Brentwood City Hall


Our home pageContact UsPrevious Page

Central Park Gazebo

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA ITEM NO. 05

Meeting Date: April 9, 2002

Subject/Title: Adopt a Resolution to Accept and Authorize Circulation of the Draft Negative Declaration Report on the Proposed Amendments to the Redevelopment Plans for the Merged Brentwood and North Brentwood Redevelopment Projects

Submitted by: Gina Rozenski, Redevelopment Analyst

Approved by: John Stevenson, Executive Director


RECOMMENDATION 
Adopt Resolution RA-____to accept and authorize circulation of the Draft Negative Declaration Report on the Proposed Amendments to the Redevelopment Plans for the Merged Brentwood and North Brentwood Redevelopment Projects.


PREVIOUS ACTION
On June 26, 2001, the City Council of the City of Brentwood approved and adopted Resolution No. 2322 adding additional area to the North Brentwood Redevelopment Survey Area.

On October 2, 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood approved and adopted Resolution No. 01-76 amending the boundaries of the North Brentwood Redevelopment Project Area, approving Amendments to the Preliminary Plans for the Brentwood and North Brentwood Redevelopment Projects, and submitting the Amendments to the Preliminary Plans to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Brentwood for its acceptance and preparation of an amendment to the official Redevelopment Plans for the Projects.

On January 22, 2002, the Redevelopment Agency approved a resolution accepting the Amendments to the Preliminary Plans for the Brentwood and North Brentwood Redevelopment Project Areas, authorizing Agency staff to file information with appropriate taxing agencies and officials, and directing the amendments to the official Redevelopment Plans for the Projects be prepared.


BACKGROUND

California Community Redevelopment Law requires the preparation of environmental studies on proposed amendments to redevelopment plans. The attached Negative Declaration, which includes the Environmental Checklist, is, in effect, a “Draft” Negative Declaration. This Draft Negative Declaration should be circulated and commented upon, and the comments received and responses thereto will be added to the “draft” to produce a “final” Negative Declaration to be later approved by the Agency and City Council. 

Notices shall be sent to responsible agencies, affected taxing entities and other interested organizations for the purpose of soliciting comments prior to final preparation of the Final Negative Declaration. In addition, a notice shall be posted at City Hall and published in a newspaper of general circulation.

FISCAL IMPACT
None

Attachments: Resolution RA-_____
Draft Negative Declaration and Environmental Checklist

RESOLUTION NO. RA-

A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD ACCEPTING AND AUTHORIZING THE CIRCULATION OF THE DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION REPORT ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE MERGED BRENTWOOD AND NORTH BRENTWOOD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS


WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 33450 of the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.), the Brentwood Redevelopment Agency (“Agency”) has prepared Proposed Amendments (“Proposed Amendments”) to the Redevelopment Plans for the Merged Brentwood and North Brentwood Redevelopment Projects; and

WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration for the Proposed Amendments has been prepared by the Agency in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA guidelines, and local procedures; and

WHEREAS, the Negative Declaration must be circulated for public review for a 20-day period within which time comments will be received by the Agency.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Brentwood Redevelopment Agency as follows:

1. The Negative Declaration on the Proposed Amendments to the Redevelopment Plans for the Merged Brentwood and North Brentwood Redevelopment Projects is hereby received by the Agency in the form attached hereto.

2. A 20-day public review and comment period on the Negative Declaration is hereby set for April 12, 2002, through May 2, 2002. Comments shall be received at the Agency’s office at the City of Brentwood’s City Hall, located at 150 City Park Way, Brentwood, California 94513, until 5:00 p.m., May 2, 2002.

3. The Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency is hereby authorized and directed to:

a. transmit the Negative Declaration, and a Public Notice Inviting Comments, for the Proposed Amendments to the Redevelopment Plans to public agencies and others for review and comment; and
b. publish a notice advising the public of the review period on the Negative Declaration. Copies of the Negative Declaration and supporting documents (including the General Plan Update EIR SCH#2000122013) shall be available for public inspection from April 12, 2002, through May 2, 2002, at the City of Brentwood’s City Hall at 150 City Park Way, Brentwood. 

