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. 16



Meeting Date: November 26, 2002

Subject/Title: Public Hearing: A Rezone (RZ 02-04) of approximately 5.81 acres from R-3 to PD-61 with the adoption of specific development standards for the project site, located between Sycamore Avenue and Spruce Street, east of Brentwood Boulevard

Submitted by: Community Development: M. Oshinsky/E. Nolthenius

Approved by: John Stevenson, City Manager



RECOMMENDATION
Introduce and waive the first reading of an Ordinance approving RZ 02-04 with the adoption of specific development standards for the project site, and approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.

PREVIOUS ACTION
The City Council granted the applicant an allocation for 53 dwelling units on the project site in accordance with the Residential Growth Management Program on October 23, 2001. The Planning Commission recommended approval of RZ 02-04 at its special meeting of October 29, 2002.

BACKGROUND
At its meeting of October 29, 2002, the Planning Commission considered this request to rezone approximately 5.81 acres from R-3 to PD-61 with the adoption of specific development standards for the project site, and a vesting tentative subdivision map subdividing the site into 53 single-family residential lots. The site is generally located south of Sycamore Avenue and north of Spruce Street, approximately 1/4 mile east of Brentwood Boulevard. At that meeting, the Commission passed Resolution No. 02-62 on a 4-0 vote (Commissioner Padgett was absent) recommending that the City Council approve the rezone, development standards, and Mitigated Negative Declaration.

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

• Minimum Lot Area: 4,800 square feet for Sub Area A and 2,370 square feet for Sub Area B
• Minimum Lot Width: 60 feet for Sub Area A and 30 feet for Sub Area B
• Minimum Lot Depth: 80 feet for Sub Area A and 79 feet for Sub Area B
• Minimum Front Yard: 10 feet for turned garages for Sub Area A and 13 feet for living spaces and 5 feet for porches for Sub Area B
• Minimum Side Yard: 7 feet with an aggregate of 15 feet for Sub Area A and 5 feet for Sub Area B
• Minimum Rear Yard: 20 feet for Sub Area A and 6 feet for garages for Sub Area B
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 applicant, DeNova Homes, Inc. would like to receive approval of the rezone and development standards in order to move forward with its residential development plans.

The General Plan designates the project site for High Density Residential development, with a mid-range of 15.5 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 rezone and development standards will allow the applicant 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.

FISCAL IMPACT
None

EXHIBITS
A. Ordinance
B. Mitigated Negative Declaration


























EXHIBIT "A"

ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD APPROVING THE REZONE (RZ 02-04) OF APPROXIMATELY 5.81 ACRES FROM R-3 TO PD-61 WITH THE ADOPTION OF SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE PROJECT SITE, LOCATED GENERALLY BETWEEN SYCAMORE AVENUE AND SPRUCE STREET, EAST OF BRENTWOOD BOULEVARD (APN 013-030-015).

WHEREAS, DeNova Homes, Inc. has requested that the City approve a rezone from R-3 to PD-61 with the adoption of specific development standards to accommodate the development of Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8574, located generally between Sycamore Avenue and Spruce Street, east of Brentwood Boulevard; and

WHEREAS, on October 29, 2002, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, considered public comments, and passed Resolution No. 02-62, which recommended approval of the rezone 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 August 2, 2002, and ended on August 22, 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 August 2, 2002, and again on November 15, 2002, in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090; and

WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed rezone and specific development standards on November 26, 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 requests; 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 Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8574 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 applicant, will not be detrimental to the public welfare, will be in the best interests of the City and will be in keeping with the general intent and spirit of the Zoning Ordinance and with the City's Community Development Plan, including all relevant elements 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 rezoned from R-3 to PD-61 for single-family residential development.

Section 2.

Chapter 17.516 is hereby added to the Brentwood Municipal Code for the purpose of regulating certain real property and establishing development standards for PD-61.

Section 3.

Chapter 17.516 is hereby known as Planned Development No. 61 Zone.

Section 4.

Development standards for PD-61 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 26th day of November 2002, and adopted at a regular meeting of the Brentwood City Council on the 10th day of December 2002, by the following vote:

Attachments:
Attachment "A" - PD-61 development standards
Attachment "B" - PD-61 Zone

ATTACHMENT "A" TO
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 8574



CHAPTER 17.516
PD-61 (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 61) ZONE

SYCAMORE SQUARE

DENOVA HOMES, INC. (TSM 8574)

17.516.01 AUTHORITY, PURPOSE, AND INTENT
17.516.02 PERMITTED USES FOR EACH SUBAREA
17.516.03 CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES FOR EACH SUBAREA
17.516.04 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA A
17.516.05 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA B
17.516.06 OTHER REGULATIONS

17.516.001 AUTHORITY, PURPOSE, AND INTENT:

The authority, purpose, and intent for the adoption of the PD-61 (Planned Development No. 61) Zone, as shown on Attachment "A", are as follows:

A. Authority: The PD-61 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-61 Zone is to permit and regulate the orderly development of 5.81 acres located generally between Sycamore Avenue and Spruce Street, east of Brentwood Boulevard, with high density residential uses in accordance with the Brentwood General Plan, for a maximum of 53 lots. The area is divided into two (2) sub areas as shown on Attachment "A".

C. Intent: The intent of creating the PD-61 Zone is to ensure the coordinated development of the entire property in order to minimize impacts on adjacent properties.

17.516.002 PERMITTED USES FOR EACH SUBAREA:

SUBAREA A:

A. Single-family dwelling units not exceeding a density of fifteen and a half (15.5) dwelling units per gross acre
B. Recreational trails
C. Rooming and boarding subject to Section 17.650.003
D. Temporary uses related to the primary use and subject to obtaining a Temporary Use Permit subject to Chapter 17.850
E. Home occupation subject to obtaining a Home Occupation Permit pursuant to Chapter 17.840
F. The keeping of domestic animals or pets subject to Chapter 17.670

SUBAREA B:

A. Single-family dwelling units not exceeding a density of fifteen and a half (15.5) dwelling units per gross acre
B. Parks, playgrounds, and recreational trails
C. Rooming and boarding subject to Section 17.650.003
D. Temporary uses related to the primary use and subject to obtaining a Temporary Use Permit subject to Chapter 17.850
E. Home occupation subject to obtaining a Home Occupation Permit pursuant to Chapter 17.840
F. The keeping of domestic animals or pets subject to Chapter 17.670

17.516.003 CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES FOR EACH SUBAREA:

SUBAREA A:

A. Conditionally permitted uses are those uses identified in Section 17.130.003 of the Zoning Ordinance, which are subject to the granting of a conditional use permit by the City
B. Nursery, childcare, or day care center

SUBAREA B:

A. Conditionally permitted uses are those uses identified in Section 17.130.003 of the Zoning Ordinance, which are subject to the granting of a conditional use permit by the City
B. Nursery, childcare, or day care center

17.516.004 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA A:

A. Minimum Lot Area: 4,800 square feet
B. Minimum Lot Width: 60 feet
C. Minimum Lot Depth: 80 feet
D. Minimum Front Yard Setback: 10 feet for turned garages
E. Minimum Side Yard Setback: 7 feet, with an aggregate of 15 feet (corner lots on the street side shall maintain a side yard setback of 10 feet)
F. Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 20 feet
H. Maximum Building Height: 31 feet and two stories
I. Maximum Lot Coverage: 40% for all units
J. Maximum Number of Units: 9


17.516.005 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA B:

A. Minimum Lot Area: 2,370 square feet
B. Minimum Lot Width: 30 feet
C. Minimum Lot Depth: 79 feet
D. Minimum Front Yard Setback: 13 feet for living space and 5 feet for porches
E. Minimum Side Yard Setback: 5 feet (corner lots on the street side shall maintain a side yard setback of 10 feet to living space and 5 feet to porches)
F. Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 6 feet for garages
K. Maximum Building Height: 35 feet and three stories
L. Maximum Lot Coverage: 50% for all units
M. Maximum Number of Units: 44

17.516.006 OTHER REGULATIONS:

A. Design and Site Development Review shall be required for all housing units pursuant to Sections 17.100.003 and 17.100.004.H
B. Off-street parking shall be provided pursuant to Chapter 17.620 and Section 17.100.004.H
C. The parking and storage of boats, trailers, and similar vehicles and equipment shall be subject to the provisions of Section 17.620.016
D. Accessory buildings and structures shall be permitted pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.660
E. Architectural features may project into any required yard pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.660, with the exception that no feature may project into the minimum front yard setback
F. The development of this zone shall be substantially in accordance with the Development Plan. Variations in the Development Plan including street and lot patterns may be approved through the subdivision map process






CITY OF BRENTWOOD
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT


















SYCAMORE SQUARE
REZONE NO. 02-04
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 8574

INITIAL STUDY AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION

August 2, 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 8
I. AESTHETICS. 9
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. 10
III. AIR QUALITY. 12
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. 14
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. 15
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 18
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. 20
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. 22
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. 25
XI. NOISE. 27
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. 29
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. 30
XIV. RECREATION. 32
XV. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. 33
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. 35
XII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 36



INITIAL STUDY



I. BACKGROUND

1. Project Title: Sycamore Square

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

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Erik Nolthenius
925.516.5405

4. Project Location: South side of Sycamore Avenue
City of Brentwood
Contra Costa County

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Brad Durga
DeNova Homes, Inc.
1849 Clayton Road
Concord, CA 94520-2513
925.685.0110

6. General Plan Designation: High Density Residential

7. Zoning: R-3

8. Project Description Summary:

The proposed project consists of the following requested entitlements:

• A Rezone (RZ 02-04) from R-3 to PD-61 and establishment of development standards for the 5.81-acre project site.

• A Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM 8574) to subdivide the site into 53 single-family residential lots and 6 remainder parcels.

• A Design Review (DR 02-02) for three plans to be used throughout the 53-lot subdivision for homes containing 1,701, 1,816, and 1,975 square feet each.


II. SOURCES

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

1. City of Brentwood General Plan Update and EIR, November 2001;
2. City of Brentwood General Plan 1993-2010, June 1993; (General Plan);
3. City of Brentwood General Plan EIR, June 1993; (General Plan EIR);
4. Geotechnical Investigation Sycamore Square Development, Brentwood, California, Stevens, Ferrone & Bailey Engineering Company, Inc. September 2001; 
5. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Assessor’s Parcel Number: 013-030-001, Brentwood, California, AEI Consultants, February 2002; 
6. Habitat Assessment and Mitigation Measures, Massoni Property, Brentwood, Contra Costa County, Mosaic Associates LLC, May 2002;
7. Soil Investigation Report, APN: 013-030-001, Brentwood, CA, AEI Consultants, February 2002; and
8. Site reconnaissance, Raney Planning and Management, Inc., March 19, 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.

