City of Brentwood
Home PageContact Us!Back

City Administration

2010 Council Goals and Strategic Plan | City Council Members | Calendar of Events | Elections
eNotification | Sub-Committees| Pledge of Allegiance Sign Ups | Invocation Sign Up
Live Streaming Council Meeting | Streaming PC Help |
Streaming Mac Help |

Current Council Agenda and Past Meeting Information

Past Agendas

 City Council Agenda Item No. 17

Meeting Date: June 11, 2002

Subject/Title: Amendment to Planned Development (PD) 35 to create development standards for Subarea “E” within PD-35.

Submitted by: Oshinsky/Zilm 

Approved by: John Stevenson, City Manager

RECOMMENDATION
Introduce and waive the first reading of an ordinance approving an amendment to Planned Development No. 35 by adding development standards for Subarea “E” (Tentative Subdivision Map 8556). 

PREVIOUS ACTION
The City Council approved, on July 14, 1998, the creation of Planned Development No. 35. 

BACKGROUND
This proposed development is for 28 units on 10.63 acres giving it a density of 2.63 units per acre. The proposed development is below the General Plan midrange density of 3.00 units per acre and all of the lot sizes are above the 8000 sq. ft. minimum established during the recent General Plan Update. 

Schuler Homes would like to amend the PD standards to include Subarea “E” in with the existing subareas for PD-35 and use the following proposed development standards for their individual project. The proposed standards are fairly standard and are as follows:

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA “E”
The amendment to PD-35 involves the addition of development standards to guide the development of Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8556.

The applicant is proposing standards for the development of the following lot size:

· 8,000 sq. ft.

The setbacks are standard for the lot size:

SIDE YARD SETBACKS

· 7’ minimum, aggregate of 15’

FRONT YARD SETBACKS

· 20’ feet to the face of the garage door and 15’ to the side entry garage and 12’ to any primary building wall. 

REAR YARD SETBACKS

· 20’ minimum

CORNER SIDE YARD SETBACK

· Corner lots shall have a minimum corner side yard setback of 10’.

These proposed development standards are consistent with the development standards that were approved for Mission Peak Homes and Currin-Martin Development both having residential developments within PD-35.

Due to the recent City Council approved change in the Density Transition Policy of the General Plan all tentative maps with proposed lots smaller than 20,000 sq. ft. abutting existing lots of 1 acre or more or with lots smaller than 10,000 sq. ft. abutting existing lots between ½ and 1 acres are subject to City Council review. This approved change in the density transition policy requires that the applicant obtain written authorization from all adjacent property owners stating that they are aware there will be smaller lots abutting their property and that they are or are not in favor of it. The applicant has done this by obtaining letters from the adjacent property owners on the east and west of the project site and they are included with this staff report. 

The applicant has been working with the property owner to the south to obtain a letter consenting to the 8,000 sq. ft. lots that would abut the property to the south. The property owner to the south originally gave his consent to the 8,000 sq. ft. lots, then withdrew it when an issue arose with Schuler Homes concerning the easement along the westerly property line of both properties. Schuler Homes has proposed to vacate this easement and construct homes on it. The City Attorney stated that if owner to the south has been using this easement for more than 5 years it becomes a prescriptive access easement to Apricot Way and that Schuler Homes would need to obtain permission from that property owner to vacate it. Staff has added a new condition to the conditions of approval that states prior to recordation of a final map the applicant shall vacate the existing 30 foot roadway easement located along the westerly property line of Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8556 and the property to the south of this subdivision map to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. With this new condition staff feels that this project could move forward and allow the applicant time to resolve it.

IMPACT
None.

EXHIBITS:

A. City Council Resolution No. ____ approving TSM 8556 with the density transition reduction.
B. City Council Ordinance No. ____ approving the Planned Development Amendment 
C. Planned Development No. 35 development standards for Subarea “E”
D. Mitigated Negative Declaration for Tentative Subdivision Map 8556.
E. Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8556
F. Letters from Mark Pringle Homes, dated May 1, 2002 and from Beck Properties, dated May 3, 2002, stating that they are aware that there will be smaller lots abutting their properties and that they intend to develop their properties with the same size of lots as the proposed lots. 



EXHIBIT "A"

CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD APPROVING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 8556, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 10.63± ACRES INTO A TOTAL OF 28 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS, LOCATED WEST OF FAIRVIEW AVENUE, SOUTH OF APRICOT WAY AND NORTH OF SAND CREEK.

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood has considered the amendment to PD-35, and the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8556 with the Mitigated Declaration filed in accordance with Chapter 16.040 et seq. of the Brentwood Municipal Code; and

WHEREAS, project information was referred to various public utility companies, public districts and pertinent departments for review and recommendations; and

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

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

WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was distributed to all property owners of record within 300 feet of the project and published in the Ledger-Dispatch on April 17, 2002, in accordance with City policies and Government Code 65090; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff report, Negative Declaration, supporting documents, public testimony and all appropriate information that has been submitted with the proposed zoning amendment and tentative map and makes the following findings:

1. The proposed tentative subdivision map is in conformance with the City General Plan and Zoning Ordinance;

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

3. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and

4. The discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision will not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.

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

6. Pursuant to Section 15168 ( c ) and 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that the project is within the scope of the development levels evaluated in the Program EIR prepared for the 1993 City of Brentwood General Plan and the EIR prepared for the 2001 General Plan Update. The Initial study has further evaluated potential project specific impact to the environment. Based upon this evidence and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, this Planning Commission finds that the project will not have any significant environmental impacts that were not studied in the measures specified in the General Plan Program EIR and General Plan Update EIR to the project and imposed additional mitigation measures to supplement and strengthen these measures. Therefore, since the mitigation measures are incorporated as conditions to the approval of the project, the Mitigated Negative Declaration as well as the Program EIR for the 1993 General Plan and the EIR prepared for the General Plan Update are adequate for all approvals relating to the project.

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

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

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood hereby takes the following action:

1. Adopts and certifies the mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this project.

2. Directs the City Clerk to file the Notice of Determination with Contra Costa County.

3. Approves Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8557 effective only upon the date the applicant’s proposed amendment to PD-35 is effective, subject to those conditions in Exhibit "A" attached to and made a part of this resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this tentative subdivision map is valid for two years and will expire on June 11, 2004, unless a final map is recorded prior to that date, or a written extension is requested by the applicant and approved by the Planning Commission prior to the expiration date.

The above actions are final unless an appeal is filed pursuant to Chapter 17.880 of the Brentwood Municipal Code within fourteen (14) calendar days following Planning Commission action.

PASSED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood on June 11, 2002, by the following vote:


ATTACHMENT TO 
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. ____
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP 8556


CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TSM 85561. The Standard Conditions of Approval for Tentative Maps, dated January 2001, are hereby incorporated by reference and shall be complied with by the Developer, unless modified by any of the conditions below.OTHER CONDITIONS: 2. The developer shall acquire the necessary right-of-way and construct Apricot Way to a minimum of 28-feet wide pavement section with 5-foot wide graded dirt shoulders from the easterly property line of Parcel “A” to Fairview Avenue to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. These improvements will be the developer’s financial responsibility and shall be complete and operational prior to the issuance of the first building permit.3. The developer shall provide to the City of Brentwood an irrevocable offer of dedication, within 90 days of Planning Commission approval, the right-of-way for Apricot Way along the project’s frontage (including Parcel “A”). This project’s Planning Commission approval shall be null and void without this dedication. The developer shall construct Apricot Way along the project’s frontage (including Parcel “A”)as a half width right-of-way street plus a 12-foot lane in the opposite direction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. These improvements will be the developer’s financial responsibility and shall be complete and operational prior to the issuance of the first building permit.4. The developer shall relinquish all access rights along Apricot Way to the City of Brentwood on the final map to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.5. The developer shall install a complete irrigation system and landscaping in the median and parkway area along the project’s entire Apricot Way frontage (including Parcel “A”). All improvements shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Parks and Recreation Director. The maintenance of these improvements and the costs associated with the street lighting shall be included in the Landscaping and Lighting District for the TSM.6. The developer shall acquire and dedicate in fee (if applicable) to the City of Brentwood, all necessary right-of-way and/or maintenance easements required for all City of Brentwood utilities (water, sewer, etc.) from the project to where they tie into the existing facilities. The right-of-way and/or maintenance easements shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall be obtained prior to any plan approval.7. If and as required, the developer shall relocate East Contra Costa Irrigation District (ECCID) facilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and ECCID. This relocation shall be the financial responsibility of the developer.8. Developer shall annex into the Community Facilities District No. 2 prior to issuance of any building permits.9. The City of Brentwood will entertain a Benefit District for non-fee creditable off-site improvements constructed by the developer subject to the approval of the City Council. The developer must pay all applicable fees and costs associated with the formation of this district as outlined in Appendix L of the City of Brentwood Development Fee program.10. The developer shall provide a hydrology study and master drainage plan prepared by a registered Civil Engineer (State of California), including recommended drainage improvements consistent with the City’s Master Drainage Plan to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. As a part of, or in addition to, the developer shall also accept and address the drainage from upstream properties to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to any plan approvals. The subdivision’s master drainage plan shall show enough detail to address mitigation of impacts on existing agricultural uses or to conclusively show that there will be no impacts to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.11. All water laterals to single family homes shall be 1-inch in diameter with 1-inch meters.12. A portion of the Master Plan Infrastructure constructed as a part of this development is fee creditable per the current Development Fee Program. Calculations of the exact fee credits will be prepared by the office of the City Engineer at the time of construction of this project. Those credits will be based on the then Development Fee Program as adopted by the City Council.13. The developer shall coordinate with property owners along the easterly, westerly and southerly property lines of this subdivision for any grading/fence work to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.14. The design of Apricot Way improvements shall incorporate traffic calming features to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. These improvements will be the developer’s financial responsibility.15. The developer shall design and construct sanitary sewer lines across this project site to serve the upstream future projects. These sewer lines shall be sized per the City’s Master Plan and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.16. Water lines in Apricot Way shall be constructed per the City’s Water Master Plan prepared by Water Resource Associates. Any oversizing will be reimbursable.17. Developer shall provide a second access point to the nearest improved roadway prior to issuance of 26th building permit to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.18. Developer shall pay their fair share for the future traffic signal installation at the intersections of Empire Avenue and westerly extension of Grant Street, Empire Ave. and Apricot Way, and Fairview Avenue and Apricot Way prior to the approval of the first final map. If these improvements are later included in the Development Fee Program this payment shall be waived or shall be fee creditable to the extent they have already been paid by the developer as determined by the City Engineer.19. Developer shall pay the per unit fair share cost for Sub-Master Planned infrastructure constructed by others as outlined in the SPA L Benefit District Engineers Report. The current per unit cost is estimated to be $179.45 per residential dwelling unit and shall be paid prior to approval of the first final map, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer.20. Prior to recordation of the final map the Developer shall enter into an agreement with ECCID for 1) the replacement of a portion of the District’s Lateral 7 North pipeline and related facilities, and 2) the transfer of right-of-way interests to accommodate the development, the relocation of District facilities and the continued agricultural operations in the area.21. At the time of recordation of the Final Map, the Applicant/Developer shall comply with any City Council fire/emergency services programs established pursuant to the General Plan Safety Element, in order to provide such adequate services to the community.22. Prior to the recordation of the Final Map the applicant/developer shall submit for City review a Biological Resources Assessment Report addressing the potential for any endangered species that might be located on the proposed project site.23. In conjunction with development of the proposed project, the Applicant/Developer shall shield all on-site lighting so that it is directed within the project site and does not illuminate adjacent properties or public rights-of-way. A Street Lighting Plan shall be approved by the Public Works Department in conjunction with approval of improvement plans. The shielded light fixtures shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department in conjunction with the approval of improvement plans.24. At the time of recordation of the first final map, the Applicant/Developer shall comply with any City Council conservation programs established pursuant to General Plan Conservation Element Policy 1.1.4 in order to mitigate the potential significant impact of the proposed project on the loss of farmland. The applicant shall pay the current City fee of $5,000 per acre of lost farmland, or the fee in effect at the time of recording the final map.25. Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy and predicated on the sequence of development, the perimeter of each development shall be appropriately buffered by fences, and/or walls, to minimize conflicts between permanent residents, proposed non-residential uses, and agricultural uses.26. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall submit to CDFG and planning staff a pre-construction survey performed in accordance with CDFG standards of the project site. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist not more than 30 days prior to the application for a grading permit. If burrowing owls and or Swainson’s hawk are not discovered, further mitigation will not be required. If burrowing owl are observed during surveys, the applicant shall perform measures prescribed by the CDFG to limit the impact on the burrowing owls and or Swainson’s hawk. Mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to:a. A fenced 300-foot buffer shall be created between the nesting site(s) (that is, the active burrow(s)) and any earth-moving activity or other disturbance. This 300-foot buffer could be removed once it is determined by a qualified raptor biologist that the young have fledged. Typically, the young fledge by August 31, however this date may be earlier or later than August 31 and would have to be determined by a qualified raptor biologist.b. If burrowing owls are present on site, a qualified raptor biologist would need to delineate the extent of burrowing owl habitat on the site. To mitigate impacts to burrowing owls, CDFG requires a minimum of 6.5 acres of replacement habitat be set-aside per pair of burrowing owls, or unpaired resident bird. The protected lands shall be adjacent to occupied burrowing owl habitat and at a location acceptable to CDFG. Land identified to off-set impacts to burrowing owls must be protected in perpetuity either by a conservation easement or via fee title acquisition.c. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall submit a Mitigation Plan and Mitigation Agreement to CDFG and City of Brentwood for their approval. The Mitigation Plan shall identify any activities necessary to enhance the site, including the construction of artificial burrows. The Plan shall also include a description of monitoring and management methods proposed at the mitigation site. Monitoring and management of any lands identified for mitigation purposed will be the responsibility of the applicant for at least five years. An annual report must be prepared for submittal to CDFG by December 31 of each monitoring year. Contingency measures for any anticipated problems should be identified in the plan.d. If nesting Swainson’s hawks are identified on the project site, grading and/or other intensive disturbances shall be avoided, between the dates of March 1 through September 15 to ensure that there is no nesting failure. The date of September 15 may be negotiated with CDFG if the young fledge sooner; however, such negotiation would only be possible if a qualified raptor biologist periodically monitors the nest to determine when the young have fledged.27. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Applicant/Developer shall submit plans to the Community Development Department for review and approval which indicate (via notation on the improvement plans) that if historic and/or cultural resources are encountered during site grading or other site work, all such work shall be halted immediately within the area of discovery and the Applicant/Developer shall immediately notify the Community Development Department of the discovery. In such case, the Applicant/Developer shall be required, at his expense, to retain the services of a qualified archaeologist for the purpose of recording, protecting, or curating the discovery as appropriate. The archaeologist shall be required to submit to the Community Development Department for review and approval a report of the findings and method of curation or protection of the resources. Further grading or site work within the area of discovery will not be allowed until the proceeding steps have been taken.28. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant/Developer shall have a Phase I Site Assessment conducted by a qualified soils engineer and shall submit the engineer's report to the City Engineer for review. Such assessment shall include the following:· Visual reconnaissance of the subject property to evaluate current on-site activities and past uses;· Review of local regulatory files concerning chemical use and storage at the subject property;· Research of computerized review of federal, state, and local publications to identify sites located within close proximity to the property that are listed on or by the following:o National Priority List (NPL);o Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA);o United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 9, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS);o RCRA Treatment, Storage and Disposal (TSD); ando Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS); as well as sites containing landfills, leaking underground storage tanks (LUST), registered underground storage tank (UST), and above-ground storage tanks (AST).· Review of selected historic documentation of the property to determine what activities have occurred at the subject site since the property’s first developed use or since 1940 (whichever is earlier);· General visual survey of the current uses of the immediately adjacent sites;· Soil sampling and analysis for pesticides and nitrates;· Preparation of a written report in general conformance to the guidelines presented in ASTM Standard E-1527-00, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments.The Phase I report must result in a conclusion that the potential for contamination on the property is low and further investigation of the property to ensure that recognized adverse environmental conditions area not present at the site is unnecessary.29. Lot 17 shall be required to have a single story residential unit constructed on it or a minimum 10 foot side yard setback is required on the side that abuts the rear yards of Lots 15 and 16 which ever is approved by the Planning Commission at the time of the Design Review for this subdivision.30. The Developer shall notify all purchasers of homes or lots through a statement signed by each buyer and submitted to the City, that the Gursky Ranch, located at the rear of Lots 10 – 21 is an existing residence and a year round operational farm which also operates a retail store selling various dried fruits, nuts, specialty foods and gift items; that there will be a new school constructed at the corner of Shady Willow and Grant Street, and the close proximity of this subdivision to the Highway 4 Bypass. The wording and format for notifying the home or lot buyers of this information is subject to approval by the Community Development Department.31. The final map shall be substantially the same as the tentative subdivision map prepared by Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc., date stamped January 23, 2002.32. The developer shall design and construct a 6’ high masonry sound wall along Apricot Way. Such masonry wall shall be of the same design as that approved for TSM 8469/DR 01-07, the approved Centex project, and shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval as part of the design review application for this subdivision.33. The developer shall pay the Habitat Conservation Fee prior to issuance of building permits. This fee shall be as established by the City Council.34. The applicant, on Lots10 – 14 and 17 – 21, shall construct a 8 foot high masonry wall along the rear of these lots to help mitigate any concerns that may occur with the Gursky Ranch operation. Said masonry wall shall match the masonry wall proposed for Apricot Way that will be constructed by the applicant. 35. The applicant prior to recordation of the final map shall vacate the existing 30 foot roadway easement located along the westerly property line of Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8556 and the property to the south, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 

EXHIBIT “B”

ORDINANCE NO. 

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD TO AMEND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 35 BY ADDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA “E” WITHIN PD-35 LOCATED WEST OF FAIRVIEW AVENUE, SOUTH OF APRICOT WAY AND NORTH OF SAND CREEK. 

WHEREAS, the applicant has filed for an amendment of the development standards of his property to accommodate development for Tentative Subdivision Map 8556; and

WHEREAS, on May 7, 2002 the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, considered public comments and passed Resolution No. 02-20 which recommended the approval of the amendment to Planned Development No. 35 by adding development standards for Subarea “E”; and

WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Negative Declaration were prepared for Tentative Subdivision Map 8556 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and was considered as a part of the review and approval process; and

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

WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was legally advertised in the Ledger-Dispatch on April 17, 2002, and mailed to all property owners of record within 300 feet of the subject property according to City policies and Government Code Section 65091; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brentwood hereby finds that the proposed amendment will: 

1. Establish clear development standards for the uses permitted under the General Plan and the approved Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8556.

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

3. Provide for adequate public uses and private open space.

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

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

6. That the proposed development will clearly result in a more desirable use of land and a better physical environment than would be possible under any single or combination of zones.

7. That the PD Zone proposed amendment is on property, which has suitable relationship to one or more thoroughfares; and that said thoroughfares are adequate to carry any traffic generated by the development.

8. That the plan for the proposed development presents a unified and organized arrangement of buildings and service facilities which are appropriate in relation to adjacent or nearby properties and that adequate landscaping and/or screening is included if necessary to insure compatibility.

9. That the natural and scenic qualities of the site are protected with adequate available public and private open spaces designated on the development plan.

10. That the development of the subject property, in the manner proposed by the applicant, will not be detrimental to the public welfare, will be in the best interests of the City and will be in keeping with the general intent and spirit of the Zoning Ordinance and with the City’s Community Development Plan, including all relevant Elements therefore, and with any applicable Specific Plan adopted by the City.

11. The City Council has reviewed and approved the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this project and orders the filing of the Notice of Determination with the County Clerk.

12. Pursuant to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that the project is within the scope of the development levels evaluated in the Program EIR prepared for the General Plan. The Initial Study has further evaluated potential project specific impacts to the environment. Based upon this evidence and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, this City Council finds that the project will not have any significant environmental impacts that were not studied in the Program EIR. The Mitigated Negative Declaration applies all applicable mitigation measures specified in the Program EIR to the project and imposes additional mitigation measures to supplement and strengthen the Program EIR measures. Therefore, since the mitigation measures are incorporated as conditions of approval of the project, the Mitigated Negative Declaration as well as the Program EIR for the 1993 General Plan is adequate for all approvals relating to the project.

13. The City Council further finds that no significant new information within the meaning of the Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 has been presented to the City which would necessitate recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for further public review. The Mitigated Negative Declaration has not undergone any reorganization on this account. The City Council has considered all verbal and written comments relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and finds no significant new information has arisen.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Brentwood does hereby ordain as follows:

Section 1. The subject project is hereby zoned as Subarea “E” within Planned Development 35 for single-family residential units.

Section 2. Chapter 17.485 has hereby been amended for the purpose of regulating certain real property and establishing development standards for Subarea “E” for single-family residential units.

Section 3. Chapter 17.485 is hereby known as Planned Development 35 (PD-35).

