boulevard, the project design
                       shall include glass windows and doors with the sound transmission class
                       (STC) ratings sufficient to mitigate for the predicted traffic noise levels in
                       Table 4.5-11 under the cumulative plus project scenarios. Final design
                       shall be reviewed and approved by the Chief Building Official and/or City
                       Engineer.




                                                 12
       4.5-3(b)       Prior to the issuance of building permits for commercial, office, and
                      institutional uses, mechanical ventilation systems shall be included in the
                      project design for the review and approval of the Chief Building Official.
                      The use of mechanical ventilation systems would allow occupants to keep
                      windows and doors closed to achieve acoustical isolation from traffic
                      noise.

       4.5-3(c)       Prior to the issuance of building permits for first row residential uses
                      constructed along the Brentwood Boulevard corridor, the project design
                      shall ensure that all attic vents be acoustically baffled in first row
                      residential uses constructed along the Brentwood Boulevard corridor. The
                      baffles shall introduce at least one 90 degree obstruction to the flow of air
                      through the vent. The baffle should be lined with an acoustically
                      absorbent material. Final design shall be reviewed and approved by the
                      Chief Building Official.

Finding:       According to the noise report, for the Project’s residential units, use of
               mechanical ventilation systems and glass windows and doors with sound
               transmission class (STC) ratings sufficient to mitigate for the Project’s predicted
               traffic noise levels, as well as acoustically baffling all attic vents, would reduce
               the Project’s interior noise exposure to an acceptable level.

With implementation of the mitigation measures, this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant
level.

4.5-4 Impacts of commercial noise sources on existing and future noise-sensitive uses in the
project area. The potential commercial noise sources associated with development of the
Project could have impacts on existing and future sensitive land uses. Without mitigation, this is
a significant impact.

Mitigation Measures (From MMP): The following mitigation measures have been adopted to
address this impact:
        4.5-4(a)     During project review, the Community Development Director shall make a
                     determination as to whether or not the proposed commercial use would
                     likely generate noise levels that could adversely affect the adjacent
                     residential areas. If the determination is made from this review that
                     proposed uses could generate excessive noise levels at noise-sensitive
                     uses, the applicant shall be required to prepare an acoustical analysis
                     consistent with the General Plan Noise Element to ensure that all
                     appropriate noise control measures are incorporated into the project
                     design and to mitigate any noise impacts. Such noise control measures
                     include, but are not limited to, use of noise barriers, site-redesign,
                     silencers, partial or complete enclosures of critical equipment, etc.

       4.5-4(b)       Where commercial uses adjoin residential uses, and loading docks or
                      large truck circulation routes adjoin residential areas, prior to design
                      review approval, the following mitigation measures shall be included in
                      the project design, to ensure compliance with the noise level standards
                      contained within Table 4.5-7, for review and approval of the Community
                      Development Director. The mitigation measures may include some or all
                      of the following, or may be modified pending more detailed analysis of


                                                13
                      future development proposals by an acoustical consultant:

                         •   Loading docks should maintain a minimum distance of 100 feet
                             from residential property lines;
                         •   Property line barriers should be a minimum of eight feet in height,
                             in order to break line of sight to semi-tractor trailers and shield
                             adjacent residential uses;
                         •   Circulation routes for large trucks should be located a minimum of
                             50 feet from the residential property lines;
                         •   Loading dock activities, including truck idling and use of
                             refrigeration units, and shipping/receiving hours shall be limited to
                             daytime hours (7am to 10pm);
                         •   All large heating, cooling and ventilation equipment should be
                             located within mechanical rooms or shielded on the ground, where
                             possible;
                         •   All roof-top exterior heating, cooling and ventilation equipment shall
                             be shielded from view with solid noise barriers, or parapets; and
                         •   Emergency generators shall comply with the local noise criteria.

       4.5-4(c)       Prior to approval of site plans within individual sub-areas, the project
                      design shall show, for review and approval of the Community
                      Development Director, where commercial land uses are separated from
                      residential areas by local streets, all loading activities should be located
                      on opposite sides of the buildings from residential uses. This mitigation
                      measure may be modified pending more detailed analysis of future
                      development proposals by an acoustical consultant.

Finding:       According to the noise report, for the Project’s commercial use(s), utilization of
               noise barriers, site-redesign, silencers, or partial or complete enclosures of
               critical equipment may be necessary if the determination is made that the
               proposed commercial use(s) would generate noise levels that could adversely
               affect the adjacent residential areas. In addition, locating all commercial loading
               activities on opposite sides of buildings from residential uses would ensure that
               commercial noise levels are reduced at sensitive receptors. Furthermore,
               including the required mitigation in the site design for the commercial use(s)
               would ensure compliance with the City’s noise level standards.

With implementation of the mitigation measures, this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant
level.

4.5-5 Impacts of neighborhood parks on future noise-sensitive uses within the project area.
Development of the Project includes park areas in close proximity to nearby residential areas,
which could result in noise impacts to those residential areas. Without mitigation, this is a
significant impact.

Mitigation Measure (From MMP):        The following mitigation measure has been adopted to
address this impact:

       4.5-5          During site plan consideration for the parks, the City shall ensure that
                      active recreation areas of neighborhood parks are located as far as



                                               14
                      possible from residential property lines and masonry walls shall be
                      constructed along property lines adjacent to existing residential uses. In
                      addition, neighborhood parks shall only be open from dawn to dusk.
                      Parks shall be large enough to allow playgrounds to be placed
                      appropriate distances from residences. In addition, new residential
                      developments shall be informed of any planned parks in their vicinity.

Finding:       According to the noise report, ensuring that active recreation areas of
               neighborhood parks are located as far as possible from residential property lines
               and constructing masonry walls along property lines adjacent to existing
               residential uses, as well as limiting the hours the parks are open, would reduce
               the Project’s park-related noise to an acceptable level.

With implementation of the mitigation measure, this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant
level.

4.5-6 Impacts related to construction noise. Construction activities associated with the Project
would result in periods of elevated noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors. Without mitigation,
this is a significant impact.

Mitigation Measures (From MMP): The following mitigation measures have been adopted to
address this impact:

       4.5-6(a)       During construction, the City shall ensure noise-generating activities at
                      the construction site or in areas adjacent to the construction site
                      associated with the project in any way shall be restricted to the hours of
                      7:30 am to 5:30 pm, Monday through Saturday. Construction is prohibited
                      on Sundays and City holidays unless prior authorization from the
                      Community Development Director is obtained.

       4.5-6(b)       Prior to the approval of the Improvement Plans or initiation of any grading
                      or construction activity, the applicant/developer shall include the following
                      mitigation measures on the plans to be approved by the City Engineer:

                          •   Equip all equipment driven by internal combustion engines with
                              intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and
                              appropriate to the equipment. Unnecessary idling of internal
                              combustion engines should be strictly prohibited;
                          •   Stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors
                              or portable power generators, must be located the greatest
                              distance applicable from sensitive receptors. Construct temporary
                              noise barriers to screen stationary noise-generating equipment
                              when located near adjoining sensitive land uses;
                          •   Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary noise sources
                              where technology exists;
                          •   Designate a “disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible
                              for responding to any local complaints regarding construction
                              noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the cause of the
                              noise complaints (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and will
                              require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the



                                                15
                              problem be implemented; and
                          •   Notify prospective residents within the adjacent subdivision that
                              the development of the commercial portion of the site would
                              generate noise levels during construction that may be considered
                              excessive or annoying.

Finding:       According to the noise report, restricting construction activities to the hours of
               7:30 am to 5:30 pm, Monday through Saturday and shielding or muffling
               construction equipment and stationary noise-generating equipment, as well as
               providing for a “disturbance coordinator” to manage potential complaints
               regarding noise levels, would reduce the Project’s construction noise to an
               acceptable level.

With implementation of the mitigation measures, this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant
level.

4.5-8 Cumulative impacts as a result of project-related traffic on existing noise-sensitive uses
adjacent to the project site. Under cumulative conditions, one roadway segment (along the
Sand Creek Road extension) would experience noise level increases in excess of three dB.
Without mitigation, this is a significant impact.

Mitigation Measure (From MMP):        The following mitigation measure has been adopted to
address this impact:

       4.5-8          Implement Mitigation Measure 4.5-2.

Finding:       According to the noise report, for the Project’s residential units, use of
               mechanical ventilation systems and glass windows and doors with sound
               transmission class (STC) ratings sufficient to mitigate for the Project’s predicted
               traffic noise levels, as well as acoustically baffling all attic vents, would reduce
               project-level and cumulative interior noise exposure at residential uses to an
               acceptable level.

With implementation of the mitigation measure, this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant
level.




                                                16
Biological Resources

4.6-2           IMPACTS TO SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS. DISTURBANCE OF THE PROJECT SITE DURING
CONSTRUCTION COULD IMPACT POTENTIAL SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS ON-SITE. WITHOUT MITIGATION,
THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.

Mitigation Measure (From MMP):        The following mitigation measure has been adopted to
address this impact:

        4.6-2          Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall ensure that a
                       pre-construction survey for special-status plant species is conducted prior
                       to commencement of construction activities, for the review and approval
                       of the Community Development Director and the California Department of
                       Fish and Game. The survey is to be done to verify the continued absence
                       of special-status plant species identified in the previous surveys.

Finding:        Pre-construction surveys for special-status plant species are intended to verify
                the continued absence of special-status plant species on the project site, as
                identified in the previous surveys performed.

With implementation of the mitigation measure, this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant
level.

4.6-3          IMPACTS TO BURROWING OWL. THE PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO RESULT IN A
“TAKE” OF BURROWING OWLS IF THEY ARE PRESENT ON-SITE AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION, AND
WOULD RESULT IN THE LOSS OF OCCUPIED BURROWING OWL HABITAT. WITHOUT MITIGATION, THIS IS
A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.

Mitigation Measures (From MMP): The following mitigation measures have been adopted to
address this impact:

        4.6-3(a)       Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall ensure that
                       pre-construction surveys are conducted between April 15 and July 15 by
                       a qualified biologist within the project area to determine the presence of
                       burrowing owls during the height of the nesting season. The survey is to
                       be completed in accordance with the survey requirements of the CDFG
                       and protocol for the California Burrowing Owl Consortium (CBOC) and
                       submitted to the Community Development Director. If site disturbance
                       does not commence within 30 days of the nesting season survey, an
                       additional survey shall be conducted prior to construction.

                       If site disturbance commences during the nesting season, between
                       February 1 and August 31, and burrowing owls are detected on or within
                       250 feet of the on-site construction areas, a fenced buffer shall be
                       installed not less than 250 feet between the nest burrow(s) and
                       construction activities. The 250 foot buffer shall be observed and the
                       fence left intact until a qualified biologist determines that the young are
                       foraging independently, the nest has failed, or the owls are not using any
                       burrows within the buffer.




                                                17
        4.6-3(b)       Prior to the issuance of grading or construction permits for the project
                       site, the applicant shall pay the applicable HCP/NCCP per-acre fee in
                       effect. Once the per-acre fee is paid, the City will verify that the
                       HCP/NCCP permit terms and conditions have been met and issue take
                       authorization under the HCP/NCCP.

Finding:        If burrowing owls are detected on or within 250 feet of the on-site construction
                areas, a fenced buffer will be installed not less than 250 feet between the nest
                burrow(s) and construction activities and the Project the applicant will pay the
                applicable HCP/NCCP per-acre fee for the Project site.

With implementation of the mitigation measures, this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant
level.

4.6-4        IMPACTS TO SWAINSON’S HAWK. CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT HAS THE
POTENTIAL TO DISRUPT SWAINSON’S HAWK NESTING BEHAVIOR IF OCCUPIED NESTS ARE PRESENT
ON OR NEAR THE SITE. WITHOUT MITIGATION, THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.

Mitigation Measure (From MMP):        The following mitigation measure has been adopted to
address this impact:

        4.6-4          Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall ensure that
                       pre-construction surveys are conducted between February and August by
                       a qualified biologist within the project area and within a 0.5 mile radius of
                       the project boundary. If nests are not found during the pre-construction
                       survey, further action is not required, other than payment of HCP/NCCP
                       mitigation fees, and required compliance with HCP/NCCP Mitigation
                       Measure 4.6-3(b). If active nests are found, the findings shall be
                       submitted to CDFG and a buffer zone of a minimum of one-quarter mile
                       shall be established around the active nest. Intensive new disturbances,
                       such as heavy equipment activities associated with construction that may
                       cause nest abandonment or forced fledging, shall not be initiated within
                       this buffer zone between March 1 and September 1. Any trees containing
                       nests that must be removed as a result of project implementation shall be
                       removed during non-breeding season between September and January.

Finding:        If Swainson’s hawks or Swainson’s hawks’ nests are detected within a 0.5-mile
                radius of the project boundary, a buffer zone of a minimum of one-quarter mile
                will be established around the active nest(s). In addition, whether or not
                Swainson’s hawks or Swainson’s hawks’ nests are found, the Project the
                applicant will pay the applicable HCP/NCCP per-acre fee for the Project site.

With implementation of the mitigation measure, this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant
level.

4.6-5       IMPACTS TO NESTING RAPTORS AND OTHER MIGRATORY BIRDS. REMOVAL OF TREES
ON THE PROJECT SITE DURING THE NESTING SEASON COULD RESULT IN ADVERSE IMPACTS TO
RAPTORS AND MIGRATORY BIRDS. WITHOUT MITIGATION, THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.

Mitigation Measure (From MMP):        The following mitigation measure has been adopted to
address this impact:


                                                18
       4.6-5          If site disturbance commences during the nesting season (February 1
                      through August 15), a pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a
                      qualified wildlife biologist within 15 days of the start of project-related
                      activities. If nests are not found during the pre-construction survey, further
                      action is not required, other than payment of HCP/NCCP mitigation fees,
                      and required compliance with Mitigation Measure 4.6-3(b). If nests of
                      migratory birds are detected on site or within 75 feet (for migratory
                      passerine birds) or 250 feet (for birds of prey) of the site, the applicant
                      shall observe no-disturbance buffers of 75 feet for migratory passerine
                      and 250 feet for birds of prey until August 15, or the qualified biologist
                      determines that the young are foraging independently, or the nest has
                      been abandoned.

                      Removal of any potential nesting trees or shrubs shall occur between
                      September 1 and January 31, outside of the general avian nesting
                      season. If removal of any potential nesting trees or shrubs occurs, or
                      construction begins, between February 1 and August 31 (nesting season
                      for passerine or non-passerine land birds) or December 15 and August 31
                      (nesting season for raptors), the applicant shall have a nesting bird
                      survey performed. The survey shall be done for the review and approval
                      of the Community Development Director, by a qualified biologist within 14
                      days prior to the removal or disturbance of potential nesting trees or
                      shrubs, or the initiation of other construction activities during the early part
                      of the breeding season (late December through April) and not more than
                      30 days prior to the initiation of these activities during the late part of the
                      breeding season (May through August). During this survey, a qualified
                      biologist shall inspect all potential nesting habitat (trees, shrubs,
                      grasslands, pastures, etc.) in and immediately adjacent to the impact
                      areas for nests.

                      Active nests shall be flagged and an appropriate non-disturbance buffer
                      zone shall be established around the nesting trees or shrubs. The size of
                      the buffer zone shall be determined by the project biologist in consultation
                      with CDFG and will depend on the species involved, site conditions, and
                      type of work to be conducted on the project site. Typically, if active nests
                      are found, construction activities shall not take place within 250 feet of the
                      raptor nests and within 75 feet of other migratory birds until the young
                      have fledged. A qualified biologist shall monitor active nests to determine
                      when the young have fledged and are feeding on their own. The qualified
                      biologist and CDFG shall be consulted for clearance before construction
                      activities resume on the project site.

Finding:       If the nests of raptors and/or other migratory birds are detected on site or within
               75 feet (for migratory passerine birds) or 250 feet (for birds of prey) of the site,
               no-disturbance buffers of 75 feet for migratory passerine and 250 feet for birds of
               prey will be observed. In addition, the applicant will have a nesting bird survey
               performed if removal of any potential nesting trees or shrubs occurs, or
               construction begins, between February 1 and August 3, and if active nests are
               found, construction activities will not take place within 250 feet of raptor nests or
               within 75 feet of other migratory bird nests until the young have fledged.


                                                19
With implementation of the mitigation measure, this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant
level.

4.6-8 Impacts to existing trees. Development of the proposed project site could result in the
      removal of existing trees. In addition, any trees to be retained could be damaged if not
      properly cared for both during construction and thereafter. Without mitigation, this is a
      significant impact.

Mitigation Measure (From MMP):       The following mitigation measure has been adopted to
address this impact:

       4.6-8 Prior to deeming complete site-specific applications for parcels located within the
                     proposed project site, the site plan(s) shall identify all non-orchard trees
                     within the site plan area that are at least in “good” condition (based on the
                     arborist report prepared for the project site), which shall be protected from
                     damage, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department,
                     and shall be identified on the grading plan. Appropriate protective
                     measures shall be taken to ensure preservation during grading activity
                     and after project occupancy. Any non-orchard tree in at least “good”
                     condition that cannot be preserved in place shall be relocated or
                     replaced, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department.

Finding:      The Project applicant will ensure that all non-orchard trees within the site plan
              area that are at least in “good” condition (based on the arborist report prepared
              for the project site) will be protected from damage, and that the trees will be
              preserved during grading activity and after project occupancy. If a non-orchard
              tree that is in “good” condition cannot be preserved, the Project applicant will
              relocate or replace the tree.

With implementation of the mitigation measure, this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant
level.

4.6-9           Cumulative loss of biological resources in the City of Brentwood and the effects
of ongoing urbanization in the region. Implementation of the Project could result in a loss of
habitat for burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, and other special-status plant and animal species
and would result in cumulative impacts to biological resources. Without mitigation, this is a
significant impact.
Mitigation Measure (From MMP): The following mitigation measure has been adopted to
address this impact:

       4.6-9 Implement Mitigation Measures 4.6-1 through 4.6-8.

Finding:      The Project will include implementation of all of the mitigation measures for
              project-level impacts to biological resources, which will reduce the project’s
              incremental contribution to cumulative impacts to biological resources to an
              acceptable level.

With implementation of the mitigation measure, this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant
level.




                                               20
Cultural Resources

4.7-1 Disturbance or destruction of archaeological resources on the project site. Construction
activities associated with buildout of the proposed project could uncover undocumented cultural
resources. Without mitigation, this is a significant impact.


Mitigation Measures (From MMP): The following mitigation measures have been adopted to
address this impact:

       4.7-1(a)      During ground disturbance activities, if any earth-moving activities
                     uncover any concentrations of stone, bone or shellfish, any artifacts of
                     these materials, or any evidence of fire (ash, charcoal, fire altered rock, or
                     earth), all work shall be halted in the vicinity of the find and a qualified
                     archaeologist shall be contacted immediately to make an evaluation to
                     assess possible historic importance or prehistoric significance. If
                     warranted by the discovery of a concentration of artifacts or soil deposits,
                     further work in the discovery area shall be monitored by an archaeologist.

                     If the discovery appears to be an isolated find, monitoring of excavation in
                     the vicinity would be appropriate to confirm this. However, if the discovery
                     appears indicative of a more complex deposit, archaeological
                     investigation shall be undertaken and a limited subsurface test procedure
                     (auger test) shall be performed in the discovery location to determine if
                     any culturally modified soils or more concentrated artifactual remains are
                     present at greater depths.

       4.7-1(b)      In the event that any archaeological deposits are discovered during
                     construction or grading, work in the vicinity of the discovery shall be
                     halted until a plan has been submitted to the Community Development
                     Director for the evaluation of the resource, as required under current
                     CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the following standard archaeological
                     monitoring and spot check procedures shall be implemented in the vicinity
                     of the discovery, following an investigation that determines that potentially
                     significant discoveries have been made:

                         •   Monitoring shall consist of directly watching the major excavation
                             process. Monitoring shall occur during the entire work day, and
                             shall continue on a daily basis until a depth of excavation has
                             been reached at which resources could not occur. This depth is
                             estimated as usually about five feet below grade at the beginning
                             of the project, but may require modification in specific cases, and
                             shall be determined by the monitoring archaeologist based on
                             observed soil conditions. Spot checks shall consist of partial
                             monitoring of the progress of excavation over the course of the
                             project. During spot checks, all spoils material, open excavations,
                             recently grubbed areas, and other soil disturbances shall be
                             inspected to determine if cultural materials are present. The
                             frequency and duration of spot checks shall be based on the
                             relative sensitivity of the exposed soils and active work areas. The


                                               21
                  monitoring archaeologist shall determine the relative sensitivity of
                  the parcel.

              •   If prehistoric human interments (human burials or skeletal
                  remains) are encountered within the native soils of the parcel, all
                  work should be halted in the immediate vicinity of the find. The
                  County Coroner, project superintendent, and the Agency Liaison
                  shall be contacted immediately.

              •   If significant cultural deposits other than human burials are
                  encountered, the project shall be modified to allow the artifacts or
                  features to be left in place, or the archaeological consultant shall
                  undertake the recovery of the deposit or feature. Significant
                  cultural deposits are defined as archaeological features or artifacts
                  that associate with the prehistoric period, the historic era (Mission
                  and Pueblo Periods), and the American era up to about 1950.

              •   Whenever the monitoring archaeologist suspects that potentially
                  significant cultural remains or human burials have been
                  encountered, the piece of equipment that encounters the
                  suspected deposit shall be stopped, and the excavation inspected
                  by the monitoring archaeologist. If the suspected remains prove to
                  be non-significant or non-cultural in origin, work shall recommence
                  immediately.

                  If the suspected remains prove to be part of a significant deposit,
                  all work shall be halted in that location until appropriate
                  recordation and (possible) removal has been accomplished. If
                  human remains (burials) are found, the County Coroner shall be
                  contacted to evaluate the discovery area and determine the
                  context; not all discovered human remains reflect Native American
                  origins. However, in all cases where prehistoric or historic era
                  Native American resources are involved, the Native American
                  Heritage Commission shall be contacted to designate appropriate
                  representatives of the local Native American community, who also
                  should be contacted about their concerns.

              •   Equipment stoppages shall only involve those pieces of
                  equipment that have actually encountered significant or potentially
                  significant deposits, and should not be construed to mean a
                  stoppage of all equipment on the site unless the cultural deposit
                  covers the entire building site.

              •   During temporary equipment stoppages brought about to examine
                  suspected remains, the archaeologist shall accomplish the
                  necessary tasks with all due speed.

4.7-1(c)   During construction, if bone is uncovered that may be human, the
           California Native American Heritage Commission, located in Sacramento,
           and the Contra Costa County Coroner shall be notified. Should human



                                   22
                      remains be found, all work shall be halted until final disposition by the
                      Coroner. Should the remains be determined to be of Native American
                      descent, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be consulted to
                      determine the appropriate disposition of such remains. In addition, a
                      qualified archaeologist shall be notified immediately so that an evaluation
                      of the remains and the site can be performed.

Finding:       If human bone or bone of unknown origin, archaeological or historical remains, or
               Native American resources are found, the appropriate qualified Coroner,
               archaeologist, will be contacted and work will stop to determine if further
               measures are needed.

With implementation of the mitigation measures, this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant
level.

4.7-3 Disturbance or destruction of previously unknown archaeological resources in
combination with other development in the Brentwood area. Buildout of the Project could
contribute to cumulative impacts related to historic or prehistoric resources if previously
unidentified cultural resources are discovered during construction. Without mitigation, this is a
significant impact.

Mitigation Measure (From MMP):       The following mitigation measure has been adopted to
address this impact:

       4.7-3          Implement Mitigation Measures 4.7-1(a) through 4.7-1(c).

Finding:       If human bone or bone of unknown origin, archaeological or historical remains, or
               Native American resources are found, the appropriate qualified Coroner,
               archaeologist, shall be contacted and work shall stop to determine if further
               measures are needed.

With implementation of the mitigation measure, this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant
level.

Hazards

4.8-2 Impacts related to the presence of gas wells. Contaminated soils could be present on
the Project site and the Project would include future development adjacent to an existing gas
well. Without mitigation, this is a significant impact.

Mitigation Measures (From MMP): The following mitigation measures have been adopted to
address this impact:

       4.8-2(a)       Prior to the issuance of grading permits for Sub-Area 5A, the applicant
                      shall provide a “No Further Action Required” letter from the RWQCB for
                      review by the Contra Costa County Environmental Health Department
                      and the Brentwood Community Development Director and Public Works
                      Department.

       4.8-2(b)       Prior to the approval of any development within Subareas 3A, 3B, 4, or
                      5A, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with Chapter 17.680 of


                                               23
                      the Brentwood Municipal Code (Oil and Gas Production), to the
                      satisfaction of the Community Development Director.

Finding:       Although contaminated soils have been excavated, before any development
               would be allowed for Sub-Area 5A, the Regional Water Quality Control Board
               (RWQCB) would have to provide clearance for the Sub-Area via a “No Further
               Action Required” letter. In addition, because the natural gas well could be
               integrated into future development on the Project site, development of Sub-Areas
               3A. 3B, 4, and 5A would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code in
               regard to oil and gas production.

With implementation of the mitigation measures, this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant
level.

4.8-4 Impacts related to soil contamination from the presence of underground storage tanks
and agricultural irrigation wells. Implementation of the Project could result in potential hazards
associated with USTs, agricultural wells, and septic systems on the site. Without mitigation, this
is a significant impact.

Mitigation Measures (From MMP): The following mitigation measures have been adopted to
address this impact:

       4.8-4(a)       During grading and construction activities, if Underground Storage Tanks
                      are encountered, the applicant shall hire a licensed contractor to remove
                      the USTs. In addition, the applicant shall obtain a permit from Contra
                      Costa County Environmental Health Department, and properly remove
                      the UST, per review and approval of the Contra Costa County
                      Environmental Health Department. If soils suspected of being
                      contaminated are encountered, they shall be removed in accordance with
                      RWQCB guidelines. Further remediation, if necessary, and disposal of
                      the soils shall be conducted in accordance with State and federal
                      guidelines.

       4.8-4(b)       During grading and construction activities, if septic systems are
                      encountered, the applicant shall hire a licensed contractor to remove the
                      septic systems. In addition, the applicant shall obtain a permit from
                      Contra Costa County Environmental Health Department, and properly
                      abandon/decommission the septic system, per review and approval of the
                      Contra Costa County Environmental Health Department. If soils
                      suspected of being contaminated are encountered, they shall be
                      stockpiled on plastic sheeting. Stockpiled soils shall be sampled in
                      accordance with RWQCB guidelines, and the findings forwarded to the
                      RWQCB for review. Further remediation, if necessary, and disposal of the
                      soils shall be conducted in accordance with State and federal guidelines.

       4.8-4(c)       Prior to initiation of any ground disturbance activities within 50 feet of a
                      well, the applicant shall hire a licensed well contractor to obtain a well
                      abandonment permit from Contra Costa County Environmental Health
                      Department, and properly abandon the on-site wells, per review and
                      approval of the Contra Costa County Environmental Health Department.



                                               24
Finding:      Any USTs and/or contaminated soils that are found on-site will be removed
              and/or remediated to the standards of the County Environmental Health
              Department. In addition, any septic systems encountered on-site will be properly
              abandoned/decommissioned to the standards of the County Environmental
              Health Department. Furthermore, any ground disturbance within 50 feet of
              existing on-site wells will not occur until a well abandonment permit has been
              obtained and the well(s) have been properly abandoned to the standards of the
              County Environmental Health Department.

With implementation of the mitigation measures, this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant
level.

4.8-5 Impacts related to coccidioidomycosis. Construction of the proposed project could result
in the dispersion of the fungus that causes coccidioidomycosis. Without mitigation, this is a
significant impact.

Mitigation Measures (From MMP): The following mitigation measures have been adopted to
address this impact:

       4.8-5(a)       Prior to construction, the project applicant shall initiate a training and
                      education program for construction workers on-site, as indicated in the
                      Report on Control of Coccidioides immitis (Valley Fever), which was
                      issued in August 1995 by the Kern County Department of Public Health’s
                      Valley Fever Task Force. The program shall be reviewed and approved
                      by the Community Development Director.

       4.8-5(b)       During construction, the project contractor shall comply with all dust
                      control measures and procedures issued by the Bay Area Air Quality
                      Management District (BAAQMD) in order to decrease exposure to
                      arthrospores present in soil and dust. In addition, all applicable local and
                      State regulations shall be complied with including, but not limited to, the
                      California Labor Code and Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations,
                      Section 3203, which addresses respiratory protection and general
                      industry safety orders, and requires employers to have Injury and Illness
                      Prevention Plans.

Finding:      The Project applicant will train and educate on-site construction workers to
              attempt to prevent them from coming into contact with Coccidioides immitis
              (Valley Fever). In addition, all BAAQMD dust control measures will be complied
              with to decrease construction workers’ exposure to arthrospores present in soil
              and dust that could cause Valley Fever.

With implementation of the mitigation measures, this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant
level.

4.8-7 Impacts related to ground shaking. Buildout of the Project would include construction-
related activities and the eventual development of structures that could be subject to seismic
activities. Without mitigation, this is a significant impact.

Mitigation Measure (From MMP):       The following mitigation measure has been adopted to
address this impact:


                                               25
       4.8-7           Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall submit
                       and comply with the recommendations in site-specific Geology and Soils
                       Assessment, at the discretion of the City Engineer. The assessment shall
                       be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer or his/her designee. The
                       Geology and Soils Assessment must include, but not be limited to, an
                       assessment of impacts related to ground shaking and include mitigation
                       to minimize harm to structures and humans, including compliance with
                       the latest CBC regulations relating to ground shaking.

Finding:       A site-specific Geology and Soils Assessment for the Project site will be prepared
               and will be reviewed for adequacy by the City Engineer or the City Engineer’s
               designee. The Assessment will determine whether or not hazards related to
               ground shaking would occur if the site is developed. If so, the Assessment will
               include mitigation, with which the Project would be required to comply, to
               minimize these hazards.

With implementation of the mitigation measure, this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant
level.

Public Services and Utilities

4.9-1           Adequate water supply and delivery for new residents. The additional water
demand created by the Project would not exceed the City’s future water supply, but the Project
would require adequately sized water supply mains and connection of existing infrastructure to
infrastructure for the proposed project. Without mitigation, this is a significant impact.

Mitigation Measures (From MMP): The following mitigation measures have been adopted to
address this impact:

       4.9-1(a)        Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall be required to
                       pay the City’s Water Development Impact Fees.

       4.9-1(b)        Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall construct and/or
                       show proof of payment of fair-share fees for sizing and construction of
                       water infrastructure to service the project, for review and approval of the
                       Public Works Department.

Finding:       In order to provide the additional water supply and water infrastructure (e.g.,
               water supply mains, etc.) that will be needed for the Project, the Project applicant
               will pay Development Impact Fees for water to the City, as well as either
               construct the necessary water infrastructure or pay the Project’s fair share of fees
               for constructing the infrastructure.

With implementation of the mitigation measures, this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant
level.

4.9-2 Adequate wastewater facilities for new residents. The Project applicant is required to pay
applicable development fees to ensure the future development and expansion of wastewater
capacity infrastructure within the City of Brentwood. Without mitigation, this is a significant
impact.


                                                26
Mitigation Measures (From MMP): The following mitigation measures have been adopted to
address this impact:

       4.9-2(a)       Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall be required to
                      pay the City’s Wastewater Impact Development Impact Fees.

       4.9-2(b)       Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall construct and/or
                      show proof of payment of fair-share fees for sizing and construction of
                      wastewater infrastructure to service the project, for review and approval
                      of the Public Works Department.

Finding:       In order to ensure that adequate wastewater capacity is provided for the Project,
               the Project applicant will pay Development Impact Fees for wastewater to the
               City, as well as either construct the necessary wastewater infrastructure or pay
               the Project’s fair share of fees for constructing the infrastructure.

With implementation of the mitigation measures, this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant
level.

4.9-5          Adequate ratio of law enforcement personnel to residents. The Project applicant
is required to pay the Project’s fair share toward the provision of adequate police staffing and
associated equipment through participation in the most current Community Facilities District.
Without mitigation, this is a significant impact.

Mitigation Measure (From MMP):        The following mitigation measure has been adopted to
address this impact:

       4.9-5          Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall participate in an
                      existing or new CFD, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

Finding:       In order to ensure that the Project’s addition of residents to the City does not
               negatively impact police staffing in the City, the Project applicant will participate
               in a Community Facilities District (CFD) via payment of the Project’s fair share
               toward the provision of adequate police staffing and equipment.

With implementation of the mitigation measure, this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant
level.

4.9-6          Adequate fire protection services available to new residents. Detailed site plans
have not yet been submitted in order to enable a determination as to whether adequate access
and fire flow would be available for the Project. Without mitigation, this is a significant impact.

Mitigation Measures (From MMP): The following mitigation measures have been adopted to
address this impact:

       4.9-6(a)       Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall comply with all
                      applicable requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and the adopted
                      policies of the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District. The Chief
                      Building Official shall review the building plans to ensure compliance.



                                                27
       4.9-6(b)       Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide an
                      adequate and reliable water supply for fire protection with a minimum fire
                      flow of 2,000 gallons per minute (GPM). The required fire flow shall be
                      delivered from not more than two fire hydrants flowing simultaneously
                      while maintaining 20 pounds of residual pressure in the main. The City
                      Engineer shall ensure the minimum fire flow requirements are satisfied.
                      Flow requirements will be determined by the ECCFPD prior to issuance of
                      encroachment and/or building permits. The developer shall provide the
                      number and type of fire hydrants required by ECCFPD and the City
                      Engineer. Hydrant locations will be determined by the ECCFPD and the
                      City Engineer prior to building and/or encroachment permit issuance. All
                      applicable connection fees shall be paid at the time of permit issuance.

       4.9-6(c)       Prior to construction involving use of flammable materials, the developer
                      shall provide access driveways having all-weather driving surfaces of not
                      less than 20' unobstructed width and not less than 13'6" of vertical
                      clearance to within 150 feet of travel distance to all portions of the exterior
                      walls of every building. Access driveways shall not exceed 16 percent
                      grade, shall have a minimum outside turning radius of 42 feet, and must
                      be capable of supporting imposed loads of fire apparatus (37 tons).
                      Center divide medians on any access roadways shall leave a minimum
                      remaining lane width of 16 feet on each side. Median length shall not
                      exceed 150 feet when a 16-foot lane width is used. A rolled curb and an
                      unobstructed drivable surface on the median may be used to assist with
                      meeting apparatus turning radius requirements. The City Engineer shall
                      ensure compliance.

       4.9-6(d)       Prior to encroachment and/or building permit issuance for improvements,
                      the developer shall submit plans and specifications to the ECCFPD and
                      the City Engineer for review and approval in accordance with codes,
                      regulations, and ordinances administered by the ECCFPD and the State
                      Fire Marshal’s office.

Finding:      In order to ensure that the Project’s addition of residents to the City does not
              negatively impact fire protection services in the City, the Project applicant will
              provide for the Project site adequate and reliable water supply for fire protection
              (minimum fire flow of 2,000 gpm). In addition, before using any flammable
              materials in construction of the Project, the Project site will include access
              driveways to the specifications included in Mitigation Measure 4.9-6(c).
              Furthermore, the Project building plans will demonstrate compliance with the
              Uniform Fire Code and the policies of the East Contra Costa Fire Protection
              District (ECCFPD), and the plans and specifications for the Project will be
              submitted for the approval of the ECCFPD and the City.

With implementation of the mitigation measures, this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant
level.

4.9-7 Number of enrolled students exceeding capacity. The Project applicant would be
required to pay applicable SB 50 fees to ensure adequate funding for local schools. Without
mitigation, this is a significant impact.



                                                28
Mitigation Measure (From MMP):         The following mitigation measure has been adopted to
address this impact:

       4.9-7           Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall be required to
                       pay school impact fees.

Finding:       In order to ensure that the Project’s addition of residents to the City does not
               negatively impact school facilities in the City, the Project applicant will pay school
               impact fees, pursuant to the requirements of SB 50.

With implementation of the mitigation measure, this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant
level.

4.9-8 Adequate provision of parks and recreation space for new residents. The Project
requires approximately 9.5 acres of park space; however, the proposed land use plan for the
project illustrates approximately 5.1 acres of parkland. Therefore, the project would require an
additional 4.4 acres of parkland. Without mitigation, this is a significant impact.

Mitigation Measure (From MMP):         The following mitigation measure has been adopted to
address this impact:

       4.9-8           Prior to the recordation of final maps, the applicant shall either dedicate
                       the required amount of park land or pay in lieu fees, for the review and
                       approval of the Community Development Director and the Parks and
                       Recreation Director.

Finding:       In order to ensure that the Project’s addition of residents to the City does not
               negatively impact parks or recreation facilities in the City, the Project applicant
               will either dedicate the amount of park land required by the Brentwood General
               Plan (five acres of park per 1,000 residents) or pay in-lieu fees for park lands.

With implementation of the mitigation measure, this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant
level.

4.9-9 Project impacts on the City of Brentwood Library. The Project’s introduction of new
residents to the City of Brentwood would create an increased demand on the library’s current
limited material and personnel resources. Without mitigation, this is a significant impact.

Mitigation Measure (From MMP):         The following mitigation measure has been adopted to
address this impact:

       4.9-9           Prior to the recordation of final maps and/or issuance of building permits,
                       the Applicant shall participate in an existing or new CFD at the discretion
                       of the Community Development Director and the City Engineer.

Finding:       In order to ensure that the Project’s addition of residents to the City does not
               negatively impact library facilities in the City, the Project applicant will participate
               in a new or existing CFD via payment of the Project’s fair share toward the
               provision of adequate library services.




                                                 29
With implementation of the mitigation measure, this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant
level.

4.9-10 Impacts to natural gas and electric facilities. Development of the Project would potentially
include the relocation and/or expansion of existing gas and electrical infrastructure. Without
mitigation, this is a significant impact.

Mitigation Measures (From MMP): The following mitigation measures have been adopted to
address this impact:

       4.9-10(a)       Prior to issuance of building permits, applicants shall consult with PG&E
                       and the City of Brentwood to determine the adequacy of existing natural
                       gas and electric facilities to serve the project. The applicant shall be
                       required to pay the project’s fair share cost towards the construction of
                       needed improvements identified by PG&E and the City of Brentwood.

       4.9-10(b)       Prior to initiation of construction activities, the project contractor shall
                       coordinate with PG&E and the City Engineer to identify the location of
                       existing PG&E utilities and determine if relocation of utilities is necessary.
                       If relocation is deemed necessary, prior to construction within existing
                       PG&E utility easements, the contractor shall work with PG&E and the City
                       Engineer to establish a utilities relocation plan, which shall include
                       methods to ensure the provision of utilities during construction of the
                       project.

Finding:       The Project applicant will be required to consult with PG&E and the City to
               determine whether or not adequate natural gas and electric facilities already exist
               to serve the Project. If improvements are necessary, the applicant will pay the
               Project’s fair share. In addition, if any relocation of existing PG&E utilities is found
               to be necessary via consultation with PG&E and the City, a utilities relocation
               plan will be established by PG&E, the City Engineer, and the Project contractor.

With implementation of the mitigation measures, this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant
level.

Initial Study - Agricultural Resources

The majority of the Project site is made up of Brentwood clay loam and Capay clay soils, which
are classified as meeting the criteria for Prime Farmland. The City of Brentwood requires
mitigation by any applicant for a subdivision that will permanently change agricultural land over
one acre in size to any nonagricultural use. Without mitigation, this is a significant impact.

Mitigation Measure (From MMP):           The following mitigation measure has been adopted to
address this impact:

       II-1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall either grant a
                       farmland conservation easement or farmland deed restriction to the City
                       of Brentwood (and/or a “qualifying entity” approved by the City) on a one-
                       to-one land area ratio, or pay an in-lieu fee based on a formula for a one-
                       to-one land area ratio, which shall be established by City Council
                       resolution.


                                                 30
Finding:       The Project would either pay an in-lieu fee or grant a farmland conservation
               easement or farmland deed restriction to the City on a one-to-one land area ratio,
               in order to offset the Project’s impacts related to conversion of Prime Farmland.

With implementation of the mitigation measure, this impact is reduced to a less-than-significant
level.

Initial Study – Geology and Soils

Buildout of the Project involves construction-related activities, which would create the potential
for wind and water erosion to occur. In addition, lateral spreading and liquefaction could result
from the Project’s construction-related activities. Furthermore, the Project site could be located
on expansive soils. Without mitigation, these are significant impacts.

Mitigation Measures (From MMP): The following mitigation measures have been adopted to
address impacts related to geology and soils:

       VI-2.          Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall submit, for
                      the review and approval of the City Engineer, an erosion control plan that
                      utilizes Best Management Practices (BMPs) to limit the erosion effects
                      during construction of the proposed project. Measures could include, but
                      are not limited to:

                          •   Hydro-seeding;
                          •   Placement of erosion control measures within drainageways and
                              ahead of drop inlets;
                          •   The temporary lining (during construction activities) of drop inlets
                              with “filter fabric” (a specific type of geotextile fabric);
                          •   The placement of straw wattles along slope contours and back-of-
                              curb prior to installation of landscaping;
                          •   Directing subcontractors to a single designation “wash-out”
                              location (as opposed to allowing them to wash-out in any location
                              they desire);
                          •   The use of siltation fences; and
                          •   The use of sediment basins and dust palliatives.

       VI-3.          Prior to the approval of Improvement Plans and building permits, the
                      project proponent shall submit a design-level geotechnical study to the
                      City Engineer for review and approval, which specifically addresses
                      whether expansive soils or soils prone to liquefaction are present in the
                      development area, and includes measures to address these soils where
                      they occur. All grading and foundation plans designed by the project Civil
                      and Structural Engineer must be reviewed and approved by the City
                      Engineer and Chief Building Official prior to issuance of grading and
                      building permits to ensure that all geotechnical recommendations
                      specified in the geotechnical report are properly incorporated and utilized
                      in design. In addition, the applicant of the proposed project shall comply
                      with UBC standards.




                                               31
       VI-4.            Implement Mitigation Measure VI-2.

Finding:         Construction of the Project will include implementation of an erosion control plan,
                 which includes BMPs, and a design-level geotechnical study will be prepared for
                 the Project site to ensure that the Project addresses impacts related to expansive
                 soils and/or liquefaction, and that the project complies with UBC standards.

With implementation of the mitigation measures, impacts related to geology and soils are
reduced to less-than-significant levels.

Initial Study – Hydrology and Water Quality

Buildout of the Project involves construction-related activities and, during the early stages of
construction, topsoil would be exposed due to grading and leveling of the site and degradation
of downstream water quality could occur if the proposed project does not comply with State and
regional regulations concerning stormwater pollution. In addition, the Project would result in an
increase in stormwater runoff rates and would require infrastructure improvements. Without
mitigation, these are significant impacts.

Mitigation Measures (From MMP): The following mitigation measures have been adopted to
address impacts related to hydrology and water quality:

       VIII-5.          Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall obtain and
                        comply with the NPDES General Construction Permit, including the
                        submittal of a Notice of Intent (NOI) and associated fee to the SWRCB,
                        and the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
                        for review and approval of the City Engineer. The SWPPP shall serve as
                        the framework for identification, assignment, and implementation of Best
                        Management Practices (BMPs). The developer shall implement BMPs to
                        reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent
                        practicable. The SWPPP shall be submitted to the City Engineer for
                        review and approval and shall remain on the project site during all phases
                        of construction. Following implementation of the SWPPP, the developer
                        shall subsequently demonstrate the SWPPP’s effectiveness and provide
                        for necessary and appropriate revisions, modifications, and improvements
                        to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent
                        practicable.

       VIII-6.          Prior to the issuance of building permits, the design of drainage facilities
                        for the project shall meet with the approval of both the City Engineer and
                        the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
                        (CCCFCWCD).

       VIII-7.          Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall pay
                        CCCFCWCD drainage fees for the project site.

Finding:         The Project will comply with the NPDES General Construction Permit and will
                 include the preparation of a SWPPP to reduce pollutants in stormwater
                 discharges. In addition, the Project will include the design of drainage facilities to
                 the standards of the City Engineer and the CCCFCWCD. Furthermore, the
                 Project applicant will pay CCCFCWCD drainage fees for the Project site.


                                                  32
With implementation of the mitigation measures, impacts related to hydrology and water quality
are reduced to less-than-significant levels.

       B.      Significant and Unavoidable Impacts.

The following significant and potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project,
including cumulative impacts, are unavoidable and cannot be mitigated in a manner that would
substantially lessen the significant impact. Notwithstanding disclosure of these impacts, the City
council elects to approve the Project due to overriding considerations as set forth below in
Section G, the Statement of Overriding Considerations.

Air Quality

4.4-2 Impacts to regional air quality due to project trip generation.

Mitigation Measures (From MMP): The following mitigation measures have been adopted to
address this impact to the extent feasible:

       4.4-2(a)       Prior to approval of a tentative map or site plan for an individual sub-area,
                      the tentative map or site plan shall show bicycle lanes and/or paths
                      connected to the community-wide network and sidewalks and/or paths
                      connected to adjacent land uses, transit stops, and/or community-wide
                      network, for approval by the Community Development Director and the
                      City Engineer.

       4.4-2(b)       The BAAQMD has identified mitigation measures for reducing emissions
                      from commercial uses. Prior to approval of a site plan, a transportation
                      management plan shall be created and submitted for the approval of the
                      Community Development Director and the City Engineer. The
                      transportation management plan may include the following measures:

                          •   Design and locate buildings to facilitate transit access, such as
                              locating local building entrances near transit stops and eliminating
                              building setbacks;
                          •   Provide secure, weather-protected bicycle parking for employees;
                          •   Provide safe, direct access for bicyclists to adjacent bicycle
                              routes;
                          •   Provide showers and lockers to employees bicycling or walking to
                              work;
                          •   Provide secure short-term bicycle parking for retail customers and
                              other non-commute trips;
                          •   Provide direct, safe, attractive pedestrian access from project to
                              transit stops and adjacent development;
                          •   Implement carpool/vanpool programs such as carpool
                              ridematching for employees, assistance with vanpool formation or
                              provision of vanpool vehicles;
                          •   Provide on-site shops and services for employees, such as
                              cafeteria, bank/ATM, dry cleaners, and convenience markets;




                                                33
                                     •   Provide on-site child care, or contribute to off-site child care within
                                         walking distance;
                                     •   Implement parking fees for single occupancy vehicle commuters;
                                     •   Use of exterior and interior paints with low quantities of volatile
                                         organic compounds;
                                     •   Implement parking cash-out program for employees (i.e., non-
                                         driving employees receive transportation allowances equivalent to
                                         value of subsized parking); and
                                     •   Implement parking cash-out program for employees (i.e., non-
                                         driving employees receive transportation allowance equivalent to
                                         value of subsidized parking).

4.4-2(c)       Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall include in the project design the
               following measures to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the
               Chief Building Official:

                                     •   Allow only natural gas fireplaces or stoves in single-family houses.
                                         Wood, pellet, or traditional open hearth fireplaces shall not be
                                         permitted;
                                     •   Use of exterior and interior paints with low quantities of volatile
                                         organic compounds;
                                     •   Residences will include outside electrical outlets to allow electric
                                         lawn and garden equipment for landscaping; and
                                     •   Utilize reflective (or high albedo) and emissive roofs and light
                                         colored construction materials where reasonably practical to
                                         increase the reflectivity of roads, driveways, and other paved
                                         surfaces, and include shade trees near buildings to directly shield
                                         them from the sun's rays and reduce local air temperature and
                                         cooling energy demand.

           Finding:       Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.4-2(a) through 4.4-2 (c) would reduce
                          operational emissions of ROG, NOX, and PM10 attributable to the Project;
                          however, predicted operational emissions of ROG, NOX, and PM10 would still be
                          anticipated to exceed BAAQMD’s corresponding significance threshold of 80
                          lbs/pollutant/day.

           Additional mitigation measures to further reduce the impacts were determined to be infeasible.
           For these reasons, the impact remains significant and unavoidable.

           4.4-4 Cumulative contribution to regional air quality conditions.

           Mitigation Measure (From MMP): The following mitigation measure has been adopted to
           address this impact to the extent feasible:

                  4.4-4          Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-2(a-c).

           Finding:       Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-4 would reduce short-term and long-
                          term increases in emissions attributable to the proposed project. However, long-
                          term operational increases in emissions would still be anticipated to exceed the
                          BAAQMD’s significance threshold.



                                                           34
For these reasons, the impact remains significant and unavoidable.

      C.    Findings Related to the Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of the
Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity.

Based on the EIR and the entire record before the City council, the City council makes the
following findings with respect to the project’s balancing of local short term uses of the
environment and the maintenance of long term productivity:

   •   As the Project is implemented, certain impacts would occur on a short-term level. Such
       short-term impacts are discussed above. Where feasible, measures have been
       incorporated in the project to mitigate these potential impacts.

   •   The Project would result in the long-term commitment of resources to develop and
       operate the Project including water, natural gas, fossil fuels, and electricity. The long-
       term implementation of the Project would provide economic benefits to the City. The
       Project would be developed in an existing urban area and not contribute to urban sprawl.
       Notwithstanding the foregoing, some long-term impacts would result.

Although there are short-term and long-term adverse impacts from the Project, the short-term
and long-term benefits of the project justify implementation.

       D.      Project Alternatives.

The City council has considered the Project alternatives presented and analyzed in the Final
EIR and presented during the comment period and public hearing process. Some of these
alternatives have the potential to avoid or reduce certain significant or potentially significant
environmental impacts, as set forth below. The City council finds, based on specific economic,
legal, social, technological, or other considerations, that these alternatives are infeasible and
would not achieve most of the Project objectives. Each alternative and the facts supporting the
finding of infeasibility of each alternative are set forth below.

Alternatives Considered and Dismissed from Further Consideration

Off-Site Alternative

Section 15126.6(f)(2)(B) of the CEQA Guidelines states, “If the lead agency concludes that no
feasible alternative locations exist, it must disclose the reasons for this conclusion, and should
include the reason in the EIR.” A feasible location for the Project that would result in
substantially reduced impacts does not exist.

The CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(b) requires that only locations that would avoid or
substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the Project need be considered for inclusion
in the EIR. The Off-Site Alternative would involve the construction of the Project on an
alternative location. The Off-Site Alternative would have the same type and intensity of uses as
the Project. However, the Applicant does not own an alternative location on which to construct
the Project. Furthermore, the Project has been specifically designed to provide shopping
opportunities for the surrounding community with a location near State Route 4. This express
intent of the project precludes any consideration of off-site locations. It should also be noted
that, by definition, CEQA states that an alternative should avoid or substantially lessen one or


                                                35
more of the environmental effects of the Project. Alternative locations along State Route 4 would
generally result in similar characteristics as the Project site. Therefore, development of the
Project on an alternative location would be expected to result in the same impacts as the
Project. As a result, an environmentally feasible off-site location that would meet the
requirements of CEQA, as well as meet the basic objectives of the Project, does not exist.

Summary of Alternatives Considered

No Project

Section 1526.6(e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that a “no project alternative” be
evaluated in comparison to the Project. The No Project Alternative can be defined as “no action
taken on the proposed project” or “no build” on the project site. A “no build” No Project
Alternative would mean that the site would remain in its current state; therefore, the
development activity associated with the proposed project would not occur. The No Project
Alternative is defined in this section as the “no build” alternative, and would result in the
continuation of the existing condition of the project site, which is currently vacant. The No
Project Alternative would allow the project site to continue in the site’s existing state.

Facts in Support of Finding of Infeasibility

The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives.

