Brentwood City Hall


Our home pageContact UsPrevious Page

Central Park Gazebo

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 26

Meeting Date: August 28, 2001

Subject/Title: Public Hearing – Planned Development 35 Amendment to Establish Development Standards for the Chao/Dayani Property, located south of Apricot Way and west of Fairview Avenue.

Submitted by: Oshinsky/Leana, Community Development Department.

Approved by: Jon Elam, City Manager



RECOMMENDATION

Introduce and waive the first reading of Ordinance XXX which amends PD-35 by adding development standards for a 55-lot subdivision (TSM 8404)

PREVIOUS ACTION 

At its meeting on July 17, 2001, the Planning Commission conditionally approved TSM 8404, a 55-lot single family subdivision to be built south of Apricot Way and west of Fairview Avenue. Additionally, the Commission recommended City Council approve the attached development standards, which will guide the development of these future lots. 

ANALYSIS

 These proposed development standards allow for the creation of a minimum 9,000 square foot lots which are comparable to the Hawthorne Landing subdivision off Balfour Road, west of Griffith Lane. Combined with the proposed standard residential setbacks the lots within this subdivision, which average over 10,700 square feet, should enable the construction of a higher end product.

Affirmative action by the City Council on this PD amendment will enable the developer to proceed with his final map and improvement plans. 

Attachments:
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Reduced copy of the approved TSM
Ordinance XXX with the proposed development standards


NEGATIVE DECLARATION

TO: FROM:

OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH CITY OF BRENTWOOD
1400 TENTH STREET 150 City Park Way
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 BRENTWOOD, CA 94513-1396

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CLERK
725 COURT STREET, COURTHOUSE
MARTINEZ, CA 94553

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND CITY POLICY, AN INITIAL STUDY WAS CONDUCTED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE FOLLOWING PROJECT MAY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. ON THE BASIS OF THE INITIAL STUDY IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT:

_____ THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS NOT REQUIRED.

__X__ ALTHOUGH THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, THERE WILL NOT BE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE MITIGATION MEASURES DESCRIBED IN THE INITIAL STUDY HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT. AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS NOT REQUIRED.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

TITLE: Tentative Subdivision Map 8408
LOCATION: North of Sand Creek Rd., west of Fairview Ave., south of Grant Rd.
DESCRIPTION: Residential subdivision into 55 lots on 18.6 acres 
APPLICANT: The Mark Pringle Co., LLC 

CONTACT PERSON AND TITLE: Philip W. Block, Contract Planner 

NOTICE:

THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL SUPPORT MATERIAL ARE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE OFFICE LISTED ABOVE. THIS NEGATIVE DECLARATION MAY BECOME FINAL UNLESS WRITTEN COMMENTS ARE RECEIVED AT THE OFFICE LISTED ABOVE By June 20, 2001. IF YOU WISH TO APPEAL THE APPROPRIATENESS OR ADEQUACY OF THIS DOCUMENT, ADDRESS YOUR WRITTEN COMMENTS TO THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD, AS REFERENCED ABOVE, AND STATE THE FINDING THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, AND:

1. IDENTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT(S), WHY THEY WOULD OCCUR, AND WHY THEY WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT. EXPLAIN THE BASIS FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND SUBMIT ANY SUPPORTING DATA; AND

2. SUGGEST ANY MITIGATION MEASURES WHICH YOU WOULD BELIEVE WOULD REDUCE OR ELIMINATE THE EFFECT TO AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL.

Contract Planner.
DATE: SIGNED: TITLE:

CITY OF BRENTWOOD 
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

PD-35 ZONING AMENDMENT NO. 00-10 AND
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP 8408
INITIAL STUDY AND 
NEGATIVE DECLARATION


JUNE 2001 

Introduction 3
Project Description 6
Environmental Checklist 10
Environmental Checklist Form 12
Checklist Responses and Environmental Analysis 17
References 31


List of Figures 
Figure 1 PD-35 Area Map …
Figure 2 Vicinity Map and proposed Tentative Subdivision Map 8

GENERAL PURPOSE/SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

This Initial Study (IS) has been prepared to determine if the proposed project (project) will have a significant effect on the environment and to identify feasible mitigation measures necessary to reduce any such impacts to a level of insignificance. The proposed project is an amendment to Planned Development No. 35 and the subdivision of 18.6 gross acres known as Tentative Subdivision Map 8408 (TSM 8408), currently identified as Assessor’s Parcels 019-092-036 and 019-092-035. The street address is 1681 & 1801 Apricot Way. In general, the proposed project includes the following:

· The subdivision of 18.6 acres creating 55 detached single-family residential lots. The minimum lot size is 9,114 square feet. The maximum lot size is 12,842 square feet.

· Construction of publicly owned site-serving internal circulation systems serving vehicular, pedestrian uses.

· Installation of sidewalks, curbs and gutters, streetlights, on-site landscape improvements, and other public infrastructure including water distribution lines and sewer collection lines.

· An amendment to Planned Development No. 35 development guidelines by adding development standards for the project site.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEDURES

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


LEAD AGENCY/CONTACT PERSONS

In accordance with Sections 15050 and 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Brentwood has been designated the "lead agency" which is defined as the "public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or disapproving a project." The project sponsor (Applicant/Developer) is The Mark Pringle Co., LLC representing the landowner: Larry & Julie Chao and Anoosh Dayani.

City of Brentwood: Mr. Philip W. Block, Contract Planner 
Willdan Engineers & Planners
(Lead Agency) Community Development Department
104 Oak Street
Brentwood, California 94513
(866) 625-2404 (209) 723-4542 (209) 723-5004 (Fax)

Project Sponsor: The Mark Pringle Co., LLC 
(Applicant/Developer) 90 El Camino Real
Burlingame, CA 94010
(650) 344-8400

RESPONSIBLE/TRUSTEE AGENCIES

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

TECHNICAL STUDIES

Six technical reports were prepared. Five letters were prepared by impacted public agencies. This report is summarized in the appropriate section under Checklist Responses and is available upon request for review in the Community Development Department of the City of Brentwood.

