Brentwood City Hall


Our home pageContact UsPrevious Page

Central Park Gazebo

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 02



Meeting Date: May 28, 2002

Subject/Title: Approval of 2002/2007 Capital Improvement Program

Submitted By: Engineering: B. Grewal
Finance: P. Ehler

Approved by: John Stevenson, City Manager


RECOMMENDATION
Approve a Resolution certifying and approving the Negative Declaration and adopting the 2002/2007 Capital Improvement Program for the City of Brentwood including street, park, sewer, water and other municipal improvements to be constructed during the next five years.

PREVIOUS ACTION
On July 26, 1994, the City Council approved the first five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The CIP budget was added to the City’s adopted 1994-95 budget. The City Council also authorized the creation of the CIP Team to plan, design and administer the projects outlined in the CIP report. The CIP Team is also responsible for updating the CIP report and preparing the fiscal year CIP budget. The attached CIP report represents the efforts of the CIP Team to present the City Council with an annual update.

On April 9, 2002, the City Council held a workshop on the proposed CIP report.

On April 23, 2002, the City Council approved the report and referred it to the Planning Commission for a consideration of conformance to the City’s General Plan.

On May 7, 2002, the Planning Commission approved Resolution 02-18 finding the 2002/2007 Capital Improvement Program to be consistent with the City of Brentwood General Plan. A copy of the CIP report is available for public review in the City Clerk’s office, Engineering Department lobby, Community Development Department lobby, Parks and Recreation Department lobby, and at the Brentwood Library.

BACKGROUND
Adoption of the 2002/2007 CIP report will continue the five-year Capital Improvement Program for City projects. An annual update will take place in the year 2003 and every subsequent year.

A Negative Declaration has been prepared to address the potential environmental effects of the CIP. The Negative Declaration finds that no significant adverse impacts would result should this program be adopted. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council certify the Negative Declaration and file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk.

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal year 2002/03 costs from various non-General Fund sources are noted in the CIP report. Future year costs and revenues will be reviewed every year by the City Council as a part of the annual update and adoption of a new five-year CIP report.

Attachments:
Resolution
2002/2007 Capital Improvement Program 
Initial Study and Negative Declaration dated April 2002
Notice of Determination

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD CERTIFYING AND APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPTING THE 2002/03 – 2006/07 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) FOR THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD INCLUDING STREET, PARK, SEWER, WATER AND OTHER MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED DURING THE NEXT FIVE YEARS

WHEREAS, Section 65400 et. seq., of the Government Code of the State of California requires that cities should provide for means of implementing the General Plan and the efficient expenditure of public funds relating to the implementation of public projects addressed in the General Plan; and

WHEREAS, the City of Brentwood adopted a new General Plan in June, 1993, and an Updated General Plan in November, 2001, which recommended that a comprehensive Capital Improvement Program (CIP) be developed for the City of Brentwood; and

WHEREAS, the City of Brentwood adopted the first Capital Improvement Program in July, 1994; and

WHEREAS, this CIP has as its purpose to integrate the CIP with the General Plan and other City activities, ensure that planning for Capital Improvements is tied to realistic sources of income in order to finance these improvements; and

WHEREAS, the five-year CIP must be developed and adopted in conjunction with each new City budget; and

WHEREAS, it is necessary to define improvements and anticipated construction schedules to ensure proper pre-planning, design and community review before construction begins; and

WHEREAS, on May 7, 2002, the Planning Commission approved Resolution 02-18, finding the 2002/03 – 2006/07 Capital Improvement Program to be consistent with the General Plan; and

WHEREAS, based upon completion of an Initial Study prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, approval of the CIP will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the environment, therefore a Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public comment.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood hereby finds that there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the 2002/03 – 2006/07 CIP, as revised from previous CIP’s, may have a significant effect on the environment; therefore a Notice of Determination shall be filed with the County Clerk by the City Clerk.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood hereby finds that approval of the CIP will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood hereby adopts the 2002/03 – 2006/07 Capital Improvement Program as presented.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of May 2002 by the following vote:

Table of Contents

Introduction 2
Applicant/Contact Person 2
Project Location and Context 2
Project Description 2
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 11
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 13
Attachment to Initial Study 24
1. Aesthetics 24
2. Agricultural Resources 24
3. Air Quality 25
4. Biological Resources 27
5. Cultural Resources 28
6. Geology and Soils 29
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 30
8. Hydrology and Water Quality 31
10. Mineral Resources 32
11. Noise 33
12. Population and Housing 34
13. Public Services 34
14. Recreation 35
15. Transportation/Traffic 36
16. Utilities and Service Systems 37
17. Mandatory Findings of Significance 38
Initial Study Preparer 40
Agencies and Organizations Consulted 40
References 40

City of Brentwood

Environmental Checklist/
Initial Study

Introduction
This Initial Study has been prepared in accord 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 a brief explanation of the environmental topics addressed in the checklist.

Applicant/Contact Person

City of Brentwood Engineering Department
150 City Park Way
Brentwood CA 94513
Attn: Bailey Grewal, P.E., City Engineer
(925) 516 5420

Project Location and Context
Brentwood is located in eastern Contra Costa County on the eastern perimeter of the San Francisco Bay metropolitan complex. The City is approximately equidistant (fifty miles) from San Francisco to the west and Sacrament to the east.

The Brentwood planning area encompasses approximately 30 square miles with the boundaries formed by the City of Antioch to the west and northwest, Oakley to the north and unincorporated agricultural lands to the south and east.

Exhibit 1 shows the Brentwood's location with respect to the Bay Area and Exhibit 2 shows the approximate boundaries of the community.

Project Description
The proposed project is the City’s Comprehensive Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for fiscal years 2002-2003 to 2006-2007, which inventories proposed capital improvements throughout the City over a five-year period. Capital improvements include a range of public works and infrastructure projects to enhance the quality of life for local residents and visitors. Proposed projects include roadway, parks and trails, water, wastewater, drainage and community facility improvements throughout the City of Brentwood.

The document is submitted to the City Council for adoption in conjunction with the 2002-2003 budget process. Major capital improvements can take several years to plan, design, finance, and construct. As noted in the Comprehensive Capital Improvement Program document, the purposes of a five-year program are to:

_• Ensure that planning for capital improvements is tied to realistic, predictable sources of income.

_• Define desired improvements and anti-construction schedules so that there is adequate time for pre-planning, environmental review, planning, design, and community/Council review.

_• Establish basis for future maintenance projections.

_• Integrate the Capital Improvement Program with other activities, such as the City’s General Plan.

