Brentwood City Hall


Our home pageContact UsPrevious Page

Central Park Gazebo

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 16


Meeting Date: February 27, 2001

Subject/Title: Public Hearing: Rezoning (RZ 01-01) of 2.544 acres from PD-6 for High Density Residential to PD-6 for Regional Commercial

Submitted by: Mitch Oshinsky, Community Development Director/Erik Nolthenius, Associate Planner

Approved by: Jon Elam, City Manager



RECOMMENDATION 
Introduce and waive the first reading of Ordinance No. ___, approving the rezoning (RZ 01-01) of 2.544 acres from PD-6 for High Density Residential to PD-6 for Regional Commercial.

PREVIOUS ACTION
PD-6 was created in 1995 with the approval of RZ 94-2. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of RZ 01-01 at its meeting of February 20, 2001.

BACKGROUND
At its meeting of February 20, 2001, the Planning Commission considered this rezoning request for the area located on the south side of Sand Creek Road, approximately 300 feet west of Highland Way. At that meeting, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 01-08, recommending that the City Council approve the rezone as requested. Based on the Initial Study prepared for the project, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. A copy of the environmental document is attached to this report for the Council’s review.

The rezoning request has been made in order to accommodate a portion of a proposed neighborhood shopping center to be located on an approximate 20-acre parcel directly west and southwest of the project site. Inclusion of the site into the design of the shopping center has been deemed necessary by the shopping center developer to provide improved access for delivery and service truck movements into the center from Sand Creek Road, including loading and unloading activities at the rear of various businesses.

ANALYSIS
Staff has reviewed the requested rezoning with respect to the goals and policies of the General Plan and has determined that the request is consistent with those goals and policies. Staff has also determined that the request complies with all applicable standards of the PD-6 zoning district. The Planning Commission and Staff believe that approval of the proposed rezoning would serve to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan by facilitating development of the proposed shopping center and will not adversely impact the development of adjacent parcels.


ATTACHMENTS
1. Ordinance No. ___
2. Mitigated Negative Declaration for RZ 01-01
3. Project map

ORDINANCE NO. ___

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD REZONING A 2.544-ACRE SITE FROM PD-6 FOR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PD-6 FOR REGIONAL COMMERCIAL, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SAND CREEK ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET WEST OF HIGHLAND WAY (RZ 01-01) AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SAID PROJECT (A PORTION OF APN 019-110-041).


WHEREAS, the City of Brentwood has received a rezoning request from the Vasco Group L.P. to amend a portion of Planned Development District No. 6 (PD-6); and

WHEREAS, the rezoning request is consistent with the goals and policies of the City of Brentwood General Plan; and

WHEREAS, at a public hearing held at its meeting of February 20, 2001, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning request to the City Council by adopting Resolution No. 01-08; and

WHEREAS, a legal description of the boundaries of the area to be rezoned is outlined in Exhibit “A”, which is attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance; and

WHEREAS, the environmental effects of this proposed action have been addressed in a Mitigated Negative Declaration, which has been recommended for approval; and

WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration considered a full range of potentially significant impacts and, with the inclusion of mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study, no significant impacts will remain; and

WHEREAS, the availability of said environmental document for the minimum 20-day public review and comment period was begun on February 1, 2001, and ended on February 20, 2001; and

WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was advertised in the Ledger-Dispatch on February 16, 2001, and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site as required by City Ordinance and Government Code Section 65090; and

WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed rezoning on February 27, 2001, 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 rezoning; 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 Planning Commission recommendation, 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 rezoning; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brentwood hereby makes the following supporting findings for this application as required by Section 17.870.008 of the City Zoning Ordinance and State CEQA Guidelines:

1. The requested rezoning amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the City’s Community Development Plan, including all relevant elements thereof; and

2. The proposed zoning amendment will facilitate development of a neighborhood shopping center that will serve the surrounding residential area; and

3. The conceptual plan for the proposed neighborhood shopping center represents a unified and organized arrangement of land uses which are appropriate in relation to adjacent or nearby properties; and

4. The proposed commercial zoning is located on property which has a suitable relationship to planned roadways that will be adequate to accommodate traffic generated by the neighborhood shopping center; and

5. Development of the property with commercial uses will not be detrimental to the public welfare and will be in the best interest of the City; and

6. The effect of this ordinance on the housing needs of the region surrounding Brentwood has been considered by the City Council, which has balanced those needs against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources (Government Code 65863.6); and

7. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project has been prepared and circulated in accordance with all applicable provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and represents the independent judgment of the City of Brentwood; and

8. The Initial Study has evaluated potential project specific impacts to the environment. Based upon this evidence and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City Council finds that the project will not have any significant environmental impacts. Therefore, since the mitigation measures are incorporated as conditions of approval of the project, the Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate for the approval relating to the project; and

9. The City Council further finds that no significant new information within the meaning of the Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 has been presented to the City which would necessitate recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and finds no significant new information has arisen.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood does hereby ordain as follows:

Section 1.

A. Approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the proposed project.

B. Directs Staff to file the Notice of Determination with the County Clerk.

Section 2.

A. Approves the rezoning amendment of 2.544 acres (RZ 01-01) from PD-6 for High Density Residential to PD-6 for Regional Commercial as reflected in Exhibit “A”.

B. Directs Staff to make the necessary change on the zoning map for PD-6.

Section 3.

A. This Ordinance shall be published in accordance with the applicable law, by one or more of the following methods:

1. Posting the entire Ordinance in at least three (3) public places in the City of Brentwood, within fifteen (15) days after its passage and adoption; or

2. Publishing the entire Ordinance at least once in the Ledger-Dispatch, a newspaper of general circulation published in the County of Contra Costa and circulated in the City of Brentwood, within fifteen (15) days after its passage and adoption; or

3. Publishing a summary of the Ordinance prepared by the City Attorney in the Ledger-Dispatch and posting a certified copy of the entire Ordinance in the Office of the City Clerk at least five (5) days prior to passage and adoption, along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against the Ordinance.

B. This Ordinance shall go into effect thirty (30) days after the date of its passage and adoption.

Section 4.

In accordance with Government Code Section 65863.5, upon the effective date of this Ordinance, a copy shall be delivered to the County Assessor.

THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced with the first reading waived at a regular meeting of the Brentwood City Council on the 27th day of February, 2001, and adopted at a regular meeting of the Brentwood City Council on the 13th day of March, 2001, by the following vote:

AYES: 
NOES: 
ABSENT: 
ABSTAIN: 

CITY OF BRENTWOOD 
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
REZONE NO. 01-01
INITIAL STUDY AND 
NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Introduction 3
Project Description 5
Environmental Checklist 8
Environmental Checklist Form 11
Checklist Responses and Environmental Analysis 16

List of Figures 


Figure 1 Local Vicinity Map 6
Figure 2 Area Zoning Map 7

GENERAL PURPOSE/SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

This Initial Study (IS) has been prepared to determine if the proposed project (project) will have a significant effect on the environment and to identify feasible mitigation measures necessary to reduce any such impacts to a level of insignificance. The proposed project is the rezoning of an approximately 2.544-acre site, currently identified as being a portion of Assessor’s Parcel Number 019-110-041, from the HDR (High Density Residential) District to the C (Regional Commercial) District within the PD-6 (Planned Development No. 6) District.

A Mitigated Negative Declaration will be issued if, based upon the information presented in this study, it is determined that the proposed project will not have any significant impacts or that such impacts can be mitigated. If it is determined that the proposed project will have one or more significant impacts that cannot adequately be mitigated, the lead agency (City) will require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES

This IS has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et. seq.), and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (California Administrative Code Section 15000, et. seq.) This report complies with the rules, regulations, and procedures for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act as adopted by the City of Brentwood.

LEAD AGENCY/CONTACT PERSONS

In accordance with Sections 15050 and 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Brentwood has been designated the "lead agency" which is defined as the "public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or disapproving a project”. The project sponsor (Applicant/Developer) and owner of the project site is the Vasco Group L.P.

City of Brentwood: Erik Nolthenius, Associate Planner
(Lead Agency) Planning Division, Community Development Department
104 Oak Street
Brentwood, CA 94513
(925) 516-5405 (925) 516-5407 (fax)

Project Sponsor: Larry Enos
(Applicant) Vasco Group L.P.
2800 W. March Lane, Suite 330
Stockton, CA 95219-8218
(209) 476-0002

RESPONSIBLE/TRUSTEE AGENCIES

Responsible agencies are those which have discretionary approval over one or more actions involved with development of the proposed project site. Trustee Agencies are state agencies having discretionary approval or jurisdiction by law over material resources affected by the project. Implementation of the project as proposed does not require review or action either by responsible or trustee agencies.

TECHNICAL STUDIES

No technical reports were prepared for the proposed project.

PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

CEQA Section 15150 states the following with regard to the incorporation by reference of any prior environmental documents having a relationship to the proposed project:

“An EIR or Negative Declaration may incorporate by reference all or portions of another document which is a matter of public record or is generally available to the public. Where all or part of another document is incorporated by reference, the incorporated language shall be considered to be set forth in full as part of the text of the EIR or Negative Declaration.”

