Brentwood City Hall


Our home pageContact UsPrevious Page

Central Park Gazebo

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 11



Meeting Date: July 10, 2001

Subject/Title: Public Hearing: An amendment to the PD-35 (Planned Development No. 35) Zone to establish development standards for a proposed gas station and general retail site, located at the southwest corner of Lone Tree Way and Empire Avenue

Submitted by: Community Development Department (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 amendment to PD-35 to establish development standards for a proposed gas station and general retail site.

PREVIOUS ACTION
PD-35 was created as a "shell" PD in November of 1998 as part of the Northwest Annexation with the approval of Rezone No. 96-07. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the amendment to PD-35 at its meeting of June 5, 2001.

BACKGROUND
At its meeting of June 5, 2001, the Planning Commission considered this request to amend PD-35 for a 4.88-acre site located at the southwest corner of Lone Tree Way and Empire Avenue, as shown on the attached map (Exhibit A) to create development standards for a proposed gas station and general retail site. At that meeting, the Commission adopted Resolution 01-38 on a 5-0 vote, recommending that the City Council approve the amendment as requested. A Tentative Parcel Map (MS 351-01) to create three parcels and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 00-10) for the gas station on one of the parcels were also approved by the Commission at that meeting.

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 Councils review. The applicant, ARCO Products Company, would like to receive approval for the creation of these development standards in order to move forward with its commercial development plans.

PD-35 was created as a "shell" when the area was annexed by the City in 1998. The City will be creating subareas within PD-35 sequentially as development plans are submitted to the Community Development Department. The project site has been labeled as Subarea "B" since it is the second area within PD-35 where development has been proposed. The General Plan designates the project site NC (Neighborhood Commercial). The proposed development standards are attached as Exhibit B to the ordinance. These standards are in conformance with the General Plan as well as the proposed land use plan as part of the General Plan Update, which designates the site GC (General Commercial).

ANALYSIS
Staff believes that the recommended development standards will allow the applicant to develop the site to its potential while maintaining consistency with the Neighborhood Commercial designation of the site and ensuring compatibility with existing and future land uses in the vicinity of the site. The Planning Commission and Staff believe that approval of the proposed development standards would serve to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan by facilitating development of the project site and will not adversely impact the development of adjacent parcels.

ATTACHMENTS
1. Ordinance No. ___
2. Mitigated Negative Declaration for the amendment to PD-35


ORDINANCE NO. ___

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD AMENDING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 35 ZONE TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A PROPOSED GAS STATION AND GENERAL RETAIL SITE, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LONE TREE WAY AND EMPIRE AVENUE, AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT (APN'S 019-040-001 AND 019-040-002).

WHEREAS, ARCO Products Company has requested that the City approve an amendment to PD-35 by adding development standards for the project site located at the southwest corner of Lone Tree Way and Empire Avenue; and

WHEREAS, on June 5, 2001, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, considered public comments, and adopted Resolution No. 01-38 which recommends the approval of the amendment to PD-35 adding development standards for the project site; and

WHEREAS, specific development plans for a gas station have been concurrently processed and were approved by the Planning Commission on June 5, 2001, with the adoption of Resolution 01-40; and

WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and are considered a part of this review and approval process; and

WHEREAS, the Negative Declaration identifies potentially significant environmental effects associated with the proposed project which can be feasibly mitigated or avoided and these project measures are included in the project conditions of approval to reduce the impacts identified to a less than significant level; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood has considered the amendment to PD-35 and the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and

WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was legally advertised in the Ledger-Dispatch on June 29, 2001, and mailed to all property owners of record within 300 feet of the project site in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090; 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:

1. The site is physically suitable for the type and the density of development proposed.

2. The proposed amendment to PD-35 is consistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance and the City Council's previously expressed intent to stimulate job generating uses within the City.

3. The proposed amendment to PD-35 is consistent and compatible with other goals, policies, and implementation programs set forth in the General Plan which are intended to create a balance between jobs and housing units approaching 1 to 1 within the City.

4. The development of the project site, in the manner proposed by the applicant, will not be detrimental to the public welfare, will be in the best interests of the City, and is consistent with the general intent and spirit of the Zoning Ordinance and with the City's General Plan, including all relevant elements thereof.

5. 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 Section 65863.6).

6. The proposed amendment to PD-35 has been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act.

7. Pursuant to Section 15168 ( c ) and 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that the project is within the scope of the development levels evaluated in the Program EIR prepared for the 1993 City of Brentwood General Plan. The Initial Study has further 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 that were not studied in the Program EIR and the project specific additional mitigation measures. Therefore, since the mitigation measures are incorporated as conditions of the project approval, the Mitigated Negative Declaration as well as the Program EIR for the 1993 General Plan are adequate for approval of the project.