Section 4. Amendments to Chapter 17.485 are hereby added to read as shown in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance.

Section 5. 

A. This Ordinance shall be published in accordance with applicable law, by one or more of the following methods:

1. Posting the entire Ordinance in at least three (3) public places in the City of Brentwood, within fifteen (15) days after its passage and adoption; or

2. Publishing the entire Ordinance at least once in the Ledger-Dispatch, a newspaper of general circulation published in the County of Contra Costa and circulated in the City of Brentwood, within fifteen (15) days after its passage and adoption; or

3. Publishing in the Ledger-Dispatch a summary of the Ordinance prepared by the City Attorney and posting a certified copy of the Ordinance in the Office of the City Clerk at least five (5) days prior to passage and adoption and along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against the Ordinance.

B. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its passage and adoption.

Section 6. In accordance with Government Code Section 65863.5, upon the effective date of this Ordinance, a copy shall be delivered to the County Assessor.

THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced with the first reading waived at a regular meeting of the Brentwood City Council on the 11th day of June 2002 and adopted at a regular meeting of Brentwood City Council on the 25th day of June 2002, by the following vote:



EXHIBIT “C”

CHAPTER 17.485
PD-35 (Planned Development Thirty-five) Zone
SUBAREA “E”


SECTIONS:

17.485.028 – Authority, Purpose and Intent
17.485.029 – Permitted Uses
17.485.030 – Conditional Uses
17.485.031 – General Development Standards

17.485.028.

The authority, purpose and intent for the adoption of PD-35 Subarea “E” Zone (see the attached Subarea map) as follows:

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

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

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

1. A maximum of 28 single family homes will be developed on 10.63 acres, and;

2. Lot sizes vary from 8,152 sq. ft. to 12, 251 sq. ft. will be created.

17.485.029.

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

A. Those uses permitted under the R-1 Zone, Section 17.130.002.
B. The continuation of the existing year round Gursky Ranch operation.

17.485.030.

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

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

17.485.031

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

1. Minimum Lot Size: 8,000 square feet.

2. Minimum Lot Width: Seventy (70) feet.

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

4. Minimum Lot Frontage: One-half (1/2) the required lot width.

5. Minimum Front Yard Setback: Twenty (20) feet to the garage door face, fifteen (15) feet to any primary building wall.

6. Minimum Side Yard Setback: Seven (7) feet; aggregate fifteen (15) feet. All corner lots shall a minimum of ten (10) feet on the street side.

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

8. Architectural features may project into any required yard pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.660.

9. Maximum Building Height: Thirty (30) feet and two (2) stories.

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

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

12. Fifty (50) percent of the corner lots shall have single story units.

13. A maximum of a 40 percent for lot coverage.



EXHIBIT “D”

CITY OF BRENTWOOD
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT


GURSKY PROPERTY – SUBDIVISION 8556

INITIAL STUDY AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION



February 5, 2002






INITIAL STUDY


I. BACKGROUND

1. Project Title: Gursky Property (Subdivision 8556)
Schuler Homes Residential Development

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

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Mr. Jeff Zilm
925.516.5405

4. Project Location: South side of Apricot Way
City of Brentwood
Contra Costa County

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Vince Fletcher
Western Pacific/Schuler Homes
1210 Central Blvd.
Brentwood, CA 94513
925.634.6023

6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential

7. Zoning: Planned Development (PD-35)

8. Project Description Summary:

The proposed project consists of the following requested entitlements:

· A Tentative Subdivision Map (Subdivision 8556) to subdivide 10.6 acres into 28 new single-family lots and one lot with existing residence.

· A Planned Development Amendment of PD-35 to establish development standards.


II. SOURCES

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

1. City of Brentwood Draft General Plan Update, June 2001;
2. City of Brentwood General Plan Update Draft EIR, June 2001;
3. City of Brentwood General Plan 1993-2010, June 1993 (General Plan);
4. City of Brentwood General Plan EIR, June 1993 (General Plan EIR);
5. Geotechnical Investigation on Proposed Residential Development, Gursky Property, Brentwood, California, KC Engineering Company, July, 2001; and
6. Biological Constraints Analysis, Gursky Property, Brentwood, CA, Monk & Associates LLC, January 2002.


III. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

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

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


IV. DETERMINATION

On the basis of this initial study:

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

Ó I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

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

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

c I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier General Plan EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier General Plan EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.



________________________________ 
Signature Date

Jeff Zilm City of Brentwood 
Printed Name For


V. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

This Initial Study provides an environmental analysis pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, for the proposed Gursky Property Subdivision 8556 (proposed project).

The project site consists of a single 10.6-acre parcel, Assessor's Parcel No. (APN) 019-092-031, at 1860 Apricot Way, within the incorporated city limits of the City of Brentwood. The site is bounded on the north by Apricot Way, the Yates property (APN 019-092-025) on the west, the Whitmer/Latner property (APN 019-092-032) on the south, and on the east by the Houser/Maggiora property (APN 019-091-007), at present, a walnut orchard. This irregular-shaped property is currently owned by Roy and Lynda Gursky and is being proposed for development by Western Pacific/Schuler Homes.

The General Plan designates the land use for the project site as Low-Density Residential, which would allow the development of 1.1 to 5 single-family units per gross acre, generally resulting in lot sizes of approximately 6,000 square feet. The project site currently is zoned Planned Development No. 35 (PD-35).

The Gursky's, who have a house and barn on the central portion of the property, currently occupy the site. The remainder of the site consists of a walnut orchard with buried irrigation lines. With the exception of the raised gravel driveway, the parcel is flat. The ground between the walnut trees is characterized by packed soil and sparse grass.

The City of Brentwood recently adopted a General Plan Update, which updated the Land Use, Growth Management, and Circulation Elements of the 1993 General Plan. An EIR was prepared for the General Plan Update, which addressed the potential impacts of the proposed updates. The General Plan Update EIR was a program EIR, prepared pursuant to Section 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq). The Brentwood General Plan Update EIR analyzed full implementation of the Brentwood General Plan Update and identified measures to mitigate the significant adverse project and cumulative impacts associated with the General Plan. Because the General Plan Update only addresses three elements of the General Plan, the remaining elements are addressed in the 1993 General Plan. The 1993 General Plan adoption also included certification of a Program EIR addressing full implementation of the Plan.

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

Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Sections 15152 and 15168(c), this environmental analysis of the proposed project is tiered from the 2001 Brentwood General Plan Update EIR (State Clearinghouse # 2000122013) and the 1993 City of Brentwood General Plan EIR (State Clearinghouse # 92063113), which is hereby incorporated by reference.

The tiering of the environmental analysis for the proposed project allows this Tiered Initial Study to rely on the Brentwood General Plan and General Plan Update EIRs for discussion of the following topics:

(a) General background and setting information for environmental topic areas;

(b) Overall growth-related issues;

(c) Issues that were evaluated in sufficient detail in the Brentwood General Plan EIR for which there is no significant new information or change in circumstances that would require further analysis; and

(d) Long-term cumulative impacts.

Therefore, this Tiered Initial Study should be viewed in conjunction with the Brentwood General Plan and General Plan Update EIRs. The purpose of this Tiered Initial Study is to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project with respect to the Brentwood General Plan EIRs to determine what level of additional environmental review, if any, is appropriate. 

Implementation of mitigation measures identified in the General Plan EIRs that apply to the proposed project will be required as part of the project. These mitigation measures may be further clarified to address impacts specific to this project. Implementation of project-specific mitigation measures for new, potentially significant impacts that were not previously identified in the General Plan EIRs will also be required as part of the proposed project.


VI. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed project site consists of 10.6 acres, south of Apricot Way, east of the Yates property (APN 019-092-025), north of Whitmer/Latner property (APN 019-092-032), and west of the Houser/Maggiora property (APN 019-091-007). The site is roughly rectangular in shape and is identified by the Contra Costa County Assessor as APN 019-092-031. Two structures, a house and barn, currently exist and would be retained in the southwest corner of the northeast quadrant of the property. The greater part of the site consists of walnut orchards.

The site is designated Low-Density Residential in the City of Brentwood General Plan, and is currently zoned Planned Development No. 35 (PD-35). 

The applicant has filed a Tentative Map (Subdivision 8556) to subdivide the site into 28 new, single-family lots and one lot with existing residence. Of the 28 new lots, the average lot area would be 9,400 square feet with a minimum lot area of 8,092 and a maximum lot area of 11,685 square feet. The proposed density of 3.1 dwelling units per gross acre is consistent with the City's Low Density Residential designation of 1.1 to 5 dwelling units per acre (du/acre).

Discretionary Action

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

· Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program;
· Approval of a Planned Development Amendment;
· Approval of a Tentative Map to subdivide 10.6 acres into 28 lots for single family development and one lot containing the existing residence.

VII. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

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

For this checklist, the following designations are used:

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

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

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

No Impact: The project would not have any impact.


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

Discussion

a,b. The proposed project is not within an area designated as a scenic vista nor does it include such significant scenic resources as naturally occurring trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings. The only trees found on the project are the walnut trees comprising the orchard. Although the project site is relatively flat, Brentwood is surrounded by the coastal range, including Mount Diablo. The City of Brentwood has recognized views of Mount Diablo as an important visual resource. Because the proposed development would be located in a flat area of Brentwood and does not include any structures that exceed two stories in height, the view corridors of Mount Diablo would not be blocked. Therefore, the impact is less-than-significant.

c. The development of the project site would change the existing visual setting from agricultural land containing an orchard to residential uses. The proposed development would be considered compatible with other residential uses found throughout the City of Brentwood. The proposed change in use of the project site from agricultural production to single-family residential is consistent with the intent of the General Plan and would be compatible with the pattern of development occurring in the general area of the project site. Although open agricultural areas currently surround the project site, the planned development for Apricot Lane includes the construction of single-family homes on adjacent approved/pending subdivisions. In addition, the development of the homes requires Planning Commission Design Review, which would ensure compatibility of the development with the surrounding area. Therefore, the impact would be less-than-significant.

d. As an orchard, very little light or glare is currently emitted from the project site. The change from orchard to subdivision, generating new sources of light and glare, would be considered a potentially significant impact.

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

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



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

Discussion

a,c. The City of Brentwood 1993 General Plan includes agricultural preservation policies in the Open Space Conservation Element that describe potential agricultural preservation program components. The General Plan also designates areas along the eastern and southeastern portions of the Planning Area as Agriculture Conservation. The proposed development is not located within the conservation area, nor is it under Williamson Act contract. Furthermore, the General Plan has identified this area for residential development. 