· Geotechnical Investigation – This document, entitled “Preliminary Geotechnical/Geological Assessment,”1681 Apricot Way (9.55 acre parcel, APN 019-092-036-3), Brentwood, California dated September 8, 1999, was prepared by Henry Justiniano & Associates. It has been included with the IS. This report reviewed the following site conditions: site features, geology and soils, seismicity and seismic shaking, and liquefaction. This preliminary report addressed the primary geotechnical engineering considerations in the design and construction of future residences, common facilities, infrastructure, and associated improvements. 

A second Geotechnical Investigation document entitled “Geotechnical Exploration,” Chao and Dayani properties, Brentwood, California dated August 16, 2000 was prepared by Engeo Incorporated. This report addressed site features, geology and soils, seismicity including liquefaction, and site grading associated with the project.

· Environmental Assessment – This document, entitled “ Modified Phase One Environmental Site Assessment,” Chao and Dayani properties, Brentwood, California dated March 10, 2000, was prepared by Engeo Incorporated. The purpose of this report is to evaluate the possible existence of contamination and or contamination sources at the subject site.

· Arborist Report – This document, entitled “Tree Report,” 1681 & 1801 Apricot Way, Brentwood, California dated August, 2000 was prepared by HortScience, Inc. The purpose of this report is to survey the existing trees on the site, assess the impact of the proposed project on the trees and to propose tree preservation guidelines.

· Archaeological Investigation – This document, entitled “Archaeological Resources Assessment,” Chao Property 1681 Apricot Way (APN 0190-092-036) and Dayani Property 1801 Apricot Way (APN 019-092-035), City of Brentwood, Contra Costa County dated July 10, 2000, was prepared by Basin Research Associates. This inventory was requested in order to fulfill the cultural resources and planning directives of the City of Brentwood.

· Traffic Study – This document is entitled, “Technical Memorandum Re: Front-on Housing on Fairview Avenue,” City of Brentwood dated February 7, 2000, prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. The purpose of this transportation impact analysis is to evaluate the traffic impacts from the Mark Pringle (55 lot) and Centex (138 lot) proposed residential developments along Fairview Avenue and Apricot Way. The focus of the evaluation is to determine the appropriateness of allowing lots to front or side on these two streets.

PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE 

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

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

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

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

· Negative Declaration – A Negative Declaration was prepared for the annexation and prezoning that created Planned Development No. 35. 
As further required by CEQA Section 15150, the documents referenced above will be available for public inspection during normal business hours at:
City of Brentwood
Community Development Department
104 Oak Street
Brentwood, California 94513

BACKGROUND

The project site consists of 18.6 gross acres, generally rectangular in shape, located within the incorporated city limits of the City of Brentwood and currently is comprised of two legal parcels (Assessor’s Parcels 019-092-035 and 019-092-036).

The project address is 1681 & 1801 Apricot Way. The project site is generally located west of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, north of Sand Creek, west of Fairview Avenue and south of the future Grant Street extension. The site consists primarily of apricot orchards. The Chao Property contains a vacant residence and a detached/barn structure. The Dayani Property contains a residence, stables and associated outbuildings. The residence is occupied by the Crisis Home for Mentally Disabled. An out-building behind the residence is used for an office and the site contains other accessory buildings. The sites have been used for agriculture/residential purposes since the late 1950’s.

The Gursky residence and orchard is located to the west, the Seko residence and orchard is located to the east, the Maggiore orchard to the north and Maggiore farm to the south.

The project site currently is zoned Planned Development (PD) 35 for low-density single-family residential development. The General Plan designates the land use low density residential (LDR) (1.1– 5.0 du/acre; mid-range: 3.0 du/acre).

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT

The project site gently slopes from northwest to southeast with a change in elevation of approximately ten feet. It is primarily used for agriculture. Figure 1 shows the project’s location within the general Brentwood vicinity.

The Applicant/Developer has filed a Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM 8408) to subdivide the site into 55 detached single-family lots and the construction of a publicly owned site-serving internal circulation systems for vehicles and pedestrians users. The proposed project of 55 single-family dwelling units on 18.6 gross acres would have a density of 2.96 du/ac, which is slightly under the mid-range for density allowed under the General Plan low density residential (LDR) designation. 

The area surrounding the project site is currently used for agriculture. It consists of orchards, a farm and related buildings. The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding parcels that presently are used for agriculture, but will eventually be converted to single-family subdivisions as designated by the General Plan. For example, a 138 lot single-family residential subdivision has recently been proposed for the property immediately to the north. 

The proposed project’s internal vehicular system is a looped street with cul-de-sacs. Primary access to the project site is proposed from Apricot Way. Most vehicular trips will utilize Fairview Avenue to get to and from the project. There will be a street connection with the proposed subdivision to the north to both provide alternative emergency access and easy vehicular access between the subdivisions. All of the lots along the south side of Apricot Way will either back up to or side on Apricot Way.

DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS

Implementation of the proposed project will require the following of discretionary action listed as follows:

· Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 

· Amend Planned Development No. 35 by adding development standards for the project site.

· Approve the merger and resubdivision of 18.6 acres into 55 single family lots for future construction.