Commercial Alternative

The Commercial Alternative would result in the development of the project site, but would
remove office and institutional components of the Project and increase the acreage proposed
for retail components of the Project. This Alternative would include the development of 276,606
square feet of retail building area, which amounts to 169,339 square feet more retail building
area than proposed for the Project. Additional retail uses would be located in the central portion
of the project site, north of the Sand Creek Road extension, which is designated for office and
institutional development as part of the proposed project. All other land use designations would
remain the same as the proposed project.

Facts in Support of Finding of Infeasibility

Although the Commercial Alternative would meet the project objectives, the same significant
and unavoidable impact as the proposed project would result. Therefore, this alternative would
not reduce any of the significant impacts associated with the proposed project.

Residential Alternative

The Residential Alternative would result in the development of the project site, but would
remove the office and institutional components of the project, and increase the acreage for the
residential and retail components of the proposed project. This Alternative would include
162,261 square feet of retail and 883 residential units, which is 54,994 square feet and 275
residential units more than the proposed project. Additional residential and office uses would be
located in the central portion of the project site, located north of the Sand Creek Road
extension, replacing the institutional and office uses. All other land use designations would
remain the same as the proposed project.




                                               36
Facts in Support of Finding of Infeasibility

Although the Residential Alternative would meet the project objectives, the same significant and
unavoidable impact as the proposed project would result. In addition, the alternative would
result in a greater impact to Public Services and Utilities, without mitigation, as compared to the
proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would result in greater impacts and not reduce any
of the significant impacts associated with the proposed project.

       E.      Statement of Overriding Considerations.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15092, the City Council finds that in approving the
Project it has eliminated or substantially reduced all significant and potentially significant effects
of the Project on the environment where feasible, as shown in the EIR and described in these
Findings.

In the City Council’s judgment, the Project and its benefits outweigh its unavoidable significant
effect. The following Statement of Overriding Considerations identifies the reasons why, in the
City Council’s judgment, the benefits of the Project, as approved, outweigh its unavoidable
significant effect.

Any one of the stated reasons is sufficient to justify approval of the Project. Thus, even if a court
were to conclude that not every reason set forth in this Statement is supported by substantial
evidence, the City council finds that any individual reason is separately sufficient. This
Statement is supported by the substantial evidence set forth in the Draft EIR, Final EIR, and the
Findings set forth above and in the documents incorporated by reference above.

The Project would include a General Plan amendment, PD-55 Zone amendment, and
subdivision of the site into eleven parcels to allow development of park, multi-family residential,
single-family residential, retail, office, commercial, and/or institutional uses. The most intense
scenario provided by the applicant is analyzed in the EIR, which includes a 5.1-acre park, up to
468 multi-family apartments, 140 single-family detached homes, 107,267 square feet of retail
uses, 87,991 square feet of office uses, and 228,690 square feet of institutional uses.

The Project would provide a range of retail services on the east side of State Route 4 that would
serve the Brentwood Boulevard corridor and surrounding neighborhood. The Project would also
include neighborhood-serving retail uses, including restaurants. The office and institutional uses
would provide support for the retail and restaurant uses and opportunities for residents to work
and live in the same neighborhood.

The Project would construct retail uses on a site that is currently vacant. The Project will
generate sales tax revenue for the City, which can be used to support City services and
programs. The Project represents a significant capital investment in the City, and will generate
substantial property tax revenue. The businesses locating in the Project will provide substantial
employment opportunities in a variety of types of jobs in the retail, restaurant, office, and
institutional environments. Such employment provides steady income, thus supporting other
businesses, and provides stable employment and income that in turn support the local
economy.

The Project would be consistent with the City’s planning efforts to encourage development and
revitalization along the Brentwood Boulevard corridor.



                                                 37
Development of the site with the identified uses utilizes a site that would not result in significant
impacts to biological resources with implementation of the required mitigation measures. The
Project will comply with the provisions of the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation
Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan.

The City Council has considered these benefits and considerations and has considered the
potentially significant unavoidable environmental effects of the Project. The City Council has
determined that the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project
outweigh the identified impacts. The City Council has determined that the project benefits set
forth above override the significant and unavoidable environmental costs associated with the
project.

The City Council adopts the mitigation measures in the final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program, incorporated by reference into these Findings, and finds that any residual or remaining
effects on the environment resulting from the Project, identified as significant and unavoidable in
the Findings of Fact, are acceptable due to the benefits set forth in this Statement of Overriding
Considerations. The City Council makes this Statement of Overriding Considerations in
accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines in support of approval of the Project.




                                                 38
                                    EXHIBIT "B" TO
                             CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
                                    ERRATA SHEET


Based on the project Conditions of Approval approved by the City of Brentwood Planning
Commission on April 21, 2009, the following Mitigation Measures of the Sciortino Ranch Draft
EIR have been revised. The revisions are shown below. Wording added is printed in double-
underlined text. Wording deleted is printed in strikeout.

Transportation and Circulation

Mitigation Measures 4.3-1 and 4.3-2 (page 4.3-35), 4.3-3 and 4.3-4 (page 4.3-38), 4.3-7(a-d)
(page 4.3-42), and 4.3-7(e) (page 4.3-43) are hereby revised as follows:

       4.3-1         The Brentwood Boulevard / Homecoming Way intersection shall
                     be modified by eliminating left turns from the intersection’s
                     westbound approach, by installing a raised island and appropriate
                     signing and striping, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The
                     improvement shall be completed concurrent with the Brentwood
                     Boulevard roadway improvements at no cost to the City. If the
                     improvement is included in the City’s CIP upon issuance of the
                     project’s first building permit, then the project shall contribute to
                     the mitigation by paying its fair share of the cost through the
                     payment of the City’s Transportation Impact Fee with the issuance
                     of each building permit. In the event the improvement has not
                     been added to the City’s CIP upon issuance of the first building
                     permit, then the proposed project shall include installation of the
                     improvement and be eligible for reimbursement.

       4.3-2         The Brentwood Boulevard / Grant Street / Sunset Road
                     intersection shall be modified by converting the northbound right-
                     turn lane into a through-right lane and adding a southbound
                     through lane. If the modification is not already completed by
                     others, then the developer shall be responsible for completing it
                     prior to issuance of the first residential building permit and/or prior
                     to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the first non-
                     residential building permit. If the modification is completed prior to
                     any development of the site, then the developer shall pay the
                     project’s fair share, with each building permit, through the
                     transportation impact fee. The developer shall pay the current
                     Traffic Impact Fees through the Development Fee Program. In
                     addition, within 12 months of City Council approval, the developer
                     shall initiate the design for the improvements as identified in the
                     City’s CIP Program. The City shall be the lead for all work
                     associated with right of way acquisition, permitting and
                     environmental documentation including associated costs and fees.
                     The developer shall be responsible for providing all supporting
                     documentation. The modification design shall be completed within
                     18 months of initiation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and
                     shall be the financial responsibility of the developer. Portions of


                                               39
        the design costs may be fee creditable as determined by the City
        Engineer.

4.3-3   The Brentwood Boulevard / Havenwood Avenue intersection shall
        be modified by eliminating through and left-turn movements from
        the intersection’s westbound approach. to the satisfaction of the
        City Engineer. If the improvement is included in the City’s CIP
        upon issuance of the project’s first building permit, then the project
        shall contribute to the mitigation by paying its fair share of the cost
        through the payment of the City’s Transportation Impact Fee The
        developer shall pay the current Traffic Impact Fees through the
        Development Fee Program with the issuance of each building
        permit. In addition, within 12 months of City Council approval, the
        developer shall initiate the design for the improvements as
        identified in the City’s CIP Program. The City shall be the lead for
        all work associated with right of way acquisition, permitting and
        environmental documentation including associated costs and fees.
        The developer shall be responsible for providing all supporting
        documentation. The design shall be completed within 18 months
        of initiation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall be the
        financial responsibility of the developer. Portions of the design
        costs may be fee creditable as determined by the City Engineer.
        In the event the improvement has not been added to the City’s
        CIP upon issuance of the first building permit, then the proposed
        project shall include installation of the improvement and be eligible
        for reimbursement.

4.3-4   The Brentwood Boulevard / Village Drive intersection shall be
        modified by eliminating left turns from the intersection’s
        westbound approach., to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. If
        the improvement is included in the City’s CIP upon issuance of the
        project’s first building permit, then the project shall contribute to
        the mitigation by paying its fair share of the cost through the
        payment of the City’s Transportation Impact Fee The developer
        shall pay the current Traffic Impact Fees through the Development
        Fee Program with the issuance of each building permit. In
        addition, within 12 months of City Council approval, the developer
        shall initiate the design for the improvements as identified in the
        City’s CIP Program. The City shall be the lead for all work
        associated with right of way acquisition, permitting and
        environmental documentation including associated costs and fees.
        The developer shall be responsible for providing all supporting
        documentation. The design shall be completed within 18 months
        of initiation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall be the
        financial responsibility of the developer. Portions of the design
        costs may be fee creditable as determined by the City Engineer.
        In the event the improvement has not been added to the City’s
        CIP upon issuance of the first building permit, then the proposed
        project shall include installation of the improvement and be eligible
        for reimbursement.



                                  40
4.3-7(a)   The Brentwood Boulevard / Lone Tree Way intersection shall be
           modified by converting the southbound through-right lane to a
           through lane and adding a dedicated right-turn lane. If the
           modification is not already completed by others, then the
           developer shall be responsible for completing it prior to issuance
           of the first residential building permit and/or prior to issuance of a
           Certificate of Occupancy for the first non-residential building
           permit. If the modification is completed prior to any development
           of the site, then theThe developer shall pay the project’s fair
           share, with each building permit, through the current Traffic Impact
           Fee transportation impact fee through the Development Fee
           Program. The modification shall be completed to the satisfaction
           of the City Engineer.

4.3-7(b)   The Brentwood Boulevard / Sunrise Drive intersection shall be
           modified by eliminating all left- and right-turn movements at the
           intersection. This improvement is not currently included in the
           City’s CIP. If the improvement is included in the City’s CIP upon
           issuance of the project’s first building permit, then the project shall
           contribute to the mitigation by paying its fair share of the cost
           through the payment of the City’s Transportation Impact Fee The
           developer shall pay the current Traffic Impact Fees through the
           Development Fee Program through the Development Fee
           Program with the issuance of each building permit. In addition,
           within 12 months of City Council approval, the developer shall
           initiate the design for the improvements as identified in the City’s
           CIP Program. The City shall be the lead for all work associated
           with right of way acquisition, permitting and environmental
           documentation including associated costs and fees. The
           developer shall be responsible for providing all supporting
           documentation. The design shall be completed within 18 months
           of initiation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall be the
           financial responsibility of the developer. Portions of the design
           costs may be fee creditable as determined by the City Engineer.
           In the event the improvement has not been added to the City’s
           CIP upon issuance of the first building permit, then the proposed
           project shall include installation of the improvement and be eligible
           for reimbursement.

4.3-7(c)   The Brentwood Boulevard / Gregory Lane intersection shall be
           modified by installation of a traffic signal for the intersection. The
           traffic signal shall be designed to include the Brentwood
           Boulevard / Beverly Place intersection. This improvement is not
           currently included in the City’s CIP. If the improvement is included
           in the City’s CIP Upon issuance of the project’s first building
           permit, then the project shall contribute to the mitigation by paying
           its fair share of the cost through the payment of the City’s
           Transportation Traffic Impact Fee through the Development Fee
           Program with the issuance of each building permit and the fair
           share of the traffic signal costs. The fair share shall be defined as
           15% of $200,000, or $30,000, and shall be paid prior to the


                                     41
                      recordation of the first residential final map.In the event the
                      improvement has not been added to the City’s CIP upon issuance
                      of the first building permit, then the proposed project shall include
                      installation of the improvement and be eligible for reimbursement.

        4.3-7(d)      The Brentwood Boulevard / Grant Street / Sunset Road
                      intersection shall be modified by converting the northbound right-
                      turn lane into a through-right lane and adding a southbound
                      through lane. If the modification is not already completed by
                      others, then the developer shall be responsible for completing it
                      prior to issuance of the first residential building permit and/or prior
                      to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the first non-
                      residential building permit. If the modification is completed prior to
                      any development of the site, then the developer shall pay the
                      project’s fair share, with each building permit, through the
                      transportation impact fee. The developer shall pay the current
                      Traffic Impact Fees through the Development Fee Program. In
                      addition, within 12 months of City Council approval, the developer
                      shall initiate the design for the improvements as identified in the
                      City’s CIP Program. The City shall be the lead for all work
                      associated with right of way acquisition, permitting and
                      environmental documentation including associated costs and fees.
                      The developer shall be responsible for providing all supporting
                      documentation. The modification design shall be completed within
                      18 months of initiation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and
                      shall be the financial responsibility of the developer. Portions of
                      the design costs may be fee creditable as determined by the City
                      Engineer.

        4.3-7(e)      The Brentwood Boulevard / Sand Creek Road intersection shall
                      be modified by converting the southbound through-right lane to a
                      through lane and adding a southbound right turn lane. re-
                      evaluated to verify an acceptable level of service, taking into
                      account the signal synchronization anticipated in Mitigation
                      Measures 4.3-7(a-d) for the proposed project. This study shall be
                      completed within 6 months of final project approval, to the
                      satisfaction of the City Engineer, at no cost to the City. Any
                      recommendations set forth in this study shall be implemented by
                      the developer. The developer shall complete the modification prior
                      to issuance of the first residential building permit and/or prior to
                      issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the first non-residential
                      building permit. The modification shall be completed to the
                      satisfaction of the City Engineer.

Noise

Mitigation Measure 4.5-3(a), on page 4.5-22 of the Draft EIR is hereby revised as follows:




                                                42
       4.5-3(a)        Prior to the issuance of building permits approval of any tentative
                       subdivision map and/or design review application for residential
                       uses constructed at the minimum setback along Brentwood
                       Boulevard, the project design shall include glass windows and
                       doors with the sound transmission class (STC) ratings sufficient to
                       mitigate for the predicted traffic noise levels in Table 4.5-11 under
                       the cumulative plus project scenarios. A noise study shall be
                       provided as part of any development application. Final design
                       shall be reviewed and approved by the Chief Building Official
                       and/or the Community Development Director City Engineer.

Hazards

Because Mitigation Measure 4.8-7 is included as a City Standard Condition of Approval, page
4.8-15 of the Draft EIR is hereby revised as follows:

       Buildout of the proposed project would include construction-related activities and
       the eventual development of structures that could be subject to seismic activities.
       This would result in a potentially significant impact related to ground shaking.
       However, prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant would
       submit and comply with the recommendations in a site-specific Geology and
       Soils Assessment, at the discretion of the City Engineer, as required by the City’s
       standard Conditions of Approval. This would result in a less-than-significant
       impact related to ground shaking.

       Mitigation Measure(s)
       None required. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce
       the above impact to a less-than-significant level.

       4.8-7           Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall
                       submit and comply with the recommendations in site-specific
                       Geology and Soils Assessment, at the discretion of the City
                       Engineer. The assessment shall be reviewed and approved by the
                       City Engineer or his/her designee. The Geology and Soils
                       Assessment must include, but not be limited to, an assessment of
                       impacts related to ground shaking and include mitigation to
                       minimize harm to structures and humans, including compliance
                       with the latest CBC regulations relating to ground shaking.

Public Services and Utilities

Because Mitigation Measures 4.9-1(a) and 4.9-1(b) are included as City standard Conditions of
Approval, page 4.9-27 of the Draft EIR is hereby revised as follows:

       The applicant would be required to pay the City water impact fees in effect at the
       time that building permits are issued. The water supply impact fees were
       established to fund the City’s capital improvement projects related to the
       expansion of water infrastructure needed to serve the full buildout of the City.
       The additional water demand created by the proposed project would not exceed
       the City’s future water supply. However, tThe project would require adequately
       sized water supply mains and connection of existing infrastructure to


                                                43
       infrastructure for the proposed project. Therefore, the water supply impacts
       associated with the proposed project would be potentially significant. However,
       prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant would be required to pay the
       City’s Water Development Impact Fees and as required by the City’s standard
       Conditions of Approval. Therefore, the water supply impacts associated with the
       proposed project would be less-than-significant.

       Mitigation Measure(s)
       None required. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would
       reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level.

       4.9-1(a)       Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall be
                      required to pay the City’s Water Development Impact Fees.

       4.9-1(b)       Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall construct
                      and/or show proof of payment of fair-share fees for sizing and
                      construction of water infrastructure to service the project, for
                      review and approval of the Public Works Department.

Because Mitigation Measure 4.9-2(a) and 4.9-2(b) are included as City Standard Conditions of
Approval, page 4.9-29 of the Draft EIR is hereby revised as follows:

       Although the WWTP has adequate capacity to serve the project’s needs, the City
       is continually in the process of expanding the capacity of the plant to meet the
       ultimate demands created by buildout of the General Plan. Therefore, the City of
       Brentwood requires developers to pay fees toward the further expansion of the
       WWTP and the provision of conveyance infrastructure. The proposed project
       would be required to pay the City wastewater impact fees in accordance with City
       standards. The wastewater impact fees were established to fund the City’s
       capital improvement projects related to the expansion of wastewater
       infrastructure needed to serve the full buildout of the City. Because the additional
       wastewater demand created by the proposed project would not exceed the City’s
       wastewater supply capacity, the applicant would be required to pay applicable
       development fees to ensure the future development and expansion of
       wastewater capacity infrastructure within the City of Brentwood, which is required
       by the City’s standard Conditions of Approval. Therefore, without payment of fair-
       share portions of water impact fees the wastewater supply impacts associated
       with the proposed project would be potentially significant. Therefore, with the
       payment of the project’s fair-share of water impact fees the wastewater supply
       impacts associated with the proposed project would be less-than-significant.

       Mitigation Measure(s)
       None Required. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would
       reduce the above impact to a less-than-significant level.

       4.9-2(a)       Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall be
                      required to pay the City’s Wastewater Impact Development Impact
                      Fees.

       4.9-2(b)       Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall construct
                      and/or show proof of payment of fair-share fees for sizing and



                                               44
                     construction of wastewater infrastructure to service the project, for
                     review and approval of the Public Works Department.

Mitigation Measures 4.9-5 (page 4.9-32), 4.9-6(c) (page 4.9-33), 4.9-8 and 4.9-9 (page 4.9-35)
of the Draft EIR are hereby revised as follows:

       4.9-5         Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall participate
                     in an existing or new CFD. The developer shall form or annex into
                     the most current City of Brentwood Community Facilities District to
                     fund public facilities and services, prior to final map approval, to
                     the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

       4.9-6(c)      Prior to construction involving use of flammable materials, the
                     developer shall provide access driveways having all-weather
                     driving surfaces of not less than 20' unobstructed width and not
                     less than 13'6" of vertical clearance to within 150 feet of travel
                     distance to all portions of the exterior walls of every building.
                     Access driveways shall not exceed 16 percent grade, shall have a
                     minimum outside turning radius of 42 feet, and must be capable of
                     supporting imposed loads of fire apparatus (37 tons). Center
                     divide medians on any access roadways shall leave a minimum
                     remaining lane width of 16 feet on each side. Median length shall
                     not exceed 150 feet when a 16-foot lane width is used. A rolled
                     curb and an unobstructed drivable surface on the median may be
                     used to assist with meeting apparatus turning radius
                     requirements. The Chief Building Official and the City Engineer
                     shall ensure compliance.

       4.9-8         The developer shall meet all City standards for all parks that are to
                     be considered for park development fee credit and/or to meet the
                     acres per population standard, unless otherwise approved in
                     writing by the Director of Parks & Recreation and the City
                     Engineer. These standards include, but are not limited to:
                     providing park space equal to or above the City standard of 5-
                     acres per 1,000 population; minimum park size of 1/2 acre;
                     minimum park space width of 100'; and the property designated
                     for park space cannot have existing easements or encumbrances
                     that limit the ability to fully plan use of the property as a park. Prior
                     to the recordation of final maps, the applicant shall be required
                     either dedicate the required amount of park land or pay in lieu
                     fees, for the review and approval of to enter into an agreement
                     with the City, in a form approved by the City, to address park
                     requirements. The agreement shall be recorded against the
                     property along with recordation of the final map in order to inform
                     subsequent developers of their obligations. Among other things,
                     the agreement shall provide that the park requirements for the
                     subdivision must be provided within any of the 11 parcels on
                     which residential development is included and must meet the
                     City's standard parks requirements, that the park requirements will
                     be based on the corresponding number of housing units created
                     by that parcel and that, if approved in writing by the Community


                                                45
                      Development Director and the of Parks & Recreation Director, a
                      parcel may shift park requirements to another parcel within the
                      subdivision, providing written action is taken that requires the
                      other parcel to accept the additional park requirements and record
                      them against the property.

       4.9-9          Prior to the recordation of final maps, the Applicant developer
                      shall form or annex into the most current City of Brentwood
                      Community Facilities District to fund public facilities and services,
                      pay its fair share for additional library facilities and/or services by
                      participating in an existing or new CFD at to the satisfaction of the
                      City Engineerdiscretion of the Community Development Director.

INITIAL STUDY

Because Mitigation Measures VIII-6 and VIII-7 are included as City Standard Conditions of
Approval, page 23 of the Initial Study, Appendix C of the Draft EIR is hereby revised as follows:

       Buildout of the proposed project would require expanded storm drain lines for the
       project area. Therefore, because the project would result in an increase in
       stormwater runoff rates and would require infrastructure improvements within,
       and potentially outside, the project site, a potentially significant impact could
       result. However, prior to issuance of a building permit, the design of drainage
       facilities for the project shall meet with the approval of both the City Engineer and
       the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the
       developer shall pay applicable drainage fees, as required by the City’s standard
       Conditions of Approval. Therefore, the stormwater impacts associated with the
       proposed project would be less-than-significant.

           Mitigation Measure(s)
       Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the above
       impact to a less-than-significant level.

       VIII-6.        Prior to the issuance of building permits, the design of drainage
                      facilities for the project shall meet with the approval of both the
                      City Engineer and the Contra Costa County Flood Control and
                      Water Conservation District (CCCFCWCD).

       VIII-7.        Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall
                      pay CCCFCWCD drainage fees for the project site.

In addition to the specified page numbers within the Draft EIR technical chapters identified above,
each of the changes presented are also reflected as appropriate in the Executive Summary
chapter (Chapter 2) of the Draft EIR, including Table 2-1. The above revisions reflect the
Conditions of Approval for the proposed project, as approved by the City of Brentwood Planning
Commission on April 21, 2009. The revisions do not constitute significant new information
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a).




                                                46
   PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
                              CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.

       A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
       APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA 09-01) TO MODIFY THE LAND
       USE ELEMENT RELATED TO THE TEXT FOR SPECIAL PLANNING AREA A, AND
       MAKE THE ASSOCIATED CHANGE TO THE LAND USE MAP, FOR THE
       SCIORTINO RANCH PROJECT, LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 65 ACRES
       DIRECTLY EAST OF THE SAND CREEK ROAD AND BRENTWOOD BOULEVARD
       INTERSECTION (APN 016-170-012 AND 016-170-013).

       WHEREAS, New Urban Communities Partners has requested approval of a General
Plan amendment to modify the Land Use Element related to the text for Special Planning Area
A, and make the associated change to the Land Use Map, for the Sciortino Ranch project,
located on approximately 65 acres directly east of the Sand Creek Road and Brentwood
Boulevard intersection; and

       WHEREAS, the applicant is concurrently requesting approval of a Final Environmental
Impact Report; a rezone to establish a list of allowable uses and development standards for the
PD-55 Zone; and a tentative subdivision map to create 11 parcels on the 65-acre project site;
and

        WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing was distributed to all property owners of record
within 300 feet of the project site and beyond, and published in the Brentwood Press on May 1,
2009, in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090; and

        WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood held a public hearing on
this project at its regular meeting of April 21, 2009, and recommended that the City Council
approve the General Plan amendment by adopting Resolution No. 09-014; and

        WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brentwood held a public hearing on this
project at its regular meeting of May 26, 2009; and

        WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff report, supporting documents,
public testimony, and all appropriate information that has been submitted with the proposed
project; and

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

       A.     Hereby finds that:

              1.   The requested General Plan amendment has been processed in accordance
                   with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the
                   California Environmental Quality Act, in that notices of the public hearing
                   were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site and
                   beyond, and a Final Environmental Impact Report, including discussion of
                   the requested General Plan amendment, was certified by the City Council.




                                              1
              2.   Approval of the requested amendment, including the change to the text of
                   Special Planning Area A and the associated change to the Land Use Map, is
                   in the public interest, in that it provides for a mix of uses on a 65-acre infill
                   site while providing adequate buffers for existing and approved residential
                   development that is adjacent to the north, east, and south boundaries of the
                   Sciortino Ranch project.

              3.   The potential impacts of the requested amendment have been assessed and
                   have been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
                   welfare. All potentially significant impacts have been analyzed in the Final
                   Environmental Impact Report and have been mitigated to less-than-
                   significant levels, with the exception of cumulative air quality impacts, which
                   have been noted as a significant and unavoidable impact, and for which a
                   statement of overriding considerations has been adopted.

              4.   The requested amendment is consistent and compatible with the rest of the
                   General Plan, including goals, policies, and implementation programs.

       B.     Hereby approves General Plan Amendment No. 09-01 to modify the Land Use
              Element related to the text for Special Planning Area A and to make the
              associated change to the Land Use Map, for the Sciortino Ranch project, located
              on approximately 65 acres directly east of the Sand Creek Road and Brentwood
              Boulevard intersection, as recommended by the Planning Commission and as
              reflected in the attached Exhibit “A”, and directs City staff to make the
              appropriate change to the General Plan text and the General Plan Land Use Map
              for the City of Brentwood General Plan.

       C.     Hereby directs City staff to initiate an amendment to the Residential Growth
              Management Program, which is an implementation mechanism of the Growth
              Management Element of the General Plan, to reflect a five-year exemption from
              the program for all residential development within Special Planning Area A.

       ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at its regular meeting of May 26,
2009, by the following vote:




                                                2
                                   EXHIBIT "A" TO
                            CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
                        NEW TEXT FOR SPECIAL PLANNING AREA A


SPECIAL PLANNING AREA A
Background

This special planning area, approximately 65 acres in
size, is bounded by the existing Havenwood single family
subdivision on the north, existing mixed use
development of retail commercial and medium density
residential on the south, Brentwood Boulevard (current
State Route 4) on the west and the 494-unit Barrington
single-family residential development, Black Elementary
School, and a fire station on the east. Plans call for the
planning area to be bisected by the easterly extension of
Sand Creek Road to Sellers Avenue. Several factors
that provide the guiding focus for the policy direction for
the development of this SPA include: Brentwood Center
across Brentwood Boulevard (current State Route 4) to
the west, the area's proximity to downtown Brentwood,
the existing single-family residential uses to the north
and south, and the existence of existing commercial
uses to the west and south of the area.

Policy Direction

The policy direction for SPA A is to provide a mix of uses consisting of apartments and other
types of multi-family housing, various types of single-family housing, retail uses, office uses,
institutional uses, limited light industrial and service-type uses, and parks. The intent of this
mixed-use area is to take advantage of the Brentwood Boulevard (current State Route 4) and
Sand Creek Road frontages, integrate complementary commercial and residential uses, and
ensure that new development shall complement the existing Brentwood Center commercial and
office developments along the west side of Brentwood Boulevard (current State Route 4).
Appropriate buffers and transitions shall be provided along the north, east, and south
boundaries of the planning area to complement both existing and approved single-family
housing developments. Future development of the planning area, including the specific mix of
land uses, is to be governed by the regulations adopted for the PD-55 Zone, as approved and
as they may be amended over time. Residential development in SPA A is exempt from the
requirements of the Residential Growth Management Program for a period of five years,
beginning with the adoption of Ordinance No. _ in conjunction with Rezone No. 06-13.

The suggested mix of land uses is as follows:

   •   Commercial, retail, institutional, light industrial, and office – a minimum of approximately
       15 acres located along the Brentwood Boulevard frontage (current State Route 4), with
       the option of adding up to approximately 20 more acres along and near the Sand Creek
       Road frontage.



                                                3
    •   Very high density residential – a maximum of 10 acres located on the north side of Sand
        Creek Road, near the easterly boundary of the planning area. This would provide for a
        density range between 20 and 30 dwelling units per acre.

    •   Medium and high density residential – a minimum of approximately 7 acres located
        along the north and south boundaries of the planning area to serve as transitions to the
        existing single-family housing adjacent to said boundaries. Homes in these areas would
        be detached and would be built on lots with a minimum size of 4,000 square feet.
        Additional areas for this density of housing, totaling approximately 7 acres, may be
        provided as extensions of the minimum 7 acres that are defined. The medium density
        areas would provide for a density range between 5 and 11 dwelling units per acre, and
        the high density areas would provide for a density range between 11 and 20 dwelling
        units per acre.

    •   Parks – a minimum of approximately 5 acres located along the east boundary of the
        planning area to serve the new residential neighborhoods, split between two sites, with
        one on the north side of Sand Creek Road and one on the south side of Sand Creek
        Road. Additional park areas may be provided within the planning area in coordination
        with specific residential development.

Design Objectives for this Special Planning Area:


•   Develop a coordinated circulation system that provides access to the various land uses from
    Sand Creek Road with minimal driveways opening directly onto Brentwood Boulevard
    (current State Route 4).
•   Include a median landscaped buffer in the design of the Sand Creek Road extension.
•   Develop the planning area as to integrate the mix of uses as much as possible, with
    coordinated architecture, lush landscaping around building perimeters, within street
    medians/traffic circles, courtyards, and parking areas to ensure compatibility with the
    existing/approved residential land uses to the north and south. Development of the planning
    area should also include pedestrian and bicycle connections to facilitate access not only
    within the planning area itself but also to adjacent land uses and transportation modes.
•   Design the multi-family residential uses to provide a range of unit sizes, buffered from
    Brentwood Boulevard and Sand Creek Road as much as possible, with extensive residential
    amenities and architectural features that provide opportunities for socializing and promote
    an active and less auto-dependent lifestyle in close proximity to jobs and complementary
    commercial services.
•   Design all non-residential development with significant high quality design amenities and a
    distinct architectural theme.
•   Design and orient buildings greater than two stories high in a manner that minimizes
    obstruction of scenic views of Mt. Diablo and the foothills west of the City.




                                               4
  PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
                                       ORDINANCE NO.

       AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
       APPROVING A REZONE (RZ 06-13) TO ESTABLISH A LIST OF ALLOWABLE USES
       AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, INCLUDING SITE-SPECIFIC DESIGN
       GUIDELINES, FOR THE PD-55 ZONE IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE
       SCIORTINO RANCH PROJECT, LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 65 ACRES
       DIRECTLY EAST OF THE SAND CREEK ROAD AND BRENTWOOD BOULEVARD
       INTERSECTION (APN 016-170-012 AND 016-170-013).

        WHEREAS, New Urban Communities Partners has requested that the City Council
approve a rezone to establish a list of allowable uses and development standards, including
site-specific design guidelines, for the PD-55 Zone in order to accommodate the Sciortino
Ranch project, located on approximately 65 acres directly east of the Sand Creek Road and
Brentwood Boulevard intersection; and

        WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was distributed to all property owners of record
within 300 feet of the project site and beyond, and was published in the Brentwood Press on
May 1, 2009, in accordance with City policies and Government Code 65090; and

         WHEREAS, the applicant is concurrently requesting approval of a Final Environmental
Impact Report (EIR); a General Plan amendment to modify the Land Use Element related to the
text for Special Planning Area A and to make the associated change to the Land Use Map; and
a tentative subdivision map to create 11 parcels on the 65-acre project site; and

        WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the Final EIR for
the project by adopting Resolution No. 09-013; and

     WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the General Plan
amendment for the project by adopting Resolution No. 09-014; and

        WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the rezone for the
project by adopting Resolution No. 09-015; and

       WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conditionally approved the tentative
subdivision map for the project by adopting Resolution No. 09-015; and

        WHEREAS, in relation to this rezone, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing
on May 26, 2009, and considered the staff report, supporting documents, public testimony, and
all appropriate information that has been submitted, and has studied the compatibility of this
request with adjacent land uses.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood:

Section 1.

The City Council hereby makes the following supporting findings for this rezone:




                                               1
   1. The proposed rezone has been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions
      of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act. A
      Final Environmental Impact Report has been certified for the project and a statement of
      overriding considerations has been adopted.

   2. The proposed rezone will not result in any adverse impacts to surrounding properties.

   3. The site is physically suitable for the type and the density of development proposed.

   4. The proposed rezone will establish a clear list of allowable uses and development
      standards for the PD-55 Zone.

   5. The proposed rezone will provide standards resulting in development that is consistent
      and compatible with surrounding uses.

   6. The proposed rezone will provide for adequate public uses and private open space.

   7. The proposed development will clearly result in a more desirable use of land, and a
      better physical environment than would be possible under any single or combination of
      zones.

   8. The proposed rezone is on property that has a suitable relationship to one or more
      thoroughfares, and said thoroughfares are adequate to carry any traffic generated by the
      development.

   9. The conceptual plan for the project site presents a unified and organized arrangement of
      buildings and service facilities which are appropriate in relation to adjacent or nearby
      properties, and adequate landscaping and/or screening is included if necessary to
      ensure compatibility.

   10. The natural and scenic qualities of the site are protected, with adequate available public
       and private open spaces designated on the development plan.

   11. The development of the subject property, in the manner proposed by the applicant, will
       not be detrimental to the public welfare, will be in the best interests of the City, and will
       be consistent with the General Plan, including all relevant Elements thereof, and with
       any applicable Specific Plan adopted by the City, as well as the Zoning Ordinance.

Section 2.

Chapter 17.505 regarding PD-55 as shown on Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated
herein, is hereby added to the Brentwood Municipal Code. In addition, a set of design
guidelines for the PD-55 Zone, as shown on Exhibit “B” and referred to in Chapter 17.505 is
hereby approved.

Section 3.

This Ordinance shall be published in accordance with Government Code Section 36933 by
either posting or publishing the Ordinance in accordance with that law. Further, the City Clerk is
directed to cause Section 2 of this Ordinance to be entered in the City of Brentwood Municipal
Code. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days following its adoption.


                                                2
Section 4.

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held
to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, the holding
shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining provisions, and the City Council
declares that it would have adopted each provision of this ordinance irrespective of the validity
of any other provision.

THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced with the first reading waived at a regular
meeting of the Brentwood City Council on the 26th day of May, 2009, by the following vote:




                                                3
                                     EXHIBIT “A” TO
                              CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
                                    REZONE NO. 06-13
                                      PD-55 ZONE


Chapter 17.505 PD-55 (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 55) ZONE – SCIORTINO RANCH
    17.505.001       Authority, Purpose and Intent
    17.505.002       Permitted Uses
    17.505.003       Conditionally Permitted Uses
    17.505.004       Development Standards
    17.505.005       Performance Standards
    17.505.006       Design and Site Development Review
    17.505.007       Conceptual Site Plan
    17.505.008       Zoning Matrix of Land Uses by Sub Area for PD-55
    17.505.009       Minor Revisions
    17.505.010       Zoning Sub Area Map
    17.505.011       Sciortino Ranch Design Guidelines


    17.505.001       Authority, Purpose and Intent
    The authority, purpose and intent for the adoption of the PD-55 Zone are as follows:

      A. Authority. PD-55 is adopted pursuant to the authority set forth in Chapter 17.450,
         Planned Development Zones – General Regulations.

      B. Purpose. The purpose of the PD-55 Zone is to permit and regulate the phased
         development of a mix of uses consistent with the General Plan on the approximately
         65 gross acres encompassed by the zone. The General Plan includes the PD-55
         Zone within Special Planning Area (SPA) A, which consists of approximately 65
         gross acres in the northeast portion of the city. SPA A is bounded by a single family
         home subdivision on the north, a single family home subdivision on the east, mixed
         use commercial and medium density residential on the south, and Brentwood
         Boulevard on the west. The PD-55 Zone is equal to the size and location of SPA A.
         SPA A policies are intended to mirror policies and the mixed land uses described in
         the PD-55 Zone for a range of uses including retail commercial businesses,
         professional office uses, limited light industrial uses, and a range of residential uses
         and densities. Land use flexibility for this large in-fill parcel is warranted due to its
         strategic location adjacent to two arterial roadways including Brentwood Boulevard
         and Sand Creek Road.
      C. Intent. To achieve the foregoing purpose, the PD-55 Zone shall be divided into seven
         standard sub areas; the sub areas are further divided as shown on the zoning map.
         Each sub area includes internal land use flexibility per the Land Use Matrix and shall
         be developed as generally described below:




                                               4
     1. Sub Area 1 consists of the southwestern approximately 9.4 acres and is intended
        for the development of commercial uses that meet the needs of residents of
        Brentwood and the region.

     2. Sub Area 2 consists of the western and central approximately 16 acres and is
        intended primarily for the development of commercial uses that meet the needs
        of residents of Brentwood and the region. Approximately 10 of the 16 acres are
        designated for “flex” development, which could include single-family detached,
        commercial, retail, institutional, and/or office uses.

     3. Sub Area 3 consists of the northern approximately 6.7 acres and is intended for
        the development of residential uses that are generally compatible with adjacent
        residential development. Sub Area 3A is intended to meet a minimum 4,000
        square foot residential lot size which is typical of the adjacent development to the
        north. Sub Area 3B allows for a range of residential densities, and provides a
        density transition to adjacent sub areas.

     4. Sub Area 4 consists of the central and eastern approximately 10.1 acres and is
        intended for the development of very high density residential uses. The size of
        this sub area may be decreased due to lot line adjustments necessary for
        adjacent development but shall retain a minimum total of seven acres.

     5. Sub Area 5 consists of the eastern approximately 5.1 acres located on the north
        and south side of the future Sand Creek Road. The area is further divided
        between Sub Area 5A and 5B. Sub Area 5A is established to serve primarily as
        a usable park and a buffer to existing residential subdivisions to the north and
        east. Sub Area 5B is established to serve as primarily a buffer to existing
        residential subdivisions to the east. Narrow areas in Sub Area 5 are intended to
        build on existing rights of way and provide a north-south pedestrian link.

     6. Sub Area 6 consists of the eastern approximately 5.5 acres south of the planned
        Sand Creek Road and is intended generally but not exclusively for residential
        uses.

     7. Sub Area 7 consists of the southern approximately 7.4 acres and is intended
        primarily for the development of residential uses that are generally compatible
        with adjacent residential development. Sub Area 7A is intended to meet a
        minimum 4,000 square foot residential lot size which is typical of the adjacent
        development to the south. Sub Area 7B allows for a range of residential
        densities, and provides a density transition to adjacent sub areas. Final
        development of Sub Area 7B may require boundary adjustments as needed to
        accommodate development in Sub Areas 1 and 6.

     8. Each of Sub Areas 1 through 7 may be developed in phases.

17.505.002      Permitted Uses
See Section 17.505.008, which identifies permitted land uses acceptable per individual
sub areas. Permitted uses must comply with the Sciortino Ranch Design Guidelines.




                                          5
17.505.003      Conditionally Permitted Uses
See Section 17.505.008, which identifies conditionally permitted land uses acceptable per
individual sub areas. Upon obtaining a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 17.830,
said uses shall be allowed in the PD-55 Zone. Conditionally permitted uses must comply
with design standards established in the Design Guidelines.

17.505.004      Development Standards
All permitted and conditionally permitted uses developed within the sub areas shall
conform to the following standards as applicable:

 A. Basic Standards are included in the Sciortino Ranch Design Guidelines.

     1. General Commercial, Office, and Light Industrial/R & D Development Standards
        are included in the Sciortino Ranch Design Guidelines.
     2. Single family and attached duet residential standards are included in the
        Sciortino Ranch Design Guidelines. All residential development in the PD-55
        Zone is exempt from the City of Brentwood Residential Growth Management
        Program for a period of five (5) years from the effective date of this ordinance.
     3. Multifamily Residential Development Standards are included in the Sciortino
        Ranch Design Guidelines.

 B. Residential Density: Densities are defined as follows.

     1. In Sub Area 2B, no development shall exceed a density of 11 (with a mid-range
        of 8) dwelling units per gross acre for single-family detached product, or 20 (with
        a mid-range of 15.5) dwelling units per gross acre for single-family attached
        product.
     2. In Sub Area 3A, no development shall exceed a density of 11 (with a mid-range
        of 8) dwelling units per gross acre.
     3. In Sub Area 3B, no development shall exceed a density of 11 (with a mid-range
        of 8) dwelling units per gross acre for single-family detached product, or 20 (with
        a mid-range of 15.5) dwelling units per gross acre for single-family attached
        product.
     4. In Sub Area 4, no development shall exceed a density of 30 dwelling units per
        gross acre.
     5. In Sub Area 6, no development shall exceed a density of 11 (with a mid-range of
        8) dwelling units per gross acre for single-family detached product, or 20 (with a
        mid-range of 15.5) dwelling units per gross acre for single-family attached
        product.
     6. In Sub Area 7A, no development shall exceed a density of 11 (with a mid-range
        of 8) dwelling units per gross acre.
     7. In Sub Area 7B, no development shall exceed a density of 11 (with a mid-range
        of 8) dwelling units per gross acre for single-family detached product, or 20 (with
        a mid-range of 15.5) dwelling units per gross acre for single-family attached
        product.

 C. Landscaping and Screening. Landscaping and screening requirements for each
    phase of development within PD-55 shall be specified in a master landscaping and
    screening program for PD-55 approved by the Planning Commission or in the design


                                         6
   and site development review approval for each phase. All landscaping and
   screening shall adhere to Chapter 17.630 and the City’s adopted Urban Forest
   Guidelines. All establishments in PD-55 with drive-thru windows or counters for the
   purpose of selling food or merchandise to the general public shall screen those
   windows and counters from view from the public right-of-way by extensive shrub and
   tree landscaping, landscaped berms, walls, trellises, or combination thereof. Such
   screening will be reviewed and approved by the city through the design review or
   conditional use permit process specified in Chapter 17.820 or 17.830.

D. Advertising Signs. The design and site development review approval for each phase
   of non-residential development within the PD-55 Zone shall require an application
   for, and approval of a master sign program. All signs within the PD-55 Zone shall
   conform to the planned sign program as the same may be amended from time to
   time pursuant to Chapter 17.640 Sign Regulations.

E. Other Development Standards.

   1. Refuse Disposal Enclosure. All facilities shall provide masonry refuse disposal
       enclosures to city standards and specifications.
   2. Illumination of Parking Facilities and Structures. All facilities shall provide
       adequate lighting or illumination of parking facilities and structures pursuant to
       Chapter 17.620 with IESNA-classified cut-off or full cut-off fixtures with a
       maximum height of 20 feet to the light source.
   3. Parking Lot Design and Development Standards. All facilities shall comply with
       Chapter 17.620.
   4. Open Storage or Display. Open storage and/or outdoor display of merchandise is
       prohibited unless conducted within an area designated and in accordance with
       standards specified in a design and site development review approval pursuant
       to Chapter 17.820, or as expressly provided for by a conditional use permit.
   5. Accessory structures and buildings shall be permitted pursuant to the provisions
       of Chapter 17.660. For single-family residential developments, site specific
       standards for these types of facilities shall be submitted for review and approval
       with the respective tentative subdivision map application.
   6. Security Measures. All facilities shall provide security measures in accordance
       with city standards and subject to design review in accordance with Chapter
       17.820. No barbed or razor wire shall be utilized in conjunction with any said
       facilities.
   7. Energy Conservation. All facilities shall, to the greatest extent possible,
       incorporate energy conservation measures in conformance with city standards
       and subject to design review.
   8. Manufacturing and Storage Areas. All manufacturing processes shall be within a
       structure and all open storage areas shall be screened with a minimum six-foot
       high masonry wall. No storage shall exceed the height of the wall.
   9. There shall be no overnight parking of mobile homes, recreational vehicles,
       buses or campers in the public parking or common areas of PD-55, nor any
       display of vehicles for sale by owners at any time. There shall also be no
       permanent or long term storage of merchandise or equipment in the parking
       areas or sidewalks at any time, with the exception of those areas specifically
       approved for such uses pursuant to the conditional use permit provisions in
       Chapter 17.830.
   10. Development may occur in phases.


                                       7
     11. Any other applicable City standards and regulations.
     12. Development of Sub Areas 3A, 3B, 4, and 5A shall require compliance with the
         provisions of Chapter 17.680 (Oil and Gas Production).
     13. All development applications within the PD-55 Zone shall be reviewed for
         compliance with the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Sciortino Ranch
         project, including all mitigation measures. All development applications shall also
         be reviewed for compliance with Tentative Subdivision Map 9152, including all
         conditions of approval.
17.505.005      Performance Standards
All permitted and conditionally permitted uses developed within the Sub Areas shall
conform to the performance standards set forth below:

 A. Noise.
    1. All noise generated by development within the PD-55 Zone shall be consistent
         with the requirements set forth in the Noise Element of the General Plan and in
         Chapter 9.32 (Noise Regulations) of the Brentwood Municipal Code.
 B. Heat, Glare and Humidity.
    1. Any operation producing intense heat shall be performed within a completely
         enclosed building in such a manner as not to create a public nuisance or hazard
         along lot lines;
    2. Any operation or activity producing glare shall be performed within a completely
         enclosed building and be conducted so that direct and indirect illumination from
         the source of light on the lot shall not cause illumination in excess of one foot
         candle when measured at the lot line. Exposed sources of light shall be shielded
         and flickering or intense sources of light shall be controlled so as not to cause a
         nuisance across lot lines;
    3. Any use producing humidity in the form of steam or moist air, or producing heat,
         shall be carried on in such a manner that the source of steam, humidity or heat is
         not perceptible from the public property line.
 C. Vibration. Any industrial operation or activity which shall cause at any point along the
    property line of the subject use, earth-borne vibrations which are discernible without
    the use of instruments is prohibited.
 D. Fire, Safety and Explosion. All uses shall provide adequate safety devices against
    fire, explosion and other hazards and adequate firefighting and fire-suppression
    equipment in compliance with applicable fire prevention and building codes.
 E. Soundproofing. Residential and other acoustically-sensitive activities shall be
    designed so that interior noise levels due to exterior noise sources do not exceed the
    requirements of the Noise Element of the General Plan or Chapter 9.32 (Noise
    Regulations) of the Brentwood Municipal Code.
 F. Solid and Liquid Waste.
    1. No discharge at any point into public sewer, stream or bay or into the ground
         shall be permitted, except in accord with the standards approved by the State
         Department of Health, or standards specified in applicable local ordinances for
         similar uses of any materials of such nature or temperature as can contaminate
         any water supply, interfere with bacterial processes in sewage treatment, or
         otherwise cause the emission of dangerous or offensive elements;
    2. No materials or wastes shall be deposited on any property in such form or
         manner that they may be transferred off the property by natural causes or forces;
    3. Any wastes which might be attractive to rodents or insects shall be stored
         outdoors only in closed containers.


                                          8
 G. Electrical and Radioactive Radiation. No activities shall be permitted which emit
    dangerous radioactivity at any point, or create an electrical disturbance adversely
    affecting the operation at any point of any equipment other than that of the creator of
    such disturbance.
 H. Air Pollution. All uses shall comply with regulations of the San Francisco Bay Area
    Air Pollution Control District.
    1. Smoke. For the purpose of determining the density or equivalent opacity of
        smoke, the Ringlemann Chart as published by the U.S. Bureau of Mines in
        Circular No. 7718 (August, 1955) shall be employed. The emission of smoke
        from any chimney, stack, vent, opening or combustion process shall not exceed
        Ringlemann No. 1;
    2. Odors. No emission shall be permitted of odorous gases or other odorous matter
        in such quantities as to be readily detectable at the property line of the subject
        use;
    3. Toxic and Noxious Matter. No use shall be permitted which creates any emission
        which endangers human health, can cause damage to animals, vegetation or
        other property or which can cause soiling at any point beyond the boundaries of
        the site.
17.505.006     Design and Site Development Review
The design and site development of each phase within the PD-55 Zone shall comply with
Chapter 17.820 (Design Review) of the Brentwood Municipal Code. Any conditionally
permitted use that would be located in a new building that has not already undergone
design review consideration shall pay the applicable fees for both the conditional use
permit and design review.
17.505.007     Conceptual Site Plan
Development in the sub areas shall be subject to being in substantial conformance with
the Sciortino Ranch Design Guidelines, unless otherwise approved by the City Council
through an amendment to this chapter. Any modification to the sub area boundaries
depicted in Section 17.505.010 shall require an amendment to the Sub Area map, which
shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director.




                                         9
       17.505.008                Zoning Matrix of Land Uses by Sub Areas for PD-55


Symbol Legend
■ = Permitted Use            1


◘ = Conditional Use Permit Required                      2



                                                     Com-           Flex Residential                    Park           Flex        Residenti
                                                   mercial          Com  Emphasis                      Emphas          Com            al
                                                   Emphasi          .&                                   is            .&          Emphasis
                                                       s            Res.                                               Res.
LAND USES3                                          1 2A             2B 3A 3B 4                        5A 5B            6          7A       7B

Commercial Uses

Self-service storage facilities4
                                                   ◘ ◘ ◘                                                                 ◘
Light industrial uses which
generate minimal noise, odor,
                                                   ◘ ◘ ◘                                                                 ◘
smoke, and waste material5
Merchandise and/or General
Retail Sales Greater than
                                                   ◘ ◘ ◘                                                                 ◘
75,000 Sq. Ft. for any Single
User Building 6(Applies to any
Second Single-User Building,
or more, located either north or
south of Sand Creek Rd.)
Sports bar, lounge, nightclub
and similar establishments7
                                                   ◘ ◘ ◘                                                                 ◘
Liquor Stores8
                                                   ◘ ◘ ◘                                                                 ◘
1   All proposed developments are to be consistent with the adopted Sciortino Ranch Design Guidelines, as applicable, for each permitted land
    use. Land uses that are similar in nature and operation to those uses identified within the land use matrix are acceptable subject to approval
    by the Community Development Director. The decision of the Community Development Director is subject to appeal in accordance with
    Brentwood Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 17.880.
2   Symbol notes uses that are required to undergo a conditional use permit process (per BMC Chapter 17.830).
3   Physical design is to adhere to the PD-55 Municipal Ordinance and the adopted Sciortino Ranch Design Guidelines, sub-areas are
    specifically designed to respond to any existing adjacent development by incorporating like densities, uses, or park buffers.
4   Mini-storage or warehouse with or without a resident manager’s dwelling unit.
5   Including by way of example, but not limited to, Warehouses, Controlled Manufacturing and Assembly, Printing or Lithography Production
    establishments, Plastic Fabrication, Electronic and Electrical Product and Instrument Manufacturing, Garment Manufacturing, Furniture
    Making, Upholstering, Food Processing and similar uses.
6   When calculating Square Footages for a proposed project, the noted 75,000 Sq. Ft. does not include first or second floor business office,
    personnel, stock room, or loading areas.
7   With on-site sale of beer, wine, or distilled spirits, including establishments which offer food as a secondary use, entertainment and/or
    dancing.
8   Liquor Stores including by way of example, but not limited to, establishments that sell primarily beer, wine, and distilled spirits.