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Brentwood at a regular meeting held on the 9th of April 2002 by the following vote:

CITY OF BRENTWOOD
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Proposed Amendments to the Brentwood and North Brentwood 
Redevelopment Plans

1. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT

Title: Proposed Amendment to Add Area to the North Brentwood Redevelopment Plan, Extend Eminent Domain in the North Brentwood Redevelopment Plan, and Re-Establish Eminent Domain in the Brentwood Redevelopment Area

Location: The Redevelopment Project Area, consisting of the Merged Brentwood Redevelopment Area and the North Brentwood Redevelopment Area, is located in the City of Brentwood (City), in eastern Contra Costa County. The City is approximately equidistant (fifty miles) from San Francisco to the west and Sacramento to the east. The proposed Added Area (Sunset Industrial Park Complex), is located entirely within the City boundaries. The 138 acre proposed Added Area is contiguous with the North Brentwood Redevelopment Area along the easterly boundary of the recently built Trailside Subdivision located north of Sunset Road. The area is bounded to the south by Sunset Road, to the west by the Tresch Road (and Trailside Subdivision) and Marsh Creek, to the north by Marsh Creek, and to the east by an existing orchard and food processing plant.

Department Responsible for Proposed Project: Redevelopment Agency of the City of Brentwood

Contact Person: Ms. Gina Rozenski, 925-240-2504

Project Description: The proposed project consists of amending the merged Brentwood Redevelopment Plan and North Brentwood Redevelopment Plan to:

(1) add approximately 138 acres to the northeasterly portion of the North Brentwood Redevelopment Project Area;
(2) extend the time limit for eminent domain within the North Brentwood Redevelopment Project Area; and 
(3) re-institute eminent domain in the Brentwood Redevelopment Project Area.

2. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

This Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA Guidelines. Based on the environmental findings of the attached Initial Study, there is not evidence that the proposed Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan would have significant adverse impacts on the environment. Specifically, implementation of the proposed amendments would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment; would not have the potential to achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals; would not result in potentially significant individually limited or cumulative impacts; and would not have effects that would have substantial adverse impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, it has been determined that an Environmental Impact Report is not required. 

3. NOTICE

This Negative Declaration may become final unless written comments are received by the Brentwood Redevelopment Agency at the office listed above by 5:00 p.m. on May 2, 2002. This document and supporting attachments are provided for review by the general public. This is an informational document about environmental effects only. Supplemental information is on file and may be reviewed at the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Brentwood at the address listed above. The decision-making body will review this document and potentially many other sources of information before considering the proposed project.

Date: 



ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM


1. Project Title: 
Amendment to the City of Brentwood Redevelopment Plans
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: 
City of Brentwood 150 City Park WayBrentwood, CA 94513
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: 
Gina Rozenski925-240-2504
4. Project Location: 
Brentwood, Contra Costa County, California
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: 
City of BrentwoodSame as above
6. General Plan Designation: 
Residential, Commercial, Office, Downtown (Mixed Use), Industrial, Public Land (Public Facility/Park), Special Planning Area, Permanent Open Space
7. Zoning: 
Public Facility (PF), Thoroughfare Commercial (C-3), Central Business (CB), Administrative Professional Commercial Office (CO), Commercial/Office/Residential (COR), Planned Development (PD), Single-Family Residential (R-1-E) Single-Family Residential (R-1-6), Single-Family Residential (R-1), Single-Family Residential (R-1-10), Moderate-Density Residential (R-2), Neighborhood Commercial (C-1), Commercial/Office/Business (COB), General Commercial (C-2), Open Space (OS), Ranchette Estate (R-3), Industrial Commercial (IC)
8. Description of Project: 
Amendment to add area to the North Brentwood Redevelopment Plan, extend eminent domain in the North Brentwood Redevelopment Plan area, and reestablish eminent domain in the Brentwood Redevelopment Plan area
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting (of proposed Added Area): 
Project area is bounded to the south by Sunset Road, to the west by Tresch Road (and Trailside Subdivision) and Marsh Creek, to the north by Marsh Creek, and to the east by an existing orchard and food-processing plants. Surrounding land uses generally include Industrial, Agricultural, and Residential uses.
10. Other Public Agencies whose Approval Is Required: 
Contra Costa County

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:

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

Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils

Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning

Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing

Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic

Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance 

Determination: 

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

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

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 to the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

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

I find that the proposed project MAY have an impact on the environment that is “potentially significant” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” 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.