The specific project site has not previously been analyzed in terms of an environmental review document.
BACKGROUND

The project site consists of approximately 2.544 acres, is generally L-shaped, is located within the incorporated city limits of the City of Brentwood and currently represents a portion of one legal parcel (Assessor’s Parcel No. 019-110-041).

The project site is generally located south of Sand Creek Road, between the State Route 4 Bypass and Highland Way. The site formerly was in agricultural use and the entire site is currently undeveloped. Surrounding land uses include the following: North – orchard, although currently zoned for medium density residential use; East – undeveloped and single family homes in Greystone’s Sunrise subdivision; South – Loma Vista School and neighborhood park site; West – undeveloped, although currently zoned for commercial use. The site was approved by the City of Brentwood Planning Commission on January 30, 2001 as a legal parcel pursuant to Minor Subdivision No. 355-00.

The project site is currently within the boundaries of PD-6 (Planned Development No. 6), which calls for a variety of land uses, including low, medium, and high-density residential, parks, open space, and public facilities, regional commercial, and office commercial. The PD-6 District is broken down into 22 separate Planning Areas, of which the project site is included in Planning Area 7. That area is designated HDR (High Density Residential) for 110 dwelling units on seven acres, an average of 15.7 units per acre. The project site represents the western 2.544 acres of Planning Area 7.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT

The project site is relatively flat. It is undeveloped, and formerly was used for agriculture/orchards. Figure 1 illustrates the project’s location within the general Brentwood vicinity.

The Applicant/Developer has filed this rezoning request so that the project site could be included as part of a proposed neighborhood shopping center directly west of the site. The site is within a developing area of the City. In addition to the proposed shopping center, a new church has been proposed directly east of the project site near the southwest corner of Sand Creek Road and Highland Way. As previously mentioned, the site is just west of Greystone’s Sunrise subdivision, east of the State Route 4 Bypass, and north of a neighborhood park site and the Loma Vista elementary school. The proposed project appears to be compatible with the surrounding land uses. Access to the project site would be from Sand Creek Road and would likely be from the adjacent property to the west.

DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS

Implementation of the proposed project will require the following discretionary action listed as follows:
· Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of Rezone 01-01 by the City Council.

INTRODUCTION

The following two sections evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed project.

I. Environmental Checklist - The environmental checklist, approved by the City and consistent with CEQA Guidelines, is used to focus this study on physical, social, and economic factors that may be further impacted by the proposed project. The checklist indicates one of the following determinations for each specified potential impact under each category of impact included on the checklist:
a) "potentially significant impact"
b) "potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated"
c) "less than significant impact"
d) "no impact" 

II. Checklist Responses and Environmental Analysis - The Checklist Responses and Environmental Analysis addresses in detail those impacts identified in the checklist. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are adequately supported. A "no impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the proposed project.

SOURCES
The following documents are referenced information sources utilized by this analysis:

1. City of Brentwood General Plan and General Plan Final EIR (SCH# 92063113).
2. City of Brentwood Zoning Ordinance.
3. Field and/or staff office review.
4. Floodplain Map, City of Brentwood (Panel #0355B)
5. Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, California (U.S. Department of Agriculture)

An Initial Study is a preliminary analysis prepared by the lead agency to determine whether an EIR or Negative Declaration must be prepared and to identify the significant effects to be analyzed in an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15365). The Initial Study for the proposed project will serve to focus on effects determined to be potentially significant. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, the following checklist has been prepared that identifies any environmental effects.

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

1. Project Title: Rezone No. 01-01

2. Lead Agency Name: City of Brentwood 

3. Contact person and phone number: Erik Nolthenius, Associate Planner
(925) 516-5405
4. Project location: The proposed project encompasses approximately 2.544 acres (a portion of Assessor’s Parcel No. 019-110-041). The project site generally is located south of Sand Creek Road, between the State Route 4 Bypass and Highland Way.
5. Name and address of project sponsor Larry Enos
(Applicant/Developer): Vasco Group L.P.
2800 W. March Lane, Suite 330
Stockton, CA 95219-8218
(209) 476-0002
6. General Plan designation: Special Planning Area “D”