The General Plan Conservation Element Policy 1.1.4 states:

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

The Brentwood 1993 General Plan EIR indicates that the plan area has been designated as Prime Agriculture Farmland. The current use of the land for walnut orchards is agricultural in nature. The development of the proposed project would result in the loss of Prime Agriculture Farmland used for agricultural purposes. Therefore, the impact on existing agricultural uses and the loss of farmland would be considered potentially significant.

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

II-2. At the time of recordation of the first final map, the Applicant/Developer shall comply with any City Council conservation programs established pursuant to General Plan Conservation Element Policy 1.1.4 in order to mitigate the potential significant impact of the proposed project on the loss of farmland. The applicant shall pay the current City fee of $5,000 per acre of lost farmland, or the fee in effect at the time of recording the final map.

II-3. The Applicant(s) shall inform and notify prospective buyers in writing, prior to purchase, about existing and on-going agriculture activities in the immediate area in the form of a disclosure statement. The notifications shall disclose that the Brentwood area is an agriculture area subject to ground and aerial applications of chemical and early morning or nighttime farm operations that may create noise, dust, et cetera. The language and format of such notification shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planning Department prior to recording final map. Each disclosure statement shall be acknowledged with the signature of each prospective property owner.

II-4. Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy and predicated on the sequence of development, the perimeter of each development shall be appropriately buffered by fences, and/or walls, to minimize conflicts between permanent residents, proposed non-residential uses, and agricultural uses.

b. The project site is not under Williamson Act contract. Therefore, development of the site would not result in conflict with a Williamson Act contract or existing zoning for agriculture. Implementation of the project would result in no impact on agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts.



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

a,c. The City of Brentwood is part of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, which is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). This basin is dominated by the strength and position of a semi-permanent, high-pressure center over the Pacific Ocean. The Brentwood area is generally well ventilated by winds flowing through the Carquinez Strait and Delta. The area is exposed to winds from both the east and west, and the terrain provides little protection from the wind. Predominant winds are from the east-southeast during winter and from the west during the summer.

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

The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently designated nonattainment for Ozone, carbon monoxide, and suspended particulate matter (PM10). Under the California Clean Air Act of 1988, districts not attaining state ambient air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen dioxide must submit a plan for attaining and maintaining state standards for the pollutants. The BAAQMD completed its '91 Clean Air Plan in October of 1991.
The air quality impacts associated with the emissions from the increased number of vehicles were analyzed in the Brentwood 1993 General Plan and General Plan Update EIRs. The 2001 General Plan Update EIR found that implementation of the mitigation measures related to growth management and other transportation policies in the General Plan would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. The proposed project is consistent with the type and intensity of development anticipated with the General Plan Update. Therefore, the project-specific impacts to air quality would be considered less-than-significant.

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

Mitigation Measure
Implementation of the following mitigation measures identified in the General Plan Update (AQ-1.1) would reduce the construction-related impact to a less-than-significant level.

III-5. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant/Developer shall prepare an Erosion Prevention and Dust Control Plan. The plan shall be followed by the project’s grading contractor and submitted to the Public Works Department, which will be responsible for field verification of the plan during construction. The plan shall comply with the City’s grading ordinance and could include the following control measures and other measures as determined by the Public Works Department to be necessary for the proposed project:

· Cover all trucks hauling construction and demolition debris from the site; 
· Water all exposed or disturbed soil surfaces at least twice daily;
· Use watering to control dust generation during demolition of structures or break-up of pavement;
· Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved parking areas and staging areas;
· Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved parking areas and staging areas;
· Provide daily clean up of mud and dirt carried onto paved streets from the site;
· Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, et cetera);
· Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph;
· Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways;
· Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.

e. The project would not include industrial or intensive agricultural use. Therefore, the project would not create odors or toxic air contaminants. In addition, the adjacent farming operations are primarily orchards, which typically do not result in odors that would impact the proposed subdivision. Therefore, no impact from objectionable odors would occur. 

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


Discussion

a. Monk & Associates LLC (M&A) performed a Biological Constraints Analysis, which included a site reconnaissance conducted on January 9, 2002. The complete report is included in Attachment 1. The analysis addressed special-status plant species, as well as special-status wildlife species and is summarized below.

A search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) found four special-status plant species occurring in the region surrounding the project site, although one has not been observed since 1889 (see Attachment 1). Three of these species are found in grasslands of the region. The fourth species is found in chenopod scrub habitat. Neither grassland nor chenopod scrub habitat is present on the project site. If historically present, these habitats were removed long ago to make way for orchards. Therefore, most special-status plant species known from the region would not be expected to occur on the project site.

The Biological Constraints Analysis contains a list of special-status wildlife species known to occur in the region. The project site’s orchard does not provide suitable habitat for the nine species listed in Appendix B. However, if the walnut orchard is abandoned and the walnut trees are removed from the project site any earlier than four months prior to site development, M&A believe that site conditions may become suitable for the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). The Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), although unlikely to nest on the project site, may nest within a sphere of influence of the project site; therefore, potential impacts to nesting Swainson’s hawks from project development are considered. Both the burrowing owl and the Swainson’s hawk are discussed below. The San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) is frequently an issue in the Brentwood area. Although it highly unlikely that the San Joaquin kit fox would use the project site, it is also discussed below.

Burrowing owl is a federal species of concern and a California species of special concern. The nest, eggs, and young are also protected under California Fish and Game Code (§3503, §3503.5, and §3800). The burrowing owl is also protected from direct “take” under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (50 CFR 10.13). Finally, based upon this species’ rarity status, any unmitigated impacts to rare species would be considered a “significant effect on the environment” pursuant to §21068 of the CEQA Statutes and §15382 of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, if a proposed project could affect this owl, it must be considered in an environmental review conducted pursuant to CEQA.

Burrowing owl habitat can be found in annual and perennial grasslands characterized by low-growing vegetation. The burrowing owl typically uses rodent burrows, such as those of ground squirrel, for nesting and cover. They may also on occasion dig their own burrows. They exhibit high site fidelity, reusing burrows year after year. Occupancy of suitable burrowing owl habitat can be verified at a site by observation of a pair of burrowing owls during the spring and summer months or, alternatively, its molted feathers, cast pellets, prey remains, eggshell fragments, or excrement at or near a burrow.

Burrowing owl is generally found in open country where it has 360 degrees of visibility to detect aerial predators. Therefore, orchard usually does not provide habitat for the burrowing owl because the tree canopy obscures this owl’s view of the sky. The project site’s well-maintained walnut orchard, with its closed tree canopy, does not provide suitable habitat for the burrowing owl. However, M&A believe that if the walnut orchard is abandoned, and the trees are removed from the project site any earlier than four months prior to site development, the newly opened area could provide suitable habitat for this mobile raptor species. Accordingly, under these conditions, preconstruction surveys would need to be conducted to ensure that there is no “take” of this raptor that is protected under California Fish and Game Code and the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) is a state listed threatened species and is also protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 USC 703-711). The nest, eggs, and young are protected under California Fish and Game Code (§3503, §3503.5, and §3800). In the Central Valley of California, Swainson’s hawk nests are generally found in scattered trees or along riparian systems adjacent to agricultural fields or pastures. These open fields and pastures are the primary areas where Swainson’s hawks forage for small rodents and passerine birds. Foraging habitats include alfalfa fields, fallow fields, beet, tomato, and other low-growing row or field crops, dry-land and irrigated pasture, and rice land when not flooded (CDFG 1994). Based on the above definition of foraging habitat, the Biological Analysis concluded that orchards do not provide foraging habitat.

In 2000, Swainson’s hawks successfully nested within 0.6-mile of the project site, on the south side of Sand Creek. They nested in a lone tree surrounded by fields. Although the project site’s orchard does not provide suitable foraging or nesting habitat, and it is unlikely that Swainson’s hawks would nest on the project site in the future, the surrounding area must be taken into consideration to make sure that the proposed project does not result in impacts to Swainson’s hawks nesting in the vicinity. According to CDFG’s Swainson’s Hawk Mitigation Guidelines (1994), “no project-related activities which may cause nest abandonment or forced fledging [of young] should be initiated within ¼-mile of an active nest between March 1 through September 15.” Therefore, the proposed project construction could result in potentially significant impacts to nesting Swainson’s hawks.

San Joaquin kit fox is federally listed as endangered and state listed as threatened. The San Joaquin kit fox (kit fox) is the smallest fox species in North America, typically weighing between four and six pounds, has large ears, long legs, and is generally a buffy tan color with a black-tipped tail. Kit fox live primarily in the lowlands of the San Joaquin Valley of California, but are also known to occur in several counties in the coast mountain ranges including Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, San Benito, Santa Clara, Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. 

This fox species is usually found in open grassland and shrubland communities, but has also been observed in orchards in the Central Valley that border grassland or shrubland plant communities. Kit fox are carnivorous, usually feeding on small rodents such as San Joaquin pocket mice (Perognathus inornatus), deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), western harvest mice (Reithrodontomys megalotis), kangaroo rats (Dipodomys spp.) and larger rodents such California ground squirrel. Kit fox also prey upon lagomorphs such as black-tailed hare and desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii). The species relies on dens for breeding, and to provide escape cover from potential predators. Kit fox are reputedly poor diggers, so dens are excavated in loose-textured soils, generally in areas with low to moderate relief, or they will utilize holes left by other species. They will also utilize burrows dug by rabbits, ground squirrels, and on occasion, badgers (Taxidea taxus). Man-made structures, such as well-casings, culverts, and abandoned pipelines, are also occasionally used for dens. Typically, dens are small enough to discourage easy predation by coyotes. Populations of kit fox are thought to be related to the availability of denning sites, particularly natal denning sites, which are often moved several times throughout the season.

The approximately 11-acre project site is an orchard. According to the Biological Analysis, Kit fox have not been recorded in orchard habitats in the Brentwood area. Grasslands and alkali scrub lands are the areas where kit fox have been recorded in the region (CNDDB 2001). Additionally, the project site does not have any burrows that could serve as potential dens for the kit fox. Therefore, it is very unlikely that the kit fox would take up residence on the project site in the future. Finally, based on the recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case of the Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association, Jeff Menges, vs. the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Land Management, and the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity (December 17, 2002), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cannot determine that a proposed project would result in “take” of a federal listed species unless there is proof that the take is “reasonably certain to occur.” Because historical or recent evidence does not exist of kit fox use on the project site, it seems unlikely that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has the “proof” required to establish a case for take, or to enforce a requirement for an incidental take permit. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to the San Joaquin kit fox.

