4–0 Vote: Planning Commission Denies Fire Station 94 Design Review

Brentwood planners deny fire station design, Fire district has 10 days to appeal decision on downtown site, by Jake Menez, The Press, May 8, 2025 https://www.thepress.net/news/brentwood-planners-deny-fire-station-design/article_f9c2157c-91dc-4010-95db-2a8bbddb2d62.html

We share the Planning Commission’s disheartened sentiment that it had to come to this. Unfortunately, the Fire District appears committed to staying the course, even when better alternatives are available. Their refusal to consider the shovel-ready Sand Creek location—despite its clear advantages—shows a troubling unwillingness to adapt.

The path forward is collaboration. The Fire District, County, City, and Veterans must come to the table. There are solutions that respect the original land dedication, deliver the fire services Brentwood needs, and save taxpayers money over the life of the station. We all know the Sand Creek location checks every one of those boxes.

Let’s do this the right way—together.

A Shared Interest, A Better Option

The interests of Brentwood’s taxpayers, residents, city officials, and veterans are aligned: we all want the best outcome for our community. That’s why so many have raised concerns about the poor planning behind the placement of Fire Station 94. The blame does not lie with those asking tough questions—it lies with a fire district and county leadership that refuse to reconsider a flawed course of action.

The Sand Creek site presents an obvious solution. Originally developed and approved nearly two decades ago as the replacement location for the downtown fire station, the site remains shovel-ready. It is closer to the city’s population center and positioned for future growth. It is cost-effective, scalable, and avoids the disruption caused by building in the heart of downtown. By offering this site to the Fire District, the City can help everyone win: downtown businesses, taxpayers, veterans, and emergency services.

This isn’t just about saving money today—it’s about avoiding costly mistakes tomorrow. Just look at Vasco Road. Everyone knew it wasn’t built to handle the traffic demands of the region, but instead of building it right the first time, short-term thinking prevailed. Now, Vasco Road is a dangerous, congested corridor with no easy or affordable fix. The cost of correcting that poor planning continues to rise—and lives have been lost as a result.

We cannot afford to let that happen again. Refusing to adapt, especially when a better option is on the table, is not responsible governance. It’s negligence. Let’s not repeat the mistakes of the past. Let’s bring the Fire District, the City, the County, and the Veterans together to pursue a solution that works for everyone—starting with a fire station located where it makes the most sense: Sand Creek.

A Matter of Respect—for Brentwood’s Vision

Let’s start with what should be obvious: the design proposed for Fire Station 94 is deeply out of step with Brentwood’s Downtown Specific Plan. The community made its expectations clear years ago when it adopted this plan—a vision for a vibrant, walkable, small-town downtown with design guidelines that preserve character and support thoughtful growth. The Fire District’s proposal did not come close to meeting that vision.

Our letter to the Planning Commission laid out specific areas where the design failed. And we’re not the only ones who noticed. The Planning Commission voted 4–0 to deny the design—hardly a marginal decision. Chairperson Rod Flohr called the design “bulky,” and others said it was more reminiscent of East Coast fire stations than anything appropriate for our agricultural heritage or downtown charm.

We urge anyone reading this to look at two examples: Fire Station 36 in Danville, and the proposed Fire Station 94 in Brentwood. It doesn’t take an expert to see the difference. One is designed with California mission-style architecture, elegant lines, and careful attention to its surroundings. The other? A red-brick box that looks like it belongs in Manhattan, not Main Street.

This is not just about appearances—it’s about respect. The Fire District claims to have worked closely with City staff. If that’s the case, how did we end up with a proposal that so thoroughly ignores the City’s own Downtown Specific Plan? How can a project so impactful be this far off course?

The Planning Commission made the right call. The public agrees. And if the Fire District had truly respected the City’s standards—and the people who live here—this project would have looked very different from the start.

Don’t Be Fooled by Public Safety Rhetoric

Let’s be clear: everyone supports fire protection. We all want fast, effective emergency response. But we must not let politicians or agencies weaponize the phrase “public safety” to justify poor planning and disrespect for community standards. That’s exactly what’s happening here.

The “public safety” card is being played to silence valid concerns about design, location, and accountability. If you raise a question about why a fire station design doesn’t fit the Downtown Specific Plan—you’re accused of not caring about safety. If you ask why the County refuses to consider a better, shovel-ready location at Sand Creek—you’re told you’re delaying emergency response and risking lives. This is fear-mongering, plain and simple.

This tactic is working on some social media circles, where misinformation spreads fast. We’ve seen a flood of comments from individuals who clearly haven’t reviewed the plans, the Planning Commission's findings, or the actual Downtown Specific Plan. They parrot the claim that “delays will cost lives,” without acknowledging the long-term cost of building in the wrong location with the wrong design.