7. Zoning: PD-6 (Planned Development No. 6)

8. Description of project: Rezone (RZ 01-01) amending a portion of Planning Area 7 of the PD-6 District from HDR (High Density Residential) to C (Regional Commercial).
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: The project site is surrounded by the following land uses: NORTH - orchard, although it is currently zoned for medium density residential use; EAST – undeveloped parcel and single family homes in the Sunrise subdivision; SOUTH – neighborhood park site and Loma Vista elementary school; WEST – undeveloped, although it is currently zoned for commercial use. The setting is somewhat rural in character, as land to the north and west has not yet been developed and is at the edge of urban development.
10. Other public agencies whose approval may be required: None

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below potentially would be affected by this project involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” indicated by the checklist on the following pages:

x Land Use and Planning o Transportation/Circulation o Public Services
o Population and Housing o Biological Resources o Utilities and Service Systems
x Geological Problems o Energy and Mineral Resources x Aesthetics
x Water o Hazards o Cultural Resources
o Air Quality o Noise o Recreation
x Mandatory Findings of Significance


DETERMINATION:

o I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

x 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 the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

o I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

o I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect(s) 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 an earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated.” An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

o 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 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.


ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (The numbers in parentheses indicate the source documentslisted on page 8.) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING.Would the proposal: 
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (Source 1) 
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? 
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? 
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low income or minority community)? (Source 1, 2, and 3) 
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING.Would the proposal: POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: 
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (Source 1; not a residential project) 
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? 
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS.Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: 
a) Fault rupture? 
b) Seismic ground shaking? 
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? 
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?(Source 1, 2, and 3) 
e) Landslides or mudflows? (Source 1, 2, and 3) 
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? 
g) Subsidence of land? (Source 1 and 2) 
h) Expansive soils? 
i) Unique geologic or physical features?(See responses to a, b, c, f, and h) 



ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS(The numbers in parentheses indicate the source documentslisted on page 8.) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: 
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? 
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (Source 1, 2, and 4) 
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? 
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? 
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? 
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? 
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? 
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: 
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? 
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Source 3 and 4) 
c) Alter air movements, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (Source 1, 2, and 3) 
d) Create objectionable odors? 
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.Would the proposal result in: 
a) Increased vehicular trips or traffic congestion? (Source 2, 3, and 4) 
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (no hazardous design features or incompatible uses associated with project) 
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (Source 1 and 2) 
d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsite?(Source 1 and 2) (Source 3 and 4) 
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? 
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?(Source 1 and 2) 
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?(Source 1 and 2) 


ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS(The numbers in parentheses indicate the source documentslisted on page 8.) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.Would the proposal result in impacts to: 
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (Source 1, 2, and 3) 
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)?(Source 1, 2, and 3) 
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source 1, 2, and 3) 
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? (Source 1 and 3) 
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?(Source 1, 2, and 3) 
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: 
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plan?(Source 1) 
b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? 
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (Source 1 and 2) 
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: 
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? 
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source 1 and 3) 
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? 
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? 
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (Source 1 and 3) 
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: 
a) Increases in existing noise levels? 
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Source 1, 2, 3, and 4) 



ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS(The numbers in parentheses indicate the source documentslisted on page 8.) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: 
a) Fire protection? (Source 1 and 2) 
b) Police protection? (Source 1 and 2) 
c) Schools? (Source 1 and 2) 
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 
e) Other government services?(Source 1 and 2) 
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following: 
a) Power or natural gas? (Source 1 and 3) 
b) Communication systems? (Source 1 and 3) 
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution systems? (Source 1 and 3) 
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Source 1 and 3) 
e) Storm water drainage? 
f) Solid waste disposal? 
g) Local or regional water supplies? 
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: 
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?(Source 1 and 3) 
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (Source 1 and 3) 
c) Create light or glare? 
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: 
a) Disturb paleontological resources? 
b) Disturb archaeological resources? 
c) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? 
d) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (Source 1 and 3) 



ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS(The numbers in parentheses indicate the source documents listed on page 8.) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: 
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? 
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or pre﷓history? 
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve shortterm, to the disadvantage of long﷓term, environmental goals? 
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) 
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly? 


The following discussion responds to the questions on the Environmental Checklist Form marked with anything other than “no impact.” Each response is identified with the Roman numeral, name, and letter(s) which correspond to the impact category shown on the checklist form. Only those questions marked other than “no impact” are discussed below. As stated previously, questions receiving a response of “no impact” which are adequately supported do not require further explanation. The source documents used in this analysis are identified on the checklist by indicating the document number (shown on page 7) in parentheses next to the related question. 

I. LAND USE AND PLANNING (a, c, and d)

The project site is within Special Planning Area “D” of the Brentwood General Plan. Use of the site for commercial purposes would not conflict with the General Plan, since it does not specify the number of acres to be allocated for commercial development or the locations of those developments. The PD-6 District does, however, include a land use map which details the location and designations within the affected area. Since the project site is currently designated for High-Density Residential development, the request to rezone the site is necessary to accommodate the proposed commercial development. Impacts related to conflicts with either the General Plan or zoning are considered less than significant.