                                                                      10
                                                    Com-          Flex Residential                   Park           Flex       Residenti
                                                  mercial         Com  Emphasis                     Emphas          Com           al
                                                  Emphasi         .&                                  is            .&         Emphasis
                                                      s           Res.                                              Res.
LAND USES3                                         1 2A            2B 3A 3B 4                       5A 5B            6         7A        7B

Motor Vehicle Sales9
                                                  ◘ ◘ ◘                                                               ◘
Construction contractor’s and
contractor related services and
                                                  ◘ ◘ ◘                                                               ◘
affiliated storage10
Merchandise and/or General
Retail Sales Greater than
                                                  ■ ■ ■                                                               ■
75,000 Sq. Ft. for any Single
User Building11 (Applies only
to One Single-User Building
located either north or south of
Sand Creek Rd.; see below for
any Second Building or more)
Merchandise and/or General
Retail Sales Less than 75,000
                                                  ■ ■ ■                                                               ■
Sq. Ft. (Applies to any Single-
User or Multi-Tenant Building)
Supermarkets or Grocery (with
Beer, Wine, and Distilled
                                                  ■ ■ ■                                                               ■
Spirits sales)
Convenience Store with or
without Beer & Wine sales (no
                                                  ■ ■ ■                                                               ■
Distilled Spirits). Limited to
one store as a permitted use in
each of the following sub areas:
1, 2A, 2B, and 6. Any
additional convenience must
apply for a conditional use
permit.12 13




9 Including Automobile, Motorcycle, Recreational Vehicle and Boat Sales, and similar establishments.
10 Including but not limited to cabinetry, countertop, and sheet metal fabrication shops
11 When calculating Square Footages for a proposed project, the noted 75,000 Sq. Ft. does not include first or second floor business office,
   personnel, stock room, or loading areas.
12 Convenience Store alcoholic beverage sales shall not exceed 40% of total beverages offered and no individual containers of beer may be sold
   greater than 24 ounces.
13 Sale of newspapers, periodicals, magazines, or other print, analog, or digitally reproduced materials that includes pornographic images is
   expressly prohibited.



                                                                     11
                                                    Com-           Flex Residential                    Park           Flex       Residenti
                                                  mercial          Com  Emphasis                      Emphas          Com           al
                                                  Emphasi          .&                                   is            .&         Emphasis
                                                      s            Res.                                               Res.
LAND USES3                                         1 2A             2B 3A 3B 4                        5A 5B            6         7A       7B

Pharmacy Establishments with
or without Drive-through.
                                                  ■ ■ ■                                                                ■
Limited to one such use in each
of the following sub areas: 1,
2A, 2B, and 6. Any additional
drive-through must apply for a
conditional use permit.
Gas Stations, with or without
Car Wash and/or Convenience
                                                  ◘ ◘ ◘                                                                ◘
Store
Pet and Pet Supply Stores14
                                                  ■ ■ ■                                                                ■
Restaurants15 (with or without
Beer & Wine sales)16
                                                  ■ ■ ■                                                                ■
Restaurants with full kitchen
and bar as secondary use17
                                                  ■ ■ ■                                                                ■
(limited to one restaurant as a
permitted use in each of the
following sub areas: 1, 2A, 2B,
and 6. Any additional
restaurants with secondary bar
use must apply for a
conditional use permit)




14 Including on-site Veterinary Clinics, excluding boarding of pets.
15 Including by way of example but not limited to full-service sit-down restaurant establishments.
16
   Prior to the issuance of a tenant improvement permit, a copy of the floor plan shall be provided for the review and approval of the Brentwood
   Police Department specifically identifying where all alcoholic beverages will be stored or displayed and how distribution will be controlled.
   A sign stating that open alcohol containers shall not be removed from designated areas shall be conspicuously displayed within the restaurant
   to the satisfaction of the Brentwood Police Department. Tables shall be busses immediately following vacancy in order to ensure that all
   open alcoholic containers are removed from the seating area.
17 The following regulations apply to any restaurant: Prior to the issuance of a tenant improvement permit, a copy of the floor plan shall be
   provided for the review and approval of the Brentwood Police Department specifically identifying where all alcoholic beverages will be
   stored or displayed and how distribution will be controlled. A sign stating that open alcohol containers shall not be removed from the
   premises shall be conspicuously displayed within the restaurant to the satisfaction of the Brentwood Police Department. Tables shall be
   bussed immediately following vacancy in order to ensure that all open alcoholic containers are removed from the seating area. Expressly
   excludes dancing type uses. Secondary bar uses have limited hours of operation 11AM to Midnight. Bar area not to exceed 30% of
   restaurant floor area (excluding office or kitchen area). Restaurant with Secondary bar use shall not be permitted within 200 feet of a
   residential use or residential zone.



                                                                      12
                                                     Com-           Flex Residential                    Park           Flex       Residenti
                                                   mercial          Com  Emphasis                      Emphas          Com           al
                                                   Emphasi          .&                                   is            .&         Emphasis
                                                       s            Res.                                               Res.
LAND USES3                                          1 2A             2B 3A 3B 4                       5A 5B             6         7A       7B

Convenience Restaurants with
or without drive-thru service18
                                                   ■ ■ ■                                                                ■
Limited to one such use in each
of the following sub areas: 1,
2A, 2B, and 6. Any additional
drive-through must apply for a
conditional use permit.
Specialty Merchandise and
Convenience Sales19
                                                   ■ ■ ■                                                                ■
Video Arcades, indoor Movie
Theatre, Bowling Alley,
                                                   ◘ ◘ ◘                                                                ◘
Skating Rink, and similar
entertainment establishments
Temporary parking lot display
and/or sale areas20
                                                   ■ ■ ■                                                                ■
Outdoor display, dining, and/or
sale of merchandise21
                                                   ■ ■ ■                                                                ■
Commercial services22
                                                   ■ ■ ■                                                                ■
Commercial uses which may or
may not manufacture their
                                                   ■ ■ ■                                                                ■
primary product on the
premises23




18 Including by way of example but not limited to Sandwich Shops or Fast-Food establishments.
19 Including by way of example but not limited to Specialty Foods, Delicatessen, Bakery, Pastry, Candy, Ice Cream, Butcher, Meat Market,
   Wine, Tobacco, Apparel, Jewelry, Cosmetics, Stationery, Shoes & Shoe Repair, Kitchenware, Motor Vehicle Parts, Hobby, specialty interest
   stores, and similar establishments.
20 Requires approval of a Temporary Use Permit per BMC Chapter 17.850.
21 If outdoor display, dining, and/or sales areas are proposed post formal design review and/or development of a subject building then either: 1)
   BMC Section 17.900.009 shall apply for uses proposed on private property, or 2) BMC Section 17.900.005 shall apply for uses proposed in
   the public right of way (excluding any Down Town zone specific regulations).
22 Including by way of example but not limited to Barbershop, Beauty Shop, Hair Salon, Laundry, Dry Cleaning, Laundromat, Electronic,
   Appliance Sales and Repair, Watch and Clock Repair, Tanning Studio, Small Equipment Rental and Repair, Real Estate Sales and Rental,
   Title and Escrow Services, Architectural, Engineering, Legal and Accounting Services, Insurance Agency, Employment Agency, Outpatient
   Medical, Dental and Optical Services, Technology Access Center, Telecommuting Center, Addressing, Post Box and Mailing Service,
   Blueprinting, Photostating and Desktop Publishing & Printing Services, Drafting Service, Messenger Service, Stenographic Service,
   Answering Service, Private Postal Box Service, Travel Agency, Bank Branch, ATM facility, and similar establishments.
23 Including but not limited to Drapery or Upholstery Shop and similar establishments.



                                                                      13
                                                    Com-           Flex Residential                    Park           Flex       Residenti
                                                  mercial          Com  Emphasis                      Emphas          Com           al
                                                  Emphasi          .&                                   is            .&         Emphasis
                                                      s            Res.                                               Res.
LAND USES3                                         1 2A             2B 3A 3B 4                        5A 5B            6         7A       7B

Business, Institutional,
Administrative, Financial, and
                                                  ■ ■ ■                                                                ■                  ■
Professional Offices24
Research and development
facilities25
                                                  ■ ■ ■                                                                ■
Wholesale showrooms and
distribution centers
                                                  ■ ■ ■                                                                ■
Hotel
                                                  ◘ ◘ ◘                                                                ◘
Tobacco and cigar lounges that
allow smoking on-site
                                                  ◘ ◘ ◘                                                                ◘
Health clubs (indoor and
outdoor recreational facilities)
                                                  ◘ ◘ ◘                                                                ◘
Check cashing facilities and
pawnshops
                                                  ◘ ◘ ◘                                                                ◘
Residential Uses26

Single Family Detached Homes
(Min. Lot Size: 4,000 Sq. Ft.)
                                                                     ■ ■ ■                                             ■ ■ ■
Small Lot Single Family
Homes
                                                                     ■                ■                                ■                   ■
(Min. Lot Size: 2,100 Sq.Ft.)27
Courtyard Detached Homes –
4 units or fewer
                                                                     ■                ■                                ■                   ■
(Min. Lot Size: 2,500 Sq.Ft.)
Courtyard Detached Homes –
7 units max
                                                                     ■                ■                                ■                   ■
(Min. Lot Size: 2,500 Sq.Ft.)




24 Including but not limited to large-scale single and/or multi-tenant office uses, such as medical offices, Trade Schools, Colleges, Public and
   Quasi-Public Offices, Library, Post Office and Utility Office.
25 Including by way of example but not limited to research, office, support and associated warehouse areas.
26 Keeping of domestic animals or pets subject to BMC Chapter 17.670.
27 See the adopted Sciortino Ranch Design Guidelines for lot sizes associated with zipper lots and alley load lots



                                                                      14
                                                     Com-            Flex Residential                    Park           Flex       Residenti
                                                   mercial           Com  Emphasis                      Emphas          Com           al
                                                   Emphasi           .&                                   is            .&         Emphasis
                                                       s             Res.                                               Res.
LAND USES3                                          1 2A              2B 3A 3B 4                        5A 5B            6          7A       7B

Duet Homes
(2 Attached Units, Min. Lot
                                                                      ■                 ■                                 ■                  ■
Size per Unit: 2,400 Sq. Ft.)
Apartments and
Condominiums28
                                                                                                ■
Park Uses

Parks29
                                                                                                        ■ ■




28 Multi-family structures shall not exceed thirty (30) dwelling units per gross acre. Permitted uses include accessory uses and facilities related
   to the primary use including on-site manager quarters, leasing or sales offices, site maintenance areas, carports, recreation buildings and
   fitness facilities for use by residents and their guests. Signs are subject to BMC Chapter 17.640.
29 Parkland areas are subject to park size minimums described within the adopted Sciortino Ranch Design Guidelines. Park credits are also
   described in the Design Guidelines. Parks are allowed in all Sub Areas per the Guidelines with specified Park areas located in Sub Area 5A
   and 5B. Park sub area borders are flexible to accommodate future development designs that better integrate park land use edges.



                                                                       15
17.505.009      Minor Revisions

If minor deviations or adjustments to the adopted Sciortino Ranch Design Guidelines or
PD-55 regulations are requested, and such minor adjustment(s) are consistent with the
overall spirit or intent of the guidelines or zoning regulations, such minor adjustment(s)
may be approved by the City Council as part of a rezone application.




                                         16
17.505.010   Zoning Sub Area Map (apartments are only allowed in Sub Area 4)




                                   17
17.505.011      Sciortino Ranch Design Guidelines

The Sciortino Ranch Design Guidelines, as adopted by the City Council, are herein
incorporated by reference as Exhibit “A” to the PD-55 Zone and are intended to be used in
the review of all development projects within the PD-55 Zone.




                                        18
                           EXHIBIT “B” TO
                    CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
                          REZONE NO. 06-13
     REQUIRED CHANGES TO THE SCIORTINO RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES


•   Pg. 8 – Modify Footnote 3 to strike “PD-55 Zoning expressly does not include any mid-
    range density policy or requirements…” Modify Footnote 7 to state “…beer, wine, or
    distilled spirits…”
•   Pg. 9 – Change the previously referenced permitted uses to conditionally permitted
    uses. Modify Footnote 14 regarding the boarding of animals to strike “…for more than 5
    days.”
•   Pg. 10 – Change the previously referenced permitted uses to conditionally permitted
    uses.
•   Pg. 11 – Change the previously referenced permitted uses to conditionally permitted
    uses. Secondary housing units, pursuant to Section 17.100.005 of the BMC, should be
    added as permitted uses in the sub areas that allow for single-family detached units.
•   Pg. 18 – Under Section N.3., change the maximum height of pedestrian scale lighting
    from 20 feet to 12 feet, and change the maximum height of parking lot lights from 35 feet
    to 20 feet (as measured to the light source).
•   Pg. 19 – Under Section P.1., include a reference to decorative screen walls as a means
    of screening drive-thru uses. Under Section 2.3.D., change the maximum building
    height from 40 feet to 50 feet.
•   Pg. 28 – Add landscaped areas between facing parking rows (typical of all commercial
    prototypes). Change “every sixth parking space” to “every third parking space.”
•   Pg. 34 – Change the note regarding building articulation from two edges to four.
•   Pg. 79 – Add a bullet point under “Building Orientation” to require 5 foot fence setbacks
    on the street side of corner lots.
•   Pg. 80 – Add a bullet point under the Parking Design section requiring common
    “courtyard” and “cluster” driveways to consist of individual decorative pavers or other
    decorative pavement. Add a bullet point under the Landscape section requiring the
    provision of two additional street trees for corner lots.
•   Pg. 81 – In the 2nd bullet point, specify a minimum offset of 2 feet. In the 16th bullet point,
    change the clear depth dimension for porches from 4.5 feet to 6 feet. Add bullet points
    encouraging the provision of single-story homes, homes with side-entry or recessed
    garages, and homes on corner lots with front porches that wrap around to the sides.
•   Pg. 87 – Add a note specifying the provision of a minimum usable yard of 250 square
    feet. Reduce the maximum building height from 38 feet to 35 feet.
•   Pg. 88 – Revise the other two alternatives such that garages are recessed behind the
    front plane of the homes’ living area.
•   Pg. 89 – Identify all property lines (i.e. front, side, and rear).
•   Pg. 90 – Identify all property lines (i.e. front, side, and rear). Reduce the maximum
    building height from 38 feet to 35 feet.
•   Pg. 91 – Identify all property lines (i.e. front, side, and rear). Reduce the maximum
    building height from 38 feet to 35 feet.
•   Pg. 96 – Address property management issues (i.e. reference the need for an HOA or a
    property maintenance association).
•   Pg. 98 – Add a requirement for the provision of common open space in accordance with
    the BMC.
•   Pg. 118 – Add a note that any private street would never be maintained by the City.


                                              19
•   Pg. 122 – Delete the reference to providing parking along the commercial entry street,
    as it could result in movement conflicts.
•   Pg. 125 – Revise the table so that it is consistent with Chapter 17.620 of the BMC.
•   Pg. 131 – Change “…average width” to “…minimum width.”
•   Pg. 132 – Modify the park acreage calculation table to reflect the land use assumptions
    in the project EIR.
•   Pg. 143 – Add trees to the area separating the residential parking from the commercial
    parking.
•   Pg. 145 – Increase the buffer zone in the last bullet point from 2 feet to 3 feet.
•   Pg. 147 – Increase the buffer zone in the third bullet point from 2 feet to 3 feet.
•   Pg. 149 – Delete the reference to a “no build easement”, as those types of easements
    tend to be difficult to administer in the future and may result in conflict between the
    adjacent uses.
•   Pg. 154 – Delete the three diagrams that reflect garages facing Sand Creek Road,
    unless hand-laid masonry walls are utilized to screen said garages.
•   Pg. 155 – Delete the three diagrams that reflect garages facing Sand Creek Road or
    typical residential streets, unless hand-laid masonry walls are utilized to screen said
    garages.
•   The Design Guidelines shall be revised to be consistent with and specifically note the
    requirements set forth in the following conditions of approval from Tentative Subdivision
    Map No. 9152: 4, 7, 8, 18-21, 44, and 46-50.
•   The Design Guidelines shall be revised to cross-reference the Project EIR and
    incorporate all mitigation measures.
•   Appendix A – See Exhibit “A” to this resolution.




                                           20
                              CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.

       A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
       APPROVING AN APPEAL, IN PART, AND DENYING AN APPEAL, IN PART, FILED
       BY NEW URBAN COMMUNITIES PARTNERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S
       APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (TSM 9152) TO SUBDIVIDE
       APPROXIMATELY 61 ACRES INTO 11 PARCELS FOR FUTURE MIXED-USE
       DEVELOPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCIORTINO RANCH PROJECT,
       LOCATED DIRECTLY EAST OF THE SAND CREEK ROAD AND BRENTWOOD
       BOULEVARD INTERSECTION (APN 016-170-012 AND 016-170-013).

       WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Tentative Subdivision Map No. 9152
as part of a noticed public hearing to allow the subdivision of a 61-acre site into 11 parcels,
located directly east of the Sand Creek Road and Brentwood Boulevard intersection (APN 016-
170-012 and 016-170-013), and approved the map by Resolution No. 09-016 at its regular
meeting of April 21, 2009; and

        WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approval was appealed by New Urban
Communities Partners, the project applicant, on April 30, 2009, within the 10-day appeal period
stipulated in the Brentwood Municipal Code; and

       WHEREAS, on May 12, 2009, the City Council set the appeal date for May 26, 2009;
and

        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 May 15, 2009, in
accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090; and

        WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing, reviewed said tentative
subdivision map request, and the proposed changes to conditions of approval number 9, 16, 21,
30, 32, 33, 38, and 53 related to Tentative Subdivision Map No. 9152; and

        WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff report, supporting documents,
public testimony, and all appropriate information that has been submitted with the proposed
project; and

         WHEREAS, the applicant is concurrently requesting approval of a Final Environmental
Impact Report (EIR); a General Plan amendment to modify the Land Use Element related to the
text for Special Planning Area A and to make the associated change to the Land Use Map; and
a rezone to establish a list of allowable uses and development standards for the PD-55 Zone;
and

       NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, based on the facts in the staff report, written
and oral testimony and exhibits presented that:

       A.     The City Council hereby finds that:

              1. The proposed tentative subdivision map, including its design and associated
                 improvements, is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, as
                 amended; and



                                               1
              2. The discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision will not result in
                 violation of existing requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water
                 Quality Control Board; and

              3. The site is physically suitable for the type and the density of development
                 proposed; and

              4. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health
                 problems; and

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

              6. The requested changes to conditions of approval number 9, 16, 21, 30, 32,
                 33, and 38 are warranted in that they consist primarily of technical
                 clarifications and that they retain the intent of the conditions that were
                 originally approved by the Planning Commission; and

              7. The requested change to condition of approval number 53 is not warranted,
                 as it represents a significant change in City policy regarding the development
                 of parks and open spaces.

              8. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Sciortino Ranch project has
                 been certified and a statement of overriding considerations has been
                 adopted.

       B.     The City Council hereby approves the appeal, in part, and denies the appeal, in
              part, by approving Tentative Subdivision Map No. 9152, effective upon the date
              that Rezone No. 06-13 is effective, subject to the conditions of approval listed in
              Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part of this resolution, and all City
              standards applicable to this project.

Tentative Subdivision Map No. 9152 shall expire two (2) years from the date of the approval for
General Plan Amendment No. 09-01 and Rezone No. 06-13, unless a final map is recorded
prior to that date or written request for extension is submitted and approved by the Planning
Commission prior to the expiration date.

       ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at its regular meeting of May 26,
2009, by the following vote:




                                               2
                                EXHIBIT "A" TO
                          CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
                       CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TSM 9152


Miscellaneous

1.    All applicable Standard Conditions of Approval for Tentative Subdivision Maps, dated
      May 2005, are hereby incorporated by reference and shall be complied with by the
      developer, unless modified by the Planning Commission or any of the conditions below.

2.    The Final Map shall be in substantial compliance with Tentative Subdivision Map No.
      9152 prepared by Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc., dated “Received April 1, 2009”,
      unless otherwise amended by the conditions of approval contained herein.

3.    All projects developed within this tentative subdivision map shall be subject to the
      respective City standard conditions of approval in effect at the time said projects are
      approved.

4.    Prior to recordation of any final map or issuance of any building permit, a lot line
      adjustment shall be submitted for the review and approval of the City Engineer and the
      Community Development Director. Said adjustment shall combine APN 016-170-013
      (Delta Sierra LLC) with Parcel 9 and Parcel 10 in order to align those two parcels with
      their respective sub area boundaries approved as part of the PD-55 Zone.

5.    “Courtyard” or “cluster” developments shall incorporate interlocking pavers or other
      decorative concrete surfaces for the private driveways, with specific designs and
      materials to be approved by the Planning Commission in conjunction with future design
      review applications for said homes.

6.    The developer shall comply with the City of Brentwood Public Art Program. The method
      of compliance shall be agreed upon to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks &
      Recreation prior to the recordation of the final map and shall be documented in an
      agreement to be recorded against the entire property.

7.    Prior to final map recordation in one of the City’s Redevelopment areas, the developer
      shall enter into an affordable housing agreement with the Redevelopment Agency and
      the City of Brentwood in accordance with Community Redevelopment Law (CRL), Health
      and Safety Code Section 33413, which requires that at least fifteen percent (15%) of all
      new residential units developed within the Merged Redevelopment Project Areas shall
      be available as affordable housing in accordance with CRL. An agreement to satisfy the
      affordable housing obligation for this project must be approved by the Redevelopment
      Agency Board and/or City Council.

8.    If applicable the developer shall dedicate parcels that are for City ownership in fee, to
      the City of Brentwood on the final map to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

9.    Prior to the approval of any permitted use involving the sale of alcohol as the primary
      means of business (i.e. bars, nightclubs, liquor stores, etc.) or hours of operation beyond
      10:00 pm, the applicant shall be required to prepare a plan detailing the operational and
      security-related characteristics of the proposed use. Said plan shall be submitted for the


                                               3
      review and approval of the Community Development Director and the Chief of Police,
      and shall be incorporated into the respective design review or tenant improvement
      permit approval.

10.   Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall include in the project design
      the following measures:

         •   Allow only natural gas fireplaces or stoves in single-family houses. Wood, pellet,
             or traditional open hearth fireplaces shall not be permitted;
         •   Use of exterior and interior paints with low quantities of volatile organic
             compounds;
         •   Residences will include outside electrical outlets to allow electric lawn and
             garden equipment for landscaping; and
         •   Utilize reflective (or high albedo) and emissive roofs and light colored
             construction materials where reasonably practical to increase the reflectivity of
             roads, driveways, and other paved surfaces, and include shade trees near
             buildings to directly shield them from the sun's rays and reduce local air
             temperature and cooling energy demand.

11.   Prior to the issuance of grading permits for Sub Area 5A, the applicant shall provide a
      “No Further Action Required” letter from the RWQCB for review by the Contra Costa
      County Environmental Health Department and the Brentwood Community Development
      Director and Public Works Department.

12.   Prior to the approval of any development within Sub Areas 3A, 3B, 4, or 5A, the
      applicant shall demonstrate compliance with Chapter 17.680 of the Brentwood Municipal
      Code (Oil and Gas Production), to the satisfaction of the Community Development
      Director.

13.   Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall be required to pay school impact
      fees.

14.   Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall pay the agricultural
      mitigation fee in effect.

15.   Prior to final map approval, the developer shall prepare a drainage plan, including design
      of the drainage facilities, for the project site to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
      Subsequent developments and project approvals must demonstrate compliance with the
      approved drainage plan.

16.   The developer shall record CC&R’s at the time of recordation of either the final map
      creating future residential subdivision map lots or prior to issuance of the certificate of
      occupancy for all commercial type uses or prior to building permit issuance for apartment
      complexes. The CC&R’s shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney
      and Community Development Director and shall address the maintenance of any
      commercial areas of the project site. The CC&R’s shall provide:

      a. For a property manager to be responsible for maintenance and repair of all common
         commercial areas, such as landscaping, parking, and access roads and to be
         responsible for scheduling of all solid waste collection from the site.



                                               4
      b. That the property manager may be an owner, a third party manager designated by
         one or both owners, or a special purpose entity such as an owners’ association.
      c. The City with the rights and remedies of the association, but not the obligation, to
         enforce the maintenance responsibilities of the manager.

Transportation Improvements

17.   If not already dedicated through a separate agreement, the developer shall dedicate, in
      fee, right-of-way for the Sand Creek Road extension through the property as a 140’ wide
      City standard arterial within 30 days of City Council approval of the tentative subdivision
      map. Any reimbursement shall be per the Development Fee Program.

18.   The developer shall design and construct Sand Creek Road as a standard 4-lane arterial
      within the project boundary to ultimate improvements to the satisfaction of the City
      Engineer. The ultimate improvements shall include but are not limited to two 12’ lanes
      and an 8’ bike lane in each direction, non-potable water line, curb, gutter, 16’ landscape
      median, utilities, sidewalk, signing, striping and 25’ landscape parkway to the satisfaction
      of the City Engineer. If not already accommodated in a separate agreement, the
      reimbursement shall be per the Development Fee Program. One of the following three
      scenarios shall apply, depending upon the timing of the improvements:

      a. If not already constructed by others, developer shall construct roadway to its ultimate
         configuration and improvements including median and parkway landscaping.
      b. If the interim roadway with a lane in each direction and median and median
         landscaping is constructed by others, then the developer shall widen and complete
         the remaining improvements including parkway landscaping.
      c. If the roadway is constructed to its ultimate width with the exception of parkway
         landscaping by others, then developer shall complete the landscape improvements.

      These improvements shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and constructed
      prior to issuance of the first residential permit and/or prior to the issuance of a certificate
      of occupancy for any non-residential permit.

19.   Any costs associated with the two future traffic signals on Sand Creek Road, the one
      future traffic signal on Brentwood Boulevard north of Sand Creek Road and the
      modification of the existing traffic signal at the intersection of Technology Way and
      Brentwood Boulevard, as shown in the project EIR, shall be the financial responsibility of
      the developer. Long term operation and maintenance shall be the financial responsibility
      of the developer for 1.5 traffic signals on Sand Creek Road and the proposed signal on
      Brentwood Boulevard with the financial mechanism to be approved by the City Engineer.

20.   If the easterly most traffic signal (2nd traffic signal) on Sand Creek Road is not
      constructed, then the developer shall design and construct a pedestrian activated traffic
      signal at the trail crossing on Sand Creek Road to connect the north and south trails to
      the satisfaction of the Parks and Recreation Director and the City Engineer prior to the
      opening of Sand Creek Road. This improvement is not fee creditable. If the easterly
      most traffic signal (2nd traffic signal) on Sand Creek Road is constructed, then the
      developer shall extend the trail to this signal location and make any necessary
      modification to the intersection and or traffic signal to accommodate pedestrian
      crossings for the trail.



                                                5
21.   The developer shall install a bus shelter, including a bench and a trash receptacle, along
      the Brentwood Boulevard frontage to the satisfaction of the Community Development
      Director and the City Engineer. This improvement shall be completed concurrent with
      the Brentwood Boulevard frontage improvements at no cost to the City. Long term
      maintenance of this improvement shall be the responsibility of the developer with the
      financial mechanism to be approved by the City Engineer.

22.   Driveways at proposed traffic signal locations on Brentwood Boulevard shall be aligned
      with the existing driveways on the west side of the roadway, to the satisfaction of the
      City Engineer.

23.   The final map shall include access and utility easements for Parcels 4, 5, 10 and 11 to
      the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

24.   The developer shall install all signs and pavement markings, including the lane lines,
      legends, limits lines, etc., to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, and consistent with the
      Traffic Division Guidelines for the Preparation of the Effective Signing and Striping Plans
      for Residential and Commercial Developments.

25.   Parking lot design shall be as per the Brentwood Development Procedures Manual and
      Standard Specifications.

26.   “Courtyard” or “cluster” homes shall provide adequate access for vehicle turn around, to
      the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

27.   The design of “courtyard” or “cluster” home developments shall provide adequate space
      for solid waste bins and access for the City’s solid waste trucks. In addition,
      developments that include “courtyards” or “clusters” in excess of 4-units shall locate
      water meters in the public right-of-way and not in the “courtyard” or “cluster” areas.

28.   The developer shall relinquish access rights along Brentwood Boulevard and Sand
      Creek Road on the final map, except approved access locations, along Brentwood
      Boulevard and Sand Creek Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

29.   Per the project’s traffic mitigation measures, the Brentwood Boulevard / Homecoming
      Way intersection shall be modified by eliminating left turns from the intersection’s
      westbound approach by installing a raised island and appropriate signing and striping, to
      the satisfaction of the City Engineer., This improvement shall be completed concurrent
      with the Brentwood Boulevard roadway improvements at no cost to the City.

30.   The developer shall pay the current Traffic Impact Fees through the Development Fee
      Program. In addition, within 12 months of City Council approval developer shall initiate
      the design for the improvements to Brentwood Boulevard North Phase 1 as identified in
      the City’s CIP Program. The City shall be the lead for all work associated with right of
      way acquisition, permitting and environmental documentation including associated costs
      and fees. The developer shall be responsible for providing all supporting documentation.
      The design shall be complete within 18 months of initiation and shall be to the
      satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall be the financial responsibility of the developer.
      A portion of these design costs are fee creditable as determined by the City Engineer.
      (This condition substitutes and implements the prior mitigation measures to modify the
      Brentwood Boulevard / Grant Street / Sunset Road intersection, the Brentwood


                                                6
      Boulevard / Havenwood intersection, Brentwood Boulevard / Village Drive intersection
      and the Brentwood Boulevard / Sunrise Drive intersection).

31.   The developer shall mitigate this impact by the payment of the current Traffic Impact
      Fees per the Development Fee Program for the Brentwood Boulevard / Lone Tree Way
      intersection due to the similar level of service for the existing + approved projects
      condition [LOS A/A (PM/AM peak)] and the existing + approved projects + proposed
      project condition [LOS A/B (PM/AM peak)] and the fact that the cumulative impact is not
      realized until year 2030.

32.   The developer shall pay the current Traffic Impact Fees per the Development Fee
      Program and the developer shall pay their fair share of the cost of the traffic signal at the
      Brentwood Boulevard / Gregory Lane intersection. The fair share shall be defined as
      15% of $200,000 or $30,000 and shall be paid prior to the recordation of the first
      residential final map. (This condition substitutes and implements the prior mitigation
      measure to modify the Brentwood Boulevard / Gregory Lane intersection).

33.   Per the project’s traffic mitigation measures, the Brentwood Boulevard / Sand Creek
      Road intersection will be re-evaluated to verify an acceptable level of service can be
      achieved taking into account the signal synchronization anticipated in Condition No. 34.
      This study shall be completed within 6 months of final project approval to the satisfaction
      of the City Engineer, at no cost to the City. Any recommendations set forth in this study
      shall be implemented by the developer.

34.   The developer shall design and install a traffic interconnect system in Brentwood
      Boulevard and Sand Creek Road to synchronize the proposed or modified traffic signals
      along the project’s Brentwood Boulevard and Sand Creek Road frontages. The
      interconnect shall include, if necessary, new traffic controllers at the modified signals to
      conform with City standards. These improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction
      of the City Engineer and concurrent with the Brentwood Boulevard and Sand Creek
      Road roadway improvements.

35.   All public and transportation improvements proposed by the developer or required
      through these conditions of approval, including landscaping and other improvements
      described below, shall be completed in compliance with the time schedule set forth in
      the conditions of approval. If all the required public improvements are not constructed
      prior to recordation of the first residential final map, the developer shall enter into a
      subdivision improvement agreement with the City to guarantee the completion of the
      improvements and ensure that all obligations to construct improvements run with the
      land. Among other things, the agreement shall require the developer to guarantee the
      performance of the improvements and payment of labor and materials by furnishing
      security in a form acceptable to the City and require the approval of the City for any
      assignment of the terms and obligations of the agreement.

36.   The BAAQMD has identified mitigation measures for reducing emissions from
      commercial uses. Prior to approval of a site plan for all development on each of the 11
      parcels, a transportation management plan shall be created and submitted for the
      approval of the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. The
      transportation management plan may include the following measures and any others to
      achieve a reduction in emissions:



                                                7
          •   Design and locate buildings to facilitate transit access, such as locating building
              entrances near transit stops and eliminating building setbacks;
          •   Provide secure, weather-protected bicycle parking for employees;
          •   Provide safe, direct access for bicyclists to adjacent bicycle routes;
          •   Provide showers and lockers to employees bicycling or walking to work;
          •   Provide secure short-term bicycle parking for retail customers and other non-
              commute trips;
          •   Provide direct, safe, attractive pedestrian access from project to transit stops and
              adjacent development;
          •   Implement carpool/vanpool programs such as carpool ridematching for
              employees, assistance with vanpool formation or provision of vanpool vehicles;
          •   Provide on-site child care, or contribute to off-site child care within walking
              distance;
          •   Use of exterior and interior paints with low quantities of volatile organic
              compounds;
          •   Implement parking cash-out program for employees (i.e., non-driving employees
              receive transportation allowances equivalent to value of subsized parking); and
          •   Implement parking cash-out program for employees (i.e., non-driving employees
              receive transportation allowance equivalent to value of subsidized parking).

37.   The developer shall underground overhead utilities along the project frontage of
      Brentwood Boulevard, at no cost to the City and concurrent with the Brentwood
      Boulevard roadway improvements.

Parks, Trails, Landscaping and Open Space Improvements

38.   The developer shall design and construct the landscape parkway improvements for
      Brentwood Boulevard along the project frontage to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
      and the Parks & Recreation Director concurrent with adjacent commercial on-site work,
      and prior to the issuance of any associated occupancy permit. Existing oak trees along
      Brentwood Boulevard shall be protected and preserved in place. If not accommodated
      by a separate agreement, the developer shall reimburse the City of Brentwood for the
      previously-installed roadway improvements per the City’s Development Fee Program.

39.   The developer shall install all necessary irrigation infrastructure and shall utilize non-
      potable water for park, parkway, and median irrigation.

40.   A final landscape and irrigation plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of
      the Parks & Recreation Director and the Community Development Director prior to the
      recordation of the final map and shall include all trail connections, open space, and
      public and private landscape areas. All landscape areas constructed as part of this
      development shall be subject to the plan check and inspection fees in the City’s adopted
      Cost Allocation Plan.

41.   All trees shall be selected and planted as per the City’s Urban Forest Guidelines. Street
      trees shall be a minimum size of 24” box in order to facilitate establishment of a street
      tree canopy.

42.   The developer shall identify trail, open space, and park areas within the subdivision with
      signage, prior to and through construction, and through maintenance to the satisfaction


                                               8
      of the Director of Parks & Recreation. The signs shall contain current contact
      information for the developer through acceptance by the City to deal with inquiries and
      complaints by the public.

43.   The developer shall design and construct the trails, connections, street and open space
      landscape areas, and parks to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks & Recreation. All
      trails, connections, street and open space landscape areas, and parks shall be
      substantially completed by the developer to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks &
      Recreation and open to public use prior to the issuance of any building permit on any lot
      that is contiguous to the respective area. The developer shall submit a tentative
      schedule of these improvements for review and approval by the Director of Parks &
      Recreation prior to recordation of the final map.

44.   A detailed fencing and sound wall plan, including locations of property lines, shall be
      submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer, Community Development
      Director, and the Director of Parks & Recreation as part of any future tentative
      subdivision map and/or design review applications submitted to the Planning
      Commission, and prior to any plan approval.

45.   Trails shall be constructed concurrent with street improvements to the satisfaction of the
      City Engineer and Director of Parks & Recreation, and to City of Brentwood standards.

46.   All parks, trails, pass-thrus, street, and open space landscape areas shall be maintained
      by the developer, at the developer’s expense, until subdivision acceptance unless
      accepted earlier on the recommendation of the Director of Parks & Recreation and the
      City Engineer with approval by the City Council. Once these areas have been
      completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks & Recreation, they shall remain
      open to the public for use. After acceptance, these areas shall be maintained by the City
      and shall be paid by the subdivision’s Lighting and Landscape District or other
      acceptable City financing mechanism. All plant material, equipment, structures, and
      appurtenances shall have a one-year warranty period starting with the effective date of
      acceptance by the City.

47.   Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall provide for review and
      approval by the City Engineer and Director of Parks and Recreation, grading plans that
      show finished grades for all parks, trails, parkways and open space parcels.

48.   The developer shall construct a masonry wall with a minimum height of 8’ on all lots
      adjacent to any City-owned park and/or landscape area unless approved otherwise by
      the City Engineer and the Director of Parks & Recreation.

49.   Related to the development of parks, the developer is required to meet all City standards
      for all parks that are to be considered for park development fee credit and/or to meet the
      acres per population standard unless otherwise approved in writing by the Director of
      Parks & Recreation and the City Engineer. These standards include, but are not limited
      to: providing park space equal to or above the City standard of 5-acres per 1,000
      population; minimum park size of ½ acre; minimum park space width of 100’; and the
      property designated for park space cannot have existing easements or encumbrances
      that limit the ability to fully plan use of the property as a park.




                                              9
50.   The approved tentative subdivision map does not contain any information as to the
      future location of parks. Therefore, prior to final map approval, developer shall be
      required to enter into an agreement with the City in a form approved by the City, to
      address park requirements. The agreement shall be recorded against the property
      along with recordation of the final map in order to inform subsequent developers of their
      obligations. Among other things, the agreement shall provide that the park requirements
      for the subdivision must be provided within any of the 11 parcels on which residential
      development is included and must meet the City's standard parks requirements, that the
      park requirements will be based on the corresponding number of housing units created
      by that parcel and that, if approved in writing by the Director of Parks & Recreation, a
      parcel may shift park requirements to another parcel within the subdivision, providing
      written action is taken that requires the other parcel to accept the additional park
      requirements and record them against the property.

51.   The developer shall provide a minimum of one park at a minimum size of one acre on
      both the north and south sides of Sand Creek Road to accommodate future residential
      (including multi-family) development, unless otherwise approved by the Director of Parks
      & Recreation, as per City standards and these conditions of approval.

52.   Parks must be completed by the developer and open to the public for use no later than
      50% of occupancy of any and all residential developments on any of the 11 identified
      parcels.

53.   Urban plazas, village greens, landscaped paseos, private recreation spaces, and open
      space areas are encouraged as a part of the development, however, they are not fee
      creditable for park development fees, nor can they be counted as park acreage under
      the City’s standard of 5-acres per 1,000 population, if they do not meet City park
      standards.

54.   The adopted Sciortino Ranch Design Guidelines identify Sub Areas 5A and 5B as “park”
      areas. The term “park” in the guidelines is a descriptive term only, and does not
      constitute a “park” in City terms unless it meets City park standards or is fee creditable in
      the Development Fee Program. The majority of Sub Area 5A is not included in Tentative
      Subdivision Map No. 9152, and it cannot be used to satisfy park requirements on any of
      the 11 parcels on the tentative subdivision map without the written approval of the
      Director of Parks & Recreation.

55.   Prior to approval of a tentative map or site plan for an individual sub area, the tentative
      map or site plan shall show bicycle lanes and/or paths connected to the community-wide
      network and sidewalks and/or paths connected to adjacent land uses, transit stops,
      and/or community-wide network, for approval by the Community Development Director
      and the City Engineer.

56.   During site plan consideration for the parks, the City shall ensure that active recreation
      areas of neighborhood parks are located as far as possible from residential property
      lines and masonry walls shall be constructed along property lines adjacent to existing
      residential uses. In addition, neighborhood parks shall only be open from dawn to dusk.
      Parks shall be large enough to allow playgrounds to be placed appropriate distances
      from residences. In addition, new residential developments shall be informed of any
      planned parks in their vicinity.



                                               10
Noise

57.     Prior to approval of tentative maps or site plans, the tentative maps or site plans shall
        show that all outdoor activity areas of residential and commercial uses are shielded from
        traffic noise, for the review and approval of the Community Development Director and
        the City Engineer. The shielding shall be achieved through the site design measures
        (i.e., setbacks, barriers, site design, building façades, and vegetation). Preliminary
        barrier calculations indicate that barrier heights of approximately 10 feet would be
        required along Brentwood Boulevard and seven feet along Sand Creek Road. Future
        detailed analysis may be required by the Community Development Director per future
        site plan submittals.

58.     Prior to the approval of any tentative subdivision map and/or design review application
        for residential uses constructed along Brentwood Boulevard, the project design shall
        include glass windows and doors with the sound transmission class (STC) ratings
        sufficient to mitigate for the predicted traffic noise levels in Table 4.5-11 of the project
        EIR under the cumulative plus project scenarios. A noise study shall be provided as part
        of any development application. Final design shall be reviewed and approved by the
        Chief Building Official and the Community Development Director.

59.     Prior to the issuance of building permits for commercial, office, and institutional uses,
        mechanical ventilation systems shall be included in the project design for the review and
        approval of the Chief Building Official. The use of mechanical ventilation systems would
        allow occupants to keep windows and doors closed to achieve acoustical isolation from
        traffic noise.

60.     Prior to the issuance of building permits for first row residential uses constructed along
        the Brentwood Boulevard corridor, the project design shall ensure that all attic vents be
        acoustically baffled in first row residential uses constructed along the Brentwood
        Boulevard corridor. The baffles shall introduce at least one 90 degree obstruction to the
        flow of air through the vent. The baffle should be lined with an acoustically absorbent
        material. Final design shall be reviewed and approved by the Chief Building Official.

61.     During project review, the Community Development Director shall make a determination
        as to whether or not the proposed commercial use would likely generate noise levels
        that could adversely affect the adjacent residential areas. If the determination is made
        from this review that proposed uses could generate excessive noise levels at noise-
        sensitive uses, the applicant shall be required to prepare an acoustical analysis
        consistent with the General Plan Noise Element to ensure that all appropriate noise
        control measures are incorporated into the project design and to mitigate any noise
        impacts. Such noise control measures include, but are not limited to, use of noise
        barriers, site-redesign, silencers, partial or complete enclosures of critical equipment,
        etc.

62.     Where commercial uses adjoin residential uses, and loading docks or large truck
        circulation routes adjoin residential areas, prior to design review approval, the following
        measures shall be included in the project design, for review and approval of the
        Community Development Director. The following measures may be modified pending
        more detailed analysis of future development proposals by an acoustical consultant:




                                                11
      •   Loading docks should maintain a minimum distance of 100 feet from residential
          property lines;
      •   Property line barriers should be a minimum of eight feet in height, in order to break
          line of sight to semi-tractor trailers and shield adjacent residential uses;
      •   Circulation routes for large trucks should be located a minimum of 50 feet from the
          residential property lines;
      •   Loading dock activities, including truck idling and use of refrigeration units, and
          shipping/receiving hours shall be limited to daytime hours (7am to 10pm);
      •   All large heating, cooling and ventilation equipment should be located within
          mechanical rooms or shielded on the ground, where possible;
      •   All roof-top exterior heating, cooling and ventilation equipment shall be shielded from
          view with solid noise barriers, or parapets; and
      •   Emergency generators shall comply with the local noise criteria.

63.   Prior to approval of site plans within individual sub-areas, the project design shall show,
      for review and approval of the Community Development Director, where commercial
      land uses are separated from residential areas by local streets, all loading activities
      should be located on opposite sides of the buildings from residential uses. This
      mitigation measure may be modified pending more detailed analysis of future
      development proposals by an acoustical consultant.

64.   During construction, the City shall ensure noise-generating activities at the construction
      site or in areas adjacent to the construction site associated with the project in any way
      shall be restricted to the hours of 7:30 am to 5:30 pm, Monday through Saturday.
      Construction is prohibited on Sundays and City holidays unless prior authorization from
      the Community Development Director is obtained.

65.   Prior to the approval of the Improvement Plans or initiation of any grading or construction
      activity, the applicant/developer shall include the following mitigation measures on the
      plans to be approved by the City Engineer:

      •    Equip all equipment driven by internal combustion engines with intake and exhaust
           mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate to the equipment. Unnecessary
           idling of internal combustion engines should be strictly prohibited;
      •    Stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors or portable power
           generators, must be located the greatest distance applicable from sensitive
           receptors. Construct temporary noise barriers to screen stationary noise-generating
           equipment when located near adjoining sensitive land uses;
      •    Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology
           exists;
      •    Designate a “disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to
           any local complaints regarding construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will
           determine the cause of the noise complaints (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler,
           etc.) and will require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be
           implemented; and
      •    Notify prospective residents within the adjacent subdivision that the development of
           the commercial portion of the site would generate noise levels during construction
           that may be considered excessive or annoying.




                                               12
Biological and Cultural Resources

66.    Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall ensure that a pre-
       construction survey for special-status plant species is conducted prior to commencement
       of construction activities, for the review and approval of the Community Development
       Director and the California Department of Fish and Game. The survey is to be done to
       verify the continued absence of special-status plant species identified in the previous
       surveys.

67.    Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall ensure that pre-construction
       surveys are conducted between April 15 and July 15 by a qualified biologist within the
       project area to determine the presence of burrowing owls during the height of the nesting
       season. The survey is to be completed in accordance with the survey requirements of
       the CDFG and protocol for the California Burrowing Owl Consortium (CBOC) and
       submitted to the Community Development Director.

       If site disturbance does not commence within 30 days of the nesting season survey, an
       additional survey shall be conducted prior to construction.            If site disturbance
       commences during the nesting season, between February 1 and August 31, and
       burrowing owls are detected on or within 250 feet of the on-site construction areas, a
       fenced buffer shall be installed not less than 250 feet between the nest burrow(s) and
       construction activities. The 250 foot buffer shall be observed and the fence left intact
       until a qualified biologist determines that the young are foraging independently, the nest
       has failed, or the owls are not using any burrows within the buffer.

68.    Prior to the issuance of grading or construction permits for the project site, the applicant
       shall pay the applicable HCP/NCCP per-acre fee in effect. Once the per-acre fee is paid,
       the City will verify that the HCP/NCCP permit terms and conditions have been met and
       issue take authorization under the HCP/NCCP.

69.    Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall ensure that pre-construction
       surveys are conducted between February and August by a qualified biologist within the
       project area and within a 0.5 mile radius of the project boundary. If nests are not found
       during the pre-construction survey, further action is not required, other than payment of
       HCP/NCCP mitigation fees, and required compliance with HCP/NCCP Mitigation
       Measure 4.6-3(b) of the project EIR. If active nests are found, the findings shall be
       submitted to CDFG and a buffer zone of a minimum of one-quarter mile shall be
       established around the active nest. Intensive new disturbances, such as heavy
       equipment activities associated with construction that may cause nest abandonment or
       forced fledging, shall not be initiated within this buffer zone between March 1 and
       September 1. Any trees containing nests that must be removed as a result of project
       implementation shall be removed during non-breeding season between September and
       January.

70.    If site disturbance commences during the nesting season (February 1 through August
       15), a pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist within
       15 days of the start of project-related activities. If nests are not found during the pre-
       construction survey, further action is not required, other than payment of HCP/NCCP
       mitigation fees, and required compliance with Mitigation Measure 4.6-3(b) of the project
       EIR. If nests of migratory birds are detected on site or within 75 feet (for migratory
       passerine birds) or 250 feet (for birds of prey) of the site, the applicant shall observe no-


                                                13
      disturbance buffers of 75 feet for migratory passerine and 250 feet for birds of prey until
      August 15, or the qualified biologist determines that the young are foraging
      independently, or the nest has been abandoned.

      Removal of any potential nesting trees or shrubs shall occur between September 1 and
      January 31, outside of the general avian nesting season. If removal of any potential
      nesting trees or shrubs occurs, or construction begins, between February 1 and August
      31 (nesting season for passerine or non-passerine land birds) or December 15 and
      August 31 (nesting season for raptors), the applicant shall have a nesting bird survey
      performed. The survey shall be done for the review and approval of the Community
      Development Director, by a qualified biologist within 14 days prior to the removal or
      disturbance of potential nesting trees or shrubs, or the initiation of other construction
      activities during the early part of the breeding season (late December through April) and
      not more than 30 days prior to the initiation of these activities during the late part of the
      breeding season (May through August). During this survey, a qualified biologist shall
      inspect all potential nesting habitat (trees, shrubs, grasslands, pastures, etc.) in and
      immediately adjacent to the impact areas for nests.

71.   Active nests shall be flagged and an appropriate non-disturbance buffer zone shall be
      established around the nesting trees or shrubs. The size of the buffer zone shall be
      determined by the project biologist in consultation with CDFG and will depend on the
      species involved, site conditions, and type of work to be conducted on the project site.
      Typically, if active nests are found, construction activities shall not take place within 250
      feet of the raptor nests and within 75 feet of other migratory birds until the young have
      fledged. A qualified biologist shall monitor active nests to determine when the young
      have fledged and are feeding on their own. The qualified biologist and CDFG shall be
      consulted for clearance before construction activities resume on the project site.

72.   Prior to deeming complete site-specific applications for parcels located within the
      proposed project site, the site plan(s) shall identify all non-orchard trees within the site
      plan area that are at least in “good” condition (based on the arborist report prepared for
      the project site), which shall be protected from damage, to the satisfaction of the
      Community Development Department, and shall be identified on the grading plan.
      Appropriate protective measures shall be taken to ensure preservation during grading
      activity and after project occupancy. Any non-orchard tree in at least “good” condition
      that cannot be preserved in place shall be relocated or replaced, to the satisfaction of
      the Community Development Department.

73.   During ground disturbance activities, if any earth-moving activities uncover any
      concentrations of stone, bone or shellfish, any artifacts of these materials, or any
      evidence of fire (ash, charcoal, fire altered rock, or earth), all work shall be halted in the
      vicinity of the find and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted immediately to make
      an evaluation to assess possible historic importance or prehistoric significance. If
      warranted by the discovery of a concentration of artifacts or soil deposits, further work in
      the discovery area shall be monitored by an archaeologist.

      If the discovery appears to be an isolated find, monitoring of excavation in the vicinity
      would be appropriate to confirm this. However, if the discovery appears indicative of a
      more complex deposit, archaeological investigation shall be undertaken and a limited
      subsurface test procedure (auger test) shall be performed in the discovery location to



                                               14
      determine if any culturally modified soils or more concentrated artifactual remains are
      present at greater depths.

74.   In the event that any archaeological deposits are discovered during construction or
      grading, work in the vicinity of the discovery shall be halted until a plan has been
      submitted to the Community Development Director for the evaluation of the resource, as
      required under current CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the following standard
      archaeological monitoring and spot check procedures shall be implemented in the
      vicinity of the discovery, following an investigation that determines that potentially
      significant discoveries have been made:

         •   Monitoring shall consist of directly watching the major excavation process.
             Monitoring shall occur during the entire work day, and shall continue on a daily
             basis until a depth of excavation has been reached at which resources could not
             occur. This depth is estimated as usually about five feet below grade at the
             beginning of the project, but may require modification in specific cases, and shall
             be determined by the monitoring archaeologist based on observed soil
             conditions. Spot checks shall consist of partial monitoring of the progress of
             excavation over the course of the project. During spot checks, all spoils material,
             open excavations, recently grubbed areas, and other soil disturbances shall be
             inspected to determine if cultural materials are present. The frequency and
             duration of spot checks shall be based on the relative sensitivity of the exposed
             soils and active work areas. The monitoring archaeologist shall determine the
             relative sensitivity of the parcel.
         •   If prehistoric human interments (human burials or skeletal remains) are
             encountered within the native soils of the parcel, all work should be halted in the
             immediate vicinity of the find. The County Coroner, project superintendent, and
             the Agency Liaison shall be contacted immediately.
         •   If significant cultural deposits other than human burials are encountered, the
             project shall be modified to allow the artifacts or features to be left in place, or the
             archaeological consultant shall undertake the recovery of the deposit or feature.
             Significant cultural deposits are defined as archaeological features or artifacts
             that associate with the prehistoric period, the historic era (Mission and Pueblo
             Periods), and the American era up to about 1950.
         •   Whenever the monitoring archaeologist suspects that potentially significant
             cultural remains or human burials have been encountered, the piece of
             equipment that encounters the suspected deposit shall be stopped, and the
             excavation inspected by the monitoring archaeologist. If the suspected remains
             prove to be non-significant or non-cultural in origin, work shall recommence
             immediately.
         •   If the suspected remains prove to be part of a significant deposit, all work shall
             be halted in that location until appropriate recordation and (possible) removal has
             been accomplished. If human remains (burials) are found, the County Coroner
             shall be contacted to evaluate the discovery area and determine the context; not
             all discovered human remains reflect Native American origins. However, in all
             cases where prehistoric or historic era Native American resources are involved,
             the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted to designate
             appropriate representatives of the local Native American community, who also
             should be contacted about their concerns.