Conclusion. Based on the results of the Biological Constraints Analysis described above, the proposed project could result in a potentially significant impact to Burrowing owl and Swainson’s Hawk.

Mitigation Measure
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would mitigate potential impacts to a less-than-significant level:

Burrowing Owl
IV-6. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall submit to CDFG and planning staff a pre-construction survey of the project site performed in accordance with CDFG standards. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist not more than 30 days prior to the application for a grading permit. If burrowing owls are not discovered, further mitigation will not be required. If burrowing owl are observed during surveys, the applicant shall perform measures prescribed by the CDFG to limit the impact on the burrowing owls. Mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to:

a. A fenced 300-foot buffer shall be created between the nesting site(s) (that is, the active burrow(s)) and any earth-moving activity or other disturbance. This 300-foot buffer could be removed once it is determined by a qualified raptor biologist that the young have fledged. Typically, the young fledge by August 31, however this date may be earlier or later than August 31 and would have to be determined by a qualified raptor biologist. 

b. If burrowing owls are present on site, a qualified raptor biologist would need to delineate the extent of burrowing owl habitat on the site. To mitigate impacts to burrowing owls, CDFG requires a minimum of 6.5 acres of replacement habitat be set-aside per pair of burrowing owls, or unpaired resident bird. The protected lands shall be adjacent to occupied burrowing owl habitat and at a location acceptable to CDFG. Land identified to off-set impacts to burrowing owls must be protected in perpetuity either by a conservation easement or via fee title acquisition.

c. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall submit a Mitigation Plan and Mitigation Agreement to CDFG and City of Brentwood for their approval. The Mitigation Plan shall identify any activities necessary to enhance the site, including the construction of artificial burrows. The Plan shall also include a description of monitoring and management methods proposed at the mitigation site. Monitoring and management of any lands identified for mitigation purposed will be the responsibility of the applicant for at least five years. An annual report must be prepared for submittal to CDFG by December 31 of each monitoring year. Contingency measures for any anticipated problems should be identified in the plan.

Swainson’s Hawk
IV-7. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall submit to CDFG and planning staff a pre-construction survey of the project site performed in accordance with CDFG standards. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist not more than 30 days prior to the application for a grading permit. If Swainson’s hawk are not discovered, further mitigation will not be required. If Swainson’s hawk are observed during surveys, the applicant shall perform measures prescribed by the CDFG to limit the impact on the Swainson’s hawk. Mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to:

a. If nesting Swainson’s hawks are identified on the project site, grading and/or other intensive disturbances shall be avoided, between the dates of March 1 through September 15 to ensure that there is no nesting failure. The date of September 15 may be negotiated with CDFG if the young fledge sooner; however, such negotiation would only be possible if a qualified raptor biologist periodically monitors the nest to determine when the young have fledged. 

b,c. Neither the Brentwood General Plan EIR nor the Biological Constraints Analysis identifies any riparian habitat or significant natural communities on the site. Nor does either document identify wetlands as existing on the site. Therefore, the development of the project site would result in no impact to riparian habitat or wetlands.

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

e. The project site currently consists of walnut orchards. However, these walnut trees do not qualify as significant trees either in size or species, as defined by the General Plan, nor do such significant trees exist on the site. Furthermore, the development of the project site is not guided by any specific ordinances protecting biological resources. Therefore, the impact is less-than-significant.

f. A substantial portion of the planning area, primarily in the southwestern region, is identified in the General Plan as grassland and oak savannah. Such land generally provides habitat to many wildlife species, including some listed endangered species. The City has marked out this area for special consideration and expects to maintain a significant portion as natural open space. Further, it is expected that a habitat conservation plan for particularly sensitive areas will be developed in the future. The project site is not located within any of these areas. Therefore, no impact would occur. 



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

Discussion

a,b. The City of Brentwood 1993 General Plan EIR indicates that the City of Brentwood has a low to moderate sensitivity for the presence of prehistoric sites and a moderate to high sensitivity for historic sites. In general, portions of the City in the flat valley adjacent to the existing City and development reveal a low sensitivity for prehistoric sites, except along drainageways. The hills to the south and west, particularly around springs and streams, reveal a high sensitivity for prehistoric sites. The 1993 Brentwood General Plan, Figure 15, identifies potential archaeological sensitive areas. The project site is not identified as one of them. The General Plan further states that there is a possibility of buried prehistoric sites in the area and that due to alluviation, land leveling and re-channelization of drainageways, sites may have been obscured or capped-off, leaving no surface evidence. Therefore, during construction and excavation activities, unidentified archaeological resources may be uncovered resulting in a potentially significant impact.

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

V-8. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Applicant/Developer shall submit plans to the Community Development Department for review and approval which indicate (via notation on the improvement plans) that if historic and/or cultural resources are encountered during site grading or other site work, all such work shall be halted immediately within the area of discovery and the Applicant/Developer shall immediately notify the Community Development Department of the discovery. In such case, the Applicant/Developer shall be required, at his expense, to retain the services of a qualified archaeologist for the purpose of recording, protecting, or curating the discovery as appropriate. The archaeologist shall be required to submit to the Community Development Department for review and approval a report of the findings and method of curation or protection of the resources. Further grading or site work within the area of discovery will not be allowed until the proceeding steps have been taken.

c. The Brentwood General Plan does not identify any unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features on project site. Therefore, the construction of the proposed project would result in no impact to such resources and features.

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



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

Discussion

a.i-ii,
c. A geotechnical investigation of the project area was performed by KC Engineering Company in June 2001. According to the report, the project site is not within an Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zone; however, the report indicates that the Brentwood area is located in a seismically active zone. The Sherman Island Fault crosses the western portion of the site in a north-south direction. The California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) does not consider this fault to be active, and the opinion expressed in the geotechnical investigation prepared by KC Engineering is that this fault is unlikely to produce large earthquakes or ground ruptures during the life of the proposed project. Other nearby faults include the Antioch Fault, located approximately 1.8 miles west, and the Midland portion of the Great Valley Fault system, located 4.5 miles east.

The nearest known active fault is the Marsh Creek/Greenville fault, approximately 8.1 miles to the west, with a maximum credible magnitude of 6.9 and a maximum peak ground acceleration of 0.264g at the site. However, the Great Valley Fault system may be capable of causing the highest magnitude of ground shaking at the site, for which a maximum peak ground acceleration of 0.41g was calculated

The geotechnical report concludes that the site is suitable for the proposed residential development provided the recommendations presented therein are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. Failing that, development of the proposed project could expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault and/or strong seismic ground shaking. Such risks would be minimized through strict adherence to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and State and local building standards. However, the project site's location in a seismically active zone creates a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measure
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would ensure the impacts are less-than-significant.

VI-9. The Uniform Building Code earthquake design criteria listed below shall be used by the Structural Engineer, as recommended by the Soil Engineer, KC Engineering Company:

Soil Profile Type: SD
Seismic Zone: 4
Seismic Zone Factor: 0.40
Seismic Source Type: B
Seismic Coefficients: Ca=.044Na, Cv=0.64Nv
Near Source Factors: Na=1.3, Nv=1.6

VI-10. All grading and foundation plans for the development designed by the project Civil and Structural Engineer must be reviewed by the Soil Engineer prior to contract bidding or submittal to governmental agencies to ensure that all geotechnical recommendations specified in the geotechnical report are properly incorporated and utilized in design. 

VI-11. Applicant/Developer shall notify the Soil Engineer at least two working days prior to site clearing, grading, and/or foundation operations on the property, in order to give the Soil engineer ample time to discuss the problems that may be encountered in the field and coordinate the work with the contractor.

VI-12 Field observation and testing during the grading operations must be provided by the Soil Engineer to ensure the adequacy of the site preparation, the acceptability of fill materials, and the extent to which the earthwork construction and the degree of compaction comply with the specification requirements. Any work related to the grading and/or foundation operations performed without the full knowledge and under the direct observation of the Soil Engineer will invalidate the opinions expressed by the Soil Engineer in the geotechnical report.

a.iii.,
a.iv. The Geotechnical Investigation prepared by KC Engineering Company defines soil liquefaction as a phenomenon in which loose and saturated cohesionless soils are subject to a temporary, but essentially total loss of shear strength because of pore pressure build-up under the reversing cyclic shear stresses associated with earthquakes. Soils typically found most susceptible to liquefaction are saturated and loose, fine to medium grained sand having a uniform particle range and less than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve. According to Special Publications 117 by the Division of Mines and Geology, the assessment of hazards associated with potential liquefaction of soil deposits at a site must consider translational site instability (i.e. lateral spreading, etc.) and more localized hazards such as bearing failure and settlement.

In evaluating the liquefaction potential of the subsurface soils, KC Engineering utilized data consisting of the in-situ (in the natural or original position) Standard Penetration resistance values (N1)60 values, the grain-size distribution, unit weights, in-situ moisture contents, the groundwater level and the location of the site to the nearest active fault and the predicted ground surface acceleration. The in-situ penetration resistance of the clayey silty sands and silty sandy clay materials generally indicates a relative density characterized as dense and stiff to very stiff. The silty sands were only present in isolated lenses. Based on the data obtained and in view of the above criteria, KC Engineering concluded that risk of liquefaction of the near-surface soils is low to nil.

The topography of the project site is flat, rendering it resistant to landslides. Therefore, the potential for impacts from soil liquefaction or landslides is less-than-significant.

b. Use of the project site for residential units would not result in any greater exposure of soil to potential erosion or loss of topsoil than its current use for agricultural production. Currently, the site consists of walnut orchards, and packed soil and sparse grasses characterize ground surfaces. The proposed residential development would anchor the soil in place by overlaying much of the ground surface with homes, streets, driveways, and sidewalks. New owners typically complete this process by installing patios, landscaping, and swimming pools. Therefore, alterations to the land by the proposed project would inhibit, rather than promote, the loss of topsoil. 

The General Plan EIR states that in the absence of a specific grading plan, the extent of potential soil erosion may not be determined. However, soil erosion is considered potentially significant in areas with slopes over 5 percent and in areas with sandy soils, as found in the northern portion of the Brentwood Planning Area. The project site is flat, and its soils consist primarily of silty clays and clayey silts. This site, therefore, would be less likely than other areas to suffer impacts caused by grading. 

However, any disturbance of the soil such as that required for constructing streets and structures relocates topsoil and breaks the soil into easily transported particles, rendering earth surfaces susceptible to erosion from wind and water. Therefore, impacts from soil erosion resulting from grading of the project area would be considered potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the following mitigation measures, identified in the Brentwood General Plan EIR would ensure the impact is less-than-significant.