8. The City Council further finds that no significant new information within the meaning of 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 for further public review.

9. On the basis of the whole record before it, there is no substantial evidence that this project will have a significant effect on the environment, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis.

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 project.

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


Section 2.

Approves the amendment to PD-35 for the area shown on the map attached as Exhibit A and adopts development standards for this area as designated on Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance.

Section 3.

Chapter 17.485 is hereby added to the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of regulating certain real property and establishing development standards for the project, as shown on Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance.

Section 4.

A. This Ordinance shall be published in accordance with 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 5.

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 10th day of July, 2001, and adopted at a regular meeting of the Brentwood City Council on , by the following vote:

AYES: 
NOES: 
ABSENT: 
ABSTAIN: 

APPROVED: 

Attachments:
Exhibit A - PD-35 Subarea Map
Exhibit B - Chapter 17.485 PD-35 Development Standards

EXHIBIT B

CHAPTER 17.485
PD-35 (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 35) ZONE
SUBAREA "B"

ARCO PRODUCTS COMPANY

17.485.01 AUTHORITY, PURPOSE, AND INTENT
17.485.02 PERMITTED USES
17.485.03 CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES
17.485.04 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
17.485.05 OTHER REGULATIONS

17.485.01 AUTHORITY, PURPOSE, AND INTENT:

The authority, purpose, and intent for the adoption of the PD-35 (Planned Development No. 35) Subarea "B" Zone, as shown on Attachment "A", are as follows:

A. Authority: The PD-35 Zone is adopted pursuant to the authority set forth in Chapter 17.450, Planned Development Zones, General Regulations, of the Brentwood Municipal Code.

B. Purpose: The purpose of the PD-35 Subarea "B" Zone is to permit and regulate the orderly development of 4.88 acres located at the southwest corner of Lone Tree Way and Empire Avenue with neighborhood commercial uses in accordance with the Brentwood General Plan.

C. Intent: The intent of creating the PD-35 Subarea "B" Zone is to ensure the coordinated development of the entire property in order to minimize impacts on adjacent residential areas, while providing for the flexibility to maximize the potential for job creation and serve the needs of surrounding residential and commercial neighborhoods.

17.485.02 PERMITTED USES:

The following uses are permitted in the PD-35 Subarea "B" Zone:

A. Convenience retail uses such as bakeries, pastry shops, book stores, candy stores, florists, newsstands, stationery/gift shops, ice-cream parlors, and similar uses;
B. Supermarkets, drug stores, and similar uses;
C. Barber or beauty shops, shoe repair, laundromats, dry cleaners, and similar uses.

17.485.03 CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES:

Upon obtaining a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Chapter 17.830, the following uses are permitted:

A. On-sale or off-sale liquor establishments;
B. Fuel sale facilities, convenience stores, automated car washes, meeting rooms/fraternal halls, and neighborhood community centers;
C. Restaurants and cafes;
D. Nurseries, child care centers, day care centers, and similar uses;
E. Other uses that the Community Development Director determines, because of the type of operation, material stored or sold, or other special circumstances require special consideration and regulations through the conditional use permit procedure.

17.485.04 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:

All permitted and conditionally permitted uses developed within the PD-35 Subarea "B" Zone shall comply with the following regulations:

A. Minimum Lot Area: Twenty-five thousand (25,000) square feet, except that a master planned shopping center may be subdivided into parcels having a minimum lot area of ten thousand (10,000) square feet and a minimum lot width of one hundred (100) feet.

B. Minimum Street Frontage: One hundred and twenty (120) feet, except in the event of a subdivision pursuant to subsection A of this section where frontage is not required provided perpetual access is provided by easements.

C. Minimum Street Frontage Yards: Ten (10) feet which, except for driveway approaches, shall be landscaped pursuant to Section 17.630.

D. Minimum Non-Street Frontage Yards: Ten (10) feet, except that buildings located along the southerly boundary of the subarea shall be setback at least fifty (50) feet from said boundary. These yards shall be screened if required pursuant to Section 17.630.

E. Maximum Building Height: The maximum height of all structures in the PD-35 Subarea "B" Zone shall be two (2) stories not to exceed thirty (30) feet.

17.485.05 OTHER REGULATIONS:

A. Parking: Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 17.620 of the Brentwood Municipal Code.

B. Development Standards: The uses within the PD-35 Subarea "B" Zone shall comply with Section 17.200.003 of the Brentwood Municipal Code.

C. Performance Standards: The uses within the PD-35 Subarea "B" Zone shall comply with Section 17.200.004 of the Brentwood Municipal Code.