W Aesthetics W Agriculture W Air Quality

* Biological Resources

W Cultural Resources 
W Geology/Soils

* Hazards & Hazardous Materials 
W Hydrology/Water Quality 
* Land Use & Planning

* Energy & Mineral Resources 
W Noise 
* Population & Housing

W Public Services 
W Recreation 
W Transportation & Circulation

W Utilities/Service Systems 
W 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.

W 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.



August 2, 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 Sycamore Square development (proposed project).

The project site consists of a single 5.81-acre parcel, Assessor's Parcel No. (APN) 013-030-015, located between Sycamore Avenue and Spruce Street, within the incorporated city limits of the City of Brentwood. The site is bounded by the dirt road extension of Sycamore Avenue to the north (followed by a residence further to the north), vacant land (approved TSM 8413) to the east, Liberty Union High School to the south, and the Brentwood Park Apartment complex to the west. This generally rectangular property is currently owned by Roy L. Massoni and the Massoni Family Trust and is being proposed for development by DeNova Homes, Inc.

The General Plan designates the land use for the project site as High Density Residential, which would allow the development of 11.1 to 20 dwelling units per gross acre. The project site currently is zoned High Density Multifamily Residential (R-3). The R-3 Zone encompasses “those uses which are permitted uses within the R-2 zone” (Brentwood Zoning Ordinance § 17.150.002-A). The R-2 zone allows development of both single and multi-family homes at moderate density, which is defined in the General Plan as 5.1 to 11 dwelling units per gross acre (Chapter I, page 8).

The relatively flat site does not contain any existing structures and has been disked in the past. A sparse growth of weeds and grasses vegetate the site.

The City of Brentwood recently adopted a General Plan Update, which revised 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 proposed revisions. 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 project and cumulative impacts associated with the revised 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 includes 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 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 No. 2000122013) and the 1993 City of Brentwood General Plan EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 92063113), which are 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 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 EIR 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 5.81 acres within the incorporated City of Brentwood, Contra Costa County. The site is bounded by the dirt road extension of Sycamore Avenue to the north (followed by a residence further to the north), vacant land (approved TSM 8413) to the east, Liberty Union High School to the south, and the Brentwood Park Apartment complex to the west. The site is roughly rectangular in shape and is identified by the Contra Costa County Assessor as APN 013-030-015. The site is vegetated by sparse weeds and grasses.

The applicant has submitted an application for a Rezone (RZ 02-04) and a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM 8574) to subdivide the site into 53 single-family residential lots. The average lot size would be 2,975 square feet with a minimum lot size of 2,370 and a maximum lot size of 5,522 square feet. Of the 53 lots, 44 would range in size from 2,370 to 2,999 square feet, eight would measure 4,800 square feet, and one would measure 5,522 square feet. 

The site is designated High Density Residential by the City of Brentwood General Plan and is zoned High Density Multifamily Residential (R-3). The permitted uses in the R-3 zone are “those uses which are permitted uses within the R-2 (moderate density multi-family residential) zone” plus specified single-family homes and multi-family structures not exceeding 16 dwelling units per gross acre. The applicant/developer proposes a density of 9.1 dwelling units per gross acre, which does not exceed the densities allowed by the City's General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the applicant has received an allocation for the proposed subdivision from the City of Brentwood's Residential Growth Management Program. The proposed development would serve as a transition from the multi-family arrangement of the Brentwood Park Apartment complex adjacent to the west boundary of the project site to the single-family, lower density arrangement of the future subdivision adjacent to the eastern boundary of the project site. The purpose of this medium-density arrangement is to provide an alternative form of housing and subdivision to the traditional choices of the apartment and the standard single-family home and to provide this alternative at more affordable prices than those of typical single-family homes. 

The applicant is also requesting Design Review approval for the homes within the proposed subdivision. Plans 1 and 2, the majority of the homes proposed by the applicant, would be constructed using the zero-lot-line, detached-wall-unit configuration. The homes would be placed on the property line at one side of the lot in order to maximize useable lot area on the other side of the house. An easement on the lot adjacent to the zero-lot-line would be provided to give access to the homeowner for maintenance and repairs when needed. The nine Plan 3 homes, constructed on lot numbers 1 through 9, would be developed as standard single-family residences and would not be developed utilizing the zero-lot-line concept. 

The subdivision would contain three model plans, each with three different elevations, consisting of one three-story and two two-story floor plans distributed over 53 lots. The homes range in size from 1,701 to 1,975 square feet. Table 1 below provides details of the individual models.

Table 1
Sycamore Square 
Proposed Plans

Plan Living Area 
(Square Feet) 
Stories 
Bedrooms 
Bathrooms 
GARAGE 
Height
1 1,701 2 3 2.5 2 23' 9"
2 1,816 3 3 2.5 2 32' 5"
3 1,975 2 3 2.5 2 25' 3"

All nine of the Plan 3 models would be constructed on the largest lots located along the western boundary of the site, adjacent to the Brentwood Park Apartments. Plan 3 is a two-story model with a height of 25 feet 3 inches. The Plan 1 and 2 models would be interspersed throughout the site’s remaining lot area. 

Vehicular access to the project site would be provided by Sycamore Avenue on the north and Spruce Street on the south. All homes would be accessed via private drives that provide a minimum of twenty feet clear space. Parking for the development would consist of a two-car garage in each residence and 15 guest spaces around the central common area. On-street parking would not be allowed. A 5-foot sidewalk would line 'A' Street in front of lots 1 through 9 at the western side of the subdivision. Landscaped common areas would run through the center of the subdivision in the north-south direction and three-quarters of the east-west direction, with the largest such area at the intersection of these two landscaped strips. Additional common-area landscaping would be established along the northern and southern boundaries, and streetscape landscaping would enhance the eastern boundary of the site.

Discretionary Action

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

• Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
• Approval of Rezone No. 02-04 to rezone the project site from R-3 to PD-61 and to establish development standards for the project site.
• Approval of Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8574 to subdivide the site into 53 single-family residential lots and 6 remainder parcels.
• Approval of Design Review No. 02-02 for three plans to be used throughout the 53-lot subdivision, for homes containing 1,701, 1,816, and 1,975 square feet each.

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 that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 
*


*

*

Discussion

a,b. The proposed project is not within an area designated as a scenic vista nor does it include such significant scenic resources as naturally occurring trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings. Although the project site is relatively flat, Brentwood is surrounded by the coastal range, including Mount Diablo. The City of Brentwood has recognized views of Mount Diablo as an important visual resource. Because the proposed development is located in a flat area of Brentwood and would not include any structures exceeding the zoning ordinance height limit of 36 feet, the view corridors of Mount Diablo would not be blocked. Therefore, the impact is considered to be less-than-significant.

c. The development of the project site would change the existing visual setting from a vacant field to a developed urban neighborhood covered with residences and landscaping. The proposed development would be considered compatible with other residential uses found throughout the City of Brentwood. The proposed use of the project site for single-family residences 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. 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 is considered to be less-than-significant.

d. As vacant land, the project site does not currently possess sources of light or glare. The addition of residences and streets with community lighting structures would introduce new sources of light and glare. This 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. Prior to approval of improvement plans, the applicant/developer shall submit a detailed Street Lighting Plan for review and approval by the Community Development and Engineering Departments in conjunction with approval of improvement plans. The plan shall indicate how all lighting would be shielded so that it is directed within the project site and does not illuminate adjacent properties.


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? 
*

*

*

W

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 Conservation/Open Space element that describe potential agricultural preservation program components. The General Plan also designates areas along the eastern and southeastern portions of the City as Agricultural Conservation areas. The proposed development is not located within the conservation area. The site is not under a Williamson Act Contract. Additionally, the Brentwood General Plan has identified this area for residential development.

The General Plan Conservation Element Policy 1.1.4 states:

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

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 included 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 indicated 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 in the past. Therefore, the impact on existing agricultural uses and the loss of farmland would be considered potentially significant.

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

II-2. At the time of recordation of the first final map, the Applicant/Developer shall comply with the City Council adopted Agricultural Enterprise Program in order to mitigate the potentially significant impact of the proposed project on the loss of farmland. The applicant shall pay the adopted City fee for mitigation of lost farmland in effect at the time of recording the final map.

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



Issues 
Potentially Significant Impact 
Potentially Significant 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? 
*

*

*

W

Discussion

a,c. The City of Brentwood is within 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 October 1991.

The air quality impacts associated with the emissions from the increased number of vehicles were analyzed in the Brentwood 1993 General Plan and 2001 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 density of the proposed project is below the densities anticipated in the General Plan Update and falls within the range of densities allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. The reduced density would result in fewer vehicle trips, which, in turn, would result in decreased air quality impacts. Therefore, the project-specific impacts to air quality are considered to be less-than-significant.

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

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

III-3. 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 for review and approval by 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, et cetera);
• Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph;
• Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways;
• Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.

e. The project would not include industrial or intensive agricultural use. Therefore, the project would not create odors or toxic air contaminants. In addition, the adjacent school and residential properties typically would not result in odors that would impact the proposed subdivision. Therefore, no 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? 
*

*

*

W


Discussion

a,d. Mosaic Associates LLC conducted a habitat assessment of the project site and prepared a report dated May 23, 2002. The report identifies potentially significant impacts to burrowing owls and recommends 3 specific mitigation measures.

Mitigation Measure
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would mitigate potential impacts related to biological resources to less-than-significant levels:

IV-4. The applicant/developer shall comply with the 3 mitigation measures identified in the Mosaic Associates LLC report dated May 23, 2002, to mitigate the potentially significant impacts on burrowing owls.

b,c. The project site is currently vacant. According to the Phase I Site Investigation conducted by AEI Consultants, the site was used for agricultural purposes until the 1970s. Since the 1970s, the site has been neither cultivated nor improved. The City of Brentwood General Plan Update EIR maps sensitive habitats and areas where endangered species are known to occur or have been sighted. The EIR does not indicate the presence of either sensitive species or habitat in the vicinity of the project site, and a site inspection conducted on March 19, 2001, confirmed the findings of the General Plan EIR and did not identify any wildlife inhabiting the site. In addition, the site is adjacent to an area that has been developed and continues to experience increased development activities. The only vegetation occurring on the project site consists of a sparse growth of weeds and grasses. Therefore, the proposed development of the site would produce a less-than-significant impact on riparian and wetland habitats.

e. The project site currently is vegetated by sparse weeds and grasses and is completely lacking in trees. Furthermore, the development of the project site is not guided by any specific ordinances protecting biological resources. Therefore, the impact is considered to be less-than-significant.

