Brentwood Planning Commission symbolically opposing but can’t stop under construction East County Service Center

18 and 20 years after six votes of approval by council, commission

Contra Costa administrator’s office, fire chief oppose resolution of non-compliance on Tuesday’s agenda

“The proposed resolution relies on factual inaccuracies and faulty analysis in determining that the project is inconsistent with the five identified policies.” – Eric Angstadt, Chief Assistant County Administrator

“…regardless of the Planning Commission’s determination, the County can still proceed with the project as proposed.” – Brentwood City staff report for agenda item

By Allen D. Payton

The long-planned and approved East County Service Center (ECSC) in Brentwood is the first of three regional service centers to be constructed as directed in the County’s Capital Facilities Master Plan, which was adopted by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors in September 2022. Yet, although it received six votes of approval by the Commission and City Council in 2006 and 2008 and has been under construction since spring, the Brentwood Planning Commission is set to vote on a resolution Tuesday night that claims “the project…does not substantially conform to the General Plan.”

But their own City staff says the project “can still proceed…as proposed.”

Item F.1. on the Commission’s agenda reads, “General Plan conformance review for the East County Service Center project, including Contra Costa County’s recent acquisition of a 5.06-acre parcel to include within the scope of the project, located south of Technology Way and west of Brentwood Boulevard. Title/Recommendation Adopt Resolution No. 26-013 finding the East County Service Center project, including Contra Costa County’s recent acquisition of a 5.06-acre parcel to include within the scope of the project, does not substantially conform to the General Plan.”

That is a result of the Commission’s vote during their meeting on Aug. 18, 2026. Even though, “Staff brought this item forward to the Planning Commission…with a recommendation to adopt a resolution determining that the East County Service Center project conforms to the General Plan,” based on six previous votes of the Commission and Brentwood City Council, the Commission instead directed staff to bring back the item to do just the opposite. Yet, the commissioners understood their vote to be “largely symbolic”.

According to the minutes of that meeting on a motion by Vice Chairperson Rod Flohr and seconded by Commissioner Jeremy Jones, the Commission voted 4-1 to direct staff to bring back a resolution finding that the East County Service Center project does not substantially conform to the General Plan or the Brentwood Boulevard Specific Plan, including inconsistencies related to circulation, land use, and noise.” Flohr and Jones were joined by Chairperson Kristopher Brand, who is a candidate in this year’s District 2 Council race, and Commissioner Anita Roberts. Only Commissioner Gerald Johnson, a 2024 candidate for mayor and former Brentwood Chamber of Commerce president, voted against the motion.

Zoning

According to the City staff report for Tuesday’s agenda item (see page 23), the seven parcels owned by the County are designated BP (Business Park) and BBSP (Mixed-Use COIR) in the City’s General Plan. They are zoned Zoning – PD-42 (Subarea F) and BBSP (Mixed-Use COIR) and the Surrounding Land Sses are North – Technology Way, across which is a shell light industrial building under construction and two vacant parcels East – Jack in the Box and Brentwood Boulevard, across which is the Sunset Plaza commercial development South – vacant parcel currently included in pending residential development application known as Emblem West – Business Center Drive, across which is the Coppergate townhomes and The Silvergate apartments.

Votes of Approval

Also, according to the staff report, there have been six votes of approval including four by the Commission and two by the Council, “since 2006, as follows:

• On February 21, 2006, the Planning Commission approved Design Review No. 05-15 and Minor Subdivision No. 351-06 for two shell commercial condominium buildings to be located on the six parcels along Technology Way;
• On March 28, 2006, the City Council approved Rezone No. 05-12 establishing development standards for the six parcels along Technology Way;
• On March 18, 2008, the Planning Commission approved one-year time extensions for Design Review No. 05-15 and Minor Subdivision No. 351-06;
• On May 19, 2009, the Planning Commission approved a two-year time extension for Design Review No. 05-15 and a one-year time extension for Minor Subdivision No. 351-06;
• On December 21, 2010, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10 064 confirming that Contra Costa County’s acquisition of six parcels located along Technology Way for the future development of the “East County Government Center” project conformed to the General Plan; and
• On March 27, 2012, the City Council adopted the Brentwood Boulevard Specific Plan, which incorporated the parcel with frontage along Brentwood Boulevard Specific Plan.