D. Signs: All signage for uses within the PD-35 Subarea "B" Zone shall be in 
accordance with Section 17.640 of the Brentwood Municipal Code














CITY OF BRENTWOOD 
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT




PD-35 AMENDMENT
MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 351-01
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 00-10

INITIAL STUDY AND 
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
MAY 2001


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 3
Project Description 5
Environmental Checklist 11
Environmental Checklist Form 14
Checklist Responses and Environmental Analysis 19

List of Figures 


Figure 1 Local Vicinity Map 7
Figure 2 Area Zoning Map 8
Figure 3 Minor Subdivision No. 351-01 9
Figure 4 Site Plan 10


GENERAL PURPOSE/SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

This Initial Study (IS) has been prepared to determine if the proposed 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 project site is comprised of two existing parcels, identified as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 019-040-001 and 019-040-002, totaling approximately 4.88 acres. The proposed project consists of the following actions:

An amendment to the PD-35 (Planned Development No. 35) Zone by creating development standards for the project site.
A tentative parcel map to merge and re-subdivide the two existing parcels into three parcels of 0.67, 1.19, and 1.85 acres.
A conditional use permit to allow a gas station development with a convenience store and an automated carwash on the 1.19-acre parcel.

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 ARCO Products Company.

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: Bill Pakulski
(Applicant) ARCO Products Company
4 Centerpointe Drive
La Palma, CA 90623-1066
(800) 525-5857
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

Four technical studies were prepared for the proposed project. The studies are summarized in the appropriate sections under Checklist Responses and are available upon request for review in the Community Development Department of the City of Brentwood.

Environmental Assessment - This document, entitled Site Acquisition Environmental Record Search, is dated October 31, 2000, and was prepared by SECOR International Incorporated. The purpose of this report is to identify potential environmental concerns related to the project site and make recommendations in the event that concerns are identified. The report recommends that a Phase II Environmental Site Investigation, including a geotechnical investigation, be performed.

Environmental Assessment - This document, entitled Site Acquisition Environmental Assessment, is dated December 7, 2000, and was prepared by SECOR International Incorporated (an addendum was prepared by same and dated December 22, 2000). The purpose of this report is to evaluate the potential presence of petroleum fuel hydrocarbons, fuel oxygenates, and chlorinated pesticides in soils and groundwater beneath the site. The report concludes that concentrations are below assumed regulatory action levels and do not appear to warrant additional investigation or remediation.

Geotechnical Investigation - This document, entitled Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, is dated January 29, 2001, and was prepared by SECOR International Incorporated. The purpose of this report is to assess the underlying soil conditions and make geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the proposed development. The investigation indicates that the site is geotechnically suitable for the proposed development, provided the recommendations are adhered to during design and construction.

Archaeological Investigation - This document, entitled Cultural Resources Assessment, is dated February 22, 2001, and was prepared by Basin Research Associates. The analysis was conducted to ascertain the potential for archaeological resources in the vicinity of the project site. The report concludes that no cultural resources were observed in the field but that if any significant resources are exposed or discovered during either site clearing or during subsurface construction, operations should stop within 25 feet of the find and a qualified professional archaeologist contacted for further review and recommendations.

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 project site has been analyzed in one previous environmental review document which forms the basis of analysis in this IS:

General Plan Final EIR - The environmental impacts associated with the proposed project were previously analyzed in this EIR certified in 1993 (SCH# 92063113). The City's General Plan proposes development of the site with neighborhood commercial uses. The mitigation measures approved with the Final EIR for the General Plan have been re-evaluated for adequacy with the proposed project and are hereby incorporated by reference in this Negative Declaration.





As further required by CEQA Section 15150, the documents referenced above will be available for public inspection during normal business hours at:

City of Brentwood
Community Development Department
104 Oak Street
Brentwood, CA 94513