The CIP has been developed as a coordinated effort between all departments of the City; each department submits projects along with potential cost estimates to the Capital Improvement Program Division for review. Each department ranks the projects it submits by perceived need and feasibility. The Capital Improvement Program Committee, comprised by the City Manager, City Engineer, Finance, Directors of Community Development, Public Services, and Economic Development, then review the proposed projects from the perspective of need and available funding. Some projects have specified funding sources, such as assessment districts or special fees, and are, for the most part, recommended for funding. Many other projects must compete for limited General Fund dollars. The Committee ranks these projects and then compares the list with available funding. The Planning Commission then reviews the resulting Capital Improvement Program document for determination of General Plan conformance, as required by State planning law. The draft document is presented to the City Council for review and public input prior to City Council final approval.

The CIP contains individual projects within the following general categories:

1) Roadway improvements, including new roads and improvements to new roads, such as widenings, installation of traffic signals, repaving of streets and related actions.

2) Parks and Trail improvements including purchases of land for new parks, development of new parks and improvements to existing parks and development of recreational trails within the community.

3) Water improvements, including new and upgraded water lines, construction and upgrading of new water reservoirs and similar facilities to improve the delivery of water and water pressure and to ensure drinking water quality standards continue to be achieved.

4) Wastewater improvements, including new and upgraded sewer collectors.

5) Community facilities improvements, including new and upgraded public buildings, such as a new fire station, new police station, improvements to City Hall, construction of a new education and technology center and improvements to the City’s solid waste transfer station.

7) Drainage improvements, including new and upgraded storm drainage lines.

6) Developer improvements consist of roads, water, sewer, drainage and other improvements that are anticipated to be made by private developers and dedicated to the City.

Table 1 presents a summary of the City’s proposed projects by CIP category. It is possible that minor changes may be made to this list as it is reviewed by the City staff and Brentwood City Council, however, this is substantially the list of projects envisioned to be undertaken within the five-year time frame. A more complete description of these proposed projects is available at the City of Brentwood Engineering Department, 150 City Park Way, Brentwood, during normal business hours.

It is important to note that Council approval of the five-year CIP does not constitute an appropriation of funds to the specific project(s). Projects are funded as a result of budget approval or specific allocation of funds by the City Council. In addition, some projects may proceed as a result of grant approval of funding from other sources (developer, county, state or federal source).

Environmental review would occur for individual projects contained within the CIP, as more specific information is provided through specific design processes and individual project initiation by the City.

Exhibit 1. Regional Context


Exhibit 2. City of Brentwood

Table 1. FY 2001-2006 City of Brentwood Proposed Capital Improvement Projects

Project No. Project Name
Roadway Improvements
3071 Brentwood Bikeway Project
3100 Brentwood Boulevard Curve
3119 Brentwood Boulevard Overlay/Improvements
Brentwood Boulevard Widening (Central)
Brentwood Boulevard Widening (North)
Brentwood Boulevard Widening (South)
Brentwood Boulevard Widening (ISTEA)
3057 Central Blvd./Griffith Ln. Traffic Signal
Central Blvd./O’Hara Ave. Traffic Signal
3085 City-wide Sidewalk Replacement
City-wide Traffic Calming Installations
3120 Fairview/Grant (Minnesota) Improvements
3107 Fiber Optics
Grant/Minnesota At-Grade Railroad Crossing
3121 John Muir Parkway
Liberty High School Parking Lot
3130 Lone Tree Way Overlay/Improvements
Lone Tree Way-Union Pacific Undercrossing
3127 Northwest Quadrant Infrastructure
3083 Pavement Management System
3061 Sand Creek Road (Central & East) 
Second Street Parking Lot
3056 Signal Modifications I
Signal Modifications II-City-Wide Controller Upgrade
3012 Sunset Road Realignment
3015 Vasco Road and Camino Diablo Road Intersection
Walnut Boulevard and Marsh Creek Road Intersection
Walnut Boulevard Widening
Parks and Trails
5221 Balfour Road Park Development
Blackhawk Park
5215 Blackhawk Trail
5202 City of Brentwood Family Aquatic Complex
City Park Redesign
5222 Community Beautification
5217 Creek Habitat Enhancement
Creekside Trail Head
Empire Ave, Elementary School/Park
Heritage High School Joint Use Community/Ballfield Conduits
Heritage High School Joint Use Community Gymnasium
Heritage High School Community Joint Use Pool
Irrigation Computerized Control System City-Wide
Liberty High School Athletic Field Renovation
3124 Liberty High School Gymnasium Project
Marsh Creek Staging Restroom
5203 Sand Creek Park
5220 Sand Creek Soccer Complex
5201 Sunset Park Master Plan and Expansion
5212 Trails Project
Village Drive Resource Center Relocation
Windsor Park Expansion
Water Improvements
5617 Chlorination of Wells
Landscaping Project for Potable Water Production Facilities
Marsh Creek Outfall Structure
5623 Orchard Drive Waterline 
5621 Water Distribution System Rehabilitation
5620 Water Distribution Telemetry/SCADA System
5628 Water System Connections and Pressure Regulating Projects
5629 Water Treatment Plant
Well #11 Blending Project
5615 Well #14
5613 Well Abandonment
5624 Well Disinfection System Upgrade
5619 Well Monitoring Program
5616 Well Rehabilitation
Well Site Buildings
Zone I Equalization Storage Reservoirs, Phases 1-6
Zone I Pump Station Improvements
Zone I Water System Upgrades-Downtown
5622 Zone I Waterline Relocation
5602 Zone I Water Reservoir-Coating
5627 Zone II 2mg Reservoir-Phase II
Wastewater Improvements
5910 Brentwood Boulevard/Lone Tree Wastewater
5908 City-Wide Wastewater Collection Rehabilitation
5909 Lone Oak Sewer
5907 Lone Tree Sewer and Water Project
Non Potable Water Distribution System
Non-Potable Water Distribution System
Non-Potable water Distribution System
5911 Wastewater Treatment Plant 5MGD Expansion
Community Facilities Improvements
3113 ADA Improvements
3112 Brentwood Education and Tech Center
City Hall Landscape
3097 City Hall Remodel
3071 City Office Expansion
3700 Community Center Upgrade
3109 Fire Station #52
3108 Geographic Information Systems
3112 Brentwood Education and Tech Center
3030 Maintenance Service Center
3090 New City Hall
3110 New Police Station
Oak Street & Walnut Blvd. Parcel Assembly
5401 Solid Waste Transfer Station Improvements
3501 Sunset Industrial Complex
Drainage Improvements
Agricultural Runoff Mitigation
Drainage Master Plan/Sub-Regional Facilities
3088 Walnut Boulevard Storm Drain
Developer Improvements
Anderson Lane Extension to Grant Street
Anderson Lane Widening
Apricot Way
Armstrong Road Extension
Balfour Road Improvements-Concord
Balfour Road Improvements II-to Service School
Braddock and Logan
Brentwood Blvd. Bridge Widening
Brentwood Lakes Neighborhood Park
Centex-Montelena Neighborhood Parks
Central Boulevard Bridge Widening
Central Blvd. Widening-Fairview Avenue
Concord Avenue Widening III (to Walnut)
John Muir Parkway (Concord Realignment)
Empire Avenue Extension - North
Empire Avenue Extension-South I
Empire Avenue Extension-South II
Fairview Avenue Improvements- Phase I
Fairview Avenue Improvements- Phase II
Fairview Avenue Improvements- Phase III
Fairview Avenue Improvements- Phase IV
Fairview Avenue Improvements- Phase V
Fairview Avenue Improvements- Phase VI
Fairview Avenue Improvements- Phase VII
Garin Parkway Improvements I- (to Sycamore)
Garin Parkway Improvements II (to Sunset)
Grant Street 
Grant Street Extension (to Minnesota)
Grant Street Improvements II (Fairview)
Grant Street/Sunset Road Non-Potable Waterline
John Muir Parkway (Concord Realignment)
Minnesota Avenue Realignment
Mission Peak Amber Park Neighborhood Parks
3115 North Brentwood School Infrastructure
O’Hara Avenue Widening
Oak Street Extension
O’Hara Avenue Extension (Sand Creek Rd. to Lone Tree Way) 
O’Hara Avenue Widening
Ponderosa Neighborhood Park
Pulte Rose Garden Neighborhood Parks
Sand Creek Road (to Sellers Avenue)
Sand Creek Road Widening I - Central
Sand Creek Road Widening II - Bypass
Sanitary Sewer Line Extension, south of Blackhawk
San Jose Avenue Extension I-West
San Jose Avenue Extension II (to Sand Creek)
Sellers Avenue Widening I (to Chestnut)
Sellers Avenue Widening II (to Sunset)
Shady Willow Extension
SPA L Park (Heritage Park)
Spruce Street
State Route 4 Bypass
Storm Drain Line “A” for Drainage Area 52C
Storm Drain Line ‘F’
SunCal Park
Sycamore Avenue Improvements
Sycamore Avenue Improvements (to Sellers)
William Lyon – Yamanaka Neighborhood Park
Zone III Hydropneumatic Pump Station - SunCal


