Brentwood City Hall


Our home pageContact UsPrevious Page

Central Park Gazebo

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 13

Meeting Date: August 14, 2001

Subject/Title: Public Hearing-General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Establishment of Development Standards for the Sciortino Property, located on the north side of Oak Street adjacent to the Liberty High School athletic fields

Submitted by: Oshinsky/Leana, Community Development Department.

Approved by: Jon Elam, City Manager



RECOMMENDATION 
The recommended City Council action is twofold as follows:

1. Pass Resolution 01-XXX approving General Plan Amendment (GPA00-02) which changes the land use on 29.64 acres from medium density residential to 23.64 acres of low density residential, 3.26 acres of high density residential and a 2.74 acre neighborhood park, and Specific Plan Amendment #1 to the Garin Ranch Specific Plan changing Planning Areas 11 & 12 from duets/townhouse and small lot single family, respectively, to a mix of conventional single family residential and senior apartments.

2. Introduce and Waive the first reading of Ordinance XXX which rezones the property from PD-17 to PD-30 for a mix of single family residential and senior apartments and adopts development standards for the single family product (Subarea ‘A’ of the new PD-30.) 

PREVIOUS ACTION 
None, since the adoption of land use in the 1993 General Plan and the 1992 Garin Ranch Specific Plan

ANALYSIS 
At its special meeting on May 24, 2001, the Planning Commission unanimously approved a tentative subdivision map for 113 lot single family lots, a 3.26 acre parcel for future senior apartments and a 2.74 acre parcel for a neighborhood park (soccer field.) One of the tentative map conditions includes that the general plan and specific plan amendments and rezoning, with the establishment of development standards, be approved by the City Council.

The intent of this general plan and specific plan amendments, and rezoning is to create a housing type that we haven’t seen before; housing with a downtown look that is more reflective of young urban professionals, with or without children, that would enhance the viability of Brentwood’s downtown, and housing with reduced front yard setbacks and porches close to the sidewalk so that neighborhood interaction could be increased. Additionally, staff has worked with the developer to create a future site for senior housing in a location that is close to services in the Downtown as well on the route of public transit, which has been a desire of previous City Councils.

These land use changes and rezoning will allow development to proceed, and the proposed PD development standards enable reduced front yard setbacks that encourage better neighborhood interaction, and are intended to create a housing type that is more affordable to first time buyers, such as teachers, fire and safety personnel and municipal workers.

At this time, development standards are proposed for only the single family product (subarea ‘A’) to be built by Schuler Homes. Development standards for the senior apartment site (subarea ‘B’) will be proposed at the time development plans are processed for the apartments. A potential developer of the senior apartments has had several meetings with city staff, one with the Council’s Housing subcommittee, and is awaiting final action by the City Council in order to determine the final size of the apartment site.

As proposed, the number of units anticipated on the Sciortino site is less than those contemplated under the Garin Ranch Specific Plan, and under the current General Plan at midrange density.

Staff has long felt that one of the city’s strongest assets in maintaining and/or enhancing the viability of its Downtown was in the vacant land adjacent to it that could be developed to insure a “built in” clientele within walking distance. The applicant’s development plans further that goal.



Attachments:
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Resolution 01-XXX amending the land use and specific plan
Ordinance XXX changing the zoning and establishing development standards
Garin Ranch Specific Plan Map reflecting the affected planning areas. 
Schematic plan for development of the Sciortino property


NEGATIVE DECLARATION


The City of Brentwood, California, does hereby prepare, make, declare, and publish this Negative Declaration for the following described project:

Schuler Homes Residential Development - 

A General Plan Amendment (GPA 00-02) changing 29.64 acres of Medium Density Residential to 23.64 acres of Low Density Residential and 2.74 acres of Neighborhood Park.

A Specific Plan Amendment – A change in Planning Areas 11 and 12 of the Garin Ranch Specific Plan from 80 units of Townhome/Condo and 91 units of small single family, respectively, to 113 units of single family 3.26 acres of senior apartments and a 2.74 Neighborhood Park site spread over the two planning areas.

A Rezone (RZ 00-05) from PD-17 to PD-30 with the adoption of specific development standards for PD-30.

A Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide 29.64 acres into 113 single-family lots, a 2.74+ acre neighborhood park, and a 3.26+ site for future development

The City of Brentwood has reviewed the proposed project and has determined that the project, with mitigation measures, as identified in the attached Initial Study, will not have a significant effect on the environment. An Environmental Impact Report is not required pursuant to the Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (Sections 21000, et seq., Public Resources Code of the State of California).

This Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to Title 14, Section 15070 of the California Code of Regulations.

A copy of this document and all supportive documentation may be reviewed or obtained at the City of Brentwood, Community Development Department, 104 Oak Street, Brentwood, California 94513.

Community Development Director,
City of Brentwood



By: 





CITY OF BRENTWOOD
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT


SCHULER HOMES DEVELOPMENT

INITIAL STUDY AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION

APRIL, 2001


INITIAL STUDY


I. BACKGROUND

1. Project Title: Sciortino Property
Schuler Homes Residential Development

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Brentwood
Community Development Department
104 Oak Street
Brentwood, CA 94513

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Mr. Michael Leana, AICP
925.516.5405

4. Project Location: North side of Oak Street, east of Liberty High School, 
and south of Sycamore Drive
City of Brentwood
Contra Costa County

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Vince Fletcher
Schuler Homes
1250 Pine Street, Suite 305
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
925.866.2630

6. General Plan/Garin Ranch Specific Plan Designation: 
Medium Density Residential (5.1-11 du/ac)/ Small Single Family, Townhouse/Condo, Park

7. Zoning: PD-17 (Planning Areas 11 and 12)

8. Project Description Summary:

The proposed project consists of the following requested entitlements:
· A General Plan Amendment (GPA 00-02) changing 29.64 acres of Medium Density Residential to 23.64 acres of Low Density Residential and 2.74 acres of Neighborhood Park.

· A Specific Plan Amendment – A change in Planning Areas 11 and 12 of the Garin Ranch Specific Plan from 80 units of Townhome/Condo and 91 units of small single family, respectively, to 113 units of single family 3.26 acres of senior apartments and a 2.74 Neighborhood Park site spread over the two planning areas.

· A Rezone (RZ 00-05) from PD-17 to PD-30 with the adoption of specific development standards for PD-30.

· A Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide 29.64 acres into 113 single-family lots, a 2.74+ acre neighborhood park, and a 3.26+ site for future development



II. SOURCES

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

1. City of Brentwood General Plan 1993-2010, June 1993;
2. City of Brentwood General Plan EIR, June 1993;
3. Specific Plan for Garin Ranch Planned Community, December 1991;
4. EIR for Garin Ranch Planned Community, December 1991;
5. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 30 Acre Parcel, APN 013-212-002, Brentwood, California, Korbmacher Engineering, Inc. March, 2000;
6. Geotechnical Study, 30 Acre Residential Subdivision, Between Sycamore and Oak Street, Brentwood, California, Korbmacher Engineering, Inc., March, 2000; and
7. Yamanaka Subdivision Traffic Impact Study, Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc., February, 2001.

III. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

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

Ó Aesthetics Ó Agriculture Ó Air Quality
£ Biological Resources Ó Cultural Resources Ó Geology/Soils
Ó Hazards & Hazardous Materials Ó Hydrology/Water Quality £ Land Use & Planning
£ Energy & Mineral Resources Ó Noise £ Population & Housing
Ó Public Services £ Recreation Ó Transportation & Circulation
Ó Utilities/Service Systems Ó Mandatory Findings of Significance


IV. DETERMINATION

On the basis of this initial study:

c I find that the Proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

Ó 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

c I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

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

c I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, 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, nothing further is required.

________________________________ 
Signature Date

Michael Leana City of Brentwood 
Printed Name For


V. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

This Initial Study provides an environmental analysis pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed Sciortino Property Subdivision 8413 (proposed project). The environmental analysis for the proposed project is tiered from the Garin Ranch Planned Community Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which included program level, project-specific, and cumulative impacts for the project area.

The Garin Ranch Planned Community Specific Plan EIR was a program EIR, prepared pursuant to Section 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.). The Garin Ranch Planned Community Specific Plan EIR analyzed full implementation of the Garin Ranch Planned Community Specific Plan and identified measures to mitigate the significant adverse project and cumulative impacts associated with that project.

The CEQA concept of “tiering” refers to the coverage of general environmental matters in broad program-level EIRs, with subsequent focussed environmental documents for individual projects that implement the program. The project environmental document incorporates by reference the discussions in the Program EIR and concentrates on project-specific issues. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines encourage the use of tiered environmental documents to reduce delays and excessive paperwork in the environmental review process. This is accomplished in tiered documents by eliminating repetitive analyses of issues that were adequately addressed in the Program EIR and by incorporating those analyses by reference.

Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Sections 15152 and 15168(c), this environmental analysis of the Proposed Project is tiered from the Garin Ranch Community Specific Plan EIR (State Clearinghouse # 91013067), which is hereby incorporated by reference.

The tiering of the environmental analysis for the proposed project allows this Tiered Initial Study to rely on the Garin Ranch Planned Community Specific Plan EIR for the following:

(a) a discussion of general background and setting information for environmental topic areas;

(b) overall growth-related issues;

(c) issues that were evaluated in sufficient detail in the Garin Ranch Planned Community Specific Plan EIR for which there is no significant new information or change in circumstances that would require further analysis; and

(d) long-term cumulative impacts.

Thus, this Tiered Initial Study should be viewed in conjunction with the Garin Ranch Planned Community Specific Plan EIR. The purpose of this Tiered Initial Study is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project with respect to the Garin Ranch Planned Community Specific Plan EIR to determine what level of additional environmental review, if any, is appropriate. 

Mitigation measures identified in the Garin Ranch Planned Community Specific Plan EIR that apply to the proposed project will be required to be implemented as part of the project. These mitigation measures may be further clarified to address impacts specific to this project. Project-specific mitigation measures for new potentially significant impacts that were not previously identified in the Garin Ranch Planned Community Specific Plan EIR will also be required to be implemented as part of the proposed project.

VI. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed project site consists of 29.6 acres, at the north of Oak Street, east of Liberty High School, and south of Sycamore Drive (See Figure 1). The site is irregularly shaped and is identified by the Contra Costa County Assessor as APN 013-212-002. One house built, in 1976, is currently on the project site with a swimming pool (currently filled with dirt) and a 20-by-20 foot metal equipment shed. The site has a domestic water supply well southwest of the house. An aboveground storage tank (AST) is to the east of the house and an area of discarded vehicles, equipment, machinery, pumps, trailers, debris, and water tanks are located along the east and southeast of the house. Additionally, a debris mound is to the north of the house along Sycamore Drive. 

The site is designated medium and low density in the City of Brentwood General Plan/Garin Ranch Specific Plan. The project site is currently zoned Planned Development No. 17 (PD-17). The northern portion of the site is designated Planning Area No. 12 (PA-12) of the Garin Ranch Specific Plan. PA-12 is designated Small Single Family with a 6.0 dwelling unit per acre density. The southeastern portion of the property is designated Planning Area No. 11 (PA-11) of the Garin Ranch Specific Plan. PA-11 is designated Townhouse/Condo Only with a 10.0 dwelling unit per acre density. The southwestern portion of the property is designated as a park.

The applicant has filed a Tentative Map (Subdivision #8413) to subdivide the site into 113 single family lots, a 2.74+ acre neighborhood park, and a 3.26+ acre site for a future senior apartment development. The overall proposed project density is less than 4 units per acre. The proposed density, less the apartment and park sites, is 4.8 dwelling units per acre. The proposed density is consistent with the 6.0 dwelling unit per acre identified in the Specific Plan. The proposal, however, swaps the park and townhouse designations, to place the proposed park adjacent to the existing Liberty High School. 

Additional environmental analysis will be undertaken at the time development is proposed for the senior apartment site.

Discretionary Action

Implementation of the proposed project would require the following discretionary action by the City of Brentwood Planning Commission and/or City Council:

· Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration
· Approval of a General Plan Amendment
· Approval of a Specific Plan Amendment
· Approval of a Zone Change to include adoption of specific development standards
· Approval of a Tentative Map to subdivide 29.64 acres into 113 lots for single family development, a 2.74 acre neighborhood park, and a 3.26 acre site for future development

VII. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

The following Checklist contains the environmental checklist form presented in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The checklist form is used to describe the impacts of the proposed project. A discussion follows each environmental issue identified in the checklist. Included in each discussion are project-specific mitigation measures recommended as appropriate as part of the Proposed Project.


For this checklist, the following designations are used:

Potentially Significant Impact: An impact that could be significant, and for which no mitigation has been identified. If any potentially significant impacts are identified, an EIR must be prepared.

Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: An impact that requires mitigation to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

Less-Than-Significant Impact: Any impact that would not be considered significant under CEQA relative to existing standards.

No Impact: The project would not have any impact.


Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact
I. AESTHETICS.Would the project: 
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? £ £ Ó £
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?    
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?    
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?    

Discussion

a,b. The proposed project is not within an area designated as a scenic vista nor does it include any significant scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings. Although the project site is relatively flat, Brentwood is surrounded by the coastal range, including views of Mount Diablo. The City of Brentwood has recognized views of Mount Diablo as an important visual resource. Because the proposed development would be located in a flat area of Brentwood and includes single and two story houses, the view corridors of Mount Diablo would not be blocked. Therefore, the impact is less-than-significant.

c. The development of the project site would change the existing visual setting from vacant, agricultural land to residential uses. The proposed development would be considered compatible with other residential uses found throughout the City of Brentwood. The proposed change in use for the project site from vacant to single family homes is consistent with the intent of the City of Brentwood General Plan and Garin Ranch Specific Plan and would be compatible with the pattern of development occurring in the general area of the project site. In addition, the development of the single family homes requires Planning Commission Design Review which will ensure compatibility of the development with the surrounding area. The impact is less-than-significant.

d. As vacant property, very little light or glare is currently emitted from the project site. The change from a vacant property to a residential subdivision which generates new sources of light and glare would be considered a potentially significant impact. 