BACKGROUND
The project site consists of approximately 4.88 acres, is generally square in shape, is located within the incorporated city limits of the City of Brentwood, and is currently comprised of two legal parcels (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 019-040-001 and 019-040-002).
The project site is generally located south of Lone Tree Way and west of Empire Avenue, between the State Route 4 Bypass and the Union Pacific Railroad line. The site has been utilized primarily for agricultural purposes since at least 1953, although there are three single-family homes, two barns, several accessory structures, and a fruit stand on the site as well. Surrounding land uses include the following: North undeveloped (within the city limits of the City of Antioch); East single-family dwelling and accessory structures; South single-family dwellings and agriculture; West single-family dwelling.
The project site is currently within the boundaries of the PD-35 (Planned Development No. 35) Zone, which is a shell PD that calls for a variety of land uses, including residential, commercial, industrial, and recreation/open space. The City's General Plan designates the site NC (Neighborhood Commercial). This designation is meant to allow for development that will serve the needs of a small neighborhood, with gas stations being the only type of auto service that is allowed.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT
The project site is relatively flat and is currently developed with three single-family homes, two barns, several accessory structures, and a fruit stand. The site has been in some form of agricultural production since at least 1953. A portion of the site is currently being utilized to grow strawberries, which are sold at the fruit stand that is located in the northeast corner of the site. Figure 1 illustrates the projects location within the general Brentwood vicinity.
The Applicant/Developer is requesting to add development standards for the project site, subdivide it into three parcels, and develop the parcel at the corner of Lone Tree Way and Empire Avenue with a gas station, convenience store, and automated carwash. The site is within an area of the City that is just now beginning to develop, as the primary uses consist of older single-family dwellings and agriculture. In addition to the proposed gas station development, the creation of two other parcels as part of the project would provide for future commercial uses. A conceptual development plan submitted by the applicant shows a fast-food restaurant on the other parcel that fronts Lone Tree Way and a retail use on the southernmost parcel that fronts Empire Avenue.
The City's General Plan is in the process of being updated, with the preferred alternative showing the project site designated for general commercial development. The preferred alternative also shows a variety of land uses adjacent to and in the vicinity of the project site. While the area directly to the north is in Antioch, the area to the northeast is proposed for general commercial uses. Directly east and southeast of the site is a large area proposed for low-density residential development, while a transition of high and medium-density residential uses are proposed to the south. More general commercial development is proposed directly to the west, extending to Shady Willow Lane. The proposed project appears to be compatible with the surrounding land uses, with the only potential issue being future residential development directly east of the site, across Empire Avenue. Access to the project site would be taken from one point on Lone Tree Way and two points on Empire Avenue.




DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
Implementation of the proposed project will require the following discretionary actions listed as follows:

Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of the amendment to PD-35 by the City Council.
Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of MS 351-01 by the Planning Commission.
Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approval of CUP 00-10 by the Planning Commission.



































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), June 1993.
2. City of Brentwood Zoning Ordinance, March 2001.
3. Field and/or staff office review.
4. Floodplain Map, City of Brentwood (Panel #0355B), July 1987.
5. Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, California (U.S. Department of Agriculture), September 1977.
6. "Site Acquisition Environmental Record Search", dated October 31, 2000, prepared by SECOR International Incorporated.
7. "Cultural Resources Assessment", dated February 22, 2001, prepared by Basin Research Associates.
8. "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation", dated January 29, 2001, prepared by SECOR International Incorporated.
9. "Site Acquisition Environmental Assessment", dated December 7, 2000, prepared by SECOR International Incorporated.

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: PD-35 Amendment
Minor Subdivision No. 351-01
Conditional Use Permit No. 00-10

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 4.88 acres (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 019-040-001 and 019-040-002). The project site is generally located at the southwest corner of Lone Tree Way and Empire Avenue, between the State Route 4 Bypass and the Union Pacific Railroad line.
5. Name and address of project sponsor Bill Pakulski
(Applicant/Developer): ARCO Products Company
4 Centerpointe Drive
La Palma, CA 90623-1066
(800) 525-5857
6. General Plan designation: NC (Neighborhood Commercial)
7. Zoning: PD-35 (Planned Development No. 35)

8. Description of project: An amendment to the PD-35 (Planned Development No. 35) Zone by creating development standards for the project site; a tentative parcel map to merge and re-subdivide the two existing parcels into three parcels of 0.67, 1.19, and 1.85 acres; a conditional use permit to allow a gas station development with a convenience store and an automated carwash.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting: The project site is surrounded by the following land uses: NORTH - undeveloped (within the city limits of the City of Antioch); EAST single-family dwelling and accessory structures (designated for low-density residential development); SOUTH single-family dwellings and agriculture (designated for high and medium-density residential development); WEST single-family dwelling (designated for general commercial development). The setting is somewhat rural in character, as the majority of land is developed with older single-family dwellings and agricultural uses.
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 & Planning  Transportation/Circulation  Public Services
 Population & Housing  Biological Resources  Utilities & Service Systems
X Geological Problems  Energy & Mineral Resources  Aesthetics
X Water  Hazards X Cultural Resources
 Air Quality  Noise  Recreation
X Mandatory Findings of Significance

DETERMINATION:

 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 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

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

 I find that the proposed project may have a 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.

 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.