The area surrounding the project site is developed with an orchard to the north, an undeveloped parcel and single family homes in the Sunrise subdivision to the east, a neighborhood park site and elementary school (Loma Vista School) to the south, and undeveloped property to the west. Use of the project site for commercial purposes could be considered compatible with the surrounding area based on the substantial area directly to the west that is designated for commercial development and the inclusion of the site in that development. Development of the commercial area would require Design Review approval to ensure that compatibility with existing land uses in the vicinity of the site is maintained.

The project site is currently zoned for high density residential development. Previously conducted studies for projects in the surrounding area indicate that soils on the project site are highly suitable for agricultural production, and its history of agricultural use supports that finding. The proposed commercial development of the site would result in the permanent conversion of the former agricultural land use. The existing site consists mainly of flat terrain sloping slightly from west to east. The site is not in commercial agricultural production. The size of the existing site and its location are not conducive to current commercial agricultural production practices or future commercial agricultural production practices.

Previously conducted studies for projects in the Brentwood area and past history of agricultural use support the finding that soils on the project site would be highly suitable for agricultural production. A soil survey of Contra Costa County identifies the soil in this area as Capay clay (CaA), 0 to 2 percent slopes. This soil is good for irrigated sugar beets, tomatoes, lettuce, almonds, walnuts, apricots, and barley. The proposed project would result in the permanent conversion of the existing agricultural land use to new non-residential development. 

The General Plan includes agricultural preservation policies in the Conservation/Open Space Element (page IV. 1-4 and 1-5) which describe potential agricultural preservation program components. The General Plan also designates more than 2,500 acres along the eastern and southeastern portions of the General Plan area as Agriculture Conservation (AC) for permanent agricultural preservation. Implementation of these policies would contribute toward mitigating the potential impact of the proposed project on agricultural resources. The area is trending toward conversion from agricultural to residential and commercial use in accordance with the General Plan as shown by the residential development in the surrounding area described above and the proposed shopping center.

The following mitigation measure shall be required in order to mitigate the land use compatibility impacts between the proposed project and potential agricultural uses, to a loss of Prime Farmland.

1. At the time of development of this property, the Applicant/Developer shall comply with any City Council conservation programs established pursuant to General Plan Conservation Element Policy 1.1.4 in order to mitigate the potentially significant impact of the proposed project on the loss of Prime Farmland.

II. POPULATION AND HOUSING (b and c)

The City’s General Plan and zoning for the area provide for residential and non-residential development on the project site and surrounding areas, and infrastructure to serve the projected residential and non- residential development that will be or already has been constructed. Therefore, the growth inducement impact of this project is less than significant.

The request to rezone the project site from high density residential to regional commercial will not displace existing housing on the site, however, it will eliminate the possibility of developing the site with multi-family housing and reduce the overall amount of land that is designated for multi-family housing throughout the City, thereby impacting the City’s ability to insure the provision of affordable rental housing. The site represents a portion of one of two planning areas within the PD-6 District that are designated for high-density residential development. One of the requirements of PD-6 is that a minimum five-acre site within one of those two areas be reserved for City acquisition to insure the provision of housing to meet the City’s needs for elderly, disabled, and lower-income households. The 2.544-acre site, at a density of 15.7 dwelling units per acre, could accommodate up to 40 units. The Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan is currently being updated, and includes a new Business Park land use category which is planned to include a mix of uses, including multi-family residential which is intended to be designated along the State Route 4 Bypass corridor between Lone Tree Way and Sand Creek Road. The loss of a potential 40 units of high-density housing is expected to be more than made up within this new land use category. Consequently, this potential impact is considered less than significant.

III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS (a, b, c, f, and h)

The site regionally is part of the San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento-San Joaquin Rivers Delta which are geologically active and subject to earth-changing events. The site is considered to be in one of the most seismically active regions of the United States. No active faults are mapped on the site. The nearest suspected active fault is the Brentwood-Sherman Island Fault, located just west of the site. There is presently no evidence of recent activity along this fault, and the location of the fault beneath the valley alluvium is not well defined. However, considering its structural relationship to the Antioch-Davis fault and history of microseismic events, it is considered potentially active for planning purposes. The active Greenville fault is located approximately 10 miles west of the site. In addition, the San Andreas Fault is located approximately 45 miles west of the site. The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or a Seismic Hazard Zone (1997).