1. Project description: Proposed City of Brentwood 2002/03-2006/07 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget.

2. Lead agency City of Brentwood
150 City Park Way
Brentwood CA 94513

3. Contact person Bailey Grewal, P.E., City Engineer
(925) 516 5420

4. Project location City-wide, City of Brentwood

5. Project sponsor City of Brentwood

6. General Plan designations City-wide applicability

7. Zoning City-wide applicability

8. Other public agency required approvals:

Additional permits may be required Federal, State, County and other agencies and organizations, depending on the type and location of an individual project included as part of the


Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

X Aesthetics X Agricultural Resources X Air Quality
X Biological Resources X Cultural Resources X Geology/Soils
X Hazards and Hazardous Materials X Hydrology/Water Quality X Land Use/ Planning
- Mineral Resources X Noise X Population/Housing
X Public Services X Recreation X Transportation/Circulation
X Utilities/Service Systems - Mandatory Findings of Significance 


Determination (to be completed by Lead Agency):

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

___ 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.

____ I find that although the proposed project may have a significant effect 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 earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An Environmental Impact Report is required, but must only analyze the effects that remain to be addressed.

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

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 parenthesis 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 where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general factors (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, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "potentially significant impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" implies elsewhere the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "potentially significant effect" 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.


Environmental Impacts (Note: Source of determination listed in parenthesis. See listing of sources used to determine each potential impact at the end of the checklist) 

Note: A full discussion of each item is found following the checklist. Potentially SignificantImpact Less thanSignificantWith Mitigation Less thanSignificantImpact NoImpact
I. Aesthetics. Would the project: 
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? (Source: 2,3) X 
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Source: 2,3) X 
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source: 2) X 
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Source: 2, 3) X 
II. Agricultural Resources Would the project: 
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as showing on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to a non-agricultural use? (Source: 2) X 
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Source: 2) X 
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use? (2) X 
III. Air Quality (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district may be relied on to make the following determinations). Would the project: 
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Source: 2) X
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Source: 2) X 
Potentially SignificantImpact Less thanSignificantWith Mitigation Less thanSignificantImpact NoImpact
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors? (Source: 2) X 
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Source: 2) X 
e) Create objectionable odors? (Source: 2,6) X
IV. Biological Resources. Would the project 
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly 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 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 2, 3) X 
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 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Source: 2, 3) X 
c) Have a substantial adverse impact on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? (Source: 2,3) X 
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? (Source: 2, 3) X 
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree protection ordinances? (Source: 2, 3) X
Potentially SignificantImpact Less thanSignificantWith Mitigation Less thanSignificantImpact NoImpact
f) Conflict with the provision of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? (Source: 2) X
V. Cultural Resources. Would the project 
a) Cause a substantial adverse impact in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Sec. 15064.5? (Source: 2) X 
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Sec. 15064.5 (Source: 2) X 
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature? (Source: 2) X 
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery? (Source: 4) X 
VI. Geology and Soils. Would the project 
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 
i) rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist or based on other known evidence of a known fault (Source 2) X 
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking X 
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X 
iv) Landslides? X 
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Source: 2, 4) X 
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- and off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse (Source: 5) X 
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 13-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Source: 2) X 
Potentially SignificantImpact Less thanSignificantWith Mitigation Less thanSignificantImpact NoImpact
e) Have soils capable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste? (Source: 2) X
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 (Source: 2) X 
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous into the environment? (Source: 2) X 
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Source: 3, 4) X 
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Source: 2) X 
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such plan has not been adopted, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 2) X
f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Source: 2) X
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Source: 2, 4) X
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? (Source: 2, 3) X 
Potentially SignificantImpact Less thanSignificantWith Mitigation Less thanSignificantImpact NoImpact
IX. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project: 
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Source: 2,4) X 
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (Source 2) X 
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the aeration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (Source: 2, 4) X 
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or areas, including through the alteration of a course or stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (2, 4) X 
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Source: 4) X 
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Source: 4) X 
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? (Source: 4) X
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which impede or redirect flood flows? (Source: 2) X
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, and death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (2) X
Potentially SignificantImpact Less thanSignificantWith Mitigation Less thanSignificantImpact NoImpact
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? (2) X
IX. Land Use and Planning. Would the project: 
a) Physically divide an established community? (Source: 1, 2) X 
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Source: 2) X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (4) X
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? (Source: 2) 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? (Source: 2) X
XI. Noise. Would the proposal result in: 
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (2)(Source: 2) X 
b) Exposure of persons or to generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Source: 2) X
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above existing levels without the project? (2) X 
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project? (Source: 2) X 

Potentially SignificantImpact Less thanSignificantWith Mitigation Less thanSignificantImpact NoImpact
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working n the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 2) X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 2) X
XII. Population and Housing. Would the project 
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (Source: 1) X 
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Source: 1) X
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the replacement of housing elsewhere? (Source: 5) X
XIII. Public Services. Would the proposal: 
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services? (Sources: 2, 4) 
Fire protection? X
Police protection X
Schools X
Parks X
Other public facilities X