Mitigation Measure
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the potential impacts related to light and glare to a less-than-significant level.

I-1. In conjunction with development of the proposed project, the Applicant/Developer shall shield all on-site lighting so that it is directed within the project site and does not illuminate adjacent properties or public rights-of-way. A Street Lighting Plan shall be approved by the Public Works Department in conjunction with approval of improvement plans. The shielded light fixtures shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department in conjunction with the approval of improvement plans.


Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES.In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1977) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: 
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?    
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?    
c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland to non-agricultural use?    

Discussion

a,c. The City of Brentwood General Plan includes agricultural preservation policies in the Conservation/Open Space Element which describe potential agricultural preservation program components. The General Plan also designates areas along the eastern and southeastern portions of the Planning Area as Agriculture Conservation. The proposed development is not located within the conservation area. The site is not under Williamson Act contract. Also, the Garin Ranch Specific Plan has identified this area for residential development. 

The General Plan Conservation Element Policy 1.1.4 states:

Secure Agriculture Land: Establish a program which secures permanent agriculture on lands designated for agriculture in the City and/or County General Plan. The program should include joint use concepts (e.g. wastewater irrigation), land dedication (e.g. secured through development agreements) and a transfer of development/in-lieu fees ordinance. The program should also create incentives for continuing agriculture (e.g. long-term irrigation water contracts) and assurances that potential ag-urban conflicts will be mitigated.

The Garin Ranch Specific Plan EIR indicated that the plan area has been designated as Prime Agriculture Farmland. The development of the proposed project would result in the loss of Prime Agriculture Farmland used for agricultural purposes. Additionally, the project area is currently being used for farming. The tenants currently use the property for farming corn and tomatoes during alternating planting seasons. Therefore, the impact on existing agricultural uses and the loss of farmland would be considered potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would mitigate potential impacts related to the loss of agricultural resources to a less-than-significant level:

II-2. At the time of recordation of the first final map, 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 potential significant impact of the proposed project on the loss of farmland. The applicant shall pay the current City fee of $1,000 per acre of lost farmland, or the fee in effect at the time of recording the final map.

b. The project site is not under Williamson Act contract. Therefore development of the site with single family homes would result in no conflict with a Williamson Act contract or existing zoning for agriculture. No impact would occur.


Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact
III. AIR QUALITY.Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: 
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?    
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?    
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?    
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?    
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?    

Discussion

a,c. The City of Brentwood is part of the San Francisco Bay Area airshed, which is dominated by the strength and position of a semi-permanent, high-pressure center over the Pacific Ocean near Hawaii. 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 is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The air quality impacts associated with the emissions from the increased number of vehicles were analyzed in the Garin Ranch Specific Plan EIR. The EIR considered development in the area, including the project site. The project is within the envelope and consistent with buildout identified in the Garin Ranch Specific Plan EIR. The EIR determined that the cumulative development scenarios would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. The findings and overrides adopted as part of the Garin Ranch Specific Plan EIR apply to this project. In addition, the project consists of 113 residential units on 29.6 acres of the entire 438-acre Garin Ranch Specific Plan area. The size and nature of the development of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact on air quality. Therefore, the air quality impact is considered less-than-significant.

b,d. Construction-related air quality impacts would occur with the development of the proposed project and related infrastructure improvements. Clearing and earth-moving activities would comprise the major source of construction dust emissions. This would be considered a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measure
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the construction-related impact to a less-than-significant level.

III-3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant/Developer shall prepare an Erosion Prevention and Dust Control Plan. The plan shall be followed by the project’s grading contractor and submitted to the Public Works Department, which will be responsible for field verification of the plan during construction. The plan shall comply with the City’s grading ordinance and shall include the following control measures and other measures deemed by the Public Works Department to be necessary for the proposed project:

a. A graveled track at project entryways to remove mud and dirt from vehicles leaving the site shall be provided.
b. Water (or an acceptable soil binder chemical) shall be applied to all disturbed earth surfaces (including earth roads and soil stockpiles). Surface material shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering shall occur twice per day with complete coverage, preferably in the late morning and at the completion of work for the day.
c. Permanent soil stabilization measures shall be implemented throughout each phase of construction prior to commencement of grading on successive phases.
d. All clearing, grading, earthmoving, and excavation shall stop during periods of high winds greater than 20 mph over one hour.
e. All material transported off-site shall either be sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent escape of dust and debris.
f. On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 mph.
g. During rough grading and construction, adjacent public and private roads shall be swept once per day, or as required by the City, to remove silt and construction debris.
h. Unnecessary idling of construction equipment shall be avoided.
i. Equipment engines shall be maintained in proper working condition per manufacturers’ specifications.
j. During periods of heavier air pollution (May to October), the construction period shall be lengthened to minimize the amount of equipment operating at one time.

e. The project would not include industrial or intensive agricultural use; therefore, the project would not create odors or toxic air contaminants. No impact would occur. 


Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.Would the project: 
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?    
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?    
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?    
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?    
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?    
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?    

Discussion

a. The Garin Ranch Specific Plan EIR identified biological resources within the plan area (see Table 27 in the Garin Ranch Specific Plan EIR). The EIR included mitigation measures which required revegetation of the impacted area. The project site was not identified as having sensitive species. In addition, the project area has been farmed for several years and does not have naturally occurring habitat. Therefore, the impact from the proposed project is less-than-significant.

b,c. The Garin Ranch Specific Plan EIR did not identify any riparian habitat or significant natural communities on the site. In addition, there were no wetlands identified on the site. Therefore, the development of the project site would result in no impact.

d. The project site does not support a wildlife corridor and does not contain any water courses that would support migratory fish. Therefore, the development of the project site would result in no impact.

e. Some trees exist on the site. However, these trees are not significant in size or species. Furthermore, the development of the project site is not guided by any specific ordinances protecting biological resources. Therefore, the impact is less-than-significant.

f. The City of Brentwood General Plan has several areas which are designated as areas of expected significant natural open space and an expected Habitat Conservation Plan. The project site is not located within any of these areas. Therefore, no impact would occur. 


Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES.Would the project: 
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?    
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?    
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource on site or unique geologic features?    
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.    

Discussion

a. The Garin Ranch Specific Plan EIR identified no historical resources within the plan area. A house exists on site, but was constructed after 1976 and does not reflect any unique or significant features. The development of this site, therefore, would have no impact on historical resources. 

b. The Garin Ranch Specific Plan EIR identified no archaeological resources within the plan area. However, during construction and excavation activities, unidentified archaeological resources may be uncovered. This impact would be considered potentially significant. 

