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: September 24, 2002

Subject/Title: Public Hearing: An amendment to PD-35 establishing development standards for an approximate 81-acre site and a Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM 8603) subdividing the site into 220 single-family residential lots and three remainder parcels for existing residences, located at the southeast corner of the future Grant Street extension and the future Shady Willow Lane extension

Submitted by: Community Development Department (Mitch Oshinsky, Community Development Director/Erik Nolthenius, Associate Planner)

Approved by: John Stevenson, City Manager



RECOMMENDATION
1. Introduce and waive the first reading of an Ordinance approving the amendment to PD-35 establishing development standards for the project site.
2. Pass a Resolution approving TSM 8603 and an exception to the density transition policy, and approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.

PREVIOUS ACTION
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendment to PD-35 and TSM 8603 at its meeting of September 3, 2002.

BACKGROUND
At its meeting of September 3, 2002, the Planning Commission considered this request to amend PD-35 establishing development standards for an approximate 81-acre site, and a tentative subdivision map subdividing the site into 220 single-family residential lots and three remainder parcels for existing residences. The site is located at the southeast corner of the future Grant Street extension and the future Shady Willow Lane extension. At that meeting, the Commission passed Resolution No. 02-51 on a 4-1 vote recommending that the City Council approve the amendment to PD-35 and tentative subdivision map. One Commissioner voted "no" because the motion included approval of a provision within the development standards allowing for a maximum lot coverage of 45% for single-story homes if at least 35% of the homes within the subdivision were single-story.

The only other point of discussion was the City's General Plan policy related to density transition. Due to the change in the policy made by the City Council earlier this year, all tentative subdivision maps with proposed lots smaller than 20,000 square feet abutting existing parcels of 1 acre or more are subject to Council review. The change in the policy also requires the developer to make a good faith effort to acquire a letter from all neighboring and/or affected property owners outlining their position either in favor of or in opposition to the transition. The proposed subdivision abuts 1 parcel along its southeast boundary that is larger than one acre in size, requiring that proposed lots facing or abutting that parcel be a minimum of 20,000 square feet in size. No letter was received from the affected property owner prior to the Planning Commission meeting; however, the Commission was concerned that the property owner's position had not been clearly identified. The applicants have since provided verification to Staff that a letter was sent to the affected property owner explaining the density transition policy and requesting the property owner's opinion on the proposed lot sizes adjacent to the affected property.

The development standards for the proposed subdivision, as recommended by the Planning Commission, are as follows:

• Minimum Lot Area: 8,000 square feet
• Minimum Lot Width: 70 feet
• Minimum Lot Depth: 105 feet
• Minimum Lot Frontage: 1/2 the required lot width
• Minimum Front Yard: 20 feet to the garage, 15 feet to a primary building wall
• Minimum Side Yard: 7 feet, with an aggregate of 15 feet
• Minimum Rear Yard: 20 feet

Based on the Initial Study prepared for this project, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A copy of the environmental document is attached to this report for the Council’s review. The applicants, Meritage Homes and Beck Properties, would like to receive approval of the amendment to PD-35 and tentative subdivision map in order to move forward with their residential development plans.

The General Plan designates the project site Low Density Residential, with a mid-range of 3 dwelling units per acre. The subdivision has an overall density of 2.71 dwelling units per acre. The development standards recommended for approval by the Planning Commission are attached to Exhibit "A" of this report. These standards are in conformance with the General Plan.

ANALYSIS
Staff believes that the requested amendment to PD-35 and tentative subdivision map will allow the applicants to develop the site to its potential while maintaining consistency with the General Plan designation of the site and ensuring compatibility with existing and future land uses in the vicinity of the site. The Planning Commission and Staff believe that approval of the requested entitlements would serve to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan by facilitating development of the project site and will not adversely impact the development of adjacent parcels.

This project requires compliance with the City's density transition policy as previously referenced and as outlined in the General Plan. The policy was recently modified by the City Council to allow exceptions under certain circumstances after the adoption of specified findings. One of these circumstances is that the adjacent property has a land use and/or zoning designation that would enable the future subdivision of said property into lots of a size similar to those planned in the proposed subdivision. The area in question for the proposed subdivision is along its southeastern boundary; where an existing 10-acre parcel abuts the subdivision. This parcel is also designated Low Density Residential by the General Plan and is zoned PD-35, both of which would permit similar lot sizes to those being proposed in this subdivision. The following table shows a comparison between the subdivision as proposed and as modified if the Council requires 20,000 square foot lots adjacent to the 10-acre parcel.

PROPOSED MODIFIED
TOTAL ACREAGE 81.24 81.24
# OF LOTS AT MID-RANGE 243 243
TOTAL # OF LOTS 220 217
OVERALL DENSITY 2.71 2.67

As the table shows, the project as proposed is 23 lots below the mid-range (220 versus 243). This takes into account the exception to the density transition policy, as recommended by the Planning Commission. The table also shows that 3 of the 5 proposed lots adjacent to the 10-acre parcel would be lost, with the remaining 2 lots increased to a minimum of 20,000 square feet in size. This would result in a corresponding decrease in overall density, from 2.71 dwelling units per acre to 2.67 dwelling units per acre.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

EXHIBITS
A. City Council Ordinance approving the amendment to PD-35 establishing development standards for the project site
B. City Council Resolution approving Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8603
C. Mitigated Negative Declaration for the amendment to PD-35 and TSM 8603


EHIBIT "A"

ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD APPROVING THE AMENDMENT TO PD-35 BY ADDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA "G", AN APPROXIMATE 81-ACRE SITE, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE FUTURE GRANT STREET EXTENSION AND THE FUTURE SHADY WILLOW LANE EXTENSION (APN'S 019-091-003, 007, 008, 033, AND 019-092-022, 023, AND 025).

WHEREAS, Meritage Homes and Beck Properties have requested that the City approve an amendment to PD-35 with the adoption of specific development standards to accommodate the development of Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8603, located at the southeast corner of the future Grant Street extension and the future Shady Willow Lane extension; and

WHEREAS, on September 3, 2002, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, considered public comments, and passed Resolution No. 02-51, which recommended approval of the amendment to PD-35 and specific development standards; and

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

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

WHEREAS, the availability of said environmental document for the minimum 20-day public review and comment period was begun on July 5, 2002, and ended on July 24, 2002, and no comments were received during the review period; and

WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was distributed to all property owners of record within 300 feet of the project site and published in the Ledger-Dispatch on July 5, 2002, and again on September 13, 2002, in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090; and

WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed amendment to PD-35 and specific development standards on September 24, 2002, for the purpose of reviewing the application, considering the Planning Commission's action and considering all comments made by the public with respect to the request; and

WHEREAS, after the close of the public hearing, the City Council considered all public comments received both before and during the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommendation, the presentation by City Staff, the staff report, and all other pertinent goals, policies, regulations, and documents regarding the proposed rezone and specific development standards; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brentwood hereby makes the following supporting findings for this application as required by Section 17.870.008 of the City Zoning Ordinance:

1. Specific development standards for the uses permitted under the General Plan and the approved Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8603 have been established; and

2. The development standards will result in development that is consistent and compatible with surrounding uses; and

3. The level of traffic to be generated can be accommodated by the public circulation system, both existing and planned; and

4. The project will 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); and

5. 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 zone or combination of zones; and

6. The proposed Planned Development Zone is on property which has a suitable relationship to one or more thoroughfares, and said thoroughfares are adequate to carry any traffic generated by the development; and

7. 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

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

9. The development of the subject property, in the manner proposed by the applicants, 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 thereof, and with any applicable Specific Plan adopted by the City; and

10. 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; and

11. Pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15168(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that the project is within the scope of the development levels evaluated in the Program EIR prepared for the 1993 City of Brentwood General Plan. The Initial Study has further evaluated potential project-specific impacts to the environment. Based on 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 to supplement and strengthen the Program EIR measures. Therefore, since the mitigation measures are incorporated as conditions to the approval of the project, the Mitigated Negative Declaration as well as the Program EIR for the 1993 General Plan are adequate for all approvals relating to the project; and

12. The City Council further finds that no significant new information within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 has been presented to the City that would necessitate re-circulation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for public review. The City Council has considered all verbal and written comments relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and finds no significant new information has arisen.

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

Section 1.

The project site, as shown on Attachment "A" to this Ordinance, is hereby designated as Subarea "G" within PD-35 for single-family residential development.

Section 2.

Chapter 17.485 has hereby been amended to include Subarea "G" for the purpose of regulating certain real property and establishing development standards for TSM 8603

Section 3.

Chapter 17.485 is hereby known as Planned Development No. 35 Zone.

Section 4.

Development standards for Subarea "G" of PD-35 are hereby included as shown in Attachment "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 a summary of the Ordinance prepared by the City Attorney in the Ledger-Dispatch and posting a certified copy of the entire Ordinance in the Office of the City Clerk at least five (5) days prior to passage and adoption, along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against the Ordinance.