Potentially SignificantImpact Less thanSignificantWith Mitigation Less thanSignificantImpact NoImpact
XIV. Recreation: 
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated (Source: 10) X
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source: 10) X 

XV. Transportation and Traffic. Would the project: 
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion at intersections)? X
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways? X
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? X
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses, such as farm equipment? X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (such as bus turnouts and bicycle facilities) X


Potentially SignificantImpact Less thanSignificantWith Mitigation Less thanSignificantImpact NoImpact
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project 
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Source: 4) X
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? (2) X
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (4) X
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing water entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? X 
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? (4) X 
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? X 
g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (4) X
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 of 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? X 

Potentially SignificantImpact Less thanSignificantWith Mitigation Less thanSignificantImpact NoImpact
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). X 
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X

Sources used to determine potential environmental impacts
1) City of Brentwood General Plan
2) City of Brentwood General Plan EIR
3) Brentwood CIP 2002/07
4) Discussion with City staff
5) Site Visit
6) Other

Attachment to Initial Study

Discussion of Checklist 

Legend
PS: Potentially Significant
LS/M: Less Than Significant After Mitigation
LS: Less Than Significant Impact
NI: No Impact

1. Aesthetics

Environmental Setting
Brentwood is located in the eastern valley area of Contra Costa County immediately east of the Diablo Range. The City has historically been surrounded by agricultural uses, including row crops, orchards and grazing.

Major scenic resources include riparian corridors that traverse the community and distant views of Mt. Diablo and other foothills.

Project Impacts 
a-c) Have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista? LS. Roadway improvements and parks and trails improvements would increase access to scenic vistas and would, therefore, have a beneficial impact. Proposed water and wastewater projects consist of improvements to existing infrastructure (e.g., waterline replacements, new well, well monitoring program, water telemetry system) would typically be underground facilities so that no impacts would relate to scenic resources. Proposed construction of the Zone II reservoir (phase II) and other e above ground facilities would be subject to further environmental documentation to review potential impacts to aesthetics. 

Community facilities improvements include new parks, proposed fire station # 52, the proposed police station, proposed new bridges and the technology center would be subject to design review by the Brentwood Planning Commission to ensure that no adverse impacts would be created. No impacts would result and no mitigation measures are required.

d) Create light or glare? LS. Roadways improvements, community facilities and parks may include new sources of light, including street lighting, playfield lighting and security lighting. The potential for new sources of light and glare and potential impacts on be evaluated as part of future review of specific CIP projects and mitigation measures determined, if necessary. The majority of projects include minor additions to existing facilities or underground utility lines, so less-than-significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required at this level of environmental review.


2. Agricultural Resources

Environmental Setting
Brentwood and the eastern Contra Costa County area contain a significant amount of the County's prime agricultural land. Among its advantages is the availability of relatively low cost irrigation water, a superior growing climate, the presence of prime soils and, until recently, the absence of strong urbanization pressure.

Urbanization of agricultural soils was considered a significant and irreversible impact in the General Plan EIR and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted as part the Certification of the 1993 General Plan EIR. Recently, the City of Brentwood adopted an Agricultural Enterprise Program to protect existing prime agricultural operations. 

Large specific projects included in the 2002-07 CIP may be required to provide some level of mitigation for loss of prime agricultural soils depending on their location. These will be evaluated at the time specific CIP projects may be initiated. 

Project Impacts 
a-c) Convert Prime Farmland, conflict with agricultural zoning or convert prime farmland to a non-agricultural use? LS. Many of the projects proposed as part of the CIP would have no impact on agricultural lands or agricultural resources. These would be water and sewer projects, minor roadway improvements, minor improvements to existing City parks and civic improvements. Some of the proposed projects, including the proposed new fire station, new roads, new parks and similar facilities may convert small amounts of existing farmland to non-agricultural uses, however, this is anticipated to be less-than-significant amount of land. Additional environmental reviews will be conducted by the City of Brentwood for individual projects that could have the possibility of impacting agricultural uses or prime farmland. 

One of the proposed CIP projects would mitigate stormwater runoff from agricultural operations in the community, which would be a beneficial impact and would assist in supporting on-going agricultural operations in the community.


3. Air Quality

Environmental Setting
The project area is located on the southern shore of the San Joaquin River delta, east of the Carquinez Strait. This geographic portion of Contra Costa County is typified by winds flowing through the Carquinez Strait and into the Delta.

Air quality emissions within Contra Costa County is regulated on the federal level by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), on the state level by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and on a regional and local level by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Federal and state air emission standards have been established for the following substances: carbon monoxide, ozone, particulate matter (PM-10), nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and lead.

The BAAQMD maintains monitoring stations at Concord, Pittsburg and Bethel Island within Contra Costa County. As indicated in the General Plan EIR, there were minimal exceedances of State and federal air quality standards through 1990 for ozone and carbon monoxide.

The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 1993 General Plan found that long-term regional air pollutants associated with the buildout of General Plan development would be a significant and irreversible impact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for this impact.

Project Impacts 
a) Would the project conflict or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan? NI. None of the proposed projects would serve to impeded the implementation of any local, regional, state or federal air quality standards. No impacts are therefore anticipated.

b) Would the project violate any air quality standards? LS. Construction of roadway improvements, developer improvements (many of which are developer-funded roadway improvements, as shown in Table 1), new public buildings and parks may violate air quality standards or contribute to a projected air quality violation. Two potential air quality impacts are identified in this Initial Study: short-term construction air quality impacts and long-term operational air quality impacts.

Short-term construction impacts
Construction activities such as earthmoving, excavation and grading operations, construction vehicle traffic and wind blowing over exposed earth would generate exhaust emissions and fugitive particulate matter emissions that would affect local and regional air quality. These activities would generate exhaust emissions and fugitive particulate matter emissions that would affect local and regional air quality. Construction activities are also a source of organic gas emissions. Solvents in materials would evaporate into the atmosphere and would participate in photochemical reaction that creates urban ozone. Asphalt used in paving is also a source of organic gases for a short time after application.

Construction dust could affect local air quality at various times during construction of the proposed projects. The dry, windy climate of the area during the summer months creates a high potential for dust generation when and if underlying soils are exposed to the atmosphere.

The effects of construction activities would be increased dustfall and locally elevated levels of PM10 downwind of construction activity. Construction dust has the potential for creating a nuisance at nearby properties. These potential impacts would be mitigated on a project-by-project basis by requiring mitigation measures controlling construction practices.

Long-term operational impacts
On the local scale, roadway projects would change traffic on the local street network, changing carbon dioxide levels along roadways used by project traffic. Carbon monoxide is an odorless, colorless poisonous gas whose primary source in the Bay Area is automobiles. Concentrations of this gas are highest near intersections of major roads.