Mitigation Measure
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the construction-related impact to a less-than-significant level.

V-4. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Applicant/Developer shall submit plans to the Community Development Department for review and approval which indicate (via notation on the improvement plans) that if historic and/or cultural resources are encountered during site grading or other site work, all such work shall be halted immediately within the area of discovery and the Applicant/Developer shall immediately notify the Community Development Department of the discovery. In such case, the Applicant/Developer shall be required, at his expense, to retain the services of a qualified archaeologist for the purpose of recording, protecting, or curating the discovery as appropriate. The archaeologist shall be required to submit to the Community Development Department for review and approval a report of the findings and method of curation or protection of the resources. No further grading or site work within the area of discovery will be allowed until the proceeding work has occurred.

c. The project is not known to contain any unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features. Therefore, the construction of the proposed project would result in no impact to these resources and features.

d. The project site has not been identified as a burial location for human remains; therefore, the construction of the proposed project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries and no impact would occur.


Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.Would the project: 
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?    
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?    
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?    
iv. Landslides?    
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?    
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?    
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code?    
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?    

Discussion

a(i-iii),
b. A geotechnical investigation regarding the project area was performed by Korbmacher Engineering in March, 2000. The report states that the San Francisco Bay area is a region of high seismic activity. The nearest fault is Coast-Ranges-Central Valley (CRCV) blind thrust fault approximately 16 kilometers (km) to the east. Other faults close to the project area are part of the San Andreas Fault system. These faults include the Greenville, Concord, Calaveras, Hayward, and San Andreas faults. 

The project site is not located within or adjacent to any Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones (formally Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones). The closest known active fault is the Greenville fault, approximately 16 km to the southwest.

The potential damage from the activity will be minimal due the project site location and the project proponent abiding with city and state building standards. However, the proposed project site may be subject to some seismic activity due to its location in the San Francisco Bay Area. The impact is, therefore, potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure
Implementation of the following mitigation measure which was identified in the Garin Ranch Specific Plan EIR would ensure the impacts are less-than-significant.

VI-5. Any applicant for a building permit shall construct all structures in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and other applicable building codes and State laws. The applicant shall insure that the buildings are engineered by an independent structural engineer and constructed to meet or exceed the legal requirements for seismic safety.

a(iv)A majority of the subsurface soils in the project area are found to be high in clay content and are relatively dense. These soils are not susceptible to liquefaction. Additionally, the project site is relatively flat, making the likelihood of a landslide relatively low. Therefore, the impact is less-than-significant.

b. The proposed project would not result in any greater exposure of soil to potential erosion or loss of topsoil. Soil is currently exposed on the project site, and past agricultural and weed abatement practices resulted in an increased soil loss. The development of new residential uses would cover much of the soil, thereby reducing the potential loss of soil. 

The Garin Ranch Specific Plan EIR identified the grading of the project area as a potentially significant impact to soil erosion.

Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the following mitigation measures which were identified in the Garin Ranch Specific Plan EIR would ensure the impact is less-than-significant.

VI-6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a grading plan to the City Engineer for review and approval. If the grading plan differs significantly from the proposed grading illustrated on the approved tentative tract map, a tentative map that is consistent with the new revised grading plan shall be provided for review and approval by the Director of Public Works.

VI-7. Any applicant for a grading permit shall submit an erosion control plan to the City Engineer. This plan shall identify protective measures to be taken during construction, supplemental measures to be taken during the rainy season, permanent methods of revegetation following completion of construction, the sequenced timing of grading and construction, and subsequent revegetation and landscaping work to ensure water quality in creeks and tributaries in the General Plan Area is not degraded from its present level.

VI-8. During construction, the applicant shall not leave disturbed areas not actively under construction exposed during the rainy season.

VI-9. Prior to approval of final facilities design, the City Engineer shall review plans for drainage and storm water runoff control systems and their component facilities to ensure that these systems and facilities are non-erosive in design.

VI-10. No grading, soil disturbance, or compaction shall occur during periods of rain or on ground which contains free-standing water. Soil which has been soaked and wetted by rain or any other cause shall not be compacted until completely drained and until the moisture content is with the limit approved by a Soil Engineer. Approval by a Soil Engineer shall be obtained prior to continuing grading operations.

d. The project site is situated on flatland deposits which were formed by streams draining from the nearby mountains and foothills of the Diablo Range. The site is underlain by unconsolidated Holocene clay, silt and sand alluvium to a general depth of about 10 to 12 feet followed by weakly consolidated Pleistocene clay, silt, sand and gravel alluvium to a depth of at least 15 feet. The Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, California published by the US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conversion Service (1977) refers to the near-surface soils within a majority of the project area as belonging to the Brentwood (Bb) soil series. The soils are described as clays with moderate plasticity, low strength, and a high shrink-swell (expansion) potential. The impacts associated with expansive soils would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the construction-related impact to a less-than-significant level.

VI-11. 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.

e. The project has been designed to connect to existing sewer systems. Therefore, no impact would occur related to soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks.


Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.Would the project: 
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?    
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment?    
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?    
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?    
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?    
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?    
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?    
h. Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?    

Discussion

a-b. The transport and routine use of hazardous materials is not typically associated with single family development. The Phase I Environmental Assessment has identified one 100-gallon aboveground storage tank (AST) that contains a suspected petroleum product. Additionally, fuel trailers, abandoned trucks, tractors, old farm equipment, household appliances, metal debris, and cars and vehicle parts were observed east of the house on Sycamore Drive. An area of about 25-x 25-x 8- foot debris pile containing broken concrete, asphalt and soil exist in front of the house. The house on Sycamore Drive was constructed during a time that asbestos was still used; therefore, asbestos may be present in the structure. The Environmental Assessment indicates that some pesticide residue still exists on the project site. 

Therefore, the impact is considered potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the impact the less-than-significant.

VII-12. Prior to the demolition of the house on the project area, the project proponent shall conduct an asbestos survey. If the survey reveals asbestos within the structure, the project proponent shall prepare an asbestos abatement plan for the review and approval of the Building Official.

VII-13. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall remove/demolish the existing swimming pool on site to the satisfaction of the Building Official.

VII-14. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall conduct an examination of the debris field to the east of the house. If the examination reveals any hazardous materials, the project proponent shall properly remove and dispose the material at an appropriate facility.

VII-15. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall perform tests on the contents of the AST on site. Based on the results, the material shall be properly removed and disposed along with the AST at an appropriate disposal facility.

VII-16. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the project proponent shall dispose of the various vehicles, farm equipment, parts and other debris at an appropriate disposal facility.

VII-17. If any stained soils are discovered during grading of the site, the applicant/developer shall stop work immediately in the vicinity of the stained soils. A work plan explaining how the soil was stained and the method of removing the soil, along with soils studies must be filed with the Contra Costa County Health Services Department. The clean up shall be to the satisfaction of the Contra Costa County Health Services Department. A note identifying this requirement shall be placed on the improvement plans.