VI-13. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a grading plan to the City Engineer for review and approval. If the grading plan differs significantly from the proposed grading illustrated on the approved tentative tract map, a tentative map that is consistent with the new revised grading plan shall be provided for review and approval by the director of Public Works.

VI-14. Any applicant for a grading permit shall submit an erosion control plan to the city Engineer. This plan shall identify protective measures to be taken during construction, supplemental measures to be taken during the rainy season, the sequenced timing of grading and construction, and subsequent revegetation and landscaping work to ensure water quality in creeks and tributaries in the General Plan Area is not degraded from its present level.

VI-15. Prior to approval of final facilities design, the City Engineer shall review plans for drainage and stormwater runoff control systems and their component facilities to ensure that these systems and facilities are non-erosive in design. 

VI-16. Grading, soil disturbance, or compaction shall not occur during periods of rain or on ground that contains freestanding water. Soil that has been soaked and wetted by rain or any other cause shall not be compacted until completely drained and until the moisture content is within the limit approved by a Soil Engineer. Approval by a Soil Engineer shall be obtained prior to continuing grading operations.

d. The geotechnical report identifies the expansive characteristics of the soil at the project site as moderate to highly expansive. Therefore, the impacts from expansive soils are considered potentially significant.

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

VI-17. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Comprehensive Grading Plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer that reflects the recommendations of the final Geotechnical Study. All recommendations of the final Geotechnical Study and City Engineer shall be incorporated into the grading plan and building design as a condition of the project grading permit and verified in the field by the City Engineer or his representative.

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

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

Discussion

a-c. The routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is not typically associated with single-family development. Therefore, the proposed project would not create hazards to the public or the environment from transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or from reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving likely release of hazardous materials into the environment. 

A Phase I Environmental Assessment has not been conducted on the project site. Such an assessment would show whether or not any contamination of the soil exists from historic uses of the land. Such assessments have been conducted on other sites in the vicinity, including the adjacent Sanborn property, which historically have been used for agricultural production similar to that of the project site. Significant levels of contaminants and/or other hazardous environmental conditions were not found at these surrounding sites. A geotechnical investigation of the project site was performed, at which time a visual inspection was made. Nothing was observed that would indicate the presence of hazardous substances. However, such substances could be present in the soil. Existence of such contamination would constitute a potentially significant impact.

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

VII-18. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant/Developer shall have a Phase I Site Assessment conducted by a qualified soils engineer and shall submit the engineer's report to the City Engineer for review. Such assessment shall include the following:

· Visual reconnaissance of the subject property to evaluate current on-site activities and past uses;
· Review of local regulatory files concerning chemical use and storage at the subject property;
· Research of computerized review of federal, state, and local publications to identify sites located within close proximity to the property that are listed on or by the following:
o National Priority List (NPL);
o Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA);
o United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 9, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS);
o RCRA Treatment, Storage and Disposal (TSD); and
o Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS); 
as well as sites containing landfills, leaking underground storage tanks 
(LUST), registered underground storage tank (UST), and above-ground 
storage tanks (AST).
· Review of selected historic documentation of the property to determine what activities have occurred at the subject site since the property’s first developed use or since 1940 (whichever is earlier);
· General visual survey of the current uses of the immediately adjacent sites;
· Soil sampling and analysis for pesticides and nitrates;
· Preparation of a written report in general conformance to the guidelines presented in ASTM Standard E-1527-00, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments.

The Phase I report must result in a conclusion that the potential for contamination on the property is low and further investigation of the property to ensure that recognized adverse environmental conditions area not present at the site is unnecessary.

d. The site is not listed as a hazardous materials site. Therefore, no impact would occur.

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

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

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



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

Discussion

a,f. Short-term grading and construction activities may cause an increase in erosion leading to sedimentation of streams in the affected watershed, which could result in stormwater pollution. Stormwater pollution control is the responsibility of the State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Board. Stormwater pollution control is implemented through the use of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. The City of Brentwood is responsible for ensuring compliance with the stormwater pollution control standards. The proposed project’s construction activities could result in an increase in erosion, and consequently, affect water quality. Therefore, a potentially significant impact would occur.

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

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

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

b-e. The project consists of the development of single-family homes in an area designated for single-family development. Although development would not alter existing drainage courses and would be accommodated in the existing City of Brentwood storm drainage system, implementation of the proposed project would add impervious surfaces to the area. An increase in impervious surfaces could result in a decrease in absorption rates and an increase in stormwater runoff rates. This is considered to be a potentially significant impact.

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

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

VIII-22. Design of both the on-site and downstream drainage facilities shall meet with the approval of both the City Engineer and the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation Districts prior to the issuance of grading permits.

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

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

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

VIII-26. The Applicant/Developer shall ensure that each lot or parcel shall drain into a street, public drain, or approved private drain in such a manner that there will be no undrained depression. Satisfaction of this measure shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer.

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

j. Tsunamis are defined as sea waves created by undersea fault movement. A tsunami poses little danger away from shorelines; however, when it reaches the shoreline, a high swell of water breaks and washes inland with great force. Waves may reach fifty feet in height on unprotected coasts. Historic records of the Bay Area used by one study indicate that nineteen tsunamis were recorded in San Francisco Bay during the period of 1868-1968. Maximum wave height recorded at the Golden Gate tide gauge, where wave heights peak, was 7.4 feet. The available data indicate a standard decrease of original wave height from the Golden Gate to about half original wave height on the shoreline near Richmond, and to nil at the head of the Carquinez Strait. As Brentwood is several miles inland from the Carquinez Strait, the project site is not exposed to flooding risks from tsunamis.

A seiche is a long wavelength, large-scale wave action set up in a closed body of water such as a lake or reservoir, whose destructive capacity is not as great as that of tsunamis. Seiches are known to have occurred during earthquakes, but none have been recorded in the Bay Area. Furthermore, the project is not located near such a body of water. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project site would be inundated by seiches in the future.

As mudflows typically occur in mountainous or hilly terrain, and the project site and surrounding areas are relatively flat, danger would not be presented from the likelihood of mudflows.

The above analysis indicates that the project site would not be threatened by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow; therefore, no impact from such phenomena would occur. 
Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant unless Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING.Would the project: 
a. Physically divide an established community?    
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating on environmental effect?    
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan?    
Discussion

a. The proposed project would not physically divide an established community because such a community does not exist on the site. Currently, only one residence exists and will be retained on the project site. Although the property has most recently been in agricultural production, it is designated in the General Plan for residential development. Therefore, no impact would result on the physical arrangement of an existing community.

b. The proposed project is within the Brentwood city limits and is designated Medium-Density Residential by the Brentwood General Plan. The proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan land use designation and would not conflict with a policy to preserve the environment. The type and density of the residential development is consistent with that anticipated by the Brentwood General Plan. Therefore, the impact is less-than-significant.

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

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


Discussion

a,b. The 1993 Brentwood General Plan identifies coal, oil and gas, and sand as the significant mineral resources within the area. The General Plan advises that the production of coal has not occurred in the area since 1902 and that sand deposits could remain in the western portion of the planning area. Oil and gas is presently being produced in the northwest portion of the area, and the potential for additional reserves exists throughout the City. The 1993 Brentwood General Plan, Figure 9, does not identify the property as an area possessing the potential for oil and gas or sand and coal deposits. Therefore, no impact would occur.



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

Discussion

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

d. The Brentwood General Plan EIR identifies that there would be a temporary increases in noise levels during construction of projects pursuant to the implementation of the General Plan. The General Plan EIR identifies that the noisiest construction machinery is typically earthmoving equipment with noise levels ranging from 73 to 96 dBA at 50 feet from the equipment. The subsequent phases of construction vary from 79 to 89 dBA at 50 feet from the source. The Brentwood General Plan identifies that a noise level of 60 dBA is acceptable for residential land uses. Therefore, the temporary increase in noise levels during construction would be considered a potentially significant impact.

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Discussion

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

b,c. Currently, one residence exists on the project site. The proposed project would retain that residence and develop 28 new homes. Therefore, approval and implementation of the proposed project would neither displace any housing nor necessitate the construction of replacement housing. Therefore, no impact would occur.



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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

XIII-34. Prior to commencing construction, the Applicant/Developer shall provide access roadways having all-weather driving surfaces of not less than 20', unobstructed width, and not less than 13'6" of vertical clearance, to within 150 feet of travel distance to all portions of the exterior walls of every building. Access roads shall not exceed 16% grade, shall have a minimum outside turning radius of 32 feet, and must be capable of supporting imposed loads of fire apparatus (20 tons). The City Engineer shall ensure compliance.

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

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

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

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

d. The City of Brentwood encourages an urban form that is based on open space throughout and around the community. Development of the project site would result in new residences and consequently would increase the demand for neighborhood, community, and regional parks and recreation facilities. The proposed project includes 28 dwelling units. Applying the Brentwood standard of 2.85 residents per dwelling unit, the proposed project would have approximately 80 residents. The Brentwood general Plan recommends 5 acres of park per 1,000 residents. The proposed project would require less than one-half acre of park space for the residents. Although the proposed project is small enough that it would not be feasible to build a park, the project would increase the demand for parks. Therefore, the impact from the proposed project would be considered potentially significant. 

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

XIII-37. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Applicant/Developer shall be required to pay the appropriate Quimby Act fees and/or dedicate the necessary park and trail acreage. This requirement shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.




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

Discussion

a. The Brentwood General Plan Update includes guidelines for meeting Brentwood’s future parks and recreation needs. However, the Park, Trail, and recreation Master Plan provides more specific details about planned parks and recreation facilities and services. The City uses a service standard of 5 acres of park space per 1,000 residents. Development of the project site would result in new residences and consequently would increase the demand for neighborhood, community, and regional parks and other recreational facilities. Based on the Brentwood standard of 2.85 residents per dwelling unit, the proposed 28 dwelling units would result in a population increase of approximately 80 residents. Recommended park area for 80 new residents would be just under one-half acre. The increase in population arising from the proposed project could contribute to substantial physical deterioration to existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Therefore, a potentially-significant impact would occur.

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

XIV-38. The applicant/developer shall pay the park facility impact fees, as required by the General Plan Update EIR, for new development that increases demand for parks and recreation facilities (Action Program 1.3.4).

XIV-39. The applicant/developer shall participate in a Capital Improvement Financing Program, and project approval shall be based upon the required findings of 17.805 of the City Zoning Ordinance (Phased Development Plan) that the project will not create excess demand for park facilities (Action Program 1.3.5).


b. The project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact. 