FIGURE ONE

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

SOURCES

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

1. City of Brentwood General Plan and General Plan Final EIR (SCH# 92063113);
2. City of Brentwood Zoning Ordinance;
3. Preliminary Geotechnical/Geological Assessment, 1681 Apricot Way, by Henry Justiniano & Associates, dated September 8, 1999
4. Geotechnical Exploration, Chao and Dayani properties, by Engeo Incorporated, dated August 16, 2000
5. Modified Phase One Environmental Site Assessment, Chao and Dayani properties, by Engeo Incorporated, dated March 10, 2000
6. Tree Report, 1681 & 1801 Apricot Way, by HortScience, Inc., dated August, 2000
7. Archaeological Resources Assessment, Chao and Dayani property, by Basin Research Associates, dated July 10, 2000
8. Technical Memorandum Re: Front-On Housing on Fairview Avenue, City of Brentwood, by Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc., dated February 7, 2001
9. “Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, California.” U.S. Department of Agriculture 
Soil Conversation Service (Sept.1997). 
10. Field and /or staff office review

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

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

1. Project Title: PD-35 Amendment Rezoning No. 00-10 and 
Tentative Subdivision Map 

2. Lead Agency Name: City of Brentwood

3. Contact person and phone number: Mr. Philip W. Block, Contract Planner
(866) 625-2404 (209) 723-4542 

4. Project location: The proposed project encompasses 18.6 gross acres (Assessor’s Parcels 019-092-035 and 019- 092-036)). The Project site is generally located west of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, north of Sand Creek, west of Fairview Avenue and south of Grant Street.

5. Name and address of project sponsor The Mark Pringle Co., LLC
(Applicant/Developer): 90 El Camino Real
Burlingame, CA 94010
(650) 344-8400

6. General plan designation: Low Density Residential (LDR)

7. Zoning: Planned Development No. 35

8. Description of project: Tentative Subdivision Map 8408 involving the merger and re-subdivision of 18.6 acres into 55 detached single-family residential lots and publicly owned site-serving internal circulation systems for vehicular and pedestrian uses and amend Planned Development No. 35 by adding development standards for the project site.

9. Surrounding land uses and setting: The setting is a rural agricultural area that is transitioning to a new single-family residential subdivision area. It is currently bordered on the west by an orchard and residence, an orchard and residence on the east, an orchard to the north and a farm to the south.

10. Other public agencies whose approval may be required: None


ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

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

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


DETERMINATION:

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

x I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

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

o I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on an earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated.” An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

o I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.


_____________________________ _June , 2001______________________
Signature Date 

Philip W. Block Contract Planner .
Printed Name Title 





ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS(The numbers in parentheses indicate the source documentslisted on page 9.) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING.Would the proposal: 
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source 1 and 2) o o o ý
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (Source 1) o o o ý
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (Source 1, 2 and 4) o o o ý
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (Source 1, 2, 4 and 7) o ý o o
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low income or minority community)? (Source 1, 2 and 4) o o o ý
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING.Would the proposal: POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: 
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? (Source 1) o o o ý
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (Source 1) o o ý o
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (Source 1 and 4) o o o ý
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS.Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: 
a) Fault rupture? (Source 1, 3 and 4) o o ý o
b) Seismic ground shaking? (Source 1, 3 and 4) o ý o o
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?(Source 1, 3 and 4) o o o ý
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?(Source (1, 3,and 4) o o o ý
e) Landslides or mudflows? (Source 1, 3 and 4) o o o ý
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?(Source 1,3 and 4) o o ý o
g) Subsidence of land? (Source 1, 3 and 4) o o o ý
h) Expansive soils? (Source 1,3 and 4)) o ý o o
i) Unique geologic or physical features?(Source 1, 3 and 4)) o o o ý



ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS(The numbers in parentheses indicate the source documentslisted on page 8.) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: 
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff?(Source 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) o ý o o
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (Source 1, 2, 3 and 4) o o o ý
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (Source 1, 2, 3 and 4) o o ý o
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (Source 1, 2, 3 and 4) o ý o o
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (Source 1, 2, 3 and 4) o o ý o
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (Source 1, 2, 3 and 4) o o ý o
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?(Source 1, 2, 3 and 4) o o ý o
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?(Source 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6) o o ý o
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies?(Source 1, 2, 3 and 4) o o ý o
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: 
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation?(Source 1 and 2) o ý o o
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?(Source 1 and 2) (Source 3 and 4) o o ý o
c) Alter air movements, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? (Source 1 and 2) o o ý o
d) Create objectionable odors? (Source 1 and 2) o ý o o
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.Would the proposal result in: 
a) Increased vehicular trips or traffic congestion?(Source 1, 2 and 8) (Source 2, 3, and 4) o ý o o
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Source 1, 2 and 8) o o ý o
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (Source 1, 2 and 8) o o ý o
d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsite?(Source 1, 2 and 8) (Source 3 and 4) o o o ý
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?(Source 1, 2 and 8) o o ý o
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?(Source 1, 2 and 8) o o ý o
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?(Source 1 and 2) o o o ý

VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.Would the proposal result in impacts to: 
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (Source 1, 2 and 4) o o o ý
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)?(Source 1, 2 and 4) o o o ý
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Source 1, 2, 4 and 5) o o o ý
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? (Source 1, 2, 4 and 5) o o o ý
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?(Source 1, 2, 4 and 5) o o o ý
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: 
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plan?(Source 2) o o o ý
b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (Source 1 and 2) o ý o o
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (Source 1 and 2) o o o ý
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: 
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? (Source 1, 2 and 5) o o ý o
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?(Source 1, 2, and 5) o o o ý
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? (Source 1, 2, 3, and 5) o o ý o
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (Source 1 and 5) o o ý o
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (Source 1 and 5) o o o ý
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: 
a) Increases in existing noise levels?(Source 1 and 2) o ý o o
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?(Source 1 and 2) o o ý o

XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: 
a) Fire protection? (Source 1 and 2) o ý o o
b) Police protection? (Source 1 and 2) o ý o o
c) Schools? (Source 1) o ý o o
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?(Source 1 and 2) o o ý o
e) Other government services? (Source 1) o o ý o
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following: 
a) Power or natural gas? (Source 4) o o o ý
b) Communication systems? (Source 4) o o o ý
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution systems? (Source 4) o ý o o
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Source 4) o ý o o
e) Storm water drainage? (Source 4) o ý o o
f) Solid waste disposal? (Source 4) o ý o o
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Source 4) o ý o o
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: 
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?(Source 1 and 4) o o ý o
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?(Source 4) o o ý o
c) Create light or glare? (Source 1, 2 and 4) o ý o o
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: 
a) Disturb paleontological resources?(Source 1) o o o ý
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Source 1 and 7) o o o ý
c) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?(Source 1 and 7) o o o ý
d) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (Source 1 and 7) o o o ý



ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS(The numbers in parentheses indicate the source documentslisted on page 8.) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: 
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities?(Source 1 and 2) o ý o o
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?(Source 1 and 2) o o ý o
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self﷓sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or pre﷓history? o o ý o
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short﷓term, to the disadvantage of long﷓term, environmental goals? o o ý o
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) o ý o o
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly? o ý o o


















The following discussion responds to the questions on the Environmental Checklist Form marked with anything other than “no impact.” Each response is identified with the Roman numeral, name, and letter(s) which correspond to the impact category shown on the checklist form. Only those questions marked other than “no impact” are discussed below. As stated previously, questions receiving a response of “no impact” which are adequately supported do not require further explanation. The source documents used in this analysis are identified on the checklist by indicating the document number (shown on page 9) in parentheses next to the related question. 

I. LAND USE AND PLANNING (d)

The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM 8408) would allow for the creation of 55 single-family residential lots on 18.6 acres to be developed as follows:

- The development of 55 detached single-family residential lots.
- 19 lots ranging from 9,000 square feet to 9,999 square feet;
- 20 lots ranging from 10,000 square feet to 10,999 square feet; 
- 12 lots ranging from 11,000 to 11,999 and
- 4 lots 12,000 square feet or greater,
with the largest (Lot 19) being 12,842 square feet.

Minimum lot area: 9,114 square feet (lot 16)
Maximum lot area: 12,842 square feet (lot 19)
Average lot area: 10,763 square feet

- Construction of publicly owned site-serving internal circulation systems of vehicular and pedestrian uses. The City of Brentwood will own these circulation systems. 

- Installation of publicly owned streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, streetlights, on-site landscape improvements, and other public infrastructure including water distribution lines and sewer collection lines.

The proposed project of 57 single-family dwelling units on 18.6 gross acres would have a density of 3.06 dwelling units per acre, which at the midrange of the low-density land use designation, is allowed under the General Plan. The area surrounding the project site is currently used for agriculture. It consists of orchards, a farm and related buildings. The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding parcels that are used for agriculture, but will eventually be converted to single-family subdivisions as designated by the General Plan.

The land use to the north, west and south of the site is designated in the General Plan as L (Low Density-1.1-5.0 du/ac; mid-range: 3.0 du/ac) The land uses to the east are designated in the General Plan as L (Low Density), VL (Very Low Density-1.1-3.0du/ac; mid-range: 2.0du/ac) and RE (Ranchette Estate (0-1.0 du/ac; mid-range: .5 du/ac).

The proposed project is consistent with the density allowed by the General Plan and PD-35. Therefore, the proposed project would not require an amendment to the General Plan of the City of Brentwood. 

Existing Land Use/Agricultural Resources & Operations 

Previously conducted studies for projects in the immediate area indicate that soils on the project site are highly suitable for agricultural production, and its history of agricultural use would support that finding. A soil survey of Contra Costa County identifies the soils in this area as Sycamore silty clay loam substratum (Sp). This soil is good for irrigated sugar beets, tomatoes, lettuce, and alfalfa. The proposed subdivision would result in the permanent conversion of the existing agricultural land use to new residential development.

The General Plan includes agricultural preservation policies in the Conservation/Open Space Element (page IV. 1-4 and 1-5) which describes potential agricultural preservation program components. The General Plan also designates more than 2,500 acres along the eastern and southeastern portions of the General Plan Area as Agriculture Conservation (AC) for permanent agricultural preservation. Implementation of these policies would contribute toward mitigating the potentially significant impact of the proposed project on agricultural resources.

The area is trending toward conversion from agricultural to residential use in accordance with the General Plan for the project site and as shown by the proposed 138lot subdivision to the north. The proposed project may have the result of discouraging or restricting farming on other properties in the area by contributing to the encroachment of urban/suburban development on existing agricultural uses. Impacts associated with agricultural operations (such as noise, dust, odors, pesticide usage, field trespassing, and crop theft) may result in disparities and conflicts between existing agricultural uses and new, suburban residents seeking quality of life and protection of their real estate investments.

In order to mitigate the land use compatibility impacts between the proposed project and existing agricultural uses to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measures shall be required:

1. The City shall require the Applicant/Developer of this subdivision to inform and notify the homebuyers in writing, prior to purchase, about existing and on-going agricultural activities in the immediate area. Notification shall be provided by a Department of Real Estate Subdivision Report or some other form of disclosure statement (if there is no Subdivision Report). The notifications shall disclose that the Brentwood area is an agricultural area subject to ground and aerial applications of chemicals and early morning or nighttime farm operations which may create noise, dust, etc. The language and format of such notification is subject to approval by the City. Each disclosure statement shall be acknowledged with the signature of each property buyer and submitted to the City.

2. A deed notification shall be recorded and will run with the property stating that the uses permitted by this project and adjacent properties have zoning which allows livestock and that dust, noise, and related conditions may be experienced from time to time. The wording and format for notifying property buyers is subject to approval by the City.

3. 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 potentially significant impact of the proposed project on the loss of Prime Farmland. 

4. Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy and predicated on the sequence of development surrounding TSM 8408, the perimeter shall be appropriately buffered by fences, walls, and/or berms, where appropriate, to minimize conflicts between permanent residents and agricultural uses.

5. Any subsequent use of the project site for the production of oil and natural gas shall be subject to the provisions of Section 17.680 of the Brentwood Municipal Code pertaining to oil and gas production. 


POPULATION AND HOUSING (b)

The City’s General Plan and zoning for the area provides for development of the proposed use. Because the area is rural, the extension and improvement of infrastructure would be required. However, the project site and surrounding land are approved for residential development for which infrastructure already has been or will be constructed. Therefore, the growth inducement impact of this project is less than significant. 