VII-18. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the water supply well shall be evaluated to determine if it meets current local and state regulations. If the well is not to be used, the well shall be abandoned in accordance with the Contra Costa County Health Services Department requirements. 

c. Liberty High School athletic fields are located to the west of the proposed project site. The site would not be anticipated to handle hazardous material. Therefore, no impact would occur.

d. According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, the site is not listed as a hazardous materials site. Therefore, no impact would occur.

e-f. The project site is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport. Therefore, no impact would occur.

g. Development of the project site would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, no impact would occur.

h. The site is not located within an area where wildland fires occur. Therefore, no impact would occur.


Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.Would the project: 
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?    
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?    
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?    
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?    
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?    
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?    
g. Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?    
h. Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?    
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam.    
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?    

Discussion

a,f. Short-term grading and construction activities may cause an increase in erosion leading to sedimentation of streams in the affected watershed. Stormwater pollution control is the responsibility of the State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Board. Stormwater pollution control is implemented through the use of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. The increase in erosion and the effect on water quality is considered a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level.

VIII-19. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant/Developer shall submit to the City Engineer for review and approval a Drainage Master Plan which implements Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control quality of stormwater runoff.

VIII-20. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction permit shall be obtained for any disturbance of more than one acre.

b-e. The project consists of the development of single family homes in an area designated for single family development. The development would not alter existing drainage courses and would be accommodated in the existing City of Brentwood storm drainage system. Implementation of the proposed project would add impervious surfaces to the area which would result in a decrease in absorption rates and an increase in stormwater runoff rates. The Garin Ranch Specific Plan EIR considered this to be a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the following mitigation measures which were identified in the Garin Ranch Specific Plan EIR would ensure the impact is less-than-significant.

VIII-21. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Applicant/Developer shall submit to the City Engineer for review and approval a Drainage Master Plan which implements BMPs to control quality of stormwater runoff. The plan shall describe how on-site draining systems will be designated to compensate for the reduced water absorption capacity of the site and to prevent flooding of adjacent properties. The plan must ensure that all stormwater entering or originating within the project site shall be conveyed, without diversion of the watershed, to the nearest adequate natural watercourse or adequate man-made drainage facility.

VIII-22. 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 and Water Conservation Districts prior to the issuance of grading permits.

VIII-23. Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Drainage fees for Drainage Area shall be paid prior to filing of the Final Map.

VIII-24. The construction plans shall indicate roof drains emptying into a pipe leading out to the street for the review and approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits.

VIII-25. The improvement plans shall indicate concentrated drainage flows not crossing sidewalks or driveways for the review and approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. 

VIII-26. The Applicant/Developer shall ensure that each lot or parcel 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.

g-i. The project site is not within a 100-year floodplain; therefore, no impact would occur with regards to housing or structures placed in a 100-year flood plain.

j. The project site is not located near a major body of water that could result in a seiche. The risk of potential mudflows is considered low based on the general flat topography of the surrounding area. The proposed project is of sufficient distance from any large body of water that could produce a tsunami due to seismic activity. Therefore, no impact would occur.


Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING.Would the project: 
a. Physically divide an established community?    
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating on environmental effect?    
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan?    
Discussion

a. The proposed project would not physically divide an established community because residential properties have not been established on the project site. Although the property has most recently been in agricultural production, the property is designated in the General Plan for residential development. Therefore, no impact would result on the physical arrangement of an existing community.

b. The proposed project is within the Brentwood city limits and will be consistent with the City of Brentwood General Plan/Garin Ranch Specific Plan land use designation with approval of this General Plan/Specific Plan Amendment and Rezoning and not in conflict with a policy to preserve the environment. The type and density of the residential development is consistent with the proposed designations for the site as shown on the preferred land use alternative of the City's General Plan Update as of April, 2001. The impact is less-than-significant.

c. The project site is not located within the area designated by the General Plan as Expected Habitat Conservation Plan or Area of Significant Natural Open Space. Therefore, no impact would occur. 





Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES.Would the project: 
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?    
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?    


Discussion

a,b The project site has not been identified in the City of Brentwood General Plan as containing mineral resources that would be considered a significant resource. Therefore, no impact would occur.


Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact
XI. NOISE.Would the project result in: 
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?    
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?    
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?    
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?    
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?    
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?    

Discussion

a-c. The Garin Ranch Specific Plan EIR indicates that the proposed project is not located within noise contours exceeding normal residential levels. The site is also not identified in the City of Brentwood General Plan as an area of high noise levels. Therefore, the impact is considered less-than-significant.

d. There would be temporary increases in the noise levels for the residents adjacent to the property during construction. The Garin Ranch Specific Plan EIR identified this increase in noise levels as a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the construction-related impacts to a less-than-significant level.

XI-27. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours set forth below:

Heavy Equipment Monday-Friday 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM
Saturday 9:00 AM to 3:30 PM
Light Carpentry Monday-Friday 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM
Saturday 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM

Construction shall be prohibited on Sundays and City holidays. These criteria shall be included in the grading plan submitted by the Applicant/Developer for review and approval of the Community Development Director prior to issuance of grading permits. Exceptions to allow expanded construction activities shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis as determined by the Chief Building Official and/or City Engineer.

XI-28. All construction equipment shall use properly operating mufflers, and no combustion equipment such as pumps or generators shall be allowed to operate within 500 feet of any occupied residence during construction hours, unless the equipment is surrounded by a noise protection barrier. These criteria shall be included in the grading plan submitted by the Applicant/Developer for review and approval of the Community Development Director prior to issuance of grading permits.

e,f. The project site is not located near an existing airport and is not within area covered by an existing airport land use plan. Therefore, no impact would occur.


Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING.Would the project: 
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)?    
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?    
c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?    

Discussion

a. The density of development is consistent with the Garin Ranch Specific Plan and zoning designations. Although the development would increase the population in the area, the development of the proposed project would be within the population levels projected under the Specific Plan. Therefore, the impact is less-than-significant.

b,c Currently, one vacant house exists on the project site. The proposed project would remove the one house and develop 113 houses. Therefore, the construction of the project would not displace existing housing requiring the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur.


Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES.Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 
a. Fire protection?    
b. Police protection?    
c. Schools?    
d. Parks?    

Discussion

a,b. The proposed project is located within the jurisdiction of and is currently provided services by the Brentwood Police Department and the East Diablo Fire Protection District. The annexation of the portion of the project site would not affect the overall operations of the service providers or expand their district boundaries. However, implementation of the proposed project would add to the overall demand for police and fire protection services and this increase in service requirements for the proposed project is considered a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level.

XIII-29. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant/Developer shall participate in a Capital Improvement Financing Program. 

XIII-30. The Police Department shall review the design plans for this project prior to the issuance of building permits in order to ensure that the site plan incorporates appropriate crime prevention features.

XIII-31. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant/Developer shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and the adopted policies of the East Diablo Fire Protection District (EDFPD). The City of Brentwood Chief Building Official shall review the building plans to ensure compliance.