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


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? 
*

*

*

W

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

*

*

W

Discussion

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

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

V-5. 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 grading or other site work, all such work shall be halted immediately within the area of discovery and the applicant/developer shall immediately notify the Community Development Department of the discovery. In such case, the applicant/developer shall be required, at his expense, to retain the services of a qualified archaeologist for the purpose of recording, protecting, or curating the discovery as appropriate. The archaeologist shall be required to submit to the Community Development Department for review and approval a report of the findings and method of curation or protection of the resources. Further grading or site work within the area of discovery will not be allowed until the proceeding steps have been taken.

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

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


Issues 
Potentially Significant Impact 
Potentially Significant 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? 
*

*

*

W




Discussion

a.i-ii,
c. A geotechnical investigation of the project area was performed by Stevens, Ferrone & Bailey Engineering Company, Inc. (SF&B) in September 2001. According to the report, the project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone; however, the report indicates that the Brentwood area is located in a seismically active zone. The site is located approximately 9 ½ miles northeast, 16 miles east, 19 miles northeast, 27 miles northeast, and 45 miles northeast, respectively, of the active Marsh Creek/Greenville, Concord, Calaveras, Hayward, and San Andreas faults.

Development of the proposed project in this seismically active zone 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. Therefore, a potentially significant impact would result.

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

VI-6. The Uniform Building Code earthquake design criteria listed below shall be used by the Structural Engineer, as recommended by the Soil Engineer, SF&B:

Soil Profile Type: SD
Seismic Zone: 4
Seismic Source Type: B
Seismic Coefficients: Ca=.044Na, Cv=0.64Nv
Near Source Factors: Na=1.0, Nv=1.0

VI-7. All grading and foundation plans for the development designed by the project Civil and Structural Engineer must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Chief Building Official prior issuance of grading and building permits to ensure that all geotechnical recommendations specified in the geotechnical report are properly incorporated and utilized in design.

a.iii.,
a.iv. The Geotechnical Investigation prepared by SF&B states that soil liquefaction is a phenomenon primarily associated with saturated, cohesionless soil layers located close to the ground surface. These soils lose strength during cyclic loading such as that imposed by earthquakes. During the loss of strength, the soil acquires mobility sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements. Soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, uniformly graded, saturated, fine-grained sands that lie close to the ground surface. SF&B acknowledges that the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) designates the area in which the site is located as highly susceptible to liquefaction in an earthquake but concludes, based on the combined results of the borings, in-situ penetration resistance tests, laboratory tests, and their liquefaction analyses, that the potential for ground surface damage resulting from liquefaction is low. With respect to the potential for landslides, the topography of the project site is flat, rendering it resistant to these phenomena. Therefore, the potential for impacts from soil liquefaction and/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 would be expected in its current unimproved condition. Currently, the site is not planted and bears only a sparse covering of weeds and grasses. The proposed residential development would anchor the soil in place by overlaying much of the ground surface with homes, streets, and landscaping. New owners typically complete this process by installing patios, rear-yard landscaping, and swimming pools. Therefore, alterations to the land by the proposed project would inhibit, rather than promote, the loss of topsoil. 

The Brentwood General Plan EIR states that in the absence of a specific grading plan, the extent of potential soil erosion may not be determined. However, soil erosion is considered potentially significant in areas with slopes over 5 percent and in areas with sandy soils, as found in the northern portion of the Brentwood Planning Area. The project site is flat; therefore, the concern surrounding slopes is negated. As to the soil, SF&B characterizes the surface soils as loose silty soils with variable amounts of gravel and the subsurface soils as firm to stiff sandy silts and silty clays underlain by a dense layer of gravel and very stiff silty clays. Therefore, the site would be unlikely to suffer erosive impacts caused by grading. 

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

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

VI-8. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a grading plan to the City Engineer for review and approval. If the grading plan differs significantly from the proposed grading illustrated on the approved tentative tract map, a tentative map that is consistent with the new revised grading plan shall be provided for review and approval by the City Engineer.

VI-9. Any applicant for a grading permit shall submit an erosion control plan to the City Engineer for review and approval. 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. All protective measures shall be shown on the grading plans and specify the entity responsible for completing and/or monitoring the measure and include the circumstances and/or timing for implementation.

VI-10. Prior to approval of final facilities design, plans for drainage and stormwater runoff control systems and their component facilities shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval to ensure that these systems and facilities are non-erosive in design. 
VI-11. 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 the continuance of grading operations. Confirmation of this approval shall be provided to the Engineering Department prior to commencement of grading.

d. The geotechnical report identifies the expansive characteristics of the soil at the project site as moderately 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-12. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Comprehensive Grading Plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer that reflects the recommendations of the final Geotechnical Study. All recommendations of the final Geotechnical Study and City Engineer shall be incorporated into the grading plan and building design as a condition of the project grading permit and verified in the field by the City Engineer or his representative.

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


Issues 
Potentially Significant Impact 
Potentially Significant 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? 
*

*

*

W
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? 
*

*

*

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

*

*

W
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? 
*

*

*

W

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? 
*

*

*

W

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? 
*

*

*

W

g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 
*

*

*

W

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? 
*

*

*

W

Discussion

a-c. AEI Consultants (AEI) conducted a Phase I Environmental Assessment and Soil Sampling on February 8, 2002 to identify the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on the property that may indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substance or petroleum product into the soil, groundwater, or surface water of the property. AEI collected and tested 20 soil samples from locations evenly distributed over the project site. Although the sample analytical results indicated concentrations of both DDE and toxaphene at the site, the maximum concentrations detected were below established limits for these chemicals. Their presence is likely the result of historical pesticide use during former agricultural operations. Based on the relatively low deviation of the reported concentrations of each chemical across the site of samples analyzed, AEI concluded that the results are representative of the soils throughout the property, with no indication that significantly higher concentrations would be present. AEI did not recommend additional sampling at this time and concluded that the former use of pesticides at the site should not limit its future residential development potential. 

The Contra Costa County Health Services Department (HSD) reviewed the Soil Investigation Report and stated its findings in a letter to AEI dated February 26, 2002. The HSD found that sufficient samples were taken and that detected organochlorine compounds were below levels of concern for human health and the environment. The HSD stipulated that no further action is required at this site.

The development and occupation of the proposed residential neighborhood would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. For that reason, though Liberty Union High School is adjacent to the project site, it would not be placed at risk from hazardous emissions or spills. Therefore, the proposed project would not create hazards to the public or the environment from such activities involving hazardous materials, or from reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving likely release of hazardous materials into the environment, and development of the proposed project would result in no impact.

d. The Phase I report compiled by AEI stated that the site is not identified on any government databases as a hazardous materials site. Therefore, no impact would occur.

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

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

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


Issues 
Potentially Significant Impact 
Potentially Significant 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? 
*

*

*

W

h. Place within a 100-year floodplain structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? 
*

*

*

W

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. 
*

*

*

W

j. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 
*

*

*

W

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-13. 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-14. 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. The project consists of the development of single-family homes in an area designated for single-family development. Although development would not alter existing drainage courses and would be accommodated in the existing City of Brentwood storm drainage system, implementation of the proposed project would add impervious surfaces to the area. An increase in impervious surfaces could result in a decrease in absorption rates and an increase in stormwater runoff rates. This is considered to be a potentially significant impact.

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

VIII-15. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant/developer shall submit to the City Engineer for review and approval a Drainage Master Plan which implements BMPs to control quality of stormwater runoff. The plan shall describe how on-site draining systems will be designed to compensate for the reduced water absorption capacity of the site and to prevent flooding of adjacent properties. The plan must ensure that all stormwater entering or originating within the project site shall be conveyed, without diversion of the watershed, to the nearest adequate, natural watercourse, or adequate man-made drainage facility.

VIII-16. 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-17. Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District drainage fees for the Drainage Area shall be paid prior to filing of a final map.

VIII-18. 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 and Chief Building Official prior to the issuance of building permits.

VIII-19. 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-20. The applicant/developer shall ensure that each lot or parcel shall drain into a street, public drain, or approved private drain in such a manner that there will be no undrained depression. Satisfaction of this measure shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer.

g-i. The General Plan Update EIR includes a Flood Zones and Drainage Map at Figure 3.12-1, which indicates areas of Brentwood that lie within the 100-year floodplain and other areas of elevated flooding risk. The project site is not depicted as within a 100-year floodplain or any other area regarded as being at higher risk of flooding; therefore, no impact would occur with regard to housing or structures placed in a 100-year flood plain.

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

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

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

The above analysis indicates that the project site would not be threatened by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow; therefore, no impact from such phenomena would occur. 


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

ix. Land Use And Planning.
Would the project: 





a. Physically divide an established community? 
*

*

*

W

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? 
*

*

*

W
Discussion

a. As noted in the General Plan, the City of Brentwood has planned for orderly, logical development that supports compatibility among adjacent uses. The designation of land use categories takes into account the surrounding land uses and proposes uses and development intensity that respect the existing uses. The General Plan goals seek to retain the character of existing communities and ensure that future land uses are compatible with existing uses. The proposed subdivision would develop the project site at a density between that of the Brentwood Park Apartments to the west and the single-family homes of the approved subdivision (TSM 8413) to the east, providing a transition between the higher and lower densities. Furthermore, the proposed project would undergo Design Review consideration by the City's Planning Commission to ensure compatibility of design with the surrounding neighborhoods. Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community, and no impact would result to the existing communities.

b. The proposed project site lies within the Brentwood city limits and is designated High Density Residential by the Brentwood General Plan and is zoned R-3. The General Plan designation provides a density range from 11.1 to 20 dwelling units per gross acre. The R-3 Zone permits all land uses that are permitted in the R-2 Zone, in addition to the higher density arrangements allowed by the R-3 Zone. The medium density allowed by the R-2 Zone is defined in the General Plan as 5.1 to 11 dwelling units per gross acre (Chapter I, Page 8). Single-family homes are also a permitted use in the R-2 Zone. The proposed project would result in a density of 9.1 single-family dwelling units per gross acre, slightly lower than the General Plan anticipates, but within the permitted uses of the R-3 Zone. In addition, the applicant has already received an allocation for 53 units through the City's Residential Growth Management Program. Moreover, the proposed project’s density would provide a transition between the higher density apartments to the west and the future lower density single-family homes to the east. The type and density of the proposed residential development is consistent with that permitted by the Brentwood General Plan. The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations, nor would it conflict with any policy to preserve the environment. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact is anticipated to occur.

