Planning Commission Meeting 18 MAR 25

You can watch the whole meeting here on YouTube Brentwood, CA: Planning Commission Meeting (March 18, 2025 - 7:00 PM meeting) (Starting at 43:00 concerning Fire Station)

The recent Brentwood Planning Commission meeting regarding Fire Station 94 was covered by The Press, but we noticed that their summary missed several important points raised during the extensive discussions. As direct observers, we want to ensure that these overlooked details are brought to light. Our observations from the meeting highlight key community concerns, procedural questions, and critical insights that were not fully captured in the press coverage. In this blog post, we provide a thorough account of these important aspects to offer a more complete picture of the ongoing conversation about the future of Fire Station 94.

You can read The Press article here: Planning Commission delays fire station decision, Commissioners want more information 20 MAR 2025 (The Press)

Observation: Impact and Infill Exemption

One of our key observations from the Planning Commission meeting was the commissioners' extensive questioning about why a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) study was not conducted for the proposed fire station. It was evident that the project did not meet the criteria for an infill exemption, raising significant concerns. Even though the commission's role at this stage was limited to design review, they appropriately questioned how such a major oversight had occurred, allowing this item to reach them without proper scrutiny. The commissioners rightfully challenged the City's apparent "rubber-stamping" of the County's project, pointing out the lack of due diligence by city staff. The justification provided—that it was simply a permitted use and thus exempt—was clearly insufficient given potential environmental impacts. The commission's inquiries were not only legitimate but necessary, highlighting their critical role in providing oversight and ensuring a transparent and thorough planning process.

Observation: Downtown Specific Plan Design Concerns

The commissioners also raised significant concerns regarding whether the proposed design for Fire Station 94 complies with Brentwood's Downtown Specific Plan. The Downtown Specific Plan emphasizes creating an inviting, pedestrian-friendly atmosphere conducive to business expansion and preserving the historic charm and unique identity of Brentwood's downtown area.

Commissioners noted that while the project might technically be consistent with zoning, it clearly contradicts the vision and promises articulated in the Downtown Specific Plan. Specifically, the proposed design of the fire station—with its East Coast architectural influence, brick facade, and overall imposing scale—does not integrate harmoniously with the established character of downtown Brentwood.

Rather than complementing the downtown area, the design stands out as inconsistent, potentially diminishing the pedestrian-friendly environment and limiting opportunities for the type of commercial and community expansion envisioned in the plan. The commissioners were justified in questioning this design choice and ensuring alignment with the original intent and commitments made to residents and local businesses.

Observation: Lack of Room for Future Expansion

An important issue raised during the meeting was the fire station's inability to accommodate future growth without further encroaching onto veterans' property. The project's architect clearly stated that the current design offers no room for expansion, meaning any future need—such as housing additional emergency apparatuses—would necessitate taking more land from the Brentwood Veterans Memorial property.

This raises critical questions: What will happen in 10 or 20 years when the community's fire protection needs inevitably grow? Was this lack of foresight deliberate, signaling planned obsolescence, or is it simply poor planning? Perhaps the fire district assumes they will again have the option of further encroachment onto the veterans' land.

Deputy Chief McAlister mentioned that this location and design were decisions he "inherited" from plans made over a decade ago. As the commissioners emphasized, Brentwood has changed significantly since those earlier decisions were made. Planning based on outdated assumptions does not serve the community's best interests. Commissioners were right to question if building a station incapable of expansion is prudent long-term planning, or if it will simply lead to future conflicts with the veteran community.

Observation: Commissioner Conflict of Interest

During the public comments, an important issue was brought to light regarding Commissioner Gerald Johnson's potential conflict of interest. It was revealed that Johnson had accepted campaign contributions from the Firefighters' Union—the very same union actively advocating for Fire Station 94 due to the anticipated increase in union membership and dues-paying firefighters stationed there.

This revelation raises significant concerns about Commissioner Johnson’s ability to remain impartial in deliberations about the fire station. Commissioner Jeremy Jones set an example by recusing himself due to a perceived conflict based on his employer's proximity to the proposed site. Commissioner Johnson, however, chose not to follow this example, despite the clear financial connection to an interested party.

Johnson’s decision to participate in discussions where there is an apparent financial tie creates at least the appearance of bias and undermines public trust in the fairness of the Planning Commission's process. To maintain integrity and transparency, Commissioner Johnson should have recused himself immediately upon disclosure of these campaign contributions.