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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date

Printed Name For

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained if it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required.

4. “Negative Declaration: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies when the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from a “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less-than-Significant Impact”. The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level. (Mitigation measures from Section XVII, “Earlier Analyses”, may be cross-referenced.)

5. Earlier analyses may be used if, pursuant to tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration [Section 15063(c)(3)(D)]. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:

(a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where earlier analyses are available for review.

(b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

(c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, when appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:

(a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and 
(b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

Introduction

This Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and assesses the potential environmental impacts of implementing the proposed project described below. The Initial Study consists of a completed environmental checklist and brief explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist. 

Applicant/Contact Person

The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Brentwood 
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
Attn: Gina Rozenski, 925-240-2504

Project Location and Context

The project area is located in the City of Brentwood (City), in eastern Contra Costa County. The City is approximately equidistant (50 miles) from San Francisco to the west and Sacramento to the east. Incorporated City boundaries total approximately 7,600 acres, with an estimated 8,100 housing units and 5,640 jobs. The project area consists of the merged Brentwood Redevelopment Project Area (Brentwood Redevelopment Area), the North Brentwood Redevelopment Project Area (North Brentwood Redevelopment Area), and the proposed Added Area.

The North Brentwood Redevelopment Area was originally approved and adopted on July 9, 1991, by Ordinance No. 496. When adopted, the North Brentwood Redevelopment Area included certain unincorporated county property. The North Brentwood Redevelopment Plan was first amended on December 27, 1994, by Ordinance No. 548, in order to amend the plan’s financial time limits to bring them into conformance with Assembly Bill (AB) 1290. In June of 2000, the North Brentwood Redevelopment Plan was amended a second time by Ordinance 632, which merged it with the Brentwood Redevelopment Plan (often referred to as the “Downtown Project”). Although the two areas have been merged, they are still referred to individually as the Brentwood Redevelopment Area and the North Brentwood Redevelopment Area. The Brentwood Redevelopment Area totals 371 acres, and the North Brentwood Redevelopment Area totals 810 acres. In aggregate, the merged Brentwood and North Brentwood Redevelopment Areas total 1,181 acres. The North Brentwood Redevelopment Plan was amended a third time, by Ordinance 699 on March 12, 2002, to comply with financial time limits in accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 211.

The proposed Added Area (138 acres) is located entirely within the City of Brentwood boundaries. The proposed Added Area is contiguous with the North Brentwood Redevelopment Area along the easterly boundary of the recently built Trailside Subdivision, located north of Sunset Road. The proposed Added Area is bounded to the south by Sunset Road, to the west by the Tresch Road (and Trailside Subdivision) and Marsh Creek, to the north by Marsh Creek, and to the east by an existing orchard and food-processing plant. Figure 1 shows the location of the proposed Added Area and its relationship with the North Brentwood Redevelopment Area. Allowable land uses within the proposed Added Area consist of sports park, industrial, municipal wastewater treatment plant, solid waste plant, and municipal corporation yard. The current land use designations on these properties are Industrial (I), Park (P), and Public Facilities (PF). 

Figure 1: 

MAP OF NORTH BRENTWOOD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AMENDED PROJECT AREA BOUNDARY MAP

The proposed project consists of amending the merged Brentwood and North Brentwood Redevelopment Plans to:

1. add approximately 138 acres to the northeasterly portion of the North Brentwood Redevelopment Area;

2. extend the time limit for eminent domain within the North Brentwood Redevelopment Area; and 

3. re-institute eminent domain in the Brentwood Redevelopment Area.