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? 
*

*

*

W

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? 
*

*

*

W

Discussion

a,b. The 2001 General Plan Update identifies coal, oil and gas, and sand as the significant mineral resources within the area. The General Plan specifies 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 are presently being produced in the northwest portion of the area, and the potential for additional reserves exists throughout the City. The 1993 Brentwood General Plan, Figure 3.11-1, does not identify the property as containing the potential for oil and gas fields or sand and coal. 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? 
*

*

*

W

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? 
*

*

*

W





Discussion

a,b. The Brentwood General Plan EIR does not identify the project site as being located within noise contours exceeding normal residential levels or in an area of high vibration levels. The project site is adjacent to Liberty Union High School, and the General Plan EIR identifies both residential neighborhoods and schools as noise-sensitive land uses (p. 235). Further, the General Plan notes that such noise-sensitive land uses are generally relatively quiet (p. 236). The General Plan EIR does not identify schools as significant sources of noise. Therefore, the school adjacent to the southern boundary of the project site would not be expected to impose significant noise disturbance upon the residences proposed by the applicant. Therefore, the impact is considered to be less-than-significant.

c. The General Plan EIR identifies residential neighborhoods as noise-sensitive land uses and notes that such noise-sensitive land uses are generally relatively quiet (pp.235-236). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site, the proposed residences would not result in noise disturbance to surrounding land uses, and the impacts related to ambient noise are considered to be less-than-significant.

d. The Brentwood General Plan EIR indicates that a temporary increase in noise levels would occur during construction of projects pursuant to implementation of the General Plan. The General Plan EIR states 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 determines that a noise level of 60 dBA is acceptable for residential land uses. The Brentwood Park Apartments occupy the land adjacent to the project site to the west, a single-family residence sits across Sycamore Avenue north of the site, and Liberty Union High School lies across Spruce Street to the south of the project site. Consequently, sensitive noise receptors are positioned along the western and southern boundaries and at a single point north of the site. Therefore, the temporary increase in noise levels during construction would be considered a potentially significant impact.

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

XI-22. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours set forth below:

Heavy Equipment Monday-Friday 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM
Saturday 9:00 AM to 3:30 PM

Light Carpentry Monday-Friday 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM
Saturday 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM

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

XI-23. All construction equipment shall use properly operating mufflers, and no combustion equipment such as pumps or generators shall be allowed to operate within 500 feet of any occupied residence during construction hours, unless the equipment is surrounded by a noise protection barrier acceptable to the Community Development Department. These criteria shall be included in the grading plan submitted by the applicant/developer for review and approval of the Community Development Director prior to issuance of grading permits.

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


Issues 
Potentially Significant Impact 
Potentially Significant 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? 
*

*

*

W

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

*

*

W

Discussion

a. The proposed density of development is consistent with the General Plan designation and zoning classification of the project site. Although the development would increase the population in the area, such an increase would be within the population levels projected in the General Plan. Therefore, the impact is considered to be less-than-significant.

b,c. The site currently lacks housing or other structures. Therefore, approval and implementation of the proposed project would neither displace any housing nor necessitate the construction of replacement housing. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Issues 
Potentially Significant Impact 
Potentially Significant 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? 
*
W *
*

b. Police protection? 
*
W *
*

c. Schools? 
*
W *
*

d. Parks? 
*
W *
*

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-24. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall participate in the City of Brentwood Capital Improvement Financing Program. 

XIII-25. 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-26. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and the adopted policies of the East Diablo Fire Protection District (EDFPD). The City of Brentwood Chief Building Official shall review the building plans to ensure compliance.

XIII-27. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall provide an adequate and reliable water supply for fire protection with a minimum fire flow of 2,000 gallons per minute (GPM). The required fire flow shall be delivered from not more than two fire hydrants flowing simultaneously while maintaining 20 pounds of residual pressure in the main. The City Engineer shall ensure the minimum fire flow requirements are satisfied.

XIII-28. Prior to approval of any final map, the applicant/developer shall provide the number and type of hydrants called for by the EDFPD. Hydrant locations will be determined by the EDFPD prior to issuance of encroachment and/or building permits.

XIII-29. 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-30. Prior to issuance of encroachment and/or building permits for improvements, the applicant/developer (and all subsequent property owners/homeowners) shall submit plans and specifications to the EDFPD and the City Engineer for review and approval in accordance with codes, regulations, and ordinances administered by the EDFPD and the State Fire Marshal’s office.

XIII-31. At the time of recordation of the Final Map, the applicant/developer shall comply with any City Council fire/emergency services programs established pursuant to the General Plan Safety Element in order to provide such adequate services to the community.

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. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a potentially significant impact related to schools.

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

XIII-32. 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 that appropriate school mitigation fees have been paid.

d. The City of Brentwood encourages an urban form that is based on open space throughout and around the community. Development of the project site would result in new residences and consequently would increase the demand for neighborhood, community, and regional parks and recreation facilities. The proposed project includes 53 dwelling units. Applying the Brentwood standard of 2.86 residents per dwelling unit, the proposed project would create housing for approximately 152 additional residents. The Brentwood General Plan recommends 5 acres of park per 1,000 residents. The proposed project would require approximately 0.75 acre of park space for these additional residents. Although the proposed project is small enough that it would not be feasible to build a park within the development, the project would increase the demand for parks by increasing population. Therefore, the impact from the proposed project would be considered potentially significant. 

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

XIII-33. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the applicant/developer shall be required to pay the appropriate Quimby Act fees and/or dedicate the necessary park and trail acreage. This requirement shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the Director of Parks & Recreation.


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. The Park and Recreation Master Plan provides even more specific details about planned parks and recreation facilities and services. The City uses a service standard of 5 acres of park space per 1,000 residents. Development of the project site would result in new residences, accommodating population growth and increasing 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 53 dwelling units would result in a population increase of approximately 152 residents. The recommended park area for 152 new residents is approximately 0.75 acre. The increase in population arising from the proposed project could contribute to the physical deterioration of 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-34. 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-35. The applicant/developer shall participate in a Capital Improvement Financing Program, and project approval shall be based upon the required findings of 17.805 of the City Zoning Ordinance (Phased Development Plan) that the project will not create excess demand for park facilities (Action Program 1.3.5).

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


Issues 
Potentially Significant Impact 
Potentially Significant 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? 
*

*

*

W

d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 
*
*
*
W

e. Result in inadequate emergency access? 
*
*
*
W

f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? 
*
*
*
W

g. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 
*
*
*
W
Discussion

a,b. The General Plan describes the growth of the City through the year 2020. One component of the General Plan, found in the Circulation Element, is the projection of vehicle trip generation and the corresponding design of a transportation system to adequately accommodate the movement of vehicles. The transportation system includes a hierarchical roadway system with different classifications designed to carry traffic generated by planned development. The City of Brentwood recognizes the impact on traffic from buildout of the General Plan to be significant and unavoidable (General Plan Update EIR, 3.4-32) but has adopted policies to reduce traffic impacts to the greatest extent possible. 

The proposed project would include the development of a 53-unit residential subdivision with an internal roadway system connecting to Sycamore Avenue. Sycamore Avenue connects with Brentwood Boulevard (State Route 4) west of the project site. The proposed project is consistent with future development levels planned in this part of Brentwood, which have been included in the regional Traffic Models developed by the Contra Costa Transit Authority and Contra Costa County. The applicant will be required to contribute to the construction of planned regional and local facilities. Although the development would be consistent with the levels identified in the General Plan, construction of the proposed project could result in a potentially significant impact. 

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

XV-36. 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 Improvements Financing Plan (CIFP) to finance necessary roadway infrastructure. In addition, this specific project may be conditioned upon payment of its fair share of other off-site improvements that lie outside the parameters of the Capital Improvements Plan.

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

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

e. The proposed project would provide street access to all parcels via private drives that provide a minimum of 20 feet clear space. All roadways would be constructed in accordance with City standards. Compliance with City standards ensures the provision of adequate emergency vehicle access. Therefore, no impact would occur.

f. The proposed project consists of 53 single-family residences, all of which would be equipped with two-car garages and driveways. An additional 15 guest parking spaces would be provided adjacent to the central park-like common area. Development of the single-family homes must be consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, which ensures in part that adequate parking exists for the subdivision. Therefore, no impact would occur.

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


Issues 
Potentially Significant Impact 
Potentially Significant 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? *
W *
*

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? *
W *
*

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? *
W *
*

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

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? *
W *
*

f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? *
*
W *

g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? *
*
W *





Discussion

a-e. The proposed project includes the development of 53 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 EIR indicates that PG&E has sufficient facilities to provide gas and electricity to the General Plan area. The City of Brentwood provides water and sewer service to the entire City, including the project site. The General Plan EIR concludes that the City has plenty of water to implement the General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the type of development identified in the General Plan and would even result in fewer dwellings on the project site than is allowed for in the General Plan. Therefore, adequate capacity to serve the development is assured, conditioned upon payment of sufficient improvement fees by the developer of the project in conjunction with the City's Capital Improvements Financing Program. However, to guarantee adequate delivery capacity to serve the proposed project, the applicant must ensure that the project is adequately connected to the existing facilities. Therefore, the impact from the proposed project on public utilities is potentially significant.

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

XVI-37. The applicant/developer shall be required to connect to the existing Brentwood utility network as well as pay all applicable fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Improvement plans indicating conformance to City of Brentwood Standards shall be prepared, submitted, and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of encroachment permits for this project.

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

b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short term, to the disadvantage of long term, environmental goals? *
*
W *

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)? *
W *
*

d. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? *
W *
*

Discussion

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

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











CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO.