Observation: Turning Radius and Response Time Concerns

The Planning Commissioners raised insightful questions regarding the turning radius and maneuverability of the fire trucks from the proposed downtown location. Deputy Fire Chief MacAlister attempted to alleviate these concerns by stating that the fire district already occasionally responds to emergencies downtown, implying that locating the station downtown would not pose significant issues.

However, this response misses a critical distinction. Occasional downtown emergency responses are not comparable to a permanent downtown station, where every call necessitates navigating tight streets and congested traffic. Locating a fire station downtown inherently means slower overall response times compared to positioning it on a major thoroughfare with clearer access routes.

The fire district's claim downplays the practical realities of regular, everyday responses from a downtown station, introducing concerns about increased delays and potential safety risks not adequately addressed by Chief MacAlister's comments. The Commissioners rightly identified this as an area requiring more clarity and thorough analysis.

Observation: Concerns Regarding Diablo Way Pavement

An important issue raised was the pavement rating of Diablo Way, the alley located behind the proposed fire station. Diablo Way is rated to support vehicle weights up to 19,000 lbs, yet city staff repeatedly deflected these concerns by stating that fire trucks are legally exempt from weight restrictions. However, this exemption does not alter the fundamental laws of physics or the reality of roadway engineering. The proposed fire engines planned for Fire Station 94 significantly exceed this rating—with one vehicle weighing over 42,000 lbs.

The practical consequence of daily use by these heavy vehicles is increased wear and tear on Diablo Way. Additionally, regular use by fire trucks will disrupt loading and unloading zones for businesses along this route. The reality is clear: the road will deteriorate faster, requiring earlier and more frequent repairs, and Brentwood residents will ultimately bear the financial burden for maintaining or upgrading infrastructure due to this oversight. The commission rightly highlighted this issue as critical to the project's evaluation.

Conclusion

This summary does not capture all the issues raised during the Planning Commission meeting, but we wanted to highlight key concerns that deserve careful consideration moving forward. Each of these points—whether regarding the need for proper CEQA analysis, adherence to the Downtown Specific Plan, potential future expansion limitations, conflicts of interest, operational concerns, or impacts to local infrastructure—represents significant issues that should not be overlooked. Our hope is that these observations encourage further transparency, thoroughness, and accountability in this critical planning decision for the community of Brentwood.

Footnotes

Prior to the Planning Commission meeting, we gathered comments and concerns from the Veterans community and emailed them directly to the Commissioners. Those comments are included below for your reference. However, not all comments were presented during the meeting's public comment period, and some were altered or clarified based on new information provided during the discussion.

Comment Concerning the Downtown Specific Plan

I respectfully request that you deny design approval for the proposed Fire Station 94, as it does not meet the design requirements outlined in Brentwood's Downtown Specific Plan (DSP).

Specifically, the proposed design does not adequately incorporate elements that maintain Brentwood's distinct historic character and downtown atmosphere, as required by the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) and Commercial & Industrial Design Guidelines. The DSP clearly states that all new developments must integrate into the pedestrian-friendly, economically vibrant, and historically unique downtown environment.

The current design for Fire Station 94, described as reminiscent of traditional fire stations of larger urban cities on the East Coast, featuring elements like pre-cast concrete lintels, cornices, and large patio areas, does not align with Brentwood’s small-town heritage or downtown architectural identity. The City’s design guidelines specifically discourage generic designs replicated from other regions without consideration for Brentwood’s local context.

Moreover, the DSP explicitly encourages the adaptive reuse of existing buildings, including the original downtown fire station site on First Street, for commercial, retail, restaurant, or entertainment uses—not as a large, imposing municipal structure that disrupts the compact and walkable setting intended for downtown.

Given these clear guidelines, I respectfully urge the Planning Commission to deny the current design approval for Fire Station 94 and encourage a revised proposal that aligns authentically with Brentwood's downtown heritage and meets established city guidelines.

Comment Concerning the Right of the Commission to Deny

I want to remind you tonight that you have the clear authority to deny the design permit for Fire Station 94. Under California law, the City of Brentwood has significant discretion in interpreting and applying its General Plan and zoning rules. Courts recognize your authority and generally defer to local decisions regarding land use.