Project-related emissions from vehicles are expected to be below thresholds of significance from major pollutants, since the amount of traffic is consistent with regional transportation projections. Therefore, operational air quality impacts are expected to be less-than-significant.

c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable air pollutants? LS. Many if not all of the proposed projects listed in the CIP would assist in supporting development anticipated in the Brentwood General Plan. Many of the air quality impacts associated with the General Plan can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through goals and policies contained in the General Plan as well as through adherence with local zoning requirements and other development requirements, such as the Uniform Building Code. For long-term regional air pollutants, the General Plan EIR notes these would be significant and unmitigatable, so a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted and no further analysis is required.

d,e) Expose sensitive receptors to significant pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors? NI. Projects envisioned as part of the CIP primarily involve utility infrastructure and community projects. No residential development is anticipated as a result of implementing proposed CIP projects. Therefore, no impacts regarding creation of odors or introducing significant pollutants to sensitive receptors are anticipated.


4. Biological Resources

Environmental Setting
Brentwood lies in the western portion of the San Joaquin Valley, immediately east of the Mt. Diablo Range. The majority of soils within the planning area are formed from alluvial sediment from nearby hills and are moderately well drained with slow runoff.

A series of east-west trending ridges and valleys extend eastward from the Mt. Diablo Range toward the San Joaquin Valley. Lone Tree, Horse Valley, Deer Valley and Briones Valley for a set of drainage basins which collect seasonal rainwater and direct runoff into a network of small streams and creeks in the Brentwood area, including Marsh Creek, Sand Creek, Deer Creek and Dry Creek. 

Vegetation types in and near Brentwood include urban, rural/agricultural, grassland/oak savanna, vernal pool, riparian, fresh emergent wetland and alkali sink. Each of these vegetation types have associations of animal, reptile and bird species within them.

Project Impacts 
a) Have a substantial adverse impact on a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species? LS. The majority of projects proposed in the CIP are relatively minor and would be located in an urbanized area. A number of projects, primarily new roads, trails, new parks and new drainage facilities including the proposed Walnut Boulevard storm drain, could have impacts to wetland or upland special-status species of plants or animals. New and extended roadways, depending on their locations, may impact wetland resources. Impacts to biological resources from these projects will be evaluated at the time specific projects are proposed to be implemented. Projects proposed on non-wetland upland areas of the City could also impact burrowing owl species or their habitats. Potential impacts to special-status plants and animals and their respective habitat will be evaluated at the time individual projects are proposed and appropriate environmental reviews conducted prior to individual project approval. Overall, impacts to sensitive biological species at this program level are anticipated to be less-than-significant.

b, c) Have a substantial adverse impact on riparian habitat or federally protected wetlands? LS. The General Plan EIR notes that four creeks traverse the Planning Area – Sand, Deer, and Dry Creeks flow into major water courses, Marsh Creek. Some of the proposed facilities may be located close to a creek; the proposed roadway improvements may traverse one or more creeks. Each project will be subject to its own Initial Study pursuant to CEQA and possible further environmental review. At that time, with more specific information about the proposed project, impacts will be identified and appropriate mitigation measures will be proposed. Less-than-significant impacts are anticipated at this program level of review.

d) Interfere with movement of native fish or wildlife species? LS. Consideration of impacts, if any, of proposed projects with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or with the impeded use of native wildlife nursery sites will occur on a project-by-project basis. Each project will be subject to its own Initial Study. At that time, with more specific information about the proposed project, impacts will be identified and appropriate mitigation measures will be proposed. Overall, less-than-significant impacts are anticipated with regard to movement of fish or wildlife species at this program level of review.

e, f) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources or any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans? NI. The City is not located currently located within the boundaries of any Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan area. No impact is therefore anticipated at this time, however, the City of Brentwood may be participating in the near future with other agencies in Eastern Contra Costa County to prepare a multi-species Habitat Conservation Plan for this portion of the County. Future CIP projects will be evaluated with regard to consistency with any HCP goals, policies or programs, once these may be adopted.


5. Cultural Resources

Environmental Setting
Information presented in the General Plan EIR notes that the Brentwood Planning Area was historically occupied by indigenous Indian tribes, including the Mi-Wok and Ohlone. Based upon a number of site specific studies conducted in the area, the EIR concludes that Brentwood has a low to moderate probability of containing prehistoric artifacts and a moderate to high probability of containing historic resources. 

Project Impacts 
a-d) Cause substantial adverse change to significant historic resources? LS. The possible impact of a proposed CIP project on historic, cultural, paleontological resources will be addressed on a project-by-project basis as individual projects are proposed for implementation. At that time, possible impacts will be assessed and appropriate mitigation measures proposed based on CEQA standards. Overall, since many of the projects identified in the CIP are minor, less-than-significant impacts are assumed.




6. Geology and Soils

Environmental Setting
Brentwood is located along the northwest margin of the San Joaquin Valley, with Mount Diablo to the west and Suisun Bay and the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta to the north. The community borders two geomorphic provinces, the Coast Range Province and the Great Valley Province. The Coast Range Province includes a north-south trending coastal range comprised of marine sediments and volcanic rocks. Once a large inland sea, the Great Valley Province was filled with sediments eroded from nearby mountains with current alluvial deposits laid down on flood plains within river and stream beds.

Soil conditions are generally of a fine-grained nature and comprised of clay, silt and fine grained sand. Loamy sand and silty clay loam exists in small quantities along stream channels and near sandstone beds in the western and southern portions of the community's planning area.

Being a part of the San Francisco Bay area, Brentwood is subject to seismic activity from a number of local and regional earthquake faults, including the San Andreas fault, located approximately 45 west of the city, the Hayward Fault, located approximately 27 miles west, and the Calaveras fault, approximately 18 miles southwest. Other regional faults include the Greenville fault, approximately 25 miles to the southwest and the Concord-Green Valley fault, generally located 14 miles west of Brentwood.

Locally identified seismic faults, which are mapped on Figure 7 of the1993 General Plan EIR, include the Antioch-Davis fault and the Brentwood-Sherman Island Fault, both located west of the project study area. 