Let’s ground the conversation in facts, not fear. The Planning Commission reviewed the project on its merits and unanimously rejected it—not because they’re anti-firefighter or indifferent to safety, but because the design failed to meet the legal and aesthetic standards Brentwood has established for its downtown.

This is not a question of whether we should have a fire station—it’s about where and how that station is built. Public safety is not an excuse for poor design, weak planning, or steamrolling community values. Don’t be fooled. Demand better.

“We Inherited the Decision” Isn’t a Planning Strategy

One of the most troubling admissions we’ve heard from the Contra Costa Fire District leadership is that the downtown location for Fire Station 94 was “inherited” from the now-defunct East Contra Costa Fire District. Let that sink in.

In a city like Brentwood—growing rapidly and facing evolving community needs—inheriting a decade-old decision without reevaluation is not planning. It’s negligence.

Cities grow. Traffic patterns change. Populations shift. Technology improves. What might have made sense in 2015 doesn’t necessarily make sense in 2025. Good planning demands that we assess the present and anticipate the future—not cling to outdated plans because they’re easier or already underway.

To say “this is what we inherited” is to admit that no serious due diligence was done to determine if the location still makes sense. If the Sand Creek site, originally approved and cleared in 2005 as the future home of the replacement for Station 54, was never revisited during planning discussions, that’s not just an oversight—it’s a failure in responsible governance.

The truth is: they didn’t plan. They defaulted. And now they expect Brentwood residents and veterans to quietly accept the consequences. But we won’t. Because Brentwood deserves fire service that is designed for today’s needs and tomorrow’s growth, not the path of least resistance.

Sunk Costs Are Not a Strategy

One argument we’ve heard repeatedly is that the Fire District has already invested money into planning and has candidates in training. But let’s be clear: money already spent is not a justification for continuing down the wrong path.

This is a textbook example of sunk cost fallacy—the flawed reasoning that we must continue with a poor decision simply because resources have already been committed. In reality, the best course of action is always to pivot when new, better information or opportunities arise.

Choosing to stay the course simply because it’s “already in motion” is not planning—it’s avoidance. Brentwood deserves better.

Planning for Obsolescence

The Fire District points to its “heat map” of emergency calls as justification for placing the station downtown. But let’s not be misled—this map shows historical data, not future need. It reflects where calls have occurred, not where growth is happening.

Brentwood is expanding rapidly to the west and north, and building a station based only on past call volumes ignores where the demand will be. This approach isn’t forward-thinking—it’s setting up for immediate obsolescence.

A real plan considers tomorrow, not just yesterday. Anything less isn’t planning—it’s reaction.

Short-Term Thinking, Long-Term Costs

The Fire District argues that using the Sand Creek location would delay the project and cost taxpayers more now. But this is short-term thinking at its worst. A fire station is a 50+ year investment. If you place it in the wrong spot today, you're locking Brentwood into decades of inefficiency and future expense.

Failing to build where the city is growing—to the west and north—means taxpayers will foot the bill later for expansion, relocation, or an entirely new station. Either way, we pay. So let’s get it right the first time, not kick the cost down the road.

Ignoring the Pattern – A History of Expansion

The Fire District claims there are "no plans" to expand the downtown fire station in the future. But history tells a different story. Over the last 80 years, the downtown station has expanded four times—about once every 20 years.

That’s not speculation; it’s a pattern.

So when the District insists this new station will never need to grow, we have every reason to question that. Planning should be forward-looking, not rooted in denial of history. This isn’t just about architecture—it’s about capacity, infrastructure, and serving a growing city. Pretending expansion won’t be needed is planning for the past, not the future. And Brentwood deserves better.

A Site Hiding in Plain Sight

One of the most troubling revelations in this entire process is that the Fire District never even considered the Sand Creek site—a parcel that was specifically designed and prepared nearly two decades ago to replace the downtown fire station. The 2005 Barrington Project EIR and accompanying documents made clear that the Sand Creek and Laurel Creek location was the future home of Station 54.

So why wasn’t it reconsidered?

Why didn’t the Fire District or City staff evaluate whether this shovel-ready, City-owned, CEQA-cleared site was a better long-term solution? The answer seems painfully clear: they weren’t planning. They were coasting on inherited decisions instead of reevaluating them with today’s needs and tomorrow’s growth in mind.

This isn’t just an oversight. It’s a dereliction of responsibility to the taxpayers, the veterans, and the residents of Brentwood. When a better option exists—one that checks every planning, fiscal, and community-impact box—ignoring it is not just poor judgment, it’s neglect.

The Sand Creek “Dead End” Myth

A common excuse we’ve heard for dismissing the Sand Creek location is that it “doesn’t go through to Sellers Avenue.” While this may have been a legitimate concern twenty years ago, it’s no longer the case today.