                                               15
         •   Equipment stoppages shall only involve those pieces of equipment that have
             actually encountered significant or potentially significant deposits, and should not
             be construed to mean a stoppage of all equipment on the site unless the cultural
             deposit covers the entire building site.
         •   During temporary equipment stoppages brought about to examine suspected
             remains, the archaeologist shall accomplish the necessary tasks with all due
             speed.

75.   During construction, if bone is uncovered that may be human, the California Native
      American Heritage Commission, located in Sacramento, and the Contra Costa County
      Coroner shall be notified. Should human remains be found, all work shall be halted until
      final disposition by the Coroner. Should the remains be determined to be of Native
      American descent, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be consulted to
      determine the appropriate disposition of such remains. In addition, a qualified
      archaeologist shall be notified immediately so that an evaluation of the remains and the
      site can be performed.




                                              16
Utilities and Related Improvements

76.    All utilities to serve the project including but not limited to sewer, water, storm water,
       non-potable water, and fiber optic shall be the developer’s financial responsibility. Any
       reimbursement for oversizing shall be per the Development Fee Program.

77.    The developer shall install all meters or utility boxes for “courtyard” or “cluster” homes
       within the public right-of-way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

78.    The developer shall be responsible for mitigating the natural run-off from adjoining
       upstream properties to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

79.    The developer shall form or annex into the most current City of Brentwood Community
       Facilities District to fund public facilities and services prior to final map approval, to the
       satisfaction of the City Engineer.

80.    The developer shall design and construct all storm water bio-filtration areas to meet the
       C.3 requirements of the NPDES Permit in accordance with the project Storm Water
       Control Plan and the Contra Costa County Cleanwater Program Guidebook. These
       improvements shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. No C.3
       improvements shall be constructed within public right-of-way, City owned parks, and/or
       on any property owned by the City of Brentwood without written approval of the City
       Engineer and the Director of Parks & Recreation.

81.    The applicant shall develop Operation and Maintenance Manuals for the stormwater
       control system. The Operation and Maintenance Manuals shall address all aspects of
       the system’s maintenance, including but not limited to sediment removal, weed and trash
       abatement, use of chemicals, and sediment loading. The Operation and Maintenance
       Manuals must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to approval of the
       improvement plans.

82.    The developer shall form or annex into the most current street lighting and landscape
       maintenance assessment district for the maintenance of all public street lights and
       landscaping within or adjacent to the project prior to final map approval to the
       satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Director of Parks & Recreation.

83.    Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall consult with PG&E and the City
       of Brentwood to determine the adequacy of existing natural gas and electric facilities to
       serve the project. The applicant shall be required to pay the project’s fair share cost
       towards the construction of needed improvements identified by PG&E and the City of
       Brentwood.

84.    Prior to initiation of construction activities, the project contractor shall coordinate with
       PG&E and the City Engineer to identify the location of existing PG&E utilities and
       determine if relocation of utilities is necessary. If relocation is deemed necessary, prior to
       construction within existing PG&E utility easements, the contractor shall work with PG&E
       and the City Engineer to establish a utilities relocation plan, which shall include methods
       to ensure the provision of utilities during construction of the project.




                                                17
Project Construction

85.    During grading and construction activities, if Underground Storage Tanks are
       encountered, the applicant shall hire a licensed contractor to remove the USTs. In
       addition, the applicant shall obtain a permit from Contra Costa County Environmental
       Health Department, and properly remove the UST, per review and approval of the
       Contra Costa County Environmental Health Department. If soils suspected of being
       contaminated are encountered, they shall be removed in accordance with RWQCB
       guidelines. Further remediation, if necessary, and disposal of the soils shall be
       conducted in accordance with State and federal guidelines.

86.    During grading and construction activities, if septic systems are encountered, the
       applicant shall hire a licensed contractor to remove the septic systems. In addition, the
       applicant shall obtain a permit from Contra Costa County Environmental Health
       Department, and properly abandon/decommission the septic system, per review and
       approval of the Contra Costa County Environmental Health Department. If soils
       suspected of being contaminated are encountered, they shall be stockpiled on plastic
       sheeting. Stockpiled soils shall be sampled in accordance with RWQCB guidelines, and
       the findings forwarded to the RWQCB for review. Further remediation, if necessary, and
       disposal of the soils 4.8-4(c) Prior to initiation of any ground disturbance activities within
       50 feet of a well, the applicant shall hire a licensed well contractor to obtain a well
       abandonment permit from Contra Costa County Environmental Health Department, and
       properly abandon the on-site wells, per review and approval of the Contra Costa County
       Environmental Health Department shall be conducted in accordance with State and
       federal guidelines.

87.    Prior to construction, the project applicant shall initiate a training and education program
       for construction workers on-site, as indicated in the Report on Control of Coccidioides
       immitis (Valley Fever), which was issued in August 1995 by the Kern County Department
       of Public Health’s Valley Fever Task Force. The program shall be reviewed and
       approved by the Community Development Director.

88.    During construction, the project contractor shall comply with all dust control measures
       and procedures issued by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) in
       order to decrease exposure to arthrospores present in soil and dust. In addition, all
       applicable local and State regulations shall be complied with including, but not limited to,
       the California Labor Code and Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, Section
       3203, which addresses respiratory protection and general industry safety orders, and
       requires employers to have Injury and Illness Prevention Plans.

89.    Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall comply with all applicable
       requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and the adopted policies of the East Contra
       Costa Fire Protection District. The Chief Building Official shall review the building plans
       to ensure compliance.

90.    Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide an adequate and reliable
       water supply for fire protection with a minimum fire flow of 2,000 gallons per minute
       (GPM). The required fire flow shall be delivered from not more than two fire hydrants
       flowing simultaneously while maintaining 20 pounds of residual pressure in the main.
       The City Engineer shall ensure the minimum fire flow requirements are satisfied. Flow
       requirements will be determined by the ECCFPD prior to issuance of encroachment


                                                18
      and/or building permits. The developer shall provide the number and type of fire
      hydrants required by ECCFPD and the City Engineer. Hydrant locations will be
      determined by the ECCFPD and the City Engineer prior to building and/or encroachment
      permit issuance. All applicable connection fees shall be paid at the time of permit
      issuance.

91.   Prior to construction involving use of flammable materials, the developer shall provide
      access driveways having all-weather driving surfaces of not less than 20' unobstructed
      width and not less than 13'6" of vertical clearance to within 150 feet of travel distance to
      all portions of the exterior walls of every building. Access driveways shall not exceed 16
      percent grade, shall have a minimum outside turning radius of 42 feet, and must be
      capable of supporting imposed loads of fire apparatus (37 tons). Center divide medians
      on any access roadways shall leave a minimum remaining lane width of 16 feet on each
      side. Median length shall not exceed 150 feet when a 16-foot lane width is used. A rolled
      curb and an unobstructed drivable surface on the median may be used to assist with
      meeting apparatus turning radius requirements. The Chief Building Official and the City
      Engineer shall ensure compliance.

92.   Prior to encroachment and/or building permit issuance for improvements, the developer
      shall submit plans and specifications to the ECCFPD and the City Engineer for review
      and approval in accordance with codes, regulations, and ordinances administered by the
      ECCFPD and the State Fire Marshal’s office.

93.   Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project applicant shall submit, for the review
      and approval of the City Engineer, an erosion control plan that utilizes Best Management
      Practices (BMPs) to limit the erosion effects during construction of the proposed project.
      Measures could include, but are not limited to:

      • Hydro-seeding;
      • Placement of erosion control measures within drainageways and ahead of drop inlets;
      • The temporary lining (during construction activities) of drop inlets with “filter fabric” (a
        specific type of geotextile fabric);
      • The placement of straw wattles along slope contours and back-of-curb prior to
        installation of landscaping;
      • Directing subcontractors to a single designation “wash-out” location (as opposed to
        allowing them to wash-out in any location they desire);
      • The use of siltation fences; and
      • The use of sediment basins and dust palliatives.

94.   Prior to the approval of Improvement Plans and building permits, the project proponent
      shall submit a design-level geotechnical study to the City Engineer for review and
      approval, which specifically addresses whether expansive soils or soils prone to
      liquefaction are present in the development area, and includes measures to address
      these soils where they occur. All grading and foundation plans designed by the project
      Civil and Structural Engineer must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and
      Chief Building Official prior to issuance of grading and building permits to ensure that all
      geotechnical recommendations specified in the geotechnical report are properly
      incorporated and utilized in design. In addition, the applicant of the proposed project
      shall comply with all CBC and UBC standards.




                                               19
95.   Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall obtain and comply with the
      NPDES General Construction Permit, including the submittal of a Notice of Intent (NOI)
      and associated fee to the SWRCB, and the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution
      Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for review and approval of the City Engineer. The SWPPP
      shall serve as the framework for identification, assignment, and implementation of Best
      Management Practices (BMPs). The developer shall implement BMPs to reduce
      pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable. The SWPPP
      shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval and shall remain on the
      project site during all phases of construction. Following implementation of the SWPPP,
      the developer shall subsequently demonstrate the SWPPP’s effectiveness and provide
      for necessary and appropriate revisions, modifications, and improvements to reduce
      pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable.

96.   Consistent with guidance from the BAAQMD, prior to issuance of any grading permits,
      the applicant shall incorporate the following mitigation measures into the construction
      contract documents, which shall be submitted for the review and approval of the City
      Engineer:

         •   Water all active construction areas at least twice daily and more often during
             windy periods; active areas adjacent to existing land uses shall be kept damp at
             all times, or shall be treated with non-toxic stabilizers or dust palliatives;
         •   Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks
             to maintain at least two feet of freeboard;
         •   Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all
             unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites;
         •   Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking
             areas, and staging areas at construction sites; water sweepers shall vacuum up
             excess water to avoid runoff-related impacts to water quality;
         •   Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is
             carried onto adjacent public streets;
         •   Apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas;
         •   Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed
             stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.);
         •   Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph;
         •   Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public
             roadways; and
         •   Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.




                                              20
            APPLICANT REQUESTED CHANGES
                              CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.

       A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
       APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA 09-01) TO MODIFY THE LAND
       USE ELEMENT RELATED TO THE TEXT FOR SPECIAL PLANNING AREA A, AND
       MAKE THE ASSOCIATED CHANGE TO THE LAND USE MAP, FOR THE
       SCIORTINO RANCH PROJECT, LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 65 ACRES
       DIRECTLY EAST OF THE SAND CREEK ROAD AND BRENTWOOD BOULEVARD
       INTERSECTION (APN 016-170-011, 016-170-012 AND 016-170-013).

       WHEREAS, New Urban Communities Partners has requested approval of a General
Plan amendment to modify the Land Use Element related to the text for Special Planning Area
A, and make the associated change to the Land Use Map, for the Sciortino Ranch project,
located on approximately 65 acres directly east of the Sand Creek Road and Brentwood
Boulevard intersection; and

       WHEREAS, the applicant is concurrently requesting approval of a Final Environmental
Impact Report; a rezone to establish a list of allowable uses and development standards for the
PD-55 Zone; and a tentative subdivision map to create 11 parcels on the 65-acre project site;
and

        WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing was distributed to all property owners of record
within 300 feet of the project site and beyond, and published in the Brentwood Press on May 1,
2009, in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090; and

        WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood held a public hearing on
this project at its regular meeting of April 21, 2009, and recommended that the City Council
approve the General Plan amendment by adopting Resolution No. 09-014; and

        WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brentwood held a public hearing on this
project at its regular meeting of May 26, 2009; and

        WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff report, supporting documents,
public testimony, and all appropriate information that has been submitted with the proposed
project; and

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

       A.     Hereby finds that:

              1.   The requested General Plan amendment has been processed in accordance
                   with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the
                   California Environmental Quality Act, in that notices of the public hearing
                   were mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site and
                   beyond, and a Final Environmental Impact Report, including discussion of
                   the requested General Plan amendment, was certified by the City Council.




                                              1
              2.   Approval of the requested amendment, including the change to the text of
                   Special Planning Area A and the associated change to the Land Use Map, is
                   in the public interest, in that it provides for a mix of uses on a 65-acre infill
                   site while providing adequate buffers for existing and approved residential
                   development that is adjacent to the north, east, and south boundaries of the
                   Sciortino Ranch project.

              3.   The potential impacts of the requested amendment have been assessed and
                   have been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
                   welfare. All potentially significant impacts have been analyzed in the Final
                   Environmental Impact Report and have been mitigated to less-than-
                   significant levels, with the exception of cumulative air quality impacts, which
                   have been noted as a significant and unavoidable impact, and for which a
                   statement of overriding considerations has been adopted.

              4.   The requested amendment is consistent and compatible with the rest of the
                   General Plan, including goals, policies, and implementation programs.

       B.     Hereby approves General Plan Amendment No. 09-01 to modify the Land Use
              Element related to the text for Special Planning Area A and to make the
              associated change to the Land Use Map, for the Sciortino Ranch project, located
              on approximately 65 acres directly east of the Sand Creek Road and Brentwood
              Boulevard intersection, as recommended by the Planning Commission and as
              reflected in the attached Exhibit “A”, and directs City staff to make the
              appropriate change to the General Plan text and the General Plan Land Use Map
              for the City of Brentwood General Plan.

       C.     Hereby directs City staff to initiate an amendment to the Residential Growth
              Management Program, which is an implementation mechanism of the Growth
              Management Element of the General Plan, to reflect a five-year exemption from
              the program for all residential development within Special Planning Area A.

       ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at its regular meeting of May 26,
2009, by the following vote:




                                                2
                                   EXHIBIT "A" TO
                            CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
                        NEW TEXT FOR SPECIAL PLANNING AREA A


SPECIAL PLANNING AREA A
Background

This special planning area, approximately 65 acres in
size, is bounded by the existing Havenwood single family
subdivision on the north, existing mixed use
development of retail commercial and medium density
residential on the south, Brentwood Boulevard (current
State Route 4) on the west and the 494-unit Barrington
single-family residential development, Black Elementary
School, and a fire station on the east. Plans call for the
planning area to be bisected by the easterly extension of
Sand Creek Road to Sellers Avenue. Several factors
that provide the guiding focus for the policy direction for
the development of this SPA include: Brentwood Center
across Brentwood Boulevard (current State Route 4) to
the west, the area's proximity to downtown Brentwood,
the existing single-family residential uses to the north
and south, and the existence of existing commercial
uses to the west and south of the area.

Policy Direction

The policy direction for SPA A is to provide a mix of uses consisting of apartments and other
types of multi-family housing, various types of single-family housing, retail uses, office uses,
institutional uses, limited light industrial and service-type uses, and parks. The intent of this
mixed-use area is to take advantage of the Brentwood Boulevard (current State Route 4) and
Sand Creek Road frontages, integrate complementary commercial and residential uses, and
ensure that new development shall complement the existing Brentwood Center commercial and
office developments along the west side of Brentwood Boulevard (current State Route 4).
Appropriate buffers and transitions shall be provided along the north, east, and south
boundaries of the planning area to complement both existing and approved single-family
housing developments. Future development of the planning area, including the specific mix of
land uses, is to be governed by the regulations adopted for the PD-55 Zone, as approved and
as they may be amended over time.

Residential development in SPA A is exempt from the requirements of the Residential Growth
Management Program for a period of five years, beginning with the adoption of Ordinance No. _
in conjunction with Rezone No. 06-13. An additional five-year extension may be granted in the
future at the discretion of the City Council. In addition, residential development in SPA A shall
not be subject to any requirements related to mid-range density.

The mix of land uses are described below. A comprehensive description of zoning and design
objectives are described in the PD-55 Zoning Ordinance and related Design Guidelines.



                                                3
•   Commercial, retail, institutional, light industrial, and office – located along the Brentwood
    Boulevard frontage (current State Route 4), with the option of adding more acres along
    and near the Sand Creek Road frontage.

•   Very high density residential – located on the north and south side of Sand Creek Road,
    near the easterly boundary of the planning area. This would provide for a density range
    between 20 and 25 dwelling units per acre.

•   Medium and high density residential – located along the north and south boundaries of
    the planning area to serve as transitions to the existing single-family housing adjacent to
    said boundaries. Homes in these areas would be detached and would be built on lots
    with a minimum size of 4,000 square feet. Additional areas for this density of housing
    may also be provided as defined in the PD-55 zoning matrix. The medium density areas
    would provide for a density range between 5 and 11 dwelling units per acre, and the high
    density areas would provide for a density range between 11 and 20 dwelling units per
    acre.

•   Parks – located along the east boundary of the planning area to serve the new
    residential neighborhoods, split between two sites, with one on the north side of Sand
    Creek Road and one on the south side of Sand Creek Road. Additional park areas may
    be provided within the planning area in coordination with specific residential
    development.




                                              4
             APPLICANT REQUESTED CHANGES
                                       ORDINANCE NO.

       AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
       APPROVING A REZONE (RZ 06-13) TO ESTABLISH A LIST OF ALLOWABLE USES
       AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, INCLUDING SITE-SPECIFIC DESIGN
       GUIDELINES, FOR THE PD-55 ZONE IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE
       SCIORTINO RANCH PROJECT, LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 65 ACRES
       DIRECTLY EAST OF THE SAND CREEK ROAD AND BRENTWOOD BOULEVARD
       INTERSECTION (APN 016-170-011, 016-170-012 AND 016-170-013).

        WHEREAS, New Urban Communities Partners has requested that the City Council
approve a rezone to establish a list of allowable uses and development standards, including
site-specific design guidelines, for the PD-55 Zone in order to accommodate the Sciortino
Ranch project, located on approximately 65 acres directly east of the Sand Creek Road and
Brentwood Boulevard intersection; and

        WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was distributed to all property owners of record
within 300 feet of the project site and beyond, and was published in the Brentwood Press on
May 1, 2009, in accordance with City policies and Government Code 65090; and

         WHEREAS, the applicant is concurrently requesting approval of a Final Environmental
Impact Report (EIR); a General Plan amendment to modify the Land Use Element related to the
text for Special Planning Area A and to make the associated change to the Land Use Map; and
a tentative subdivision map to create 11 parcels on the 65-acre project site; and

        WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the Final EIR for
the project by adopting Resolution No. 09-013; and

     WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the General Plan
amendment for the project by adopting Resolution No. 09-014; and

        WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the rezone for the
project by adopting Resolution No. 09-015; and

       WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conditionally approved the tentative
subdivision map for the project by adopting Resolution No. 09-015, which has been appealed by
the applicant; and

        WHEREAS, in relation to this rezone, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing
on May 26, 2009, and considered the staff report, supporting documents, public testimony, and
all appropriate information that has been submitted, and has studied the compatibility of this
request with adjacent land uses.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood:

Section 1.

The City Council hereby makes the following supporting findings for this rezone:


                                               1
   1. The proposed rezone has been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions
      of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act. A
      Final Environmental Impact Report has been certified for the project and a statement of
      overriding considerations has been adopted.

   2. The proposed rezone will not result in any adverse impacts to surrounding properties.

   3. The site is physically suitable for the type and the density of development proposed.

   4. The proposed rezone will establish a clear list of allowable uses and development
      standards for the PD-55 Zone.

   5. The proposed rezone will provide standards resulting in development that is consistent
      and compatible with surrounding uses.

   6. The proposed rezone will provide for adequate public uses and private open space.

   7. The proposed development will clearly result in a more desirable use of land, and a
      better physical environment than would be possible under any single or combination of
      zones.

   8. The proposed rezone is on property that has a suitable relationship to one or more
      thoroughfares, and said thoroughfares are adequate to carry any traffic generated by the
      development.

   9. The conceptual plan for the project site presents a unified and organized arrangement of
      buildings and service facilities which are appropriate in relation to adjacent or nearby
      properties, and adequate landscaping and/or screening is included if necessary to
      ensure compatibility.

   10. The natural and scenic qualities of the site are protected, with adequate available public
       and private open spaces designated on the development plan.

   11. The development of the subject property, in the manner proposed by the applicant, will
       not be detrimental to the public welfare, will be in the best interests of the City, and will
       be consistent with the General Plan, including all relevant Elements thereof, and with
       any applicable Specific Plan adopted by the City, as well as the Zoning Ordinance.

Section 2.

Chapter 17.505 regarding PD-55 as shown on Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated
herein, is hereby added to the Brentwood Municipal Code. In addition, a set of design
guidelines for the PD-55 Zone, as shown on Exhibit “B” and referred to in Chapter 17.505 is
hereby approved.

Section 3.

This Ordinance shall be published in accordance with Government Code Section 36933 by
either posting or publishing the Ordinance in accordance with that law. Further, the City Clerk is



                                                2
directed to cause Section 2 of this Ordinance to be entered in the City of Brentwood Municipal
Code. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days following its adoption.

Section 4.

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held
to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, the holding
shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining provisions, and the City Council
declares that it would have adopted each provision of this ordinance irrespective of the validity
of any other provision.

THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced with the first reading waived at a regular
meeting of the Brentwood City Council on the 26th day of May, 2009, by the following vote:




                                                3
                                    EXHIBIT “A” TO
                             CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
                                   REZONE NO. 06-13
                                     PD-55 ZONE


Chapter 17.505 PD-55 (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 55) ZONE – SCIORTINO RANCH
     17.505.001     Authority, Purpose and Intent
     17.505.002     Permitted Uses
     17.505.003     Conditionally Permitted Uses
     17.505.004     Development Standards
     17.505.005     Performance Standards
     17.505.006     Design and Site Development Review
     17.505.007     Conceptual Site Plan
     17.505.008     Zoning Matrix of Land Uses by Sub Area for PD-55
     17.505.009     Zoning Sub Area Map
     17.505.010     Sciortino Ranch Design Guidelines


     17.505.001     Authority, Purpose and Intent
     The authority, purpose and intent for the adoption of the PD-55 Zone are as follows:

     A. Authority. PD-55 is adopted pursuant to the authority set forth in Chapter 17.450,
        Planned Development Zones – General Regulations.

     B. Purpose. The purpose of the PD-55 Zone is to permit and regulate the phased
        development of a mix of uses consistent with the General Plan on the approximately
        65 gross acres encompassed by the zone. The General Plan includes the PD-55
        Zone within Special Planning Area (SPA) A, which consists of approximately 65
        gross acres in the northeast portion of the city. SPA A is bounded by a single family
        home subdivision on the north, a single family home subdivision on the east, mixed
        use commercial and medium density residential on the south, and Brentwood
        Boulevard on the west. The PD-55 Zone is equal to the size and location of SPA A.
        SPA A policies are intended to mirror policies and the mixed land uses described in
        the PD-55 Zone for a range of uses including retail commercial businesses,
        professional office uses, limited light industrial uses, and a range of residential uses
        and densities. Land use flexibility for this large in-fill parcel is warranted due to its
        strategic location adjacent to two arterial roadways including Brentwood Boulevard
        and Sand Creek Road.

     C. Intent. To achieve the foregoing purpose, the PD-55 Zone shall be divided into seven
        standard sub areas; the sub areas are further divided as shown on the zoning map.
        Each sub area includes internal land use flexibility per the Land Use Matrix and shall
        be developed as generally described below:




                                              4
     1. Sub Area 1 consists of the southwestern approximately 9.4 acres and is intended
        for the development of commercial uses that meet the needs of residents of
        Brentwood and the region.

     2. Sub Area 2 consists of the western and central approximately 19 acres and is
        intended primarily for the development of commercial uses that meet the needs
        of residents of Brentwood and the region. Approximately 13.5 of the 19 acres are
        designated for “flex” development, which could include single-family detached,
        commercial, retail, institutional, and/or office uses, and 3 acres for very high
        density residential uses.

     3. Sub Area 3 consists of the northern approximately 6.7 acres and is intended for
        the development of residential uses that are generally compatible with adjacent
        residential development. Sub Area 3A is intended to meet a minimum 4,000
        square foot residential lot size which is typical of the adjacent development to the
        north. Sub Area 3B allows for a range of residential densities, and provides a
        density transition to adjacent sub areas.

     4. Sub Area 4 consists of the central and eastern approximately 7.1 acres and is
        intended for the development of very high density residential uses.

     5. Sub Area 5 consists of the eastern approximately 5.1 acres located on the north
        and south side of the future Sand Creek Road. The area is further divided
        between Sub Area 5A and 5B. Sub Area 5A is established to serve primarily as
        a usable park and a buffer to existing residential subdivisions to the north and
        east. Sub Area 5B is established to serve as primarily a buffer to existing
        residential subdivisions to the east. Narrow areas in Sub Area 5 are intended to
        build on existing rights of way and provide a north-south pedestrian link.

     6. Sub Area 6 consists of the eastern approximately 5.5 acres south of the planned
        Sand Creek Road and is intended generally but not exclusively for residential
        uses.

     7. Sub Area 7 consists of the southern approximately 7.4 acres and is intended
        primarily for the development of residential uses that are generally compatible
        with adjacent residential development. Sub Area 7A is intended to meet a
        minimum 4,000 square foot residential lot size which is typical of the adjacent
        development to the south. Sub Area 7B allows for a range of residential
        densities, and provides a density transition to adjacent sub areas. Final
        development of Sub Area 7B may require boundary adjustments as needed to
        accommodate development in Sub Areas 1 and 6.

     8. Each of Sub Areas 1 through 7 may be developed in phases.

17.505.002      Permitted Uses
See Section 17.505.008, which identifies permitted land uses acceptable per individual
sub areas. Permitted uses must comply with the Sciortino Ranch Design Guidelines.




                                          5
17.505.003      Conditionally Permitted Uses
See Section 17.505.008, which identifies conditionally permitted land uses acceptable per
individual sub areas. Upon obtaining a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 17.830,
said uses shall be allowed in the PD-55 Zone. Conditionally permitted uses must comply
with design standards established in the Design Guidelines.

17.505.004      Development Standards
All permitted and conditionally permitted uses developed within the sub areas shall
conform to the following standards as applicable:

A. Basic Standards are included in the Sciortino Ranch Design Guidelines.

   1. General Commercial, Office, and Light Industrial/R & D Development Standards
      are included in the Sciortino Ranch Design Guidelines.
   2. Single family and attached duet residential standards are included in the Sciortino
      Ranch Design Guidelines. All residential development in the PD-55 Zone is
      exempt from the City of Brentwood Residential Growth Management Program for a
      period of five (5) years from the effective date of this ordinance.
   3. Multifamily Residential Development Standards are included in the Sciortino Ranch
      Design Guidelines.

B. Residential Density: Densities are defined as follows.

   1. In Sub Area 2B, no development shall exceed a density of 11 dwelling units per
      gross acre for single-family detached product, or 20 dwelling units per gross acre
      for single-family product (detached or attached).
   2. In Sub Area 3A, no development shall exceed a density of 11 dwelling units per
      gross acre.
   3. In Sub Area 3B, no development shall exceed a density of 11 dwelling units per
      gross acre for single-family detached product, or 20 dwelling units per gross acre
      for single-family product (detached or attached).
   4. In Sub Area 4, no development shall exceed a density of 25 dwelling units per
      gross acre.
   5. In Sub Area 6, no development shall exceed a density of 11 dwelling units per
      gross acre for single-family detached product, 20 dwelling units per gross acre for
      single-family product (detached or attached), or 25 dwelling units per gross acre for
      multi-family residential.
   6. In Sub Area 7A, no development shall exceed a density of 11 dwelling units per
      gross acre.
   7. In Sub Area 7B, no development shall exceed a density of 11 dwelling units per
      gross acre for single-family detached product, or 20 dwelling units per gross acre
      for single-family product (detached or attached).

C. Landscaping and Screening. Landscaping and screening requirements for each phase
   of development within PD-55 shall be specified in a master landscaping and screening
   program for PD-55 approved by the Planning Commission or in the design and site
   development review approval for each phase. All landscaping and screening shall
   adhere to Chapter 17.630 and the City’s adopted Urban Forest Guidelines. All
   establishments in PD-55 with drive-thru windows or counters for the purpose of selling


                                          6
   food or merchandise to the general public shall screen those windows and counters
   from view from the public right-of-way by extensive shrub and tree landscaping,
   landscaped berms, walls, trellises, or combination thereof. Such screening will be
   reviewed and approved by the city through the design review or conditional use permit
   process specified in Chapter 17.820 or 17.830.

D. Advertising Signs. The design and site development review approval for each phase of
   non-residential development within the PD-55 Zone shall require an application for,
   and approval of a master sign program. All signs within the PD-55 Zone shall conform
   to the planned sign program as the same may be amended from time to time pursuant
   to Chapter 17.640 Sign Regulations.

E. Other Development Standards.

   1. Refuse Disposal Enclosure. All commercial or multi-family facilities shall provide
       masonry refuse disposal enclosures to city standards and specifications.
   2. Illumination of Parking Facilities and Structures. All facilities shall provide adequate
       lighting or illumination of parking facilities and structures pursuant to Chapter
       17.620 with IESNA-classified cut-off or full cut-off fixtures with a maximum height of
       25 feet to the light source for pedestrian oriented lighting and 30 feet to the light
       source for parking lot lighting.
   3. Parking Lot Design and Development Standards. All facilities shall comply with
       Chapter 17.620.
   4. Open Storage or Display. Open storage and/or outdoor display of merchandise is
       prohibited unless conducted within an area designated and in accordance with
       standards specified in a design and site development review approval pursuant to
       Chapter 17.820, or as expressly provided for by a conditional use permit.
   5. Accessory structures and buildings shall be permitted pursuant to the provisions of
       Chapter 17.660. For single-family residential developments, site specific standards
       for these types of facilities shall be submitted for review and approval with the
       respective tentative subdivision map application.
   6. Security Measures. All facilities shall provide security measures in accordance with
       city standards and subject to design review in accordance with Chapter 17.820.
       No barbed or razor wire shall be utilized in conjunction with any said facilities.
   7. Energy Conservation. All facilities shall, to the greatest extent possible, incorporate
       energy conservation measures in conformance with city standards and subject to
       design review.
   8. Manufacturing and Storage Areas. All manufacturing processes shall be within a
       structure and all open storage areas shall be screened with a minimum six-foot
       high masonry wall. No storage shall exceed the height of the wall.
   9. There shall be no overnight parking of mobile homes, recreational vehicles, buses
       or campers in the public parking or common areas of PD-55, nor any display of
       vehicles for sale by owners at any time. There shall also be no permanent or long
       term storage of merchandise or equipment in the parking areas or sidewalks at any
       time, with the exception of those areas specifically approved for such uses
       pursuant to the conditional use permit provisions in Chapter 17.830.
   10. Development may occur in phases.
   11. Any other applicable City standards and regulations.
   12. Development of Sub Areas 3A, 3B, 4, and 5A shall require compliance with the
       provisions of Chapter 17.680 (Oil and Gas Production).



                                           7
   13. All development applications within the PD-55 Zone shall be reviewed for
       compliance with the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Sciortino Ranch
       project, including all mitigation measures. All development applications shall also
       be reviewed for compliance with Tentative Subdivision Map 9152, including all
       conditions of approval.
17.505.005      Performance Standards
All permitted and conditionally permitted uses developed within the Sub Areas shall
conform to the performance standards set forth below:

A. Noise.
   1. All noise generated by development within the PD-55 Zone shall be consistent with
       the requirements set forth in the Noise Element of the General Plan and in Chapter
       9.32 (Noise Regulations) of the Brentwood Municipal Code.
B. Heat, Glare and Humidity.
   1. Any operation producing intense heat shall be performed within a completely
       enclosed building in such a manner as not to create a public nuisance or hazard
       along lot lines;
   2. Any operation or activity producing glare shall be performed within a completely
       enclosed building and be conducted so that direct and indirect illumination from the
       source of light on the lot shall not cause illumination in excess of one foot candle
       when measured at the lot line. Exposed sources of light shall be shielded and
       flickering or intense sources of light shall be controlled so as not to cause a
       nuisance across lot lines;
   3. Any use producing humidity in the form of steam or moist air, or producing heat,
       shall be carried on in such a manner that the source of steam, humidity or heat is
       not perceptible from the public property line.
C. Vibration. Any industrial operation or activity which shall cause at any point along the
   property line of the subject use, earth-borne vibrations which are discernible without
   the use of instruments is prohibited.
D. Fire, Safety and Explosion. All uses shall provide adequate safety devices against fire,
   explosion and other hazards and adequate firefighting and fire-suppression equipment
   in compliance with applicable fire prevention and building codes.
E. Soundproofing. Residential and other acoustically-sensitive activities shall be designed
   so that interior noise levels due to exterior noise sources do not exceed the
   requirements of the Noise Element of the General Plan or Chapter 9.32 (Noise
   Regulations) of the Brentwood Municipal Code.
F. Solid and Liquid Waste.
   1. No discharge at any point into public sewer, stream or bay or into the ground shall
       be permitted, except in accord with the standards approved by the State
       Department of Health, or standards specified in applicable local ordinances for
       similar uses of any materials of such nature or temperature as can contaminate
       any water supply, interfere with bacterial processes in sewage treatment, or
       otherwise cause the emission of dangerous or offensive elements;
   2. No materials or wastes shall be deposited on any property in such form or manner
       that they may be transferred off the property by natural causes or forces;
   3. Any wastes which might be attractive to rodents or insects shall be stored outdoors
       only in closed containers.
G. Electrical and Radioactive Radiation. No activities shall be permitted which emit
   dangerous radioactivity at any point, or create an electrical disturbance adversely



                                          8
   affecting the operation at any point of any equipment other than that of the creator of
   such disturbance.
 H. Air Pollution. All uses shall comply with regulations of the San Francisco Bay Area Air
    Pollution Control District.
   1. Smoke. For the purpose of determining the density or equivalent opacity of smoke,
       the Ringlemann Chart as published by the U.S. Bureau of Mines in Circular No.
       7718 (August, 1955) shall be employed. The emission of smoke from any chimney,
       stack, vent, opening or combustion process shall not exceed Ringlemann No. 1;
   2. Odors. No emission shall be permitted of odorous gases or other odorous matter in
       such quantities as to be readily detectable at the property line of the subject use;
   3. Toxic and Noxious Matter. No use shall be permitted which creates any emission
       which endangers human health, can cause damage to animals, vegetation or other
       property or which can cause soiling at any point beyond the boundaries of the site.

17.505.006      Design and Site Development Review

The design and site development of each phase within the PD-55 Zone shall comply with
Chapter 17.820 (Design Review) of the Brentwood Municipal Code.

17.505.007       Conceptual Site Plan
Development in the sub areas shall be subject to being in substantial conformance with
the Sciortino Ranch Design Guidelines, unless otherwise approved by the City Council
through an amendment to this chapter. Any modification to the sub area boundaries
depicted in Section 17.505.010 shall require an amendment to the Sub Area map, which
shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director.




                                          9
            17.505.008                 Zoning Matrix of Land Uses by Sub Areas for PD-55


    Symbol Legend
    ■ = Permitted Use             30


    ◘ = Conditional Use Permit Required                      31



                                                  Com-              Flex                  Residential                Park             Flex       Residenti
                                                mercial            Com. &                 Emphasis                 Emphasis           Com           al
                                                Emphasi             Res.                                                              .&         Emphasis
                                                    s                                                                                 Res.
LAND USES32                                      1 2A             2B        2C        3A        3B         4       5A        5B        6         7A     7B

Commercial Uses

Self-service storage facilities33
                                                ◘ ◘ ◘ ◘                                                                                ◘
Light industrial uses which
generate minimal noise, odor,
                                                ◘ ◘ ◘ ◘                                                                                ◘
smoke, and waste material34
Merchandise and/or General
Retail Sales Greater than
                                                ◘ ◘ ◘ ◘                                                                                ◘
75,000 Sq. Ft. for any Single
User Building 35(Applies to any
Second Single-User Building,
or more, located either north or
south of Sand Creek Rd.)
Sports bar, lounge, nightclub
and similar establishments36
                                                ◘ ◘ ◘ ◘                                                                                ◘
Liquor Stores37
                                                ◘ ◘ ◘ ◘                                                                                ◘
    30 All proposed developments are to be consistent with the adopted Sciortino Ranch Design Guidelines, as applicable, for each permitted land
       use. Land uses that are similar in nature and operation to those uses identified within the land use matrix are acceptable subject to approval
       by the Community Development Director. The decision of the Community Development Director is subject to appeal in accordance with
       Brentwood Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 17.880.
    31 Symbol notes uses that are required to undergo a conditional use permit process (per BMC Chapter 17.830).
    32 Physical design is to adhere to the PD-55 Municipal Ordinance and the adopted Sciortino Ranch Design Guidelines, sub-areas are
       specifically designed to respond to any existing adjacent development by incorporating like densities, uses, or park buffers.
    33 Mini-storage or warehouse with or without a resident manager’s dwelling unit.
    34 Including by way of example, but not limited to, Warehouses, Controlled Manufacturing and Assembly, Printing or Lithography Production
       establishments, Plastic Fabrication, Electronic and Electrical Product and Instrument Manufacturing, Garment Manufacturing, Furniture
       Making, Upholstering, Food Processing and similar uses.
    35 When calculating Square Footages for a proposed project, the noted 75,000 Sq. Ft. does not include first or second floor business office,
       personnel, stock room, or loading areas.
    36 With on-site sale of beer, wine, or distilled spirits, including establishments which offer food as a secondary use, entertainment and/or
       dancing.
    37 Liquor Stores including by way of example, but not limited to, establishments that sell primarily beer, wine, and distilled spirits.



                                                                          10
                                                 Com-              Flex                 Residential                Park            Flex       Residenti
                                               mercial            Com. &                Emphasis                 Emphasis          Com           al
                                               Emphasi             Res.                                                            .&         Emphasis
                                                   s                                                                               Res.
LAND USES32                                     1 2A             2B        2C       3A        3B         4       5A       5B        6         7A     7B

Motor Vehicle Sales38
                                               ◘ ◘ ◘ ◘                                                                               ◘
Construction contractor’s and
contractor related services and
                                               ◘ ◘ ◘ ◘                                                                               ◘
affiliated storage39
Merchandise and/or General
Retail Sales Greater than
                                               ■ ■ ■ ■                                                                               ■
75,000 Sq. Ft. for any Single
User Building40 (Applies only
to One Single-User Building
located either north or south of
Sand Creek Rd.; see above for
any Second Building or more)
Merchandise and/or General
Retail Sales Less than 75,000
                                               ■ ■ ■ ■                                                                               ■
Sq. Ft. (Applies to any Single-
User or Multi-Tenant Building)
Supermarkets or Grocery (with
Beer, Wine, and Distilled
                                               ■ ■ ■ ■                                                                               ■
Spirits sales)
Convenience Store with or
without Beer & Wine sales (no
                                               ■ ■ ■ ■                                                                               ■
Distilled Spirits). Limited to
one store as a permitted use in
each of the following sub areas:
1, 2A, 2B, 2C and 6. Any
additional convenience must
apply for a conditional use
permit.41 42




    38 Including Automobile, Motorcycle, Recreational Vehicle and Boat Sales, and similar establishments.
    39 Including but not limited to cabinetry, countertop, and sheet metal fabrication shops
    40 When calculating Square Footages for a proposed project, the noted 75,000 Sq. Ft. does not include first or second floor business office,
       personnel, stock room, or loading areas.
    41 Convenience Store alcoholic beverage sales shall not exceed 40% of total beverages offered and no individual containers of beer may be sold
       greater than 24 ounces.
    42 Sale of newspapers, periodicals, magazines, or other print, analog, or digitally reproduced materials that includes pornographic images is
       expressly prohibited.



                                                                         11
                                                  Com-              Flex                 Residential                Park             Flex       Residenti
                                                mercial            Com. &                Emphasis                 Emphasis           Com           al
                                                Emphasi             Res.                                                             .&         Emphasis
                                                    s                                                                                Res.
LAND USES32                                      1 2A             2B        2C       3A        3B         4       5A        5B        6         7A     7B

Pharmacy Establishments with
or without Drive-through.
                                                ■ ■ ■ ■                                                                               ■
Limited to one such use in each
of the following sub areas: 1,
2A, 2B, 2C and 6. Any
additional drive-through must
apply for a conditional use
permit.
Gas Stations, with or without
Car Wash and/or Convenience
                                                ■ ■ ■ ■                                                                               ■
Store. Limited to one such use
in one of the following sub
areas: 1, 2A, 2B, 2C or 6. Any
additional gas station must
apply for a conditional use
permit.
Pet and Pet Supply Stores43
                                                ■ ■ ■ ■                                                                               ■
Restaurants44 (with or without
Beer & Wine sales)45
                                                ■ ■ ■ ■                                                                               ■
Restaurants with full kitchen
and bar as secondary use46
                                                ■ ■ ■ ■                                                                               ■
(limited to one restaurant as a
permitted use in each of the
following sub areas: 1, 2A, 2B,
2C and 6. Any additional
restaurants with secondary bar
use must apply for a
conditional use permit)


    43 Including on-site Veterinary Clinics, excluding boarding of pets.
    44 Including by way of example but not limited to full-service sit-down restaurant establishments.
    45 Prior to the issuance of a tenant improvement permit, a copy of the floor plan shall be provided for the review and approval of the Brentwood
       Police Department specifically identifying where all alcoholic beverages will be stored or displayed and how distribution will be controlled.
       A sign stating that open alcohol containers shall not be removed from designated areas shall be conspicuously displayed within the restaurant
       to the satisfaction of the Brentwood Police Department. Tables shall be bussed immediately following vacancy in order to ensure that all
       open alcoholic containers are removed from the seating area.
    46 The following regulations apply to any restaurant: Prior to the issuance of a tenant improvement permit, a copy of the floor plan shall be
       provided for the review and approval of the Brentwood Police Department specifically identifying where all alcoholic beverages will be
       stored or displayed and how distribution will be controlled. A sign stating that open alcohol containers shall not be removed from the
       premises shall be conspicuously displayed within the restaurant to the satisfaction of the Brentwood Police Department. Tables shall be
       bussed immediately following vacancy in order to ensure that all open alcoholic containers are removed from the seating area. Expressly



                                                                          12
                                                   Com-              Flex                  Residential                 Park             Flex       Residenti
                                                 mercial            Com. &                 Emphasis                  Emphasis           Com           al
                                                 Emphasi             Res.                                                               .&         Emphasis
                                                     s                                                                                  Res.
LAND USES32                                       1 2A             2B        2C        3A        3B         4        5A        5B        6         7A     7B

Convenience Restaurants with
or without drive-thru service47
                                                 ■ ■ ■ ■                                                                                 ■
Limited to one such use in each
of the following sub areas: 1,
2A, 2B, 2C and 6. Any
additional drive-through must
apply for a conditional use
permit.
Specialty Merchandise and
Convenience Sales48
                                                 ■ ■ ■ ■                                                                                 ■
Video Arcades, indoor Movie
Theatre, Bowling Alley,
                                                 ◘ ◘ ◘ ◘                                                                                 ◘
Skating Rink, and similar
entertainment establishments
Temporary parking lot display
and/or sale areas49
                                                 ■ ■ ■ ■                                                                                 ■
Outdoor display, dining, and/or
sale of merchandise50
                                                 ■ ■ ■ ■                                                                                 ■
Commercial services51
                                                 ■ ■ ■ ■                                                                                 ■
Commercial uses which may or
may not manufacture their
                                                 ■ ■ ■ ■                                                                                 ■
primary product on the
premises52


         excludes dancing type uses. Secondary bar uses have limited hours of operation 11AM to Midnight. Bar area not to exceed 30% of
         restaurant floor area (excluding office or kitchen area). Restaurant with Secondary bar use shall not be permitted within 200 feet of a
         residential use or residential zone.
    47   Including by way of example but not limited to Sandwich Shops or Fast-Food establishments.
    48   Including by way of example but not limited to Specialty Foods, Delicatessen, Bakery, Pastry, Candy, Ice Cream, Butcher, Meat Market,
         Wine, Tobacco, Apparel, Jewelry, Cosmetics, Stationery, Shoes & Shoe Repair, Kitchenware, Motor Vehicle Parts, Hobby, specialty interest
         stores, and similar establishments.
    49   Requires approval of a Temporary Use Permit per BMC Chapter 17.850.
    50   If outdoor display, dining, and/or sales areas are proposed post formal design review and/or development of a subject building then either: 1)
         BMC Section 17.900.009 shall apply for uses proposed on private property, or 2) BMC Section 17.900.005 shall apply for uses proposed in
         the public right of way (excluding any Downtown zone specific regulations).
    51   Including by way of example but not limited to Barbershop, Beauty Shop, Hair Salon, Laundry, Dry Cleaning, Laundromat, Electronic,
         Appliance Sales and Repair, Watch and Clock Repair, Tanning Studio, Small Equipment Rental and Repair, Real Estate Sales and Rental,
         Title and Escrow Services, Architectural, Engineering, Legal and Accounting Services, Insurance Agency, Employment Agency, Outpatient
         Medical, Dental and Optical Services, Technology Access Center, Telecommuting Center, Addressing, Post Box and Mailing Service,
         Blueprinting, Photostating and Desktop Publishing & Printing Services, Drafting Service, Messenger Service, Stenographic Service,
         Answering Service, Private Postal Box Service, Travel Agency, Bank Branch, ATM facility, and similar establishments.
    52   Including but not limited to Drapery or Upholstery Shop and similar establishments.



                                                                           13
                                                  Com-              Flex                 Residential                Park             Flex       Residenti
                                                mercial            Com. &                Emphasis                 Emphasis           Com           al
                                                Emphasi             Res.                                                             .&         Emphasis
                                                    s                                                                                Res.
LAND USES32                                      1 2A             2B        2C       3A        3B         4       5A        5B        6         7A     7B

Business, Institutional,
Administrative, Financial, and
                                                ■ ■ ■ ■                                                                                ■               ■
Professional Offices53
Research and development
facilities54
                                                ■ ■ ■ ■                                                                                ■
Wholesale showrooms and
distribution centers
                                                ■ ■ ■ ■                                                                                ■
Hotel
                                                ◘ ◘ ◘ ◘                                                                                ◘
Tobacco and cigar lounges that
allow smoking on-site
                                                ◘ ◘ ◘ ◘                                                                                ◘
Health clubs (indoor and
outdoor recreational facilities)
                                                ◘ ◘ ◘ ◘                                                                                ◘
Check cashing facilities and
pawnshops
                                                ◘ ◘ ◘ ◘                                                                                ◘
Residential Uses55

Single Family Detached Homes
(Min. Lot Size: 4,000 Sq. Ft.)
                                                                  ■ ■ ■ ■                                                              ■ ■ ■
Small Lot Single Family
Homes
                                                                  ■ ■                          ■                                       ■               ■
(Min. Lot Size: 2,100 Sq.Ft.)56
Courtyard Detached Homes –
4 units or fewer
                                                                  ■ ■                          ■                                       ■               ■
(Min. Lot Size: 2,500 Sq.Ft.)
Courtyard Detached Homes –
7 units max
                                                                  ■ ■                          ■                                       ■               ■
(Min. Lot Size: 2,500 Sq.Ft.)




    53 Including but not limited to large-scale single and/or multi-tenant office uses, such as medical offices, Trade Schools, Colleges, Public and
       Quasi-Public Offices, Library, Post Office and Utility Office.
    54 Including by way of example but not limited to research, office, support and associated warehouse areas.
    55 Keeping of domestic animals or pets subject to BMC Chapter 17.670.
    56 See the adopted Sciortino Ranch Design Guidelines for lot sizes associated with zipper lots and alley load lots



                                                                          14
                                                  Com-               Flex                 Residential                 Park             Flex       Residenti
                                                mercial             Com. &                Emphasis                  Emphasis           Com           al
                                                Emphasi              Res.                                                              .&         Emphasis
                                                    s                                                                                  Res.
LAND USES32                                      1 2A              2B        2C       3A        3B         4        5A        5B        6         7A     7B

Duet Homes
(2 Attached Units, Min. Lot
                                                                   ■ ■                         ■                                        ■                ■
Size per Unit: 2,400 Sq. Ft.)
Apartments and
Condominiums57
                                                                             ■                            ■                             ■
Park Uses

Parks58
                                                                                                                    ■ ■




    57 Multi-family structures shall not exceed twenty-five (25) dwelling units per gross acre. Permitted uses include accessory uses and facilities
       related to the primary use including on-site manager quarters, leasing or sales offices, site maintenance areas, carports, recreation buildings
       and fitness facilities for use by residents and their guests. Signs are subject to BMC Chapter 17.640.
    58 Parkland areas are subject to park size minimums described within the adopted Sciortino Ranch Design Guidelines. Park credits are also
       described in the Design Guidelines. Parks are allowed in all Sub Areas per the Guidelines with specified Park areas located in Sub Area 5A
       and 5B. Park sub area borders are flexible to accommodate future development designs that better integrate park land use edges.



                                                                           15
17.505.009   Zoning Sub Area Map




                                   16
17.505.010   Sciortino Ranch Design Guidelines

    The Sciortino Ranch Design Guidelines, as adopted by the City Council, are herein
    incorporated by reference as Exhibit “A” to the PD-55 Zone and are intended to be used in
    the review of all development projects within the PD-55 Zone.




                                            17
                             EXHIBIT “B” TO
                      CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
                            REZONE NO. 06-13
                         REQUIRED CHANGES TO
        THE SCIORTINO RANCH DESIGN GUIDELINES (DATED APRIL 2009)


•   Pg. 8 – Modify Footnote 7 to state “…beer, wine, or distilled spirits…”
•   Pg. 9 – Change the previously referenced permitted uses to conditionally permitted
    uses. Modify Footnote 14 regarding the boarding of animals to indicate that general
    boarding of animals is not allowed, but that overnight stays associated with a veterinary
    medical procedure are allowed.
•   Pg. 10 – Change the previously referenced permitted uses to conditionally permitted
    uses.
•   Pg. 11 – Change the previously referenced permitted uses to conditionally permitted
    uses. Secondary housing units, pursuant to Section 17.100.005 of the BMC, should be
    added as permitted uses in the sub areas that allow for single-family detached units.
•   Pg. 18 – Under Section N.3., change the maximum height of pedestrian scale lighting
    from 20 feet to 25 feet, and change the maximum height of parking lot lights from 35 feet
    to 30 feet (as measured to the light source).
•   Pg. 19 – Under Section P.1., include a reference to decorative screen walls as a means
    of screening drive-thru uses. Under Section 2.3.D., change the maximum building
    height from 40 feet to 50 feet.
•   Pg. 28 – Add landscaped areas between facing parking rows as an encouraged design
    feature (typical of any parking lot design). Change “every sixth parking space” to “every
    third parking space.”
•   Pg. 34 – Delete the note regarding building articulation from two edges to four.
•   Pg. 79 – Add a bullet point under “Building Orientation” to require 5 foot fence setbacks
    on the street side of corner lots.
•   Pg. 80 – Add a bullet point under the Parking Design section requiring common
    “courtyard” and “cluster” driveways to consist of individual decorative pavers or other
    decorative pavement.
•   Pg. 81 – In the 2nd bullet point, specify a minimum offset of 2 feet for single-family and
    zipper product types only. Add bullet points encouraging the provision of single-story
    homes, homes with side-entry or recessed garages, and homes on corner lots with front
    porches that wrap around to the sides.
•   Pg. 88 – Revise the other two alternatives such that garages are recessed behind the
    front plane of the homes’ living area.
•   Pg. 89 – Identify all property lines (i.e. front, side, and rear).
•   Pg. 90 – Identify all property lines (i.e. front, side, and rear).
•   Pg. 91 – Identify all property lines (i.e. front, side, and rear).
•   Pg. 96 – Address property management issues (i.e. reference the need for an HOA or a
    property maintenance association).
•   Pg. 98 – Add a requirement for the provision of common open space and landscaping in
    the amount of 25% of the net parcel area.
•   Pg. 118 – Add a note that any private street would never be maintained by the City.
•   Pg. 122 – Delete the reference to providing parking along the commercial entry street,
    as it could result in movement conflicts.
•   Pg. 125 – Revise the table so that it is consistent with Chapter 17.620 of the BMC.