B. This Ordinance shall go into effect thirty (30) days after the date of its passage and adoption.

Section 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 24th day of September 2002, and adopted at a regular meeting of the Brentwood City Council on the 8th day of October 2002, by the following vote:

Attachments:
Attachment "A" - Subarea Map for PD-35
Attachment "B" - Development standards for Subarea "G" of PD-35

ATTACHMENT "A" TO
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. ___
SUBAREA MAP FOR PD-35


ATTACHMENT "B" TO
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. ___
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA "G" OF PD-35


CHAPTER 17.485
PD-35 (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 35) ZONE
SUBAREA "G"

MERITAGE HOMES
AND
BECK PROPERTIES
(TSM 8603)

17.485.08 AUTHORITY, PURPOSE, AND INTENT
17.485.09 PERMITTED USES
17.485.10 CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES
17.485.11 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

17.485.008 AUTHORITY, PURPOSE, AND INTENT:

The authority, purpose, and intent for the adoption of the PD-35 (Planned Development No. 35) Subarea "G" Zone, as shown on Attachment "A", are as follows:

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

B. Purpose: The purpose of the PD-35 Subarea "G" Zone is to permit and regulate the orderly development of 81.24 acres located at the southeast corner of the future Grant Street extension and the future Shady Willow Lane extension with low density residential uses in accordance with the Brentwood General Plan.

C. Intent: The intent of creating the PD-35 Subarea "G" Zone is to ensure the coordinated development of the entire property in order to minimize impacts on adjacent properties.

17.485.009 PERMITTED USES:

The following uses are permitted in the PD-35 Subarea "G" Zone:

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



17.485.010 CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES:

Upon obtaining a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Chapter 17.830, the following uses are permitted:

A. Those uses permitted under the R-1 Zone, Section 17.130.003.

17.485.011 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:

All permitted and conditionally permitted uses developed within the PD-35 Subarea "G" Zone shall comply with the following regulations:

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

B. Minimum Lot Width: 70 feet.

C. Minimum Lot Depth: 105 feet.

D. Minimum Lot Frontage: 1/2 the required lot width.

E. Minimum Front Yard Setback: 20 feet to the garage, 15 feet to any primary building wall.

F. Minimum Side Yard Setback: 7 feet with an aggregate of 15 feet (10 feet on the street side of corner lots)

G. Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 20 feet

H. Architectural features may project into any required yard pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.660.
I. Maximum Building Height: 30 feet and 2 stories
J. Side Loading Garage: 10% of the lots shall have side-loading garages.
K. 50% of the corner lots shall have single-story units.
L. Maximum Lot Coverage: 45% for single-story units, provided that a minimum of 35% of the total number of lots have single-story units, otherwise the maximum lot coverage shall be 40%; 40% for two-story units.

EXHIBIT "B"

CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD APPROVING TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 8603 TO ALLOW THE SUBDIVISION OF AN 81.24-ACRE SITE INTO 220 LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE AND 9 REMAINDER PARCELS, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE FUTURE GRANT STREET EXTENSION AND THE FUTURE SHADY WILLOW LANE EXTENSION (APN'S 019-091-003, 007, 008, 033, AND 019-092-022, 023, AND 025).

WHEREAS, Meritage Homes and Beck Properties have requested that the City approve an amendment to PD-35 and a tentative subdivision map to subdivide 81.24 acres into 220 single-family residential lots and related improvements located at the southeast corner of the future Grant Street extension and the future Shady Willow Lane extension; and

WHEREAS, said tentative subdivision map was referred to various public utility companies, public districts, and pertinent City departments for review and recommendations; and

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

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

WHEREAS, the availability of said environmental document for the minimum 20-day public review and comment period was begun on July 5, 2002, and ended on July 24, 2002, and no comments were received during the review period; and

WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was distributed to all property owners of record within 300 feet of the project site and published in the Ledger-Dispatch on July 5, 2002, and again on September 13, 2002, in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood held a public hearing on this project at its regular meeting of September 3, 2002, and passed Resolution No. 02-51 recommending approval of Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8603; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff report, Mitigated Negative Declaration, supporting documents, public testimony, and all appropriate information that has been submitted with the proposed project and finds that:

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

2. 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; and

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

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

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

6. Since the adjacent property to the southeast (APN 019-092-032) is designated for Low Density Residential development and no correspondence has been received from the owners of said property objecting to the design or lot sizes associated with the proposed subdivision, the intent of the Density Transition Policy as outlined in the City General Plan is being adhered to; and

7. The proposed subdivision complies with the modified Density Transition Policy in the General Plan in that adjacent properties affected are zoned to allow the creation of similar sized lots; and

8. The Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project has been prepared and circulated in accordance with all applicable provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and represents the independent judgment of the City of Brentwood; and

9. Pursuant to Sections 15162 and 15168(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City Council finds that the project is within the scope of the development levels evaluated in the Program EIR prepared for the 1993 City of Brentwood General Plan. The Initial Study has further evaluated potential project-specific impacts to the environment. Based on 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 to supplement and strengthen the Program EIR measures. Therefore, since the mitigation measures are incorporated as conditions to the approval of the project, the Mitigated Negative Declaration as well as the Program EIR for the 1993 General Plan are adequate for all approvals relating to the project; and

10. The City Council further finds that no significant new information within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 has been presented to the City that would necessitate re-circulation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for public review. The City Council has considered all verbal and written comments relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and finds no significant new information has arisen.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood does hereby take the following actions:

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

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

3. Approves Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8603, effective only upon the date that the amendment to PD-35 is effective, subject to the conditions of approval listed in Attachment "A", attached hereto and made a part of this resolution, and all City standards applicable to this project.

4. Approves the density transition from the required minimum 20,000 square foot lots to 8,000 square foot lots adjacent to APN 019-092-032 due to the fact that the referenced property is designated and zoned for lot sizes similar to those in the proposed subdivision.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this tentative subdivision map is valid for two years and will expire on September 24, 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.

PASSED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at its regular meeting of September 24, 2002, by the following vote:



Attachments:
Attachment "A" - Conditions of approval for TSM 8603

ATTACHMENT "A" TO
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 8603


1. 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.

2. The Final Map shall be in substantial compliance with Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8603 prepared by Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc., date stamp received July 1, 2002.

3. At the time of recordation of the Final Map, the applicant/developer shall pay the adopted agricultural mitigation fee.

4. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the developer shall process a quitclaim deed through the East Contra Costa Irrigation District to remove the blanket easement that encumbers the project site.

5. The following lots shall either be plotted with single-story homes or maintain a minimum side-yard setback of 10 feet adjacent to the rear yard of abutting lots, to be addressed at the Design Review stage of the project: 92, 121, 125, 132, 136, 147, 148, 200, 201, and 210.

6. All abandoned septic systems and wells must be properly permitted and inspected by the Contra Costa County Health Services Department.

7. 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. All work shall be done to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and ECCID, and shall be the financial responsibility of the developer.

8. All hardscape surfaces for trails will be constructed concurrent with street improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Director of Parks and Recreation.

9. All parks, pocket parks, trails, street and open space landscape areas shall be designed and built by the developer to the satisfaction and approval of the Director of Parks and Recreation.

10. Parcels 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8 shall be constructed and completed by the developer to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation prior to the issuance of the 110th building permit. All parks, pocket parks, trails, street and open space landscape areas shall be constructed and completed by the developer to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation prior the issuance of any building permit of any lot that is contiguous to the area.

11. Parcels 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8 will be maintained by the Developer at the Developer’s expense until subdivision acceptance. After subdivision acceptance, these areas will be maintained by the Lighting and Landscaping District for this TSM.

12. Park improvements will be fee creditable per the City’s Development Fee Program.

13. All trees will be selected and planted as per the City’s Urban Forest Guidelines.

14. The developer shall acquire the necessary right-of-way and construct Apricot Way to a minimum of 28-foot wide pavement section with 5-foot wide graded dirt shoulders from the easterly property line of Parcel 9 to Fairview Avenue to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. These improvements shall be the developer’s financial responsibility and shall be complete and operational prior to the issuance of the first building permit.

15. The developer shall dedicate in fee to the City of Brentwood, after City Council approval and when required by the City Engineer, the right-of-way for Apricot Way along the project’s frontage (including Parcel 9). The developer shall construct Apricot Way along the project’s frontage (including Parcel 9) as a half width right-of-way street plus a 12-foot lane in the opposite direction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Construction of Apricot Way ultimate improvements will be required where the project fronts both the north and south sides of Apricot Way. A portion of these improvements may be fee creditable per the City’s Development Fee Program and shall be complete and operational prior to the issuance of the first building permit.