Project Purpose

The North Brentwood Redevelopment Area suffers from parcels of irregular shape, inadequate size, multiple ownership, incompatible and nonconforming uses, deteriorated buildings, defective or substandard building design, and lack of local neighborhood serving uses. Furthermore, in comparison to the rest of the City, the North Brentwood Redevelopment Area suffers from low real estate sales transactions, low job creation, depreciated or stagnant property values, and impaired investments.

The purpose of the proposed amendment is to add the 138-acre Sunset Industrial Park to the North Brentwood Redevelopment Area. Existing uses in the proposed Added Area include the City’s wastewater treatment plant, solid waste plant, and sports complex. Proposed additional uses include a City corporation yard; an improved and advanced wastewater treatment plant; and a 28± acre, 9-lot industrial subdivision. The proposed industrial subdivision will provide adequate sites to accommodate the relocation of incompatible existing industrial uses along Brentwood Boulevard. This is necessary to eliminate existing blighting conditions along this corridor and to prevent continuing decline and stagnation of the area. Removing impediments and providing the assistance and incentives needed to stimulate private investment within the area will provide for commercially synergistic uses that will complement the community.

The second purpose of the proposed amendment is to re-establish the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Brentwood’s (Agency’s) authority of eminent domain in the Downtown Redevelopment Project Area, and to extend the original 12-year limit of eminent domain authority in the North Brentwood Redevelopment Area. Re-establishing and extending authority of eminent domain is necessary to assist in alleviating blight conditions that impede the development, improvement, rehabilitation, and modernization of the project areas. Eminent domain is not used lightly, but it is necessary to acquire and assemble properties for proper usefulness and a valid public purpose, and to achieve the goals and objectives of the redevelopment plans.

Uses Within the Proposed Added Area


In addition to existing uses, the proposed uses in the proposed Added Area include a City corporation yard; an improved and advanced wastewater treatment plant; and a 28± acre, light-, medium- and heavy-industrial land use subdivision. The subdivision would consist of 9 lots ranging from approximately 2 to 6 acres in size. The target occupants would be those existing non-conforming and/or non-compatible businesses along Brentwood Boulevard. While there are no suitably zoned sites within the North Brentwood Redevelopment Area for these existing non-conforming uses, the proposed industrial subdivision would create the opportunity and provide adequate sites to accommodate their relocation from Brentwood Boulevard. In addition, the proposed amendment could provide opportunities for new businesses or businesses relocating from elsewhere to establish in the industrial subdivision. Potential environmental impacts associated with future development of the industrial park within the proposed Added Area would be assessed and disclosed in project-specific environmental studies.

Table I. Land Uses Found in North Brentwood Redevelopment Project Area and Proposed Added Area: 
Lot No. Land Use Code Land Use Designation ResidentialDensity (Dwelling Units/Acre) North Brentwood Redevelopment Area Proposed Added Area
RESIDENTIAL 
1 RE Ranchette Estate 0–1.1 X 
2 VL Very Low Density 1.1–3 X 
3 L Low Density 1.1–5 X 
4 M Medium Density 5.1–1 X 
5 H High Density 11.1–20 X 
6 VH Very High Density 20.1–30 
COMMERCIAL 
7 GC General Commercial X 
8 RC Regional Commercial 
OFFICE 
9 O Professional Office X 
10 BP Mixed Use/Business Park X 
DOWNTOWN 
11 DT Downtown (Mixed Use) X 
INDUSTRIAL 
12 I Industrial X
PUBLIC LAND 
13 PF Public Facility X X
14 P Park X X
OTHER 
15 UR Urban Reserve 
16 AC Agricultural Conservation 
17 SPA Special Planning Area X 
18 OS Permanent Open Space 
19 SP Semi-Public 

Potentially Significant Impact Less than SignificantwithMitigation Incorporated Less-than-Significant Impact No Impact
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: 
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? q q X q
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a scenic highway? q q X q
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? q q X q
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? q q X q