Specifically, you have the authority to deny this permit based on the City’s General Plan policies and the Downtown Specific Plan guidelines. These plans emphasize preserving the historic character of downtown Brentwood and maintaining a pedestrian-friendly, economically vibrant town center. The proposed Fire Station 94 design clearly does not align with these plans, as it introduces a massive structure more reminiscent of East Coast architecture, significantly larger and stylistically out-of-character compared to existing downtown buildings.

Furthermore, you have the right—and indeed the responsibility—to require additional studies such as environmental and traffic impact assessments. The design’s substantial scale, nearly double the size of previous stations, raises legitimate concerns about impacts on traffic, pedestrian safety, and downtown businesses, especially during community events and street closures.

We are not opposed to improved fire protection. However, this particular project at this location is not appropriate. The city must require transparency and accountability from the County and Fire District. Until comprehensive studies are completed and fully reviewed, including environmental and traffic impact analyses, the permit should not be approved.

Please exercise your authority to protect Brentwood’s downtown character and ensure our community’s long-term safety and integrity.

Comment Concerning Pedestrian Safety

The Downtown Specific Plan emphasizes creating a safe, pedestrian-friendly environment as a priority for Brentwood’s downtown area. The proposed location of Fire Station 94 directly conflicts with this goal. Placing a fire station in a busy downtown district increases the risk of pedestrian accidents, as emergency vehicles regularly exit the facility at high speeds, often under urgent circumstances.

We must consider the safety risks carefully. Will the City accept responsibility if a pedestrian is injured due to emergency response operations in our bustling downtown? A fire station in such a central location clearly contradicts the vision outlined in our Downtown Specific Plan, which prioritizes walkability, pedestrian-friendly development, and local commerce.

I urge you to deny this design permit and consider safer alternative locations that protect both emergency response times and public safety. Let’s not wait until a tragedy occurs to act responsibly.

Comment Concerning Impact on Diablo Way

I want to raise a significant concern regarding Diablo Way, the alley directly behind the proposed Fire Station 94. Diablo Way was repaired in 2021 to a Caltrans Level 5 specification, which supports vehicle weights between 16,000 and 19,000 pounds. However, a fully equipped fire engine, such as the larger one slated for Fire Station 94, can weigh as much as 42,500 pounds, while even smaller firefighting vehicles weigh around 26,500 pounds.

In the past, Diablo Way was damaged by the weight of a fire engine, resulting in the vehicle becoming stuck. Given this history, I must ask what measures the City or County plan to implement to prevent this from happening again. If First Street is closed for an event or parade, forcing emergency vehicles to exit via Diablo Way, there is a very real risk of road failure and potentially catastrophic delays in response times.

Has this concern been properly evaluated? What measures will be implemented to ensure the integrity and reliability of Diablo Way, and most importantly, ensure public safety?

Thank you for carefully considering this critical issue.

Comment Concerning City of Brentwood General Plan Policy CSF 4-4

Supervisor Diane Burgis and the Contra Costa Fire District have repeatedly claimed that downtown Brentwood has always been the intended location for Fire Station 94. However, documents we have uncovered directly contradict this statement. The 2005 Barrington Project Final Environmental Impact Report clearly indicates that the replacement for the original downtown fire station (Station 54) was planned for the intersection of Sand Creek Road and Laurel Creek Way. This location was specifically designed for a fire station, including features such as a median opening on Sand Creek Road and pre-installed warning lights. The Barrington Project also references a March 21, 2005 report by Loving & Campos Architects titled "Preliminary Site Evaluation Fire Station #54 Relocation Brentwood, California," supporting this intended relocation site.

Furthermore, Brentwood's own 2017 Downtown Specific Plan identified the former fire station location for potential commercial use as a restaurant, gallery, or retail shop, clearly indicating that the site was no longer considered suitable for a fire station.

Two weeks ago, veterans formally requested a copy of the Loving & Campos Architects report from the County. To date, the report has not been provided. Given the significance of this report for transparency, accountability, and informed decision-making, we ask the City to delay any further decisions until the report is released and fully reviewed.

Additionally, I urge the Planning Commission to carefully reconsider the City of Brentwood General Plan Policy CSF 4-4, adopted on July 22, 2014, which requires roadways to be designed to maintain acceptable emergency vehicle response times. Given the current proposal to locate Fire Station 94 on First Street, we ask:

Was the median on Second Street designed with a downtown fire station in mind, ensuring efficient emergency response times?