16. Developer shall acquire rights and/or dedicate in fee to the City of Brentwood, after City Council approval and when required by the City Engineer, the right-of-way for Empire Avenue along the project’s frontage (including Parcel 4 and EBMUD Right-of-Way). The developer shall construct Empire Avenue along the project’s frontage (including Parcel 4) as full width ultimate improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the first building permit. The oversizing portion of these improvements, including EBMUD crossing, will be fee creditable per the City’s Development Fee Program.

17. Developer shall dedicate in fee to the City of Brentwood, after City Council approval and when required by the City Engineer, the right-of-way for Grant Street along the project’s frontage. The developer shall construct Grant Street ultimate improvements along the project’s frontage prior to issuance of first building permit.

18. Developer shall relinquish all access rights along Apricot Way, Empire Avenue, Grant Street and Shady Willow Lane, except Parcel 9, to the City of Brentwood on the final map to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

19. Developer shall install a complete irrigation system and landscaping in the median and parkway area along the project’s entire Apricot Way, Empire Avenue, Grant Street and Shady Willow Lane frontage (including Parcels 4 and 9 and the EBMUD Right-of-Way). 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 this TSM.

20. Developer shall be responsible for acquiring and dedicating 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. If developer is unsuccessful in acquiring this right-of-way/easements, then developer shall reroute these utilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to any plan approvals.

21. Developer shall annex into Community Facilities District #2 to fund fire, emergency medical and public safely personnel, open space maintenance and operations, and flood and storm drain services prior to final map approval.

22. The City of Brentwood will assist the Developer in processing a Benefit District for non-fee creditable off-site improvements constructed by the developer and process towards approval by 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.

23. 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.

24. All water laterals to single family homes shall be 1-inch in diameter with 1-inch meters.

25. 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. Credits will be based on the Development Fee Program in effect at the time of fee credit calculation as adopted by the City Council.

26. The developer shall coordinate with property owners along the boundary lines of this subdivision for any grading/fence work to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission and the City Engineer.

27. The design of all roadway improvements to be constructed by this project shall incorporate traffic calming features to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. These improvements will be the developer’s financial responsibility.

28. 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.

29. Water lines in Apricot Way, Empire Avenue and Shady Willow Lane shall be constructed per the City’s Water Master Plan prepared by Water Resource Associates. Any approved oversizing will be fee creditable.

30. The area containing lots 189-220, as depicted on TSM 8603 prepared by CBG dated July 1, 2002, contains 32 proposed residential lots. Developer shall provide a primary access point to the nearest improved roadway prior to the issuance of any building permit for lots in this area with no more than 25 permits to be issued prior to construction of permanent secondary access or a temporary secondary access (28-feet wide) across lot 189 to this area acceptable to the City. No building permits shall be issued for lots 189 and 190 until permanent secondary access is constructed and open for public use. “T” Street extension to the west and “W” Street extension to the south shall not be used as primary, secondary or temporary access for this area. If developer is unsuccessful in providing required access to this area, then this area shall not be approved for a final map until required access is provided and this unsubdivided area will have one in and out access off Apricot Way.

31. 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 $1,691.61 (APN (019-091-033) and $43.02 (all other APNs in TSM 8603) per residential dwelling unit and shall be paid prior to approval of the first final map, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer.

32. A building permit for lot 189 shall not be issued until the necessary documents indicating that required property has been acquired from Subdivision 8557 to complete the lot as depicted on TSM 8603 prepared by CBG dated July 1, 2002.

33. Developer shall design and construct traffic signals at the intersections of Shady Willow Lane and Empire Avenue, Empire Avenue and Grant Street and Empire Avenue and Apricot Way concurrently with the roadway improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

34. Lots 189-220 depend upon sewer service from future subdivision 8557. Building permits for these lots shall not be issued until adequate facilities are installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

35. Developer shall design and construct Shady Willow Lane adjacent to the project’s frontage as an arterial street with a minimum of full improvements on the east half, a complete 16-foot wide median and one southbound lane on the west side of the median or as a portion of the Northwest Quadrant CIFP at the discretion of the City Engineer. The portion of these improvements between EBMUD and Empire Avenue shall be constructed and open for public use prior to issuance of 51st building permit. The remaining improvements between Empire Avenue and Sand Creek shall be constructed and open for public use prior to the 125th building permit. All improvements shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A portion of the cost of these improvements will be fee creditable per the City’s Development Fee Program.

36. Parcels 1,2,6,7 and 8 shall be dedicated in fee to the City of Brentwood on the final map. These parcels shall be improved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Parks and Recreation Director, and the timing of these improvements shall be consistent with the Parks and Recreation Department’s conditions of approval contained herein. Maintenance of these improvements shall be included in the Landscaping and Lighting District for this TSM.

37. Developer shall install a trail, irrigation system and landscaping in the area of the E.B.M.U.D. right-of-way along the project’s frontage to the satisfaction of the Parks and Recreation Director and E.B.M.U.D. prior to issuance of the 110th building permit. The cost of the trail and the south half of the EBMUD right-of-way landscaping and irrigation improvements will be fee creditable per the City’s Development Fee Program. The north half of the EBMUD right-of-way landscaping and irrigation will be 100% fee creditable. Maintenance cost of these improvements shall be included into the Lighting and Landscaping District for this TSM.

38. Prior to agendizing the first final map for City Council approval, the developer shall dedicate fee simple title for the Northwest Quadrant Fire Station site to the City of Brentwood. The station shall be generally located adjacent to the intersection of Grant Street and Shady Willow Lane, and shall be to the satisfaction of the City Manager. The size shall be approximately one square acre, as determined by the City Engineer. The northwest corner of Grant Street and Shady Willow Lane has been identified as an acceptable site for the station by East Diablo Fire Protection District. The City has opened discussions with the owner of that property and the property owner is willing to discuss the sale of one acre for fair market value. If the cost of the land exceeds the project’s fire fee obligation, the difference will be reimbursed from prepayment of fire fees from the Northwest Quadrant developments. If negotiations fail on the preferred Fire Station location, other locations in the immediate vicinity may be available that are acceptable to the City and East Diablo Fire Protection District.

39. The developer shall acquire and dedicate right-of-way for Shady Willow Lane as 100-feet (70’+30’) wide where the project fronts on one side, and shall dedicate full width, 140-feet wide, where the project fronts on both sides prior to any plan approvals. Developer shall acquire and/or dedicate the right-of-way to be dedicated by this development and from abutting Carlisle (APN 018-092-002) and Maggiora (APN 019-092-001) properties, as and when required by the City Engineer. A portion of the cost of this right-of-way shall be fee creditable per the City’s Development Fee Program. The Developer’s good faith efforts to purchase the necessary right-of-way for Shady Willow between Sand Creek and EBMUD shall be the following:

a. Complete an appraisal to Public Condemnation standards to the satisfaction of the City’s Right-of-Way Agent.
b. Make written offers to the property owners based on the above-described appraisal.
c. If the Developer is unable to purchase the required right-of-way, the Developer must accompany any request for City assistance in condemnation with a written agreement to pay for the condemnation proceedings and shall reimburse the City for any costs in excess of the costs authorized through the Development Fee Program.

40. A. The Developer shall design and construct the ultimate Shady Willow Lane Bridge crossing of Sand Creek as a free span bridge. This design and construction is 100% roadway fee creditable and to the extent that this project’s roadway fee credits exceed their roadway fee obligation, the Developer will be reimbursed through CIFP proceeds and/or the City’s roadway fee program. Developer will also be reimbursed for the bridge construction management costs as 5% of the cost of construction of these improvements. Any cash funding in excess of the development’s fee obligation shall be restricted to payment for plans as they are completed and signed, and as it relates to construction, payments will be made for completed abutments, completed decking and final paving of the roadway ready for traffic to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

Design must be complete prior to issuance of the 51st building permit. Complete design means not only City Engineer approval, but also all other approvals including California Department of Fish and Games. Bridge construction shall be completed and ready for traffic prior to issuance of the 125th permit.

B. The Developer shall design the southerly extension of Shady Willow Lane from Sand Creek to new Sand Creek Road. This design shall be completed prior to issuance of the 51st building permit. The design shall be for the east half of the road plus one southbound lane on the west side of the median. The Developer shall be reimbursed for this design through roadway fee credits or cash payments from the City upon signature by the City Engineer.

The developer shall construct two lanes of this roadway from the bridge southerly to either the northerly construction of Braddock and Logan (TSM 8421), or new Sand Creek Road, if Braddock and Logan has not constructed the roadway yet. The Developer shall be reimbursed for this construction through roadway fee credits or cash payments from the City upon releasing the road for traffic. 

Construction timing shall correspond with the construction of the bridge, with completion of the roadway concurrent with completion of the bridge construction.