The mix of lot sizes provided by the proposed project will increase the available supply of housing in Brentwood and expand the range of future housing choices for homebuyers. Over all housing affordability should improve by increasing the number of units for middle-income persons seeking available housing and developing move-up properties for higher income occupants of middle-income housing.

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

The site regionally is part of the San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento-San Joaquin Rivers Delta, which are geologically active and subject to earth-changing events. The site is considered to be in one of the most seismically active regions of the United States. No know active faults are mapped at the property. The nearest State of California zoned, active faults are the Greenville and Concord faults, located about 7 miles southwest and 13 miles west, respectively. Because of the presence of active faults in the region, the Brentwood area is considered seismically active. Numerous small earthquakes occur every year in the region, and large(>M7) earthquakes have been recorded and can be expected to occur in the future. Several inactive or potentially active faults are located off site, near the property.

The project site would be susceptible to ground shaking of a moderate to high magnitude from any known fault in the area. The seismic risk to structures on the project site depends on the distance from the epicenter; the characteristics of the earthquake; the geologic, groundwater, and soil conditions underlying structures on the project site; and the nature of the construction.

As with other sites in the area, an assumption can be made that the soils on the project site have slow permeability, high shrink-swell potential, fair to good compaction characteristics, and medium to low shear strength. The City of Brentwood General Plan Final EIR (page 69) states that, in general, alluvial areas (Qhac) found throughout the City may be subject to liquefaction during a seismic event if perched groundwater conditions are present. The degree of liquefaction potential will depend on groundwater conditions at specific sites. The geotechnical investigation dated August 16, 2000 conducted on the project site for the developer by Engeo Incorporated found as follows (see page 13): "In general, the analyses indicate that the thin layers of sandy material encountered in the borings are not susceptible to liquefaction during earthquake ground shaking. One exception is the one-foot-thick sandy layer found in Boring B-2 at a depth of about 30.5 feet; this layer is considered marginally liquefiable.”

Because of relatively flat topography and cohesive nature of the soils, the potential for erosion on the project site is less than significant if properly graded and drained. 

This geotechnical investigation also concluded (see page 16): "It is our opinion, based on his exploration and laboratory test results, that the project site is feasible for the proposed residential development from a geotechnical standpoint. The recommendations included in this report, along with other sound engineering practices, should be incorporated in the design and construction of the project." Further the investigation indicates: "An additional area of concern regarding the geotechnical aspects of the project is the moderate to very high expansion potential of the on-site native soil. Expansive soils shrink and swell as a result of moisture changes. This can cause heaving and cracking of slabs-on-grade, pavements and structures founded on shallow foundations. Building damage due to volume changes associated with expansive soils can be reduced by…." Recommendations for this potential problem are found in this report. 

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

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

7. 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.

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

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

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

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

The project site is not known to be located in any flood zone established by the National Flood Insurance Program.

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

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

Long-term occupancy of the project site by the proposed land uses would introduce non-point sources of pollution such as fertilizers, pesticides, household chemicals, animal wastes, and automobile products within the project area. These pollutants may be carried by storm water runoff to surface water bodies within or downstream from the project site. Storm water pollution control is the responsibility of the State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards. Storm water pollution control is implemented through the use of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, which are applied to industries, municipalities, and construction activities. Any subsequent development activity encompassing greater than five acres would be required to obtain the applicable NPDES permits. 

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

9. Prior to issuance of Grading Permits, the Applicant/Developer shall submit to the City Engineer for review and approval a Drainage Master Plan and measures to control quality of storm water run-off. The plan shall describe how on-site draining systems will be designed to compensate for the reduced water absorption capacity of the site and to prevent flooding of adjacent properties. The plan must ensure that all storm water 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.

10. 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 District.

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

12. The Applicant/Developer shall be prepared to enter into a Right-of-Way and Facilities Relocation Agreement with the East Contra Costa Irrigation District. At a minimum, the terms and conditions of the agreement will provide for the replacement of District’s Lateral 7 North and related facilities, and the transfer of right-of –way interests to accommodate the development and the relocation of District facilities.

13. A National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction permit shall be obtained for any disturbance of more than five acres.

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

15. A perpetual maintenance funding mechanism, funded entirely by the Applicant/Developer or subsequent homeowners group, and maintenance agreement for any detention basin and/or private facilities shall be in place and approved by the City Engineer prior to approval of related improvement plans. 

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

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

18. 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.

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

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

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

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

During its former agricultural use, pollutant generation from the project site has been variable and sporadic depending on the intensity and type of activities occurring. On-site emissions associated with the current and past uses include combustion products from burning of agricultural waste and operation of agricultural equipment, particulate matter from tilling, and the evaporation of hydrocarbons from pesticide application. The reduction or phase-out of agricultural uses in the area actually may reduce the over all total suspended particulates generated in the area during cultivation operations. 

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

Direct air quality impacts from residential development of the project site result from emissions released on-site from stationary sources which include space and water heating equipment, fireplaces, barbecues, paints and solvents, lawnmowers, and volatile consumer products. Mobile sources of emissions would be generated by automobile and small truck traffic accessing the new development which would result in emissions increases affecting both local and regional air quality. The local effect would be increased carbon monoxide, reactive organic gasses, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter (PM-10) levels along roadways used by the project traffic.

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

In order to reduce the potential adverse impacts to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measures shall be required for development of the project site: 

19. 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 Services 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 Services 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 at least 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, earth moving, 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 to public and private roads shall be swept at least 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.

VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION (a, b, c, e, f)

The City of Brentwood's General Plan envisions growth of the City through the year 2010. One component of that Plan is the projection of trip generation and corresponding design of a transportation system to adequately accommodate the movement of vehicles. That system is specifically addressed in the Plan's Circulation Element which, among other components, includes a hierarchical roadway system with different classifications designed to carry traffic generated by planned development. Since the proposed project (55 dwelling units) does not meet the City of Brentwood’s threshold figure of generating 100 peak hour trips for requiring a project specific traffic study, one was not prepared. However,
the proposed project is consistent with future development levels planned in this part of Brentwood which have been included in the regional Traffic Models developed by the Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCTA) and Contra Costa County. The Applicant/Developer of this project will be required to contribute to the construction of the State Route 4-Bypass Project, a planned regional facility, as well as other planned local facilities.

As part of this environmental review, “Technical Memorandum Re: Front-On Housing on Fairview Avenue by Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. dated February 7, 2001 was prepared. The report concluded traffic volumes along Apricot Way are expected to be 1,700 to 4,100 vehicles per day, which is on the complaint “threshold”. The traffic consultant indicated that with appropriate “traffic calming” measures, “front-on” housing could be acceptable on Apricot Way. The purpose of the ”traffic calming” is to slow down traffic and reduce traffic volumes by discouraging the use of Apricot Way by “pass through” traffic. However, the City Council determined that all homes along Apricot Way should back up to or side on rather than front on to Apricot Way. The applicant has modified his original proposed subdivision to comply with this City Council policy direction.

In order to reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level, the following traffic circulation mitigation measures shall be required for development of the proposed project as part of the City’s project review process:

20. 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. 

21. The Applicant/Developer shall design and construct all public facilities within the subdivision including public streets, sidewalks, gutters, curbs, streetlights, and other related transportation improvements required by the City Engineer.

22. The Applicant/Developer shall notify homebuyers that ownership and maintenance of any non-public transportation improvements will be the responsibility of the homeowners association or its equivalent.

23. The Applicant/Developer shall make local and regional rideshare and transit information available to all homebuyers.

24. The applicant shall be responsible for his fair share of possible off site street improvements such as the future traffic signal and intersection improvements at the intersection of Apricot Way and Fairview Avenue. These improvements would be fee creditable. The applicant shall be responsible for implementing “traffic calming” measures on Apricot Way

VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES (b)

The proposed project includes the development of approximately 55 homes, which will house approximately 154persons (assuming 2.8 persons per household). This increase in population will result in new energy demands to meet anticipated daily energy needs. These demands, most likely, will be met through consumption of nonrenewable fossil fuels. 

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

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

A single-family dwelling that includes high efficiency heating and air conditioning equipment, improved insulation levels, low emissivity glazing, and solar water heating may reduce energy consumption to a fraction of allowable levels. In addition, innovative technologies such as shading, district heating and cooling systems, and passive solar design may reduce energy requirements even more. These technologies currently are available and in use nation-wide.

The following mitigation measures are required to ensure that nonrenewable resources are used conservatively and efficiently to reduce energy-use impacts resulting from the proposed project to less than significant levels:

25. The Applicant/Developer shall consult with the selected energy provider(s) for assistance with energy and conservation features to reduce per capita residential energy demand within Brentwood.

26. Development of the project site shall include energy-efficient features including but not limited to: orientation of the structures to summer and winter sunlight to absorb winter solar heat and reflect or avoid summer solar heat, thermal insulation of the walls and attic which meets or exceeds local standards, weather stripping of windows and doors to decrease heat loss, solar assisted domestic hot water and pool heating, tinted or solar reflective double glazing, overhangs on southern elevations, and vegetation on western elevations to provide shading from summer sun.

27. Energy-efficient street lighting (low-pressure sodium vapor lights) shall be utilized to reduce power plant air pollutant emissions.

28. All housing units developed on the project site shall include communication wiring which facilitates efficient personal computer operation to enable future residents to work from home, access services, or accomplish tasks thereby reducing auto trips and related mobile source emissions resulting from the project.

IX. HAZARDS (a, c, d)

The project site has been used for residential/agricultural purposes since at least 1957. A “Modified Phase One Environmental Site Analysis, Chao and Dayani Properties” dated March 10, 2000, was prepared by Engeo Incorporated. It states, “The site reconnaissance and records review did not find documentation or physical evidence of soil or ground-water impairments associated with the use of the property. A review of regulatory databases maintained by county, state and federal agencies found no documentation of hazardous materials violations or discharge on the property. A review of regulatory agency records and available databases did not identify contaminated facilities within ˝ mile of the site.”

Since the property has been used in the past for agricultural cultivation, Engeo Incorporated recommended that the scope of the assessment be expanded to include the recovery of near surface soil samples for pesticide analysis. Review of the organochlorine pesticide analyses found no significant impacts on the property. They also recommended that a future asbestos survey be conducted to assess the property for the presence of asbestos-containing materials. 

29a. An asbestos survey shall be conducted prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. 

X. NOISE (a, b)

The major noise sources in and around the project site include motor vehicle traffic on Fairview Avenue, the future Sand Creek Road extension and potential railroad noise from the Union Pacific Railroad line. Other noises in the area include agricultural machinery and construction equipment on surrounding lands.

Noise impacts that can be expected with future development of the project site include: increased levels of traffic and associated noise on Fairview Avenue and noise impacts associated Apricot Way, Union Pacific Railroad, traffic-related noise generated from new roadways, short-term construction-related noise of surrounding new development, and continued noise from agricultural operations prior to urbanization of properties in the vicinity.

In order to reduce the potential noise impacts of the project to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measures shall be required as a part of the City’s project review process:

29. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 A.M. am to 3:30 P.M. on weekdays and 9:00 A.M. am to 3:30 P.M. on Saturdays. Construction shall be prohibited on Sundays. These criteria shall be included in the grading plan submitted by the Applicant/Developer for review and approval to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director prior to issuance of grading permits.

30. 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 to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director prior to issuance of grading permits.

31. Homes shall be designed with acoustical control measures to control interior noise levels in accordance with the City’s Noise element of the General Plan, the City’s Municipal Code, and Title 24 standards. Noise impacts should be mitigated where possible incorporating a variety of methods including but not limited to birth berms, setbacks, and masonry sound walls. Furthermore, for any home within the 60 dBA contour area of the railroad, the Applicant/Developer shall provide written notice to prospective homebuyers. 