Meeting Date: November 26, 2002

Subject/Title: Public Hearing: A Rezone (RZ 02-04) of approximately 5.81 acres from R-3 to PD-61 with the adoption of specific development standards for the project site, located between Sycamore Avenue and Spruce Street, east of Brentwood Boulevard

Submitted by: Community Development: M. Oshinsky/E. Nolthenius

Approved by: John Stevenson, City Manager



RECOMMENDATION
Introduce and waive the first reading of an Ordinance approving RZ 02-04 with the adoption of specific development standards for the project site, and approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.

PREVIOUS ACTION
The City Council granted the applicant an allocation for 53 dwelling units on the project site in accordance with the Residential Growth Management Program on October 23, 2001. The Planning Commission recommended approval of RZ 02-04 at its special meeting of October 29, 2002.

BACKGROUND
At its meeting of October 29, 2002, the Planning Commission considered this request to rezone approximately 5.81 acres from R-3 to PD-61 with the adoption of specific development standards for the project site, and a vesting tentative subdivision map subdividing the site into 53 single-family residential lots. The site is generally located south of Sycamore Avenue and north of Spruce Street, approximately 1/4 mile east of Brentwood Boulevard. At that meeting, the Commission passed Resolution No. 02-62 on a 4-0 vote (Commissioner Padgett was absent) recommending that the City Council approve the rezone, development standards, and Mitigated Negative Declaration.

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

• Minimum Lot Area: 4,800 square feet for Sub Area A and 2,370 square feet for Sub Area B
• Minimum Lot Width: 60 feet for Sub Area A and 30 feet for Sub Area B
• Minimum Lot Depth: 80 feet for Sub Area A and 79 feet for Sub Area B
• Minimum Front Yard: 10 feet for turned garages for Sub Area A and 13 feet for living spaces and 5 feet for porches for Sub Area B
• Minimum Side Yard: 7 feet with an aggregate of 15 feet for Sub Area A and 5 feet for Sub Area B
• Minimum Rear Yard: 20 feet for Sub Area A and 6 feet for garages for Sub Area B
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 applicant, DeNova Homes, Inc. would like to receive approval of the rezone and development standards in order to move forward with its residential development plans.

The General Plan designates the project site for High Density Residential development, with a mid-range of 15.5 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 rezone and development standards will allow the applicant 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.

FISCAL IMPACT
None

EXHIBITS
A. Ordinance
B. Mitigated Negative Declaration


























EXHIBIT "A"

ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD APPROVING THE REZONE (RZ 02-04) OF APPROXIMATELY 5.81 ACRES FROM R-3 TO PD-61 WITH THE ADOPTION OF SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE PROJECT SITE, LOCATED GENERALLY BETWEEN SYCAMORE AVENUE AND SPRUCE STREET, EAST OF BRENTWOOD BOULEVARD (APN 013-030-015).

WHEREAS, DeNova Homes, Inc. has requested that the City approve a rezone from R-3 to PD-61 with the adoption of specific development standards to accommodate the development of Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8574, located generally between Sycamore Avenue and Spruce Street, east of Brentwood Boulevard; and

WHEREAS, on October 29, 2002, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, considered public comments, and passed Resolution No. 02-62, which recommended approval of the rezone 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 August 2, 2002, and ended on August 22, 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 August 2, 2002, and again on November 15, 2002, in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090; and

WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed rezone and specific development standards on November 26, 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 requests; 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 Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8574 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 applicant, will not be detrimental to the public welfare, will be in the best interests of the City and will be in keeping with the general intent and spirit of the Zoning Ordinance and with the City's Community Development Plan, including all relevant elements 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 rezoned from R-3 to PD-61 for single-family residential development.

Section 2.

Chapter 17.516 is hereby added to the Brentwood Municipal Code for the purpose of regulating certain real property and establishing development standards for PD-61.

Section 3.

Chapter 17.516 is hereby known as Planned Development No. 61 Zone.

Section 4.

Development standards for PD-61 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 26th day of November 2002, and adopted at a regular meeting of the Brentwood City Council on the 10th day of December 2002, by the following vote:

Attachments:
Attachment "A" - PD-61 development standards
Attachment "B" - PD-61 Zone

ATTACHMENT "A" TO
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 8574



CHAPTER 17.516
PD-61 (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 61) ZONE

SYCAMORE SQUARE

DENOVA HOMES, INC. (TSM 8574)

17.516.01 AUTHORITY, PURPOSE, AND INTENT
17.516.02 PERMITTED USES FOR EACH SUBAREA
17.516.03 CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES FOR EACH SUBAREA
17.516.04 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA A
17.516.05 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA B
17.516.06 OTHER REGULATIONS

17.516.001 AUTHORITY, PURPOSE, AND INTENT:

The authority, purpose, and intent for the adoption of the PD-61 (Planned Development No. 61) Zone, as shown on Attachment "A", are as follows:

A. Authority: The PD-61 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-61 Zone is to permit and regulate the orderly development of 5.81 acres located generally between Sycamore Avenue and Spruce Street, east of Brentwood Boulevard, with high density residential uses in accordance with the Brentwood General Plan, for a maximum of 53 lots. The area is divided into two (2) sub areas as shown on Attachment "A".

C. Intent: The intent of creating the PD-61 Zone is to ensure the coordinated development of the entire property in order to minimize impacts on adjacent properties.

17.516.002 PERMITTED USES FOR EACH SUBAREA:

SUBAREA A:

A. Single-family dwelling units not exceeding a density of fifteen and a half (15.5) dwelling units per gross acre
B. Recreational trails
C. Rooming and boarding subject to Section 17.650.003
D. Temporary uses related to the primary use and subject to obtaining a Temporary Use Permit subject to Chapter 17.850
E. Home occupation subject to obtaining a Home Occupation Permit pursuant to Chapter 17.840
F. The keeping of domestic animals or pets subject to Chapter 17.670

SUBAREA B:

A. Single-family dwelling units not exceeding a density of fifteen and a half (15.5) dwelling units per gross acre
B. Parks, playgrounds, and recreational trails
C. Rooming and boarding subject to Section 17.650.003
D. Temporary uses related to the primary use and subject to obtaining a Temporary Use Permit subject to Chapter 17.850
E. Home occupation subject to obtaining a Home Occupation Permit pursuant to Chapter 17.840
F. The keeping of domestic animals or pets subject to Chapter 17.670

17.516.003 CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES FOR EACH SUBAREA:

SUBAREA A:

A. Conditionally permitted uses are those uses identified in Section 17.130.003 of the Zoning Ordinance, which are subject to the granting of a conditional use permit by the City
B. Nursery, childcare, or day care center

SUBAREA B:

A. Conditionally permitted uses are those uses identified in Section 17.130.003 of the Zoning Ordinance, which are subject to the granting of a conditional use permit by the City
B. Nursery, childcare, or day care center

17.516.004 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA A:

A. Minimum Lot Area: 4,800 square feet
B. Minimum Lot Width: 60 feet
C. Minimum Lot Depth: 80 feet
D. Minimum Front Yard Setback: 10 feet for turned garages
E. Minimum Side Yard Setback: 7 feet, with an aggregate of 15 feet (corner lots on the street side shall maintain a side yard setback of 10 feet)
F. Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 20 feet
H. Maximum Building Height: 31 feet and two stories
I. Maximum Lot Coverage: 40% for all units
J. Maximum Number of Units: 9


17.516.005 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA B:

A. Minimum Lot Area: 2,370 square feet
B. Minimum Lot Width: 30 feet
C. Minimum Lot Depth: 79 feet
D. Minimum Front Yard Setback: 13 feet for living space and 5 feet for porches
E. Minimum Side Yard Setback: 5 feet (corner lots on the street side shall maintain a side yard setback of 10 feet to living space and 5 feet to porches)
F. Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 6 feet for garages
K. Maximum Building Height: 35 feet and three stories
L. Maximum Lot Coverage: 50% for all units
M. Maximum Number of Units: 44

17.516.006 OTHER REGULATIONS:

A. Design and Site Development Review shall be required for all housing units pursuant to Sections 17.100.003 and 17.100.004.H
B. Off-street parking shall be provided pursuant to Chapter 17.620 and Section 17.100.004.H
C. The parking and storage of boats, trailers, and similar vehicles and equipment shall be subject to the provisions of Section 17.620.016
D. Accessory buildings and structures shall be permitted pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.660
E. Architectural features may project into any required yard pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.660, with the exception that no feature may project into the minimum front yard setback
F. The development of this zone shall be substantially in accordance with the Development Plan. Variations in the Development Plan including street and lot patterns may be approved through the subdivision map process






CITY OF BRENTWOOD
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT


















SYCAMORE SQUARE
REZONE NO. 02-04
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 8574

INITIAL STUDY AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION

August 2, 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 8
I. AESTHETICS. 9
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. 10
III. AIR QUALITY. 12
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. 14
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. 15
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 18
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. 20
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. 22
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. 25
XI. NOISE. 27
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. 29
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. 30
XIV. RECREATION. 32
XV. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. 33
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. 35
XII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. 36



INITIAL STUDY



I. BACKGROUND

1. Project Title: Sycamore Square

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

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Erik Nolthenius
925.516.5405

4. Project Location: South side of Sycamore Avenue
City of Brentwood
Contra Costa County

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Brad Durga
DeNova Homes, Inc.
1849 Clayton Road
Concord, CA 94520-2513
925.685.0110

6. General Plan Designation: High Density Residential

7. Zoning: R-3

8. Project Description Summary:

The proposed project consists of the following requested entitlements:

• A Rezone (RZ 02-04) from R-3 to PD-61 and establishment of development standards for the 5.81-acre project site.

• A Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM 8574) to subdivide the site into 53 single-family residential lots and 6 remainder parcels.

• A Design Review (DR 02-02) for three plans to be used throughout the 53-lot subdivision for homes containing 1,701, 1,816, and 1,975 square feet each.


II. SOURCES

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

1. City of Brentwood General Plan Update and EIR, November 2001;
2. City of Brentwood General Plan 1993-2010, June 1993; (General Plan);
3. City of Brentwood General Plan EIR, June 1993; (General Plan EIR);
4. Geotechnical Investigation Sycamore Square Development, Brentwood, California, Stevens, Ferrone & Bailey Engineering Company, Inc. September 2001; 
5. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Assessor’s Parcel Number: 013-030-001, Brentwood, California, AEI Consultants, February 2002; 
6. Habitat Assessment and Mitigation Measures, Massoni Property, Brentwood, Contra Costa County, Mosaic Associates LLC, May 2002;
7. Soil Investigation Report, APN: 013-030-001, Brentwood, CA, AEI Consultants, February 2002; and
8. Site reconnaissance, Raney Planning and Management, Inc., March 19, 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.