41. All private easements shall be either abandoned or relocated to avoid any conflicts prior to final map approval to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

42. The developer shall provide public access to this development as follows:

a. Primary access shall be provided prior to issuance of the 1st building permit by constructing any of the following:
1. by constructing Apricot Way per these conditions of approval
2. by constructing Shady Willow Lane per these conditions of approval
3. by constructing Empire Avenue or Shady Willow Lane from the project northerly to Lone Tree Way with median and one lane in each direction
4. by constructing Grant Street from the project easterly to Fairview Avenue as 28-foot wide pavement and 5-foot dirt shoulders

b. Secondary access (in addition to the first) shall be provided prior to issuance of the 26th building permit by constructing any of the following:
1. by constructing Shady Willow Lane per these conditions of approval
2. by constructing Empire Avenue or Shady Willow Lane from the project northerly to Lone Tree Way with median and one lane in each direction
3. by constructing Grant Street from the project easterly to Fairview Avenue as 28-foot wide pavement and 5-foot dirt shoulders

If Grant Street is constructed as the secondary access, a third access shall be constructed prior to issuance of the 50th building permit.

c. Third access (in addition to first and second) shall be provided prior to issuance of 125th building permit by constructing any of the following:
1. by constructing Empire Avenue or Shady Willow Lane from the project northerly to Lone Tree Way with median and one lane in each direction
2. by constructing Shady Willow Lane per these conditions of approval

These improvements and right-of-way acquisition shall be developer’s responsibility except oversizing costs, which shall be fee creditable subject to City Council approval. If the second access is Shady Willow Lane south to Sand Creek Road, that shall be deemed as sufficient access for the build out of the subdivision and shall satisfy the condition’s requirement for a second and third access.

43. The developer shall pay Habitat Conservation Fee prior to issuance of building permits. This fee shall be as established by the City Council.

44. The developer shall design and construct Zone II water line from its existing terminus in Sand Creek Road (in front of the AIG Baker project) to Shady Willow Lane and northerly along Shady Willow Lane to project site to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to issuance of 1st building permit. If Zone II waterline in Empire Avenue is available for service, this required waterline in Shady Willow Lane may be postponed until 125th building permit issuance.

45. At the time of recordation of the final map, the 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.

46. The following conditions are mitigation measures taken from the Mitigated Negative Declaration:

a. 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.
b. 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 agricultural area subject to ground and aerial applications of chemical and early morning or nighttime farm operations that may create noise, dust, et cetera and that adjacent properties have an agricultural overlay zone on their property and are involved with agricultural operations and the keeping of farm animals. The notifications shall also disclose the location of the future elementary school site and park site on the north side of the EBMUD Aqueduct. The language and format of such notification shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planning Department prior to recording the final map. Each disclosure statement shall be acknowledged with the signature of each prospective property owner.
c. 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.
d. 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 Engineering Department, which will be responsible for field verification of the plan during construction. The plan shall comply with the City’s grading ordinance and shall include the following control measures and other measures as determined by the Engineering 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, etc.);
• 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.
• Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site;
• Install wind breaks, or plant trees/vegetative wind breaks at windward side(s) or construction areas;
• Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph;
• Limit the area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity at any one time;
• Unnecessary idling of construction equipment shall be avoided;
• Equipment engines shall be maintained in proper working condition per manufacturers’ specifications;
• During periods of heavier air pollution (May to October), the construction period shall be lengthened to minimize the amount of equipment operating at one time;

e. Where feasible, the construction equipment shall use cleaner fuels, add-on control devices and conversion to cleaner engines.
f. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, pre-construction surveys shall be conducted for burrowing owls on, and within 250 feet of, the project site for construction activities between February 1 and August 31. If active nests are found, a qualified biologist shall determine the need (if any) for temporal restrictions on construction. The determination shall be made pursuant to criteria set forth by the CDFG (1995).
g. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, pre-construction surveys for nesting Swainson's hawks shall be conducted for construction activities between March 1 and September 15 pursuant to the CDFG (1994). In the unlikely event that an active Swainson’s hawk nest is found, the need for construction setbacks shall be developed in consultation with recommendations from the Swainson’s hawk Technical Advisory Committee (SHTAC, 2000).
h. Any trees that need to be removed to facilitate site development shall be felled outside of the raptor nesting season (February 1 through August 31) or a nesting raptor survey shall be conducted immediately prior to tree removal. If active nests are found, tree felling shall be delayed until the young have fledged.
i. In conjunction with the submittal of improvement plans which include project drainage, the project engineer shall provide evidence to the City Engineer determining if fill (outfall structures, culvert crossings, etc.) would be placed within the ordinary high water mark of the Sand Creek channel. Prior to construction of any improvements that would result in outfall structures being placed within the ordinary high water mark, permits and certifications shall be obtained from the ACOE, the CDFG, and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.
j. The Uniform Building Code earthquake design criteria shall be used by the Structural Engineer, as recommended by Kleinfelder, Inc.
k. 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.
l. The 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.
m. 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 shall invalidate the opinions expressed by the Soil Engineer in the geotechnical report.
n. 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.
o. Prior to approval of final facilities design, the City Engineer shall review plans for drainage and storm water runoff control systems and their component facilities to ensure that these systems and facilities are non-erosive in design.
p. 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.
q. 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 BMPs to control quality of storm water runoff. The plan shall describe how on-site draining systems shall be designed to compensate for the reduced water absorption capacity of the site and to prevent flooding of adjacent properties. The plan must ensure that all storm water entering or originating within the project site shall be conveyed, without diversion of the watershed, to the nearest adequate, natural watercourse, or adequate man-made drainage facility.
r. 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 & Water Conservation District prior to the issuance of grading permits.
s. 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.
t. Implement Mitigation Measure IV-9.
u. Prior to issuance of the 1st building permit, the project applicant shall submit the design and location of the sound wall along Empire Avenue for the review and approval of the City Engineer. The sound wall design shall ensure the exterior noise levels are reduced to 60 dB DNL.
v. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall submit building design construction details for the review and approval of the Chief Building Official that ensure the interior noise levels are reduced to 45 dB DNL.
w. All construction equipment shall use properly operating mufflers, and combustion equipment such as pumps or generators shall not be allowed to operate within 500 feet of any occupied residence during construction hours, unless the equipment is surrounded by a noise protection barrier acceptable to the Community Development Department. These criteria shall be included in the grading plan submitted by the Applicant/Developer for review and approval by the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of grading permits.
x. 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.
y. Prior to the 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.
z. 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).
aa. The improvement plans shall indicate stop signs at the intersections identified on Figure 7 of the traffic study to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
bb. Prior to the recordation of any final map, the City Engineer shall review the map to ensure adequate site distance is provided at the intersections.
cc. 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 OF BRENTWOOD
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT


















APRICOT WAY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 35 AMENDMENT
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 8603

INITIAL STUDY AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION

July 5, 2002



TABLE OF CONTENTS


I. Background 3

II. Sources 4

III. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 4

IV. Determination 4

V. Background and Introduction 5

VI. Project Description 7

VII. Environmental Checklist 11

I. Aesthetics 11
II. Agriculture Resources 12
III. Air Quality 14
IV. Biological Resources 17
V. Cultural Resources 22
VI. Geology and Soils 23
VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 27
VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality 29
IX. Land Use and Planning 32
X. Mineral Resources 33
XI. Noise 33
XII. Population and Housing 35
XIII. Public Services 36
XIV. Recreation 38
XV. Transportation/Circulation 39
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems 43
XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance 45

List of Figures

Figure 1 Local Vicinity Map 8
Figure 2 Area Zoning Map 9
Figure 3 Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8603 10




INITIAL STUDY


I. BACKGROUND

1. Project Title: Apricot Way (TSM 8603)
Beck Properties/Meritage 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. Erik Nolthenius
City of Brentwood
925.516.5405

4. Project Location: 1920-2208 Apricot Way
City of Brentwood
Contra Costa County

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Beck Properties
Jim Ferguson
3114 West Hammer Lane
Stockton, CA 95209
209.957.0331

Meritage Homes
Mark Elrod 
2300 Contra Costa Blvd., Suite 500
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
925.288.3000

6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential

7. Zoning: Planned Development (PD-35)

8. Project Description Summary: The project includes the following requested entitlements:

• A Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM 8603) to subdivide 81.24 acres into 220 single-family lots, three remainder parcels for existing single-family residences, and four parcels for parks.
• A Planned Development Amendment of PD-35 to establish development standards for the proposed subdivision.

II. SOURCES

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

1. City of Brentwood General Plan 2001-2020, November 27, 2001;
2. City of Brentwood General Plan EIR;
3. Geotechnical Investigation Report Proposed Apricot Way, Brentwood, California, Kleinfelder, Inc., December 20, 2001;
4. Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, Apricot Way Property, Brentwood, California, Geocon Consultants, Inc., November 26, 2001 (updated January 15, 2002);
5. Final Traffic Impact Study for the Proposed Beck Meritage Homes (Subdivision 8603) Residential Development, Bucher, Willis & Ratliff Corporation, June 11, 2002; and
6. Baseline Biological Resources Analysis At The 66± Acre Apricot Way Site (Subdivision 8603), Brentwood, California, Moore Biological Consultants, June 20, 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.