                                            18
•   Pg. 143 – Add trees to the area separating the residential parking from the commercial
    parking.
•   Pg. 145 – Increase the buffer zone in the last bullet point from 2 feet to 3 feet.
•   Pg. 147 – Increase the buffer zone in the third bullet point from 2 feet to 3 feet.
•   Pg. 154 – Add a note that street facing garages are discouraged and that any street
    facing garages shall be screened with landscaping and hand-laid masonry walls near
    any public streets.
•   Pg. 155 – Add a note that street facing garages are discouraged and that any street
    facing garages shall be screened with landscaping and hand-laid masonry walls near
    any public streets.
•   The Design Guidelines shall be revised to be consistent with and specifically note the
    requirements set forth in the design-related conditions of approval for Tentative
    Subdivision Map No. 9152.
•   The Design Guidelines shall be revised to cross-reference the Project EIR and
    incorporate all mitigation measures.
•   Appendix A – See Exhibit “A” to this ordinance.




                                          19
                                                            Attachment No. 9


                              STAFF REPORT

                  PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF

                               APRIL 21, 2009



PREPARED BY:                      Erik Nolthenius, Principal Planner
                                  enolthenius@ci.brentwood.ca.us

AGENDA ITEM & FILE NUMBER:        Item No. 3; (1) General Plan Amendment No. 09-
                                  01; (2) Rezone No. 06-13; and (3) Tentative
                                  Subdivision Map No. 9152

PROJECT NAME:                     Sciortino Ranch

PROJECT LOCATION:                 East of the intersection of Sand Creek Road and
                                  Brentwood Boulevard (APN 016-170-012 and APN
                                  016-170-013)

PROJECT SIZE:                     Approximately 65 acres

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:              The project includes an amendment to the General
                                  Plan, an amendment to the PD-55 Zone to
                                  establish a list of allowable uses and development
                                  standards       (including    site-specific  design
                                  guidelines), and a tentative subdivision map to
                                  create 11 parcels.

DATE OF NOTICE:                   A notice of public hearing was published in the
                                  Brentwood Press and mailed to surrounding
                                  property owners on April 10, 2009.

GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:         Special Planning Area (SPA) A, with a suggested
                                  mix of land uses including 47 acres for Business
                                  Park, 13 acres for General Commercial, and 7
                                  acres for Very High Density Residential

ZONING:                           PD-55 (Planned Development No. 55) Zone

SURROUNDING LAND USE:             North: 134-home Havenwood neighborhood
                                  East: 494-home Barrington subdivision, future fire
                                  station, and Black Elementary School
                                  South: 71-home Rhapsody neighborhood and
                                  Sunset Plaza commercial center
                                  West: Brentwood Boulevard, across which is a
                                  variety of land uses, including vacant property, the
                                  Brentwood Technology Center, Los Medanos
                                  College, the Hampton Inn, and Jack in the Box



                                     1
OWNER/APPLICANT:                              New Urban Communities Partners (NUCP; also
                                              known as DeNova Homes)

BACKGROUND:

2007 Joint Workshops

The development of the Sciortino Ranch project has been evolving for the last few years, and
particularly since October 2006, when a formal application was submitted to amend the PD-55
Zone and subdivide the property into more than 20 parcels. At that time, staff determined that
the application was inconsistent with the General Plan, and a joint workshop with the Planning
Commission and City Council was scheduled for February 13, 2007, in order to receive input on
this change. That plan included a mix of retail, office, light industrial/flex, and very high density
residential uses. The plan also included two big box retail establishments, though no specific
user was identified. Comments from residents, Commission Members, and Council Members
included concerns related to traffic, noise, adjacency of retail uses to residences, crime, desire
for amenities and parks in the area, opposition to big box retail so close to neighborhoods and
the Downtown, impact on property values, impacts on existing commercial development in the
area, and the desire for attractive architectural and landscape design.

Due to the large response at this meeting, a follow-up workshop was held on March 13, 2007, to
allow continued discussion. While additional comments were provided at the follow-up
workshop, the key point was that direction was given to modify the land use plan to eliminate
the big box retail uses and study predominantly medium density residential use for the site and
include the project into the draft Brentwood Boulevard Specific Plan (BBSP) study area.
However, when the draft BBSP was released for public review and comment in April 2008, the
most significant comments that were received were submitted by the property owner of the
Sciortino Ranch site, who believed the draft Plan placed too many restrictions on the
development of the site.

Land Use and Development Committee

The Land Use and Development Committee met on July 15, 2008, and the general consensus
was that while the draft BBSP was very comprehensive, it should be revised to include more
flexibility for property owners and developers in terms of the proposed development standards
and the list of allowable land uses. It was later determined that a City Council ad hoc
subcommittee comprised of Mayor Taylor and Council Member Becnel, the BBSP
Subcommittee, should be established to guide the processing of the draft BBSP.

BBSP Subcommittee

The first BBSP Subcommittee meeting was held on September 18, 2008, and the applicant
presented the new land use plan and overall project concept, since the Sciortino Ranch site was
part of the draft BBSP. At the same time, the applicant asked that the Sciortino Ranch project
be processed independent of the draft BBSP, to which the Subcommittee agreed. A second
BBSP Subcommittee meeting was held on December 18, 2008, to discuss progress on both the
draft BBSP and Sciortino Ranch. At that time, the Subcommittee reviewed the applicant’s land
use plan and proposed uses. There were no significant concerns raised by the Subcommittee,
other than whether to allow big box retail uses. The applicant’s original intent was to allow big
box retail uses without any sort of restriction, but the Subcommittee indicated a desire for the
City to maintain some type of discretionary control over these kinds of uses, and it was


                                                 2
generally agreed to that one big box retail use would be allowed, but that any additional such
uses would require a conditional use permit.

BBSP Comparison

It should be noted that the proposed project would allow for a different land use pattern than
what was contemplated in the draft BBSP. The pattern that was contemplated for Brentwood
Boulevard as part of the BBSP includes two-story buildings located along the right-of-way edge,
with parking located behind buildings whenever possible. The proposed project, while not
precluding this pattern, does not guarantee it. This means there is a possibility that the site
could develop in a fashion similar to the commercial areas of Lone Tree Way, with single-story
buildings and parking areas being prevalent, as opposed to two-story buildings along the street
frontage. This also means that the project site may develop differently than what was shown in
3-D animation at the two workshops that were held in 2007. Finally, the overall land use plan
for Brentwood Boulevard was based on the purposeful reduction in the amount of retail-
designated zoning that both the BBSP economic analysis and the citywide Economic Strategic
Plan showed too much of, resulting in substandard retail uses and vacancies. This proposal
would be a departure from this direction as it would increase the amount of retail-designated
land.

2009 Planning Commission Workshop

On March 3, 2009, the Planning Commission conducted a workshop to discuss the project. The
purpose of the workshop was twofold: (1) to afford the Commission with the opportunity to hear
a presentation from the applicant describing this complex, large-scale project; and (2) to
address questions and concerns. During the workshop, the Commission agreed that, overall,
the proposed Sciortino Ranch project was satisfactory. After a brief overview of the project by
staff and a detailed presentation by the applicant, the Commission gave the public an
opportunity to provide comments, at which time two residents of nearby neighborhoods spoke.
The first resident raised concerns about the number of apartments that could potentially be built
on the site as well as allowing a hotel. The second resident raised a concern about the
potential impact to the surrounding area from increased traffic generated by development of the
site.

The Commission Members then provided their comments relative to the project. While the
Commission Members were generally supportive of the project and what it was trying to achieve
in terms of providing flexibility for future development of the site, there were some specific
concerns noted, which are summarized as follows:

   1. Some of the uses listed as permitted in the proposed zoning matrix should be
      conditionally permitted, including light industrial uses, drive-thru uses, and alcohol-
      related uses.
   2. Several of the City’s adopted residential design guidelines should be included in the
      project proposed design guidelines, such as:
          • Providing single-story house plans;
          • Providing house plans with turned or side-entry garages;
          • Providing wrapped porches on corner lots;
          • Discouraging garages that face Sand Creek Road and instead encouraging
              house fronts and porches; and
          • Providing a minimum common open space requirement for multi-family housing.
   3. The City’s existing parking standards should be retained.


                                               3
   4. The 4-unit cluster product is preferred to the alley loaded and zipper lot products.
   5. The City’s existing noise standards should be retained.
   6. The number and type of big box retail uses should be reviewed carefully, and any more
       than one such use on the site should be conditionally permitted. A general concern was
       raised about whether such uses are desired or appropriate at this location.
   7. Square footage caps should be considered for restaurant and retail uses, given that up
       to half of the overall site could be developed with those types of uses.
   8. Big box retail uses should be required to face Sand Creek Road, as opposed to facing
       Brentwood Boulevard, and consideration should be given to restricting them to
       supermarket-type establishments, rather than commercial retailers. If a big box retail
       use is approved, it should include significant design amenities.
   9. Small park sites may be difficult to maintain over time given their cost, and consideration
       should be given to paying in-lieu fees.
   10. Bio-swales should be incorporated as much as possible into large parking areas.
   11. The smaller neighborhood park should be enlarged to at least one acre in size.
   12. RV and boat storage should be made available for the residential areas of the site.
   13. Angled parking should be designed so as not to inhibit pedestrian access to retail uses.
   14. The amount of compact parking spaces that are allowed should be reduced at least to
       the point of being consistent with the existing City standard of 30%.
   15. Maximum building heights should be included for all uses.
   16. Pedestrians living on the south side of the future Sand Creek Road extension may not
       be encouraged to cross the street to gain access to the planned neighborhood-serving
       park.

Craig Bronzan, Parks & Recreation Director, provided input on the project as requested by the
Commission. Mr. Bronzan acknowledged the many differences between what the applicant is
requesting as part of this project and the City’s existing standards relative to park development.
Some of those differences include paying an in-lieu fee for parks instead of building them all on-
site, having parks with an average width of 100 feet instead of a minimum width of 100 feet,
incorporating clean water requirements into the park acreage instead of having all park area as
“active” park area, and the different types of connections and private recreation space that the
applicant is requesting park credit for that typically do not receive credit. Mr. Bronzan
suggested that the developer meet with the Parks & Recreation Commission in order to review
the proposed park standards for the project before it was considered again by the Planning
Commission.

2009 Parks & Recreation Commission Workshop

On March 26, 2009, the Parks & Recreation Commission conducted a workshop to discuss the
project as it relates to parks and open space. The Commission reviewed the overall project and
at the request of the applicant considered whether six existing park standards for parks should
be modified for the development. The specific standards under consideration, as well as the
unanimous Commission recommendations, are detailed in the analysis section of this report.




                                                4
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

Introduction

The proposed Sciortino Ranch project represents a different approach to land use planning and
regulation than has previously been utilized in the City of Brentwood. The applicant is
requesting that the City approve land use regulations that afford an unprecedented range of
land uses with a limited extent of subsequent entitlement processing. The applicant has
insisted that flexibility is imperative to develop the project site in a highly volatile market;
flexibility which the BBSP Subcommittee has supported. If adopted, the Planned Development
rezone and the Sciortino Ranch Design Guidelines will establish the parameters for a wide
range of permitted uses – residential (medium, high, and very high density), commercial,
business park, office, and service commercial – from which future parcel owners may select,
with City input limited to design of these uses. The intent of the zoning and the corresponding
guidelines is to provide the framework for the processing of future development at this site,
essentially precluding the need for conditional use permits and other associated regulations.

General Plan Amendment

Existing Land Use Plan and Text

The General Plan designates the project site as a Special Planning Area (SPA A) with a
suggested land use mix of business park (47 acres), general commercial (13 acres), and very
high density residential (7 acres – maximum of 210 dwelling units). The policy direction for SPA
A is to provide a mixed use business park or retail development along with very high density
residential development consisting of primarily professional office and/or retail commercial,
limited light industrial uses with complementary commercial services, and multi-story multi-
family housing in close proximity to complementary commercial services and employment
opportunities. The intent is to take advantage of the State Route 4 (Brentwood Boulevard) and
Sand Creek Road frontages, integrate complementary commercial and residential uses, and
ensure that new development complements the existing Brentwood Center commercial and
office developments along the west side of State Route 4 (Brentwood Boulevard).

The 47 acres of business park (BP) land use on the site allow for integrated clusters of business
and research parks, large individual corporate establishments, and other office uses, as well as
selected complementary commercial activities and limited residential uses. The 13 acres of
general commercial (GC) land use on the site allow for mixed commercial and service-type
businesses to serve specific areas of the City and neighborhoods adjacent to State Route 4 and
major arterials. One of the key design objectives is to arrange the uses in a campus setting with
coordinated architecture and lush landscaping to ensure compatibility with the existing
residential land uses to the north and south.

Proposed Land Use Plan and Text

The applicant is proposing to amend the General Plan in order to allow a wider variety of uses.
The proposed land use plan can be divided into four major categories, described as follows:

   •   Commercial, retail, institutional, light industrial, and office – a minimum of approximately
       15 acres located along the Brentwood Boulevard frontage (current State Route 4), with
       the option of adding up to approximately 20 more acres along and near the Sand Creek
       Road frontage.


                                                5
   •    Very high density residential – a minimum of approximately 10 acres located on the
        north side of Sand Creek Road, near the easterly boundary of the planning area, with
        the option of adding up to approximately 23 more acres along the Sand Creek Road
        frontage and in transitional areas adjacent to single-family housing. This would provide
        for a density range between 20 and 30 dwelling units per acre.

   •    Medium and high density residential – a minimum of approximately 7 acres located
        along the north and south boundaries of the planning area to serve as transitions to the
        existing single-family housing adjacent to said boundaries. Homes in these areas would
        be detached and would be built on lots with a minimum size of 4,000 square feet.
        Additional areas for this density of housing, totaling approximately 7 acres, may be
        provided. The medium density areas would provide for a density range between 5 and
        11 dwelling units per acre, and the high density areas would provide for a density range
        between 11 and 20 dwelling units per acre.

   •    Parks – a minimum of approximately 5 acres located along the east boundary of the
        planning area to serve the new residential neighborhoods, split between two sites, with
        one on the north side of Sand Creek Road and one on the south side of Sand Creek
        Road. Additional park areas may be provided within the planning area in coordination
        with specific residential development.

Staff has prepared recommended changes to the SPA A text based on the proposed project,
which is included in the attached Resolution No. 09-014. It should be noted that, unlike all other
properties in the City that have specific land use designations, the proposed General Plan land
use map designation for the project site would simply state “SPA A”, rather than reference a
precise land use pattern, since that is not known at this time. More detailed information
regarding the development of the site would be contained within the text of the General Plan, as
part of the SPA A description.

It should also be noted that the General Plan requires residential projects to be developed
between the low end and the mid-point of the respective density range. Densities between the
mid-point and the high end of the range are possible, but only through the approval of the City
Council and in conjunction with providing a significant amount of amenities, such as transferable
agricultural credits, installing extensive off-site public improvements, or providing significant
improvements of community-wide benefit. The applicant is proposing that this project not be
subject to the same requirement.

A comparison table showing the different land use types and acreages for the existing General
Plan and the proposed General Plan amendment is shown below:

       Land Use Category           Existing General Plan               Sciortino Ranch
         Business park                    47 acres                     Up to 34.5 acres
       General commercial                 13 acres                     Up to 30.9 acres
        Very high density                  7 acres                      Up to 33 acres
          High density                        -                        Up to 22.9 acres
         Medium density                       -                        Up to 30.1 acres
              Park                            -                           5.1 acres




                                                6
What this table shows, in part, is the degree of proposed land use flexibility for the project.
Development of the site could result in the following maximum numbers of square footage of
non-residential uses and/or numbers of residential units:

   •    Commercial/Retail – 336,501 square feet
   •    Office – 538,402 square feet
   •    Institutional – 631,620 square feet
   •    Single-family residential detached (equivalent to medium density) – 331 units
   •    Single-family residential attached (equivalent to high density) – 458 units
   •    Multi-family residential (equivalent to very high density) – 990 units

It should be noted that maximizing the acreage devoted to one or more of these land uses
would necessarily mean that the other land uses would be proportionately decreased. It should
also be noted that the resulting numbers are based on assumptions for floor area ratios (FAR)
and maximum densities. These assumptions include a 25% FAR for retail uses, a 40% FAR for
office uses, a 50% FAR for institutional uses, a density of 11 dwelling units per gross acre for
single-family detached, a density of 20 dwelling units per gross acre for single-family attached,
and a density of 30 dwelling units per gross acre for multi-family residential.

Rezone

Existing Zoning

The project site is currently zoned PD-55, although it is essentially a “shell” PD zone, in that no
uses or development standards have been adopted, with the exception of the development
standards adopted in 2005 for the seven acres of very high density residential located along
Brentwood Boulevard, both north and south of Sand Creek Road. Traditionally, a “shell” PD
zone allows the developer tremendous flexibility to create a list of uses and development
standards that are unique to the specific development proposal, similar to the manner in which
the PD zoning standards were recently created to accommodate the specific proposal for the
Neighborhood Church expansion project located at 50 Birch Street.

Proposed Zoning

The applicant is proposing to amend Chapter 17.505 (PD-55) of the Brentwood Municipal Code
by establishing a list of allowable uses and development standards for the project site. In
accordance with the proposed land use plan, the applicant is proposing to create 11 sub areas
within the PD-55 Zone, more particularly described as follows:

 Sub Area      Acres                                  Types of Uses
    1           9.4                    Commercial, retail, office, and institutional
   2A            5.5                          Commercial, retail, and office
   2B           10.5         “Flex” (apartments, single-family detached, commercial, retail,
                                                 institutional, and office)
       3A       3.4                              Single-family detached
       3B       3.3                      Single-family detached and apartments
        4      10.1                                     Apartments
       5A       4.6                                        Parks
       5B       0.5                                        Parks
        6       5.5          “Flex” (apartments, single-family detached, commercial, retail,


                                                7
                                                institutional, and office)
       7A       3.8                             Single-family detached
       7B       3.6              Single-family detached, apartments, and institutional

These sub areas correspond to the various land use types referenced in the General Plan
amendment discussion. The applicant is also proposing that minor deviations in the sub area
boundaries be allowed to accommodate future development submittals, since a precise
development plan has not been submitted at this time.

Proposed Ordinance

The list of uses and development standards proposed by the applicant would be included in an
ordinance for incorporation into the Brentwood Municipal Code (BMC) under Chapter 17.505
(PD-55). The proposed ordinance has been created to follow the general form of other PD
zones, and is divided into the following sections:

   •    17.505.001 – Authority, Purpose, and Intent; describes the authority, purpose, and intent
        of the PD-55 Zone, including a description of the seven primary sub areas
   •    17.505.002 – Permitted Uses; references those uses to be permitted in the PD-55 Zone,
        in accordance with the approved zoning matrix
   •    17.505.003 – Conditionally Permitted Uses; references those uses to be conditionally
        permitted in the PD-55 Zone, in accordance with the approved zoning matrix
   •    17.505.004 – Development Standards; references the development standards for the
        various types of uses in the PD-55 Zone
   •    17.505.005 – Performance Standards; references the performance standards for the
        various types of uses in the PD-55 Zone
   •    17.505.006 – Design and Site Development Review; references Chapter 17.820 of the
        BMC as it relates to approval of specific projects in the PD-55 Zone
   •    17.505.007 – Conceptual Site Plan; references conformance to the design guidelines for
        all development in the PD-55 Zone
   •    17.505.008 – Zoning Matrix of Land Uses by Sub Area for PD-55; provides a list of
        permitted and conditionally permitted uses for the PD-55 Zone in tabular form and by the
        various sub areas
   •    17.505.009 – Minor Revisions; references the ability for the Community Development
        Director to make minor revisions to the PD-55 Zone and/or the design guidelines if such
        revisions are consistent with the overall spirit and intent of said regulations
   •    17.505.010 – Zoning Sub Area Map; provides a map that shows how the PD-55 Zone is
        divided into seven primary sub areas and 11 total sub areas

There are a few key differences between the ordinance proposed by the applicant and other
ordinances that have previously been approved for PD zones in the City. These differences are
briefly described as follows:

   •    All residential development in the PD-55 Zone would be exempt from the Residential
        Growth Management Program.
   •    All residential development in the PD-55 Zone would be exempt from adhering to the
        City’s mid-range density policy that is contained in the General Plan.
   •    Parking standards would be established specific to the PD-55 Zone, most notably as
        they relate to the minimum number of required spaces for certain uses, such as 1/250
        for retail uses, where 1/200 is typically required.


                                                8
   •   Noise standards would be established specific to the PD-55 Zone that are inconsistent
       with both the General Plan and with Chapter 9.32 of the BMC (Noise Regulations).
   •   Several uses are proposed to be permitted in the PD-55 Zone, where they would be
       conditionally permitted in other PD zones (i.e. gas stations and entertainment venues).

Proposed Zoning Matrix

The proposed zoning matrix (Section 17.505.008 of the proposed ordinance) is presented in
tabular form, with the list of uses in the far-left column and the 11 sub areas in the subsequent
columns beginning with Sub Area 1 and ending with Sub Area 7B. Permitted uses are identified
by a solid black square and conditionally permitted uses are identified by the same square but
with a white circle in the middle. A number of footnotes are included on each page of the matrix
to clarify various aspects of the uses. It should be noted that the matrix has been designed with
a tremendous amount of flexibility in terms of what uses are appropriate for what sub areas. In
addition, the majority of uses are proposed as permitted uses, rather than conditionally
permitted uses, contrary to other areas of the City. Of the 34 general use categories, only
seven would require conditional use permits in one or more sub areas.

Proposed Design Guidelines

The applicant has prepared a set of design guidelines to govern the future development of the
project site. The guidelines are presented in a booklet that is divided into seven chapters. It
should be noted that while the applicant has incorporated many of the guidelines from the City’s
existing sets of approved guidelines for both residential and non-residential development, many
have not been included. In addition, rather than referencing the City’s approved guidelines, the
applicant is proposing to have them superseded by the proposed guidelines.

Tentative Subdivision Map

The applicant is proposing to subdivide the project site into 11 parcels, with five on the south
side of Sand Creek Road and six on the north side of Sand Creek Road. These parcels would
roughly correspond with the 11 sub areas that are proposed to be created as part of the PD-55
Zone, although there are a couple of minor differences.

               Proposed Parcel                             Corresponding Sub Area
                   Parcel 1                                       Sub Area 1
                   Parcel 2                                       Sub Area 6
                   Parcel 3                                      Sub Area 5B
                   Parcel 4                                      Sub Area 7B
                   Parcel 5                                      Sub Area 7A
                   Parcel 6                                      Sub Area 2A
                   Parcel 7                                      Sub Area 2B
                   Parcel 8                                       Sub Area 4
                   Parcel 9                                      Sub Area 5A
                  Parcel 10                                      Sub Area 3A
                  Parcel 11                                      Sub Area 3B

The first difference is that Parcel 10, which corresponds with Sub Area 3A, is only 2.8 acres as
opposed to 3.4 acres. The decrease in acreage is due to the fact that directly north of this
parcel is an existing flag-shaped parcel which contains an active gas well. The second



                                               9
difference, which is related to the first, is that Parcel 9, which corresponds with the southerly
portion of Sub Area 5A, is only 1.18 acres as opposed to 4.6 acres. The decrease in acreage is
due to the fact that the previously referenced flag-shaped parcel is located directly to the north.
A lot line adjustment would need to be approved in the future in order to align Parcels 9 and 10
with their respective sub areas.

Access to the various parcels is proposed via frontage on either Sand Creek Road or
Brentwood Boulevard, or through easements, as in the case of Parcels 4 and 5 along the
southern boundary of the project site.

ANALYSIS:

General Plan Amendment

The proposed land use mix differs significantly from what is identified in the existing General
Plan. This is important in analyzing the appropriateness of the General Plan amendment, since
every other parcel or area in the City is assigned a particular land use designation. The
flexibility that the applicant is requesting is unprecedented, and results in a degree of
uncertainty for the public, staff, and decision-makers as far as the future development of the
site.

It should be noted, however, that the proposed land use plan, while flexible in certain areas,
does provide for buffers (albeit somewhat narrow) along the north, east, and south boundaries.
The northern and southern buffers would consist of double-loaded residential streets, and the
eastern buffer would be a combination of parks and open space with an average width of 100
feet. While some of the future commercial uses would still abut residential homes, the homes
would be those in the new buffer areas, rather than those in the existing neighborhoods.

With regard to how the project site would be designated in the General Plan, staff
acknowledges the difficulty in not assigning particular land uses and that it would be different
than how any other parcel or area in the City is designated. It is appropriate in this instance,
however, given that the project site encompasses the entirety of Special Planning Area A and
would be further regulated through the PD-55 Zone. To that end, staff recommends that the
project site be designated simply as “SPA A” on the General Plan land use map, and that the
text of SPA A be revised according to the proposed land use plan. Staff has prepared a draft of
the revised text for SPA A, which is included in the attached resolution. The recommended
changes are shown by strikethrough on the existing text to be deleted and by highlight on the
proposed text to be added.

It is important to note some of the more relevant action programs in the existing General Plan
and how they relate to the proposed project.            Action programs are essentially the
implementation mechanisms for the various goals and policies in the General Plan. A brief
discussion of those programs is as follows:

   •   Land Use Element – Action Program 1.1.4 (Population Size) indicates that land use in
       the City’s planning area should be designated for a build-out population of approximately
       75,000. Approval of the requested General Plan amendment would increase the build-
       out population, as the existing General Plan only designates seven acres of the project
       site for residential use. Development of the project site, as proposed, could generate in
       excess of 1,000 dwelling units, or more than 800 what is currently provided for, thereby



                                                10
       increasing the build-out population by approximately 2,600. The additional population
       would result in an increase of approximately 3.5%.
   •   Land Use Element – Action Program 1.1.5 (Jobs/Housing Balance) indicates that a ratio
       of 1.5 jobs for each household should be strived for. Approval of the requested General
       Plan amendment would decrease this ratio, as approximately 11% of the project site is
       currently designated for residential use, and the potential would exist for approximately
       62% of the project site to be developed with residential uses. It should be noted,
       however, that the project site would include an overall mix of uses and thereby still
       provide both jobs and housing.
   •   Land Use Element – Action Program 1.1.6 (Contiguous Development) indicates that new
       development should be required to be contiguous to existing development, whenever
       possible. The project site is considered infill, as it is surrounded on all sides by either
       existing or approved development.
   •   Land Use Element – Action Program 1.2.1 (Planned Developments/Specific Plans)
       indicates that SPA’s, PD zoning, and Specific Plans should be utilized to implement and
       regulate development. The project site would continue to be governed from a land use
       standpoint by Special Planning Area A and from a zoning standpoint by the PD-55 Zone.
   •   Land Use Element – Action Program 1.2.5 (Pedestrian Links) indicates that safe and
       direct pedestrian links should be incorporated in the design and development of
       residential areas to school sites, parks, and community activity centers. Pedestrian links
       are a vital component of the proposed project.
   •   Land Use Element – Action Program 1.2.6 (Institutional Land Uses) indicates that an
       adequate amount of institutional land uses should be provided. The proposed land use
       plan includes approximately 29 acres for future development of institutional uses.

The requested General Plan amendment provides for a mix of uses on the 65-acre infill project
site, while providing buffers for existing or approved residential development that is adjacent to
the north, east, and south boundaries of the site so that future single-family homes would abut
the high density units and/or other non-residential land uses. As a result, staff recommends that
the Planning Commission consider the proposed land use plan and the proposed changes to
the text for SPA A and adopt Resolution No. 09-014, which recommends that the City Council
approve the General Plan amendment.

Rezone

Uses by Sub Area

The proposed rezone would allow multiple land uses in five of the 11 proposed sub areas, as
follows:

 Sub Area                                    Proposed Uses
    1                           Commercial, retail, office, and institutional
   2B          Apartments, single-family detached, commercial, retail, institutional, and office
   3B                             Single-family detached and apartments
    6          Apartments, single-family detached, commercial, retail, institutional, and office
   7B                      Single-family detached, apartments, and institutional

The other six sub areas are fixed in terms of being devoted to one particular kind of use,
whether it is single-family detached, parks, or commercial.




                                               11
Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses

Planning Division staff has indicated to the applicant throughout the processing of this project
that several of the proposed permitted uses should instead be conditionally permitted, so as to
maintain consistency with how similar types of uses are treated in other areas of the City. For
example, uses such as gas stations and entertainment venues are listed as permitted uses.
These types of uses are typically allowed in other areas of the City only with a conditional use
permit due to potential adverse impacts of the respective uses (i.e. traffic and policing issues).
The conditional use permit process allows the Planning Commission to ultimately determine
whether the particular use is appropriate and, if so, to impose a variety of operational conditions
to ensure its compatibility with adjacent uses. Again, the applicant is proposing that these and
other kinds of uses be permitted in order to make this project more marketable to these uses
which would be subject to the conditional use permit process in other neighborhood centers.

Concerns about some of these uses, in particular those related to the sale of alcohol, have been
echoed by the Planning Commission and the Police Department. The applicant has taken those
concerns into consideration and has revised the zoning matrix regarding convenience stores
and restaurants to reflect that only one such use would be permitted in the sub areas that are
designated for commercial or “flex” use. These sub areas include 1, 2A, 2B, and 6. These
permitted uses, in addition to their overall number, would be further regulated in terms of their
operation. By way of example, convenience stores would not be allowed to sell any individual
containers of alcohol greater than 24 ounces. These additional regulations are listed in
Footnotes 12, 13, 16, and 17 of the zoning matrix. The applicant has discussed this proposal at
length with the Police Department, and the Police Department has indicated its support for this
approach. It should be noted that any subsequent such uses would require approval of a
conditional use permit. While the current version of the zoning matrix does not reflect this, the
applicant is also proposing to limit the number of drive-thru uses in a similar fashion. Staff
acknowledges the changes made by the applicant and recommends that the Planning
Commission approve the zoning matrix to allow convenience stores, drive-thrus, and
restaurants, with only one such use each in Sub Areas 1, 2A, 2B, and 6.

Concerns about some of the other proposed uses were raised by both staff and the Planning
Commission during the March 3rd workshop. The applicant has modified the zoning matrix to
reflect self-service storage facilities and light industrial uses as being conditionally permitted in
all sub areas, consistent with comments made by both staff and the Planning Commission.
There are still, however, concerns about a few of the proposed uses and how effective the
design guidelines would be in addressing those concerns. In addition, there remains a concern
that issues related to the operation of a use (i.e. hours of operation for a gas station and an
associated car wash) are not design issues. It should be noted that some of these uses were
not previously identified at the workshop, but have been identified at this time after a more
careful consideration of the zoning matrix. As a result, the following uses are recommended to
be conditionally permitted:

   •   Gas stations, with or without car washes and/or convenience stores – noise and policing
       issues
   •   Entertainment venues, including video arcades, indoor movie theatres, bowling alleys,
       and skating rinks – loitering and policing issues
   •   Hotels and motels – policing issues
   •   Tobacco and cigar lounges that allow smoking on-site – smoke and ventilation issues
   •   Health clubs (indoor and outdoor recreational facilities) – parking, traffic, and noise
       issues


                                                 12
   •   Check cashing facilities and pawnshops – policing issues

Design Guidelines

As previously referenced, the proposed design guidelines have been prepared to form the basis
for future development of the project site. The applicant has incorporated portions of the City’s
two approved design guideline documents (residential and non-residential) into the proposed
set of project design guidelines. It is the applicant’s desire, however, to have the proposed
design guidelines stand on their own. In other words, if the design guidelines are approved as
proposed, future development within the project site would only be subject to the Sciortino
Ranch Design Guidelines and not the City’s Residential or Non-Residential Design Guidelines.
This would represent the first time since the City’s respective documents were approved that
any single project was exempted from these citywide standards.

It should be noted that the applicant has made several changes to address comments made by
both staff and the Planning Commission, including the addition of building heights for the
various uses and minimum usable yard areas for single-family detached uses. Concerns with
various portions of the proposed design guidelines, including comments made by the
Commission Members during the workshop on March 3rd, remain however and are listed below
by page:

   •   Pg. 6 – Note 1 should be clarified to state that sub area boundary modifications would
       require a rezone.
   •   Pg. 7 – Delete the reference to lot line adjustments, except for any of those that may
       needed for additional park area in order to satisfy park acreage requirements.
   •   Pg. 8 – Modify Footnote 3 to strike “PD-55 Zoning expressly does not include any mid-
       range density policy or requirements…” Modify Footnote 7 to state “…beer, wine, or
       distilled spirits…”
   •   Pg. 9 – Change the previously referenced permitted uses to conditionally permitted
       uses. Modify Footnote 14 regarding the boarding of animals to strike “…for more than 5
       days.”
   •   Pg. 10 – Change the previously referenced permitted uses to conditionally permitted
       uses.
   •   Pg. 11 – Change the previously referenced permitted uses to conditionally permitted
       uses. Secondary housing units, pursuant to Section 17.100.005 of the BMC, should be
       added as permitted uses in the sub areas that allow for single-family detached units.
   •   Pg. 18 – Under Section N.3., change the maximum height of pedestrian scale lighting
       from 20 feet to 12 feet, and change the maximum height of parking lot lights from 35 feet
       to 20 feet (as measured to the light source).
   •   Pg. 19 – Under Section P.1., include a reference to decorative screen walls as a means
       of screening drive-thru uses. Under Section 2.3.D., change the maximum building
       height from 40 feet to 35 feet and the architectural features from 48 feet to 43 feet.
   •   Pg. 28 – Add landscaped areas between facing parking rows (typical of all commercial
       prototypes). Change “every sixth parking space” to “every third parking space.”
   •   Pg. 34 – Change the note regarding building articulation from two edges to four.
       Change the note regarding “preferred orientation” to “required orientation.”
   •   Pg. 79 – Add a bullet point under “Building Orientation” to require 5 foot fence setbacks
       on the street side of corner lots.
   •   Pg. 80 – Change the 2nd bullet point regarding pedestrian gates from 400 feet to 100
       feet. Add a bullet point under the Parking Design section requiring common “courtyard”


                                               13
       and “cluster” driveways to consist of individual decorative pavers or other decorative
       pavement. Add a bullet point under the Landscape section requiring the provision of two
       additional street trees for corner lots.
   •   Pg. 81 – In the 2nd bullet point, specify a minimum offset. In the 5th bullet point, change
       “three elevations” to “four elevations.” In the 16th bullet point, change the clear depth
       dimension for porches from 4.5 feet to 6 feet. Add bullet points encouraging the
       provision of single-story homes, homes with side-entry or recessed garages, and homes
       on corner lots with front porches that wrap around to the sides.
   •   Pg. 87 – Add a note specifying the provision of a minimum usable yard of 250 square
       feet. Reduce the maximum building height from 38 feet to 35 feet.
   •   Pg. 88 – Remove Alternative 1, as it places two front-facing garages side-by-side.
       Revise the other two alternatives such that garages are recessed behind the front plane
       of the homes’ living area.
   •   Pg. 89 – Identify all property lines (i.e. front, side, and rear).
   •   Pg. 90 – Identify all property lines (i.e. front, side, and rear). Reduce the maximum
       building height from 38 feet to 35 feet.
   •   Pg. 91 – Identify all property lines (i.e. front, side, and rear). Reduce the maximum
       building height from 38 feet to 35 feet.
   •   Pg. 96 – Address property management issues (i.e. reference the need for an HOA or a
       property maintenance association).
   •   Pg. 98 – Add a requirement for the provision of common open space in accordance with
       the BMC.
   •   Pg. 118 – Add a note that any private street would never be maintained by the City.
   •   Pg. 122 – Delete the reference to providing parking along the commercial entry street,
       as it could result in movement conflicts.
   •   Pg. 125 – Revise the table so that it is consistent with Chapter 17.620 (Off-Street
       Parking) of the BMC.
   •   Pg. 129 – Delete the reference to private recreation space, as it should not be allowed to
       count towards the overall park requirement.
   •   Pg. 131 – Change “…average width” to “…minimum width.”
   •   Pg. 132 – Modify the park acreage calculation table to reflect the land use assumptions
       in the project EIR.
   •   Pg. 143 – Add trees to the area separating the residential parking from the commercial
       parking.
   •   Pg. 145 – Increase the buffer zone in the last bullet point from 2 feet to 5 feet.
   •   Pg. 147 – Increase the buffer zone in the third bullet point from 2 feet to 5 feet.
   •   Pg. 149 – Delete the reference to a “no build easement”, as those types of easements
       tend to be difficult to administer in the future and may result in conflict between the
       adjacent uses.
   •   Pg. 154 – Delete the three diagrams that reflect garages facing Sand Creek Road.
   •   Pg. 155 – Delete the three diagrams that reflect garages facing Sand Creek Road or
       typical residential streets.
   •   Pg. 167 – Delete this reference, as it provides for storm water treatment in the public
       right-of-way, which is not currently allowed.
   •   Appendix A – See comments below related to Chapter 17.505 of the BMC.

The six previously referenced park development standards are listed below, followed by the
response from the Parks & Recreation Commission:




                                               14
   1.   Should the developer be required to meet the full park acreage requirement within the
        development at current standards or through a combination of acreage and paying of
        fees? The Commission unanimously recommended that the developer meet the full
        park acreage requirement to City standards, however, consideration could be given to
        allowing the developer to fee out of the community park acreage (approximately 30% of
        the overall acreage) if the development could not provide adequate acreage.
   2.   Should the developer be allowed credit for park acreage that is an average of 100 feet
        wide? The Commission unanimously recommended that the current standard of a
        minimum of 100 feet wide should be maintained and that credit for park acreage that is
        an average of 100 feet wide should not be allowed.
   3.   Should the developer be allowed park credit for paseos as a part of the 1/3 community
        requirement? The Commission unanimously recommended that the developer should
        not be allowed park credit for paseos as a part of any of the project’s requirements.
   4.   Should the developer be allowed 50% park credit for pedestrian connectors? The
        Commission unanimously recommended that the developer not be allowed any credit
        for pedestrian connectors.
   5.   Should the developer be given partial credit for providing private recreation space
        instead of space that is owned as public by the City? The Commission unanimously
        recommended that the developer not be given any credit for providing private recreation
        space.
   6.   Should the developer be allowed to use up to 15% of parks for storm water treatment
        from adjacent uses? The Commission unanimously recommended that the developer
        should not be given credit or allowed to use parks for storm water treatment from
        adjacent uses. The Commission did, however, on a case by case basis indicate that if
        such use could actually improve the overall park design, the Commission would be
        willing to consider the option during conceptual park design review. The Commission
        indicated that there should not, however, be an inherent right to do this.

It should be noted that the Parks & Recreation Commission indicated a general support for the
small open spaces and connectivity that are proposed, as they would be beneficial aspects of
the project, but not at the expense of modifying the current park standards that have been used
in Brentwood so successfully over the last several years. The Commission generally agreed
that a project which meets current parks standards and provides additional park and open
space areas is a project worthy of this area.

Chapter 17.505 (PD-55 Zone)

As previously referenced, the applicant is proposing to amend Chapter 17.505 (PD-55) of the
Brentwood Municipal Code by establishing a list of allowable uses and development standards
for the project site. In accordance with the proposed land use plan, the applicant is proposing to
create 11 sub areas within the PD-55 Zone. The applicant has prepared a draft version of the
ordinance for the PD-55 Zone, which is included as Appendix A to the design guidelines for the
project.

An important distinction needs to be made between the ordinance and the design guidelines,
which is that the ordinance would in effect implement the General Plan and provide all of the
technical information required for future development (i.e. the types of allowable uses, the
minimum building setbacks, and the maximum building heights), while the design guidelines
would be used to supplement the ordinance and provide direction on how that development
should look. To that end, staff recommends that the design guidelines be incorporated by



                                               15
reference as an exhibit to the ordinance, which would provide for flexibility in the future for both
staff and the applicant/developers.

Staff also recommends making several changes to the ordinance proposed by the applicant.
The ordinance proposed by staff is attached as an exhibit to the rezone resolution. The majority
of the changes have been made as a combination of correcting minor inaccuracies, to ensure
consistency with other PD zones in the City, and to address previously-referenced concerns that
were identified either by staff or the Planning Commission. The five key issues of concern are
listed again below, followed by a brief explanation of staff’s recommendation:

   •   All residential development in the PD-55 Zone would be exempt from the Residential
       Growth Management Program. Staff recommends that this be modified slightly by
       stating that the exemption is valid only for a five-year period from the adoption of the
       ordinance. This would be consistent with the provision in the draft Brentwood Boulevard
       Specific Plan and, although the plan has not yet been adopted, this particular provision
       was previously discussed and vetted through the Land Use and Development
       Committee.

   •   All residential development in the PD-55 Zone would be exempt from adhering to the
       City’s mid-range density policy that is contained in the General Plan. This is a cause for
       some concern, as every other development in the City is subject to the referenced
       policy. Several recent developments have exceeded the mid-range density, but they
       also were subject to the Residential Growth Management Program, which affords the
       City an opportunity to require the necessary amenities or improvements which have
       benefited both existing and proposed neighborhoods. Staff recommends that this be
       modified to reflect the requirements of the General Plan.

   •   Parking standards would be established specific to the PD-55 Zone, most notably as
       they relate to the minimum number of required spaces for certain uses, such as 1/250
       for retail uses, where 1/200 is typically required. There was a general consensus among
       the Commission Members during the March 3rd workshop that the City’s existing parking
       standards be retained. Staff is also concerned about the inconsistency that would be
       created with other PD zones, as they are typically subject to Chapter 17.620 of the BMC.
       Staff recommends that the City’s existing parking standards be retained.

   •   Noise standards would be established specific to the PD-55 Zone that are inconsistent
       with both the General Plan and with Chapter 9.32 of the BMC (Noise Regulations).
       Although the applicant has argued that there are six examples in the BMC of other PD
       zones with the exact same noise provisions as those that are proposed, staff’s position
       is that those PD zones are inconsistent with both the General Plan and with Chapter
       9.32 of the BMC. In addition, the project EIR did not analyze potential noise impacts
       based on the higher standards that are proposed, but rather did so based on the City’s
       existing regulations. If the less-restrictive standards are approved as proposed, the
       project EIR would need to be revised and circulated again for public review, potentially
       resulting in additional mitigation measures and/or the need to adopt a statement of
       overriding considerations. Noise is a sensitive issue for many residents, and it would be
       particularly so for a large infill project such as Sciortino Ranch. In addition, the
       consensus amongst the Planning Commission during the March 3rd workshop was that
       the City’s existing noise standards should be retained. Staff recommends that this be
       modified by simply referencing the General Plan and Chapter 9.32 of the BMC.



                                                16
   •   Several uses are proposed to be permitted in the PD-55 Zone, where they would be
       conditionally permitted in other PD zones (i.e. gas stations and entertainment venues).
       This issue has already been addressed in the staff report.

Based on the foregoing analysis, the Planning Commission should carefully consider the
proposed sub areas, permitted and conditionally permitted uses, design guidelines, and
ordinance, along with staff’s recommended changes, and then adopt Resolution No. 09-015,
which recommends that the City Council approve the rezone.

Tentative Subdivision Map

As previously referenced, the applicant is proposing to subdivide the project site into 11 parcels,
with five on the south side of Sand Creek Road and six on the north side of Sand Creek Road.
These parcels would roughly correspond with the 11 sub areas that are proposed to be created
as part of the PD-55 Zone, although there are a couple of minor differences related to the sizes
and dimensions of Parcels 9 and 10. Each parcel to be created would have frontage along
either Sand Creek Road or Brentwood Boulevard, with the exception of Parcels 4 and 5, which
are located in the southeast corner of the project site. Access to these two parcels is proposed
via a 56’ wide easement that begins at Sand Creek Road and follows along the west boundary
of Parcel 3. It should be noted that this easement, as well as a similar easement that serves
Parcels 8, 10, and 11, does not correspond with the vehicular circulation diagram that is
included on page 110 of the proposed design guidelines.

Since the applicant is not proposing any specific development at this time, there is no detailed
site plan to review. This causes a certain level of concern, as circulation is always a critical
component of project development. It is anticipated that the project site would be developed in
phases over a period of several years, and particular attention would need to be given to not
only the overall circulation plan, but to how that plan is integrated internally within the site. It
should be noted that precise locations of new driveways and streets (public or private) would be
determined in conjunction with specific development projects over time. Some, and potentially
many, of the parcels would be further subdivided to accommodate specific development
projects. Two examples would be Parcels 5 and 10, which would be subdivided into 4,000-
square-foot minimum lots for single-family detached homes. A future traffic signal is proposed
on Brentwood Boulevard north of Sand Creek Road, with one or two additional signals on Sand
Creek Road. The proposed map includes the appropriate right-of-way dedications for both
Sand Creek Road (140’ total) and Brentwood Boulevard (70’ from the centerline).

Staff has included a number of conditions of approval related to the proposed map, many of
which are the mitigation measures that were identified in the project EIR. Based on the
foregoing analysis, the Planning Commission should carefully consider the proposed tentative
subdivision map and the recommended conditions of approval, and then adopt Resolution No.
09-016 approving the map.




                                                17
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to assess the potential impacts of the
project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The EIR details a number
of potentially significant impacts resulting from the proposed project, each of which can be
mitigated to a level of less-than-significant, with the exception of impacts on air quality. This
has been identified as a significant and unavoidable impact that would require a statement of
overriding considerations to be adopted.          For the purpose of analyzing the potential
environmental impacts of the project, a development scenario provided by the applicant was
used. That scenario includes 5.1 acres of parks, 468 apartments, 140 single-family detached
units, 107,267 square-feet of retail uses, 87,991 square-feet of office uses, and 228,690 square-
feet of institutional uses.

The public review period for the Draft EIR began on February 13th and ended on March 30th. A
total of three comment letters were received, all on March 30th. The first letter was submitted by
the California Public Utilities Commission, indicating concerns about appropriate analysis of the
potential traffic impacts related to the Union Pacific Railroad corridor and specifically the
existing Central Boulevard and Lone Tree Way at-grade rail crossings. The second letter was
submitted by the applicant, indicating concerns about the wording of certain mitigation
measures related to traffic, noise, and climate change, as well as fee payment timing and
reimbursement rights. The third letter was submitted by the California Department of
Transportation, indicating concerns about appropriate analysis of the potential traffic impacts
related to Brentwood Boulevard and the State Route 4 Bypass. Responses to each of these
comments have been prepared and are part of the Final EIR.

The EIR includes approximately 60 mitigation measures that would reduce potentially significant
impacts related to the broad topics of Land Use, Aesthetics, Transportation and Circulation, Air
Quality and Climate Change, Noise, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hazards, and
Public Services and Utilities. It is intended that future development of the project site would be
streamlined from a CEQA perspective by relying on the analysis and conclusions in the EIR, so
long as that development is consistent with the land use scenario studied for this project. To
that end, all future development would be reviewed to determine conformance with the analysis
and conclusions of the EIR. If the scope of any future development is different than what was
studied in the EIR, individual projects would be reviewed pursuant to CEQA in order to
determine what level of review is necessary (i.e. consistent with the EIR, categorically exempt,
negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or subsequent EIR).

Based on the responses to the three letters that were received and the preparation of the Final
EIR, all potential impacts have been evaluated and mitigated to a level of less-than-significant
where appropriate, except for the significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts that have
been identified related to air quality. As a result, staff recommends that the Planning
Commission consider the Final EIR and adopt Resolution No. 09-013, which recommends that
the City Council certify the Final EIR.

SUMMARY:

Much is unknown about the ultimate development of the Sciortino Ranch project, including the
total square footage of non-residential development, the total number of housing units and how
they would be divided between single-family and multi-family units, and the specific businesses
or non-residential tenants that would locate there (i.e. a community college campus, a
supermarket, a discount big box retailer, a gas station, or fast-food restaurants). What is known


                                               18
is that the applicant intends to put the pieces in place that would facilitate the future
development of the site, including determining the final mix of allowable land uses. The
uniqueness and importance of this project cannot be understated, especially considering its
strategic location along what is expected to be a revitalized portion of the Brentwood Boulevard
corridor, its large size, its location at a key intersection, the built-in flexibility for future
purchasers of these lots, and the fact that it is surrounded on all sides by either existing or
approved development.

As previously stated, the proposed project represents a unique situation in land use planning
and regulation for the City of Brentwood. The applicant is requesting that the Planning
Commission and the City Council approve land use guidelines and regulations that afford an
unprecedented range of flexibility. The applicant has insisted that this is imperative in order to
market and develop the project site in a highly volatile market. If adopted, the Planned
Development rezone and the Sciortino Ranch Design Guidelines will establish the parameters
for a wide range of permitted uses – including medium, high, and very high density residential,
commercial, business park, office, and service commercial. The intent of the zoning and the
corresponding guidelines is to provide the framework for the processing of future development
of this site, with different standards than other areas of the community.

RECOMMENDATION:

     •   Adopt Resolution No. 09-013 recommending that the City Council certify the Final
         Environmental Impact Report for the Sciortino Ranch project
     •   Adopt Resolution No. 09-014 recommending that the City Council approve General Plan
         Amendment No. 09-01
     •   Adopt Resolution No. 09-015 recommending that the City Council approve Rezone No.
         06-13
     •   Adopt Resolution No. 09-016 approving Tentative Subdivision Map No. 9152

ATTACHMENTS:

1.  Resolution No. 09-013
2.  Resolution No. 09-014
3.  Resolution No. 09-015
4.  Resolution No. 09-016
5.  Sciortino Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report, April 2009
6.  Sciortino Ranch Design Guidelines, Public Review Draft, April 2009, dated “Received April
    6, 2009” (delivered under separate cover on April 7, 2009)
7. Tentative Subdivision Map No. 9152, prepared by Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc., dated
    “Received April 1, 2009”
8. Planning Commission Staff Report, March 3, 2009
9. Planning Commission minutes, March 3, 2009
10. E-mail from Bobbi Jackson, April 11, 2009




                                               19
                                                                              Attachment No. 10


                                                                               CITY OF BRENTWOOD
                                                                     PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
                                                                                 TUESDAY, 7:00 P.M.
                                                                                      APRIL 21, 2009
                                                                               COUNCIL CHAMBERS


David Bristow, Vice Chairman             Joseph Weber, Chairman              Jim Cushing, Commissioner
Julie Gildersleeve, Commissioner                                              Don Stirling, Commissioner

 CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 PM

 Roll Call:
 Present:     Cushing, Stirling, Bristow, Gildersleeve, and Weber.

 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

 REVISIONS OR OMISSIONS TO THE AGENDA (Staff)

 There were no revisions or omissions to the agenda.

 CITIZEN COMMENTS

        At this time the public is permitted to address the Planning Commission on items that are not on
        the agenda. Persons addressing the Planning Commission are required to limit their remarks to
        five (5) minutes unless an extension of time is granted by the Chairman subject to approval of the
        Planning Commission. Please file your name with the Chairman on the form provided at the
        podium. Speakers desiring answers to questions should direct them to the Commission and, if
        relevant, the Commission may direct the questions to the appropriate staff member.

 There were no citizen comments.

 CONSENT CALENDAR

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

 1. Approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April 7, 2009.

         Motion to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April 7, 2009.

         Moved by Cushing; seconded by Gildersleeve.

         Vote:            4-0-1-0
         Yes:             Cushing, Stirling, Gildersleeve and Weber
         No:
         Abstain:         Bristow
         Absent:

 NEW BUSINESS

 4. Public Hearing. An application to amend various sections of the Brentwood Municipal Code Section
    17.640, by adding text addressing message neutrality and substitution and severability, and



                                                      1
   establishing guidelines banning all billboards, both stationary and vehicular, for signs within the City
   limits.
   Applicant: City of Brentwood
   File No.: RZ 09-04
   Planner: Tim Nielsen

   Chairman Weber asked if anyone was in attendance for item number 4 on the Agenda. As there was
   no one in attendance for this item, Chairman Weber requested that item 4 be continued to the May 5,
   2009 Planning Commission meeting as a workshop or study session.