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

Discussion

a,b. The General Plan describes the growth of the City through the year 2020. One component of that Plan is the projection of trip generation and the corresponding design of a transportation system to adequately accommodate the movement of vehicles. That system is specifically addressed in the General Plan's Circulation Element, which, among other components, includes a hierarchical roadway system with different classifications designed to carry traffic generated by planned development.

The proposed project would include the development of a 28-unit residential subdivision with an internal roadway system connecting to Apricot Way. Apricot Way is not currently developed to City of Brentwood standards. However, a master transportation improvement plan has been prepared for the area and is in the process of being funded. The timing of these improvements is not yet guaranteed. Implementation of the proposed project would introduce new vehicle trips in the vicinity, which would impact the existing roadway. 

The proposed project is consistent with future development levels planned in this part of Brentwood, which have been included in the regional Traffic Models developed by the Contra Costa Transit Authority and Contra Costa County. The Applicant/Developer of this project would be required to contribute to the construction of planned regional and local facilities. Although the development would be consistent with the levels identified in the General Plan, the potential for impact to the regional roadway infrastructure exists. Therefore, a potentially significant impact could result. 

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

XV-40. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the improvements to Apricot Way shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

XV-41. The Applicant/Developer shall pay applicable thoroughfare facility fees (plus any annual increase) in effect at the time of building permit issuance and shall participate in the City’s Capital Improvement Financing Plan (CIFP) to finance necessary roadway infrastructure. 

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

d. The proposed project would not include any unusual design features in the layout of the streets that would increase hazards. Therefore, no impact would result from the buildout of the proposed development.

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

f. The proposed project consists of single-family residences. Development of the single-family homes must be consistent with the PD-35 Zone which ensures that adequate parking exists for the subdivision. Therefore, no impact would occur.

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




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

Discussion

a-e. The proposed project includes the development of 28 single-family residences, internal circulation systems, and street lighting, which would require the installation and necessary extension of all utility lines for water, sewer, electricity, natural gas, telephone, and cable communications. Adequate capacity to serve the proposed project is or shall be available, provided sufficient improvement fees are paid by the developer of the project in conjunction with the City's Capital Improvements Funding Program. Therefore, the impact from the proposed project on public utilities is potentially significant.

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

XVI-42. The Applicant/Developer shall be required to connect to the existing Brentwood utility network as well as pay all applicable fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Improvement plans indicating conformance to City of Brentwood Standards shall be prepared, submitted, and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of encroachment permits for this project.

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



Issues Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant unless Mitigation Incorporated Less-Than-Significant Impact No Impact
XII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self﷓sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?    
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short﷓term, to the disadvantage of long﷓term, environmental goals?    
c. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?    
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?    

Discussion

a,b. Development that converts rural areas to urban/suburban uses may be regarded as achieving short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. However, the inevitable impacts resulting from population and economic growth are mitigated by long-range planning to establish policies, programs, and measures for the efficient and economical use of resources. Long-term environmental goals, both broad and specific, have been addressed previously in several environmental documents, the most comprehensive being the General Plan Final EIR certified in 1993 and the General Plan Update EIR certified in 2001. Therefore, the impact is less-than-significant.