XIII-32. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant/Developer shall provide an adequate and reliable water supply for fire protection with a minimum fire flow of 2,000 gallons per minute (GPM). The required fire flow shall be delivered from not more than two fire hydrants flowing simultaneously while maintaining 20 pounds of residual pressure in the main. The City Engineer shall ensure the minimum fire flow requirements are satisfied.

XIII-33. Prior to approval of the final maps, the Applicant/Developer shall provide the number and type of hydrants called for by EDFPD. Hydrant locations will be determined by the EDFPD prior to issuance of encroachment and/or building permits.

XIII-34. Prior to commencing construction, the Applicant/Developer shall provide access roadways having all-weather driving surfaces of not less than 20', unobstructed width, and not less than 13'6" of vertical clearance, to within 150 feet of travel distance to all portions of the exterior walls of every building. Access roads shall not exceed 16% grade, shall have a minimum outside turning radius of 42 feet, and must be capable of supporting imposed loads of fire apparatus (31 tons). The City Engineer shall ensure compliance.

XIII-35. Prior to issuance of encroachment and/or building permits for improvements, the Applicant/Developer (and all subsequent property owners/homeowners) shall submit plans and specifications to the East Diablo Fire Protection District and the City Engineer for review and approval in accordance with codes, regulations, and ordinances administered by the East Diablo Fire Protection District and the State Fire Marshal’s office.

c. The project is located within the Liberty Union High School District and the Brentwood Union Elementary School District. The development of single-family residential units would add to the demand for services provided by both Districts. Many of the elementary schools in the district are at or nearing capacity and are only staying under capacity by use of portable classrooms. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a potentially significant impact related to schools.

Mitigation Measure
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level.

XIII-36. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant/Developer shall submit to the Community Development Department written proof from the Liberty Union High School District and the Brentwood Unified School District indicating that appropriate school mitigation fees have been paid.

d. The City of Brentwood General Plan encourages an urban form that is based on open space throughout and around the community. The General Plan policy recommends park acreage be 5 acres per 1,000 residents. Development of the project site would result in new residences and consequently would increase the demand for neighborhood, community, and regional parks and other recreations facilities. The proposed project includes a 2.74-acre neighborhood park. The Brentwood standard is 2.85 residents per dwelling unit. The proposed 113 dwelling units would result in a total park requirement for the project of 1.6 acres. The proposed project includes sufficient park area for the residents. Therefore, the impact is less-than-significant.


Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact
XIV. RECREATION.Would the project: 
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?    
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?    

Discussion

a. The proposed project includes a 2.74 acre neighborhood park in the southwestern portion of the site. The proposed project includes 113 dwelling units. Applying the Brentwood Standard of 2.85 residents per dwelling unit, the proposed project would have approximately 322 residents. The Brentwood General Plan recommends 5 acres of park per 1,000 residents. The project would require 1.6 acres of park space for the residents. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact.

b. The proposed project includes a 2.74-acre neighborhood park. The park would encourage open space in an area already designated for low density residential. The project would have a less-than-significant impact. 


Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.Would the project: 
a. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?    
b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?    
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?    
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?    
e. Result in inadequate emergency access?    
f. Result in inadequate parking capacity?    
g. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?    

Discussion

a. The Garin Ranch Specific Plan EIR indicated that the buildout of the Specific Plan would adversely affect the traffic in the area and prescribes mitigation measures to reduce the impact from the increased traffic to a less-than-significant level. In addition, a traffic study titled the Yamanaka Subdivision Traffic Impact Study, analyzed the impacts of the proposed project as well as the adjacent Yamanaka property. The City of Brentwood General Plan identifies a Level of Service D as acceptable for suburban roadways. The traffic impact study prepared for this project analyzed sixteen intersections in the southeast quadrant of the City. It concluded that all intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service for the existing, existing plus project conditions and at the General Plan Buildout.

The number of residential units identified in the proposed project is within the envelope of the total residential units approved for the Garin Ranch Specific Plan and Brentwood General Plan. The project is also consistent with future development levels which have been included in the regional Traffic Models developed by the Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCTA) and Contra Costa County. Although consistent with the development levels, the proposed project would impact the regional circulation, there are several off-site traffic improvements that need to be implemented within the next 5 to 10 years that will be included within the City’s 5-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Therefore, a potentially significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measure
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level as the developer would be paying his fair-share.

XV-37. The Applicant/Developer shall pay applicable thoroughfare facility fees (plus any annual increase) in effect at the time of building permit issuance and shall participate in the City’s Capital Improvement Financing Plan (CIFP) to finance necessary roadway infrastructure. In addition, this specific project may be conditioned to pay their fair share of other off-site improvements that lie outside the parameters of the CIP.

b. The City of Brentwood General Plan describes the growth of the City through the year 2010. The Circulation Element was based on trip generation projections and includes a corresponding transportation system designed to adequately accommodate the movement of vehicles. The proposed project is consistent with development levels identified in the Brentwood General Plan/Garin Ranch Specific Plan for the site. The circulation network is also planned and designed to meet the planned level of growth and development identified in the Specific Plan. The proposed project consists of 113 residential units which would not generate substantial project specific traffic to adversely affect the local circulation. The impact is, therefore, less-than-significant. 

c. The proposed project would not require any changes to existing regional air traffic activity and the project site is not located near an airport. Therefore, no impact would occur.

d. The proposed project would not include any unusual design features in the layout of the streets which would increase hazards. There is no impact associated with the proposed development.

e. The proposed project would provide public street access to all parcels. All streets would be constructed in accordance with City standards. Compliance with the City standards ensures the provision of adequate emergency access. Therefore, no impact would occur.

f. The proposed project consists of single family residences. Development of the single family homes must be consistent with the PD-17 Zone which ensures that adequate parking exists for the subdivision. Therefore, no impact would occur.

g. The proposed subdivision does not conflict with alternative transportation routes or policies. Therefore, no impact would occur.


Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.Would the project: 
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?    
b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?    
c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?    
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?    
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?    
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?    
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?    

Discussion

a-e. The proposed project would require the installation and necessary extension of all utility lines for water, sewer, electricity, natural gas, telephone, and cable communications. The Garin Ranch Specific Plan EIR indicates that Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) already has sufficient facilities to provide gas and electricity to the Specific Plan area. The City of Brentwood provides water and sewer service to the entire City, including the project site. However, to ensure adequate capacity to serve the proposed project, the applicant must ensure that the project area is adequately connected to the existing facilities. Therefore, the impact from the proposed project on public utilities is potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level.

XVI-38. The Applicant/Developer shall be required to connect to the existing Brentwood utility network as well as pay all applicable fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Improvement plans indicating conformance to City of Brentwood Standards shall be prepared, submitted, and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of encroachment permits for this project.

f,g. The proposed project consists of the development of single family residences at a density which is consistent with the General Plan and the Garin Ranch Specific Plan. The solid waste generated by the development would be consistent with the levels which have been anticipated on the site. The City of Brentwood, being the solid waste disposal service for the City, has anticipated this potential increase in usage. The impact is, therefore, less-than-significant.


Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact
XII. 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 prehistory?    
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short﷓term, 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?    

Discussion

a,b. Development of rural areas to urban/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. Therefore, the impact is less-than-significant.

c,d. 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 would be considered potentially significant. They 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. The proposed development is consistent with the level of development which was anticipated in the General Plan. The previous mitigation and findings of overriding benefit result in a less-than-significant impact for the proposed subdivision


















CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. ____


A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD APPROVING GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENT (GPA 00-02) ON 29.64 ACRES FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO 23.64 ACRES OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, 3.26 ACRES OF HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND A 2.74 ACRE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK AND A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE GARIN RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN FROM A MIX OF SMALL SINGLE FAMILY, TOWNHOUSE/CONDOMINIUMS, AND A PARK TO A MIX OF SINGLE FAMILY SENIOR APARTMENTS AND A PARK FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF OAK STREET ADJACENT TO THE LIBERTY HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC FACILITIES FILED BY SCHULER HOMES. ( APN 013-212-005)

WHEREAS, the applicant has requested that the City amend the City General Plan and Garin Ranch Specific Plan to change the Land Use mix on this property for 29.64+ acres of land generally located along the north side of Oak Street adjacent to Liberty High School Athletic facilities as shown on Exhibit A, attached to and hereby made a part of this resolution; and

WHEREAS, the applicant has also requested the City’s review and approval of a rezoning to accommodate a 113-lot single family subdivision and a future senior apartment site; and

WHEREAS, the environmental effects of this proposed action have been addressed in a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and all potentially adverse impacts have been conditioned to render the impacts to a level of less than significant; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood has by passage of Resolution 01-35 recommended that the City Council of the City of Brentwood approve said general plan amendment and Specific Plan Amendment requests; and

WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was advertised in the Contra Costa Times on August 3, 2001, and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the site as required by City Ordinance and Government Code Sec. 65090; and

WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments on August 14, 2001, for the purpose of reviewing said amendments, to consider the Planning Commission recommendation and the staff report; and considered all comments made by public testimony with respect to this proposed General Plan/Specific Amendment; 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 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, the General Plan, and the Garin Ranch Specific Plan and all other pertinent goals, policies, regulations and documents regarding the proposed amendment, and the Planning Commission recommendation; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brentwood makes the following supporting findings for this application as required by the City’s General Plan:
1. The proposed amendments are deemed to be in the public interest because the developer is reserving a site for senior housing in an area that is close and convenient to public services and facilities in the Downtown.
2. The proposed amendments are consistent and compatible with other goals, policies and implementation programs set forth in the General Plan and the Garin Ranch Specific Plan which are intended to create a balance between jobs and housing units while providing various housing product types.
3. The potential impacts of the proposed amendments have been assessed and have been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare.
4. The proposed amendments have been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act.
5. .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. The Mitigated Negative Declaration applies all applicable mitigation measures specified in the Program EIR to the Project and imposes additional mitigation measures to supplement and strengthen the Program EIR measures. Therefore, since the mitigation measures are incorporated as conditions to the approval of the Project, the Mitigated Negative Declaration as well as the Program EIR for the 1993 General Plan is adequate for all approvals relating to the Project.
6. 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 for further public review. The Development Agreement memorializes and provides certainty to proposed conditions of approval and mitigation measures. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has not undergone any reorganization on this account. The City Council has considered all verbal and written comments relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and finds no significant new information has arisen.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Brentwood does hereby take the following actions:
1. Approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration and directs staff to file the Notice of Determination with the County Clerk.
2. Approves General Plan Amendment (GPA 00-02) changing the land use on 29.64 acres from Medium Residential Density to a mix of 23.64 of Low Density Residential, 3.26 acres of High Density Residential and a 2.74 acre neighborhood park and directs City staff to make the appropriate change to the City’s Land Use Map.
3. Approves Amendment #1 to the Garin Ranch Specific Plan for Planning Areas 11 and 12 from townhouse/condominiums and small single family, respectively, to a mix of single family residential, senior apartments and a neighborhood park.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at its regular meeting on August 14, 2001 by the following vote: 


AYES: 
NOES: 
ABSENT: 
ABSTAIN: 





APPROVED:


______________________________
Michael A. McPoland, Sr., Mayor


ATTEST:


__________________________________
Karen Diaz, City Clerk




Attachments:
Exhibit “A”
Exhibit “B“














ORDINANCE NO. 

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD REZONING 29.64+ ACRES (RZ 00-05) FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SEVENTEEN (PD-17) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT THIRTY (PD-30) FOR A MIX OF 23.64 ACRES OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 3.26 ACRES OF SENIOR APARTMENTS AND A 2.74 ACRE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK AND ADDING CHAPTER 17.480 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONE 30) ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA ‘A’ OF ZONING DISTRICT PD-30, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF OAK STREET ADJACENT TO THE LIBERTY HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC FACILITIES. (APN 013-212-005)

WHEREAS, the owner of said property proposes to construct 113 homes within a conditionally approved subdivision (Tentative Map No. 8413); and

WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, considered public comment and passed Resolution No. 01-36 on May 24, 2001, which recommended the rezoning of this property as specified along with the addition of specific development standards for Subarea ‘A’ of Zoning District PD-30; and

WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and reflect the City’s independent judgement and analysis; and

WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration is publicly available for review during City business hours within the Community Development Department and is considered as a part of this review and approval process; and

WHEREAS, the Mitigated 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, a Notice of Public Hearing was legally advertised in Contra Costa Times on August 3, 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 boundaries of the subject property for which the rezoning and development standards apply is shown in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brentwood hereby finds, as follows, that the proposed rezoning will:

· Establish clear development standards for the uses permitted under the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and conditionally approved Tentative Tract Map No. 8413.

· Provide standards resulting in development that is consistent and compatible with surrounding uses.

· Provide for adequate public uses and private open space.

· Generate a level of traffic that can be accommodated by the public circulation system, existing or planned.

· Serve the housing needs of the City and the region and will not create a detrimental imbalance between the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources (Government Code Section 65863.6).

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

Section 1. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby certified and staff is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk upon adoption of this ordinance in accordance with Section 15075 (d) of the State CEQA Guidelines.

Section 2. The subject 29.65 acres are hereby rezoned from PD-17 to PD-30 for a mix of 23.64 acres of single family residential, 3.26 acres of Senior Apartments and a 2.74 acre neighborhood park.

