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. 19

Meeting Date: April 22, 2003

Subject/Title: Public Hearing: A Rezone (RZ 02-12) of 9.26 acres from R-1-10 to PD-35 with the adoption of specific development standards for TSM 8663, located between Grant Street and Apricot Way, west of Fairview Avenue

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 02-12 with the adoption of specific development standards for TSM 8663, and approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.

PREVIOUS ACTION
The Planning Commission recommended approval of RZ 02-12 at its regular meeting of April 1, 2003.

BACKGROUND
At its meeting of April 1, 2003, the Planning Commission considered this request to rezone 9.26 acres from R-1-10 to PD-35 with the adoption of specific development standards for Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8663, a subdivision consisting of 59 single-family residential lots. The site is generally located south of Grant Street and north of Apricot Way, approximately 1/4 mile west of Fairview Avenue. At that meeting, the Commission passed Resolution No. 03-15 on a 5-0 vote recommending that the City Council approve the rezone, development standards, and Mitigated Negative Declaration.

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

• Minimum Lot Area: 8,000 square feet
• Minimum Lot Width: 65 feet
• Minimum Lot Depth: 100 feet
• Minimum Front Yard: 20 feet to the garage, 15 feet to any primary building wall
• Minimum Side Yard: 5 feet with an aggregate of 15 feet (10 feet on the street side of corner lots); and a minimum of 15 feet between houses
• Minimum Rear Yard: 20 feet

Based on the Initial Study prepared for this project, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A copy of the environmental document is attached to this report for the Council’s review. The applicant, Centex Homes of Northern California, would like to receive approval of the rezone and development standards in order to move forward with its residential development plans. 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. The adoption of development standards in itself will not create a fiscal impact.

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 02-12) OF APPROXIMATELY 9.26 ACRES FROM R-1-10 TO PD-35 AND AMENDING CHAPTER 17.485 OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE BY ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA 'H' (TSM 8663) OF PD-35, LOCATED GENERALLY BETWEEN GRANT STREET AND APRICOT WAY, WEST OF FAIRVIEW AVENUE (APN'S 019-091-035 AND 036).

WHEREAS, Centex Homes of Northern California has requested that the City approve a rezone from R-1-10 to PD-35 with the adoption of specific development standards to accommodate the development of Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8663, located generally between Grant Street and Apricot Way, west of Fairview Avenue; and

WHEREAS, on April 1, 2003, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, considered public comments, and passed Resolution No. 03-15, 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 March 7, 2003, and ended on March 26, 2003, 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 March 7, 2003, and again on April 12, 2003, 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 April 22, 2003, 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 Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8663 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 approximate 9.26-acre site, as shown on Attachment "A" to this Ordinance, is hereby rezoned from R-1-10 to PD-35 for single-family residential development.

Section 2.

Chapter 17.485 has hereby been amended to include Subarea "H" for the purpose of regulating certain real property and establishing development standards for TSM 8663, as shown on Attachment "B" to this Ordinance.

Section 3.

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

Section 4.

Development standards for Subarea "H" of PD-35 are hereby included as shown in Attachment "C" 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 22nd day of April 2003, by the following vote:

And was adopted at a regular meeting of the Brentwood City Council on the 13th day of May 2003, by the following vote:

Attachments:
Attachment "A" - Rezone area
Attachment "B" - PD-35 subarea map
Attachment "C" - Development standards for Subarea "H" of PD-35

ATTACHMENT "A" TO
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
REZONE AREA

ATTACHMENT "B" TO
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
PD-35 SUBAREA MAP
ATTACHMENT "C" TO
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 8663


CHAPTER 17.485
PD-35 (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 35) ZONE
SUB AREA "H"

MONTELENA II

CENTEX HOMES OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA (TSM 8663)

17.485.040 AUTHORITY, PURPOSE, AND INTENT
17.485.041 PERMITTED USES
17.485.042 CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES
17.485.043 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

17.485.040 AUTHORITY, PURPOSE, AND INTENT:

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

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

B. Purpose: The purpose of the PD-35 Sub Area "H" Zone is to permit and regulate the orderly development of 18.53 acres located between Grant Street and Apricot Way, west of Fairview Avenue, with low density residential uses in accordance with the Brentwood General Plan.

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

17.485.041 PERMITTED USES:

The following uses are permitted in the PD-35 Sub Area "H" Zone:

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

17.485.042 CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES:

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

A. Those uses permitted under the R-1 Zone, Section 17.130.003.
17.485.043 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:

All permitted and conditionally permitted uses developed within the PD-35 Sub Area "H" Zone shall comply with the following regulations:

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

B. Minimum Lot Width: 65 feet (the width of all lots shall be measured 30 feet from the front property line).

C. Minimum Lot Depth: 100 feet.

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

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

F. Minimum Side Yard Setback: 5 feet with an aggregate of 15 feet (10 feet on the street side of corner lots), and a minimum of 15 feet between houses

G. Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 20 feet

H. Architectural features may project into any required yard pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.660.
I. Maximum Building Height: 30 feet and 2 stories.
J. A minimum of 25% of the lots shall have single-story units.
K. Side Loading Garage: 10% of the lots shall have side-loading garages.
L. 50% of the corner lots shall have single-story units.
M. Maximum Lot Coverage: 40%.