Claims of Non-Conformance

But the four commissioners claimed, “the project did not conform to the General Plan for the following reasons:

• Inconsistency with Action LU 3b: “Concentrate major office uses along State Route 4 near the Lone Tree Way, Balfour Road, and Marsh Creek Road interchanges.” The project would be a regional facility and a major office use that should be near State Route 4.
• Inconsistency with Policy SA 3-5, which requires the City to ensure that all areas are accessible to emergency response providers. The building is proposed to be 50 feet tall and there is inadequate evidence in the record to demonstrate appropriate fire apparatus availability.
• Inconsistency with Policy LU I-4, which requires new development to occur in a logical and orderly manner focusing growth on infill locations. This project proposes a regional facility in mostly undeveloped area.
• Inconsistency with Policy LU 1-5, which encourages new development to be contiguous to existing development. This project proposes a regional facility in a mostly undeveloped area.

• Inconsistency with Policy LU 3-5, which requires the City to actively promote the Brentwood Boulevard Specific Plan. The Brentwood Boulevard Specific Plan’s COIR zoning designation assumes that 70% of the area will be High Density Residential uses, and this project does not propose any residential uses.

Background

It’s been 15 years in the process since the Board of Supervisors approved purchasing the 2.83-acre site along Technology Way for $1.3 million in January 2011. The County bought the two parcels where the building is under construction, when barely anything else was nearby, other than Los Medanos College was leasing a building there, near their former Technology Center on Sand Creek Road, which is why it was called Technology Way. It was also purchased before the Highway 4 bypass/extension was built between Lone Tree Way and Balfour Road.

The County bought the third parcel within the last year to allow for sufficient parking. Then the County added a third story which increased the costs but the cost per square foot decreased.

According to the project website, “The planned three-story, 117,000 square foot building, estimated to cost $155 million, will house up to 440 employees, bringing equitable access to essential services closer to the residents of East County. It will house nine County departments: Employment and Human Services, Health Services, Veterans Services, Clerk-Records Elections, Public Defender, District Attorney, Probation, Board of Supervisors, District III Office and Department of Information Technology.”

The County’s plans conform with the City’s General Plan. But the Planning Commission requested for it to come back even though it’s already under construction, with the walls having been erected and the second floor going up.

Construction on the building started in spring after the Phase 2 construction contract was awarded to Webcor on March 3, and the County officially broke ground on the site on March 31. It’s supposed to be completed by December 2027. According to the County’s Public Works Department in a post on their Facebook page last week, “Progress continues on the East County Service Center (ECSC) in Brentwood. This three-story, 117,000-square-foot facility will house multiple County departments providing services for East County residents.” The project’s webpage provides a current schedule of Construction Activities between Aug. 24 and Oct. 2.

County Responds Prior to Planning Commission Meeting

Ahead of Tuesday’s meeting, the County’s PIO, Kristi Jourdan wrote, “County planning staff, and previously Brentwood’s own planning staff, have already determined the project aligns with the City’s General Plan. The resolution being considered is based on several factual inaccuracies and misinterpretations of both planning practice and case law. Confire has also confirmed that emergency access to the building is fully supported.”

She also shared copies of an email dated Friday, Sept. 11 from Con Fire Chief Aaron McAlister to Chief Assistant County Administrator Eric Angstadt and a letter dated today, Monday, Sept. 14, from Angstadt to the Brentwood Planning Commission.

County Letter to Commission Claims Resolution Based on “Factual Inaccuracies…Faulty Analysis”

September 14, 2026

To the Brentwood City Planning Commission:

“The Planning Commission will consider, at its September 15, 2026 meeting, proposed Resolution No. 26-013 regarding the general plan conformity of the East County Service Center.  The Planning Commission should reject the proposed resolution.  Proposed Resolution No. 26-013 is factually incorrect, ignores relevant case law regarding general plan conformity, and, if adopted by the Planning Commission, would represent a failure of their duty to render unbiased opinions based on the City of Brentwood’s adopted plans and ordinances.

“In California, common professional planning practice supports, and relevant case law has repeatedly held, that a project need not be consistent with all General Plan policies to be considered in conformity with the General Plan.  A project conforms to the general plan “if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment.”  (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 342, 378.)  “A given project need not be in perfect conformity with each and every general plan policy.”  (Id.)  “The question is not whether there is a direct conflict between some mandatory provision of a general plan and some aspect of a project, but whether the project is compatible with, and does not frustrate, the general plan’s goals and policies.”  (Id.)