Project Impacts 
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse impacts, including loss, injury or death related to ground rupture, seismic ground shaking, ground failure, or landslides? LS. The Brentwood planning area is not within the boundaries of an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, the risk of damage due primary fault rupture is determined to be low, although future projects constructed under the aegis of the CIP will be designed to adhere to the most stringent seismic requirements applicable. Major CIP projects will be required to obtain geotechnical analyses per standard City requirements. This is considered a less-significant impact at this programmatic level.

b) Is the site subject to substantial erosion and/or the loss of topsoil? LS. Certain proposed roadway and trail improvements, proposed park developments, construction of new public buildings and other CIP projects would entail grading, excavation and filling. The amount of material to be graded is not known at this time. Grading is not anticipated to significantly change existing topographic patterns; however, erosion of graded material could result in significant impacts. Unless properly mitigated, erosion of earthen material and/or construction debris could impact surface water quality of projects close to creeks. Erosion could also impact adjacent public streets, private property, and the City’s storm drain system. The City will require submittal of an erosion and sedimentation plan prior to commencement of site grading for individual projects to ensure that erosion impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

c-d) Is the site located on soil that is unstable or expansive or result in potential lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslide or collapse? LS. Individual sites for each project would be examined for the possible occurrence of expansive soils, lateral spreading, liquefaction and related hazards. Adherence to recommendations contained in each soils and geotechnical report would ensure that any expansive soils or similar hazards found on individual sites would be reduced to a level of insignificance. This is a less-than significant impact and no mitigation measures are proposed.

e) Have soils incapable of supporting on-site septic tanks if sewers are not available? NI. None of the projects listed in the current CIP document involve use of septic systems Therefore, no impact is anticipated with regard to septic tanks.


7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Environmental Setting
The General Plan EIR notes that major sources of hazards in Brentwood include hazards linked to oil operations, chemical pesticides and fertilizers related to historic and on-going agricultural operations, industrial operations and hazardous materials that my be transported on major transportation corridors in the community.

Project Impacts 
a-c) Create a significant hazard through transport of hazardous materials or release or emission of hazardous materials? LS. The majority of proposed projects identified in the CIP would entail the routine transport or disposal of hazardous materials. A small number of proposed projects would include use of potentially hazardous material, such as the proposed well disinfection system and well chlorination. This work would be done in compliance with local, state and federal safety standards and likely subject to additional environmental studies at the time they would be constructed. Less-than-significant impacts would result and no mitigation measures are required.

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous into the environment? LS. None of the proposed CIP projects, with the possible exception of those related to water and wastewater improvements, involves processes in which accidental releases might occur. Future proposed water and wastewater improvements will be subject to initial study pursuant to CEQA and appropriate subsequent environmental review at the time these projects are initiated. Less-than-significant impacts are therefore anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

d) Is the site listed as a hazardous materials site? LS. None of the sites are believed to be hazardous sites as listed in the California Government Code. Individual CIP projects will be evaluated at the time they are proposed to be implemented to identify specific hazardous conditions. Any required remediation would also be identified at that time. Reviews would also include potential pesticide and agricultural chemical residue in soils. Therefore, less-than-significant impacts would result at this programmatic level of review.

e,f) Is the site located within an airport land use plan of a public airport or private airstrip? NI. None of the proposed projects are located near a public or private air facility so no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are needed.

g) Interference with an emergency evacuation plan? NI. Proposed roadway improvements included in the CIP can be anticipated to have a beneficial impact by offering responding personnel additional alternative routes through the city. No adverse impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

h) Expose people and structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? LS. Few the proposed new facilities would be located at the perimeter of the city. Further, most peripheral areas are developed or cultivated to minimize the possibility of wildland fire. Therefore, no impacts would result and no mitigation measures are needed.


8. Hydrology and Water Quality

Environmental Setting
The City of Brentwood lies on the southwestern edge of the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta. The primary natural drainage channel in the community is Marsh Creek, which originates in the foothills of Mt. Diablo and flows north through Brentwood to the San Joaquin River. 

Project Impacts 
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? LS. With one exception, proposed improvements to the City’s wastewater treatment plant, none of the proposed projects is anticipated to violate existing standards and requirements. The proposed wastewater treat plant expansion would be required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board to comply with NPDES discharge requirements. Therefore, less-than-significant impacts would result and no mitigation measures are required. Proposed wastewater improvements include din the CIP, including the agricultural runoff mitigation program, would have a beneficial impact. No mitigation measures are required at this programmatic environmental review level.

b) Substantially deplete groundwater recharge areas or lowering of water table? LS. None of the proposed water improvements are anticipated to substantially deplete groundwater supplies. Withdrawals of underground water resources are currently occurring in accord with existing agreements. The proposed CIP does include drilling of one new well which will be done in cooperation and with necessary permits from local groundwater authorities. Less-than-significant impacts are anticipated.

c-e) Substantially alter drainage patterns, including streambed courses such that substantial flooding, siltation or erosion would occur? LS. Many of the proposed projects included in the CIP would involve minor alteration to existing surface facilities (i.e., installation of traffic signals at existing intersections), or would be underground facilities, such as water, sewer and/or drainage pipelines. Neither of these types of projects would contribute to flooding or increased stormwater runoff. For larger projects, such as construction of new roads, public buildings, parks or similar projects, grading plans would be prepared and reviewed by the City Engineer as part of final construction drawings and specifications to ensure that anticipated runoff will not exceed stormwater drainage system capacity. In addition, construction of proposed drainage facilities would improve existing drainage patterns and result in a beneficial impact. Overall, less-than-significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

f) Substantially degrade water quality? LS Refer to the analysis and mitigation measure under "a," above.

g, h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped by a Flood Insurance Rate Map? NI. None of the proposed projects would involve the construction of new housing, so there would be no impacts related to flooding of housing projects and no mitigation measures are needed.

j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows? NI. The Brentwood planning area is well inland from the San Francisco Bay and other major bodies of water. CIP projects would therefore not be subject to seiche or tsunami. Individual projects in proximity to slopes would be subject to geologic and other environmental review to ensure safety from possible mudflow. No impacts are therefore anticipated and no mitigation measures are needed.


9. Land Use and Planning

Environmental Setting
The City of Brentwood has historically been an agricultural community. Growth pressures in Contra Costa County have resulted in increased residential development in Brentwood and additional residential growth is anticipated in the near future. As the City has matured, commercial development has occurred along with limited employment uses. Brentwood is recognized as one of the fastest growing communities in California. The General Plan was recently adopted in 2001 and provides for a mix of residential, commercial, industrial, and open space and public uses. Goals and polices are also included in the General Plan to require the provision of adequate infrastructure and community services to support anticipated growth. 

Project Impacts 
a) Physically divide an established community? LS. The proposed roadway projects included in the CIP comprise the improvement, extension or widening of existing roadways. No other projects listed in the CIP would physically divide an existing community. For these roadway projects, there could be temporary rerouting of local traffic to accommodate construction. Long-term impacts that could physically divide a community would be reviewed in CEQA documents prepared for individual roadway projects. Less-than-significant impacts are therefore anticipated. One of the proposed Community facilities projects is to install traffic calming devices in portions of the community. 

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation? NI. The City’s Capital Improvement program is consistent with General Plan goals, policies and objectives. No impacts would therefore result and no mitigation measures are needed.

c) Conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? NI. No such plan has been adopted within the City of Brentwood. There would therefore be no impact and no mitigation measures are needed.


10. Mineral Resources

Environmental Setting
Primary mineral resources in Brentwood include oil and gas fields in the northwesterly quadrant of the community and sand and coal deposits in the southerly portion of the Brentwood planning area. 