W Aesthetics W Agriculture W Air Quality

* Biological Resources

W Cultural Resources 
W Geology/Soils

* Hazards & Hazardous Materials 
W Hydrology/Water Quality 
* Land Use & Planning

* Energy & Mineral Resources 
W Noise 
* Population & Housing

W Public Services 
W Recreation 
W Transportation & Circulation

W Utilities/Service Systems 
W 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.

W 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.



August 2, 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 Sycamore Square development (proposed project).

The project site consists of a single 5.81-acre parcel, Assessor's Parcel No. (APN) 013-030-015, located between Sycamore Avenue and Spruce Street, within the incorporated city limits of the City of Brentwood. The site is bounded by the dirt road extension of Sycamore Avenue to the north (followed by a residence further to the north), vacant land (approved TSM 8413) to the east, Liberty Union High School to the south, and the Brentwood Park Apartment complex to the west. This generally rectangular property is currently owned by Roy L. Massoni and the Massoni Family Trust and is being proposed for development by DeNova Homes, Inc.

The General Plan designates the land use for the project site as High Density Residential, which would allow the development of 11.1 to 20 dwelling units per gross acre. The project site currently is zoned High Density Multifamily Residential (R-3). The R-3 Zone encompasses “those uses which are permitted uses within the R-2 zone” (Brentwood Zoning Ordinance § 17.150.002-A). The R-2 zone allows development of both single and multi-family homes at moderate density, which is defined in the General Plan as 5.1 to 11 dwelling units per gross acre (Chapter I, page 8).

The relatively flat site does not contain any existing structures and has been disked in the past. A sparse growth of weeds and grasses vegetate the site.

The City of Brentwood recently adopted a General Plan Update, which revised 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 proposed revisions. 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 project and cumulative impacts associated with the revised 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 includes 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 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 No. 2000122013) and the 1993 City of Brentwood General Plan EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 92063113), which are 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 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 EIR 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 5.81 acres within the incorporated City of Brentwood, Contra Costa County. The site is bounded by the dirt road extension of Sycamore Avenue to the north (followed by a residence further to the north), vacant land (approved TSM 8413) to the east, Liberty Union High School to the south, and the Brentwood Park Apartment complex to the west. The site is roughly rectangular in shape and is identified by the Contra Costa County Assessor as APN 013-030-015. The site is vegetated by sparse weeds and grasses.

The applicant has submitted an application for a Rezone (RZ 02-04) and a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM 8574) to subdivide the site into 53 single-family residential lots. The average lot size would be 2,975 square feet with a minimum lot size of 2,370 and a maximum lot size of 5,522 square feet. Of the 53 lots, 44 would range in size from 2,370 to 2,999 square feet, eight would measure 4,800 square feet, and one would measure 5,522 square feet. 

The site is designated High Density Residential by the City of Brentwood General Plan and is zoned High Density Multifamily Residential (R-3). The permitted uses in the R-3 zone are “those uses which are permitted uses within the R-2 (moderate density multi-family residential) zone” plus specified single-family homes and multi-family structures not exceeding 16 dwelling units per gross acre. The applicant/developer proposes a density of 9.1 dwelling units per gross acre, which does not exceed the densities allowed by the City's General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the applicant has received an allocation for the proposed subdivision from the City of Brentwood's Residential Growth Management Program. The proposed development would serve as a transition from the multi-family arrangement of the Brentwood Park Apartment complex adjacent to the west boundary of the project site to the single-family, lower density arrangement of the future subdivision adjacent to the eastern boundary of the project site. The purpose of this medium-density arrangement is to provide an alternative form of housing and subdivision to the traditional choices of the apartment and the standard single-family home and to provide this alternative at more affordable prices than those of typical single-family homes. 

The applicant is also requesting Design Review approval for the homes within the proposed subdivision. Plans 1 and 2, the majority of the homes proposed by the applicant, would be constructed using the zero-lot-line, detached-wall-unit configuration. The homes would be placed on the property line at one side of the lot in order to maximize useable lot area on the other side of the house. An easement on the lot adjacent to the zero-lot-line would be provided to give access to the homeowner for maintenance and repairs when needed. The nine Plan 3 homes, constructed on lot numbers 1 through 9, would be developed as standard single-family residences and would not be developed utilizing the zero-lot-line concept. 

The subdivision would contain three model plans, each with three different elevations, consisting of one three-story and two two-story floor plans distributed over 53 lots. The homes range in size from 1,701 to 1,975 square feet. Table 1 below provides details of the individual models.

Table 1
Sycamore Square 
Proposed Plans

Plan Living Area 
(Square Feet) 
Stories 
Bedrooms 
Bathrooms 
GARAGE 
Height
1 1,701 2 3 2.5 2 23' 9"
2 1,816 3 3 2.5 2 32' 5"
3 1,975 2 3 2.5 2 25' 3"

All nine of the Plan 3 models would be constructed on the largest lots located along the western boundary of the site, adjacent to the Brentwood Park Apartments. Plan 3 is a two-story model with a height of 25 feet 3 inches. The Plan 1 and 2 models would be interspersed throughout the site’s remaining lot area. 

Vehicular access to the project site would be provided by Sycamore Avenue on the north and Spruce Street on the south. All homes would be accessed via private drives that provide a minimum of twenty feet clear space. Parking for the development would consist of a two-car garage in each residence and 15 guest spaces around the central common area. On-street parking would not be allowed. A 5-foot sidewalk would line 'A' Street in front of lots 1 through 9 at the western side of the subdivision. Landscaped common areas would run through the center of the subdivision in the north-south direction and three-quarters of the east-west direction, with the largest such area at the intersection of these two landscaped strips. Additional common-area landscaping would be established along the northern and southern boundaries, and streetscape landscaping would enhance the eastern boundary of the site.

Discretionary Action

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

• Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
• Approval of Rezone No. 02-04 to rezone the project site from R-3 to PD-61 and to establish development standards for the project site.
• Approval of Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8574 to subdivide the site into 53 single-family residential lots and 6 remainder parcels.
• Approval of Design Review No. 02-02 for three plans to be used throughout the 53-lot subdivision, for homes containing 1,701, 1,816, and 1,975 square feet each.

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 that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 
*


*

*

Discussion

a,b. The proposed project is not within an area designated as a scenic vista nor does it include such significant scenic resources as naturally occurring trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings. Although the project site is relatively flat, Brentwood is surrounded by the coastal range, including Mount Diablo. The City of Brentwood has recognized views of Mount Diablo as an important visual resource. Because the proposed development is located in a flat area of Brentwood and would not include any structures exceeding the zoning ordinance height limit of 36 feet, the view corridors of Mount Diablo would not be blocked. Therefore, the impact is considered to be less-than-significant.

c. The development of the project site would change the existing visual setting from a vacant field to a developed urban neighborhood covered with residences and landscaping. The proposed development would be considered compatible with other residential uses found throughout the City of Brentwood. The proposed use of the project site for single-family residences 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. 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 is considered to be less-than-significant.

d. As vacant land, the project site does not currently possess sources of light or glare. The addition of residences and streets with community lighting structures would introduce new sources of light and glare. This 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. Prior to approval of improvement plans, the applicant/developer shall submit a detailed Street Lighting Plan for review and approval by the Community Development and Engineering Departments in conjunction with approval of improvement plans. The plan shall indicate how all lighting would be shielded so that it is directed within the project site and does not illuminate adjacent properties.


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? 
*

*

*

W

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 Conservation/Open Space element that describe potential agricultural preservation program components. The General Plan also designates areas along the eastern and southeastern portions of the City as Agricultural Conservation areas. The proposed development is not located within the conservation area. The site is not under a Williamson Act Contract. Additionally, the Brentwood General Plan has identified this area for residential development.

The General Plan Conservation Element Policy 1.1.4 states:

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

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 included 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 indicated 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 in the past. Therefore, the impact on existing agricultural uses and the loss of farmland would be considered potentially significant.

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

II-2. At the time of recordation of the first final map, the Applicant/Developer shall comply with the City Council adopted Agricultural Enterprise Program in order to mitigate the potentially significant impact of the proposed project on the loss of farmland. The applicant shall pay the adopted City fee for mitigation of lost farmland in effect at the time of recording the final map.

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



Issues 
Potentially Significant Impact 
Potentially Significant 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? 
*

*

*

W

Discussion

a,c. The City of Brentwood is within 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 October 1991.

The air quality impacts associated with the emissions from the increased number of vehicles were analyzed in the Brentwood 1993 General Plan and 2001 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 density of the proposed project is below the densities anticipated in the General Plan Update and falls within the range of densities allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. The reduced density would result in fewer vehicle trips, which, in turn, would result in decreased air quality impacts. Therefore, the project-specific impacts to air quality are considered to be less-than-significant.

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

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

III-3. 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 for review and approval by 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, et cetera);
• Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph;
• Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways;
• Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.

e. The project would not include industrial or intensive agricultural use. Therefore, the project would not create odors or toxic air contaminants. In addition, the adjacent school and residential properties typically would not result in odors that would impact the proposed subdivision. Therefore, no 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? 
*

*

*

W


Discussion

a,d. Mosaic Associates LLC conducted a habitat assessment of the project site and prepared a report dated May 23, 2002. The report identifies potentially significant impacts to burrowing owls and recommends 3 specific mitigation measures.

Mitigation Measure
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would mitigate potential impacts related to biological resources to less-than-significant levels:

IV-4. The applicant/developer shall comply with the 3 mitigation measures identified in the Mosaic Associates LLC report dated May 23, 2002, to mitigate the potentially significant impacts on burrowing owls.

b,c. The project site is currently vacant. According to the Phase I Site Investigation conducted by AEI Consultants, the site was used for agricultural purposes until the 1970s. Since the 1970s, the site has been neither cultivated nor improved. The City of Brentwood General Plan Update EIR maps sensitive habitats and areas where endangered species are known to occur or have been sighted. The EIR does not indicate the presence of either sensitive species or habitat in the vicinity of the project site, and a site inspection conducted on March 19, 2001, confirmed the findings of the General Plan EIR and did not identify any wildlife inhabiting the site. In addition, the site is adjacent to an area that has been developed and continues to experience increased development activities. The only vegetation occurring on the project site consists of a sparse growth of weeds and grasses. Therefore, the proposed development of the site would produce a less-than-significant impact on riparian and wetland habitats.

e. The project site currently is vegetated by sparse weeds and grasses and is completely lacking in trees. Furthermore, the development of the project site is not guided by any specific ordinances protecting biological resources. Therefore, the impact is considered to be less-than-significant.