“In this instance, the professional planning staff of the City of Brentwood has twice found that development of the East County Service Center at its proposed location conforms with the City’s General Plan.  First, on December 21, 2010, City planning staff recommended and this same Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 10-064, determining that the County’s purchase of the original 6 parcels composing the project site for the stated purpose of developing an East County government center conforms with the City’s General Plan.  Second, on August 18, 2026, City planning staff again recommended a resolution determining that the proposed project conforms with the City’s General Plan.  The Planning Commission instead now considers a resolution of non-conformity based on their contention that the project is inconsistent with five policies, out of at least 365 polices maintained in the General Plan.  Even assuming that the project is inconsistent with the five identified policies, which the County disputes as detailed below, this represents only 1.37% of the General Plan policies.  The proposed determination of general plan non-conformity is contrived, inconsistent with professional planning practice and case law, and not supported by past City actions or evidence in the record.

“The proposed resolution relies on factual inaccuracies and faulty analysis in determining that the project is inconsistent with the five identified policies.

1. Action LU 3b – Concentrate major office uses along State Route 4.

The proposed project does not frustrate this policy.  Developing the project at its proposed location does not prevent, or even hinder, the City from concentrating major offices near State Route 4.  For major office uses actually under the City’s jurisdictional purview, the City is free to incentivize, authorize, prohibit, or take any other action within its land use authority to effectuate this policy.  Moreover, other elements of the General Plan, including the Brentwood Boulevard Specific Plan designation of COIR which applies to the project site, explicitly permit the proposed office use.

1. Policy SA 3-5 – Ensure all areas are accessible to emergency response providers.

The proposed resolution relies on a contrived rationale to question whether appropriate fire apparatus is available to serve the project.  The attached email from ConFire Chief Aaron McAlister confirms that a ladder truck is stationed at Fire station 92, 201 John Muir Parkway, that is capable of reaching all floors of the proposed building.  This project, as with all County building projects, are reviewed and approved by ConFire to ensure that appropriate fire protection facilities, apparatus, and personnel are available to serve the proposed building before construction begins.  Finally, as the Planning Commission is aware, ConFire has made a concerted effort to expand the fire facility network in East County and has several pending fire station projects in Brentwood.  Any actual concerns that the Planning Commission may have with respect to fire protection readiness in Brentwood can be addressed through the prompt and collaborative processing of those projects.

1. Policy LU I-4 – New development to occur in logical and orderly manner focusing on infill locations.

The proposed resolution relies on a factual inaccuracy that the project site is “in a mostly undeveloped area.”  The project is located on an undeveloped PARCEL surrounded on three contiguous sides by development, including housing to the west and commercial developments to the north and east.  Only the parcel to the south of the project site is undeveloped, but, as the City is aware, that parcel is currently in option for housing development.

1. Policy LU 1-5 – Encourage new development to be contiguous to existing development.

Again, the proposed resolution relies on a factual inaccuracy that the project location is “in a mostly undeveloped area.”  As described above, the project site is contiguous on three sides with existing development.  Moreover, within 450 feet to the north of the project site is an existing approximately 38,000 square foot office building, and within 700 feet is a nine-building office complex totaling around 140,000 square feet of office use.  Not only is the site contiguous with existing development, but it is also proximate to other major office developments.

1. Policy LU 3-5 – Actively promote the Brentwood Boulevard Specific Plan.

The proposed resolution misapplies the Brentwood Boulevard Specific Plan’s (BBSP) COIR designation by stating that it “assumes that 70% of the area will be High Density Residential uses, and this project does not propose any residential uses.”  This point is developed from the misreading of a footnote buried in a table on page 89 in the appendix of the BBSP.  That language does not appear in the text of BBSP at all and would not be considered a policy statement or action item.  Nevertheless, even if applicable, the language does not mean that the project is inconsistent with the BBSP.  The COIR district includes 108 acres.  The project site is 5 acres, or 4.63% of the COIR acreage, and does not prevent development of High Density Residential uses as assumed in the BBSP.  And, as discussed above, the BBSP COIR designation explicitly permits the proposed office use.

In conclusion, as has been extensively documented and detailed, the proposed resolution is contrary to the facts and contrary to the law.  I encourage any planning commissioner with questions or who are unclear on the details provided in this letter to contact me prior to taking action to approve the resolution on the Planning Commission’s agenda.

Sincerely,

Eric Angstadt, Chief Assistant County Administrator, Contra Costa County

Cc: Supervisor Diane Burgis, District 3, Monica Nino, County Administrator

Contra Costa Letter to Brentwood PC 091526 mtg

Fire Chief’s Email Assures Assistant County AdministratorService Can Be Provided to New Building

In an email last Friday, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Chief Aaron McAlister informed Angstadt that the District “reviewed the East County Service Center” and “has approved the structure.”