____________________________ May 16, 2001 
Signature Date 

Erik Nolthenius Associate Planner
Printed Name Title 












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? o o o
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (Source 1) o o o
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? o o o
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? o o o
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low income or minority community)? o o o
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) o o o
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? o o o
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? o o o
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS.Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: 
a) Fault rupture? o o o
b) Seismic ground shaking? o o o
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? o o o
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?(Source 1, 2, and 3) o o o
e) Landslides or mudflows? (Source 1, 2, and 3) o o o
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (Source 1, 5, and 8) o o o
g) Subsidence of land? (Source 1) o o o
h) Expansive soils? o o o
i) Unique geologic or physical features?(See responses to a, b, c, and h) o o o



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? o o o
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? o o o
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? o o o
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? o o o
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? o o o
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? o o o
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? o o o
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? o o o
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? o o o
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: 
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? o o o
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Source 3 and 4) o o o
c) Alter air movements, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (Source 1, 2, and 3) o o o
d) Create objectionable odors? o o o
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.Would the proposal result in: 
a) Increased vehicular trips or traffic congestion? (Source 2, 3, and 4) o o o
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) o o o
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (Source 1 and 2) o o o
d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsite?(Source 1 and 2) (Source 3 and 4) o o o
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? o o o
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?(Source 1 and 2) o o o
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?(Source 1 and 2) o o o


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) o o o
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)?(Source 1, 2, and 3) o o o
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source 1, 2, and 3) o o o
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? (Source 1 and 3) o o o
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?(Source 1, 2, and 3) o o o
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: 
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plan?(Source 1) o o o
b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? o o o
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) o o o
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)? o o o
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source 1 and 3) o o o
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? o o o
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? o o o
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (Source 1 and 3) o o o
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: 
a) Increases in existing noise levels? o o o
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Source 1, 2, 3, and 4) o o o



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? o o o
b) Police protection? o o o
c) Schools? o o o
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? o o o
e) Other government services? o o o
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? o o o
b) Communication systems? o o o
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution systems? o o o
d) Sewer or septic tanks? o o o
e) Storm water drainage? o o o
f) Solid waste disposal? o o o
g) Local or regional water supplies? o o o
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: 
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? o o o
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? o o o
c) Create light or glare? o o o
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: 
a) Disturb paleontological resources? o o o
b) Disturb archaeological resources? o o o
c) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? o o o
d) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (Source 1, 3, and 7) o o o



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 
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: 
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (not a residential project) o o o
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (site currently developed with residential and agricultural uses) o o o
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? o o o
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short﷓term, to the disadvantage of long﷓term, environmental goals? o o o
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) o o o
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly? o o o
















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 12) in parentheses next to the related question. 

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

The project site is zoned PD-35 (Planned Development No. 35). This zone was created as a shell and, as such, no standards are in place to regulate its development. Part of this project includes the amendment of PD-35 to create development standards for the project site. These standards will facilitate the subdivision of the project site into three parcels and the development of those parcels with the gas station and the other two future commercial uses. Implementation of the proposed development standards will reduce any potential conflicts with the zoning of the project site to less than significant levels.

Existing land uses in the vicinity of the project site are characterized primarily by older single-family dwellings scattered along Lone Tree Way and Empire Avenue, agricultural uses, and undeveloped land. Development of the site as proposed with a variety of commercial uses should not significantly impact those land uses based on the limited number of dwellings and the fact that they are not concentrated adjacent to the site. The proposed gas station includes a significant amount of landscaping around its perimeter to enhance the aesthetic value of the site as well as doors on both ends of the carwash to reduce noise levels associated with its use. Development of the remaining two parcels with other commercial uses will require a conditional use permit or design review process to ensure compatibility with existing land uses. Based on the location of residentially designated land adjacent to the southern boundary of the project site, a masonry wall will be required along that boundary when the southerly parcel is developed. Impacts related to compatibility with existing land uses in the vicinity of the site are considered less than significant.

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 currently being utilized to grow strawberries that are sold at the fruit stand on the corner of Lone Tree Way and Empire Avenue. The relatively small size of the site and its location are not conducive to current commercial agricultural production practices or future commercial agricultural production practices. A soil survey of Contra Costa County identifies the soil in this area as Rincon clay loam (RbA), 0 to 2 percent slopes. This soil is used mainly for irrigated nut crops, fruit, row crops, and forage crops. 

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 will be developing in the future, converting agricultural uses to a combination of residential and commercial uses in accordance with the General Plan.

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.

The surrounding area may or may not be characterized as an established community, given the limited number of dwellings and their lack of concentration. The proposed project will, however, temporarily disrupt or divide the area based on its location within and among those dwellings. As the area continues to develop with a combination of commercial and residential uses, the site will become an integral part of the neighborhood, as opposed to disrupting or dividing it. Impacts related to the physical arrangement of an established community are therefore considered less than significant.