The proposed project would have no direct impact on aesthetics since no specific development projects are being proposed at this time. Indirect impacts could occur because development would become more likely within the project area when the proposed Added Area is included as part of the merged redevelopment area and the City’s eminent domain power is extended and/or re-instituted. However, such potential impacts were analyzed previously in the General Plan Update EIR. Future development projects within the project area would be consistent with the scenario outlined in the City’s General Plan Update. Associated impacts to Visual Resources were analyzed in Chapter 3.3-1 of the General Plan Update EIR. The City will review future plans, including site design, landscaping, and architectural design, for all new development within the proposed Added Area to ensure conformance with development standards and policies established in the General Plan Update, including mitigation measures adopted as part of the General Plan Update EIR. Specific projects within the project area, including the proposed Added Area, would also be subject to separate, project-specific environmental review. Overall, adding the Added Area and extending and re-establishing eminent domain would result in beneficial effects within the project area because these actions would broaden the reach of continued revitalization activities within the City of Brentwood. Such activities are expected to have a beneficial aesthetic impact in that they would result in the gradual replacement of old, blighted, unattractive development with modern uses in conformance with current City standards. 

Potentially Significant Impact Less than SignificantwithMitigation Incorporated Less-than-Significant Impact No Impact
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts on agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation. 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 and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? q q q X
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or conflict with a Williamson Act contract? q q q X
c. Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? q q q X

No farmland would be converted to other uses as a result of the proposed project, nor would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use. Therefore, no impact to agricultural resources would occur.

Potentially Significant Impact Less than SignificantwithMitigation Incorporated Less-than-Significant Impact No Impact
III. AIR QUALITY. When 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? q q X q
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? q q X q
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is a nonattainment area for an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? q q X q
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? q q X q
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? q q X q

The proposed project would have no direct impact on local or regional air quality because no specific development projects are being proposed at this time. Indirect impacts could occur because development would become more likely within the project area when the proposed Added Area is included as part of the merged redevelopment area and the City’s eminent domain power is extended and/or re-instituted. However, such potential impacts were analyzed previously in the General Plan Update EIR. Future development projects within the project area, including the proposed Added Area, would be consistent with the scenario outlined in the City’s General Plan Update. Associated air quality impacts were analyzed in Chapter 3.5-12 of the General Plan Update EIR. The City will review future plans for all new development within the project area to ensure conformance with development standards and policies established in the General Plan Update, including mitigation measures adopted as part of the General Plan Update EIR. Specific projects within the existing redevelopment areas and the proposed Added Area would also be subject to separate, project-specific environmental review. Subsequent review would include analysis of project conformity with state and regional air quality regulations. Overall, adding the Added Area and extending and re-establishing eminent domain would result in beneficial effects within the project area because these actions would broaden the reach of continued revitalization activities within the City of Brentwood. 

Potentially Significant Impact Less than SignificantwithMitigation 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? q q X q
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? q q X q
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, marshes, vernal pools, coastal wetlands, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? q q X q
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? q q X q
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? q q X q
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? q q X q

The proposed project would have no direct impact on biological resources within the project area because no specific development projects are being proposed at this time. Indirect impacts could occur because development would become more likely within the project area when the proposed Added Area is included as part of the merged redevelopment area. However, such potential impacts were analyzed previously in the General Plan Update EIR. Future development would also be enabled by re-instituting/extending the City’s power of eminent domain. Future development projects within the existing redevelopment areas and the proposed Added Area would be consistent with the scenario outlined in the City’s General Plan Update. Associated impacts to biological resources were analyzed in Chapter 3.9 of the General Plan Update EIR. The City will review future plans, including site design, landscaping, and architectural design, for all new development within the proposed Added Area to ensure conformance with development standards and policies established in the General Plan Update, including mitigation measures adopted as part of the General Plan Update EIR. Specific projects within the project are also be subject to separate, project-specific environmental review. Project-specific environmental review would assess the presence of biological resources, including special-status species; natural communities; and biotic resources, including wetlands and Waters of the U.S., and recommend any further mitigation necessary to ensure that impacts to biological resources are minimized. 