A six foot decorative masonry soundwall shall be constructed along the south side of Apricot Way and the four lots that back up to “ F” Street. There will be breaks in the wall at the end of the open ended cul de sacs to avoid a tunnel effect along Apricot Way. 

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

Police and Fire Protection

The project site is within the service area of the Brentwood Police Department and the East Diablo Fire Protection District. Implementation of the proposed project will add to the over all demand for police and fire protection services. This increase is considered a potentially significant impact.

Implementation of the following mitigation measures will mitigate potential fire and police protection impacts to less than significant levels:

32. The Applicant/Developer shall participate in a Capital Improvement Financing Program and shall pay sufficient funds to ensure the proposed project will not create excess demand for police services.

33. The Police Department shall be included in the design review process for this project in order to ensure that the site plan incorporates appropriate crime prevention features.

34. 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). 

35. 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. 

36. 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.

37. The Applicant/Developer shall provide access roadways having all-weather driving surfaces of not less than 40’, 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 a 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).

38. 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.

Schools

The project site is located within the Liberty Union High School District and the Brentwood Unified Elementary School District. The increased development of single-family residential units will 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 will result in a potentially significant impact related to schools.

Implementation of the following mitigation measure will mitigate potential school impacts to a less than significant level:

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

Maintenance of Public Facilities

Development of the project site will require the City to maintain any newly constructed public infrastructure (street frontage, sewer, water, etc.). Since the General Plan provides for residential development of the project site and surrounding area, the proposed project by itself would contribute only incrementally to increasing public facility maintenance needs in relation to the over all planned development of the City. Impacts are partially mitigated by the collection of a facility fee due at the time of issuance of building permits. Therefore, any increased demand for maintenance of public facilities is anticipated to be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Other Governmental Services

Development of the project site will add new residents to the City of Brentwood, generally increasing the need for general governmental services. Since the General Plan provides for residential development of the project site and surrounding area, the proposed project by itself would contribute only incrementally to increasing the need for other or general governmental services in relation to the over all planned development of the City. Impacts are partially mitigated by the collection of a facility fee due at the time of issuance of building permits. Therefore, any increased demand for maintenance of other governmental services is anticipated to be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

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

The proposed project will require the installation and/or extension of all utility lines for water, sewer, electricity, natural gas, telephone, and cable television. Adequate capacity to serve the proposed project is or shall be available provided sufficient improvement fees are provided by the Applicant/Developer in conjunction with the City’s Capital Improvements Funding Program.

In order to reduce the potential utility and service systems impacts to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measures shall be required as part of the City’s project review process:

40. 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.

41. If the sewer line is not constructed, in the future Sand Creek Road, by the start of construction of this subdivision the Applicant/Developer shall be required to construct the sewer line to its master planned location down stream or to a location approved by the City Engineer.

42. The Applicant/Developer shall be required to construct a 12” non-potable water line on the east side of Fairview north from San Jose Avenue to the north west corner of the proposed subdivision. 

XIII. AESTHETICS (b, c)

The project site currently is currently in agricultural use as an orchard. Development of the project site to single-family detached residential use would represent a major transformation of the existing visual environment from its present rural agricultural appearance. As an agricultural use, no light or glare is emitted. Development of the project site will result in an increase in light and glare associated with suburban residential activity and create the potential for light and glare from outdoor lighting.

Light and glare associated with outdoor lighting or from second-story windows may affect other residents within the project site and on surrounding sites. The change in use from agriculture to residential is, by itself, a potentially significant impact. However, the low density of the proposed project would result in impacts far less than standard residential suburban development. Also, the impact from a change in use has been addressed previously with the General Plan Final EIR and is consistent with the pattern of development anticipated on property surrounding the project site. For example, a 138 lot single-family residential subdivision has been proposed north of the site.

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

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

44. Uniform Building Code compliance shall be assumed to reduce glare to an insignificant level. Through the Design Review process, second floor windows should be designed to minimize potential sun glare from adjacent properties by use of landscape or structural impediments.

45. Sound walls shall be aesthetically designed for consistency with the proposed development. Walls shall be located in landscaped buffers along road frontages and designed with frequent offsets, variations in texture and material, occasional visual openings, and architecture that is complementary to the buildings on site. Walls may be constructed atop variable height berms to reduce visual monotony. Shrubs and vines shall be planted along the walls to soften surfaces and deter the potential for graffiti. Street trees shall be planted in landscaped buffers to create visual breaks and interest against expanses of hardscape material. Landscaped areas should include trees, shrubs and ground covers. Fences and walls should be appropriately landscaped. A landscape and lighting district shall be established for any landscaped medians or similar areas. 


XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES (a, b, c)

Other than the agricultural heritage of the community, Native American archaeological sites would be another cultural resource potentially disrupted by the proposed project. Based on information contained in several previously prepared environmental documents for proposed development within Brentwood, Native American archaeological sites in this area of Contra Costa County tend to be located at the base of hills and on stream terraces near former or existing water courses.

No archeological evidence has been observed on the project site. Basin Research Associates in their “Archeological Resources Assessment” dated July 10, 2000, found no evidence of significant archeological or architectural resources during their field inventory of the site. However, such artifacts may exist below the surface, and as such, it is possible that paleontological and/or archaeological resources may be uncovered during the construction phase which might cause the proposed project to result in a potentially significant impact.

Implementation of the following mitigation measure will mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level:

46. 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 cultural resources are encountered during site grading or other site work, all such work shall immediately be halted 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 preceding work has occurred.

XV. RECREATION (a, b)

Development of the project site will result in new residents and consequently will increase demand for neighborhood, community, and regional parks and other recreational facilities. In addition to the neighborhood parks, new residents can be expected to utilize community and regional parks, as well as other recreational amenities in the area. Implementation of the following mitigation measure will mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level:

47. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the Applicant/Developer shall be required to pay the appropriate Quimby Act fees and/or dedicate the necessary park and trail acreage. This requirement shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.