Were downtown street infrastructures, such as curb extensions and medians at Oak Street and First Street, designed to accommodate fire station traffic effectively?

Was the infrastructure in downtown Brentwood designed or adjusted to accommodate a fire station at this specific location?

Our first responders deserve facilities and infrastructure that enhance their capabilities—not complicate their critical work.

Thank you for your attention, your commitment to transparency, and your consideration of these important community safety and historical preservation issues.

Comment Concerning CEQA Exemption

I want to address the claim made by the Fire District regarding a categorical CEQA exemption, specifically the "backfill exemption," for the proposed Fire Station 94. We believe this exemption is incorrectly applied and therefore the current design review is premature.

The CEQA backfill exemption explicitly does not apply when significant changes, including new or substantially upgraded utilities, are necessary. Clearly, this new station—significantly larger, more complex, and far different from the previous station—will require extensive utility upgrades and infrastructure improvements. This project goes far beyond a simple replacement of the former firehouse.

Given these facts, the exemption claimed by the Fire District is inappropriate. A thorough CEQA review must be conducted before proceeding. We urge the Commission to postpone any design approval until proper environmental analysis has been completed.

Thank you for your consideration.

Comment Concerning Oversized Structure

The proposed Fire Station 94 is not a simple replacement for the previous firehouses that served downtown Brentwood. The only similarity between this new structure and its predecessors is the use of the term “firehouse.”

What the County is proposing is not just a fire station—it’s an overbuilt, oversized monument to modern architecture that has no place in Brentwood’s historic downtown. The brick façade and East Coast-style design stand in stark contrast to the existing aesthetic of the district. It looks more like something out of Chicago Fire, Rescue Me, or even the Ghostbusters headquarters than a structure that fits the character of our community.

The previous firehouses maxed out at around 3,500 square feet. This new station? A massive 8,500 square feet—more than double the size. To make room for this McMansion of fire stations, they had to take additional space from the Brentwood Veterans Memorial property, land that was legally designated for veterans' use. And yet, this impact wasn’t even addressed in the CEQA exemption they’re using to push this project through.

This isn’t about providing fire service—it’s about bad planning and mismanagement. The County and Fire District have spent recklessly, failed to plan appropriately, and now they’re taking land set aside for veterans to make up for their mistakes. Instead of placing this station in a properly sized location, they’re forcing it into an area that was never meant to hold such a massive structure.

It’s time for the County to stop using veterans' land and the City of Brentwood to solve their financial and planning failures. Fire Station 94 should be built in a suitable location—not by taking land that was purchased and set aside for veterans' memorials, homes, and meeting places and not without City of Brentwood input.

Comment Concerning Sand Creek Site that Was Built for The Replacement of Fire Station 54

The County and Fire District keep insisting that this location has always been the planned site for a fire station—but that’s simply not true. In fact, previous fire officials and even a former fire chief determined that this location was not suitable for a future fire station due to the expansion of downtown Brentwood and the increase in car and foot traffic, especially in the evenings.

At one point, the County even listed the property for reutilization as a bar or restaurant location, recognizing that it was no longer an ideal site for emergency services. So why the sudden change? Why now, after decades of acknowledging this site’s shortcomings, is the County trying to force an oversized, poorly planned fire station into a location they themselves previously deemed unsuitable?

The Sand Creek Road fire station site, proposed in 2005, was specifically designed and planned as a replacement for the downtown station. That project had the space, the infrastructure, and the foresight to accommodate a modern firehouse without disrupting the heart of downtown Brentwood or taking veterans’ land. But instead of following through on that well-thought-out plan, the County is taking the easy way out—cutting corners and shoving a station where it doesn’t belong.

This isn’t just about what the Fire District wants—it’s about what actually makes sense for public safety and responsible urban planning. If fire officials themselves previously recognized this location as inadequate, then why are we being told now that it’s the only option? The County needs to stop rewriting history to justify a bad decision and look at the better alternatives that have already been identified.

Comment Concerning The Unnecessary Expansion of Fire Station 94

Let’s be honest—does a fire station really need three patios? That’s right, the proposed Fire Station 94 design includes three separate patio spaces—two rooftop patios and one ground-level patio. One of these patios requires taking additional land from the veterans' property, all to ensure that the station has a dedicated BBQ and patio space.