II. POPULATION AND HOUSING (b and c)

The Citys General Plan and zoning for the area provide for a combination of residential and non-residential development. The proposed project will indirectly induce growth in the area by nature of its location in a primarily undeveloped area and by extending major infrastructure. New development is required to pay a variety of fees at the time building permits are issued to ensure that the appropriate infrastructure is in place as well as construct improvements to roads and other public facilities. Development of the project is not, however, anticipated to substantially induce growth in the area beyond what is designated in the General Plan.

The proposed project includes the permanent removal of the three single-family dwellings that are scattered throughout the site. Three factors, however, offset any potentially significant impacts. First, the site is designated by the General Plan for neighborhood commercial development. Second, the number of dwellings that will be lost is insignificant when compared to the number of new dwellings that are being, and will continue to be, constructed in the City. Third, the approximate 15-acre area directly south of the site is designated for high-density residential development that, if developed to its potential, would yield a maximum of 225 dwellings. Based on the foregoing evaluation, potential impacts related to the displacement of existing housing are considered less than significant.

III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS (a, b, c, 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 potentially 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 preliminary geotechnical investigation prepared for the project indicates that the majority of saturated on-site soils are not susceptible to liquefaction. Most of the saturated soils are identified as clay. The remaining soils (primarily clayey sand) were tested and found not likely to be susceptible to liquefaction. Based on the findings of the report, potential impacts related to liquefaction as a result of the project are considered less than significant.

The preliminary geotechnical investigation also indicates that the on-site soils should be classified with a high expansion potential and, consequently, special design for those soils will be required by the project civil engineer. 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 that 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, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, and i)

The majority of the project site is either undeveloped or is in agricultural production and, as such, has a limited amount of impervious surface. Development of the project site, as proposed, will significantly increase the amount of impervious surface, with the primary exception being areas that are landscaped. Approval of the project will require compliance with a number of standard conditions, some of which relate to drainage. One such condition requires that storm water runoff generated from the site be collected and conveyed to the nearest adequate storm drain facility prior to the issuance of grading permits. Another condition requires the developer to pay regional and sub-regional drainage fees required by the Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (Flood Control) prior to the issuance of building permits. Based on additional comments received from Flood Control, the following mitigation measures are included to reduce potential impacts related to absorption, drainage, and runoff to less than significant levels:

5. The developer shall place a catch basin at the curb on the northeast corner of the project site and connect the storm drain line from this catch basin to an existing manhole on DA 30C Line A1.

6. Any lines tying into the existing 48" storm drain or any other drainage area facility lines shall be connected at existing manholes in order to maintain and ensure the integrity of the pipes.

The floodplain map for the surrounding area shows that a portion of the project site along Lone Tree Way may be in a Flood Hazard Zone A. This zone is classified as being an area of a 100-year flood (a flood of such great magnitude that it is only estimated to occur once every one-hundred years). Approval of the project will require compliance with a number of standard conditions. One such condition requires the developer to provide finished pad elevations one foot above the 100-year base flood elevation as shown on the latest Federal Emergency Management Agency floodplain maps for Contra Costa County. The developer is also responsible for all necessary activities, applications, documentation, and costs to amend the respective maps. Compliance with this condition will be required prior to the issuance of building permits and will reduce potential flooding impacts to less than significant levels.

Development of the proposed project has 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 may also 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 within the project area. These pollutants may be carried by storm water runoff to surface water bodies 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 one acre would be required to obtain the applicable NPDES permits. Since the project site encompasses approximately 5 acres, an NPDES permit would be required.

The following mitigation measures are included to reduce potential impacts related to water quality to less than significant levels:

7. 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.

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

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

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

11. 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.

Based on the lack of existing impervious surface within the boundaries of the project site, the site provides an opportunity for groundwater system recharging via the percolation of storm waters and irrigation. Development of the project site as proposed will reduce a significant portion of the 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 will result in a gradual lowering of groundwater levels. Due to the extremely small proportional size of the project site relative to the size of the groundwater basin, however, this impact is considered less than significant.

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.

Existing development on the project site consists primarily of three single-family dwellings, several accessory structures, a fruit stand, and a strawberry field. The site has a history of agricultural production dating back to at least 1953. 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 the proposed 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.

Receptors that are sensitive to pollutants in the vicinity of the project site will be limited primarily to the area directly east of the site, which is designated for low-density residential development, at a density of 3 dwellings per acre. The proposed gas station development will include the discharge of motor vehicle fuel vapors into the local atmosphere on a daily basis. The developer will be required, however, to obtain approvals from various agencies related to the operation of the gas station in a manner which complies with all applicable provisions of law governing gas stations. In addition, the gas station will be sufficiently separated from the future residential development to the east by a significant amount of landscaping and an arterial roadway (Empire Avenue). Based on the foregoing evaluation, potential impacts related to air quality as a result of the project are considered less than significant.

VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION (a and e)

Development of the project site with commercial uses will increase the number of vehicle trips and traffic congestion in the vicinity. The City of Brentwood's General Plan envisions growth of the City through the year 2010. One component of the General 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 General 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 will be accessed from Lone Tree Way via a shared driveway between parcels 1 and 2 of the proposed minor subdivision, and from Empire Avenue via two driveways, one each for parcels 1 and 3 of the subdivision. Access from Lone Tree Way will be limited to right-in and right-out only due to a median. Access from Empire Avenue to parcel 1 (the proposed gas station) will also be limited to right-in and right-out only for the same reason. Left-turn movements will be permitted for vehicles accessing parcel 3 from Empire Avenue.

Lone Tree Way in the area of the site currently exists as a two-lane road, although it is planned as a major arterial that will ultimately be widened to six lanes adjacent to the site. The widening will require the developer to dedicate the necessary right-of-way as well as construct or contribute to his fair share of improvements. There is an existing traffic signal at the intersection of Lone Tree Way and Empire Avenue to control traffic. Empire Avenue south of the intersection adjacent to the project site currently exists as a semi-paved one-lane road that provides access to several single-family homes located south of the site. The current alignment is considered an extension of Empire Avenue although it is not in the City's street maintenance system. Empire Avenue is planned as a minor arterial that will ultimately be widened to four lanes adjacent to the site. Again, the developer will be required to dedicate the necessary right-of-way as well as construct or contribute to his fair share of improvements.

Development of the project site for commercial purposes is called for in the General Plan and addressed in the Environmental Impact Report that was adopted for it. The overall circulation system of the City has been designed to ensure that local circulation system standards are met without significant impacts. Given the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and is intended to serve the surrounding area, and not the community as a whole, it is not anticipated to increase vehicular trips or traffic beyond that anticipated in the General Plan or its EIR. Based on the foregoing evaluation, potential impacts related to increases in vehicular trips or traffic congestion are considered less than significant.

The proposed project will introduce new vehicle movements onto and off of the project site. While these movements will cross future pedestrian and bicycle routes, they will occur only at designated locations (driveways) and, as such, represent typical conditions present in all suburban development settings, and are not considered an unusual hazard. The following mitigation measure will reduce potential impacts related to transportation and circulation to less than significant levels:

12. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant/Developer shall pay all applicable traffic and circulation fees to the City.

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 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. The City adheres to the requirements of Section 6, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, which establishes requirements for the incorporation of energy efficiency in all new construction projects for the purpose of reducing energy demands. Implementation of the proposed project will be required to demonstrate compliance with the provisions of Title 24 prior to the issuance of building permits. Based on the foregoing evaluation, potential impacts related to nonrenewable resources are considered less than significant.

IX. HAZARDS (a, c, and d)

The proposed gas station development will involve the underground storage and above-ground dispensing of motor vehicle fuels, which represent a significant risk of accidental explosion and release of hazardous substances. Implementation of the proposed project, with particular attention to the proposed gas station, will be subject to regulations of various governmental agencies charged with such responsibilities as monitoring the safe handling, storage, and transport of hazardous materials, including gasoline and diesel fuels. The permitting and monitoring processes conducted by various other agencies will ensure compliance with applicable environmental policies and regulations. Based on the foregoing evaluation, potential impacts related to accidental explosions or the release of hazardous substances are considered less than significant.

The project site and surrounding areas were formerly, and continue to be in a limited fashion, in agricultural production, during which time pesticides have been and are 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 Phase II Environmental Site Assessment of the project site was performed by SECOR International Incorporated. Trace amounts of benzene, total xylenes, and MTBE were identified. No DDE or DDT was detected. Samples were re-analyzed subsequent to the original assessment in order to assess the validity of the findings. An addendum was subsequently prepared which concludes that current and historic on-site activities have not significantly impacted the project site with petroleum fuel hydrocarbons or VOC's (volatile organic compounds). Based on the foregoing evaluation, potential impacts related to health hazards are considered less than significant.

X. NOISE (a and b)

The project site is currently developed with rural residential and agricultural uses, and is not considered a significant noise generator. Existing noise sources in the vicinity of the project site are comprised primarily of vehicular traffic along Lone Tree Way and Empire Avenue. Implementation of the proposed project will introduce noise sources to the project site from motor vehicles, including customers, delivery vehicles, and the carwash. The potential increase in noise poses a potentially significant environmental impact to the future residential neighborhoods that will be developing both east and south of the site.