 Aesthetics  Agriculture  Air Quality

 Biological Resources 
 Cultural Resources 
 Geology/Soils

 Hazards & Hazardous Materials 
 Hydrology/Water Quality 
 Land Use & Planning

 Energy & Mineral Resources 
 Noise 
 Population & Housing

 Public Services 
 Recreation 
 Transportation & Circulation

 Utilities/Service Systems 
 Mandatory Findings of Significance

IV. DETERMINATION

On the basis of this initial study:

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

 I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
 I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

 I find that the proposed project MAY have 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.

 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.


July 5, 2002_______________________ 
Signature Date

Erik Nolthenius ____________ __ 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 Apricot Way Subdivision (proposed project).

The project site is sized 81.24 acres, and consists of seven parcels: Assessor's Parcel Nos. (APN) 019-091-003, -007, -008, -033, and 019-092-022, -023, –025. The site is located at 1920-2208 Apricot Way, within the incorporated city limits of the City of Brentwood, approximately 0.8 miles west of the Fairview Avenue and Apricot Way intersection. The site is bounded to the north by the East Bay Municipal Utilities District right-of-way (EBMUD), which consists of an underground pipeline running east-west, the Carlisle property (APN 019-091-002) and the Maggiora property (APN 019-092-001) to the west, Sand Creek to the south, and the Whitmer/Lanter property (APN 019-092-032), the Schuler/Gursky Subdivision 8556 (APN 019-092-031), and the Schuler Subdivision 8557 (APN 019-091-034) to the east. The seven parcels are currently owned by five different property owners and are being proposed for development by Meritage Homes and Beck Properties.

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 is currently zoned Planned Development No. 35 (PD-35).

The site has a history of agricultural use, and is currently farmed for alfalfa and grapes. The site is also comprised of fallow field. Three existing remainder parcels are used for current single-family residences (0.84, 0.93, and 1.02-acres, respectively). 

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 addresses the potential impacts of the update. 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 analyzes full implementation of the Brentwood General Plan Update and identifies measures to mitigate the significant adverse impacts 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 81.24 acres, both north and south of Apricot Way, east of the Carlisle property (APN 019-091-002) and Maggiora Property (APN 019-092-001), south of the EBMUD Aqueduct, and west of the Schuler Subdivision 8557 (APN 019-091-034), Schuler/Gursky Subdivision 8556 (APN 019-092-031), and Whitmer/Lanter property (APN 019-092-032). The site is roughly rectangular in shape and is identified by the Contra Costa County Assessor as APN's 019-091-003, -007, -008, -033, and APN 019-092-022, -023, and –025. The site consists of fallow fields, and is currently farmed for alfalfa, grapes, and apples; however, three remainder parcels with existing single-family residences would be retained in their respective locations on the property. 

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

The applicant has filed a Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM 8603) to subdivide the site into 220 new, single-family lots, three remainder parcels to accommodate existing single-family residences, and four parcels for parks, totaling 8.96 acres. Of the 220 new lots, 152 would range from 8,000-to-8,999 square feet, and the remaining lots would range from 9,000-to-11,000+ square feet (18,011 square-feet maximum). The proposed density of 2.7 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/ac). The residential development as planned would also include westbound access via Apricot Way, an extension of Grant Street west into the project site, and a continuation of Empire Avenue south to the northern boundary of the site and continuing southwesterly to Shady Willow Lane.

Discretionary Action

Implementation of the proposed project would require the following discretionary actions 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 Subdivision Map to subdivide 81.24 acres into 220 lots for single-family development, three remainder parcels containing existing residences, and four parcels for parks.

FIGURE ONE

FIGURE TWO

FIGURE THREE

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 EIR must be prepared.

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

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

No Impact: The project would not have any impact.


Issues 
Potentially Significant Impact 
Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated 
Less-Than-Significant Impact 
No Impact

I. AESTHETICS.
Would the project: 





a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 
 
 
 


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, or historic buildings. Orchard trees from past agricultural uses were removed years ago. The project site is also relatively flat, except for a gentle slope to the east; however, 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 would not include any structures that exceed two stories in height, the view corridors of Mount Diablo would not be significantly affected. Therefore, the impact would be less-than-significant.

c. The development of the project site would change the existing visual setting from agricultural land, used for farming alfalfa and grapes, to residential uses. The proposed development would be considered compatible with other residential uses found throughout the City of Brentwood. In addition, 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 Way includes the construction of single-family homes on adjacent approved/pending subdivisions. In addition, the development of the homes requires Planning Commission Design Review approval, which would ensure compatibility of the development with the surrounding area. Therefore, the impact would be less-than-significant.

d. The project site is currently farmed for alfalfa, grapes, and apples, and includes three remainder parcels for existing single-family residences; but very little light or glare is currently emitted from the project site. Therefore, the change from relatively open fields to a populated 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 With Mitigation Incorporated 
Less-Than-Significant Impact 
No Impact

II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES.
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1977) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: 





a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 
 
 
 


b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 
 
 
 


c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland to non-agricultural use? 
 
 
 


Discussion

a,c. The City of Brentwood 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 Agricultural Conservation. The proposed development is not located within the conservation area, nor is it under a 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 shall be mitigated.

In September of 2001, the Brentwood City Council adopted an Agricultural Enterprise Program (AEP) in an attempt to preserve a part of its agricultural heritage. The AEP includes the continued use of an agricultural mitigation fee to be applied to those developments that irreversibly consume agriculturally productive land. Since the Brentwood General Plan EIR indicates that the plan area has been designated as Prime Agricultural Farmland, the development of the proposed project would result in the loss of Prime Agricultural Farmland used for agricultural purposes. Additionally, the project area has been used for farming. Therefore, the impact on existing agricultural uses and the loss of farmland would be considered potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce 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 the 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 agricultural area subject to ground and aerial applications of chemical and early morning or nighttime farm operations that may create noise, dust, et cetera and that adjacent properties have an agricultural overlay zone on their property and are involved with agricultural operations and the keeping of farm animals. The language and format of such notification shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planning Department prior to recording the 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 a 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 With Mitigation Incorporated 
Less-Than-Significant Impact 
No Impact

III. AIR QUALITY.
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: 





a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 
 
 
 


b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 
 
 
 


c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 
 
 
 


d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 
 
 
 


e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

 
 
 

Discussion

a,c. The City of Brentwood is part of the San Francisco Bay Area 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. In addition, the proposed project would be only 220 units as compared to the over-20,000 analyzed in the General Plan. 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. Project construction would also require earthmoving, which would use diesel-fueled equipment such as dozers, excavators, scrapers, and loaders. 

Diesel particulate matter has been identified as a public health concern. Fine diesel particles can be deposited in the lungs, which has been linked to a range of potential health problems including an increase in respiratory disease, lung damage, cancer, and premature death. It should be noted that the California Air Resources Control Board (CARB) identified on August 27, 1998, particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines as a toxic air contaminant. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has also acknowledged the impact of diesel exhaust in its CEQA Guidelines. 

The City of Brentwood General Plan Update EIR identifies that short-term construction activities would result in dust and equipment exhaust emissions that could, at times, contribute to nuisances or deterioration of local air quality. The General Plan Update EIR concludes that with the implementation of mitigation measures, the impacts would be considered less than significant. The proposed project is consistent with the City of Brentwood General Plan land use designation. Therefore, the effects associated with the buildout of the project site as well as the project area have been already considered and accepted by the Brentwood City Council.

The construction of the proposed project has the potential to expose people to elevated concentrations of particulate matter from earth moving activities as well as diesel exhaust This would be considered a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measure
Implementation of the following mitigation measure 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 Engineering Department, which will be responsible for field verification of the plan during construction. The plan shall comply with the City’s grading ordinance and shall include the following control measures and other measures as determined by the Engineering 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, etc.);
• 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.
• Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site;
• Install wind breaks, or plant trees/vegetative wind breaks at windward side(s) or construction areas;
• Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph;
• Limit the area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity at any one time;
• Unnecessary idling of construction equipment shall be avoided;
• Equipment engines shall be maintained in proper working condition per manufacturers’ specifications;
• During periods of heavier air pollution (May to October), the construction period shall be lengthened to minimize the amount of equipment operating at one time;
• Where feasible, the construction equipment shall use cleaner fuels, add-on control devices and conversion to cleaner engines.

e. The project would consist of single-family residential development and 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 to the west are primarily orchards, and to the east are proposed subdivisions, which both typically do not result in odors that would impact the proposed subdivision. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact from objectionable odors is anticipated to occur.