This isn’t even the only expansion that raises questions. The station’s northward growth is supposed to accommodate a gym facility deemed "necessary" for the three or four firefighters stationed there at any given time. That raises another important question: Why does a three- or four-person fire crew need an 8,500-square-foot facility?

For comparison, previous fire stations in this location were around 3,500 square feet—less than half the size of this new design. So, either:

The County and Fire District are dramatically overbuilding for a 3 man crew and two fire engines, or

The County and Fire District aren't telling us the full plan for this facility.

We’ve heard a lot of excuses about why this station must be built at this location, but we’re also seeing a whole lot of luxury upgrades that have nothing to do with public safety. This isn’t about necessity—it’s about building a monument at the expense of the veterans and the downtown community.

While some might argue this isn’t about aesthetics, we’d argue that it absolutely is. This station is massively oversized, out of character with downtown, and prioritizing comfort over function. If the County were serious about fire safety, they’d be focused on practical, efficient solutions—not rooftop patios and oversized gyms.

So, what’s the real reason for this excessive build? And why are the veterans and the community being forced to give up land to accommodate a project that clearly has more than just basic fire protection in mind?

Comment Concerning the Impact to Neighboring Veterans Hall

Brentwood’s Planning Department has completely failed in providing any meaningful oversight on Fire Station 94. Instead, it has allowed the Fire District and Supervisor Burgis to steamroll this project through without accountability, disregarding the significant impacts on the surrounding area and its longtime neighbors—the veterans.

As the direct neighbors of this massive project, we will bear the brunt of the construction disruptions, noise, and loss of parking. But the impact doesn’t end when the construction is finished.

The Financial Cost to Veterans

The Brentwood Veterans Memorial Building (BVMB) has long been a place where veterans and the community come together for memorial services, weddings, quinceañeras, and other important gatherings. But let’s be real—who wants to hold an event next door to a fire station where emergency vehicles are constantly rolling out with sirens blaring?

This isn’t just an inconvenience—it’s a direct loss of revenue for the veterans’ hall. Events will be canceled or relocated, rentals will drop, and fewer people will want to use the space. Meanwhile, the County is not covering essential costs for the BVMB like PG&E, water, and internet, all of which are funded through the very events that will now be disrupted by this project.

Comment Concerning the Station That Doesn’t Belong Downtown

If we’re being told that emergency responses from this station will be “infrequent” and “non-impacting,” then why are we putting it in the middle of downtown? The reality is that it will absolutely impact downtown events, businesses, and traffic patterns—all while taking land that legally belongs to veterans.

This project isn’t about providing the best fire protection—it’s about pushing through a poorly planned, politically motivated project at the expense of veterans, residents, and business owners.

We will not stand by while the County continues to strip land and resources from veterans to solve its own long-standing fire protection failures in East County. If the Planning Department won’t do its job in scrutinizing this project, then we will.

Downplaying the truth…

The Fire Station That’s “No Big Deal” – Except It Clearly Is

How many times have we heard the same reassuring line?

“This project will have minimal impact.”

“It’s just a simple backfill project.”

“You won’t even notice it.”

The harder they try to downplay the significance of this project, the clearer it becomes that they are hiding the truth. If this were truly a small, unnoticeable project, why are we talking about an 8500-square-foot fortress with an expansive concrete apron, high-security fencing, and restricted public access?

This doesn’t look like a simple firehouse replacement. This looks like a compound.

Who Benefits From This?

Certainly not veterans—who are losing land and revenue from their memorial hall.

Certainly not downtown businesses—who will see their area cut off from further development north of the station.

Certainly not residents—who will be dealing with the noise, traffic disruptions, and emergency vehicle rollouts in the heart of downtown.

The only ones benefiting from this location are the County and the Fire District.

What’s the Real Plan Here?

Let’s be honest—this isn’t just a “3-4 firefighter station” with one fire engine. No one builds an 8500-square-foot station for that. The size, security measures, and infrastructure all point to future expansion plans that they don’t want to talk about.

This isn’t just a small, backfill project—it’s a major overhaul that reshapes downtown Brentwood, shifts its development focus, and pushes veterans out of their own dedicated space.

We see through the smoke and mirrors. This project is not what they claim it to be, and it’s time the County starts being honest about its true intentions.