The project site would be susceptible to ground shaking of a moderate to high magnitude from any known fault in the area. The seismic risk to structures on the project site depends on the distance from the epicenter, the characteristics of the earthquake, the geologic, groundwater, and soil conditions underlying structures on the project site, and the nature of the construction. In the event of strong ground shaking during a large seismic event, however, the potential for ground lurching, liquefaction, and lateral spreading are considered low. Impacts due to strong ground shaking, expansive soils, and flooding may be mitigated during design and corrective grading.

The residual soil overlaying the alluvial deposits for the project site is well developed and relatively thick. The soil for the project site consists primarily of Capay clay. The slopes range from 0 to 2 percent. These soils have a high shrink/swell potential and a high corrosivity for uncoated steel and concrete. The erosion potential is negligible. During the rainy winter months and especially after periods of heavy rainfall it is likely that seasonal and ephemeral springs will occur and that ephemeral perched water tables will form close to the surface.

The geotechnical hazards of the project site can be mitigated to a less than significant level by the following mitigation measures:

2. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a final geologic and geotechnical feasibility study shall be conducted for the project site along with any recommendations and remediations necessary to ensure proper grading and construction design of public improvements and building foundations.

3. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Comprehensive Grading Plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer which reflects the recommendations of the final Geotechnical Study. All recommendations of the final Geotechnical Study and City Engineer shall be incorporated into the grading plan as a condition of the project grading permit and verified in the field by the City Engineer or his representative.

4. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for project development, the Applicant/Developer shall submit a construction plan to the City Engineer for approval which reflects the recommendations of a final Geotechnical Study including construction procedures and/or design criteria. Construction plans submitted to the City Engineer shall conform with the City of Brentwood Engineering Design Standards and include specifications necessary to minimize potential impacts resulting from soils conditions of the project site. The City Engineer or his representative shall verify in the field that all conditions have been satisfied.

IV. WATER (a, c, d, e, f, g, h, and i)

The project site overlies a portion of the San Joaquin Groundwater Basin encompassing about 30 square miles. The project site is not part of or immediately adjacent to an identified wetland area.

The project site is currently undeveloped, and as such, it now provides an opportunity for groundwater system recharging via the percolation of storm waters and irrigation. Development of the project site with commercial uses will add impervious surfaces to the site, which will result in a net decrease in absorption rates, a net increase in storm water runoff rates, and a change to existing drainage patterns. Development of the project site will reduce some permeable land area above the groundwater basin and contribute to a cumulative loss of permeable land surface and irrigated agricultural land. The general loss of recharge would result in a gradual lowering of groundwater levels. Also, due to the extremely small proportional size of the project site relative to the size of the groundwater basin, this impact is considered less than significant.

Development of the proposed project would have the potential to lead to degradation of water quality. Water quality impacts would have a short-term component occurring during site construction and a long-term component occurring during the lifetime of the improvements associated with the commercial development.

Short-term grading and construction activities may cause an increase in erosion leading to sedimentation of streams in the affected watershed. Pollutants also may be transported from the site to downstream locations due to improper handling practices. The degree to which construction activities impact water quality is partially determined by the time of year when the construction activity occurs.

Long-term occupancy of the project site by the proposed commercial development would introduce non-point sources of pollution such as fertilizers, pesticides, household chemicals, and automobile products within the project area. These pollutants may be carried by storm water runoff to surface water bodies within or downstream from the project site.

Storm water pollution control is the responsibility of the State Water Resources Control Board and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Storm water pollution control is implemented through the use of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, which are applied to industries, municipalities, and construction activities. Any subsequent development activity encompassing greater than five acres would be required to obtain the applicable NPDES permits. Since the project site is proposed to be part of an approximate 28-acre commercial development, an NPDES permit would be required.

Implementation of the following mitigation measures will mitigate identified drainage impacts to a less than significant level:

5. Design of both the on-site and downstream drainage facilities shall meet with the approval of both the City Engineer and the Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District.

6. Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Drainage fees for Drainage Area shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits.

7. All future development on the project site shall comply with specific NPDES requirements.

8. Roof drains shall empty onto paved areas, concrete swales, other approved dissipating devices (including landscape swales), or into a pipe.

9. Concentrated drainage flows shall not be permitted to cross sidewalks or driveways.

10. The Applicant/Developer shall ensure that the project site shall drain into a street, public drain, or approved private drain in such a manner that there will be no undrained depression. Satisfaction of this measure shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer.