Potentially Significant Impact Less than SignificantwithMitigation 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? q q X q
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? q q X q
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? q q X q
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? q q X q

The proposed project would have no direct impact on cultural resources within the project area because no specific development projects are being proposed at this time. Indirect impacts could occur because development would become more likely within the project area when the proposed Added Area is included as part of the merged redevelopment area and the City’s power of eminent domain is re-instituted and/or extended. However, such potential impacts were analyzed previously in the General Plan Update EIR. Future development projects within the project area, including the proposed Added Area, would be consistent with the scenario outlined in the City’s General Plan Update. Associated impacts to cultural resources were analyzed in Chapter 3.10 of the General Plan Update EIR. The City will review future plans for all new development within the Added Area to ensure conformance with development standards and policies established in the General Plan Update, including mitigation measures adopted as part of the General Plan Update EIR. Specific projects within the proposed Added Area would also be subject to separate, project-specific environmental review. Project-specific environmental review would include an assessment of the presence of cultural resources on a given project site. Should such resources occur or have the potential to occur, further mitigation would be recommended to ensure that impacts to cultural resources are minimized.
Potentially Significant Impact Less than SignificantwithMitigation 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: 
1. 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 or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. q q X q
2. Strong seismic groundshaking? q q X q
3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? q q X q
4. Landslides? q q X q
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? q q X q
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 an onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? q q X q
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? q q X q
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems in areas where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? q q X q

No impacts to geology and soils would occur with implementation of the proposed project because no specific development projects that involve grading or construction are being proposed as part of this project. Amending the redevelopment plan by adding area and prolonging and extending the City’s power of eminent domain would enable future projects to be undertaken in the project area, but the effects of such projects will be assessed at the time they are proposed through separate, project-specific CEQA compliance. The impact of future development on geology, soils, and mineral resources within the City of Brentwood, including the Added Area, was analyzed in Chapter 3.11 of the General Plan Update EIR. All mitigation measures proposed to minimize impacts to geology and soils would be applicable to future development within the project area, including the proposed Added Area. These measures include, but are not limited to, requirements that new development, rehabilitation, and improvements be constructed in compliance with current seismic safety requirements, including Building Code standards, City General Plan policies, and the City’s standard development requirements. 

Potentially Significant Impact Less than SignificantwithMitigation 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? q q X q
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? q q X q
c. Emit hazardous emissions or involve handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? q q X q
d. Be located on a site that 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? q q X q
e. Be located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, be within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, and result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? q q q X
f. Be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? q q q X
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? q q X q
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? q q q X

a–d) No significant impacts associated with hazardous materials would occur with project implementation because no specific projects that involve the use, transport, or release of hazardous materials are being proposed at this time. Hazardous materials impacts associated with buildout of the City of Brentwood, including the proposed Added Area, were analyzed in Chapter 3.13 of the General Plan Update EIR. All mitigation measures proposed therein to minimize impacts associated with the use and/or release of hazardous materials would be applicable to future projects proposed within the project area. The extension of the City’s redevelopment area may in fact have a beneficial effect in the proposed Added Area because redevelopment of the area would provide the opportunity for the City to use redevelopment funds to clean up sites containing hazardous materials. Future proposed projects would be subject to project-specific analysis under CEQA, and when necessary, additional measures would be identified to minimize hazardous materials impacts.

e & f ) The project area is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public airport or public-use airport; nor is the area within the vicinity of a private air strip. 

g) No development would occur as a direct result of the proposed project; therefore, no impact associated with an adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation plan would occur. As discussed in Chapter 3.13 of the General Plan Update EIR, all development within the City, including within the proposed Added Area, would occur according to adopted emergency response plans and policies. 

h) There is no interface between wildlands and urban areas within or adjacent to the project area. 

Potentially Significant Impact Less than SignificantwithMitigation 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? q q X q
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge, resulting in a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? q q X q
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 that would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? q q X q
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 that would result in flooding onsite or offsite? q q X q
e. Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? q q X q
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? q q X q
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? q q X q
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect floodflows? q q X q
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? q q X q
j. Contribute to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? q q X q

No direct impacts to hydrology and water quality would occur with implementation of the proposed project because no specific development projects are being proposed at this time. Amending the redevelopment plan by adding area and prolonging and extending the City’s power of eminent domain would enable future projects to be undertaken in the project area. However, such potential impacts were analyzed previously in the General Plan Update EIR., and the effects of future proposed projects will be assessed at the time they are proposed through separate, project-specific CEQA compliance. The impact of future development on water resources within the City of Brentwood, including the proposed Added Area, was analyzed in Chapter 3.12 of the General Plan Update EIR. All mitigation measures proposed to minimize impacts to hydrologic systems and water quality would be applicable to future project proposed within the project area. These measures generally consist of requirements that new development, rehabilitation, and improvements be constructed pursuant to the Environmental Protection Agency and Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, adopted General Plan policies, and standard City development requirements. 