Issues 
Potentially Significant Impact 
Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated 
Less-Than-Significant Impact 
No Impact

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the project: 





a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 
 
 
 


b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, 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, b, d, 
e, f 
A Biological Resources Analysis was prepared by Moore Biological Consultants on June 20, 2002. The project site is located in west Brentwood within an unnumbered Section, T1N, R2E of the USGS 7.5-minute Brentwood topographic quadrangle. Land uses in this portion of Brentwood are primarily agricultural. Sand Creek bounds the site to the south and the East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) Aqueduct bounds the site to the north. Alfalfa fields and a remnant orchard are located to the west, walnut orchards to the east, and hay fields located to the north beyond the Aqueduct.


Vegetation

The site was historically leveled to facilitate flood irrigation for annually planted crops and vineyards. A vineyard is located in the central portion of the site while most of the remainder of the site is farmed in hay. The edges of the fields within the site are vegetated with typical ruderal grass and weed species that are commonly found in leveled irrigated pastures including oats (Avena sp.), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), and common mallow (Malva neglecta). 

Some ornamental trees and shrubs exist which are associated with the residences and outbuildings found throughout the site. Blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana) were not observed on or near the site during the recent field survey. 

Wildlife

A limited variety of bird and mammal species were observed during the recent survey; all of these are common species found in semi-rural areas of the Central Valley (Table 2). Several birds were observed flying around and over the site and perching in trees within the site. American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) are representative of the species observed at the project site. Raptors observed during the recent survey include black-shouldered kite (Elanus caeruleus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and American kestrel (Falco sparverius).

While raptors were observed during the survey, definitive signs of nesting (i.e., perching in nests, feeding young) were not observed. Given the size of the site and presence of relatively large ornamental trees associated with existing residences, the possibility exists that one or more pairs of raptors, plus a variety of songbirds, nest on the site each year.

In its current condition, the site provides marginally suitable habitat for mammals. California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) and black-tailed hare (Lepus californicus) were observed within the site. A number of species of small rodents such as Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), California vole (Microtus californicus), and house mouse (Mus musculus) are also expected to occur.

Based on habitat types present, a limited variety of amphibians and reptiles may use habitats in the project site. The project site contains suitable habitat for species such as pacific chorus frog (Pseudacris regilla) and Gilbert’s skink (Eumeces gilbertii). Western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) was observed during the recent survey.

Sensitive Species

The likelihood of occurrence of listed, candidate, and other sensitive species in the project site is considered low, primarily due to lack of suitable habitat. Sensitive species or suitable habitat for sensitive species were not observed during the recent survey. The hay fields, vineyard, and highly disturbed ruderal vegetation that are found throughout the project site provide marginally suitable habitat for sensitive species found in the greater project vicinity. 

Sensitive Plants

Sensitive plants generally occur in relatively undisturbed areas and are largely found within unique vegetation communities not present within the project site. Consequently, the likelihood of occurrence within the cultivated fields within the site or along disturbed ruderal areas along the edges of these fields is considered remote.

Sensitive Wildlife

The potential for intensive use of habitats within the project site by sensitive wildlife species is considered low to none. Only two species exist with what is considered a low potential to occur: burrowing owl and Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni). These species could be adversely affected by site construction if they nested on or near the project site during construction. 

Burrowing Owl

Burrowing owls are a year-long resident in a variety of grasslands as well as scrublands that have a low density of trees and shrubs with low growing vegetation; burrowing owls, which nest in the Central Valley, may winter elsewhere. The primary habitat requirement of the burrowing owl is burrows for nesting. The owl usually nests in old ground squirrel burrows, although they have been known to dig their own burrows in softer soils. In urban areas, burrowing owls often utilize artificial burrows including pipes, culverts, and piles of concrete pieces. This semi-colonial owl breeds from March through August, and is most active while hunting during dawn and dusk.

Burrowing owls were not observed in the project site during the recent survey. However, this species has nested in the greater project vicinity within the past few years. Further, burrowing owls are often migratory and could use the site on a seasonal basis for nesting if burrows are available. While the limited amount of suitable habitat and the intensity of surrounding construction reduce the likelihood of owls using the site for nesting in the future, this fact cannot be precluded. 

Swainson’s Hawk

The Swainson’s hawk is a migratory hawk listed by the State of California as a Threatened Species. Swainson’s hawks are found in the Central Valley primarily during their breeding season (March 1 through September 15), although a small number have been known to winter in the Delta. While the site is located at or outside (i.e. west) of the nesting range of this species, the CNDDB (2002) reports an interesting recent occurrence of a pair of Swainson’s hawks nesting approximately 1/2 mile southwest of the project site. This occurrence is notably the only record in the CNDDB of this species nesting within the USGS Brentwood topographic quadrangle. 

Highly suitable nest trees within or adjacent to the site do not exist, although Swainson’s hawks or other raptors could nest in some of the ornamental trees associated with existing residences. Swainson’s hawks could be adversely affected by on-site construction if they nest in nearby off-site trees while construction is ongoing. While the likelihood of Swainson’s hawks nesting in the immediate project vicinity in future years is considered low, future use of nearby trees by nesting Swainson’s hawks cannot be precluded with certainty at this point.

Therefore, the impact of the proposed project on existing species and habitats, as well as the Burrowing Owl and the Swainson’s hawk, would be considered potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the biological resources-related impact to a less-than-significant level.

IV-6. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, pre-construction surveys shall be conducted for burrowing owls on, and within 250 feet of, the project site for construction activities between February 1 and August 31. If active nests are found, a qualified biologist shall determine the need (if any) for temporal restrictions on construction. The determination shall be made pursuant to criteria set forth by the CDFG (1995).

IV-7. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, pre-construction surveys for nesting Swainson's hawks shall be conducted for construction activities between March 1 and September 15 pursuant to the CDFG (1994). In the unlikely event that an active Swainson’s hawk nest is found, the need for construction setbacks shall be developed in consultation with recommendations from the Swainson’s hawk Technical Advisory Committee (SHTAC, 2000).

IV-8. Any trees that need to be removed to facilitate site development shall be felled outside of the raptor nesting season (February 1 through August 31) or a nesting raptor survey shall be conducted immediately prior to tree removal. If active nests are found, tree felling shall be delayed until the young have fledged. 

c. On the project site, the Panagopoulos parcel (APN 019-091-033) drains north to Grant Street, where it ties into the existing SPA L facilities. The SPA L line was developed for the Fairview subdivision to the east and designed to accommodate the flow capacity of westward development including the proposed subdivision. The remaining project site drains south to Sand Creek from Grant Street, west of Empire Avenue, and south of the Apricot Way/Empire Avenue intersection. Anticipated discharge is consistent with the Contra Costa County Flood Control 104 Master Plan.

Waters of the United States under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) are not located within the project site. The nearest location of such territory is Sand Creek, which runs adjacent to the site along the southern border. Other channels, ponds, riparian areas, vernal pools, or wetlands of any type do not exist within the project site. However, if fill (outfall structures, culvert crossings, etc.) would be placed within the ordinary high water mark of the channel, permits and certifications would be required from the ACOE, the CDFG, and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Therefore, the impact would be considered potentially significant.

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

IV-9. In conjunction with the submittal of improvement plans which include project drainage, the project engineer shall provide evidence to the City Engineer determining if fill (outfall structures, culvert crossings, etc.) would be placed within the ordinary high water mark of the Sand Creek channel. Prior to construction of any improvements that would result in outfall structures being placed within the ordinary high water mark, permits and certifications shall be obtained from the ACOE, the CDFG, and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 


Issues 
Potentially Significant Impact 
Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated 
Less-Than-Significant Impact 
No Impact

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Would the project: 





a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? 
 
 
 


b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? 
 
 
 


c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource on site or unique geologic features? 
 
 
 


d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. 
 
 
 


Discussion

a,b. The 1993 Brentwood General Plan states that a possibility exists for buried prehistoric sites in the area. Basin Research Associates, in their Archaeological Resources Assessment dated November 23, 2001, identified the general area as “highly sensitive” for archaeological resources. Nonetheless, prehistoric sites have not been recorded or identified in, adjacent, or near the project. In addition, the field inventory did not note any evidence of prehistoric or historically significant archaeological or architectural resources. However, due to alluviation, land leveling, and re-channelization of drainageways, sites may have been obscured or capped-off, not leaving any 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-10. 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 shall not be allowed until the preceding steps have been taken.

c. The Brentwood General Plan does not identify any unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features on the 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 With Mitigation Incorporated 
Less-Than-Significant Impact 
No Impact

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
Would the project: 





a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 





i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? 
 
 
 


ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? 
 
 
 


iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 
 
 
 


iv. Landslides? 
 
 
 


b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 
 
 
 


c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 
 
 
 


d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code? 
 
 
 


e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative 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 Kleinfelder, Inc. in December, 2001. According to the report, the project site is not located within or adjacent to any Fault-Rupture Hazard Zone (formerly Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone); however, the report indicates that the project site and its vicinity are located in an area traditionally characterized by high seismic activity. The closest known active fault to the site is the Greenville Fault, located about 8 miles to the southwest. 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 Kleinfelder report cites historical records, which indicate that the project site would likely be subject to strong seismic shaking at least once during the design life of the project. 