Project Impacts 
a, b) Result in the loss of availability of regionally or locally significant mineral resources? NI. None of the proposed projects is located in proximity to a resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. Therefore, no impacts would result and no mitigation measures are required.


11. Noise

Environmental Setting
Primary long-term sources of noise in the Brentwood planning area include vehicular noise from major highways and streets, railroad noise, and operational noise generated by industrial uses.

Short-term, periodic, noise is also generated from construction activities.

Project Impacts 
a, d) Would the project expose persons or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established by the General Plan or other applicable standard: LS. Construction of roadway improvements, new civic buildings, parks, trails and other facilities identified in the proposed CIP would increase noise levels on properties adjacent to these projects. During environmental review of individual CIP projects, the City can impose appropriate mitigation measures regarding noise abatement and hours of construction to mitigate these impacts to less than significant and no mitigation measures are required at this point in the environmental review process.

b) Exposure of people to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? NI None of the proposed projects are industrial activities that would generate groundborne vibration. The municipal water and wastewater operations are buffered from incompatible land uses. Therefore, no impacts would result and no mitigation measures are required.

c, d) Substantial permanent increases in permanent or temporary ambient noise levels? LS. New roadways and well projects included in the proposed CIP could result in a permanent increase in ambient noise levels. The City will review such projects on a case-by-case basis to identify potential noise level increases and impose appropriate mitigation measures, if needed, to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Regarding a temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels, the City would impose appropriate mitigation measures regarding noise abatement and hours of construction for major projects to mitigate these impacts to less than significant.

e, f) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport, public use airport or private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working n the project area to excessive noise levels? NI. None of the projects are located near a public or private airstrip. No impacts would therefore result and no mitigation measures would be required.


12. Population and Housing

Environmental Setting
The City of Brentwood has experienced cyclical population growth over the past few decades. Most recently, the community has experienced rapid residential growth, mirroring a strong Bay Area economy. The State of California Department of Finance reported a population of 23,100 in Brentwood as of January 1, 2000. Population forecasts prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) as part of Projections 2000 indicate that anticipated population for the City is expected to be 38,000 by the year 2005, 46,000 by the year 2010, and 52,100 by the year 2020. These estimated included both incorporated City as well as the area within the adjacent sphere of influence.

Project Impacts 
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? LS. The project, which is the City’s five-year Capital Improvement Program budget, is a planned response to the growth projected in Brentwood’s General Plan; the project itself does not result in that growth. Therefore, there would be no impact and no mitigation measures would be required.

b,c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing units or people? NI. No residential units will be displaced as a result of the proposed projects. Therefore, there would be no impact and no mitigation measures would be required.


13. Public Services

Environmental Setting
Public services are provided by the following agencies:

• Fire Protection. Fire protection is provided to the area by the East Diablo Fire Protection District, which provides structural fire suppression and rescue services from four stations and an administrative headquarters facility located within or immediately adjacent to the Planning Area. The District maintains mutual aid agreements with all other fire departments within the County.

• Police Protection. Police protection is provided by a combination of the Brentwood Police Department which is headquartered at 500 Chestnut Street near the Civic Center, and the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department. The Brentwood Police Department maintains a staff of approximately 27 sworn officers, support and reserve officers.

• Schools. Educational facilities are provided by the Brentwood Union School District which operates kindergarten through eighth grade school services within the community and the Liberty Union High School District. 

• Maintenance. The City of Brentwood provides public facility maintenance, including roads, parks, street trees and other public facilities. 

Environmental Impacts 
a) Fire protection? NI. The Brentwood CIP contains a number of proposed projects that would serve to improve fire protection service in the community, including the construction of a new fire station (station # 52), new and upgraded water lines to increase water quantity and pressure and improved roads to expedite emergency access to various portions of the community. Included in the roadway category is a proposed grade separation between Lone Tree Way and the Union Pacific railroad tracks. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures would be needed.

b) Police protection? NI. The Brentwood CIP contains a number of proposed projects that would serve to improve police protection service in the community, including the construction of an new police station and improved roads to expedite emergency access to various portions of the community. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures would be needed.

c) Schools? NI. None of the proposed projects listed in the CIP involves the construction of new residences that would generate new school-aged children, so no impacts would result and no mitigation measures would be needed. The proposed CIP does include several projects to assist the local school district, such as a joint use gymnasium with Heritage High School, renovation of the Liberty High School Athletic field and other similar projects

d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? NI. No impacts would to maintenance, since CIP facilities, once constructed, would be built to City standard and would not require maintenance for a number of years. No mitigation measures would be needed.

e) Solid waste generation? LS. Construction of CIP projects would generate increased but less-than-significant levels of construction debris. Some of this debris could be recycled in the City's Solid Waste Transfer Facility located on Tresh Road. No mitigation measures would be needed.

14. Recreation

Environmental Setting
The City of Brentwood has constructed several neighborhood and community parks and recreation services are provided by the City of Brentwood. Regional park facilities within the Brentwood area are provided by the East Bay Regional Park District.

Project Impacts 
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks? NI. None of the projects listed in the proposed CIP include additional residential development, which would increase the need for parks and recreation service. No impacts are therefore required and no mitigation measures would be needed.

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction of recreational facilities? LS. The proposed CIP includes a number of projects involving parks and recreational facilities, including Balfour Road Park development, Blackhawk Park, an aquatic complex, expansion of Sunset Park and expansion of Windsor Park, among others. A number of community trails are also proposed. Further environmental review of major parks and recreational facilities would occur at the time each individual project is proposed for construction. Less-than-significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures would be needed.

15. Transportation/Traffic

Environmental Setting
Regional access is provided to Brentwood via State Route 4, which is currently being upgraded through the community by the SR 4 Bypass. Major north/south arterial roads include Fairview Avenue, Minnesota Avenue, Walnut Blvd., and Sellers Avenue. Major east/west roadways include Loan Tree Way, Central Avenue, and Balfour Road. In addition, many collector and interior roads provide access to individual neighborhoods and commercial areas. 

Union Pacific Railroad lines bisect Brentwood in a northwest/southeast direction. 

Project Impacts 
a,) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial to existing traffic load and street capacity? NI. The proposed roadway improvements (which include developer improvements) listed in the CIP are anticipated to have a beneficial impact on traffic by increasing roadway capacity, increasing the number of linkages, and ease of traffic movements. No adverse impacts are therefore anticipated and no mitigation measures are needed.

b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the County CMA for designated roads)? NI. None of the CIP projects would generate sufficient traffic to have any impact on CMP roadways. No impacts would therefore result and no mitigation measures would be needed.

c) Change in a change of air traffic patterns? NI. The proposed project would have no impact on air traffic patterns, since it involves nothing related to air traffic. No mitigation measures would be required.