V. AIR QUALITY (a, b, and d)

Brentwood is part of the San Francisco Bay Area airshed, which is dominated by the strength and position of the semi-permanent, high-pressure center over the Pacific Ocean near Hawaii. It creates cool summers, mild winters, and generally infrequent rainfall. Brentwood is located on the southern shore of the San Joaquin River Delta east of the Carquinez Strait. This area generally is well ventilated by winds flowing through the Carquinez Strait and Delta. The area is exposed to winds from both the east and west, and the terrain provides little protection from the wind.

Air quality within the region comes under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The District's closest meteorological monitoring stations are at Bethel Island and Pittsburg. At the Pittsburg station, the predominant wind is from the west, with the secondary predominant wind from the south-southwest at 9.3 miles per hour. During the winter, the predominant wind is from the east-southeast, and during the summer the predominant wind is from the west. Predominant summer winds play a role in the distribution of ozone and ozone precursors. Several components of the airshed as measured at those stations exceed established Federal and State standards, including those for ozone and particulate matter of 10-micron diameter or less (PM-10).

Although wind ventilation may reduce the concentration of atmospheric pollutants, Brentwood is susceptible to pollution transported from more heavily urbanized areas to the west. Warm summer temperatures in the Brentwood area contribute to the formation of ozone from hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides produced in Oakland and Berkeley.

The project site currently is undeveloped and was formerly used for agricultural production. Pollutant generation from the project site is variable and sporadic depending on the intensity and type of activities occurring. On-site emissions associated with the previous uses may include combustion products from burning of agricultural waste and operation of agricultural equipment, particulate matter from tilling, and the evaporation of hydrocarbons from pesticide application. The reduction or phase-out of agricultural uses in the area actually may reduce the overall total suspended particulates generated in the area during cultivation operations. 

Construction-related air quality impacts would occur with development of future commercial uses and related infrastructure improvements. Clearing and earth moving activities comprise the major source of construction dust emissions. Impacts would be due to dust generated by equipment and vehicles. Fugitive dust would be emitted both during construction activities and as a result of wind erosion over exposed earth surfaces.

Mobile sources of emissions would be generated by automobile and truck traffic accessing the site which would result in emissions increases affecting both local and regional air quality. The local effect would be increased carbon monoxide, reactive organic gasses, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter (PM-10) levels along roadways used by the project traffic.

The development of the project generally would contribute to cumulative ozone concentration increases. However, any decrease in oxygen-generating capacity due to the removal of agricultural uses would be offset by landscape materials installed as part of the project.

VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION (a and e)

The City of Brentwood's General Plan envisions growth of the City through the year 2010. One component of that Plan is the projection of trip generation and corresponding design of a transportation system to adequately accommodate the movement of vehicles. That system is specifically addressed in the Plan's Circulation Element which, among other components, includes a hierarchical roadway system with different classifications designed to carry traffic generated by planned development.

The project site would be accessed from Sand Creek Road via Shady Willow Lane from the north, Fairview Avenue from the east, Highland Way from the south, and the future State Route 4 Bypass from the west. Measure C requires a traffic study for all new development generating 100 or more peak hour trips. CEQA requires a traffic analysis if the traffic generated by a new development is “significant”. Since the specific size and type of development proposed for the project site is not known at this time, there is no way to determine the number of peak hour trips that would be generated by the commercial development. A traffic study will be required when the overall commercial development is proposed, of which the project site will be a part. For the purposes of this Initial Study, potential impacts related to increased vehicular trips or traffic congestion are considered less than significant, since 2.544 acres of commercial development will generate less trips than the same amount of multi-family development, especially during peak hours.

VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (see checklist)

VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES (b)

The draw and consumption of nonrenewable fossil fuels is of general concern in terms of long-range planning and economic policies. Fluctuations and shocks in the global supply of crude oil have prompted research, policies, and the development of technology which address conservation and alternatives to the use of fossil fuels. However, as such alternatives currently are available on a limited basis, they often are not used to meet most daily residential energy needs. 

Recent advances in energy-efficient technologies have resulted in high efficiency heating and air conditioning systems, building materials, lighting systems, and manufacturing controls and equipment. California currently has an advanced energy use building code in its Title 24 residential building standards. Title 24 requires home builders to meet specified energy performance standards based on local climate conditions and building type.

IX. HAZARDS (a, c, and d)

The project site and surrounding areas were formerly in agricultural production, during which time pesticides were applied to the crops from time to time. Small residual amounts of DDE, a metabolized variant of DDT, have been detected in other agricultural areas in Brentwood. The proposed development of the project site with commercial uses is not likely to result in direct contact with topsoil material, other than installation and periodic maintenance of landscaping.