        Motion to continue the public hearing for an application to amend various sections of the
        Brentwood Municipal Code Section 17.640, by adding text addressing message neutrality and
        substitution and severability, and establishing guidelines banning all billboards, both stationary
        and vehicular, for signs within the City limits as a workshop or study session to the May 5, 2009
        Planning Commission meeting.

        Moved by Bristow; seconded by Stirling.

        Vote:            5-0-0-0
        Yes:             Cushing, Stirling, Bristow, Gildersleeve and Weber
        No:
        Abstain:
        Absent:

2. Public Hearing. An application for a conditional use permit to operate a dance studio and cheerleading
   gym known as Legends All Stars, within a 3,360 square-foot tenant space in a light industrial building
   located at 580 Valdry Court, Suites 1 through 3, within the Brentwood Business Center (APN 010-160-
   028).
   Applicant: Brittani Barmann
   File No.: CUP 09-05
   Planner: Tim Nielsen

Planner Nielsen introduced the staff report. He requested that Condition of Approval number 8 be
changed to state the following: "...the walls separating the proposed tenant suite and any adjacent office
area shall achieve a minimum STC rating of 50."

Public hearing opened.

Art Lorenzini, one of the owners of the Brentwood Business Center, stated that he and his business
partner, Mike Conley, were both in agreement with the staff report. He thanked the Planning Commission
for its consideration.

Ken Hill, the owner of the Moulding Shop, stated that he operated his business in Suite A and was in
support of the project.

Mike Conley, Art Lorenzini’s partner, stated that it was not their intention to affect the other business
owners in regards to noise. He explained that All Star Legends would not start until 4:00 pm and the
majority of the businesses would be closed by that time. He talked about the wise use of parking spaces
and tenant spaces in this situation. He felt that this business would draw more people into the center,
bringing attention to the other businesses in the center.

Jon Donnelly of Donnelly Floor Service of Suite 4 explained that he started business at 6:00 am and did
not think that the noise would be an issue at all for him. He was looking forward to the families and
exposure that the business would bring for him in the center.



                                                    2
Brittani Barman, the owner of Legends All Stars, introduced herself.

Koren Summers, Brittani’s mother, talked about the project and stated that she agreed with all of the
conditions of approval.

Public hearing closed.

Commissioner Cushing asked why the conditional use permit was being considered by the Commission.

Planner Nielsen explained that gyms and dance studios were not listed as a permitted use within the
Planned Development 12 Zone, therefore this use would need to be approved with a conditional use
permit.

Chairman Weber asked about the status of the Best Western Hotel in the area.

Casey McCann, Director of Community Development, stated that the Best Western Hotel was in
suspense and felt that it was highly doubtful at this time whether the current owner of the hotel would
successfully be able to complete the project.

Commissioner Stirling felt that the staff report was very complete and felt that the use was on the outer
edge of the center and the noise would have less of an impact. He said that the demising wall between
the units will be very helpful and therefore had no issues with the project.

Commissioner Gildersleeve was in favor of the location and the project.

Commissioner Bristow thought that the use was compatible and, since it was a conditional use permit, a
condition was included which allowed the project to come back before the Planning Commission if noise
should become a problem. He requested that a correction be made to Exhibit "A" (5.) to change the time
so to read as follows: "...modify the hours of operation beyond 4:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday...". He stated that he was in favor of the project and wished the applicant much success .

Commissioner Cushing stated that he was in support of the conditional use permit. He felt that the
demising wall between the applicant and the neighbor may not be necessary because they would not be
occupying the spaces at the same time. He asked Planner Nielsen whether the STC rating for the
demising wall was a requirement specifically based upon the zoning and whether there were sounds
studies that indicate what it would look like.

Planner Nielsen said that it was based on the General Plan requiring that office uses have 45 decibel
exposure level inside the tenant suite. He said that any use that generated noise would need to
be mitigated. He said that the current next door tenant may not have a problem with the noise, but a future
new tenant may have extended hours and might feel differently about the noise.

Chairman Weber was pleased that other businesses would benefit from the exposure. He wished the
applicant much success.

        Motion to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 09-019 of the City of Brentwood
        approving a conditional use permit (CUP 09-05) to allow the operation of a 3,360 square-foot
        dance studio and cheer gym known as Legends All Stars located at 580 Valdry Court, Suites 1
        through 3 (APN 010-160-028), with the following changes: 1.) correct a typographical error in
        condition number 5, clarifying that the start time is 4:00 p.m., and 2.) amend condition number 8
        noting the STC rating of 50.

        Moved by Gildersleeve; seconded by Bristow.




                                                     3
        Vote:            5-0-0-0
        Yes:             Cushing, Stirling, Bristow, Gildersleeve and Weber
        No:
        Abstain:
        Absent:

Chairman Weber called for a 5-minute recess.

Commissioner Bristow stated that he would need to abstain from Agenda Item Number 3, as the applicant
was a client of his business partner. Commissioner Bristow left the Council Chambers at this time.

Chairman Weber called the meeting back to order.

3. Public Hearing. An application for a 65-acre mixed-use project, known as Sciortino Ranch, consisting
   of a proposed mix of uses including commercial, retail (including one big box as a permitted use),
   office, institutional (i.e. educational), single-family residential, multi-family residential, and parks. The
   applicant is requesting approval of a General Plan amendment to modify the Land Use Element
   related to the text for Special Planning Area A and to make the associated change to the Land Use
   Map, a rezone to establish a list of allowable uses and development standards, including site-specific
   design guidelines, for the Planned Development No. 55 Zone, and a tentative subdivision map to
   subdivide the project site into 11 parcels for future mixed-use development. The proposed project is
   located directly east of the intersection of Sand Creek Road and Brentwood Boulevard (APN 016-170-
   012 and 016-170-013). A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared for this
   project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act to assess potentially adverse
   environmental impacts.

   Applicant: New Urban Communities Partners
   File No.: GPA 09-01/RZ 06-13/TSM 9152
   Planner: Erik Nolthenius

Principal Planner Erik Nolthenius introduced the staff report and talked about the additional information
that was submitted to the Planning Commission shortly before the meeting, which was a result of
extensive meetings that staff had that day with the applicant in terms of revising conditions.

Commissioner Stirling asked if institutional uses were designated for SPA "A" as it currently exists.

Planner Nolthenius said they were not.

Commissioner Stirling asked if there was another area within the City that was also designated for
institutional uses.

Planner Nolthenius explained that institutional uses did not fall under any one particular land use
designation within the General Plan. He said that institutional uses would fit under a mixed use business
park type designation, which the site is now designated for.

Commissioner Cushing asked if parking ratios were taken into consideration with the maximum
development scenarios that were presented in the staff report.

Planner Nolthenius stated that it accounted for typical parking ratios and it was tied into the floor area
ratios for the various land use types.

Commissioner Cushing asked about the increased amount of residential units, as indicated on page 11.
He asked if that impacted the City for any future projects coming into the City because of this "wild card"




                                                       4
that basically could turn into a substantial larger amount of residential than what was currently being
planned for. Commissioner Cushing wanted to know how future projects would be handled.

Planner Nolthenius said that future projects would need to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. He said
that the applicant was requesting to increase the amount of residential that could be built, which would
affect the existing jobs/housing balance because the balance of the current project site was designated for
business park development. He said that this plan would still provide the mix of both jobs and housing, but
was a little different from what is currently being shown on the General Plan.

Commissioner Stirling asked if the numbers were based on the high end of the density range or the mid-
point of the density range.

Planner Nolthenius said that it was based on overall acreage. He said that right now, 11% of the site
would be for residential uses and 89% would be for non-residential, and potentially 62% could be
residential and 38% as non-residential. Planner Nolthenius said that the numbers could go up or down
based on the final mix of land uses.

Commissioner Cushing asked about the Final Environmental Impact Report as it relates to noise
standards that the City currently has.

Planner Nolthenius said that the City wanted to retain its existing noise standards from a variety of
perspectives, but the idea was that noise issues would be looked at again when parcels would be
subdivided in the future, as an example. Planner Nolthenius stated that the applicant team provided a
detailed memo to the Commission with their outstanding concerns about the project. He talked to the
Commission about an email that was received from Bobbi Jackson, which was included with the staff
report, and an additional email that was sent by Philip Atkinson, which he then read to the Commission.

Community Development Director Casey McCann wanted to remind the Commission and members of the
public that the Planning Commission would be making decisions based upon land use categories,
activities and impacts, and not decisions on specific types of businesses. Mr. McCann talked about the
applicant team’s desire in designing a more flexible project, and providing better opportunities that would
benefit the community and Brentwood Boulevard.

Chairman Weber noted the uniqueness of the project and explained that the Environmental Impact Report
for this 65-acre project protected the citizens and community.

Commissioner Stirling asked about the traffic on Brentwood Boulevard and the additional traffic flows that
would be generated for the different uses. He said that a number of conditions required the applicant to
make improvements to the streets surrounding the project, however the revised conditions (29 thru 32)
for Resolution No. 09-016 were not based upon the timing of pulling building permits, where a timeline
indicated when the task would need to be completed. He thought it would make sense to make those
conditions subject to occupancy of the first "big box" or high density housing, at which time more traffic
flow would be generated.

Engineering Development Manager Jack Dhaliwal stated that the conditions would coincide with the
improvements that the applicant would be making on Brentwood Boulevard.

Commissioner Stirling was concerned that the whole development could be completed before any of the
roadway improvements were done and felt that the mitigation measures for the EIR would be affected.

Assistant City Attorney Karen Murphy informed the Commission that there were some modifications to the
mitigation measures set forth in the conditions. She stated that City staff was seeking recommendation,
along with the recommendation to approve the final EIR and that the City Council substitute some of the
traffic mitigation measures in the EIR with the mitigations set forth in the document.

Traffic Engineering Manager Steve Kersevan explained that Condition Number 21 stated "concurrent with


                                                     5
the Brentwood Boulevard frontage improvements" and asked that there be no confusion between the
frontage improvements and the ultimate 4-lane Brentwood Boulevard. Mr. Kersevan explained that when
the developer will be modifying Brentwood Boulevard driveway cuts and parking along the frontage, he
would at the same time proceed to the other intersections and complete the improvements at that time.
He said that the developer would need to make his improvements in order to move people in and out of
his development.

Commissioner Stirling said that the Commission had been very adamant in the past with all of the projects
that there would be some timeline. He was concerned that the conditions initially required the roadway
improvements be done prior to the approval of the first residential building permit.

Commissioner Cushing asked if the project would fall back on the existing guidelines that were put
together and demonstrated at the March 3, 2009 Workshop.

Planner Nolthenius said that the Design Guideline booklets that were distributed to the Planning
Commission, dated April 2009, were a modification and refinement of the ones that were received
previously at the March 2009 workshop.

Commissioner Stirling asked if garages might be facing Sand Creek Road on parcels 2B and 6.

Planner Nolthenius stated that the applicant had that as an option, but it certainly wouldn’t need to be
developed that way and City staff would prefer to eliminate it as an option.

Public hearing opened.

Reed Onate of New Urban Communities Partners gave a presentation of the project.

Lance Crannell of SDG Architects talked about the height limits and the modifications that they were
requesting.

Dave Sanson of New Urban Communities Partners talked about the overall concept of the project.

Rob Smith, a Brentwood homeowner at the southern end of the development, was not in favor of the
project. He talked about the 3 different plans that were to be considered at a previous workshop. He
didn’t think that apartments or "flex" uses would be good for the community. He was concerned that the
crime rate would increase and was not happy that he has had to clean up the property at the southern end
of the project site, which is across from his home.

Steve Lopez, a resident of Brentwood, said that he asked someone in the Community Development
Department how much Park land would be needed for the number of residential units that were proposed
for this project and he was told that 7.25 acres would be needed. Mr. Lopez said that the plan was calling
for 5.1 acres, which is 2.15 acres less than what is required in the Code and felt that the City was
compromising on its standards for this project. Mr. Lopez said that 7 apartment buildings were located
along Brentwood Boulevard between Sycamore and Applewood Common, which adds up to .9 miles. He
felt that the people of Brentwood were being short-changed and didn’t think it was right. He talked about
the article in the Brentwood Press, dated February 13th, which talked about City Council’s approval of the
scale-back of the Prewett Ranch homes. He felt that the Planning Commission needed to protect the
City’s standards and didn’t feel that this project was right.

Fred Ginzler, a resident of and the President of the Homeowner’s Association for the Coppergate
community to the west of the project site, said that this project would be the first project proposed in the
Brentwood Boulevard Specific Plan Area and all future projects would be gauged against this project. He
was concerned about the high density housing that was proposed and scaled-back green space for the
project and wondered where all of the people would recreate.

Chairman Weber asked how many residents there were at the Coppergate Community.


                                                     6
Mr. Ginzler said that there were 120 units.

Chairman Weber made an assumption that there may be 260 residents, or more, in that development.

Mr. Ginzler said that they had an abundant amount of park areas in their community, which made it an
attractive place to live, and it was maintained by the Homeowner’s Association.

Debbie Cohen, a resident of Brentwood, spoke in opposition of the project and was not in favor of living
down the street from 10 acres of low income, high density apartments. She talked about the abundant
amount of homes that are for sale in Brentwood, including 13 in her neighborhood, and felt that the home
property values would decrease in the area. She said that a ghetto was being manufactured and spoke of
the prostitution and drug dealing that was going on at the apartments on the corner of Sand Creek and
Shady Willow (Villa Amador). She talked about the issues that she’s been experiencing in her own
neighborhood, and felt that it would only get worse.

Chairman Weber asked Lt. Ben Tolero of the Police Department to respond to Ms. Cohen’s comments in
regards to the criminal activity at the apartments located on Shady Willow Lane.

Lt. Ben Tolero stated that he was not aware of any prostitution at those apartments.

Chairman Weber stated that the speaker referred to this project as a ghetto and wanted to know whether
that was the feeling of the Police Department.

Lt. Ben Tolero said that the Police Department worked with the applicant and specifically looked at the
alcohol-related issues that would be of concern to the Police Department and the residents. He said that
conditions were written to address those issues and the applicant made adjustments to its plan that would
help mitigate the problems. Lt. Tolero did not feel that the developer was building a ghetto.

Commissioner Gildersleeve asked about the crime in that area compared to other parts of Brentwood.

Lt. Tolero said that he currently did not have any crime percentage numbers for that area of Brentwood
Boulevard.

Mike Demasi, a resident of Brentwood, thanked the Commission for saying the Pledge of Allegiance at the
beginning of the meeting and was proud of the City for doing that. Mr. Demasi thanked Lt. Tolero for his
comments. He couldn’t believe that there weren’t any police reports for the criminal activity that Ms.
Cohen spoke of. He stated that the residents of Brentwood were hard-working individuals and they were
trying to make their community a nice community. He agreed that the developer was manufacturing a
ghetto. Mr. Demasi felt that the Streets of Brentwood shopping center wasn’t finished yet and felt that the
rumor of Nordstrom pulling out of the Streets of Brentwood shopping center hurt the City. He felt that this
was due to poor planning and if this project is built, they will not come. Mr. Demasi felt that the 4,000
square-foot lots in Subareas 3A and 7A were too small, compared to the adjacent existing lots. He was
not happy to see how Perez Nursery left their lot on Brentwood Boulevard when they moved to another
location. He talked about the foreclosures and issues that he has been experiencing in his
neighborhood. He was not in favor of apartments for this area and was afraid of the type of people that
the apartments would attract. He thought that Brentwood was a beautiful community and would prefer
businesses with condominiums above the businesses for the project. He felt that the current plans for this
area were unacceptable and didn’t feel the whole picture, from the Downtown Area to Perez Nursery, was
being looked at. Mr. Demasi said that there is a lot of crime in his neighborhood and he has called the
Police Department many times and hasn’t been responded to. He said that the project was a disaster and
the people in the neighborhood did not want it.

Chairman Weber reminded the members of the audience not to clap or cheer because there may be other
comments that are viewed in opposition of how others may feel and he didn’t want anyone to feel



                                                     7
intimidated or unable to speak in the environment. Mr. Demasi was escorted out of the Council Chambers
by Lt. Ben Tolero at this time.

A 10-minute break was taken at this time.

Chairman Weber reconvened the meeting back into session. He thanked the members of the audience
for its participation and appreciated everyone’s patience as the situation with the previous speaker was
taken care of.

Larry Botelho, a resident of Brentwood, apologized for Mr. Demasi’s attitude, as they were friends and
neighbors for the last 5 years. Mr. Botelho said that he saw the drug and prostitution problems in the
apartments at the corner of Shady Willow and Sand Creek. He questioned who of staff lived in the
neighborhood of the proposed project and said that it was very difficult to get the Police Department to
respond to them. He was concerned of the drugs in the neighborhood and was worried that people would
drive from the proposed project site through his neighborhood to get to Sunset Road. Mr. Botelho said
that there were a lot of children playing in the streets and was unhappy that they did not get the park that
was promised to them. He was very concerned about the criminal activity that was happening in his
neighborhood and how difficult it was to get police to respond to those situations. Mr. Botelho felt that
more apartments would create chaos. He felt that the hedges and tiny nooks that were proposed for the
center would give kids and criminals more places to hide and was concerned that the police wouldn’t keep
the area safe.

Commissioner Stirling asked Mr. Botelho for the name of the apartment complex that had a drug problem.

Mr. Botelho said that the apartments were located across the street from the Streets of Brentwood
shopping center. He said that they were the new apartments for the low income and section-8 people.

It was determined that Mr. Botelho was speaking of the Villa Amador Apartment Complex on the corner of
Shady Willow Lane and Sand Creek Road.

Madeline Krebs stated that she and her husband owned the Speedy Oil Change, which is located across
the street from the subject property. She talked about the plan that was developed in 2007 for the site,
which had specific zoning and included 6 parks (7.25 acres). Ms. Krebs said that the developer did not
like the plan at the time, so they withdrew it and came back with a new plan, which was more like what
they originally wanted in 2007. She said that the new plan included more commercial and only 4.6 acres
of green space. Ms. Krebs believed that this plan did not meet the Brentwood Boulevard Specific Plan
requirements, nor was it in line with the Grand Boulevard vision. She felt that the flex zoning was like
having no zoning and the standards for this development were lower than what the residents would want.
Ms. Krebs felt that the City had to have higher standards for the site in order to bring up the neighborhood.
She said that the economy was going to tank, so she encouraged the Commission to wait. Ms. Krebs told
Lt. Tolero that the center that her business was located in had problems because of the J&K Market, the
check cashing business and the Dollar Tree. She said that the center had become a magnet for
homeless people and panhandlers, who have been harassing her customers. She asked whether the
apartments would be market-rate, low income, or Section-8 apartments. She didn’t think that adding more
apartments to that area would be healthy for the City. Ms. Krebs asked the Commission to consider the
whole community and not what the developer wants.

Harold Cook, a resident of Brentwood, felt that the project would be a travesty to the neighborhood. He
said that he lived on the south end of Windsor Way and didn’t understand why his neighborhood wasn’t
canvassed.

Emil Geddes, a lifetime resident of Brentwood and member of the School Board, disclosed that he was
being paid by the developer to work as a liason for the coordination of meetings, etc. Mr. Geddes said
that the northeast corridor has always been a problem and he could never figure out why. He talked about
some of the stores that were once located in this area, that have since gone out of business, and felt that
this area needed a strong economic location that brings people to the center to do destination shopping,


                                                      8
other than the dollar store and to cash checks. Mr. Geddes understood the concerns of the residents and
agreed that whoever manages the apartments and how the apartments are run is an extremely important
issue. He was excited that northeast Brentwood would finally have a neighborhood school (Black
Elementary) and thought the school would have a dramatic effect on police visitation. Mr. Geddes said the
school was going to be built soon, with State funding and felt that the Sand Creek Road extension was a
very necessary part of this project. He felt that the project would bring a lot of dramatic positive change to
the northeast corridor of Brentwood. He encouraged everyone to look at the project with a positive
perspective, and not a limited perspective.

Valerie Wilson, a resident of Brentwood, said that she lived north of Subarea 3A. She was concerned how
all of the homeowners in Subarea 3A would get in and out of the area. She said that police helicopters are
flying over her home on a weekly basis looking for criminal activity. It was Ms. Wilson’s understanding that
the construction of the fire station and elementary school was contingent on Barrington developing
those. Ms. Wilson requested that the proposed apartments are not built until the fire station is built and
the development that is responsible for putting in the fire station and school is in place first. Ms. Wilson
asked if there was some sort of limit that says how far the proposed 38-foot high building could be from
her back fence line. She wanted to know if the backyard of the proposed 38-foot high building would be
sharing her fence, or if there would be a separating barrier and what would be the height of that barrier.

Sandra Myers, a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission, stated that the Commission reviewed
the project at their last meeting and she urged the Planning Commission to adhere to the current Parks
standards. She said that the applicant wanted credit for some of the things in the project, which the Parks
and Recreation Commission did not feel were Park-oriented. She said that the developer wanted 15-foot
walkways and paseos, and Ms. Myers considered these items to be Commercial amenities rather than
Park items. She felt that if the project was going to be comprised of 62% apartments, there was a greater
need to adhere to the Parks standards and have a traditional park. Ms. Myers said that the areas that
were currently proposed for Park areas were not usable. She felt that apartments would mostly bring kids
and a passive Park area would not suffice. She said that while most cookie-cutter, small parks are nice in
a subdivision, they don’t serve the community well.

Chairman Weber asked the applicant to speak with any final comments that he may have.

Dave Sanson of New Urban Communities Partners wanted to address the social issues that many of the
neighbors have been experiencing due to foreclosures and turnovers of properties and assured the
Commission and members of the public that they also shared in that frustration. Mr. Sanson said that the
challenge that they were given was to come up with a plan that would uplift the area and to create a
Redevelopment, Mixed Use project that would add some synergy, community attractions and benefits and
bring people to this part of town, and eventually to improve it. He said that the design was put together to
create that flexibility so that when the market starts to return, they could help the area to recover and
develop sooner rather than later. He said that a lot of the issues that came up would be brought back
before the Planning Commission and other bodies at a later date. Mr. Sanson said that they were simply
talking about Land Use, and creating blocks of land with uses that they could integrate and address the
issues of building types, quality and layout. He talked about the apartments being the worst case scenario
and the community college that they were trying to attract to the area. Mr. Sanson said that they were
developing the site to attract as many users as possible and were very excited about the college. He said
that one of the best financial institutions in the country was backing the project and felt very solid about
investing in this area, which he felt also added to the credibility of the project and its likelihood of success.

Commissioner Stirling asked Mr. Sanson for his thoughts on requiring homeowners’ associations for the
apartments.

Mr. Sanson said that each individual application will address those issues specifically. He said the single
family homes would have to have a homeowner’s association and the apartment project that is mandated
by the zoning would need to be professionally run and managed by a property association. Mr. Sanson
said that if they were fortunate enough to get the college to come, it would also need to be professionally



                                                       9
maintained and managed at a high level. He said that there would be a lot of internal mechanisms in
place that would handle a lot of the social issues instead of having to contact the Police Department.

Commissioner Cushing asked Planner Nolthenius to address Ms. Wilson’s questions in regards to the 38-
foot high buildings proposed for Subareas 3A and 7A.

Planner Nolthenius stated that single-family homes were proposed for Subareas 3A and 7A and would
have 2 stories and a maximum height of 30 feet. He said that the 38 feet would apply to the higher
density type product. Planner Nolthenius said that Ms. Wilson’s fence would be a common fence shared
with the backyard of the single family home, with a maximum height of 30 feet and the distance between
the common fence and the proposed house would be 20 feet.

Commissioner Cushing asked if the fence would be a masonry fence.

Planner Nolthenius said that was not yet determined, but between residential areas would typically be a
standard, good neighbor wooden fence.

Chairman Weber asked about the applicant’s burden with the RGMP as noted in the staff report,
specifically mentioning the Redevelopment District and the constraints. Chairman Weber asked Planner
Nolthenius to explain the constraints and how they would impact the applicant.

Planner Nolthenius asked if Chairman Weber was referencing the memo that the applicant prepared in
response to staff’s report. Planner Nolthenius read from the memo the following, "The applicant is trying to
avoid future General Plan Amendment where the zoning has been so comprehensive. The removal of
RGMP, a year-long process, is requested for this infill site. It is also burdened by Redevelopment District
constraints." Planner Nolthenius said that all new housing in a Redevelopment Area is required to have
15% of those units be affordable. He said that the existing City Ordinance says 10%, but the
Redevelopment Area requirement is greater.

Public hearing closed.

Commissioner Gildersleeve was in favor of improving this area of the City. She had the opportunity to
speak with Mr. Sanson, Mr. Onate and Mr. Geddes and they were able to explain some of their concerns
about the project. She had concerns with the flexibility of the project and the type of business that would
draw a higher economic standard for this part of the City. She felt that people were being drawn out of the
downtown area to the Streets of Brentwood center. Ms. Gildersleeve was in favor of drawing people to
the proposed project, but also wanted to make sure that the Commission was making good decisions.
She thought there were ways to design higher density residential units that wouldn’t attract the wrong type
of people. She was in favor of pulling in some nicer restaurants that would attract people from the Lone
Tree Way and The Streets of Brentwood areas. Commissioner Gildersleeve agreed with staff’s opinion in
regards to conditional use permits for certain types of uses, such as gas stations and other similar uses
that shouldn’t be approved without review by the Commission. Ms. Gildersleeve felt that the City should
retain some of its existing standards, as noted on pages 16 and 17 of the staff report. She was concerned
with some of the changes that were made to the conditions in regards to road improvements and wanted
to ensure that these decisions wouldn’t be regretted at a later time. Commissioner Gildersleeve felt
comfortable with the 50-foot and 38-foot building height limits because there would be a buffer between
the existing homes and the buildings. She was in favor of offering more play space and green areas for
the children.

Commissioner Cushing thought that the issues raised by the neighbors in regards to the crime in
their neighborhoods was not acceptable and felt that those issues needed to be adequately addressed by
the Police Department and brought to the attention of the City Council. Commissioner Cushing asked for a
clarification on the required Park area for the project.

Craig Bronzan, Director of Parks and Recreation, said that the conditions required the applicant to provide
5 acres per 1,000 population for the total project, unless otherwise approved by the Director of Parks and


                                                    10
Recreation. Mr. Bronzan said that it was difficult coming up with a number of acres, because it was not yet
determined how many units would be built.

Commissioner Cushing said that he had a problem with all of the changes that had been made since the
project was originally looked at. He said that apartments were designated for this site a long time ago and
he had no problem with that. His main concern and fear was that there could potentially be 33 acres of
apartments on the site. Commissioner Cushing reassured the public of the quality of the project and
noted that the design guidelines were second to none and felt that the applicant was going above and
beyond. He asked Mr. Kersevan, the City’s Traffic Engineering Manager, to comment on the changes
that were made to the conditions related to the Brentwood Boulevard improvements.

Mr. Kersevan stated that staff’s reasoning was not portrayed correctly in written form, so staff considered
making changes so that the improvements would be tied into the first permit being pulled, whether it’s
residential or non-residential. He said that the other possibility was to tie it into either residential or
commercial development.

Commissioner Cushing asked how that change would affect the Commission’s vote.

Commissioner Stirling stated that the conditions could be amended so that there’s progress being made
and if the applicant did not like the changes, they would be able to bring it up to Council.

Commissioner Stirling said that the area has always been designated as 7 acres of very high density
housing. He felt that it was a good thing to have that many people close to the Downtown area because it
would help the Downtown, but was not in favor of 20 to 30 acres of high density housing in that area.
Commissioner Stirling said that SPA "A" required lush landscaping around the edges, however never
called out any areas for parks. He thought that sticking with the Mid-Range density would be a good idea,
since there was no RGMP for this project. He was in favor of adding back "limited light industrial" to the
General Plan Amendment. In regards to the EIR, he was amazed to see how much roadwork needed to
be done. Mr. Stirling felt that wording should be added to Conditions 29, 30 and 31 of the TSM Resolution,
such as "prior to the issuance of the first residential permit" and/or "prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for any non-residential permit at no cost to the City" so that a "trigger" would be in place for
these tasks to be completed. Commissioner Stirling talked about the density transition for Subareas 3A
and 7A, circulation paths for the project, and explained to the members of the audience that only the
entitlements were being requested and that this project might not be built for a long time. In regards to the
Rezone, he was in favor of the building heights and talked about the changes that staff had suggested for
the design guidelines and which changes he did and did not agree with. Commissioner Stirling talked
about Ms. Krebs’ comments about the Brentwood Boulevard Specific Plan and how the project does not
comply, and felt that it was difficult to know that at this time because there was currently no architecture
to review and direction was given by Council and committees to process this project concurrently with the
Brentwood Boulevard Specific Plan. He was in favor of high density around the downtown area and
believed that it worked well in downtown areas.

Ms. Murphy informed the Commission that staff could provide some further information on the traffic
improvement changes that were made to the conditions of approval. Ms. Murphy wanted to point out that
there were actually two different Brentwood Boulevard improvement issues that were tied together in the
conditions. She said that one of the issues involved the Brentwood Boulevard frontage improvements.
She said that the other issue involved the intersections that were not necessarily adjacent to the site, the
mitigation measures were requiring certain improvements to those conditions, and the traffic study had
indicated that some of those improvements weren’t going to be necessary for a couple of decades. Ms.
Murphy explained that the change was to replace some of the intersection improvements with the
developer agreeing to do some design work for Brentwood Boulevard to get the entirety of Brentwood
Boulevard done, rather than to do some piecemeal improvements. She said that with regard to the
Brentwood Boulevard frontage improvements, staff agreed that some clarification could be provided about
the timing of the improvements, so she recommended adding a new condition (No. 38) to clarify that the
Brentwood Boulevard frontage improvements on this site be completed prior to the first residential building
permit or something similar to that, which could be provided by Mr. Kersevan.


                                                       11
Commissioner Stirling thought that the mitigation measures previously required improvements to be done
by a certain time, using the Grant Street/Sunset Road intersection as an example (Condition No. 30).

Mr. Dhaliwal explained that in Condition No. 30, the design of that intersection would need to be
completed within 12 months of City Council approval and the City would be responsible for the actual
construction.

Commissioner Stirling was concerned that the improvements wouldn’t be constructed in time.

Chairman Weber asked Mr. Sanson to reply to Commissioner Stirling’s concerns.

Mr. Dave Sanson said the frontage improvements would be done along with the actual development. He
said in regards to the offsite improvements, the project would have a cumulative impact on the build out of
Brentwood Boulevard for the year 2030 and what was established was that those improvements would be
done by the City through CIP projects. Mr. Sanson talked about the percentage requirements, basically
through fee-outs, and explained that as soon as the applicant paid the traffic impact fees, those would
cover the mitigation costs associated with the development. Mr. Sanson said that condition number
38 indicated a timeframe of "within 12 months after City Council approval". He explained that Paul
Eldredge of the City’s Public Works Department wanted "date certain" that as soon as the applicant was
entitled, they would have to start with the design process so that the City could then bid out and apply for
the matching funds that are required through the CIP to do those mitigations.

Mr. Onate explained that the reason why the applicant spent 5 hours that day with the City was because
the applicant had responded to the EIR and the City informed the applicant that the changes that they
requested could be addressed in the conditions of approval.

Chairman Weber said that he went out to Brentwood Boulevard earlier in the day, over by the Speedy
Lube, and stood on the sidewalk and looked east. He felt that all 65 acres of the project were
complimentary to one another, because it fit all the needs of residential, retail and job centers. Chairman
Weber wanted the members of the public to understand, since most were not in attendance at the March
workshop, was the architecture that was involved and the incredibly beautiful high standards in which the
project would be developed. Chairman Weber wanted to make sure that the parking standards were
retained and not minimized to 1:250 and was happy to see that compact parking was minimized.
Chairman Weber felt that residential units were needed, whether Medium or High Density, and the
possibility of having a community college campus in the development would be quite complimentary.
Chairman Weber was disappointed with the way apartment dwellers were referred to during the public
comment. He spoke about the crime-related issues that the neighbors were experiencing and urged
the residents to address those concerns with Council. Chairman Weber talked about the connectivity of
the development with the future Barrington Development, fire station and school site and now it would be
betterment for the City that he was willing to patiently wait for and hoped that it would actually happen. Mr.
Weber stated that Planned Development 55 had no designations for parks. He understood that the Parks
and Recreation Commission was in favor of more park area, however was not sure whether the parks
could be sustained financially.

Commissioner Stirling wanted to hear the Commission’s thoughts on the number of acres that would be
designated as Very High Density housing (10 - 33 acres) in the General Plan Amendment.

There was a consensus among the members of the Commission that the number of areas be capped at
10 acres and that they be relegated to Subarea 4.

Commissioner Stirling asked how the Commission felt about the Mid-Range Density.

Commissioner Cushing asked Planner Nolthenius for clarification on the Mid-Range Density.

Planner Nolthenius explained that Very High Density would pertain to apartments (Subarea 4, for


                                                     12
example), and all of the other subareas would be subject to the Mid-Range requirement or policy.

There was a consensus among the members of the Commission to remove the apartment
designations from Subareas 2B, 3B, 6 and 7B.

Motion to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 09-013 of the City of Brentwood recommending
that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report, including findings of fact and a
statement of overriding considerations related to cumulative air quality impacts, and adopt the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Sciortino Ranch project, located on approximately 65 acres directly
east of the Sand Creek Road and Brentwood Boulevard intersection (APN 016-170-012 and 016-170-
013), with the following change: 1.) Add "WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the
mitigation measures related to transportation impacts in the Final EIR that have been substituted with
mitigation measures that are equivalent or more effective, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section
15074.1; and".

Moved by Stirling; seconded by Cushing.

Vote:        4-0-1-0
Yes:         Cushing, Stirling, Gildersleeve and Weber
No:
Abstain:     Bristow
Absent:

Motion to approve Planning Commission Resolution 09-014 of the City of Brentwood recommending that
the City Council approve a General Plan Amendment (GPA 09-01) to modify the Land Use Element
related to the text for Special Planning Area A, and make the associated change to the Land use Map, for
the Sciortino Ranch project, located on approximately 65 acres directly east of the Sand Creek Road and
Brentwood Boulevard Intersection (APN 016-170-012 and 016-170-013), with the following changes: 1.)
to cap the Very High Density at 10 acres and leaving apartments in Subarea 4, and 2.) add the word
"limited" back into the General Plan Amendment for light industrial uses.

Moved by Stirling; seconded by Cushing.

Vote:        4-0-1-0
Yes:         Cushing, Stirling, Gildersleeve and Weber
No:
Abstain:     Bristow
Absent:

Motion to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 09-015 of the City of Brentwood recommending
that the City Council approve a rezone (RZ 06-13) to establish a list of allowable uses and development
standards, including site-specific design guidelines, for the PD-55 Zone in order to accommodate the
Sciortino Ranch project, located on approximately 65 acres directly east of the Sand Creek Road and
Brentwood Boulevard intersection (APN 016-170-012 and 016-170-013) with the following changes: 1.)
Add that Subarea 4 be capped at 10 acres of Very High Density apartments and to remove apartments
from all other subareas, and 2.) make the following changes to Exhibit B of the Resolution: Pg. 6 - delete
this bullet, Pg. 7 - delete this bullet, Pg. 19 - change this bullet to reflect a maximum building height of 50',
Pg. 34 - change this bullet to delete the second sentence regarding building orientation, Pg. 80 - change
this bullet to delete the first sentence regarding pedestrian gates, Pg. 81 - change this bullet to specify a
minimum offset of 2' and to delete the second sentence regarding the number of building elevations, Pg.
88 - change this bullet to delete the first sentence regarding Alternative 1, Pg. 129 - delete this bullet, Pg.
145 - change this bullet to specify a minimum buffer zone of 3', Pg. 147 - change this bullet to specify a
minimum buffer zone of 3', Pg. 154 - change this bullet to add at the end of the sentence "unless hand-
laid masonry walls are utilized to screen said garages", Pg. 155 - change this bullet to add at the end of




                                                       13
   the sentence "unless hand-laid masonry walls are utilized to screen said garages", and Pg. 167 - delete
   this bullet.

   Moved by Cushing; seconded by Stirling.

   Vote:      4-0-1-0
   Yes:       Cushing, Stirling, Gildersleeve and Weber
   No:
   Abstain:   Bristow
   Absent:

   Motion to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 09-016 of the City of Brentwood approving a
   tentative subdivision map (TSM 9152) to subdivide approximately 65 acres into 11 parcels for future
   mixed-use development in accordance with the Sciortino Ranch project, located directly east of the Sand
   Creek Road and Brentwood Boulevard intersection (APN 016-170-012 and 016-170-013), as revised by
   staff.

   Moved by Stirling; seconded by Cushing.

   Vote:       4-0-1-0
   Yes:        Cushing, Stirling, Gildersleeve and Weber
   No:
   Abstain:    Bristow
   Absent:

   Chairman Weber explained the appeal process.

   Commissioner Bristow returned to the Council Chambers at this time.


OLD BUSINESS

None.


INFORMATIONAL REPORTS FROM STAFF

None.


MEETING SCHEDULE

                                                  Weber - Primary           May 14, 2009
         Transplan Committee
                                                  Bristow - Alternate       (2nd Thursday of every month)



                                                                            April 23, 2009
         Design Review Subcommittee               Stirling & Gildersleeve   May 14, 2009
                                                                            (2nd & 4th Thursday of every month)



                                                                            May 4, 2009
         Land Use & Development Committee         Cushing & Bristow         May 18, 2009
                                                                            (1st and 3rd Monday of every month)


                                                     14
There were no meetings to discuss.

REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

Commissioner Cushing requested a presentation regarding the crime elements in the City.

Chairman Weber asked Lt. Tolero if the Commission could receive a presentation from the Police Department
on some of the criminal activity that occurs in the City. He requested that the presentation be on
activity across a 3-year period.

Lt. Tolero agreed to do that for the Commission.

Commissioner Stirling asked for a round of applause for the Landscaping Award that was presented to
Director of Parks and Recreation Craig Bronzan.


ADJOURNMENT

    Motion to adjourn the April 21, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting.

    Moved by Weber; no second required.

Chairman Weber adjourned the Planning Commission meeting in memory of Mr. Bill Bristow, who served the
community for many years and has left behind an imprint on so many people.

Commissioner Bristow thanked the Commission and staff, on behalf of his family, for its support and well
wishes.

There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m.

The next Regular Planning Commission Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, May 5, 2009, at 7:00 PM.

Respectfully submitted,


Christie Pollock
Administrative Secretary




                                                      15
                                                                            Attachment No. 11




Memo
         To:     Casey McCann, Director of Community Development
         From:   Craig Bronzan, Director of Parks and Recreation
         CC:     Erik Nolthenius, Principal Planner
         Date:   May 21, 2009
         Re:     Sciortino Ranch Appeal



Condition of Approval #53
Condition of Approval #53 as written by staff and approved by the Planning Commission is as follows:
“Urban plazas, village greens, landscape paseos, private recreation spaces, and open space areas are
encouraged as a part of the development; however, they are not fee creditable for park development
fees, nor can they be counted as park acreage under the City’s standard of 5-acres per 1,000 population
if they do not meet City park standards.”

The developer is asking that the above mentioned areas be fee creditable in the Development Fee
Program and count toward City park acreage even though they would not meet City park
standards.

Throughout the discussions with staff on this project, the applicant has indicated that the nature of the
project requires flexibility and a new way of looking at how parks are designed and built. The applicant
                                                                                     st
has stressed that this “in-fill” project reflects a new way of thinking related to 21 Century modern urban
development. The applicant has also indicated that by inference, Parks and Recreation staff and the
Park and Recreation Commission “do not design” and that we “only react to individual codes” as we “do
not pick up a pen to design (or a shovel to build)”. These statements can’t be farther from the truth as it
relates to park design and construction in Brentwood.

Over the past decade, the Parks and Recreation Department and Park and Recreation Commission have
been responsible for the design and approval of over 40 park projects, of which ten of the projects were
City-led projects where design and construction were City responsibilities. As a result, through the public
planning and design process, park standards have been developed over time that reflect the type of park
spaces that the community wants and needs as a result of new development in Brentwood.

Department staff are supportive of urban plazas, village greens, landscape paseos, private recreation
spaces, and open space areas as a part of this development as they are appropriate elements of modern
          Parks & Recreation Administrative Offices – 740 Third Street, Brentwood, CA 94513
                Parks & Recreation Main Office – 730 Third Street, Brentwood, CA 94513
                Parks Maintenance – 2251 Elkins Way, Building B, Brentwood, CA 94513
          City of Brentwood Family Aquatic Complex – 195 Griffith Lane, Brentwood, CA 94513
                             Phone: (925) 516-5444 Fax: (925) 516-5445
urban development. However, staff also believes that the developer needs to meet the park needs for the
future residents as has been met in previous developments.

Park and Recreation Commission Review
As a part of the review process, the applicant made a presentation to the Park and Recreation
Commission related to their request to “change” park standards. The Commission confirmed their
support for the areas presented as a part of the development, but not in place of the necessary park
requirement or park standards. This unanimous recommendation was forwarded on to the Planning
Commission who supported the recommendation of the Park and Recreation Commission and staff
through their approval.

Regardless of the staff recommendations and approval by the Commissions, the developer is still asking
to change park standards and what is fee creditable. The specific standards that the developer has
asked to change relate to park spaces having to be a minimum of ½ acre in size, a minimum of 100 feet
wide, and getting credit for private recreation spaces which are not City owned or controlled.

Conditions of Approval - Background
Condition of Approval #53 wasn’t written in a vacuum nor just based on how the City has done things in
the past. Staff has built flexibility into two other park conditions that will assist this development if it has
difficultly meeting City park standards. One will allow the developer to fee out of the community park
component (approximately 1/3 of park acreage) if they cannot meet City standards. It still requires the
construction of neighborhood parks to City standards. The City will then have the responsibility of
building additional community-wide parks, like Sunset Park. Staff would rather not have to take on this
responsibility but agrees that” in-fill” development may require a different way of meeting community
serving parks.

A second condition allows, with City approval, the developer to use City property to assist with clean
water treatment requirements. As we are all concerned in the conservation of water and how it is treated
before entering creeks or the storm drain system, the City is willing to work with the developer in the
design process to see if landscape areas can be used for both plantings and clean water treatment areas.
As long as it doesn’t limit or detract from landscape and park spaces, the City is willing to work together
on clean water requirements.

Related to the placement and designing of parks, staff and both Commissions agree that park standards
as set by the City need to be met. While it may be usual for urban developments to provide park space
through plazas, paseos, village greens, and private recreation space, these spaces are traditionally too
small to provide typical park amenities and are more expensive to maintain. The experience the City has
related to small park areas shows that they are important parts in a subdivision development; however,
they do not function for the residents as usable parks and are very expensive to maintain. Related to
expenses, developers are willing to put these maintenance costs in the corresponding Lighting and
Landscape District. However, these costs still get passed on to the resident and as a result, add a higher
burden on the homeowners to maintain small spaces.

The developer is also asking to change the City park standard of requiring a “minimum” of 100 feet in
width for park spaces to an “average” of 100 feet. This request is problematic in the sense that again,
small spaces are more expensive to maintain and areas less than 100 feet wide do not allow for the
planning of any park amenities. These connectors serve a function to allow access between parcels,
which are important but should not be considered park spaces as they cannot be used by the public as a
park.

Surrounding Area
The area of Brentwood that this development is being proposed in is already below the City’s standard of
park acreage and amenities for neighborhood parks. Allowing the developer to provide what are
considered below Brentwood park standards would add to the problem. As this site is in excess of 60
acres, it is difficult to figure why adequate park space cannot be provided even though it is an “in-fill” type
of project. Staff understands that small properties that are “in-fill” may have a difficult time meeting park
requirements, but a development this size should be able to meet City standards and park requirements.


          Parks & Recreation Administrative Offices – 740 Third Street, Brentwood, CA 94513
                Parks & Recreation Main Office – 730 Third Street, Brentwood, CA 94513
                Parks Maintenance – 2251 Elkins Way, Building B, Brentwood, CA 94513
          City of Brentwood Family Aquatic Complex – 195 Griffith Lane, Brentwood, CA 94513
                             Phone: (925) 516-5444 Fax: (925) 516-5445
The spaces that the developer is recommending for park fee credit will not provide adequate park space
for the residents to use. Furthermore, the costs of these inadequate spaces will be maintained by
assessments on the residents at a higher assessment level due to the small economy of scale. These
types of areas in many urban environments are paid for by the commercial development. In this
development, the proposal is for the residents to pay the costs of maintenance of these spaces as if they
were parks.

Numerous residents of the area have attended meetings of both the Park and Recreation Commission
and the Planning Commission asking for the same standards for parks that the City has approved and
built in the other parts of Brentwood.

Private Recreation Space – Not Allowed in Development Fee Program
The request to allow private recreation spaces for fee credit and park acreage count creates two
problems for the City. First, as per the City’s Development Fee Program, the City does not provide fee
credit for improvements to property that the City does not own. Unless the City revises the Development
Fee Program, the City cannot give fee credit for private recreation space. The second problem relates to
access by the general public. City parks are open to anyone who wants to use the park. Private
recreation space can be limited as to who can use the space, something that conflicts with the open
nature of City parks. It also raises the possibility where the surrounding residents will actively expect the
City to monitor who can and can’t use the private space, something the City is not prepared to do.

The City has not allowed any credit or calculation for park space in the past for private recreation space,
which includes the gated communities of Apple Hill, Summerset, and the Vineyards at Marsh Creek.
Each gated community provides recreation space behind their gates and has also been required by the
City to provide public park space outside for public use.

Summary
Though staff and two Commissions support the use of urban plazas, village greens, landscape paseos,
private recreation spaces, and open spaces, they do not believe they should get development fee credits
or count as park spaces in the City’s standard of 5-acres per 1,000 population. Staff understands that
there may be new influences on this development that have not happened in the past. However, the
Conditions of Approval as approved by the Planning Commission do provide flexibility for the
development to meet neighborhood park standards and work with the City on community serving parks
and clean water requirements.




          Parks & Recreation Administrative Offices – 740 Third Street, Brentwood, CA 94513
                Parks & Recreation Main Office – 730 Third Street, Brentwood, CA 94513
                Parks Maintenance – 2251 Elkins Way, Building B, Brentwood, CA 94513
          City of Brentwood Family Aquatic Complex – 195 Griffith Lane, Brentwood, CA 94513
                             Phone: (925) 516-5444 Fax: (925) 516-5445
Attachment No. 12
Attachment No. 13
                              CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 29



Meeting Date: May 26, 2009

Subject/Title:   An appeal by the applicant, Dan Mercado, of the Planning Commission denial
                 of an application for a conditional use permit (CUP 08-33) to allow the
                 operation of a landscaping contracting business at a single-family residential
                 property located at 430 Lone Oak Court (APN 016-080-018).

Prepared by:     Jeff Zilm, Senior Planner

Submitted by: Casey McCann, Community Development Director


RECOMMENDATION

Act on the appeal by taking one of the two alternatives listed in the Alternatives section.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:

At the meeting of March 17, 2009 the Planning Commission denied (4-1 with Chairman Weber
voting against) a conditional use permit (CUP 08-33) application to allow Dan Mercado to
operate Mercado Landscaping out of a single-family residence located at 430 Lone Oak Court.

At its meeting of May 12, 2009 the City Council continued the appeal to the City Council
meeting of May 26, 2009.

DISCUSSION:

The site is 0.78 acre in size and located at 430 Lone Oak Court. The property backs up to
Marsh Creek Channel and fronts Lone Oak Court. There is a 1,140 sq. ft. house with an
attached carport and a 3,000 sq. ft. accessory building located on-site. The house is located on
the east side and the accessory building is located on the west side of the property. Access to
the site is via the two driveways from Lone Oak Court. One driveway serves the house and the
accessory building and one driveway only serves the accessory building.

For a more detailed description of the property, please see the attached March 17, 2009
Planning Commission staff report.
2
ne Oak Court
 e Oak Court




                                                                                          420
                                                                                          420
     440
     440




                                                     43 0
                                                     43




                                                                         ll
                                                                      nne
                                                                     nne
                                                              ek
                                                               k C a
                                                                 C ha
                                                    sh
                                                     h   Ce
                                                         C re
 430 Lone Oak Court Overview

 At the end of 2008, Mr. Mercado, applied for a home occupation permit to operate the business
 at this residentially-zoned property located at 430 Lone Oak Court. The permit was not
 approved, as staff determined that the business did not comply with the applicable provisions of
 the Municipal Code (Section 17.840) regulating home occupation, specifically: 1) this business
 had employees coming to the site creating vehicular traffic in excess of the amount normally
 generated by residential use, 2) the business operation was not conducted in only one room or
 less than 20% of the house and 3) commercial vehicles were being stored on-site. Mr. Mercado
 was informed that since his application did not comply with the home occupation regulations he
 could file for a conditional use permit to allow the continued operation of the business in its
 current form.

 Section 17.650.003 of the Brentwood Municipal Code allows and regulates certain uses
 accessory to principle uses. The section includes a list of permitted and conditionally permitted
 accessory uses and also includes a general proviso for the granting of conditional use permits
 for those accessory uses not specifically called out in the section. The CUP at issue falls into
 this latter category. If certain findings can be made, a business may operate from the property,
 as long as it remains an accessory use to the principal use of the property as a residence, and
 that it does not have any adverse impact on the surrounding properties.

 On September 30, 2008, the applicant submitted a conditional use permit application.
 Conditionally permitted uses are those uses which, by their nature, require special consideration
 so that they may be located properly with respect to the objectives of the Municipal Code and


                                                3
with respect to their effects on surrounding uses and properties. A conditional use permit may
be granted only if the proposal conforms to all of the general criteria, as well as to all other
applicable specific criteria. When a project cannot adhere to all of the conditional use permit
general criteria, then the Planning Commission has the power to deny the application.

On March 17, 2009, Conditional Use Permit No. 08-33 was presented to the Planning
Commission. At that public hearing the adjacent neighbor, who lives at 420 Lone Oak Court,
submitted and read a letter to the Planning Commission expressing her concerns about
Mercado Landscaping locating next door to her residence. Also at that meeting another
neighbor, who lives at 431 Lone Oak Court, spoke to the Planning Commission about his
concerns with the landscaping business locating across the street from his residence.

The staff report for this item included a recommendation to approve the conditional use permit
on the basis that the proposal is consistent with the required CUP criteria. The analysis and
recommended conditions of approval are on pages 14-16 of the attached March 17th report.

The Commission expressed concern that in this case the scale, size, and intensity of the on-site
business was greater than that of the actual residence and residential use. Additionally, the
Commission noted that the residence was being occupied by company employees, rather than
owner-occupied. There was also discussion about whether this type of commercial use is
appropriate in an area zoned Ranchette Estate.

After much deliberation the Planning Commission voted to deny the application.

On March 26, 2009 the applicant, Mr. Mercado, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s
decision to deny his conditional use permit application. Mr. Mercado stated the Planning
Commission basically ignored the analysis and findings made in the staff report and did not
focus its discussion on issues that related to the criteria for approving a conditional use permit,
but rather focused on the criteria for approving a home occupation permit and whether Mr.
Mercado exercised “due diligence” when he purchased his property. A full copy of the appeal is
included as Attachment 2.

It is important to note that staff reports do not make findings, as staff is not the finder of fact for
land use decisions. Rather, the staff report provides analysis and information for the decision-
making body’s consideration. In this case, the Planning Commission did not agree with the staff
recommendation and voted to deny the CUP.