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


MITIGATION MONITORING PLANGURSKY PROPERTY - SUBDIVISION 8556
Mitigation Number Impact Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Implementation Schedule Sign Off
I-1. Light and Glare In conjunction with development of the proposed project, the Applicant/Developer shall shield all on-site lighting so that it is directed within the project site and does not illuminate adjacent properties or public rights-of-way. A Street Lighting Plan shall be approved by the Public Works Department in conjunction with approval of improvement plans. The shielded light fixtures shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department in conjunction with the approval of improvement plans. Public Works DepartmentCommunity Development Department Street lighting plan in conjunction with approval of improvement plansShielded light fixture review and approval in conjunction with approval of improvement plans 
II-2. AgriculturalResources At the time of recordation of the first final map, the Applicant/Developer shall comply with any City Council conservation programs established pursuant to General Plan Conservation Element Policy 1.1.4 in order to mitigate the potential significant impact of the proposed project on the loss of farmland. The applicant shall pay the current City fee of $5,000 per acre of lost farmland, or the fee in effect at the time of recording the final map. Community Development Department When the first final map is recorded 
II-3 AgriculturalResources The Applicant(s) shall inform and notify prospective buyers in writing, prior to purchase, about existing and on-going agriculture activities in the immediate area in the form of a disclosure statement. The notifications shall disclose that the Brentwood area is an agriculture area subject to ground and aerial applications of chemical and early morning or nighttime farm operations that may create noise, dust, et cetera. The language and format of such notification shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planning Department prior to recording final map. Each disclosure statement shall be acknowledged with the signature of each prospective property owner. Community Development Department At time of each individual home sale 
II-4 Agricultural Resources Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy and predicated on the sequence of development, the perimeter of each development shall be appropriately buffered by fences, and/or walls, to minimize conflicts between permanent residents, proposed non-residential uses, and agricultural uses. Community Development Department Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy 
III-5. Air Quality: Construction Activities Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant/Developer shall prepare an Erosion Prevention and Dust Control Plan. The plan shall be followed by the project’s grading contractor and submitted to the Public Works Department, which will be responsible for field verification of the plan during construction. The plan shall comply with the City’s grading ordinance and could include the following control measures and other measures as determined by the Public Works Department to be necessary for the proposed project:· Cover all trucks hauling construction and demolition debris from the site; · Water all exposed or disturbed soil surfaces at least twice daily;· Use watering to control dust generation during demolition of structures or break-up of pavement;· Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved parking areas and staging areas;· Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved parking areas and staging areas;· Provide daily clean up of mud and dirt carried onto paved streets from the site.· Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, et cetera);· Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph;· Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways;· Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Public Works Department Prior to issuance of grading permitFollow up during grading and construction 
IV-6. Biological Resources Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall submit to CDFG and planning staff a pre-construction survey performed in accordance with CDFG standards of the project site. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist not more than 30 days prior to the application for a grading permit. If burrowing owls are not discovered, further mitigation will not be required. If burrowing owl are observed during surveys, the applicant shall perform measures prescribed by the CDFG to limit the impact on the burrowing owls. Mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to: Community Development Department Prior to issuance of grading permit 
d. A fenced 300-foot buffer shall be created between the nesting site(s) (that is, the active burrow(s)) and any earth-moving activity or other disturbance. This 300-foot buffer could be removed once it is determined by a qualified raptor biologist that the young have fledged. Typically, the young fledge by August 31, however this date may be earlier or later than August 31 and would have to be determined by a qualified raptor biologist. CommunityDevelopment Department Prior to commencement of grading or construction activities 
e. If burrowing owls are present on site, a qualified raptor biologist would need to delineate the extent of burrowing owl habitat on the site. To mitigate impacts to burrowing owls, CDFG requires a minimum of 6.5 acres of replacement habitat be set-aside per pair of burrowing owls, or unpaired resident bird. The protected lands shall be adjacent to occupied burrowing owl habitat and at a location acceptable to CDFG. Land identified to off-set impacts to burrowing owls must be protected in perpetuity either by a conservation easement or via fee title acquisition. CommunityDevelopment Department Prior to commencement of grading or construction activities 
f. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall submit a Mitigation Plan and Mitigation Agreement to CDFG and City of Brentwood for their approval. The Mitigation Plan shall identify any activities necessary to enhance the site, including the construction of artificial burrows. The Plan shall also include a description of monitoring and management methods proposed at the mitigation site. Monitoring and management of any lands identified for mitigation purposed will be the responsibility of the applicant for at least five years. An annual report must be prepared for submittal to CDFG by December 31 of each monitoring year. Contingency measures for any anticipated problems should be identified in the plan. CommunityDevelopment Department Prior to issuance of grading permit.. 
IV-7. BiologicalResources Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall submit to CDFG and planning staff a pre-construction survey performed in accordance with CDFG standards of the project site and within a quarter-mile radius of the project site. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist not more than 30 days prior to the application for a grading permit. If Swainson’s hawk are not discovered, further mitigation will not be required. If Swainson’s hawk are observed during surveys, the applicant shall perform measures prescribed by the CDFG to limit the impact on the Swainson’s hawk. Mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to:g. If nesting Swainson’s hawks are identified on the project site, grading and/or other intensive disturbances shall be avoided, between the dates of March 1 through September 15 to ensure that there is no nesting failure. The date of September 15 may be negotiated with CDFG if the young fledge sooner; however, such negotiation would only be possible if a qualified raptor biologist periodically monitors the nest to determine when the young have fledged. CommunityDevelopment DepartmentCommunityDevelopment Department Prior to issuance of grading permitDuring grading or construction activities 
V-8. Cultural Resources Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Applicant/Developer shall submit plans to the Community Development Department for review and approval which indicate (via notation on the improvement plans) that if historic and/or cultural resources are encountered during site grading or other site work, all such work shall be halted immediately within the area of discovery and the Applicant/Developer shall immediately notify the Community Development Department of the discovery. In such case, the Applicant/Developer shall be required, at his expense, to retain the services of a qualified archaeologist for the purpose of recording, protecting, or curating the discovery as appropriate. The archaeologist shall be required to submit to the Community Development Department for review and approval a report of the findings and method of curation or protection of the resources. Further grading or site work within the area of discovery will not be allowed until the proceeding steps have been taken. Community Development DepartmentCommunity Development Department Prior to issuance of grading permitImmediately upon discovery 
VI-9. Geology The Uniform Building Code earthquake design criteria listed below shall be used by the Structural Engineer, as recommended by the Soil Engineer, KC Engineering Company: Soil Profile Type: SDSeismic Zone: 4Seismic Zone Factor: 0.40Seismic Source Type: BSeismic Coefficients: Ca=.044Na, Cv=0.64NvNear Source Factors: Na=1.3, Nv=1.6 City Building Official Prior to issuance of building permit 
VI-10. Geology All grading and foundation plans for the development designed by the project Civil and Structural Engineer must be reviewed by the Soil Engineer prior to contract bidding or submittal to governmental agencies to ensure that all geotechnical recommendations specified in the geotechnical report are properly incorporated and utilized in design. City Building Official Prior to issuance of grading permit 
VI-11. Geology Applicant/Developer shall notify the Soil Engineer at least two working days prior to site clearing, grading, and/or foundation operations on the property, in order to give the Soil Engineer ample time to discuss the problems that may be encountered in the field and coordinate the work with the contractor. Community Development Department Prior to issuance of grading permit 
VI-12. Geology Field observation and testing during the grading operations must be provided by the Soil Engineer to ensure the adequacy of the site preparation, the acceptability of fill materials, and the extent to which the earthwork construction and the degree of compaction comply with the specification requirements. Any work related to the grading and/or foundation operations performed without the full knowledge and under the direct observation of the Soil Engineer will invalidate the opinions expressed by the Soil Engineer in the geotechnical report. Community Development Department During grading activities 
VI-13. Geology Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a grading plan to the City Engineer for review and approval. If the grading plan differs significantly from the proposed grading illustrated on the approved tentative tract map, a tentative map that is consistent with the new revised grading plan shall be provided for review and approval by the director of Public Works. Project EngineerCity Engineer Prior to issuance of grading permit and during site grading 
VI-14. Geology Any applicant for a grading permit shall submit an erosion control plan to the city Engineer. This plan shall identify protective measures to be taken during construction, supplemental measures to be taken during the rainy season, the sequenced timing of grading and construction, and subsequent revegetation and landscaping work to ensure water quality in creeks and tributaries in the General Plan Area is not degraded from its present level. City Building Official Prior to issuance of grading permit and during grading and construction activities 
VI-15. Geology Prior to approval of final facilities design, the City Engineer shall review plans for drainage and stormwater runoff control systems and their component facilities to ensure that these systems and facilities are non-erosive in design. Public Works Department Prior to issuance of grading permit 
VI-16 Geology Grading, soil disturbance, or compaction shall not occur during periods of rain or on ground that contains freestanding water. Soil that has been soaked and wetted by rain or any other cause shall not be compacted until completely drained and until the moisture content is within the limit approved by a Soil Engineer. Approval by a Soil Engineer shall be obtained prior to continuing grading operations. Public Works Department Weekly during grading and construction activities 
VI-17 Geology Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Comprehensive Grading Plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer that reflects the recommendations of the final Geotechnical Study. All recommendations of the final Geotechnical Study and City Engineer shall be incorporated into the grading plan and building design as a condition of the project grading permit and verified in the field by the City Engineer or his representative. Public Works DepartmentCity Engineer Prior to issuance of grading permit 
VII-18. Hazards Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant/Developer shall have a Phase I Site Assessment conducted by a qualified soils engineer and shall submit the engineer's report to the City Engineer for review. Such assessment shall include the following:· Visual reconnaissance of the subject property to evaluate current on-site activities and past uses;· Review of local regulatory files concerning chemical use and storage at the subject property;· Research of computerized review of federal, state, and local publications to identify sites located within close proximity to the property that are listed on or by the following:o National Priority List (NPL);o Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA);o United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 9, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS);o RCRA Treatment, Storage and Disposal (TSD); ando Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS); as well as sites containing landfills, leaking underground storage tanks (LUST), registered underground storage tank (UST), and above-ground storage tanks (AST).· Review of selected historic documentation of the property to determine what activities have occurred at the subject site since the property’s first developed use or since 1940 (whichever is earlier);· General visual survey of the current uses of the immediately adjacent sites;· Soil sampling and analysis for pesticides and nitrates;· Preparation of a written report in general conformance to the guidelines presented in ASTM Standard E-1527-00, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments.The Phase I report must result in a conclusion that the potential for contamination on the property is low and further investigation of the property to ensure that recognized adverse environmental conditions area not present at the site is unnecessary. CCCDEH /Community Development Department Prior to issuance of grading permit 
VII-19. Water Quality Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant/Developer shall submit to the City Engineer for review and approval a Drainage Master Plan which implements Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control quality of stormwater runoff. City Engineer Prior to issuance of grading permit 
VII-20. Water Quality Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction permit shall be obtained for any disturbance of more than five acres. City Engineer Prior to issuance of grading permit 
VIII-21. Water Quality Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Applicant/Developer shall submit to the City Engineer for review and approval a Drainage Master Plan which implements BMPs to control quality of stormwater runoff. The plan shall describe how on-site draining systems will be designed to compensate for the reduced water absorption capacity of the site and to prevent flooding of adjacent properties. The plan must ensure that all stormwater entering or originating within the project site shall be conveyed, without diversion of the watershed, to the nearest adequate, natural watercourse, or adequate man-made drainage facility. City Engineer Prior to issuance of grading permit 
VIII-22. Water Quality Design of both the on-site and downstream drainage facilities shall meet with the approval of both the City Engineer and the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation Districts prior to the issuance of grading permits. CCCFCWCD City Engineer Prior to issuance of grading permit 
VIII-23. Water Quality Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (CCCFCWCD) Drainage fees for the Drainage Area shall be paid prior to filing of the Final Map. CCCFCWCD City Engineer Prior to issuance of grading permit 
VIII-24. Water Quality The construction plans shall indicate roof drains emptying into a pipe leading out to the street for the review and approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. Building Official /City Engineer Prior to issuance of grading permit 
VIII-25. Water Quality The improvement plans shall indicate concentrated drainage flows not crossing sidewalks or driveways for the review and approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. City Engineer Prior to approval of improvement plans 
VIII-26. Water Quality The Applicant/Developer shall ensure that each lot or parcel shall drain into a street, public drain, or approved private drain in such a manner that there will be no undrained depression. Satisfaction of this measure shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. City Engineer Prior to issuance of grading permit 
XI-27. Noise Construction activities shall be limited to the hours set forth below:Heavy Equipment Monday-Friday 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM Saturday 9:00 AM to 3:30 PMLight Carpentry Monday-Friday 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM Saturday 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM Construction shall be prohibited on Sundays and City holidays. These criteria shall be included in the grading plan submitted by the Applicant/Developer for review and approval of the Community Development Director prior to issuance of grading permits. Exceptions to allow expanded construction activities shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis as determined by the Chief Building Official and/or City Engineer. City EngineerCommunity Development Department Prior to issuance of grading permit 
XI-28. Noise All construction equipment shall use properly operating mufflers, and no combustion equipment such as pumps or generators shall be allowed to operate within 500 feet of any occupied residence during construction hours, unless the equipment is surrounded by a noise protection barrier. These criteria shall be included in the grading plan submitted by the Applicant/Developer for review and approval of the Community Development Director prior to issuance of grading permits. Community Development Department Prior to issuance of grading permit 
XIII-29. Public Services Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant/Developer shall participate in the City of Brentwood Capital Improvement Financing Program. Community Development Department Prior to issuance of building permit 
XIII-30. Public Services The Police Department shall review the design plans for this project prior to the issuance of building permits in order to ensure that the site plan incorporates appropriate crime prevention features. Police Department Prior to issuance of building permit 
XIII-31. Public Services Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant/Developer shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and the adopted policies of the East Diablo Fire Protection District (EDFPD). The City of Brentwood Chief Building Official shall review the building plans to ensure compliance. Building OfficialEDFPD Prior to issuance of building permit 
XIII-32. Public Services Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant/Developer shall provide an adequate and reliable water supply for fire protection with a minimum fire flow of 2,000 gallons per minute (GPM). The required fire flow shall be delivered from not more than two fire hydrants flowing simultaneously while maintaining 20 pounds of residual pressure in the main. The City Engineer shall ensure the minimum fire flow requirements are satisfied. City Engineer Prior to issuance of building permit 
XIII-33. Public Services Prior to approval of the final maps, the Applicant/Developer shall provide the number and type of hydrants called for by EDFPD. Hydrant locations will be determined by the EDFPD prior to issuance of encroachment and/or building permits. City EngineerEDFPD Prior to approval of final maps 
XIII-34. Public Services Prior to commencing construction, the Applicant/Developer shall provide access roadways having all-weather driving surfaces of not less than 20', unobstructed width, and not less than 13'6" of vertical clearance, to within 150 feet of travel distance to all portions of the exterior walls of every building. Access roads shall not exceed 16% grade, shall have a minimum outside turning radius of 32 feet, and must be capable of supporting imposed loads of fire apparatus (20 tons). The City Engineer shall ensure compliance. City Engineer Prior to commencement of construction activities 
XIII-35. Public Services Prior to issuance of encroachment and/or building permits for improvements, the Applicant/Developer (and all subsequent property owners/homeowners) shall submit plans and specifications to the EDFPD and the City Engineer for review and approval in accordance with codes, regulations, and ordinances administered by the EDFPD and the State Fire Marshal’s office. 1. Applicant/ Developer2. EDFPD3. City Engineer Prior to issuance of encroachment and/or building permit for improvements 
XIII-36. Public Services Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant/Developer shall submit to the Community Development Department written proof from the Liberty Union High School District and the Brentwood Unified School District that appropriate school mitigation fees have been paid. City EngineerCommunity Development Department Prior to issuance of building permit 
XIII-37. Public Services Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Applicant/Developer shall be required to pay the appropriate Quimby Act fees and/or dedicate the necessary park and trail acreage. This requirement shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Community Development Department Prior to issuance of occupancy permit 
XIV-38. Recreation The applicant/developer shall pay the park facility impact fees, as required by the General Plan Update EIR, for new development that increases demand for parks and recreation facilities (Action Program 1.3.4). Community Development Department Prior to issuance of building permit 
XIV-39. Recreation The applicant/developer shall participate in a Capital Improvement Financing Program, and project approval shall be based upon the required findings of 17.805 of the City Zoning Ordinance (Phased Development Plan) that the project will not create excess demand for park facilities (Action Program 1.3.5). Community Development Department Prior to issuance of building permit 
XV-40. TransportationAndCirculation Prior to the issuance of building permits, the improvements to Apricot Way shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the improvements to Apricot Way shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. City Engineer Prior to issuance of building permit 
XV-41. TransportationAndCirculation The Applicant/Developer shall pay applicable thoroughfare facility fees (plus any annual increase) in effect at the time of building permit issuance and shall participate in the City’s Capital Improvement Financing Plan (CIFP) to finance necessary roadway infrastructure. City Building Official Prior to issuance of building permit 
XVI-42. Utilities and Service Systems The Applicant/Developer shall be required to connect to the existing Brentwood utility network as well as pay all applicable fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Improvement plans indicating conformance to City of Brentwood Standards shall be prepared, submitted, and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of encroachment permits for this project. City Engineer/ Community Development Director Prior to issuance of building and/or encroachment permits 

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

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

Gursky Property – Subdivision 8556

A Planned Development Amendment of PD-35 to establish development standards.

A Tentative Subdivision Map (Subdivision 8556) to subdivide 10.6 acres into 28 new single-family lots and one lot with existing residence.

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

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

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

Community Development Director,
City of Brentwood
By:
City Administration
City of Brentwood City Council
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
(925) 516-5440
Fax (925) 516-5441
E-mail allcouncil@brentwoodca.gov