EXHIBIT "B"

CITY OF BRENTWOOD
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT


MONTELENA II
REZONE NO. 02-12
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 8663
DESIGN REVIEW NO. 02-32

INITIAL STUDY AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION

INITIAL STUDY

I. BACKGROUND

1. Project Title: Montelena II

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, Associate Planner
925.516.5405

4. Project Location: S of Grant Street, W of TSM 8469, N of Apricot Way, and E of TSM 8557
(APN's 019-091-035 and 036)
City of Brentwood
Contra Costa County
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Centex Homes of Northern California
1855 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 650
Concord, CA 94520
925.827.8100

6. General Plan Designation: L (Low) Density Residential

7. Zoning: PD-35 and R-1-10

8. Project Description Summary:

The proposed project consists of the following requested entitlements:

• A Rezone (RZ 02-12) from R-1-10 to PD-35 and the adoption of specific development standards for the 18.53-acre project site
• A Tentative Subdivision Map (TSM 8663) to subdivide the project site into 59 single-family residential lots and a 0.70-acre neighborhood park
• A Design Review (DR 02-32) for 8 models of single-family houses, with 3 variations of each, landscaping plans, fencing plans, and related improvements to be constructed on the 59 lots

FIGURE ONE

FIGURE TWO

FIGURE THREE

II. SOURCES

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

1. City of Brentwood General Plan 2001-2020, November 27, 2001;
2. City of Brentwood General Plan EIR, November 27, 2001;
3. Geotechnical Feasibility of Site Development, ENGEO Inc., October 11, 2002;
4. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Montelena II, Brentwood, CA, WEST Environmental Services & Technology, December 2002;
5. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, Montelena II Project, Brentwood, California, WEST Environmental Services & Technology, February 2003;
6. Archaeological Field Inspection of the Montelena II Subdivision 8663, Brentwood, Contra Costa County, California, Holman & Associates, September 25, 2002;
7. Biological Resources Assessment, Montelena II Project, Brentwood, California, Zander Associates, September 25, 2002; and
8. Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, California (U.S. Department of Agriculture), September 1977.

III. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

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


? Aesthetics
? Agriculture
? Air Quality

? Biological Resources
? Cultural Resources
? Geology/Soils

? Hazards & Hazardous Materials
? Hydrology/Water Quality
? Land Use & Planning

? Energy & Mineral Resources
? Noise
? Population & Housing

? Public works
? Recreation
? Transportation & Circulation

? Utilities/Service Systems
? Mandatory Findings of Significance


IV. DETERMINATION

On the basis of this initial study:

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

? I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant and/or conditions will be added to any approved project that will render the impact less than significant. 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 EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.


February 24, 2003
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) for the proposed Rezone, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Design Review (proposed project). The environmental analysis for the proposed project is tiered from the City of Brentwood General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

The CEQA concept of “tiering” refers to the coverage of general environmental matters in broad program-level 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 Brentwood General Plan EIR, which is hereby incorporated by reference.

The tiering of the environmental analysis for the proposed project allows this Tiered Initial Study to rely on the Brentwood General Plan EIR for the following:

(a) a discussion of 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.

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

Mitigation measures identified in the Brentwood General Plan EIR that apply to the proposed project will be required to be implemented as part of the project. Project-specific mitigation measures for new potentially significant impacts that were not previously identified in the Brentwood General Plan EIR will also be required to be implemented as part of the proposed project.


VI. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed project site consists of 18.53 acres bounded by the future Grant Street extension and the EBMUD Aqueduct on the north, the approved Montelena subdivision on the east, Apricot Way on the south, and an approved subdivision on the west. Across Grant Street and the EBMUD Aqueduct to the north is the approved Amber Park subdivision (TSM 8470 - 162 lots), 3-acre residential parcels along Windy Springs Lane, and an approved subdivision (TSM 8281 - 130 lots). East of the site is the approved Montelena subdivision (TSM 8469 - 137 lots). South of the site is Apricot Way, the approved Stonegate subdivision (TSM 8408 - 55 lots), and an approved subdivision (TSM 8556 - 28 lots). West of the site is an approved subdivision (TSM 8557 - 28 lots).

The site is generally rectangular in shape and is identified by the Contra Costa County Assessor as APN's 019-091-035 and 036. The project site has historically been used for agricultural purposes and is currently an orchard.