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

VI-11. The Uniform Building Code earthquake design criteria shall be used by the Structural Engineer, as recommended by Kleinfelder, Inc.

VI-12. 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-13. The 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-14. 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 shall invalidate the opinions expressed by the Soil Engineer in the geotechnical report.

a.iii.,
a.iv. The Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Kleinfelder, Inc. defines soil liquefaction as a phenomenon in which saturated soil loses shear strength and deforms as a result of increased pore water pressure induced by strong ground shaking during an earthquake.

The topography of the project site is flat, with a gentle slope to the east, rendering it resistant to landslides. Furthermore, Kleinfelder, Inc. observed the site to contain generally high clay content and relatively dense soils; 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 prior use for agricultural production. Currently, the site consists of fallow fields as well as land used to farm alfalfa, grapes, and apples (and three remainder parcels for existing single-family residences.) The proposed residences would be supported on stiffened slab foundations designed to resist and/or span the expansive soils.

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 five-percent and in areas with sandy soils, as found in the northern portion of the Brentwood Planning Area. The project site is flat, with a gentle slope to the east, and its soils consist primarily of silty clays and clayey silts. This site, therefore, would not be likely 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 81.24-acre 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-15. 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 subdivision 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-16. 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-17. 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-18. 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 project site is situated on flatland deposits that were formed by streams draining from the nearby mountains and foothills of the Diablo Range. The site is underlain by unconsolidated Holocene clay, silt, and sand alluvium to a general depth of about 10 to 12 feet followed by weakly consolidated Pleistocene clay, silt, sand, and gravel alluvium to a depth of at least 15 feet. The Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, California published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service (1977) refers to the near-surface soils within a majority of the project area as belonging to the Brentwood (Bb) soil series. In addition, corrosive soils are a common occurrence in Contra Costa County. The soils are described as clays with moderate plasticity, low strength, and a high shrink-swell (expansion) potential. The Kleinfelder 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-19. 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 the 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 With Mitigation Incorporated 
Less-Than-Significant Impact 
No Impact

VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
Would the project: 





a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 
 
 
 

b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? 
 
 
 

c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 
 
 
 

d. Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 
 
 
 


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 Site Assessment (Phase I) was conducted on the project site by Geocon Consultants, Inc., with specific focus on the potential for residual pesticides (from agricultural use) and potential leakage from an onsite underground storage tank (UST). Based on the analysis, residual pesticides onsite do not exist in concentrations that would deem the soil as hazardous waste. Concentrations of toxaphene in one composite soil sample exceeded the USEPA PRG by 0.19 mg/kg; however, according to the Phase I, onsite grading during site development would reduce the detectable toxaphene concentrations in surface soil. Therefore, the proposed project would constitute a less-than-significant impact related to transportation, accident conditions, or emissions involving hazardous substances.

d. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, the site is not listed as a hazardous materials site. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment, and no impact would occur.

e-f. The project site is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport or private airstrip. Therefore, residents or people working in the project area would not be exposed to safety hazards, and 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 With Mitigation Incorporated 
Less-Than-Significant Impact 
No Impact

VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
Would the project: 





a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 
 
 
 


b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? 
 
 
 


c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that 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 that 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 that 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 the California 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-20. 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-21. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction permit shall be obtained for any disturbance of more than one acre.

b-e. On the project site, the Panagopoulos parcel (APN 019-091-033) would drain north to Grant Street, where it ties into the existing SPA L facilities. The SPA L line was developed for the Fairview subdivision to the east and designed to accommodate the flow capacity of westward development including the proposed subdivision.

The remaining project site drains south to Sand Creek from Grant Street, west of Empire Avenue, and south of the Apricot Way/Empire Avenue intersection. Anticipated discharge is consistent with the Contra Costa County Flood Control 104 Master Plan. 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 would be considered to be a potentially significant impact.

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

VIII-22. 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 BMPs to control quality of stormwater runoff. The plan shall describe how on-site draining systems shall 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-23. 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 & Water Conservation District prior to the issuance of grading permits.

VIII-24. Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District drainage fees for the Drainage Area shall be paid prior to filing of the Final Map.

VIII-25. 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-26. 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-27. 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 undrained depressions shall not occur. Satisfaction of this measure shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer.

VIII-28. Implement Mitigation Measure IV-9.

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 floodplain.

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 site is not located near such a body of water. Therefore, the project site would not be anticipated to 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 With Mitigation Incorporated 
Less-Than-Significant Impact 
No Impact

IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING.
Would the project: 





a. Physically divide an established community? 
 
 
 


b. Conflict with any applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating on environmental effect? 
 
 
 


c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? 
 
 
 


Discussion

a. The proposed project would not physically divide an established community because such a community does not exist on the site. Currently, three remainder parcels with existing single-family residences are located on the site, which would be retained by the proposed project. Although the overall project site has former and current uses in agricultural production, the Brentwood General Plan has designated the site for residential development. Therefore, no impact would result due to the physical arrangement of an existing community.

b. The proposed project is within the Brentwood city limits and is designated Low 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 proposed density of 2.7 dwelling units-per-gross acre is consistent with the Low Density Residential allowance of 1.1-to-5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) anticipated by the Brentwood General Plan. Therefore, the impact would be considered less-than-significant.

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


Issues 
Potentially Significant Impact 
Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated 
Less-Than-Significant Impact 
No Impact

X. MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the project: 





a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 
 
 
 


b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? 
 
 
 


Discussion

a,b. The 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 planning 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 With Mitigation Incorporated 
Less-Than-Significant Impact 
No Impact

XI. NOISE.
Would the project result in: 





a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 
 
 
 


b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 
 
 
 


c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 
 
 
 


d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 
 
 
 


e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 
 
 
 


f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 
 
 
 






Discussion

a-c. The City of Brentwood Noise Element standard for residential exterior noise levels is 60 dB DNL and for interior noise levels is 45 dB DNL. The proposed project is bisected by Empire Avenue. The General Plan Update EIR (Table 3.6-7) identifies the 60 dB DNL contour to be located approximately 160 feet from the Empire Avenue roadway centerline. The proposed project includes residential development abutting Empire Avenue, which could result in residences being exposed to noise levels in excess of the General Plan standard. Therefore, a potentially significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

XI-29. Prior to the recordation of the final map(s), the project applicant shall submit the design and location of the sound wall along Empire Avenue for the review and approval of the City Engineer. The sound wall design shall ensure the exterior noise levels are reduced to 60 dB DNL.

XI-30. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall submit building design construction details for the review and approval of the Chief Building Official that ensure the interior noise levels are reduced to 45 dB DNL.

d. The Brentwood General Plan EIR identifies that temporary increases in noise levels would occur 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
The following mitigation measures would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

XI-31. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 9am-to-7pm on weekdays and 9am-to-5pm on Saturdays. 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 by the Community Development Department prior to the 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.

XI-32. All construction equipment shall use properly operating mufflers, and combustion equipment such as pumps or generators shall not be allowed to operate within 500 feet of any occupied residence during construction hours, unless the equipment is surrounded by a noise protection barrier acceptable to the Community Development Department. These criteria shall be included in the grading plan submitted by the Applicant/Developer for review and approval by the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of grading permits.

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


Issues 
Potentially Significant Impact 
Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated 
Less-Than-Significant Impact 
No Impact

XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING.
Would the project: 





a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? 
 
 
 


b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 
 
 
 


c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 
 
 
 


Discussion

a. The density of development is consistent with the 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. In addition, the project would tie into existing and planned utility infrastructure. Therefore, the impact would be less-than-significant.

b,c. Currently, three remainder parcels exist on the project site for single-family residences. The proposed project would retain those residences, as well as four parcels for parks, and develop 220 new homes on the remainder of the project site. Therefore, approval and implementation of the proposed project would neither displace any existing housing nor necessitate the construction of replacement housing, and no impact would occur.


Issues 
Potentially Significant Impact 
Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated 
Less-Than-Significant Impact 
No Impact

XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES.
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 





a. Fire protection? 
 
 
 


b. Police protection? 
 
 
 


c. Schools? 
 
 
 


d. Parks? 
 
 
 


Discussion

a,b. The proposed project is located within the jurisdiction of, and is currently provided services by, the East Diablo Fire Protection District and the Brentwood Police Department. 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 fire and police 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-33. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant/Developer shall participate in the City of Brentwood Capital Improvement Financing Program. 

XIII-34. 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-35. Prior to the 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-36. Prior to the 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-37. Prior to the approval of any final map, the Applicant/Developer shall provide the number and type of hydrants called for by the EDFPD. Hydrant locations shall be determined by the EDFPD prior to the issuance of encroachment and/or building permits.

XIII-38. 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-39. Prior to the 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 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
Consistent with State law, implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level.