Since that time, Garin Parkway has been fully developed and provides multiple alternate routes that connect Sand Creek Road to Sellers Avenue. Fire apparatus leaving a station at Sand Creek and Laurel Creek could easily:

• Take Garin Parkway to Chestnut and then to Sellers,

• Or take Garin Parkway to Sunset, then east to Sellers,

• Or continue west along Brentwood Boulevard to cover areas from the north and west.

Furthermore, Station 99 in Discovery Bay is already the logical responder for areas east of Sellers Avenue. Building a station on Sand Creek would allow Station 99 to focus on covering Discovery Bay and Byron—its intended service areas—instead of stretching resources into central Brentwood.

This argument about a Sand Creek “dead end” is a relic of outdated assumptions. The road network has changed. The city has grown. And the Sand Creek location, once set aside as a replacement for the downtown station, is now perfectly situated to serve Brentwood’s current and future population centers.

Disingenuous Planning and Misplaced Praise

Supervisor Diane Burgis recently stated that:

“The station design was a result of Contra Costa Fire’s long-term engagement with Brentwood city staff and staff’s input on what designs were the best fit for Downtown.”

But this raises an obvious and uncomfortable question: What kind of planning process excludes a fully entitled, shovel-ready property specifically built to house the very fire station in question?

By their own admission, neither Contra Costa Fire nor Brentwood staff evaluated or even mentioned the Sand Creek and Laurel Creek site—a location that was designed, cleared, and approved nearly two decades ago as the future home of Fire Station 54. It was laid out in public planning documents and referenced in city environmental impact reports. Yet somehow, everyone “forgot.”

It wasn’t until the veterans raised objections and began digging through historical records that the Sand Creek location was even brought back into the conversation. In essence, the veterans did the job that paid public servants failed to do. They uncovered documentation, timelines, reports, and land use history that should have been front and center in any honest planning process.

So no, this isn’t the product of “long-term engagement” or meaningful collaboration. It’s the product of institutional tunnel vision and public pressure finally forcing a forgotten alternative back into the light.

The claim that the downtown design is the “best fit” rings hollow when the real planning work—researching alternatives, comparing long-term benefits, and considering broader community impact—was never done.

Land Legacy Ignored – A Deceptive Sound Bite

We have submitted to city officials a copy of the letter we sent to Supervisor Burgis detailing the historical provenance of the Brentwood Veterans Memorial Building property and the long-neglected dedication of that land for veterans’ use. Despite this, Deputy Fire Chief McAlister has publicly characterized the fire station’s footprint as merely “400 square feet of undeveloped gravel.”

While that makes for a convenient sound bite, it is both incomplete and misleading.

The veterans' claim is not about gravel—it is about the entire parcel that was purchased in 1923 with funds raised through a special tax under Political Code §4041f, expressly for the benefit of veterans. The issue is that over the past 80 years, the fire district has steadily expanded onto that land without paying rent and without formal agreement, while the County has failed to uphold the dedication for veterans' purposes. Veterans first formally raised this issue as early as 2005, when further expansion was being considered.

This is not just about square footage—it’s about the continued appropriation of land intended for veteran services, taken over time without compensation, and now being rebranded as surplus gravel to suit a narrative. Meanwhile, the fire district’s track record on financial management and planning oversight—including this current project—is far from reassuring.

If the County and fire district had acted in good faith from the beginning, we might not be here today. But they didn’t. And now the burden has fallen on local veterans and residents to fight for what was never supposed to be taken in the first place.

Conclusion: Do the Right Thing—for the Right Reasons

That is why we respectfully request the Brentwood City Council offer the surplus Sand Creek property to the Fire District. Let’s help them do it right—do the right thing, the right way, for the right reason.

As for the lot currently in dispute, we have plans that serve both veterans and the broader community. We envision a storage facility, much-needed additional parking downtown, and a garden sanctuary to honor veterans struggling with PTSD and to remember those we’ve lost. This would not only preserve the land’s intended use but also contribute to the vibrancy and accessibility of our historic downtown. When not in use for veteran events, the space could serve as public parking—a benefit to residents, businesses, and visitors alike.

The veterans have done our part. We have exposed a pattern of poor planning and called attention to a better solution. Now, we look to our elected officials to do theirs—not to rubber stamp bureaucratic missteps, but to uphold accountability and pursue long-term, community-focused planning.

Many of us swore an oath to defend this country, believing that democracy works when citizens participate and leaders listen. We still believe that.

If the Council chooses to overturn the Planning Commission’s unanimous decision to deny the current fire station design, it will not just be an endorsement of a flawed design—it will be a decision to stand with poor planning over principled governance.

Let’s choose better. Let’s plan smarter. Let’s honor our community—and those who served it.

--

Watch the whole meeting here: Brentwood, CA: Planning Commission Meeting (May 6, 2025 - 7:00 PM meeting)