Potentially Significant Impact Less than SignificantwithMitigation Incorporated Less-than-Significant Impact No Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: 
a. Physically divide an established community? q q X q
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, a general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? q q X q
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? q q q X

The proposed project would not alter land uses in the proposed Added Area or in the existing redevelopment area. Future development and redevelopment in these areas would be consistent with adopted land use plans and policies. Furthermore, land use and planning-related measures adopted as part of the General Plan Update EIR (Chapter 3.1) would be applicable to future projects within City limits, including the proposed Added Area. No new development would occur as a result of the proposed amendment to the redevelopment plan; therefore, there is no potential for the project to physically divide an established community. No habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans would be affected by the proposed amendment. 
Potentially Significant Impact Less than SignificantwithMitigation 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? q q q X
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? q q q X

No impact to mineral resources would occur with project implementation. Please see discussion under Section VI, Geology and Soils, of this document.

Potentially Significant Impact Less than SignificantwithMitigation Incorporated Less-than-Significant Impact No Impact
XI. NOISE. Would the project: 
a. Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? q q X q
b. Expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? q q X q
c. Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? q q X q
d. Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? q q X q
e. Be located within an airport land use plan area, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport and expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? q q X q
f. Be located in the vicinity of a private airstrip and expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? q q X q

The proposed amendment would not result in any direct noise impacts within the existing redevelopment areas or the proposed Added Area because no specific development projects are proposed at this time. Noise impacts associated with future development in the City, including the proposed Added Area, were analyzed in Chapter 3.6 of the General Plan Update EIR. Mitigation measures proposed therein to minimize both temporary construction-related and long-term noise impacts would be applicable to any future projects proposed within the project area. In addition, future projects would be subject to project-specific analysis under CEQA, and would be required to comply with the City’s adopted noise ordinance. Therefore, no additional analysis or mitigation is required at this time.
Potentially Significant Impact Less than SignificantwithMitigation Incorporated Less-than-Significant Impact No Impact
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: 
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? q q X q
b. Displace a substantial number of existing housing units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? q q X q
c. Displace a substantial number of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? q q X q

The proposed amendment would not allow the creation of housing or associated population growth beyond the level analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR. Chapter 3.2 of the EIR analyzes impacts associated with population, employment, and housing growth within the City, including the existing redevelopment areas and the proposed Added Area, and includes mitigation measures intended to reduce growth-related impacts to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures contained in the General Plan Update EIR would be applicable to future development projects within the proposed Added Area. Additionally, future proposed projects would be approved subject to separate, project-specific CEQA analysis. 

Potentially Significant Impact Less than SignificantwithMitigation Incorporated Less-than-Significant Impact No Impact
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: 
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or a 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 following public services: 
Fire protection? q q X q
Police protection? q q X q
Schools? q q X q
Parks? q q X q
Other public facilities? q q X q

The potential for future development within the project area would increase with the proposed amendment. However, no specific development projects are being proposed as part of this project, so no significant impact to public services would will occur. Public services impacts associated with buildout of the City, including the existing redevelopment area and the proposed Added Area, were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR. Mitigation measures recommended therein to minimize public services impacts resulting from future development would be applicable to future projects proposed within the project area, and separate, project-specific analysis under CEQA would be required for all future projects. 