The City Council hears land use appeals de novo, which means the Council hears the entire
item from the beginning, as if it were never heard, and has to make findings for denial or
approval of the appeal. In its deliberation the Council should consider the following findings
which are necessary to approve a conditional use permit:

   1. The location size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed development
      must be compatible with and must not adversely affect the livability of appropriate
      development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood.

   2.   Harmony in scale, bulk, coverage and density.

   3. The availability of public facilities and utilities.




                                                    4
   4. The harmful effect, if any, upon desirable neighborhood character or the planned
      specialization of retail, commercial or community service areas.

   5. Generation of additional traffic and the capacity of surrounding streets.

   6. The location, design, landscaping and screening, and overall site planning of the
      proposed development will not provide an attractive, useful and convenient living,
      working, shopping or community-service.

In addition the Council should consider whether or not this landscape contracting business is an
accessory use to the primary use of the property as a residence as required by Brentwood
Municipal Code 17.650.003.

If the Council can make all of the required findings it should approve the CUP. However if one
or more of the findings cannot be made the Council must deny it. The attached resolutions
include findings for both approval and denial of the CUP, contingent on the City Council’s
determination.

ALTERNATIVES

If the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission decision to deny the permit, it is
recommended that the attached Resolution to deny the appeal, make certain findings and
uphold the decision to deny the CUP be adopted.

If the Council does not concur with the Planning Commission decision to deny the permit, it is
recommended that the attached Resolution to approve the appeal, make findings and overturn
the decision to deny the CUP be adopted.

FISCAL IMPACT

The applicant paid the required $126 appeal fee.

Attachments:
    1. Resolution to deny
    2. Resolution to approve
    3. The staff report and minutes for the March 17, 2009 Planning Commission meeting
    4. Appeal application received from Dan Mercado, dated March 26, 2009




                                               5
                                      RESOLUTION NO.

       A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD DENYING
       AN APPEAL, FILED BY DAN MERCADO, AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE
       PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-33 TO
       ALLOW THE OPERATION OF A LANDSCAPING BUSINESS OUT OF A SINGLE-
       FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 430 LONE OAK COURT (APN 016-080-018).

       WHEREAS, Dan Mercado has submitted an application requesting approval to allow the
operation of a landscaping business out of a single-family residence; and

       WHEREAS, at its regular meeting of March 17, 2009, the Planning Commission
considered the staff report, supporting documents, public testimony, and all appropriate
information that has been submitted with the proposed project; and

       WHEREAS, at its regular meeting of March 17, 2009, the Planning Commission denied,
with a motion, Conditional Use Permit No. 08-33 to allow the operation of a landscaping
business out of a single-family residence located at 430 Lone Oak Court; and

       WHEREAS, on March 26, 2009, Dan Mercado for Mercado Landscaping, filed an appeal
of the Planning Commission motion denying Conditional Use Permit No. 08-33 to allow the
operation of a landscaping business out of a single-family residence located at 430 Lone Oak
Court; and

       WHEREAS, on April 14, 2009, the City Council set May 12, 2009, as the date of public
hearing for the appeal; and

       WHEREAS, on May 12, 2009, the City Council held a noticed public hearing and
considered the appeal, including all supporting information and testimony presented at the City
Council meeting; and

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

       A.     Make the following findings in relation to Conditional Use Permit No. 08-33:

               1. The harmony in scale, bulk, coverage and density of the proposed project is
                  not consistent and compatible with the existing land uses around the subject
                  site because the applicant would be operating a landscaping business on
                  property zoned Ranchette Estate for large lot single-family residences.

               2. There would be a harmful effect upon the desirable neighborhood character
                  with approval of this permit because the applicant would be using this site as
                  a staging area for the landscape business allowing employees to come to the
                  site on a daily basis for work assignments, park their personal cars on-site,
                  and store business trucks, equipment and materials on-site.

               3. The generation of additional traffic would be not be minimal because the
                  applicant normally employs nine people and during the peak of the season
                  (May–Oct.) that number could go as high as 18 employees. The employees
                  will arrive each day around 6:45 a.m., get their job assignment and leave for


                                               1
                the job site in the company trucks by 7:30 a.m. They will return to the site by
                4:45 p.m., drop off the company trucks and leave for home by 5:00 p.m.

             4. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed
                development are not compatible with and adversely affect the livability of
                appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding
                neighborhood because the applicant will not be using this property primarily
                as a residence, but as a staging and storing area for the landscaping
                business and its employees.

             5. The location, design, landscaping and screening, and overall site planning of
                the proposed development will not provide an attractive, useful and
                convenient living, working, shopping or community-service area because this
                area has been zoned RE Ranchette Estates for large lot residential
                development and not for commercial businesses with employees, trucks and
                materials stored on-site.

             6. The landscaping business is not accessory to the use of the property as a
                residence, but, rather, is the primary use.

      B.    Denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission’s decision to deny
            Conditional Use Permit No. 08-33 to allow the operation of a landscaping
            business out of a single-family residence located at 430 Lone Oak Court (APN
            016-080-018).

       PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at
a regular meeting held on the 26th day of May, 2009 by the following vote:




                                             2
                                      RESOLUTION NO.

       A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
       APPROVING AN APPEAL, FILED BY DAN MERCADO, AND OVERTURNING THE
       DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE
       PERMIT NO. 08-33 TO ALLOW THE OPERATION OF A LANDSCAPING BUSINESS
       OUT OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 430 LONE OAK COURT
       (APN 016-080-018).

       WHEREAS, Dan Mercado has submitted an application requesting approval to allow the
operation of a landscaping business out of a single-family residence; and

       WHEREAS, at its regular meeting of March 17, 2009, the Planning Commission
considered the staff report, supporting documents, public testimony, and all appropriate
information that has been submitted with the proposed project; and

       WHEREAS, at its regular meeting of March 17, 2009, the Planning Commission denied,
with a motion, Conditional Use Permit No. 08-33 to allow the operation of a landscaping
business out of a single-family residence located at 430 Lone Oak Court; and

       WHEREAS, on March 26, 2009, Dan Mercado for Mercado Landscaping, filed an appeal
of the Planning Commission motion denying Conditional Use Permit No. 08-33 to allow the
operation of a landscaping business out of a single-family residence located at 430 Lone Oak
Court; and

       WHEREAS, on April 14, 2009, the City Council set May 12, 2009, as the date of public
hearing for the appeal; and

       WHEREAS, on May 12, 2009, the City Council held a noticed public hearing and
considered the appeal, including all supporting information and testimony presented at the City
Council meeting; and

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

       A.     Hereby makes the following findings:

              1. The harmony in scale, bulk, coverage and density of the proposed project is
                 consistent with and compatible to the existing and proposed land uses
                 around the subject site as the applicant is not proposing to remodel the
                 existing buildings or construct any new buildings on-site in order to be
                 architecturally consistent with the surrounding neighbors.

              2. The availability of public facilities and utilities is adequate to serve the
                 proposed use, in that the site has the appropriate public facilities and utilities
                 need to serve the resident and business.

              3. There would be no harmful effect upon the desirable neighborhood character
                 with approval of this permit Mercado Landscaping will be using this site as a
                 staging area for its employees. They will arrive each day around 6:45 a.m.,
                 get their job assignment and leave for the job site by 7:30 a.m. They will


                                                1
          return to the site by 4:45 p.m. and leave to go home by 5:00 p.m. The
          employees will park their cars in a designated parking area on-site and
          behind a six-foot high wood fence. No one will be working at this site during
          the day. There will be no delivers or receiving of materials made to this site
          and all equipment and supplies, with the exception of the work trucks, will be
          placed in the warehouse.

     4. The subject site will have adequate pedestrian and vehicular circulation and
        parking available, in that the site is served by two access points, a main
        driveway providing access to the residence and warehouse and a secondary
        driveway which would only provide access to the rear of the warehouse
        however this access point is not being used at this time, so all access to the
        site will be from the main driveway.

     5.    The generation of additional traffic would be minimal due to the capacity of
          the surrounding streets being able to adequately handle the proposed
          increase in use, as Mercado Landscaping normally employs nine people and
          during the peak of the season (May –Oct.) that number could go as high as
          15 employees. The employees will arrive each day around 6:45 a.m., get
          their job assignment and leave for the job site in the company trucks by 7:30
          a.m. They will return to the site by 4:45 p.m., drop off the company trucks
          and leave for home by 5:00 p.m.

     6. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed
        development are compatible with and do not adversely affect the livability of
        appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding
        neighborhood because Mercado Landscaping will not be increasing the
        square footage of the existing residential unit or warehouse, they are
        proposing a business operation that will be smaller in scale than the three
        other business that currently operate, across the street and up the street from
        the proposed project site, and there has been a cabinet making shop, a
        concrete company, a boat repair service and pool construction company that
        has used or operated out of the proposed project site since 1968.

     7. The location, design, landscaping and screening, and overall site planning of
        the proposed development will provide an attractive, useful and convenient
        living, working, shopping or community-service area because this area has
        been zoned RE Ranchette Estates for large lot residential development for
        many years and that several large scaled home based construction
        businesses are in operation in close proximity to the project site, the size and
        scale of the proposed project should not adversely affect the livability of the
        surrounding properties.

     8. The proposed conditional use permit has been processed in accordance with
        the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the
        California Environmental Quality Act.

B.   Hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 08-33, subject to the following
     conditions:




                                       2
1. The proposed project shall be established and continuously operated in
   substantial conformance with the written narrative dated “Received October
   21, 2008”, unless otherwise amended by the conditions of approval contained
   herein. Minor changes to the operations may be allowed subject to the
   approval of the Community Development Director if found to be in substantial
   conformance with the approved plans.

2. This use is required to comply with these conditions of approval as long as
   the use is in operation at the approved site. As such, the site shall be
   available for periodic re-inspections, conducted at the discretion of City
   officials, to verify compliance.

3. The applicant shall obtain all required State and County permits and licenses
   prior to commencement of operations and shall submit copies to the
   Community Development Department.

4. The applicant shall install a double row of trees along the front yard fence line
   to help reduce the visual impact from the street and adjacent residents. This
   double row of trees shall be a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees,
   planted a maximum of 30 feet on center with understory shrubs and
   groundcover, to help ensure that there will be foliage in place year round and
   enough coverage to help screen the business activity and warehouse from
   view. A landscaping plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the
   Community Development Director, along with the applicable plan check and
   inspection fees.

5. The applicant shall install a single row of trees along the along the easterly
   and westerly property lines to help reduce the visual impact from the adjacent
   neighbors. These two rows of trees shall be an alternating mixture of
   deciduous and evergreen trees, planted 30 feet on center, once again to help
   ensure that there will be foliage in place year round and enough coverage to
   help screen the business activity and warehouse from view. A landscaping
   plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community
   Development Director, along with the applicable plan check and inspection
   fees.

6. The applicant shall be limited to a maximum of 15 employees operating out of
   this site.

7.    No employees shall arrive for work prior to 6:45 a.m. and must leave the site
     by 5:00 p.m. Monday – Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturday and never
     on Sunday. No employee shall be left working at the site during the week.

8. The applicant shall store as much of the equipment and materials and
   supplies as possible within the warehouse. The company trucks shall be
   parked within the parking area when not in use. The employees shall park
   within the designated on-site parking area.

9. The existing residence shall be occupied full-time by the owner or an
   employee of the business to ensure that the primary use remains residential



                                  3
               and the occupant of the residence is related to the business and can address
               issues on-site.

            10. The applicant shall not install any signage advertising the landscaping
                business at this site.

            11. If operation of this use results in conflicts pertaining to parking, noise, traffic,
                trash, security, lighting, roadway deterioration, or other impacts, at the
                discretion of the Community Development Director, this conditional use
                permit may be referred to the Planning Commission for subsequent review at
                a public hearing. If necessary, the Commission may modify or add conditions
                of approval to mitigate such impacts, or may revoke said conditional use
                permit based upon applicable findings.

       PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at
a regular meeting held on the 26th day of May, 2009 by the following vote:




                                               4
                                                               Attachment No. 3


                              STAFF REPORT

                  PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF

                              MARCH 17, 2009



PREPARED BY:                      Jeff Zilm, Senior Planner
                                  jzilm@ci.brentwood.ca.us

AGENDA ITEM & FILE NUMBER:        Item No. 3; CUP No. 08-33

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:              An application for a conditional use permit to allow
                                  the operation of a landscaping business out of a
                                  single-family residence located at 430 Lone Oak
                                  Court (APN 016-080-018).

DATE OF NOTICE:                   A public hearing notice was published in the
                                  Brentwood Press and mailed to property owners
                                  within 300 feet of the site on March 6, 2009

ACREAGE:                          0.78 acres

ZONING:                           Ranchette Estate (RE) Zone

GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:         Ranchette Estate (0-1 du/ac, midrange 0.5 du/ac)

OWNER/APPLICANT:                  Dan Mercado

PREVIOUS ACTION:                  None
BACKGROUND:
Home Occupation Permits

Every year the City approves hundreds of Home Occupation Permits that allow Brentwood
residents to conduct a business from their home pursuant to provisions in Chapter 17.840 Home
Occupation Permit of the Brentwood Municipal Code (BMC), which prescribes a permitting
procedure to control the conduct of certain small home-based businesses and other activities as
accessory uses in the City’s residential neighborhoods. The BMC defines a home occupation
as a commercial or other activity conducted in a home by the resident thereof which activity is
clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the home as a residence and which exhibits no
external evidence of the activity and will not change the residential character of the dwelling.
Specific criteria as to the activities permitted, as well as those prohibited, are included in the
ordinance. The intent of these regulations is to ensure that the operation of the business from
the home does not change the character of the residential neighborhood.

The specific activities prohibited by a business operating with a Home Occupation Permit
include:

   A. The employment within the home of any person, other than an inhabitant of the home;

   B. The use of more than one room or the equivalent of twenty percent of the floor area of
      the dwelling unit, whichever is greater. If the home occupation is conducted within a
      garage or accessory building, the doors shall be closed at all times;

   C. The use of equipment powered by motors of more than a total of one horsepower
      capacity or the equivalent thereof;

   D. The display of any trade in stock;

   E. The generation of vehicular or pedestrian traffic in excess of that associated with the
      residential use, except as provided in Section 17.840.009;

   F. Creation of any radio or television interference or creation of any noise greater than the
      noise performance standards established in Section 17.200.004;

   G. The emission of odor or gaseous, liquid or solid waste;

   H. The display of signs or advertising devices identifying the home occupation or any
      outside display or window display of materials or products;

   I.   Any commercial retail sales on the premises;

   J. The storage or use of commercial vehicles for delivery to or from the premises, other
      than one vehicle not to exceed one-ton capacity, owned by the occupant of the home;

   K. Any external alteration of the appearance of the dwelling unit in which the home
      occupation is conducted;

   L. The use of yard space or any activity outside the main or accessory building which is not
      normally associated with a residents use.

The Planning Division is charged with the review and processing of home occupation permits.
The resident applies for the permit and must agree to operate the use in compliance with the


                                                2
above provisions. The permit is good for a period of one year and may be renewed for a three-
year period thereafter. Little monitoring, except on a complaint basis, is done to ensure that
these businesses continue to operate in the manner prescribed above.

Accessory Uses

These Home Occupation Permits, authorizing limited business operations in a residentially-
zoned area, are considered as uses ancillary to the principal use of the property as a residence.
Home Occupations are referenced as one of five uses accessory to a residential use in Chapter
17.650 Accessory and Service Uses. The five uses include home occupations, storage of
goods normally found within a home, outdoor play equipment and other amenities, rooming and
boarding, and transient housing with a conditional use permit. Other accessory uses that may
be conducted on the site of a commercial use, such as employee cafeteria, are included as well.
These provisions are meant to address those incidental and subordinate uses which are
customarily associated with and appropriately located on the same lot as the principal use.

However, there is also a general proviso for accessory uses not specifically called in the
particular zoning district as permitted uses to be operated subject to the granting of a
conditional use permit. As part of the conditional use permit review, the Commission would
need to find that the project would not have any potential adverse impact on the surrounding
properties. Therefore, if a business were not able to meet the operating criteria established in
the City’s Home Occupation Permit, a conditional use permit may be applied for the business to
operate from the property, as long as it remains an accessory use to the principal use of the
property as a residence, and that it does not have any adverse impact on the surrounding
properties.

Mercado Landscaping

Prior to November 14, 2000 this property was located within the unincorporated area of Contra
Costa County and designated in the County General Plan as single-family residential low at
densities between 1 and 29 du/ac. The City of Brentwood’s 1993 General Plan showed this site
to be Very Low Residential Density (VL) at 1 to 3 du/ac with a mid-range of 2 du/ac

On November 14, 2000 the City Council approved an annexation to include all of the properties
located on Lone Oak Road. As part of that annexation the existing properties were zoned R-1-E
(Single-Family Residential Estate) providing for large single-family residential parcels in an
identifiable, suburban residential neighborhood and providing an area where single-family
residences and common facilities for large livestock may be located. The R-1-E zone allows a
density of 2 du/ac by right and up to maximum of 3 du/ac with a use permit. The minimum lot
size permitted by right for the R-1-E zones is 14,500 sq. ft. and 10,000 sq. ft. with a conditional
use permit.

On November 27, 2001, as part of the 2001 General Plan Update the zoning, for the properties
along Lone Oak Road, was changed from a R-1-E designation to a RE designation. The
purpose of the RE zone is to provide semirural residential areas to serve as a buffer or
transition between higher density urban residential development and productive agricultural
uses or adjacent urban communities and provide areas where single-family residences and
facilities for limited numbers of livestock and small farming operations may be located. The RE
zone allows a density of 0 – 1 du/ac and a mid-range of 0.5 du/ac. The minimum lot size
permitted in the RE zone is one acre.



                                                3
This project site was part of 24 acres that was purchased by Mr. Jackson in 1955, where he
lived until 1990. During that time he built the existing shops and ran a cabinet making business
out of the shops. Mr. Jackson’s son operated a concrete and foundation business from 1990 to
2008 and used the site mainly for maintaining equipment and the storage of concrete forms and
materials. The concrete and foundation business had 3 – 5 employees that would come and go
from this site on a regular basis.

From 1998 to 2003 Mr. Jackson’s son rented the house to a local boat builder who lived there
and would build and repair boats on-site. From 2003 to 2006 a local resident rented the shops
from Mr. Jackson’s son and used them for storage and deliveries for his business. From 2006
to 2007 the house was once again rented to someone who lived there and would repair boats
on site.

In the course of the City’s Code Enforcement officers’ day-to-day responses to citizen
complaints, the officers may encounter residents who are either unaware of the community’s
rules for obtaining a home occupation permit and running a business out of their home, or a
business, for a myriad of reasons, is not being operated in compliance with its approved Home
Occupation Permit.

Mr. Mercado purchased the site in March 2008 in order to establish a base location for his
landscaping business. In May 2008, the City of Brentwood’s Code Enforcement officer received
a call from a neighboring property owner informing the Code Enforcement officer that Mr.
Mercado was moving trucks, storage containers and dump trucks with trailers on to the
property. Code Enforcement staff went to the site and spoke with Mr. Mercado and informed
the neighbor that Mr. Mercado was just doing home improvements to the property. At the end
of May 2008 the neighbor, once again, called Code Enforcement to inform the officer that Mr.
Mercado had moved more equipment and materials on to the property and that he felt Mr.
Mercado was operating the landscaping business out of this property. The Code Enforcement
officer informed Mr. Mercado that he would need to apply for a Home Occupation permit to
operate his landscaping business at 430 Lone Oak Court given the site’s residential zoning.

On December 10, 2008 Mr. Mercado, applied for a home occupation permit to operate the
business out of the house at 430 Lone Oak Court. At that time staff could not give approval for
the home occupation permit because this business had employees coming to the site creating
vehicular traffic in excess of the amount normally generated by residential use, the business
operation was not conducted in only one room or less than 20% of the house and commercial
vehicles were being stored on-site. It was suggested to Mr. Mercado that since he could not
meet all of the home occupation regulations he may file for a conditional use permit to allow the
continued operation of the business in its current form.

As the owner purchased this property for the sole purpose of having a place to operate hi
landscaping business and does not desire to move the business operation from this property
and as such, it does not adhere to the requirements of the City’s Home Occupation ordinance,
they have the ability to apply for it as a conditional use in the residential zoning district under the
above-mentioned provisions of Chapter 17.650.003 Accessory, Temporary, and Service Uses.
This allows subject to conditional use permit approval any other use not specifically permitted or
determined by the zoning administrator to be similar to a use permitted within the zoning in
which it is proposed. The purpose of this chapter is to allow and regulate certain uses accessory
to principle uses and temporary and service uses within the various zones. Therefore, as the
applicant, Dan Mercado, does not desire to modify their current operations on the property to



                                                  4
adhere with the provisions for Home Occupations, they have opted to apply for a conditional use
permit to allow the retention of this use at their existing residence.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Dan Mercado Landscaping was established in 2001 and offers site planning, landscape design,
landscape construction (irrigation, drainage, planting, etc.), and concrete and masonry work.
They generally work on single-family dwellings in the local area completing 25-30 residential
projects however they do work on commercial projects completing 3-5 per year. The applicant
has requested approval of a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a landscaping
business out of a single-family residence located at 430 Lone Oak Court. The landscaping
business employs nine people, including a landscape designer. During peak season, May –
October, the business could employ up to 18 people. Most of the employees live in Brentwood.

The employees start arriving at the 430 Lone Oak Court at 6:45 a.m., get their job assignment
and work truck, then head out to the individual job sites by 7:30 a.m. The employees return to
the business site by 4:45 p.m. to drop off the work truck and then leave to go home by 5:00 p.m.
No employee remains at the business site to do any work during the day. Once every two
months there will be a yard clean up day where all of the employees are responsible for the in
clean up around the site. There are no pick-ups or deliveries made from this site. The business
operates on a Monday – Friday work schedule with an occasional Saturday work day (6-8 times
a year).

The site will be used to mainly store equipment, work trucks, a dump truck and work trailers.
The Bobcat tractors and smaller equipment will be stored inside the existing accessory
buildings. The employee’s vehicles will be parked in the on-site parking stalls. These parking
stalls are constructed of wood, have a roof and side panels, however there are no garage
doors. There is a 900 square foot single-family residential unit, located on-site, that will be
rented to one of the workers for their residence.

SITE DESCRIPTION:
The site is 0.78 acre in size and located at 430 Lone Oak Court. The property backs up to
Marsh Creek Channel and fronts Lone Oak Court. There is a 1,140 sq. ft. house with an
attached carport and a 3,000 sq. ft. accessory building located on-site. The house is located on
the east side and the accessory building is located on the west side of the property. Access to
the site is via the two driveways from Lone Oak Court. One driveway serves the house and the
accessory building and one driveway only serves the accessory building. There is a 6-foot high
wood fence constructed along the sides and rear of the accessory building and 4-feet high wood
fence along the front of the building to help screen the building from Lone Oak Court. The fence
is set back roughly 20-feet from the road.

The house and the attached carport are setback roughly 70-feet from the road and 18-feet from
the easterly property line. The accessory building is also setback roughly 70-feet from the road
and 22-feet from the westerly property line. The closest residential unit is roughly 130-feet to
the west. The neighbor to the west has an accessory building, roughly the same size as the
applicants building, located 22-feet from the property line which helps to create a visual and
noise barrier between the adjacent residential unit and the applicant’s accessory building and
any activities taking place around the building. The same holds true for the on-site residential
unit and the neighbor to the east. The residential unit is situated between the accessory
building and the neighboring residential unit, once again helping to create a visual and noise
barrier.



                                               5
Surrounding Properties
EAST – Existing single-family residence on a 0.45-acre site
WEST – Existing single-family residence on a 1.0-acre site
NORTH – Existing single-family residence with a pool construction business on a 2.18-acre site
and an existing single-family residence with a landscape construction business on a 2.18-acre
site
SOUTH – Marsh Creek Channel

There is an existing 0.45-acre single-family residence located to the east of the project site, an
existing 1.0-acre single-family residence located to the west of the project site, and an existing
single-family residence with a home-based pool construction business on 2.18-acres and an
existing single-family residence with a home based landscape construction business on 2.18-
acres, located to the north of the project site. The two residences to the north have the house
located on the front half of the property and the business located on the back half of the
property. Both businesses have large accessory buildings and store vehicles and/or supplies
outdoors. Further up on Lone Oak Court is another landscape construction business located on
a 3.70-acre site. This 3.70-acre parcel has a single-family residential unit and a business with a
large metal storage facility and outdoor storage on it. The residential unit is used as a rental
and it is currently vacant.




                                                6
                                                                                                                                                                        Lo
                                                                                                                                                                        Lo
                                             Cayenne Court
                                             Cayenne                                                 Cayenne Drive
                                                                                                             Drive                                                                  1640
                                                                                                                                                                                    1640
                                                                                                                                                                                    1640
                                                                                                                                                                 1621
                                                                                                                                                                 1621


                                        1629




                                                                          1617
                                        1629
                                                                                                                                                 1592
                                                                                                                                                 1592




                                                                          1617
                                        1629




                                                                          1617
                                                                                                                                                                  TPP




                                                1625
                                                                                                                                                                  TPP
                                                                                                                                                                  TPP



                                                1625
                                                1625

                                                                  1621
                                                                                   1657
                                                                                   1657




                                                                  1621
                                                                                                             1656
                                                                                                             1656




                                                                  1621
                                                                                                                    1589
                                                                                                                    1589
  721
     1
  72




                                                                                              Ceylon Drive
                                                                                              Ceylon Drive
                                                                                                                                                               1635
                                                                                                                                                               1635
                                                                                                                                                               1635




                                                                                                                                 Savory Drive
                                                                                                                                 Savory Drive
am                                                                                                                                              1588
                                                                                                                                                1588
           77




                                                                                  1653
                                                                                  1653
         71




                                                                                  1653                       1652
                                                                                                             1652
         71




                                                                                                                    1585
                                                                                                                    1585
                                                                                                                    1585                                                                   Country Court
                                                                                                                                                                                           Count ry
                                                                                                                                                                                           Count ry Court
                     3                           497
                                                 497
                                                 497                     Thyme
                                                                         Thyme
                  71
                  71                                                                                                                            1584
                                                                                                                                                1584
                                                                         Court
                                                                         Court
       Drr




                                                                                                             1648
                                                                                                             1648
       Dr
       Dr
       Dr
       D




                                                                                                                    1581
                                                                                                                    1581                                       1605
                                                                                                                                                               1605
                          09
         iiiv e




                         70
            ve




                                                                66                1645                                                          1580
                                                              49
              e
              e




                                                                                  1645
              e




                                                              49                  1645
   2
   2
71
71




                                                                                                             1644
                                                                                                             1644
                                                                                                             1644
                                                                                                             1644
            8
            8                  7 05
                               70 5                                                                                 1577
                                                                                                                    1577
         70
         70
                                                                           517
                                                                           517
                                                                                                                                                1576
                                                                                                                                                1576
                                                                                                                                                                 1561
                                                                                                                                                                 1561


                                                                                        513
                                                                                        513
                                                                                                                                                                  TPP
                                                                                                                                                                  TPP
                                                                  521
                                                                  521




                                                                                                             1640
                                                                                                             1640
 537
 537




         700
         700                    701
                                70 1                                                                                1573
                                                                                                                    1573
                                                                                                                    1573
                                                                                                                    1573                                       1565
                                                                                                                                                               1565
                                                                                                                                                1572
                                                                                                                                                1572
                                                                                              Caper
                                                                                               aper Dr
                                                                                                    Drive
                                                                                                       ive
                                                                                          5 12
                                                                                          5 12


ssafras Drive
 safras
                                                                                           EP
                                                                                         5 10
                                                                                                                                                Caper Drive
                                                                                                                                                Caper Drive
                                                                                           EP
                                                                                           51

                                                                                         5 10
                                                                                           IC
                                                                                          IC
                                                                                          IC
                                                                                        508
                                                                                        508
                                                                                        WM
                                                                                        WM
                                                                                                                                                                             1560
                                                                                                                                                                             1560
                                                                          516
                                                                          516
          536
          536




                                  528
                                  528




                                                  O'Hara Avenue
                                                  O'Hara Avenue




                                                                                                                                                                             1540
                                                                                                                                                                             1540
                                                                                                                                                                             1540
         529
         529




                                                                                                                                                                         1510
                                                                                                                                                                         1510




                                                                                                                                                                                                            2 01
                                                                                                                                                                                                            2 01
                                                                                                                                                                                                            2
                                                                                                                                                                                                            2
                                                                                                                                                                                                            2
                                                                                                                                                                                                               1
 531
 531




                               521
                               521




                                                                                                                                                         421
                                                                                                                                                         421
                                                                                                                    431
                                                                                                                    431
                                                                                                                    431
                                                                                  441
                                                                                  441




 Court
 Court
                                                                                                   Lone Oak Court
                                                                                                   Lone Oak Court
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   1
                                                                                                                                                   420
                                                                                                                                                   420
                                                                                                                                                   420




                                                                                                                                                                                                     20
                                                                                                         440




                                                                                                                                                                                                     20
                                                                                                         440




                                                                                                                           430
                                                                                                         440




                                                                                                                           430
                                                                                 450




                                                                                                                           430
            530




                                                                                 450
            530
            530




                                                                                                                                                                                                      00
                                       520




                                                                                                                                             nell
                                       520




                                                                                                                                              ne




                                                                                                                                                                                                        0
                                                                                                                                          h n
                                                                                                                                         h an
                                                                                                                                    eeekC
                                                                                                                                       k
                                                                                                                                  Cre
                                                                                                                               sh C




                                                                                                                                                                                                223
                                                                                                                                                                                                221
                                                                                                                                                                                                225
                                                                                                                                                                                                223
                                                                                                                                                                                                223
                                                                                                                                                                                                223
                                                                                                                                                                                                221
                                                                                                                                                                                                221
                                                                                                                                                                                                225
                                                                                                                                                                                                221
                                                                                                                                                                                                223
                                                                                                                                                                                                 231
                                                                                                                                                                                                 227
                                                                                                                                                                                                 22
                                                                                                                            arsh


                                                                                                                                                                                                 231
                                                                                                                                                                                                 231
                                                                                                                                                                                                 22 7
                                                                                                                                                                                                 22




                                                                                                                                                                                                 217
                                                                                                                                                                                                 235
                                                                                                                                                                                                 23 3

                                                                                                                                                                                                 22
                                                                                                                                                                                                  235
                                                                                                                                                                                                  233
                                                                                                                                                                                                  233
                                                                                                                                                                                                  23




                                                                                                                                                                                                  217
                                                                                                                                                                                                  235
                                                                                                                                                                                                  23
                                                                                                                                                                                                  237
                                                                                                                           Mar
                                                                                                                                                                                                  237




                                                                                                                                                                                                  EP
                                                                                                                                                                                                   EP
                                                                                                                                                                                    2 41 3
                                                                                                                                                                                    24 13
                                                                                                                                                                                    2
                                                                                                                                                                                    2 1
                                                                                                                                                                                    2




                                                                                                                                                                                                    1
                                                                                                                                                                                                    1
                                                                                                                                                                                     24 35




                                                                                                                                                                                                     1
                                                                                                                                                                                      24 3
                                                                                                                                                                                       2457
                                                                                                                                                                                       24 7
                                                                                                                                                                                       24
                                                                                                                                                                                       24
                                                                                                                                                                                       4
                                                                                                                                                                                        24 7
                                                                                                                                                                                        24 7
                                                                                                                                                                                        2 7
                                                                                                                                                                                          25
                                                                                                                                                                                           25
                                                                                                                                                                                            5




                                                                                                                          7
                                    431
                                    431                                         421
                                                                                421




          Lone Oak Court
          Lone Oak Court




                                                                          420



               440
               440                              430
                                                430


                              Project Site


                                             Marsh Creek Channel



ANALYSIS:
Conditionally permitted uses are those uses which, by their nature, require special consideration
so that they may be located properly with respect to the objectives of the Municipal Code and
with respect to their effects on surrounding uses and properties. In order to achieve these
purposes, the Planning Commission is empowered to approve, conditionally approve, or deny
applications for use permits.

A conditional use permit may be granted only if the proposal conforms to all of the following
general criteria, as well as to all other applicable specific criteria:

1. The harmony in scale, bulk, coverage and density of the proposed project is
consistent with and compatible to the existing and proposed land uses around the
subject site.

Mercado Landscaping will have an employee living in the existing residential unit and will use
the existing warehouse for storage of equipment. The applicant is not proposing to remodel the
existing buildings or construct any new buildings on-site in order to keep this site in harmony
with the surrounding neighbors. Mercado Landscaping would be consistent with the existing
residential uses because just across the street from the proposed project site are an existing
single-family residence with a home-based pool construction business that has been operating
on the 2.18-acre site since 1981 and an existing single-family residence with a home-based
landscape construction business that has been operating on the 2.18-acre site since 2003.


                                                8
Another landscaping business is located further north on Lone Oak Drive and it has a single-
family rental unit, which is currently vacant, and a large metal storage warehouse with outdoor
storage of materials and supplies for a landscaping business that has been operating on the
3.70-acre site since 1998. None of these businesses have a conditional use permit to operate
at their present locations.

2. The availability of public facilities and utilities is adequate to serve the proposed use.

The site has the appropriate public facilities and utilities need to serve the resident and
business.

3. There would be no harmful effect upon the desirable neighborhood character with
approval of this permit.

Mercado Landscaping will be using this site as a staging area for its employees. They will
arrive each day around 6:45 a.m., get their job assignment and leave for the job site by 7:30
a.m. They will return to the site by 4:45 p.m. and leave to go home by 5:00 p.m. The
employees will park their cars in a designated parking area on-site and behind a six-foot high
wood fence. No one will be working at this site during the day. There will be no delivers or
receiving of materials made to this site and all equipment and supplies, with the exception of the
work trucks, will be placed in the warehouse.

4. The subject site will have adequate vehicular circulation and parking available.

The site is served by two access points, a main driveway providing access to the residence and
warehouse and a secondary driveway which would only provide access to the rear of the
warehouse however this access point is not being used at this time, so all access to the site will
be from the main driveway. There is a wood fence with a gate that controls access to the
warehouse area. Within this area are four covered parking spaces and up to at least an
additional 10 uncovered parking spaces that would be used for employees parking. All of these
parking spaces are located behind the fence to help reduce the visual impact to the neighbors.

5. The generation of additional traffic would be minimal due to the capacity of the
surrounding streets being able to adequately handle the proposed increase in use.

Mercado Landscaping normally employs nine people. During the peak of the season (May –
Oct.) that number could go as high as 18 employees. The employees will arrive each day
around 6:45 a.m., get their job assignment and leave for the job site in the company trucks by
7:30 a.m. They will return to the site by 4:45 p.m., drop off the company trucks and leave for
home by 5:00 p.m. A typical residential area generates 10 peak hour trips per day, with addition
of a maximum of 18 employees the peak hour trips would increase however this increase would
not put a strain on the surrounding streets as they were constructed to adequately handle the
proposed increase in use.

6. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed development
are compatible with and do not adversely affect the livability of appropriate development
of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood.

Mercado Landscaping will not be increasing the square footage of the existing residential unit or
warehouse, they are proposing a business operation that will be smaller in scale than the three
other business that currently operate, across the street and up the street from the proposed


                                                9
project site, and there has been a cabinet-making shop, a concrete company, a boat repair
service and pool construction company that has used or operated out of the proposed project
site since 1968.

7. The location, design, landscaping and screening, and overall site planning of the
proposed development will provide an attractive, useful and convenient living, working,
shopping or community-service area.

Considering the fact that this area has been zoned RE Ranchette Estates for large lot
residential development for many years and the fact that several large scaled home based
construction businesses are in operation in close proximity to the project site, the size and scale
of the proposed project should not adversely affect the livability of the surrounding properties.
To help further reduce the impacts this landscaping business may have on the surrounding
properties the following conditions of approval will be added to the proposed project as part of
its approval:

   1. The applicant shall install a double row of trees along the front yard fence line to help
      reduce the visual impact from the street and adjacent residents. This double row of
      trees shall be a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees, planted a maximum of 30 feet
      on center with understory shrubs and groundcover, to help ensure that there will be
      foliage in place year round and enough coverage to help screen the business activity
      and warehouse from view.

   2. The applicant shall install a single row of trees along the easterly and westerly property
      lines to help reduce the visual impact from the adjacent neighbors. These two rows of
      trees shall be an alternating mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees, planted 30 feet
      on center, once again to help ensure that there will be foliage in place year round and
      enough coverage to help screen the business activity and warehouse from view.

   3. The applicant shall be limited to a maximum of 15 employees operating out of this site.

   4. No employees shall arrive for work prior to 6:45 a.m. and must leave the site by 5:00
      p.m. Monday – Friday; no employee shall arrive for work prior to 9:00 a.m. and must
      leave the site by 4:00 p.m. on Saturday and no employees shall work on Sunday. No
      employee shall be left working at the site during the week.

   5. The applicant shall store as much of the equipment and materials and supplies as
      possible within the warehouse. The company trucks shall be parked within the parking
      area when not in use. The employees shall park within the designated parking on-site
      area.

   6. The existing residence shall be occupied full-time by the owner or an employee of the
      business to ensure that the primary use remains residential and the occupant of the
      residence is related to the business and can address issues on-site.

   7. The applicant shall not install any signage advertising the landscaping business at this
      site.




                                                10
In staff’s opinion, as conditioned, the proposed landscaping business would not produce any
adverse impacts on the adjacent properties in terms of noise, litter, disorderly behavior, or other
objectionable influences, therefore; staff believes the proposed landscaping business should not
adversely affect the livability of the surrounding properties.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The proposed project would only involve minor alterations to the land therefore, this project is
exempt from CEQA (Categorical Exemption 15304 – Minor Alterations to land), and no further
environmental review is required at this time.

RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 09-006, approving CUP
08-33 as conditioned.

ATTACHMENTS:

   1. Resolution No. 09-006
   2. A Conditional Use Permit request letter with neighborhood pictures, submitted by Dan
      Mercado of Dan Mercado Landscaping, dated “Received October 21, 2008”.
   3. A letter with neighborhood pictures, submitted by Phil and Vera Scherzer, dated
      “Received December 08, 2008”.




                                                11
                    PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-006

       A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
       APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-33 TO ESTABLISH A
       LANDSCAPING BUSINESS ON A 0.78-ACRE LOT LOCATED AT 430 LONE OAK
       COURT (APN 016-080-018).

       WHEREAS, the applicant has requested that the City process a conditional use permit
application on their property in order to establish a landscaping business on a 0.78-acre site;
and

         WHEREAS, the project includes allowing a landscaping business to operate on a 0.78-
acre site, and since the site has already been developed, the proposed project would only
involve minor alterations to the land therefore, this project is exempt from CEQA (Categorical
Exemption 15304 - Minor Alterations to Land), and no further environmental review is required
at this time.

       WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was distributed to all property owners of record
within 300 feet of the project and published in the Brentwood Press on March 6, 2009, in
accordance with City policies and Government Code 65090; and

      WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the staff report, environmental
documentation, supporting documents, public testimony and all appropriate information that has
been submitted with the proposed conditional use permit; and

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

       A.     Hereby makes the following findings:

              1. The harmony in scale, bulk, coverage and density of the proposed project is
                 consistent with and compatible to the existing and proposed land uses
                 around the subject site as the applicant is not proposing to remodel the
                 existing buildings or construct any new buildings on-site in order to be
                 architecturally consistent with the surrounding neighbors.

              2. The availability of public facilities and utilities is adequate to serve the
                 proposed use, in that the site has the appropriate public facilities and utilities
                 need to serve the resident and business.

              3. There would be no harmful effect upon the desirable neighborhood character
                 with approval of this permit Mercado Landscaping will be using this site as a
                 staging area for its employees. They will arrive each day around 6:45 a.m.,
                 get their job assignment and leave for the job site by 7:30 a.m. They will
                 return to the site by 4:45 p.m. and leave to go home by 5:00 p.m. The
                 employees will park their cars in a designated parking area on-site and
                 behind a six-foot high wood fence. No one will be working at this site during
                 the day. There will be no delivers or receiving of materials made to this site
                 and all equipment and supplies, with the exception of the work trucks, will be
                 placed in the warehouse.



                                                1
     4. The subject site will have adequate pedestrian and vehicular circulation and
        parking available, in that the site is served by two access points, a main
        driveway providing access to the residence and warehouse and a secondary
        driveway which would only provide access to the rear of the warehouse
        however this access point is not being used at this time, so all access to the
        site will be from the main driveway.

     5.    The generation of additional traffic would be minimal due to the capacity of
          the surrounding streets being able to adequately handle the proposed
          increase in use, as Mercado Landscaping normally employs nine people and
          during the peak of the season (May –Oct.) that number could go as high as
          15 employees. The employees will arrive each day around 6:45 a.m., get
          their job assignment and leave for the job site in the company trucks by 7:30
          a.m. They will return to the site by 4:45 p.m., drop off the company trucks
          and leave for home by 5:00 p.m. A typical residential area generates 10 peak
          hour trips per day, with addition of a maximum of 15 employees the peak
          hour trips would increase however this increase would not put a strain on the
          surrounding streets as they were constructed to adequately handle the
          proposed increase in use.

     6. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed
        development are compatible with and do not adversely affect the livability of
        appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding
        neighborhood because Mercado Landscaping will not be increasing the
        square footage of the existing residential unit or warehouse, they are
        proposing a business operation that will be smaller in scale than the three
        other business that currently operate, across the street and up the street from
        the proposed project site, and there has been a cabinet making shop, a
        concrete company, a boat repair service and pool construction company that
        has used or operated out of the proposed project site since 1968.

     7. The location, design, landscaping and screening, and overall site planning of
        the proposed development will provide an attractive, useful and convenient
        living, working, shopping or community-service area because this area has
        been zoned RE Ranchette Estates for large lot residential development for
        many years and that several large scaled home based construction
        businesses are in operation in close proximity to the project site, the size and
        scale of the proposed project should not adversely affect the livability of the
        surrounding properties.

     8. The proposed conditional use permit has been processed in accordance with
        the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the
        California Environmental Quality Act.

B.   Hereby approves Conditional Use Permit No. 08-33, subject to the following
     conditions:

     1. The proposed project shall be established and continuously operated in
        substantial conformance with the written narrative dated “Received October
        21, 2008”, unless otherwise amended by the conditions of approval contained
        herein. Minor changes to the operations may be allowed subject to the


                                      2
     approval of the Community Development Director if found to be in substantial
     conformance with the approved plans.

2. This use is required to comply with these conditions of approval as long as
   the use is in operation at the approved site. As such, the site shall be
   available for periodic re-inspections, conducted at the discretion of City
   officials, to verify compliance.

3. The applicant shall obtain all required State and County permits and licenses
   prior to commencement of operations and shall submit copies to the
   Community Development Department.

4. The applicant shall install a double row of trees along the front yard fence line
   to help reduce the visual impact from the street and adjacent residents. This
   double row of trees shall be a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees,
   planted a maximum of 30 feet on center with understory shrubs and
   groundcover, to help ensure that there will be foliage in place year round and
   enough coverage to help screen the business activity and warehouse from
   view. A landscaping plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the
   Community Development Director, along with the applicable plan check and
   inspection fees.

5. The applicant shall install a single row of trees along the along the easterly
   and westerly property lines to help reduce the visual impact from the adjacent
   neighbors. These two rows of trees shall be an alternating mixture of
   deciduous and evergreen trees, planted 30 feet on center, once again to help
   ensure that there will be foliage in place year round and enough coverage to
   help screen the business activity and warehouse from view. A landscaping
   plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community
   Development Director, along with the applicable plan check and inspection
   fees.

6. The applicant shall be limited to a maximum of 15 employees operating out of
   this site.

7.    No employees shall arrive for work prior to 6:45 a.m. and must leave the site
     by 5:00 p.m. Monday – Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturday and never
     on Sunday. No employee shall be left working at the site during the week.

8. The applicant shall store as much of the equipment and materials and
   supplies as possible within the warehouse. The company trucks shall be
   parked within the parking area when not in use. The employees shall park
   within the designated parking on-site area.

9. The existing residence shall be occupied full-time by the owner or an
   employee of the business to ensure that the primary use remains residential
   and the occupant of the residence is related to the business and can address
   issues on-site.

10. The applicant shall not install any signage advertising the landscaping
    business at this site.


                                  3
             11. If operation of this use results in conflicts pertaining to parking, noise, traffic,
                 trash, security, lighting, roadway deterioration, or other impacts, at the
                 discretion of the Community Development Director, this conditional use
                 permit may be referred to the Planning Commission for subsequent review at
                 a public hearing. If necessary, the Commission may modify or add conditions
                 of approval to mitigate such impacts, or may revoke said conditional use
                 permit based upon applicable findings.

         ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood on March 17, 2009, by
the following vote:

AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:

                                                     APPROVED:




                                                     Joseph Weber
                                                     Planning Commission Chairman



ATTEST:




Heidi Kline
Planning Manager




                                                4
                                    (Please see page 5 of the Minutes)



                                                                              CITY OF BRENTWOOD
                                                                    PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
                                                                                TUESDAY, 7:00 P.M.
                                                                                    MARCH 17, 2009
                                                                              COUNCIL CHAMBERS


David Bristow, Vice Chairman            Joseph Weber, Chairman              Jim Cushing, Commissioner
Julie Gildersleeve, Commissioner                                             Don Stirling, Commissioner

CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 PM

Roll Call:
Present:     Cushing, Stirling, Bristow, Gildersleeve, and Weber.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REVISIONS OR OMISSIONS TO THE AGENDA (Staff)

There were none.

CITIZEN COMMENTS

       At this time the public is permitted to address the Planning Commission on items that are not on
       the agenda. Persons addressing the Planning Commission are required to limit their remarks to
       five (5) minutes unless an extension of time is granted by the Chairman subject to approval of the
       Planning Commission. Please file your name with the Chairman on the form provided at the
       podium. Speakers desiring answers to questions should direct them to the Commission and, if
       relevant, the Commission may direct the questions to the appropriate staff member.

There were none.

CONSENT CALENDAR

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

1. Approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of March 3, 2009.

Motion to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of March 3, 2009.

Moved by Stirling; seconded by Bristow.

Vote:        5-0-0-0
Yes:         Cushing, Stirling, Bristow, Gildersleeve and Weber
No:
Abstain:
Absent:




                                                     1
NEW BUSINESS

2. Public Hearing. An application for a conditional use permit to allow the continued operation of the
   existing Williams Sanitary Service business at a single-family residence located at 61b Hanson Lane
   (APN 018-230-021).
   Applicant: Darren and Frank Williams
   File No.: CUP 08-34
   Planner: Debbie Hill

Associate Planner Debbie Hill introduced the staff report.

Commissioner Stirling asked whether any of the neighbors complained about anything else, other
than the odor.

Planner Hill said no.

Commissioner Stirling asked whether two houses were located on the parcel.

Commissioner Bristow asked whether the applicant had a business license in 2002 when the building
permit for the workshop was approved by the City. Planner Hill stated that they did have a business
license in 2002. Ms. Hill showed the Commission several aerial photographs, dating back to 1999,
which showed a gradual intensification of the business use.

Commissioner Bristow stated that the pictures were taken at a moment of time and felt that they did
not accurately represent the business use. Commissioner Bristow asked if the City’s Code
Enforcement Department received any complaints of noxious odors emanating from the tertiary/sewer
plant, which is located directly east of the property. Code Enforcement Officer Laurie Monte stated
that she was not aware of any complaints of odors coming from the sewer plant. Commissioner Bristow
spoke of a client of his that lived on Beverly Place that had issues with the sewer plant smells and
wondered if that had anything to do with this project.

Commissioner Cushing asked if the City had any requirements as to how the bio-hazardous
chemicals should be handled and contained within the City.

Planner Hill stated that the City’s Solid Waste Division had their own set of standards.

Commissioner Cushing asked when the 5,000 gallon storage tank was moved to the project site.

Planner Hill said that it appeared that the storage tank was present on the site in 2005, however the
applicant would be able to confirm that information.

Public hearing opened.

Darren Williams, co-owner of Williams Sanitary Service, stated that his business use was not
monitored by the state and/or the California Highway Patrol. He talked about the Williams Sanitary
business and asked that 1.) the business gate be allowed to remain open during business hours, 2.)
the portable toilets be allowed to be stored on-site behind business security gates, and 3.) the storage
tank remain as set.

Commissioner Stirling asked Mr. Williams to explain the portable toilet process and how the contents
are removed.

Mr. Williams said that the units are delivered and picked up at the end of the rental period. He said,
at that time, the contents are vacuumed out into a truck, the portable toilets are wiped down and then


                                                     2
delivered back to the shop. Mr. Williams said that the contents are then transferred from the truck to
Delta Diablo in Antioch, CA. He said that the only thing that would be transferred to the on-site storage
tank would be septic waste. Mr. Williams explained that the contents are usually emptied into the on-
site storage tank during the weekend when Delta Diablo is closed, so that they can use their trucks
to respond to weekend emergencies.

Commissioner Stirling asked why the units were not stored in the building.

Mr. Williams said that equipment and approximately 40 portable toilets were being stored in the
building. He said that, because of the downturn in the economy, the number of portable toilets located
on his property was higher than usual.

Commissioner Gildersleeve asked Mr. Williams if he and his family were in support of the
annexation. She stated that the City has more requirements than the County.

Mr. Williams said that she would need to ask that question to his father, as he was only 5 years old at
the time of annexation. He said that they were told that the business would be grandfathered in and
understood that the City had different requirements than the County.

Commissioner Bristow asked Mr. Williams to explain why the contents would need to be transferred
from the trucks to the on-site storage tank.

Mr. Williams explained that he often receives emergency phone calls on the weekends and it’s nice to
have the storage tank so that they are able to respond to those customers.

Commissioner Cushing asked how long the 5,000 gallon storage tank had been on the property.

Mr. Williams said that the tank has been on the site since 2004 or 2005. He said that before they
purchased the storage tank, a truck would be used for storage and the tank was more practical.

Commissioner Cushing asked Mr. Williams how anyone would know that Williams Sanitary was
dumping into the City’s sewer system.

Mr. Williams said that the accusations were made on more than one occasion, however they were
never substantiated.

Pilar Navarro, a neighbor of Mr. Williams, said that he bought his property in 2005 and the smell has
been terrible. Mr. Navarro said that he made a lot of phone calls to the City and the problem had not
yet been resolved. He said that Mr. Williams told him the smell was due to the lack of a u-trap in his
home.

Chairman Weber asked Mr. Navarro where his house is located.

Mr. Navarro pointed to his house on the aerial, which is to the east of 61 Hanson Lane. He said that
the portable toilets didn’t bother him, but the smell, especially on the weekends, was terrible.

Chairman Weber asked Mr. Navarro if he was aware of the business when he moved into his home in
2005.

Mr. Navarro said that nobody told him about it. He said that he was aware of Mr. Williams’ business;
he talked to Mr. Williams and hoped that the City would do something about it.




                                                    3
Public hearing closed.

Commissioner Stirling felt that the sanitary business did not qualify as a home occupation and the
Ranchette Estate zone was appropriate for the business. He said that he could not support the
conditional use permit unless the following was done: 1.) Remove the tank from the site, 2.) disallow
raw sewage transfer, and 3.) to either screen the portable toilets from the neighbors or store them in a
building.

Commissioner Bristow asked if any other neighbors, other than Mr. Navarro, complained about the
odor.

Laurie Monte of Code Enforcement said that another complaint was received from a resident
regarding the portable toilets being visible from the road. Ms. Monte said that she explained to the
resident that a gate to hide the toilets was discussed with the owner and the resident was satisfied
with that solution.

Commissioner Bristow asked if the resident to the north had any complaints about the odor.

Ms. Monte said they received no complaints from the homeowners to the north of the property.