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use? NI. The proposed roadway improvements (which include developer improvements) are anticipated to reduce hazards due to undersized streets and similar conditions. This would include realignment of the Brentwood Boulevard curve, Brentwood Boulevard widening, Sunset Boulevard extension and improvements to the Grant/Minnesota Avenue intersection. All facilities constructed pursuant to an approved CIP would comply with City design standards, therefore, the proposed project is anticipated to have a beneficial impact.

e) Result in inadequate emergency access? NI. Construction of projects proposed in the CIP would serve to improve emergency access, through construction of new and improved roads. This would include the proposed grade separation of Lone Tree Way and the Union Pacific Railroad tracks in the northerly portion of Brentwood. No impacts are therefore anticipated and no mitigation measures are needed.

f) Inadequate parking capacity? NI. Parking for individual projects constructed as part of the CIP would contain on-site parking, per the City's Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are needed.

g) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? NI. The project does not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Individual projects are reviewed for consistency with the General Plan as well as for conformance with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Proposed projects included in the CIP include a construction of a number of trails and a city-wide sidewalk replacement program No impacts are therefore anticipated and no mitigation measures are needed.


16. Utilities and Service Systems

Environmental Setting
The City of Brentwood is served by the following service providers:

• Electrical and natural gas power: Pacific Gas and Electric Co.

• Communications: Pacific Bell

• Water supply and sewage treatment: City of Brentwood

• Storm drainage: City Brentwood and Contra Costs County Flood Control District

• Solid waste disposal: City of Brentwood

Environmental Impacts 
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB? NI. The project, which is the City’s five-year Capital Improvement Program budget, is a planned response to the growth projected in Brentwood’s General Plan; the project itself does not result in that growth. Therefore, the project does no exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. No impact is anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

b) Require new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities? NI. The proposed project itself does not result in that growth. It reflects the City’s response to projected growth and includes improvements to the City’s wastewater treatment and conveyance system (as listed in Table 1). No impact is anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

c) Require new storm drainage facilities? NI. The proposed project does not include new residential or non-residential components. It is instead a planned response to Brentwood’s projected population growth as set forth in the newly-adopted General Plan. The City’s response to projected growth includes improvements to the City’s storm water system (as listed in Table 1). No impact is anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.

d) Are sufficient water supplies available? LS. The project, which is the City’s five-year Capital Improvement Program budget, is a planned response to the growth projected in Brentwood’s General Plan; the project itself does not result in that growth. The City’s response to projected growth includes improvements to the City’s water. Specific projects included in the CIP may have a potential to increase demand for water supplies, including construction of new neighborhood parks, a fire station and police station. Requirements for additional water to serve these facilities will be reviewed at the time actual construction is proposed. Less-than-significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required at this stage in the environmental review process.

e) Adequate wastewater capacity to serve the proposed project? LS. Minimal additional wastewater capacity is anticipated for a majority of proposed projects included in the most recent CIP. A number of potential projects, such as construction of new local parks, a fire station and police station, may require new wastewater connections. These are believed to be less-than-significant and the need for additional wastewater generation would be reviewed at the time projects are proposed for construction.

f, g) Solid waste disposal, including compliance with all solid waste regulations? LS. Construction of certain individual projects included within the CIP may generate additional quantities of solid waste, including additional amounts of construction debris. Operation of certain projects would also increase solid waste generation, including construction of new local parks, a fire station and police station. The amount of additional solid waste is anticipated to be less-than-significant and no mitigation measures are required at this stage of environmental review. One of the proposed community facility projects listed on Table 1 includes improvements to the City’s solid waste transfer station. Construction of new civic facilities included in the CIP would comply with local recycling requirements as well as state and federal solid waste requirements.

17. 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 of 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? No. The preceding analysis indicates that the proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact on overall environmental quality.

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). No, although incremental increases in certain areas can be expected as a result of constructing this project, including additional traffic, air emissions, light and glare, increases in demands for public services and noise, the project the project is consistent with the Brentwood General Plan and would not result in a significant individual or cumulative impacts. 

c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No. No such impacts have been discovered in the course of preparing this Initial Study.


Initial Study Preparer

Jerry Haag, Urban Planner

Agencies and Organizations Consulted

The following agencies and organizations were contacted in the course of this Initial Study:

City of Brentwood
Bailey Grewal, P.E., City Engineer
Marna Huber, Engineering Administrative Supervisor
Winston Rhoades, AICP, Associate Planner

References

City of Brentwood, Capital Improvement Program (Preliminary Budget) – Fiscal Year 2002/07, April 2002

City of Brentwood, General Plan, MIG Associates, 2001.

City of Brentwood, General Plan Environmental Impact Report, EIP Associates, 2001, 1993.

City of Brentwood, Zoning Map.




NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

TO:___ Office of Planning and Research FROM: City of Brentwood
1400 Tenth Street Engineering Department
Sacramento, CA 95814 150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
X County Clerk
County of Contra Costa
725 Court Street, Courthouse
Martinez, CA 94553

SUBJECT: FILING OF NOTICE OF DETERMINATION IN COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 21108 OR 21152 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE.

Project Title: City of Brentwood CIP

State Clearinghouse Number: N/A

Contact Person: Balwinder Singh Grewal, City Engineer

Area Code/Number/Extension: (925) 516-5420

Project Location: City wide, City of Brentwood, Contra Costa County, State of California

Project Description: Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Budget (CIP)


This is to advise that the City of Brentwood approved the above described project on May 28, 2002, and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project:

1. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
2. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
3. Mitigation measures were not made a condition of the approval of the project.
4. A statement of Overriding Considerations was not adopted for this project.
5. A finding of Fish and Game fee exemption was adopted for this project.

This is to certify that the Negative Declaration and record of project approval is available to the General Public at: City Hall, Engineering Department, 150 City Park Way, Brentwood, California 94513.



_______________________________ City Engineer 
Signature (Public Agency) Title

Date: __________________________

TITLE 14 FISH AND GAME COMMISSION 


CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 
CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION

DeMinimis Impact Finding


Project Title/Location Name and Address of Project Proponent (include county):

2002/2007 Capital Improvement Program, Citywide, Adoption of five-year Capital Improvement Program for the City of Brentwood, Contra Costa County, State of California


Project Description:

2002/2007 Capital Improvement Program, identifying public roadway, water, sewer, drainage, parks and other civic improvements anticipated for funding over the next five year period by the City of Brentwood.

Findings of Exemption (attach required findings):

Negative Declaration, Resolution No. ____ dated May 28, 2002. Attached.

1. An initial study has been conducted by the City of Brentwood (the lead agency) which evaluated the potential for this project to cause an adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources.

2. The initial study found that although several watercourses are located within the City of Brentwood, the adoption of the CIP project will not have an effect on plant or wildlife species.

Certification:

I hereby certify that the lead agency has made the above findings of fact and that based upon the initial study and bearing record the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the California Fish and Game Code.


__________________________________
Balwinder Singh Grewal

Title: City Engineer__________________

Lead Agency: City of Brentwood

Date May 29, 2002__________________