A specific chemical analysis should be conducted to ensure that any DDE and DDT, if detected, are below any total threshold limit concentration values established for hazardous waste. The California State Environmental Protection Agency (CAL EPA), Toxic Waste Division states the combined concentrations greater than 1.0 mg/Kg of the most commonly used pesticides (DDT, DDE, DDT, Endrin, Dieldrin and Endosulfan I) are considered a hazardous waste in the State of California. If organochloride pesticides concentrations are found to be equal to or greater than 1.0mg/Kg, remedial action would be required. The site must be re-tested after remediation action has been performed. The remedial action plan shall be submitted to be CCCDEH and to the Cal EPA/DTSC for approval with a copy of the plan being submitted to the City of Brentwood. For the purpose of this Initial Study, impacts related to hazards are considered less than significant. Any mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels will be incorporated at the time the project site is developed with the neighborhood shopping center.

X. NOISE (a and b)

Development of the project site with commercial uses in conjunction with the proposed neighborhood shopping center directly west of the site will increase existing noise levels in the vicinity of the site. The degree to which the noise levels will be increased and their impact on people in the vicinity of the site is unknown, however, due to the lack of specific information regarding the proposed commercial development. An acoustical analysis will likely be required in conjunction with development of the neighborhood shopping center to address any potentially significant impacts related to noise. Any mitigation measures to reduce those impacts will be incorporated at that time.

XI. PUBLIC SERVICES (d)

Fire and Police Protection

Development of the project with commercial uses will likely impact both the East Diablo Fire Protection District and the Brentwood Police Department. Potential impacts will be addressed at the time the site is developed in conjunction with the proposed neighborhood shopping center and appropriate mitigation measures will be included at that time.

Schools

The project site is located within the Liberty Union High School District and the Brentwood Union School District. Use of the site for commercial purposes will not increase the demand for services provided by either of the referenced Districts, therefore, this impact is considered negligible.

Maintenance of Public Facilities

Development of the project site will require the City to maintain newly constructed public infrastructure (street frontage, sewer, water, etc.). Since the General Plan provides for development of the project site, the proposed project by itself would contribute only incrementally to increasing public facility maintenance needs in relation to the overall planned development of the City. Therefore, any increased demand for maintenance of public facilities is anticipated to be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Other Governmental Services

Since the General Plan provides for development of the project, the proposed project by itself would contribute only incrementally to increasing the need for other or general governmental services in relation to the overall planned development of the City. Therefore, any increased demand for maintenance of other governmental services is anticipated to be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS (e, f, and g) 

The proposed project will require the installation and/or extension of all utility lines for water, sewer, electricity, natural gas, telephone, and cable television. Adequate capacity to serve the proposed project is or shall be available provided sufficient improvement fees are provided by the Applicant/Developer in conjunction with the City’s Capital Improvements Funding Program. Therefore, any increased demand for these services is anticipated to be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

XIII. AESTHETICS ( c)

Development of the project site will result in an increase in light and glare associated with the proposed commercial development. To ensure that potential impacts as a result of the increase are reduced to less than significant levels, a mitigation measure is included that requires the following:

11. In conjunction with development of the project site, the Applicant/Developer shall shield all on-site lighting so that it is directed within the project site and does not illuminate adjacent properties. A Street Lighting Plan shall be approved by the Engineering Department prior to issuance of building permits. The shielded light fixtures shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permits.

XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES (a, b, and c)

Other than the agricultural heritage of the community, Native American archaeological sites would be another cultural resource potentially disrupted by development of the proposed project. Based on information contained in several previously prepared environmental documents for proposed development within Brentwood, Native American archaeological sites in this area of Contra Costa County tend to be located at the base of hills and on stream terraces near former or existing water courses. No archaeological evidence has been observed on the project site, therefore, no mitigation is required.

XV. RECREATION (a and b)

Development of the project site, as proposed, will not increase the demand for neighborhood, community, or regional parks and other recreational facilities, therefore, no mitigation is required. 

MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (c)

The loss of prime agricultural land is considered a “cumulatively considerable impact” and a “substantial adverse impact,” both direct and indirect, which were addressed with the General Plan Final EIR. Other cumulative impacts may be identified in the categories of population growth, use of resources, demand for services, and physical changes to the natural environment. These impacts may be mitigated to a degree through mitigation measures cumulatively applied as development occurs, or they have been considered subject to findings of overriding benefit by the lead agency

Top of Page

[City Council]  [City Departments]  [City Forms]  [Boards/Commissions] [Passports] [Search] [FAQ]
[Municipal Code] [What's New]  [Employment]  [Links]  [General Information] [Table of Contents]