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


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? 
*

*

*

W

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

*

*

W

Discussion

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

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

V-5. 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 grading or other site work, all such work shall be halted immediately within the area of discovery and the applicant/developer shall immediately notify the Community Development Department of the discovery. In such case, the applicant/developer shall be required, at his expense, to retain the services of a qualified archaeologist for the purpose of recording, protecting, or curating the discovery as appropriate. The archaeologist shall be required to submit to the Community Development Department for review and approval a report of the findings and method of curation or protection of the resources. Further grading or site work within the area of discovery will not be allowed until the proceeding steps have been taken.

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

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


Issues 
Potentially Significant Impact 
Potentially Significant 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? 
*

*

*

W




Discussion

a.i-ii,
c. A geotechnical investigation of the project area was performed by Stevens, Ferrone & Bailey Engineering Company, Inc. (SF&B) in September 2001. According to the report, the project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone; however, the report indicates that the Brentwood area is located in a seismically active zone. The site is located approximately 9 ½ miles northeast, 16 miles east, 19 miles northeast, 27 miles northeast, and 45 miles northeast, respectively, of the active Marsh Creek/Greenville, Concord, Calaveras, Hayward, and San Andreas faults.

Development of the proposed project in this seismically active zone 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. Therefore, a potentially significant impact would result.

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

VI-6. The Uniform Building Code earthquake design criteria listed below shall be used by the Structural Engineer, as recommended by the Soil Engineer, SF&B:

Soil Profile Type: SD
Seismic Zone: 4
Seismic Source Type: B
Seismic Coefficients: Ca=.044Na, Cv=0.64Nv
Near Source Factors: Na=1.0, Nv=1.0

VI-7. All grading and foundation plans for the development designed by the project Civil and Structural Engineer must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Chief Building Official prior issuance of grading and building permits to ensure that all geotechnical recommendations specified in the geotechnical report are properly incorporated and utilized in design.

a.iii.,
a.iv. The Geotechnical Investigation prepared by SF&B states that soil liquefaction is a phenomenon primarily associated with saturated, cohesionless soil layers located close to the ground surface. These soils lose strength during cyclic loading such as that imposed by earthquakes. During the loss of strength, the soil acquires mobility sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical movements. Soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, uniformly graded, saturated, fine-grained sands that lie close to the ground surface. SF&B acknowledges that the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) designates the area in which the site is located as highly susceptible to liquefaction in an earthquake but concludes, based on the combined results of the borings, in-situ penetration resistance tests, laboratory tests, and their liquefaction analyses, that the potential for ground surface damage resulting from liquefaction is low. With respect to the potential for landslides, the topography of the project site is flat, rendering it resistant to these phenomena. Therefore, the potential for impacts from soil liquefaction and/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 would be expected in its current unimproved condition. Currently, the site is not planted and bears only a sparse covering of weeds and grasses. The proposed residential development would anchor the soil in place by overlaying much of the ground surface with homes, streets, and landscaping. New owners typically complete this process by installing patios, rear-yard landscaping, and swimming pools. Therefore, alterations to the land by the proposed project would inhibit, rather than promote, the loss of topsoil. 

The Brentwood General Plan EIR states that in the absence of a specific grading plan, the extent of potential soil erosion may not be determined. However, soil erosion is considered potentially significant in areas with slopes over 5 percent and in areas with sandy soils, as found in the northern portion of the Brentwood Planning Area. The project site is flat; therefore, the concern surrounding slopes is negated. As to the soil, SF&B characterizes the surface soils as loose silty soils with variable amounts of gravel and the subsurface soils as firm to stiff sandy silts and silty clays underlain by a dense layer of gravel and very stiff silty clays. Therefore, the site would be unlikely to suffer erosive impacts caused by grading. 

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

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

VI-8. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a grading plan to the City Engineer for review and approval. If the grading plan differs significantly from the proposed grading illustrated on the approved tentative tract map, a tentative map that is consistent with the new revised grading plan shall be provided for review and approval by the City Engineer.

VI-9. Any applicant for a grading permit shall submit an erosion control plan to the City Engineer for review and approval. 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. All protective measures shall be shown on the grading plans and specify the entity responsible for completing and/or monitoring the measure and include the circumstances and/or timing for implementation.

VI-10. Prior to approval of final facilities design, plans for drainage and stormwater runoff control systems and their component facilities shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval to ensure that these systems and facilities are non-erosive in design. 
VI-11. 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 the continuance of grading operations. Confirmation of this approval shall be provided to the Engineering Department prior to commencement of grading.

d. The geotechnical report identifies the expansive characteristics of the soil at the project site as moderately 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-12. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Comprehensive Grading Plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer that reflects the recommendations of the final Geotechnical Study. All recommendations of the final Geotechnical Study and City Engineer shall be incorporated into the grading plan and building design as a condition of the project grading permit and verified in the field by the City Engineer or his representative.

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


Issues 
Potentially Significant Impact 
Potentially Significant 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? 
*

*

*

W
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? 
*

*

*

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

*

*

W
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? 
*

*

*

W

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? 
*

*

*

W

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? 
*

*

*

W

g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 
*

*

*

W

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? 
*

*

*

W

Discussion

a-c. AEI Consultants (AEI) conducted a Phase I Environmental Assessment and Soil Sampling on February 8, 2002 to identify the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on the property that may indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substance or petroleum product into the soil, groundwater, or surface water of the property. AEI collected and tested 20 soil samples from locations evenly distributed over the project site. Although the sample analytical results indicated concentrations of both DDE and toxaphene at the site, the maximum concentrations detected were below established limits for these chemicals. Their presence is likely the result of historical pesticide use during former agricultural operations. Based on the relatively low deviation of the reported concentrations of each chemical across the site of samples analyzed, AEI concluded that the results are representative of the soils throughout the property, with no indication that significantly higher concentrations would be present. AEI did not recommend additional sampling at this time and concluded that the former use of pesticides at the site should not limit its future residential development potential. 

The Contra Costa County Health Services Department (HSD) reviewed the Soil Investigation Report and stated its findings in a letter to AEI dated February 26, 2002. The HSD found that sufficient samples were taken and that detected organochlorine compounds were below levels of concern for human health and the environment. The HSD stipulated that no further action is required at this site.

The development and occupation of the proposed residential neighborhood would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. For that reason, though Liberty Union High School is adjacent to the project site, it would not be placed at risk from hazardous emissions or spills. Therefore, the proposed project would not create hazards to the public or the environment from such activities involving hazardous materials, or from reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving likely release of hazardous materials into the environment, and development of the proposed project would result in no impact.

d. The Phase I report compiled by AEI stated that the site is not identified on any government databases as a hazardous materials site. Therefore, no impact would occur.

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

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

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


Issues 
Potentially Significant Impact 
Potentially Significant 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? 
*

*

*

W

h. Place within a 100-year floodplain structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? 
*

*

*

W

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. 
*

*

*

W

j. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 
*

*

*

W

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-13. 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-14. 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. The project consists of the development of single-family homes in an area designated for single-family development. Although development would not alter existing drainage courses and would be accommodated in the existing City of Brentwood storm drainage system, implementation of the proposed project would add impervious surfaces to the area. An increase in impervious surfaces could result in a decrease in absorption rates and an increase in stormwater runoff rates. This is considered to be a potentially significant impact.

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

VIII-15. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant/developer shall submit to the City Engineer for review and approval a Drainage Master Plan which implements BMPs to control quality of stormwater runoff. The plan shall describe how on-site draining systems will be designed to compensate for the reduced water absorption capacity of the site and to prevent flooding of adjacent properties. The plan must ensure that all stormwater entering or originating within the project site shall be conveyed, without diversion of the watershed, to the nearest adequate, natural watercourse, or adequate man-made drainage facility.

VIII-16. 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-17. Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District drainage fees for the Drainage Area shall be paid prior to filing of a final map.

VIII-18. 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 and Chief Building Official prior to the issuance of building permits.

VIII-19. 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-20. The applicant/developer shall ensure that each lot or parcel shall drain into a street, public drain, or approved private drain in such a manner that there will be no undrained depression. Satisfaction of this measure shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer.

g-i. The General Plan Update EIR includes a Flood Zones and Drainage Map at Figure 3.12-1, which indicates areas of Brentwood that lie within the 100-year floodplain and other areas of elevated flooding risk. The project site is not depicted as within a 100-year floodplain or any other area regarded as being at higher risk of flooding; therefore, no impact would occur with regard to housing or structures placed in a 100-year flood plain.

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

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

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

The above analysis indicates that the project site would not be threatened by a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow; therefore, no impact from such phenomena would occur. 


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

ix. Land Use And Planning.
Would the project: 





a. Physically divide an established community? 
*

*

*

W

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? 
*

*

*

W
Discussion

a. As noted in the General Plan, the City of Brentwood has planned for orderly, logical development that supports compatibility among adjacent uses. The designation of land use categories takes into account the surrounding land uses and proposes uses and development intensity that respect the existing uses. The General Plan goals seek to retain the character of existing communities and ensure that future land uses are compatible with existing uses. The proposed subdivision would develop the project site at a density between that of the Brentwood Park Apartments to the west and the single-family homes of the approved subdivision (TSM 8413) to the east, providing a transition between the higher and lower densities. Furthermore, the proposed project would undergo Design Review consideration by the City's Planning Commission to ensure compatibility of design with the surrounding neighborhoods. Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community, and no impact would result to the existing communities.

b. The proposed project site lies within the Brentwood city limits and is designated High Density Residential by the Brentwood General Plan and is zoned R-3. The General Plan designation provides a density range from 11.1 to 20 dwelling units per gross acre. The R-3 Zone permits all land uses that are permitted in the R-2 Zone, in addition to the higher density arrangements allowed by the R-3 Zone. The medium density allowed by the R-2 Zone is defined in the General Plan as 5.1 to 11 dwelling units per gross acre (Chapter I, Page 8). Single-family homes are also a permitted use in the R-2 Zone. The proposed project would result in a density of 9.1 single-family dwelling units per gross acre, slightly lower than the General Plan anticipates, but within the permitted uses of the R-3 Zone. In addition, the applicant has already received an allocation for 53 units through the City's Residential Growth Management Program. Moreover, the proposed project’s density would provide a transition between the higher density apartments to the west and the future lower density single-family homes to the east. The type and density of the proposed residential development is consistent with that permitted by the Brentwood General Plan. The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations, nor would it conflict with any policy to preserve the environment. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact is anticipated to occur.