Section 3. Chapter 17.480 is hereby added to the Municipal Code establishing development standards for Subarea “A”, as reflected in 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 in the Ledger-Dispatch a summary of the Ordinance prepared by the City Attorney and posting a certified copy of the Ordinance in the Office of the City Clerk at leave 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 14th day of August, 2001, and adopted at a regular meeting of the Brentwood City Council on the ________ day of ________, 2001, by the following vote:

AYES: 
NOES: 
ABSENT: 
ABSTAIN: 


APPROVED: 



_________________________
Michael A. McPoland, Sr., Mayor


ATTEST:



__________________________
Karen Diaz, City Clerk


Attachments:
Exhibit “A”
Exhibit “B“























EXHBIT “B”

CHAPTER 17.480
PD-30 (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) ZONE


SCIORTINO & YAMANAKA PROPERTIES

17.480.001 AUTHORITY, PURPOSE AND INTENT

17.480.002 PERMITTED USES FOR EACH SUBAREA

17.480.003 CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES FOR EACH SUBAREA

17.480.004 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA A

17.480.005 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA B

17.480.006 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA C

17.480.007 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA D

17.480.008 OTHER REGULATIONS 
17.480.001 AUTHORITY, PURPOSE AND INTENT:

The authority, purpose and intent for the adoption of the PD-30 (Planned Development 30) Zone are as follows:

A. AUTHORITY: PD-30 is adopted pursuant to the authority set forth in Chapter 17.480, Planned Development Zones, General Regulations, of the Brentwood Municipal Code.

B. PURPOSE: The purpose of the PD-30 Zone is to permit and regulate the orderly development of the area shown as Attachment “A” in accordance with the Brentwood General Plan. The area is comprised of four (4) Subareas, one set aside for a senior apartment project and the other three set aside for single family homes and related uses.

C. INTENT: This zoning district is intended to provide a neighborhood of single family homes on smaller lots and senior housing in conformance with the Brentwood General Plan in order to enhance the viability of Downtown Brentwood.

17.480.002 PERMITTED USES FOR EACH SUBAREA

SUBAREA A

· Those uses permitted within the single family residential (R-1) zone, pursuant to Section 17.130 of the Zoning Ordinance.

· Parks and playgrounds.


SUBAREA B

· Senior Apartments developed at a density not to exceed the mid-range of High Density Residnetial Land Use category.

SUBAREA C

· Those uses permitted within the single family residential (R-1) zone, pursuant to Section 17.130 of the Zoning Ordinance.

· Parks and playgrounds.

SUBAREA D

· Those uses permitted within the single family residential (R-1) zone, pursuant to Section 17.130 of the Zoning Ordinance.

· Parks and playgrounds.

17.480.003 CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES FOR EACH SUBAREA


Subarea A:
· Those conditionally permitted uses within the Ranchette Estate (RE) zone

Subarea B:

· Senior Apartments developed at a density exceeding the mid-range of the High Density Residential Land Use Category.

Subarea C:

· Those conditionally permitted uses within the Ranchette Estate (RE) zone

Subarea D:

· Those conditionally permitted uses within the Ranchette Estate (RE) zone

17.480.004 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA A:

A. Minimum Lot Area: 5,200 square feet.

B. Minimum Lot Width: 50 feet.

C. Minimum Lot Depth: 100 feet.

D. Minimum Lot Frontage: 30 feet for all lots on cul-de-sacs, knuckles or curvilinear 
streets.

E. Minimum Front Yard Setback: 20 feet for a street facing garage; 12 feet for a 
turned garage; 10 feet for any living space and 5 feet for front porches.

F. Minimum Side Yard Setback: 5 feet and a total of 12 feet for both sides. 0 feet for garage using a shared driveway with the adjacent lot.

G. Corner lots, on the street side, shall maintain a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet.

H. Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 20 feet with an average of 25. 

I. Maximum Building Height: 30 feet and two stories.

J. Side Loading Garages: 10% of the total lots shall have side loading garages.

K. Corner Lots: 50% of the corner lots shall have single story plans.

L. Single Story Units: A minimum 25% of the total lots shall have single story plans.

M. Maximum lot coverage shall be 40%.

N. Maximum Number of Units: 113 dwelling units.

17.480.005 Development standards for Subarea B will be filled in prior to or in conjunction with development plans submitted for the properties.

17.480.006 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA C:

A. Minimum Lot Area: 4,700 square feet.

B. Minimum Lot Width: 47 feet.

C. Minimum Lot Depth: 100 feet, except for lots 172-174 where 90-foot minimum is acceptable

D. Minimum Lot Frontage: 40 feet for all lots on cul-de-sacs, knuckles or curvilinear streets.

E. Minimum Front Yard Setback: 20 feet for a street facing garage; 12 feet for a turned garage; 10 feet for any living space and 5 feet for front porches.

F. Minimum Side Yard Setback: 4 feet with an aggregate of 10’ on lots less than 53 feet wide, 5 feet with an aggregate of 12 feet on the 53-foot or wider lots, and 5 feet with an aggregate of 15-feet on all corner lots. 0 feet for garage using a shared driveway with the adjacent lot.

G. Corner lots, on the street side, shall maintain a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet.

H. Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 20 feet average with a minimum of 15 feet for habitable portion of dwelling. Five (5) feet for detached garages. 

I. Maximum Building Height: 30 feet and two stories.

J. Side Loading Garages: 10% of the total lots shall have side loading garages.

K. Corner Lots: 50% of the corner lots shall have single story plans.

L. Single Story Units: A minimum 25% of the total lots shall have single story plans.

M. Maximum lot coverage shall be 40%.

N. Maximum Number of Lots: 175

17.473.007 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA D:

A. Minimum Lot Area: 5,100 square feet

B. Minimum Lot Width: 60 feet

C. Minimum Lot Depth: 85 feet

D. Minimum Lot Frontage: 40 feet for all lots on cul-de-sacs, knuckles or curvilinear streets

E. Minimum Front Yard Setback: 20 feet for a street facing garage; 12 feet for a turned garage; 10 feet for any living space; and 5 feet for front porches.

F. Minimum Side Yard Setback: 5 feet with an aggregate of 15 feet. 0 feet for a garage using a shared driveway.

G. Corner lots, on the street side, shall maintain a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet.

H. Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 20 feet average with a minimum of 15 feet for habitable portion of dwelling. Five (5) feet for detached garage.

I. Maximum Building Height: 30 feet and 2 stories

J. Side Loading Garages: 10% of the total lots shall have side loading garages

K. Corner Lots: 50% of the corner lots shall have single story plans

L. Single Story Units: A minimum 25% of the total lots shall have single story plans

M. Maximum lot coverage shall be 40%

N. Maximum Number of Lots: 77

17.473.008 OTHER REGULATIONS:

A. Design and Site Development shall be required for all housing units pursuant to Sections 17.100.003 and 17.100.004H.

B. Off-street parking shall be provided pursuant to Chapter 17.620 and Section 17.100.004H.

C. The parking and storage of boats, trailers and similar vehicles and equipment shall be subject to the provisions of Section 17.620.016.

D. Accessory buildings and structures shall be permitted pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.660.

E. Architectural features may project into any required yard pursuant to the provision of Chapter 17.660 with the exception that no feature may project into the maximum front yard setback.

F. The development of this zoning district shall be substantially in accordance with the Development Plan. Variations in the Development Plan including street and lot pattern may be approved through the subdivision map process

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]