Potentially Significant Impact Less than SignificantwithMitigation Incorporated Less-than-Significant Impact No Impact
XIV. RECREATION. Would the project: 
a. 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? q q X q
b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? q q X q

The potential for future development within the project area would increase with the proposed amendment. However, no specific development projects are being proposed as part of this project, so no significant recreation-related impacts would occur. Recreation-related impacts associated with buildout of the City, including the existing redevelopment areas and the proposed Added Area, were analyzed in Chapter 3.8 of General Plan Update EIR. Mitigation measures recommended therein to minimize impacts to recreational facilities associated with future development and population growth would be applicable to future projects proposed within the project area, and separate, project-specific analysis under CEQA would be required for all future projects.
Potentially Significant Impact Less than SignificantwithMitigation Incorporated Less-than-Significant Impact No Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: 
a. Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to-capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? q q X q
b. Cause, either individually or cumulatively, exceedance of a level-of-service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? q q X q
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? q q X q
d. Substantially increase hazards because of a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? q q X q
e. Result in inadequate emergency access? q q X q
f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? q q X q
g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? q q X q

The proposed project would have no direct impact on transportation/traffic within the project area because no specific development projects are being proposed at this time. Indirect impacts could occur because development within the project area would become more likely with inclusion of the proposed Added Area as part of the merged redevelopment area and by prolonging and extending the City’s power of eminent domain. However, such potential impacts were analyzed previously in the General Plan Update EIR. Future traffic volumes and patterns within the City, including the existing redevelopment areas and proposed Added Area, would be consistent with the analysis contained in Chapter 3.4 of the General Plan Update EIR. The City will review future plans for all new development in the project area to ensure conformance with all transportation-related policies contained in the General Plan Update, and all mitigation measures adopted as part of the General Plan Update EIR will be applicable to future projects. Specific projects within the existing redevelopment areas and the proposed Added Area will also be subject to separate, project-specific environmental review to determine whether additional mitigation is necessary to minimize transportation/traffic impacts. 
Potentially Significant Impact Less than SignificantwithMitigation 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? q q X q
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? q q X q
c. Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? q q X q
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or would new or expanded entitlements be needed? q q X q
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that 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? q q X q
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? q q X q
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? q q X q

The potential for future development within the project area would increase with the proposed amendment. However, no specific development projects are being proposed as part of this project, so no significant impact to public utilities would occur. Impacts to utilities and service systems associated with buildout of the City, including the existing redevelopment areas and the proposed Added Area, were analyzed in Chapter 3.7 the General Plan Update EIR. Mitigation measures recommended therein to minimize public utilities impacts resulting from future development would be applicable to future projects proposed within the project area and separate, project-specific analysis under CEQA would be required for all future projects to ensure that impacts are minimized. 

Potentially Significant Impact Less than SignificantwithMitigation Incorporated Less-than-Significant Impact No Impact
XVII. 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? q q X q
b. 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.) q q X q
c. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? q q X q

Based on the findings of this Initial Study, as well as existing Code requirements and permit conditions that will be placed on the approval of future proposed projects, the proposed amendment would not 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. The proposed amendment would not have the potential to achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals. No potentially significant individually limited or cumulative impacts were identified, and substantial adverse impacts on humans would not occur with project implementation. 

Future development projects would take place within the project area only after subsequent environmental review is completed and mitigation measures are adopted to minimize all potential environmental affects. 
XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:

a. Earlier analyses used. The attached Negative Declaration tiers off of the City’s General Plan Update EIR (SCH#2000122013). The General Plan Update EIR document can be obtained for public review at Community Development Department at 104 Oak Street, Brentwood, CA.

b. Impact adequately addressed. No direct environmental effects are expected to occur with implementation of the proposed amendment to the City’s redevelopment plan because no specific development projects are identified as part of this project. Any indirect effects associated with the increased likelihood that future development will take place within the existing redevelopment areas and the proposed Added Area would be less than significant. Potential future projects would be implemented pursuant to mitigation measures outlined in the General Plan Update EIR, and would be subject to subsequent project-specific CEQA compliance.

c. Mitigation measures. Refer to the Mitigation Monitoring Report for the City of Brentwood General Plan Update EIR. This document can be obtained for public review at the Community Development Department at 104 Oak Street, Brentwood, CA.

Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087.
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 21094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonoff v. Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337(1990).