The eastern boundary of the project site, including the proposed gas station and future commercial use, will include an approximate 30-foot wide parkway for landscaping and pedestrian use. In addition, the future subdivision or subdivisions on the east side of Empire Avenue will include the construction of a masonry wall for sound attenuation from the roadway. Finally, the carwash design includes doors on both ends that will close during normal operation to reduce the potential for noise impacts associated with the operation of the blower. Based on the design of the project and the separation of the commercial development from the future residential development, potential impacts related to increases in existing noise levels or exposure of people to severe noise levels are considered less than significant.

XI. PUBLIC SERVICES (a, b, c, and d)

Fire Protection

The East Diablo Fire Protection District (District) delivers fire protection services to the City, including the project site. As of the preparation of this Initial Study, the District has not expressed a concern that the project will result in an increased fire demand and a corresponding demand for increased fire protection facilities, equipment, or personnel. Comments from the District will be addressed as conditions of project approval and will reduce potential impacts on fire protection services to less than significant levels.
Police Protection

The City of Brentwood Police Department (Department) delivers public safety protection services to the City, including the project site. As of the preparation of this Initial Study, the Department has not expressed a concern that the project will result in an increased public safety demand and a corresponding demand for increased public safety protection facilities, equipment, or personnel. Comments from the Department will be addressed as conditions of project approval and will reduce potential impacts on police protection services to less than significant levels.

Schools

Implementation of the proposed project will not include the construction of residential units and will therefore not result in the generation of new school-age children or an increased demand for public school services or facilities. Applicable fees will be paid at the time of building permit issuance. Based on the foregoing evaluation, potential impacts related to schools are considered less than significant.

Maintenance of Public Facilities, Including Roads

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 Government Services

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

XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS (a, b, c, d, e, f, and g) 

The proposed project will require the installation and/or extension of all utility lines for power or natural gas, communication systems, water treatment or distribution systems, sewer, storm water drainage, solid waste disposal, and water supplies. Adequate capacity to serve the proposed project is or shall be available provided sufficient improvement fees are provided by the developer in conjunction with the Citys 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 (a, b, and c)

The General Plan Final EIR classifies Lone Tree Way as a scenic route, presumably as one travels westbound, given the prominence of the Diablo Range and Mount Diablo in particular. The project site itself is not, however, considered to be a scenic resource within the City nor is it situated such that its development would significantly impact existing views of scenic vistas from adjacent properties or roadways.

Development of the site will result in the removal of the existing structures on site and the construction of various commercial uses. The project will be developed with a high aesthetic quality and will likely in fact enhance the existing visual quality of the site.

The project site is currently developed for rural residential and agricultural purposes and, as such, is not currently a source of light or glare. Implementation of the proposed project will, however, introduce a source of nighttime light to the surrounding area via site, building, and sign illumination as well as from vehicles entering and exiting the site. The future residential neighborhoods proposed for development to the east and south of the site may be impacted by this light. Approval of the project will require compliance with a number of standard conditions, including the submittal of a lighting plan to the Community Development and Police Departments. The condition requires that all lighting be shielded from abutting properties so as not to produce any nuisance or annoyance. The condition also requires that under canopy lighting (applicable to the proposed gas station) be recessed or concealed in such a manner so as not to be directly visible from a public street. Compliance with the referenced condition should reduce potential impacts related to the creation of light or glare to less than significant levels.

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

A cultural resources assessment was prepared for the project site by Basin Research Associates. The report indicates that the general area is classified as "medium" sensitivity for archaeological resources. However, no prehistoric, ethnographic settlements or traditional Native American use areas, or Hispanic Period or American Period archaeological resources have been recorded or identified in, adjacent or near the project site. In addition, no evidence of prehistoric or historically significant archaeological or architectural resources was observed during the field inventory completed for the report. Finally, no local, State, or Federal historically or architecturally significant structures, landmarks, or points of interest have been recorded or identified in or adjacent to the project site. The report concludes that no subsurface testing for buried archaeological resources appears necessary at this time. The report also does not recommend any archaeological monitoring, as the immediate project area does not appear to be sensitive for either buried prehistoric or historic cultural resources.

The report recommends the following which has been included as a mitigation measure to reduce potential impacts related to cultural resources to less than significant levels:

13. If any significant cultural materials are exposed or discovered during either site clearing or during subsurface construction, operations should stop within 25 feet of the find and a qualified professional archaeologist contacted for further review and recommendations.

XV. RECREATION (see checklist)

XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (a, b, c, and d)

Conversion of rural areas to urban and suburban uses may be regarded as achieving short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. However, the inevitable impacts resulting from population and economic growth are mitigated by long-range planning to establish policies, programs, and measures for the efficient and economical use of resources. Long-term environmental goals, both broad and specific, have been addressed previously in several environmental documents, the most comprehensive being the General Plan Final EIR certified in 1993. 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]