XIII-40. 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 Union School District indicating 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 would include 220 dwelling units. Applying the Brentwood standard of 2.86 residents per dwelling unit, the proposed project would add approximately 630 residents. In addition, the Brentwood General Plan recommends five acres of park per 1,000 residents, requiring the proposed project to provide approximately 3.15 acres of park space for newly added residents. According to the TSM, four parcels would be used for park space, totaling approximately 2.84 acres. Therefore, the impact from the proposed project would be considered less-than-significant. 


Issues 
Potentially Significant Impact 
Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated 
Less-Than-Significant Impact 
No Impact

XIV. RECREATION.
Would the project: 





a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 
 
 
 


b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that 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 and Recreation Master Plan provides more specific details about planned parks and recreation facilities and services. The City uses a service standard of five 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 2.86 residents per dwelling unit, the proposed 220 dwelling units would result in a population increase of approximately 630 residents. Recommended park area for 630 new residents would be 3.15 acres. 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-41. 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-42. 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 shall not create excess demand for park facilities (Action Program 1.3.5).

b. The project includes adequate recreational facilities and does not 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 With Mitigation Incorporated 
Less-Than-Significant Impact 
No Impact

XV. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION.
Would the project: 





a. Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in 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 proposed project would consist of 220 residential units and associated park and infrastructure development. A traffic study, dated June 11, 2002, was prepared by Bucher, Willis & Ratliff to determine the proposed project’s impacts on the surrounding roadway network. The study evaluates the impacts generated by the proposed project on nine intersections and two roadway segments. The study intersections include the following:

1. Lone Tree Way / Shady Willow Lane
2. Lone Tree Way / Empire Avenue
3. Shady Willow Lane / Amber Lane
4. Shady Willow Lane / Empire Avenue*
5. Empire Avenue / Apricot Way*
6. Empire Avenue / Grant Street*
7. Empire Avenue / Amber Lane
8. Shady Willow Lane / Sand Creek Road*
9. Fairview Avenue / Apricot Way
(* denotes future intersections evaluated under future conditions.)

The roadway segments include:

1. Shady Willow Lane, Empire Avenue to Lone Tree Way
2. Grant Street, east of Shady Willow Lane to Fairview Avenue

Under existing conditions, the intersection of Lone Tree Way / Shady Willow Lane is operating at an unacceptable level of service. All other study intersections and roadway segments operate at acceptable levels of service. The existing-plus-project conditions are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service, assuming that the intersections of Lone Tree Way / Shady Willow Lane; Shady Willow Lane / Empire Avenue; Empire Avenue / Grant Street; Shady Willow Lane / Sand Creek Road; and Fairview Avenue / Apricot Way are signalized.

In the year 2025, several planned improvements are assumed to be complete, including signalization of the intersections listed above and construction of the entire State Route 4 Bypass. In the year 2025, four of the nine intersections are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service (Sand Creek Road / Shady Willow Lane, Lone Tree Way / Empire Avenue, Empire Avenue / Apricot Way, and Lone Tree Way / Shady Willow Lane.) In addition, one of the three roadway segments would operate at an unacceptable level (Empire Avenue, north of Shady Willow Lane.)

The four intersections and one roadway segment that are projected to operate at unacceptable levels would result in a potentially significant impact.

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

XV-43. 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. 

XV-44. The Applicant/Developer shall pay the current State Route 4 Bypass fee through the City of Brentwood Development Fee Program. 

XV-45. The Applicant/Developer shall pay their fair-share of the traffic signal installations at the intersections of Lone Tree Way / Shady Willow Lane, Shady Willow Lane / Empire Avenue, Empire Avenue / Grant Street, Shady Willow Lane / Sand Creek Road, and Fairview Avenue / Apricot Way. 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. 

XV-46. The Applicant/Developer shall pay their fair share of the following roadway and intersection improvements:

a. Sand Creek Road / Shady Willow Lane: Widen the eastbound and westbound approaches to provide one exclusive left-turn lane, two exclusive through-lanes, and one right-turn lane.

b. Lone Tree Way / Empire Avenue: Widen the northbound approach to provide two exclusive left-turn lanes, one exclusive through-lane, and one exclusive right-turn lane. Widen the southbound approach to provide one exclusive left-turn lane, one exclusive through-lane, and one exclusive right-turn lane. The eastbound and westbound approaches shall be widened to provide one exclusive left-turn lane, three exclusive through-lanes, and one exclusive right-turn lane.

c. Empire Avenue / Apricot Way: Signalize the intersection.

d. Lone Tree Way / Shady Willow Lane: Widen the northbound approach to provide two exclusive left-turn lanes, one exclusive through-lane, and one exclusive right-turn lane. Widen the southbound approach to provide two exclusive left-turn lanes, two exclusive through-lanes, and one exclusive right-turn lane. Widen the eastbound and westbound approaches to provide two exclusive left-turn lanes, three exclusive through-lanes, and one exclusive right-turn lane.

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 traffic study prepared by Bucher, Willis & Ratliff includes a site plan (as displayed in Figure 7 of the traffic study) that identifies the proposed streets C, H, and K for the purpose of studying internal intersections. The study concludes that the intersections of Apricot Way/Street C, Apricot Way/Street H, and Apricot Way/Street K on the proposed tentative subdivision map do not provide sufficient storage for the left-turns and right-turns at the intersections to provide safe traffic operating conditions. In addition, adequate sight distance between intersections must be provided; therefore, the impact of the current street layout would be considered potentially significant. 

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

XV-47. Prior to the recordation of any final map, the street layout shall be modified to reflect sufficient distance per AASHTO and/or City of Brentwood standards between the intersections of Apricot Way/Street H, Apricot Way/Street K, and Apricot Way/Street C to provide sufficient storage and provide safe traffic operating conditions to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

XV-48. The improvement plans shall indicate stop signs at the intersections identified on Figure 7 of the traffic study to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

XV-49. Prior to the recordation of any final map, the intersections within the development shall be designed to have a minimum of 200 feet (as per City of Brentwood standards) between any two intersections to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

XV-50. Prior to the recordation of any final map, the City Engineer shall review the map to ensure adequate site distance is provided at the intersections.

e. The proposed project would provide public street access to all parcels. All streets would be constructed to maintain a minimum 20-foot clear travel way to provide adequate emergency access. Therefore, no impact would occur.

f. The proposed project consists of single-family residences and park facilities. Development of the single-family homes must be consistent with the zoning requirements, which ensure that adequate parking exists for the subdivision. Therefore, no impact would occur.

g. Currently, limited bicycle and pedestrian facilities exist in the project area. However, all of the major roadways that are being improved would upgrade the bicycle and pedestrian facilities based on the City of Brentwood’s roadway cross-sections. Lone Tree Way is not located adjacent to the project site; therefore, the impact would be considered less-than-significant.


Issues 
Potentially Significant Impact 
Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated 
Less-Than-Significant Impact 
No Impact

XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the project: 





a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 
 
 
 


b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 
 
 
 


c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 
 
 
 


d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 
 
 
 


e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? 
 
 
 


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,b,e. The proposed project includes the development of 220 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. The General Plan Update EIR identifies that adequate capacity exists at the wastewater treatment plant and surplus capacity exists in the major interceptor lines. The proposed project is consistent with the type and intensity of development identified in the General Plan. Adequate wastewater 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 would be potentially significant.

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

XVI-51. 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.

c. The proposed project consists of the development of 220 single-family residences, and would introduce new impervious surfaces to an area where none currently exist. As a result, stormwater flows would increase. The location of the proposed project is adjacent to other proposed residential developments that extend eastward along Grant Street to Fairview Avenue. Linking these also is the SPA L storm drain line, which was developed for the Fairview subdivision to the east of the project site and designed to accommodate the flow capacity of westward developments (including the proposed project.) Stormwater from the Panagopoulos parcel of the project site (APN 019-091-033) would drain north to Grant Street, where it would tie into the existing SPA L facilities. 

The remainder of the project site would drain south to Sand Creek from Grant Street, west of Empire Avenue, and south of the Apricot Way/Empire Avenue intersection. Anticipated discharge would be consistent with the Contra Costa County Flood Control 104 Master Plan. Therefore, expansion or creation of stormwater facilities would not be necessary to accommodate the proposed project, and the impact would be considered less-than-significant. 

d. The City of Brentwood has adopted an Urban Water Management Plan, which identifies existing and proposed water supplies. The Urban Water Management Plan and the General Plan conclude that the City has sufficient water supplies and treatment facilities to satisfy the demands due to implementation of the General Plan. The water demand associated with development of 220 single-family residences would be consistent with the levels that have been anticipated for the site. Therefore, the impact would be considered less-than-significant.

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. Therefore, the impact would be considered less-than-significant.


Issues 
Potentially Significant Impact 
Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated 
Less-Than-Significant Impact 
No Impact

XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 





a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 
 
 
 


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 that 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 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 is addressed by the General Plan 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.

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