48. The Applicant/Developer shall construct a pedestrian trail and bridge from the north side of Sand Creek to the proposed park on the south side of the creek. There should also be a trail connection provided for to the Apricot Way subdivision (TSM 8408). This requirement shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and Engineering Department. 

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

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.

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

Brentwood, City of, Brentwood General Plan 1993 - 2010

The Planning Center, City of Brentwood General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report
Volumes One and Two, July 1993
.
City of Brentwood General Plan and General Plan Final EIR (SCH# 92063113)

City of Brentwood Zoning Ordinance

Preliminary Geotechnical/Geological Assessment, 1681 Apricot Way, by Henry Justiniano & Associates, dated September 8, 1999

Geotechnical Exploration, Chao and Dayani properties, by Engeo Incorporated, dated August 16, 2000

Modified Phase One Environmental Site Assessment, Chao and Dayani properties, by Engeo Incorporated, dated March 10, 2000

Tree Report, 1681 & 1801 Apricot Way, by HortScience, Inc., dated August 2000

Archaeological Resources Assessment, Chao and Dayani property, by Basin Research Associates, dated July 10, 2000

Technical Memorandum Re: Front-On Housing on Fairview Avenue, City of Brentwood, by Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc., dated February 7, 2001

Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, California, U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conversation Service, dated September.1997





















ORDINANCE NO. 

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD AMENDING PD-35 BY ADDING CHAPTER 17.485 TO THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA ‘C’ OF ZONING DISTRICT PD-35. (APN 019-092-035 AND 036)

WHEREAS, the developer of said property proposes to construct 55 homes within a conditionally approved subdivision (Tentative Map No. 8408); and

WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, considered public comment and passed Resolution No. 01-54 on July 17, 2001, which recommended the establishment of development standards for Subarea ‘C’ of Zoning District PD-35; 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 the Contra Costa Times on August 18, 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 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: 

1. The proposed PD-amendment will establish clear development standards for the uses permitted under the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and conditionally approved Tentative Tract Map No. 8408

2. The proposed PD-amendment will provide standards resulting in development that is consistent and compatible with surrounding uses.

3. The proposed amendment has been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act; and

4. 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 or addressed in the project specific additional mitigation measures. Therefore, since the mitigation measures are incorporated as conditions of the project approval, the Mitigated Negative Declaration as well as the Program EIR for the 1993 General Plan are adequate for all approvals relating to the project; and

5. The City Council further finds that no significant new information within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 has been presented to the City which would necessitate recirculation of the mitigated Negative Declaration for further public review; and

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


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. Chapter 17.485 is hereby added to the Municipal Code establishing development standards for Subarea ‘C’, as reflected in Exhibit ‘B’, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance.

Section 3. 

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

THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced with the first reading waived at a regular meeting of the Brentwood City Council on the 28th 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“




















EXHIBIT B
CHAPTER 17.485
PD-35 (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT THIRTY-FIVE)
ZONE

SECTIONS:

17.485.013 Authority, Purpose and Intent
17.485.014 Permitted Uses
17.485.015 Conditionally Permitted Uses
17.485.016 General Development Standards

17.485.013 Authority, Purpose and Intent:

The authority, purpose and intent for the adoption of Planned Development Thirty-five (PD-35) Subarea “C” Zone (see the attached Subarea map) are as follows:

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

B. Purpose: The purpose of the PD-35 Subarea “C” Zone is to permit and regulate the development of single family detached homes on the Chao/Dayani Property in accordance with the Brentwood General Plan.

C. Intent: It is intended that in order to achieve the purpose of the PD-35 Subarea “C” Zone, the development of the Chao/Dayani Property will be undertaken in accordance with the Brentwood General Plan as follows:

1. A maximum of 55 single-family homes will be developed on the property.

2. Lot sizes varying between 9,114 to 12,842 sq. ft. will be created.


17.485.014 Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted in the PD-35 Subarea “C” Zone:

A. Those uses permitted under the R-1 Zone, Section 17.130.002.

17.485.015 Conditionally Permitted Uses: The following uses are permitted in the PD-35 Subarea “C” Zone:

A. Upon obtaining a Use Permit, those uses permitted under the R-1 Zone, Section 17.130.003.

17.485.016 General Development Standards For Subarea “C” of PD-35: All permitted and conditionally permitted uses shall conform to the Development Standards set forth below:

1. Minimum Lot Size: 9,000 sq. ft.

2. Minimum Lot Width: 80 feet.

3. Minimum Lot Depth: One hundred ten (110) feet.

4. Minimum Front Yard Setback: (20) feet to the garage; except fifteen (15) feet to the garage for a swing driveway. Fifteen (15) feet to any living space.

5. Minimum Lot Frontage: Forty (40) feet at the front property line.

6. Minimum Side Yard: Minimum five (5) feet; sum of both sides fifteen (15) feet. Corner lots shall maintain a minimum side yard on the street of ten (10) feet. Aggregate sideyards between houses shall be fifteen (15) feet minimum.

7. Minimum Rear Yard: Twenty (20) feet.

8. Maximum Building Height: Thirty (30) feet and two stories

9. Side Loading Garage: Ten (10%) percent of the lots shall have side-loading garages.

10. Single Story Units: Fifty percent (50%) of corner lots shall have single story units.

11. Minimum of twenty-five percent (25%) of the lots shall have single story units.

12. Maximum number of dwelling units shall be fifty-five (55).

13. Garages at the rear of the lot shall have a minimum rear and side yard of five (5) feet.

14. Architectural features (such as cornices, eaves, bay windows, fireplaces, and porches) measureing two (2) feet by five (5) feet or less may project into any required setback. Any architectural feature greater than two (2) feet by five (5) feet may not project into any required setback. No portion of the house shall be less than ten (10) feet from the front property line.

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]