Commissioner Cushing talked about previous projects with trash compactors and the restrictions that
were placed on the applicants to mitigate potential odors. He felt that the toilets should be screened
from the public and felt any transfer of waste on the property should be prohibited.

Commissioner Gildersleeve said that she received a phone call from Mr. Williams and apologized for
not being able to get back to him. She suggested that the portable toilets be confined in the building
and the trucks and raw sewage should be prohibited from being stored on the property.

Commissioner Bristow realized that the applicant had been in business for many years and the
Planning Commission did not want to affect his business in any way. He was in favor of requiring the
applicant to screen the clean portable toilets and to remove the storage tank. Commissioner Bristow
questioned Condition No. 7 which would require the applicant to pave the existing dirt access to Hanson
Lane up to the gate within 90 days and thought that a gravel access would be sufficient. He was against
the transfer of raw sewage on the property.

Chairman Weber spoke of the investments that will eventually be made along Brentwood Boulevard.
He said that he would prefer that the storage tank be removed from the operation and hoped that the
three pump trucks would be able to facilitate the weekend/holiday services. Chairman Weber was
happy to learn that the applicant was cleaning the portable toilets at the job sites before bringing them
back to the property and felt confident, based upon the applicant’s comments, that the fumes or odors
would not be coming from the portable toilets. Chairman Weber recognized that the intensity of the
site has increased and hoped that the Williams’ family acknowledged that and appreciated what the
City was trying to balance out. He thanked the Williams family for its services and charitable efforts at
the Cornfest and other events.

Commissioner Gildersleeve asked where the odor was coming from, if the portable toilets stored on-
site were clean.

Chairman Weber assumed that the odor was coming from the storage tank.

Commissioner Bristow reminded the Commission that the application was for a conditional use permit
and it could come back to the Planning Commission if any issues need to be addressed after it is
approved.



                                                   4
Planner Hill stated that Code Enforcement investigates all complaints on a timely basis and they would
be able to ascertain where any odors were coming from.

Commissioner Stirling asked Planner Hill why Condition No. 7 was requiring a concrete access as
opposed to gravel.

Planner Hill said that cement was called for to satisfy the NPDES requirements, to ensure that dirt
wouldn’t be tracked onto the roads and go down the storm drains. Ms. Hill said that keeping the access
road maintained with gravel would be acceptable.

Commissioner Stirling informed Mr. Pilar about Condition No. 9, which stated that the item could be
referred back to the Planning Commission for subsequent review at a public hearing if the City were
to receive any more complaints or the operation of the use resulted in conflict.

Motion to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 09-007 of the City of Brentwood approving a
conditional use permit (CUP 08-34) to allow the continued operation of the existing Williams Sanitary
Service business located at 61b Hanson Lane (APN 018-230-021), with the following changes: 1.) Amend
Condition No. 3 shall be amended to state that the raw sewage tank be removed from the site, however
the "portable toilets shall be stored indoors and if not, they shall be screened from the neighbors and
Hanson Lane", and 2.) amend Condition No. 7 to state that the existing dirt access shall be maintained
with gravel.

Moved by Stirling; seconded by Cushing.

Vote:       5-0-0-0
Yes:        Cushing, Stirling, Bristow, Gildersleeve and Weber
No:
Abstain:
Absent:

3. Public Hearing. An application for a conditional use permit to allow the continued operation of a
   landscape design and construction business, Dan Mercado Landscaping, at a single-family residence,
   located at 430 Lone Oak Court (APN 016-080-018).
   Applicant: Dan Mercado
   File No.: CUP 08-33
   Planner: Jeff Zilm

Senior Planner Jeff Zilm introduced the staff report.

Commissioner Cushing asked Planner Zilm to elaborate on the operations surrounding the property
and whether anyone else had a conditional use permit to operate their business.

Planner Zilm said that the neighbors did not have conditional use permits to operate their businesses.

Assistant City Attorney Karen Murphy stated that staff had not investigated a majority of the other sites.
She said that the Mercado site was specifically looked at due to a complaint that was made in the
neighborhood. It was determined that the applicant could legalize the use by applying for a
conditional use permit.

Commissioner Bristow asked Planner Zilm to point out the designated parking area on the project
site. He asked if employee parking was allowed outside the gates. Commissioner Bristow asked how
many employee parking spaces would be needed for the business.

Planner Zilm said that employee parking was not allowed outside the gates and the applicant would
not be allowed to have more than 15 cars parked on the site.


                                                        5
Commissioner Bristow felt that it was difficult to compare this business to the other businesses in the
neighborhood, because they were not required to have a conditional use permit.

Planning Manager Heidi Kline explained that a neighbor called Code Enforcement to complain about
this property and it became apparent what was transpiring in the neighborhood and that the other
properties might require conditional use permits, as well. Ms. Kline said that the City was currently
having discussions with one of the other property owners in the neighborhood who was asserting that
they were "grandfathered in".

Commissioner Bristow asked if there was any grandfathering documentation for this particular site
because it had been a business prior to the annexation into the City.

Ms. Kline said that there were previously other forms of businesses for this location, however
the types of uses were different in character.

Commissioner Bristow wanted to clarify that since a permit was never issued to the previous property
owner, the type of business for this location is uncertain.

Commissioner Gildersleeve asked if Mr. Mercado knew that this property was zoned as Ranchette
Estate when he purchased it. She wondered whether he just assumed that he could run a business
on his property since there were other businesses already existing in the neighborhood.

Planner Zilm said that he did not know if Mr. Mercado knew the property was zoned as Ranchette
Estate.

Chairman Weber asked if a tenant occupied the home at 430 Lone Oak Court.

Planner Zilm believed that the home was not occupied.

Chairman Weber felt that the conditional use permit was so important for this location because the
other parcels surrounding the property were owner-occupied. Mr. Weber asked Code Enforcement to
explain the complaint that was made against this property owner.

Laurie Monte of the Code Enforcement Division stated that there were complaints of the landscaping
business that was being conducted at the property, more specifically about workers arriving early in
the morning, the overall generation of traffic coming to and from the property, and a large truck making
a delivery of materials to the house on a Saturday.

Chairman Weber asked Ms. Monte if Code Enforcement normally contacts the Police Department to
see if any reports have been made regarding a property.

Ms. Monte said that she would call the Police Department in regards to a hostile environment or if she
needs a policeman to escort her to a property. She talked about the improvements that Mr. Mercado
made to his property, specifically removing the existing fence and installing a new fence closer to the
roadway, with a reduced height of 42 inches. Ms. Monte said that a complaint was then received in
regards to the construction equipment and materials being visible from the road due to the shortened
fence. Another complaint followed in regards to a secondary driveway that was installed on the project
site. Mr. Mercado then applied and was granted an encroachment permit for the secondary
driveway.

Chairman Weber asked if the home was occupied when Ms. Monte investigated the complaints.

Ms. Monte said that she never knocked on the door; the notices were posted on the door. She saw a
child’s tricycle and vehicles on the property. Ms. Monte believed that an employee was living on the
property, however she could not confirm that information.


                                                   6
Commissioner Gildersleeve commented on Phil and Vera Sherzer’s letter which stated that the
property owner was renting the house to two of his employees and their families.

Ms. Monte believed that the home was a rental property.

Public hearing opened.

Mr. Dan Mercado of Dan Mercado Landscaping said that he purchased his property from Larry
Jackson, who owns a concrete construction company. He confirmed that the home is being rented to
two of his employees and stated that he does not receive any deliveries to the property. He talked
about the employees entering and exiting the construction yard and the improvements that he made
to the property.

Commissioner Gildersleeve asked about the individuals who were occupying the house on the
property.

Mr. Barr, a neighbor at 431 Lone Oak Court, stated that the business that was being conducted on his
property was a legal conforming business based on the fact that the business was operating at the
time of annexation in 1990. He said that he employed 3 people and the percentage of his property
that comprised of his business was only 20 percent. Mr. Barr stated that the applicant’s business
consisted of 18 employees and operated on 60 to 70 percent of the property. He talked about the new
fence, the number of employee vehicles that were parked on the property and the amount of traffic
that is generated, especially during the summer when business activity is higher. Mr. Barr talked about
the strict restrictions for grandfathered businesses and how they could not be passed on to new
property owners.

Commissioner Stirling asked Mr. Barr why it was ok for him to operate his own business, but nobody
else in the neighborhood.

Mr. Barr explained that at the time of annexation in 1990, the City promised the existing property owners
they could maintain what they currently have. Mr. Barr objected to the fact that the property owner
did not live on the property, 18 employees worked for the business and children were on the
property during the busy traffic times of the business.

Commissioner Stirling asked Mr. Barr to talk about his business and the traffic that was generated by
his business.

Mr. Barr said that he owned a swimming pool construction business.                 He had 3 employees
arriving and 2 trucks that leave in the morning.

Commissioner Stirling asked Mr. Barr if he was aware that a new business would not be conditionally
allowed or permitted on the property.

Mr. Barr talked about his retail store that was located downtown and when he tried to change the address
of his business license to his home address, he was informed that he would need to apply for a
home occupation permit. He said that a home occupation permit did not allow a business owner to
store materials on their property, so he had not yet been issued a home occupation permit. Mr. Barr
said that Mr. Zilm told him that he could apply for a conditional use permit, but didn’t feel that he should
need to because his business was grandfathered in at the time of annexation.

Vera Scherzer, a neighbor, talked about the problems that they have been experiencing due to Mr.
Mercado’s landscaping business.

Chairman Weber gave Mr. Mercado a chance to address the Commission.



                                                     7
Mr. Mercado wanted to clarify that his employees do not drive recklessly in the neighborhood.

Chairman Weber asked Mr. Mercado if he was in agreement with the conditions of approval included
in Mr. Zilm’s staff report.

Mr. Mercado said that he was in agreement.

Public hearing closed.

Commissioner Cushing was concerned that it was not clear what type of business was being conducted
on the property at the time it was annexed into the City. He stated that the grandfathering applied to the
owner at the time and could not be passed on to subsequent owners. He was concerned that Mr.
Mercado was applying for a conditional use permit, because the permit would run with the land.
Commissioner Cushing felt that the property was being overused and was concerned that it was not being
primarily used as a residence.

Planning Manager Kline wanted to clarify that a use that is grandfathered in runs with the land.

Commissioner Gildersleeve asked if only the same type of business would apply.

Ms. Kline said that it would need to substantially be the same business.

Commissioner Bristow asked Ms. Kline if there were any other conditionally permitted landscape
businesses on Ranchette Estate-zoned properties in Brentwood.

Ms. Kline said that she was not aware of any. She explained that it was just recently determined that the
Code allows for residents whose businesses don’t adhere to the Home Occupation to apply for conditional
use permits as accessory uses. Ms. Kline said that before this find, if a resident’s business did not
comply with the requirements of the Home Occupation Permit, the business would need to cease
operation.

Commissioner Bristow suggested that the applicant be conditioned to have a gravel access road for the
employees and construction vehicles, was concerned about the safety of the children that were present
during operating hours, and felt that the landscaping should match the compatibility, scale and harmony of
the surrounding neighborhood.

Commissioner Gildersleeve did not believe the business should be allowed on the property because she
felt that due diligence was not taken to make sure that this type of business could be operated on
the property. She felt that the business did not meet the criteria of a home occupation and was not in
favor of allowing conditional use permits for home businesses on properties zoned as Ranchette Estate.
Commissioner Gildersleeve was against the project.

Commissioner Stirling said that there was a reason why properties were zoned as Ranchette Estates and
why the City was preserving these properties. He said that Ranchette Estates were part of the old
Brentwood, small-town feel of large lots with large homes. Commissioner Stirling stated that the
permitted uses for Ranchette Estate properties are single-family homes, rooming and boarding, home
occupation, single family residential care, agricultural use, domestic animals, etc. and the conditionally
permitted uses        were secondary housing units, public            facilities, churches, community
buildings, etc. Commissioner Stirling stated that businesses were not a permitted or conditionally
permitted use for Ranchette Estate zoned properties and if these types of businesses were treated as
conditionally permitted uses, they would need to be treated like commercial properties with masonry walls
and such and would change the look, feel and intent of Ranchette Estate-zoned properties and
neighborhoods. Mr. Stirling stated that he was against the project.

Chairman Weber stated that without the Code Enforcement complaint made against Mr. Mercado’s


                                                     8
landscaping business, the operation could have flown under the radar screen with no issues. He felt that if
Mr. Mercado would have chosen to be a good neighbor, he could be beautifying his property with
landscaping. He talked about the previous businesses on the property, the businesses in the
neighborhood, and the number of employees and traffic generated by the business.

Commissioner Gildersleeve felt that the business was operating illegally and should not be able to
continue, as it was not the same type of business that was previously grandfathered in.

Commissioner Bristow wanted to clarify whether landscaping was a conditionally permitted use within
Ranchette Estate areas.

Ms. Kline said that as long as a residence in maintained on the property, any other use not listed in the
zoning code is allowed pursuant to the approval of a conditional use permit in Ranchette Estate areas.

Commissioner Bristow asked if the owner of the property is required to reside on the property.

Ms. Kline said that the home on the property would not need to be owner-occupied.

Chairman Weber asked for Assistant City Attorney Karen Murphy’s opinion.

Ms. Murphy stated that there was a provision in the City’s Zoning, that as long as the residence is
occupied and the business is ancillary to that residence, a conditional use permit could be considered by
the Planning Commission subject to all of the findings that need to be made for a typical conditional use
permit.

Commissioner Cushing felt that the accessory use is a residence as opposed to the accessory use being
a business.

Motion to deny Planning Commission Resolution No. 09-006 of the City of Brentwood
approving Conditional Use Permit No. 08-33 to establish a landscaping business on a 0.78-acre lot
located at 430 Lone Oak Court (APN 016-080-018).

Moved by Cushing; seconded by Gildersleeve.

Vote:       4-1-0-0
Yes:        Cushing, Stirling, Bristow and Gildersleeve
No:         Weber
Abstain:
Absent:

Mr. Mercado asked about the appeal process.

Commissioner Stirling informed Mr. Mercado that he could appeal the decision within 10 calendar days.

4. Public Hearing. An amendment to an approved conditional use permit to allow for a revision to the
   master sign program for the retail development known as The Streets of Brentwood, specifically to
   allow up to seven tenants to have four signs which would include three building-mounted and one on
   the pylon sign. The project is located at the northwest corner of Sand Creek Road and Shady Willow
   Lane (APN 019-110-067).
   Applicant: Continental Real Estate / Rick Lindenmuth
   File No.: CUP 08-19-2A
   Planner: Heidi Kline




                                                    9
Planning Manager Heidi Kline introduced the staff report. Ms. Kline informed the Commission that the
applicant was unable to be present at the meeting, however agreed with all of the conditions included
in the staff report.

Commissioner Bristow asked for the status of the signage on the window in the tower element for ULTA
Cosmetics, which was approved at a previous Design Review Subcommittee meeting.

Ms. Kline stated that representatives of ULTA presented signage and alterations to the windows to the
Design Review Subcommittee, which was not approved. She said that they came back to the
subcommittee with a revised submittal, which was approved. She said that as far as she knew, it was still
going forward. She informed the Commission that she would look into it and send out an informational
email with the status.

Commissioner Stirling explained that ULTA originally wanted the signage on the curved portion of the
large window, and then revised their plans to build a larger bulkhead above the window for the signage.
Commissioner Stirling asked if the signage would cover the top of the arched window as referenced on
the enlarged west elevation and south elevation on pages 12 and 13 of the master sign program.

Ms. Kline said that all of the pages in the master sign program document were the same, except for the
portion that talks about allowing for a fourth sign, being the pylon.

Commissioner Gildersleeve asked if the signs would come to a future Design Review Subcommittee
meeting for approval, to make sure that the signage will not be hanging over the arched part of the
window.

Ms. Kline said that the subcommittee approved the second configuration and she would confirm that.

Commissioner Cushing wanted to confirm that the revision in the amended master sign program was that
the applicant was only eliminating the need of counting the pylon sign in the total signage.

Ms. Kline said that was correct.

Public hearing opened.

Public hearing closed.

Motion to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 09-008 of the City of Brentwood approving an
amendment to an approved conditional use permit (CUP 08-19-A2) to allow for a revision to the master
sign program for the retail development known as The Streets of Brentwood, specifically to allow up to
seven tenants to have four signs, including three building-mounted and one on the pylon sign, located at
the northeast corner of Sand Creek Road and the State Route 4 Bypass (APN 019-110-067).

Moved by Stirling; seconded by Gildersleeve.

Vote:       5-0-0-0
Yes:        Cushing, Stirling, Bristow, Gildersleeve and Weber
No:
Abstain:
Absent:

OLD BUSINESS




                                                   10
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS FROM STAFF

   City of Brentwood’s Water Supply and Water Conservation Practices (Dhaliwal)

Jack Dhaliwal of the City’s Engineering Division gave a brief overview of the staff report that was
presented at a previous City Council meeting.

Commissioner Bristow asked if the City anticipated any rate increases.

Mr. Dhaliwal said that the City was not anticipating any rate increases at this time.

Commissioner Cushing asked for a clarification on the historical average.

Commissioner Stirling asked if the City could do anything about the hardness of the City’s water.

Mr. Dhaliwal explained that the City had more surface water than in the past and that should help with the
water quality.

Chairman Weber talked about the importance of water conservation.

Commissioner Bristow asked if the City provided water to the Roddy Ranch Golf Course.

Mr. Dhaliwal said that the City had an exclusive agreement with Roddy Ranch where non-potable water
comes from the East Contra Costa Irrigation District through the City’s water pipes for landscaping
purposes only.

MEETING SCHEDULE

                                                  Weber - Primary           April 9, 2009
       Transplan Committee
                                                  Bristow - Alternate       (2nd Thursday of every month)



                                                                            March 26, 2009
       Design Review Subcommittee                 Stirling & Gildersleeve   April 9, 2009
                                                                            (2nd & 4th Thursday of every month)



                                                                            April 6, 2009
       Land Use & Development Committee           Cushing & Bristow         April 20, 2009
                                                                            (1st and 3rd Monday of every month)

Chairman Weber gave a report on the Transplan Committee.

Mr. Dhaliwal informed the Commission that the City had received initial approval of $900,000 from
the Stimulus Package for preventative street resurfacing maintenance and video detection on Balfour
Road from Fairview Avenue to East Country Club Drive.

There was nothing to report for the Design Review Subcommittee meeting, as the meeting was cancelled.

Commissioners Bristow and Cushing gave reports on the Land Use and Development Committee.

Commissioner Stirling informed the Commission that the park on O’Hara Avenue (near Sand Creek
Road) was now open. He also wanted to report that he visited the new Discovery Builders’ Portofino
Homes and noted that the front yard setbacks were larger than the rear yard setbacks.


                                                      11
Chairman Weber talked about the misuse of Trilogy advertisement signs in the City.

Planner Zilm said that the City has received complaints from residents and Code Enforcement was aware
of the situation.

Commissioner Bristow asked about the requirements for public notice signs that are to be posted at the
project site by the applicant.

Ms. Kline said that staff has made an allowance to allow applicants to post 2 to 3-foot wide notices on the
windows of buildings within commercial centers for conditional use permits.

Commissioner Bristow referred to a sign that he saw recently where the City’s signage example
was enlarged and posted on a fence at the project site. He said that it was very difficult to read and did
not contain enough sufficient information.

REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

ADJOURNMENT

Motion to adjourn the March 17, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting.

Moved by Weber; no second required.

  There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 PM. The next Regular
  Planning Commission Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 7, 2009, at 7:00 PM.

  Respectfully submitted,


  Christie Pollock
  Administrative Secretary




                                                    12
Attachment No. 4
                             CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 30


Meeting Date:        May 26, 2009

Subject/Title:        Consider an ordinance for a Rezone (RZ 09-05) to amend Chapter
                      17.455 of the Brentwood Municipal Code for the Planned Development
                      No. 5 (PD-5) Subarea B zoning designation to alter the delivery hours for
                      the Shops at Fairview commercial development by extending them on
                      Sundays from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The
                      Shops at Fairview commercial development is located at the northeast
                      corner of the intersection of Balfour Road and Fairview Avenue.

Prepared by:         Debbie Hill, Associate Planner

Submitted by:        Casey McCann, Community Development Director



RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council waive the first reading and
introduce an ordinance for a Rezone (RZ 09-05) to amend Chapter 17.455 of the Brentwood
Municipal code for the Planned Development No. 5 (PD-5) Subarea B zoning designation to
alter the delivery hours for the Shops at Fairview commercial development by extending them
on Sundays from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The Shops at Fairview
commercial development is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Balfour Road
and Fairview Avenue.

PREVIOUS ACTIONS
The City Council approved an amendment to Planned Development No. 5, adding development
standards on February 22, 2005.

BACKGROUND
The original Shops at Fairview design review (DR 04-34) application was approved by the
Planning Commission on February 1, 2005, with a minor modification to the conditions removing
the requirement for a public art element occurring on April 5, 2005. The project is a
neighborhood-serving shopping center on 10.5 acres located at the northeast corner of Balfour
Road and Fairview Avenue. The ultimate configuration of the center comprises 8 buildings of
various sizes located around the perimeter of the site. The site is accessed through a main
signalized entrance aisle from Balfour Road with two secondary entrances along Fairview
Avenue, with the northernmost entrance designated as a truck route.

Currently the site has been developed with four of the eight approved buildings, as well as the
parking, lighting and landscaping, which were part of the original approval. The four existing
buildings include Longs, Pad 2 and the Shops A and B buildings.

At the May 5, 2009, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission held a public hearing on
this application and unanimously voted 4-0 to recommend that the City Council approve the
zoning amendment. Commissioner Bristow was absent.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant, The Bergman Companies, is requesting a zoning amendment to PD-5, Subarea
B, to amend the delivery hours on Sundays by two hours, changing them from 9:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., in order to accommodate the business model of Fresh &
Easy, which requires deliveries of fresh products daily.

ANALYSIS
Planned Development 5 is a mixed-use zoning designation that includes single-family
residential, multi-family residential and commercial uses. The Fresh & Easy use would be a
permitted use within Subarea B of PD-5.

The current development standards for Subarea B of PD-5 include a restriction on the delivery
hours for the development. Section 17.455.004(D)(6) states:

       Delivery hours: Supermarkets and drugstores shall restrict delivery hours to
       seven a.m. to ten p.m., Monday through Saturday, and nine a.m. to ten p.m. on
       Sunday.

As mentioned previously, the Fresh & Easy concept requires daily deliveries of fresh food
products. These deliveries must be made early in order to allow the employees time to stock
the shelves each day.

According to the attached “Fresh & Easy Overview,” the delivery trucks are hybrids that make
less noise than typical delivery trucks, which would lessen the noise impact to surrounding
neighbors. During the environmental review for the original design review, an acoustical
analysis was completed that recommended a soundwall between the commercial and
residential uses north of the project site. Accordingly, a mitigation measure was placed on the
project requiring that the recommendations of the acoustical analysis be implemented. A 10
foot high soundwall was constructed in conjunction with the initial development of the site and
currently exists between the buildings and the residential uses. The truck route for this site
remains the same as when the acoustical analysis was completed. Consequently, there should
be no additional noise impacts associated with an increase in the delivery hours on Sunday
from 9 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., since the soundwall was designed to
adequately mitigate the noise impacts associated with delivery traffic.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An initial study and mitigated negative declaration were prepared in conjunction with the
originally approved design review. All mitigation measures were included as part of the project’s
conditions of approval. Since the project includes only a minor increase in building square
footage and no new impacts will be created, no further environmental documentation is required
at this time.

FISCAL IMPACT
The applicant paid an application fee of $4,205.00 for this amendment. There would be some
additional commercial tax revenue to the City once the Fresh & Easy development is in
operation. However, the project involves a minor modification to the existing Municipal Code,
which, in itself, would not result in any increase or decrease in potential commercial tax
revenue. The applicant paid the required application fee for this rezone request.




                                               2
Attachments:
    1. Ordinance
    2. Planned Development 5 (PD-5) map
    3. Site Plan
    4. Fresh & Easy Overview dated “Received April 17, 2009”




                                            3
                                       ORDINANCE NO.

        AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
        APPROVING A REZONE (RZ 09-05) TO AMEND CHAPTER 17.455 OF THE
        BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 5 (PD-
        5) SUBAREA B ZONING DESIGNATION TO ALTER THE DELIVERY HOURS FOR
        THE SHOPS AT FAIRVIEW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT EXTENDING THEM ON
        SUNDAYS FROM 9:00 A.M. TO 10:00 P.M. TO 7:00 A.M. TO 10:00 P.M. THE
        SHOPS AT FAIRVIEW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED AT THE
        NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF BALFOUR ROAD AND
        FAIRVIEW AVENUE.

        WHEREAS, The Bergman Companies has initiated a zoning amendment to amend the
Planned Development 5 (PD-5) Subarea B zoning designation to extend the delivery hours on
Sundays by two hours, changing them from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.,
in order to accommodate the business model of Fresh & Easy, which requires deliveries of fresh
products daily; and

       WHEREAS, on May 5, 2009, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing, considered public comments and adopted Resolution No. 09-021 which recommended
the approval of the zoning amendment for Planned Development 5, Subarea B; and

        WHEREAS, the project consists of a planned development amendment extending the
delivery hours on Sundays within Subarea B of the zone, with no expansion of the development
proposed, and a mitigated negative declaration was prepared for the development and all
mitigation measures have been implemented; therefore, no further environmental review is
required at this time; and

      WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was legally advertised in the Brentwood Press
on May 15, 2009, for the purpose of reviewing the application, considering the Planning
Commission’s action and considering all comments made by the public with respect to this
proposed zoning amendment; and

        WHEREAS, after the close of the public hearing, the City Council considered all public
comments received both before and during the public hearing, the presentation by City staff, the
staff report, which includes an analysis of the consistency of the proposed project with all other
goals and policies of the City and the General Plan, and all other pertinent goals, policies,
regulations and documents regarding the proposed zoning amendment; and

       NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood:

Section 1.

       The City Council hereby makes the following supporting findings for this rezone:

        1.     The zoning ordinance amendment is consistent with the existing General Plan
               land use designation of General Commercial.

        2.     The project is consistent with the City’s previously expressed intent to adopt
               development standards prior to or in conjunction with the approval of any specific
               projects.


                                                1
       3.     The project is consistent with the development within the Planned Development 5
              zoning designation.

       4.     The site is physically suitable for the type and the density of development
              proposed.

       5.     The proposed zoning amendment has been processed in accordance with the
              applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California
              Environmental Quality Act.

       6.     The zoning amendment will reflect the intended development as originally
              approved and will reflect the current existing development.

       7.     The rezoning will involve areas which are abutting public streets which will
              provide physical access to the project site and there is sufficient capacity to
              accommodate the traffic anticipated to be generated by the development and the
              adjacent uses in the vicinity.

Section 2.

       Subsection 17.455.004(D)(6) of the Brentwood Municipal Code is hereby deleted in its
       entirety and replaced with the following:

       6. Delivery hours: Supermarkets and drugstores shall restrict delivery hours to 7:00
       a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily.

Section 3.

       This Ordinance shall be published in accordance with Government Code Section 36933
       by either posting or publishing the Ordinance in accordance with that law. Further, the
       City Clerk is directed to cause Section 2 of this Ordinance to be entered in the City of
       Brentwood Municipal Code. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days
       following its adoption.

Section 4.

       If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any
       reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of a court of competent
       jurisdiction, the holding shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining
       provisions, and the City Council declares that it would have adopted each provision of
       this ordinance irrespective of the validity of any other provision.

        THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced with the first reading waived at a
regular meeting of the Brentwood City Council on the 26th day of May, 2009, by the following
vote:




                                               2
ATTACHMENT NO. 2




       1
ATTACHMENT NO. 3




       2
ATTACHMENT NO. 4




       3
                             CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 31


Meeting Date:    May 26, 2009

Subject/Title:   Adopt a Resolution Approving a Memorandum of Understanding between the
                 City of Brentwood and the Brentwood Chamber of Commerce regarding the
                 2009 CornFest event and authorize the City Manager or her designee to
                 execute the Memorandum of Understanding.

Prepared by:     Hazel Wetherford, Administrative Assistant II

Submitted by: Casey McCann, Community Development Director


RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution Approving a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Brentwood
and the Brentwood Chamber of Commerce regarding the 2009 CornFest event and authorize
the City Manager or her designee to execute the Memorandum of Understanding.

PREVIOUS ACTION
On May 9, 2006, the City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between
the City of Brentwood and the Brentwood Chamber of Commerce related to the scope of City
services and estimated City fees for the 2006 CornFest event and authorized the City Manager
or her designee to execute the Memorandum of Understanding.

On January 23, 2007, the City Council received and filed a 2006 CornFest evaluation report
based on the approved MOU with the Brentwood Chamber of Commerce.

On April 10, 2007, the City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between
the City of Brentwood and the Brentwood Chamber of Commerce related to the scope of City
services and estimated City fees for the 2007 CornFest event and authorized the City Manager
or her designee to execute the Memorandum of Understanding.

On February 12, 2008, the City Council received and filed a 2007 CornFest evaluation report
based on the approved MOU with the Brentwood Chamber of Commerce.

On May 13, 2008, the City Council approved a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between
the City of Brentwood and the Brentwood Chamber of Commerce related to the scope of City
services and estimated City fees for the 2008 CornFest event and authorized the City Manager
or her designee to execute the Memorandum of Understanding.

On November 18, 2008, the City Council received and filed a 2008 CornFest evaluation report
based on the approved MOU with the Brentwood Chamber of Commerce.

BACKGROUND
The annual, three-day CornFest remains a community-based event that serves as a major
funding source for local service organizations (Rotary, Soroptomists, Kiwanis, etc.) and local
non-profits (Delta Resource Center, school organizations, cancer society, etc). The event also
provides significant revenue for the Chamber to continue its annual programs and projects that
support Brentwood’s business community, and provides a unique opportunity to showcase our
Downtown.

In response to the Chamber’s concern about the uncertainty of costs and the City’s desire to
provide greater controls over the event for safety reasons, the City and the Chamber entered
into the first Memorandum of Understanding for the CornFest in 2006. This MOU outlined the
various responsibilities and costs associated with the event, including estimates for police
services, parks and recreation and public works related facilities and services.

Staff is recommending that the City enter into another MOU this year as a means of properly
projecting costs and services for the CornFest event. With the exception of a few minor
changes, this year’s MOU is relatively the same as the 2008 MOU. To summarize the changes,
the Chamber will open a half hour later on Saturday and Sunday, the Public Works department
will have a pre-meeting with the Chamber to discuss maintenance services, and due to budget
cuts, the Parks and Recreation will not be able to waive staff costs.

FISCAL IMPACT
The costs for City services outlined in the MOU are estimated at $42,996 and will be reimbursed
by the Chamber, under the terms and conditions of the MOU for the 2009 CornFest. The actual
costs for City services are only estimated and may be adjusted due to unknown or unforeseen
circumstances that may occur during the three-day event.

Attachments:
     Resolution
     Memorandum of Understanding
                                 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-___


       A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
       APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF
       BRENTWOOD AND THE BRENTWOOD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REGARDING
       THE 2009 CORNFEST EVENT AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER OR HER
       DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.


       WHEREAS, the annual, three-day CornFest remains a community-based event
sponsored by the Brentwood Chamber of Commerce (“Chamber”) that serves as a major
funding source for local service organizations (Rotary, Soroptomists, Kiwanis, etc.) and local
non-profits (Delta Resource Center, school organizations, cancer society, etc); and

       WHEREAS, the event also provides significant revenue for the Chamber to continue its
annual programs and projects that support Brentwood’s business community, and provides a
unique opportunity to showcase the City’s Downtown; and

        WHEREAS, in response to the Chamber’s concern about the uncertainty of costs and
the City’s desire to provide greater controls over the event for safety reasons, the City and the
Chamber entered into the first Memorandum of Understanding for the CornFest in 2006. This
MOU outlined the various responsibilities and costs associated with the event, including
estimates for police services, parks and recreation and public works related facilities and
services; and

        WHEREAS, the City and Chamber have agreed to memorialize their understanding
related to the 2009 CornFest event by outlining the parties’ roles and responsibilities, the scope
of City services and estimated costs, as well as the intent of the 2009 CornFest as a
community-oriented event in a Memorandum of Understanding; and

       WHEREAS, the City desires to enter into these agreements annually as a means of
properly projecting costs and services for the CornFest event; and

         WHEREAS, with the exception of a few minor changes, this year’s MOU is relatively the
same as the 2008 MOU. To summarize the changes, the Chamber will open a half hour later
on Saturday and Sunday, the Public Works department will have a pre-meeting with the
Chamber to discuss maintenance services, and due to budget cuts, the Parks and Recreation
will not be able to waive staff costs.

        NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood
that the City Council approves a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the
Brentwood Chamber of Commerce regarding the 2009 CornFest and authorizes the City
Manager or her designee to execute the Memorandum of Understanding, subject to minor
technical revisions approved by the City Manager in conjunction with the City Attorney.

       PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at
a regular meeting held on the 26th day of May 2009 by the following vote:
                             CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 32



Meeting Date: May 26, 2009

Subject/Title:   Adopt a resolution 1) Adopting the Negative Declaration and 2) Adopting the
                 2009/10-2013/14 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the City of Brentwood
                 including roadway, park, sewer, water and other municipal improvements to be
                 constructed during the next five years.

Prepared by:     Kerry Breen, Business Services Manager

Submitted by: Pamela Ehler, Director of Finance and Information Systems


RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution 1) Adopting the Negative Declaration and 2) Adopting the 2009/10-2013/14
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the City of Brentwood including roadway, park, sewer,
water and other municipal improvements to be constructed during the next five years.

PREVIOUS ACTION
On July 26, 1994, the City Council approved the first five-year CIP. The CIP budget was added
to the City’s adopted 1994/95 budget. The City Council also authorized the creation of the CIP
Team to plan, design and administer the projects outlined in the CIP report. The CIP Team is
also responsible for updating the CIP report and preparing the report annually. The attached
CIP report represents the efforts of the CIP Team to present the City Council with the next
year’s update.

On March 10, 2009, the City Council held a public workshop on the proposed CIP budget.

On April 14, 2009, by Resolution No. 2009-79, City Council approved to amend the Veterans
Park Public Art CIP Project No. 352-52350 and authorizing additional funds from the Public Art
Acquisition Fund in the amount of $34,075.00.

BACKGROUND
Adoption of the 2009/10-2013/14 CIP will continue the five-year Capital Improvement Program
for City projects. An annual update will take place in 2010 and every subsequent year. The
preparation of this annual budget assists staff in determining and updating the development fee
program which finances the majority of these projects.

The following changes have been made to the 2009/10-2013/14 CIP since the March 10th
workshop:

       Roadway Improvements:

       Brentwood Business Park Improvements – This project was removed from the 2009/10-
       2013/14 CIP as the work was completed earlier than anticipated.

       Parks and Recreation Improvements:
       Veterans Park Public Art – Council approved an amendment to the 2008/09 budget
       sheet on April 14, 2009. This amendment increased the 2009/10 budget from $11,300
       to $26,000, an increase of $14,700.
       Water Improvements:

       Surface Water Treatment Facility Phases I & II – In addition to the purchased capacity at
       the Randall-Bold Water Treatment Plant (RBWTP), the City had been renting additional
       capacity at RBWTP to account for the increase in population and corresponding water
       demands. This capacity rental was necessary to bridge the time period during which the
       long term water treatment options were being evaluated. This rented capacity was
       recently replaced by the Brentwood Water Treatment Plant thus increasing the
       enterprises fair share of that facility from 50% to 60%. As a result of this, the funding
       splits for the project were adjusted from a 50-50 split between the Water Enterprise and
       Water Facility Fees, to a 60-40 split.

A Negative Declaration has been prepared to address the potential environmental effects of the
CIP. The Negative Declaration finds that no significant adverse impacts would result should this
program be adopted. On May 5, 2009, the Planning Commission found the 2009/10-2013/14
CIP to be consistent with the City of Brentwood General Plan and recommended that the City
Council certify the Negative Declaration. The draft of the May 5th Planning Commission minutes
are attached. Based on this, staff recommends that the City Council certify the Negative
Declaration and file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk.

The CIP is too large to include as an attachment to this document. Therefore, copies of the CIP
are available for public review in the following locations: City Hall lobby, Community
Development lobby, Parks and Recreation lobby and at the Brentwood library.

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal year 2009/10 costs, from various funding sources, are noted in the CIP. Future year
costs and revenues will be reviewed every year by the City Council as a part of the annual
update and adoption of a new five-year CIP.


Attachments:
Resolution
May 5th Planning Commission Minutes (CIP Budget Item)
Initial Study and Negative Declaration dated March 2009
Notice of Determination
                                     RESOLUTION NO.

       A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD 1)
       ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND 2) ADOPTING THE 2009/10 –
       2013/14 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) FOR THE CITY OF
       BRENTWOOD INCLUDING ROADWAY, PARK, SEWER, WATER AND OTHER
       MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED DURING THE NEXT FIVE
       YEARS


       WHEREAS, Section 65400 et. seq., of the Government Code of the State of California
requires that cities should provide for means of implementing the General Plan and the efficient
expenditure of public funds relating to the implementation of public projects addressed in the
General Plan; and

      WHEREAS, the City of Brentwood adopted a new General Plan in June, 1993, and an
Updated General Plan in November, 2001, which recommended that a comprehensive Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) be developed for the City of Brentwood; and

        WHEREAS, the City of Brentwood adopted the first Capital Improvement Program in
July, 1994; and

       WHEREAS, this CIP has as its purpose to integrate the CIP with the General Plan and
other City activities, ensure that planning for Capital Improvements is tied to realistic sources of
income in order to finance these improvements; and

       WHEREAS, the five-year CIP must be developed and adopted in conjunction with each
new City budget; 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, based upon completion of an Initial Study prepared pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act, approval of the CIP will not result in any significant
adverse impacts on the environment, therefore a Negative Declaration was prepared and
circulated for public comment; and

       WHEREAS, on April 14, 2009, by Resolution No. 2009-79, City Council approved to
amend the Veterans Park Public Art CIP Project No. 352-52350 and authorizing additional funds
from the Public Art Acquisition Fund in the amount of $34,075.00; and

        WHEREAS, on May 5, 2009, the Planning Commission found the 2009/10-2013/14
Capital Improvement Program to be consistent with the General Plan and recommended that
the City Council certify the Negative Declaration; and

       WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in
the Negative Declaration and all oral testimony and written comments received.

       NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that:

       1. The City Council of the City of Brentwood hereby finds that there is no substantial
          evidence, in light of the whole record, that the 2009/10-2013/14 CIP, as revised from
         previous CIP’s, may have a significant effect on the environment and the Negative
         Declaration reflects the Council’s independent judgment and analysis; and
      2. The City Council adopts the Negative Declaration; and

      3. The City Council of the City of Brentwood hereby adopts the 2009/10-2013/14
         Capital Improvement Program as presented; and

      4. A Notice of Determination shall be filed with the County Clerk by the City Clerk.

      5. The City is the custodian of the documents and other material which constitute the
         record of the proceedings upon which this decision is based and said documents and
         materials are located at the City of Brentwood, 708 Third Street, Brentwood,
         California.

       PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at
a regular meeting held on the 26th day of May 2009 by the following vote:
Planning Commission Minutes
         May 5, 2009
          City of Brentwood
Capital Improvement Program Budget
           2009/10-2013/14

        NEGATIVE DECLARATION




              March 2009
                                  City of Brentwood Capital Improvement Program Budget 2009/10-2013/14
                                                                                           Initial Study


                                    INITIAL STUDY

                                        March 2009

                             I.            BACKGROUND

1.    Project Title: City of Brentwood Capital Improvement Program Budget 2009/10-2013/14

2.    Lead Agency Name and Address:                                              City of Brentwood
                                                                                   708 Third Street
                                                                              Brentwood, CA 94513

3.    Contact Person and Phone Number:                                                    Debbie Hill
                                                                                   Associate Planner
                                                                                   City of Brentwood
                                                                                      (925) 516-5135

4.    Project Location:                                               City-wide, City of Brentwood
                                                                              Contra Costa County

5.    Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:                                        City of Brentwood
                                                                                   708 Third Street
                                                                              Brentwood, CA 94513

6.    General Plan Designation:                                               City-wide applicability

7.    Existing Zoning:                                                        City-wide applicability

8.    Proposed Zoning:                                                        City-wide applicability

9.    Other public agency required approvals:

      Additional permits may be required from Federal, State, County and other agencies and
      organizations, depending on the type and location of an individual project included as
      part of the CIP.

10.   Project Description Summary:

      The proposed project is the City’s Capital Improvement Program Budget (CIP) for fiscal
      years 2009/10 to 2013/14, which identifies proposed capital improvements and
      preliminary budgets for projects throughout the City over a five-year period. Capital
      improvements include a range of public works and infrastructure projects to improve the
      quality of life for local residents and visitors. Proposed projects include: roadway
      improvements, parks and trails, water, wastewater, drainage and community facility
      improvements, plus development-funded improvements throughout the City of
      Brentwood.


                                                 1                                          March 2009
                                  City of Brentwood Capital Improvement Program Budget 2009/10-2013/14
                                                                                           Initial Study

                                  II.          SOURCES

The following documents are referenced information sources utilized by this analysis:

1.     City of Brentwood General Plan Update, City of Brentwood, November 2001.
2.     City of Brentwood General Plan EIR, City of Brentwood, November 2001.
3.     City of Brentwood Capital Improvement Program Budget 2009/10-2013/14, City of
       Brentwood, May 2009.

       III.       ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant” or “Less-Than-Significant With
Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

     Aesthetics                          Agriculture                      Air Quality
     Biological Resources                Cultural Resources               Geology/Soils
     Hazards & Hazardous                 Hydrology/Water Quality          Land Use & Planning
     Materials
     Energy & Mineral Resources          Noise                            Population & Housing
     Public Services                     Recreation                       Transportation & Circulation
     Utilities/Service Systems           Mandatory Findings of        X   None
                                         Significance




                                                 2                                          March 2009
                                       City of Brentwood Capital Improvement Program Budget 2009/10-2013/14
                                                                                                Initial Study


                                IV.           DETERMINATION

On the basis of this initial study:

        I find that the Proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
        environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

        I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the
        environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
        project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
        DECLARATION will be prepared.

        I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
        an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

        I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or
        “potentially significant unless mitigated” on the environment, but at least one effect 1)
        has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
        standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
        as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
        but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

        I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
        environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
        in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
        pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
        upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.




                                      _____                        ______________________________
Signature                                                          Date

Debbie Hill                                                        City of Brentwood_______________
Associate Planner                                                  For




                                                      3                                          March 2009
                                   City of Brentwood Capital Improvement Program Budget 2009/10-2013/14
                                                                                            Initial Study

                   V.            BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

This Initial Study identifies and analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed
project. The information and analysis presented in this document is organized in accordance
with the order of the CEQA checklist in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. If the analysis
provided in this document identifies potentially significant environmental effects resulting from
the project, mitigation measures that should be applied to the project are prescribed.

The environmental setting and impact discussion for each section of this Initial Study have been
largely based on information in the 2001 Brentwood General Plan EIR document.

                           VI.         PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed project site is the City of Brentwood Planning area that is located in the eastern
portion of Contra Costa County. The Brentwood planning area includes approximately 30 square
miles bounded by the City of Antioch to the west and northwest, the City of Oakley to the north
and unincorporated Contra Costa County agricultural lands to the south and east (See Figure 1:
Regional Location Map)

The City of Brentwood prepares a Capital Budget document that is different from the Operating
Budget document, but the two budgets are closely linked. The CIP, as distinguished from the
Operating Budget, is used as a planning tool by the City to identify the capital improvement
needs consistent with the financing and timing of those needs in a way that assures the most
responsible and efficient use of resources. The first year of the CIP is called the Capital Budget
which consists of the planned expenditures for Fiscal Year 2009/10. The Capital Budget is part
of the annual Operating Budget, which appropriates funds for specific programs and projects.

 A capital project typically involves the purchase or construction of major fixed assets such as
land, buildings and any permanent improvement including additions, replacements and major
alterations having a long life expectancy. Additionally, capital projects may apply to: 1)
expenditures which take place over two or more years and which require continuing
appropriations beyond a single fiscal year; 2) systematic acquisitions over an extended period of
time and 3) scheduled replacement or maintenance of specific elements of physical assets.
Generally, only those items costing $10,000 or more are considered as capital projects. For
informational purposes, capital projects are also referred to as capital facilities, CIP projects and
capital improvement projects.

The CIP is developed as a coordinated effort between the CIP Project Managers and the CIP
Executive Committee. The CIP Project Managers submit projects to the Executive Committee
based on perceived need and feasibility of the project. The CIP Executive Committee, made up
of the City Manager, the Director of Public Works/City Engineer and the Director of
Finance/Information Systems, evaluate the projects based on need and available funding. Some
projects have specified funding sources, such as assessment districts or special fees and are, for
the most part, recommended for funding without question. However, some projects may
compete for limited fund dollars. These projects are prioritized by the Executive Committee.
The list is then compared to available staffing and dollars and as many projects as feasibly
possible are funded, either fully or partially, with any remaining projects designated as unfunded.


                                                  4                                          March 2009
                                  City of Brentwood Capital Improvement Program Budget 2009/10-2013/14
                                                                                           Initial Study



All submitted projects, whether funded or unfunded, are included in the CIP and recommended
to the City Council for approval. City Council and citizen input on the proposed CIP is solicited
by way of the CIP Workshop. The CIP document is then reviewed by the Planning Commission
for determination of General Plan conformance. Finally, the draft document is presented to the
City Council for review and public input prior to the City Council’s final approval.




                                                 5                                          March 2009
   City of Brentwood Capital Improvement Program Budget 2009/10-2013/14
                                                            Initial Study

Figure 1: Regional Location Map




                      Project Area




                  6                                          March 2009
                                  City of Brentwood Capital Improvement Program Budget 2009/10-2013/14
                                                                                           Initial Study



The CIP contains individual projects within the following general categories:

       1.     Roadway Improvements, including purchase of land for new roads and
              improvements to existing roads, such as road widenings, construction and/or
              realignment of roads, installation of and/or upgrades to traffic signals, sidewalk
              replacement, repaving and overlay of streets, roadway grade crossings, bridge
              crossings over creeks and related actions, including traffic calming. Major
              roadway improvements envisioned in the CIP include, but are not limited to:
              Brentwood Boulevard Widening North – Phase I, John Muir Parkway
              Extension/Foothill Drive – Phase I, and the Lone Tree Way – Union Pacific
              Undercrossing projects. (See Table 1 for a complete listing of Roadway
              Improvement projects.)

       2.     Parks and Trail Improvements, including purchase of land for new parks,
              development of new parks and improvements to existing parks, public art
              programs, creek enhancements and development of recreational trails within the
              community. A number of these proposed improvements include, but are not
              limited to: City Park, Summerset Park, Sand Creek Soccer Complex, John Marsh
              Home Rehabilitation, and Park Play Equipment Replacement. (See Table 2 for a
              complete listing of Parks and Trails Improvement projects.)

       3.     Water Improvements, including purchase of right-of-way for new and upgraded
              water lines, construction and upgrading of water reservoirs, a well monitoring
              program, a surface water treatment facility, rehabilitation of existing water lines,
              water treatment facilities, and similar projects intended to improve the delivery of
              water and water pressure and to ensure drinking water quality standards continue
              to be achieved. Specific major water projects include, but are not limited to:
              Surface Water Treatment Facility – Phases I and II, Downtown Infrastructure, and
              Zone I Equalization Storage Reservoirs. (See Table 3 for a complete listing of
              Water Improvement projects.)

       4.     Wastewater Improvements, including new and upgraded sewer collectors,
              development of a recycled water program to reduce the need for potable water,
              and expansions and upgrades of the City’s wastewater treatment plant. Specific
              wastewater improvement projects include, but are not limited to: City Wide
              Wastewater Rehabilitation, Non-Potable Water Distribution System – Phase II
              and III, and the Wastewater Treatment Plan Expansion – Phase II. (See Table 4
              for a complete listing of wastewater improvement projects.)

       5.     Community Facilities Improvements, including new and upgraded public
              buildings and City facilities, such as a Civic Center Plaza, a new City Hall,
              downtown parking structures, new fire stations, improvements to City’s solid
              waste transfer station, upgrades to the City’s information technology, a new
              Community Center and upgrades to the Maintenance Service Center. These
              proposed improvements include, but are not limited to: the Civic Center Parking
              Facility – Phase I and II, Downtown Parking Solutions, and the Communication


                                                 7                                          March 2009
                                   City of Brentwood Capital Improvement Program Budget 2009/10-2013/14
                                                                                            Initial Study

               Tower project. (See Table 5 for a complete listing of Community Facilities
               Improvement projects.)

       6.      Drainage Improvements, including the design and construction of new facilities
               such as catch basins and storm drains and upgrading of older facilities and similar
               projects intended to reduce flooding and improve run off. Specific projects
               included are the Harvest Park Basin and Storm Drain Improvement projects. (See
               Table 6 for a complete listing of Drainage Improvement projects.)

       7.      Development Improvements consist primarily of road, water, sewer and drainage
               and similar improvements that are anticipated to be made by private developers
               and dedicated to the City. (See Table 7 for a complete listing of Development
               Improvement projects.)

Tables 1-7 present a summary of the City’s proposed projects by CIP category. The City staff
and Brentwood City Council shall review the proposed list of projects annually. Although
changes to the list of projects may occur, the projects listed are considered to commence within
the five-year timeframe. A more complete description of these proposed projects are available at
the City of Brentwood Public Works Department, 118 Oak Street, Brentwood, during normal
business hours.

The Council approval of the five-year CIP does not constitute an appropriation of funds to the
specific project(s). Projects are funded as a result of budget approval or specific allocation of
funds by the City Council. In addition, some projects may proceed as a result of grant approval
of funding from other sources (development, County, State, or Federal).

As the City obtains more specific information through specific design processes and individual
project initiation, additional environmental reviews, if required, would occur for each individual
project contained within the CIP.

                      VII.        ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

The following Checklist contains the environmental checklist form presented in Appendix G of
the CEQA Guidelines. The checklist form is used to describe the impacts of the proposed
project. A discussion follows each environmental issue identified in the checklist. Included in
each discussion are project-specific mitigation measures recommended, as appropriate, as part of
the proposed project.

For this checklist, the following designations are used:

Potentially Significant Impact: An impact that could be significant, and for which mitigation
has not been identified. If any potentially significant impacts are identified, an EIR must be
prepared.

Less-Than-Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: An impact that requires mitigation to
reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.



                                                  8                                          March 2009
                                City of Brentwood Capital Improvement Program Budget 2009/10-2013/14
                                                                                         Initial Study


Less-Than-Significant Impact: Any impact that would not be considered significant under
CEQA relative to existing standards.

No Impact: The project would not have any impact.




                                               9                                          March 2009
          City of Brentwood Capital Improvement Program Budget 2009/10-2013/14
                                                                   Initial Study


Table 1




  10                                                                March 2009
          City of Brentwood Capital Improvement Program Budget 2009/10-2013/14
                                                                   Initial Study




Table 2




  11                                                                March 2009
          City of Brentwood Capital Improvement Program Budget 2009/10-2013/14
                                                                   Initial Study


Table 3




  12                                                                March 2009
          City of Brentwood Capital Improvement Program Budget 2009/10-2013/14
                                                                   Initial Study




Table 4




  13                                                                March 2009
          City of Brentwood Capital Improvement Program Budget 2009/10-2013/14
                                                                   Initial Study


Table 5




  14                                                                March 2009
              City of Brentwood Capital Improvement Program Budget 2009/10-2013/14
                                                                       Initial Study


 Table 5
(Continued)




    15                                                                  March 2009
          City of Brentwood Capital Improvement Program Budget 2009/10-2013/14