From: Aaron McAlister
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2026 1:30 PM
To: Eric Angstadt
Cc: TDutt; Nichols Sam (both of Con Fire)
Subject: East County Service Center

Dear Mr. Angstadt,

Regarding CONFIRE capabilities in East Contra Costa County, the Fire District deploys various units, including engines, ladder trucks, water tenders, wildland engines, and rescue units.  Following the annexation of East Contra Costa Fire, which became effective July 1, 2023, Contra Costa Fire implemented several enhancements.  First, paramedic service was introduced.  Initially, in a rolling implementation, within 6 months, all units in Brentwood, Oakley, and Discovery Bay had a paramedic and Advanced Life Support (ALS) equipment.  In April 2024, CON Fire deployed Truck 92 as a second resource, joining Engine 92, to Fire Station 92 at 201 John Muir Parkway, which is Brentwood’s only operating fire station today.  Before April 2024, Oakey and Brentwood had no ladder truck service, and those communities depended on mutual aid from Antioch.

Truck 92 in Brentwood is a 102-foot tractor-drawn aerial ladder used for rescue at multi-story buildings.  It is also equipped with an aerial water way for firefighting operations from the ladder and a full complement of EMS gear, rope rescue, ventilation equipment, and extrication equipment.  CON Fire ladder trucks are staffed with 4 personnel: a Captain, an Engineer, and two firefighters.  One of those four members is a paramedic.  A schematic drawing of our ladder truck is attached.

Fire Station 92 is 3.5 miles from the East County Service Center.  When Fire Station 90 is constructed and Lone Tree and Shady Willow, the Fire District intention is to relocate truck 92 to this new station when it will become truck 90.  Future Station 90 is 2.7 miles from the East County Service Center.  When Station 94 opens in January 2027, Station 94 will be located 1.0 mile from the East County Service Center.

CON Fire reviewed the East County Service Center under our normal plan review, development, and pre-fire engineering process.  CON Fire has approved the structure, which includes ladder truck access, engine access, water supply, and modern fire protection systems such as fire alarms and fire sprinklers.

Please feel free to contact me if I can clarify our capabilities.

Sincerely,

Aaron J. McAlister, Fire Chief, XCC Operational Area Coordinator, Contra Costa County Fire Prot. District

Con Fire Chief ltr to Brentwood PC 091526

Issue Part of Recall Effort Against Supervisor Burgis

The issue is part of an effort to recall District 3 County Supervisor Diane Burgis, which began earlier this year. The effort’s website claims, “The County advanced plans for the East County Community Service Center despite concerns that the proposed project did not comply with Brentwood’s city ordinances. Critics also objected to the County’s decision not to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Brentwood to ensure the project would be built in compliance with local ordinances. She used our tax dollars to go over budget by 25 million without any public notice.”

Then, in a blog post on that website which doesn’t identify the author, someone wrote, “The questions are how the project grew, what it costs, how the environmental review was handled and how much meaningful input Brentwood residents had before decisions were made,” and provides details for the complaints above, including traffic, plus, “impact on downtown Brentwood.”

Media Survey Shows Majority Public Support for Project

A survey conducted by The Press beginning Aug 20, 2026, and Updated Aug 30, 2026, asked, “Are you excited for the East County Service Center to come to Brentwood? Earlier this year, the Board of Supervisors broke ground on the county-funded East County Service Center off of Technology Way in Brentwood. While the county has called the project one that will bring jobs to Brentwood and reduce travel time for local residents in need of county services, city leaders have been skeptical of it, citing concerns over traffic and other factors. Are you excited for the project to open in late 2027?”

The results show 56.8% responded “Yes”, 38.5% of respondents said, “No” and 4.7% were undecided.

City Staff Says Project Can Proceed

Under the Environmental Determination for the agenda item, City staff wrote, “The City’s General Plan conformance review of the County’s acquisition of real property, as well as the location, purpose, and extent of the East County Service Center project, does not trigger review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as the review is advisory and nonbinding, and the City has no discretion in how the project is conducted. The request is only for review of the acquisition’s conformance to the General Plan, and regardless of the Planning Commission’s determination, the County can still proceed with the project as proposed.”

Meeting Details

The meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. inside the City Council Chambers at 150 City Park Way and can also be viewed and the public can participate by making comments via Zoom.

To learn more about the East County Service Center project, visit www.contracosta.ca.gov/eastcountyservicecenter