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? 
*

*

*

W

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? 
*

*

*

W

Discussion

a,b. The 2001 General Plan Update identifies coal, oil and gas, and sand as the significant mineral resources within the area. The General Plan specifies 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 are presently being produced in the northwest portion of the area, and the potential for additional reserves exists throughout the City. The 1993 Brentwood General Plan, Figure 3.11-1, does not identify the property as containing the potential for oil and gas fields or sand and coal. 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? 
*

*

*

W

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? 
*

*

*

W





Discussion

a,b. The Brentwood General Plan EIR does not identify the project site as being located within noise contours exceeding normal residential levels or in an area of high vibration levels. The project site is adjacent to Liberty Union High School, and the General Plan EIR identifies both residential neighborhoods and schools as noise-sensitive land uses (p. 235). Further, the General Plan notes that such noise-sensitive land uses are generally relatively quiet (p. 236). The General Plan EIR does not identify schools as significant sources of noise. Therefore, the school adjacent to the southern boundary of the project site would not be expected to impose significant noise disturbance upon the residences proposed by the applicant. Therefore, the impact is considered to be less-than-significant.

c. The General Plan EIR identifies residential neighborhoods as noise-sensitive land uses and notes that such noise-sensitive land uses are generally relatively quiet (pp.235-236). Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site, the proposed residences would not result in noise disturbance to surrounding land uses, and the impacts related to ambient noise are considered to be less-than-significant.

d. The Brentwood General Plan EIR indicates that a temporary increase in noise levels would occur during construction of projects pursuant to implementation of the General Plan. The General Plan EIR states 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 determines that a noise level of 60 dBA is acceptable for residential land uses. The Brentwood Park Apartments occupy the land adjacent to the project site to the west, a single-family residence sits across Sycamore Avenue north of the site, and Liberty Union High School lies across Spruce Street to the south of the project site. Consequently, sensitive noise receptors are positioned along the western and southern boundaries and at a single point north of the site. Therefore, the temporary increase in noise levels during construction would be considered a potentially significant impact.

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

XI-22. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours set forth below:

Heavy Equipment Monday-Friday 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM
Saturday 9:00 AM to 3:30 PM

Light Carpentry Monday-Friday 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM
Saturday 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM

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

XI-23. All construction equipment shall use properly operating mufflers, and no combustion equipment such as pumps or generators shall be allowed to operate within 500 feet of any occupied residence during construction hours, unless the equipment is surrounded by a noise protection barrier acceptable to the Community Development Department. These criteria shall be included in the grading plan submitted by the applicant/developer for review and approval of the Community Development Director prior to issuance of grading permits.

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


Issues 
Potentially Significant Impact 
Potentially Significant 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? 
*

*

*

W

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

*

*

W

Discussion

a. The proposed density of development is consistent with the General Plan designation and zoning classification of the project site. Although the development would increase the population in the area, such an increase would be within the population levels projected in the General Plan. Therefore, the impact is considered to be less-than-significant.

b,c. The site currently lacks housing or other structures. Therefore, approval and implementation of the proposed project would neither displace any housing nor necessitate the construction of replacement housing. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Issues 
Potentially Significant Impact 
Potentially Significant 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? 
*
W *
*

b. Police protection? 
*
W *
*

c. Schools? 
*
W *
*

d. Parks? 
*
W *
*

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-24. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall participate in the City of Brentwood Capital Improvement Financing Program. 

XIII-25. 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-26. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and the adopted policies of the East Diablo Fire Protection District (EDFPD). The City of Brentwood Chief Building Official shall review the building plans to ensure compliance.

XIII-27. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall provide an adequate and reliable water supply for fire protection with a minimum fire flow of 2,000 gallons per minute (GPM). The required fire flow shall be delivered from not more than two fire hydrants flowing simultaneously while maintaining 20 pounds of residual pressure in the main. The City Engineer shall ensure the minimum fire flow requirements are satisfied.

XIII-28. Prior to approval of any final map, the applicant/developer shall provide the number and type of hydrants called for by the EDFPD. Hydrant locations will be determined by the EDFPD prior to issuance of encroachment and/or building permits.

XIII-29. 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-30. Prior to issuance of encroachment and/or building permits for improvements, the applicant/developer (and all subsequent property owners/homeowners) shall submit plans and specifications to the EDFPD and the City Engineer for review and approval in accordance with codes, regulations, and ordinances administered by the EDFPD and the State Fire Marshal’s office.

XIII-31. At the time of recordation of the Final Map, the applicant/developer shall comply with any City Council fire/emergency services programs established pursuant to the General Plan Safety Element in order to provide such adequate services to the community.

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. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a potentially significant impact related to schools.

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

XIII-32. 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 that appropriate school mitigation fees have been paid.

d. The City of Brentwood encourages an urban form that is based on open space throughout and around the community. Development of the project site would result in new residences and consequently would increase the demand for neighborhood, community, and regional parks and recreation facilities. The proposed project includes 53 dwelling units. Applying the Brentwood standard of 2.86 residents per dwelling unit, the proposed project would create housing for approximately 152 additional residents. The Brentwood General Plan recommends 5 acres of park per 1,000 residents. The proposed project would require approximately 0.75 acre of park space for these additional residents. Although the proposed project is small enough that it would not be feasible to build a park within the development, the project would increase the demand for parks by increasing population. Therefore, the impact from the proposed project would be considered potentially significant. 

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

XIII-33. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the applicant/developer shall be required to pay the appropriate Quimby Act fees and/or dedicate the necessary park and trail acreage. This requirement shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the Director of Parks & Recreation.


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. The Park and Recreation Master Plan provides even more specific details about planned parks and recreation facilities and services. The City uses a service standard of 5 acres of park space per 1,000 residents. Development of the project site would result in new residences, accommodating population growth and increasing 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 53 dwelling units would result in a population increase of approximately 152 residents. The recommended park area for 152 new residents is approximately 0.75 acre. The increase in population arising from the proposed project could contribute to the physical deterioration of 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-34. 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-35. The applicant/developer shall participate in a Capital Improvement Financing Program, and project approval shall be based upon the required findings of 17.805 of the City Zoning Ordinance (Phased Development Plan) that the project will not create excess demand for park facilities (Action Program 1.3.5).

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


Issues 
Potentially Significant Impact 
Potentially Significant 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? 
*

*

*

W

d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? 
*
*
*
W

e. Result in inadequate emergency access? 
*
*
*
W

f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? 
*
*
*
W

g. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 
*
*
*
W
Discussion

a,b. The General Plan describes the growth of the City through the year 2020. One component of the General Plan, found in the Circulation Element, is the projection of vehicle trip generation and the corresponding design of a transportation system to adequately accommodate the movement of vehicles. The transportation system includes a hierarchical roadway system with different classifications designed to carry traffic generated by planned development. The City of Brentwood recognizes the impact on traffic from buildout of the General Plan to be significant and unavoidable (General Plan Update EIR, 3.4-32) but has adopted policies to reduce traffic impacts to the greatest extent possible. 

The proposed project would include the development of a 53-unit residential subdivision with an internal roadway system connecting to Sycamore Avenue. Sycamore Avenue connects with Brentwood Boulevard (State Route 4) west of the project site. The proposed project is consistent with future development levels planned in this part of Brentwood, which have been included in the regional Traffic Models developed by the Contra Costa Transit Authority and Contra Costa County. The applicant will be required to contribute to the construction of planned regional and local facilities. Although the development would be consistent with the levels identified in the General Plan, construction of the proposed project could result in a potentially significant impact. 

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

XV-36. 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 Improvements Financing Plan (CIFP) to finance necessary roadway infrastructure. In addition, this specific project may be conditioned upon payment of its fair share of other off-site improvements that lie outside the parameters of the Capital Improvements Plan.

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

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

e. The proposed project would provide street access to all parcels via private drives that provide a minimum of 20 feet clear space. All roadways would be constructed in accordance with City standards. Compliance with City standards ensures the provision of adequate emergency vehicle access. Therefore, no impact would occur.

f. The proposed project consists of 53 single-family residences, all of which would be equipped with two-car garages and driveways. An additional 15 guest parking spaces would be provided adjacent to the central park-like common area. Development of the single-family homes must be consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, which ensures in part that adequate parking exists for the subdivision. Therefore, no impact would occur.

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


Issues 
Potentially Significant Impact 
Potentially Significant 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? *
W *
*

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? *
W *
*

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? *
W *
*

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

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? *
W *
*

f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? *
*
W *

g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? *
*
W *





Discussion

a-e. The proposed project includes the development of 53 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 EIR indicates that PG&E has sufficient facilities to provide gas and electricity to the General Plan area. The City of Brentwood provides water and sewer service to the entire City, including the project site. The General Plan EIR concludes that the City has plenty of water to implement the General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the type of development identified in the General Plan and would even result in fewer dwellings on the project site than is allowed for in the General Plan. Therefore, adequate capacity to serve the development is assured, conditioned upon payment of sufficient improvement fees by the developer of the project in conjunction with the City's Capital Improvements Financing Program. However, to guarantee adequate delivery capacity to serve the proposed project, the applicant must ensure that the project is adequately connected to the existing facilities. Therefore, the impact from the proposed project on public utilities is potentially significant.

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

XVI-37. The applicant/developer shall be required to connect to the existing Brentwood utility network as well as pay all applicable fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Improvement plans indicating conformance to City of Brentwood Standards shall be prepared, submitted, and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of encroachment permits for this project.

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

b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short term, to the disadvantage of long term, environmental goals? *
*
W *

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)? *
W *
*

d. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? *
W *
*

Discussion

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

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