Discretionary Actions

Implementation of the proposed project would require the following discretionary actions by the City of Brentwood Planning Commission:

• Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration
• Recommendation to the City Council regarding the Rezone of the project site to PD-35
• Approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide 18.53 acres into 59 lots for single-family residential development
• Approval of a Design Review for 8 models of single-family homes and related improvements on the 59 lots

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 recommended as appropriate 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 Incorp.
Less-Than-Significant Impact
No Impact

I. AESTHETICS.
Would the project:



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

b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
?
?
?
?

c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
?
?
?
?

d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
?
?
?
?


Discussion

a,b. The proposed project is not within an area designated as a scenic vista nor does it include any significant scenic resources such as heritage trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. The Brentwood General Plan EIR, Section 3.3 “Visual Resources,” does not identify the project area as an important view shed. Although the project site is relatively flat, Brentwood is surrounded by the coastal range, including views of Mount Diablo. The City of Brentwood has recognized views of Mount Diablo as an important visual resource. Because the proposed development would be located in a flat area of Brentwood and includes one and two-story houses, the view of Mount Diablo would not be significantly 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 historically agricultural land to residential uses. The proposed development is considered compatible with other residential uses found throughout the City of Brentwood. The proposed change in use for the project site from agricultural to single-family residential is consistent with the City of Brentwood General Plan (General Plan) and is compatible with the pattern of development occurring in the general area of the project site. In addition, the development of the single-family homes requires Planning Commission Design Review approval, which will ensure compatibility of the development with the surrounding area. Therefore, the impact is considered to be less-than-significant.

d. As agricultural land, very little light or glare is emitted from the project site. The change from agricultural land to a residential subdivision that generates new sources of light and glare would be considered a potentially significant impact.

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

I-1. The developer shall shield all on-site lighting so that it is directed within the project site and does not illuminate adjacent properties or public rights-of-way, in accordance with the City's adopted Standard Plans and Specifications. A Street Lighting Plan shall be approved by the Engineering Department in conjunction with approval of improvement plans.


Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorp.
Less-Than-Significant Impact
No Impact

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



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

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

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


Discussion

a,c. The City of Brentwood 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 Planning Area as Agricultural Conservation. The proposed development is not located within this conservation area. The site is not under a Williamson Act contract.

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. The project site is identified as having Brentwood clay loam (Bb) soil. Additionally, the project site has been used for agricultural purposes in the past, including its current use as an orchard. 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. Prior to recordation of the first final map, the 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 developer shall pay the adopted City fee for mitigation of lost farmland in effect at the time of payment.

b. The project site is not under a Williamson Act contract. Development of the site with single-family homes would not result in any conflict with a Williamson Act contract or existing zoning for agriculture; therefore, no impact would occur.


Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorp.
Less-Than-Significant Impact
No Impact

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



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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

a,c. The City of Brentwood is part of the San Francisco Bay Area air shed, which is dominated by the strength and position of a semi-permanent, high-pressure center over the Pacific Ocean near Hawaii. The area is exposed to winds from both the east and west, and the terrain provides little protection from the wind. Air quality within the region is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The air quality impacts associated with the emissions from the increased number of vehicles were analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The EIR considered development in the area including the project site. The project is consistent with the level of build out identified in the General Plan EIR. The EIR determined that the cumulative development scenarios would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. The findings and overrides adopted as part of the General Plan EIR apply to this project. In addition, the project consists of 59 residential units on 18.53 acres of the entire General Plan area. Therefore, the air quality impact is 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 would reduce the construction-related impact to a less-than-significant level.

III-3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall prepare an Erosion Prevention and Dust Control Plan. The plan shall be followed by the project’s grading contractor and submitted to the Public Works Department, which will be responsible for field verification of the plan during construction. The plan shall comply with the City’s grading ordinance and shall include the following control measures and other measures deemed by the Public Works Department to be necessary for the proposed project:

a. A graveled track at project entryways to remove mud and dirt from vehicles leaving the site shall be provided.
b. Water (or an acceptable soil binder chemical) shall be applied to all disturbed earth surfaces (including earth roads and soil stockpiles). Surface material shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering shall occur twice per day with complete coverage, preferably in the late morning and at the completion of work for the day.
c. Permanent soil stabilization measures shall be implemented throughout each phase of construction prior to commencement of grading on successive phases.
d. All clearing, grading, earthmoving, and excavation shall stop during periods of high winds greater than 20 mph over one hour.
e. All material transported off-site shall either be sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent escape of dust and debris.
f. On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 mph.
g. During rough grading and construction, adjacent public and private roads shall be swept once per day, or as required by the City, to remove silt and construction debris.
h. Unnecessary idling of construction equipment shall be avoided.
i. Equipment engines shall be maintained in proper working condition per manufacturers’ specifications.
j. During periods of heavier air pollution (May to October), the construction period shall be lengthened to minimize the amount of equipment operating at one time.

e. The project would not include industrial or intensive agricultural use; therefore, the project would not create odors or toxic air contaminants. No impact would occur.


Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorp.
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, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
?
?
?
?

c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
?
?
?
?

d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?
?
?
?
?

e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
?
?
?
?

f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
?
?
?
?

Discussion

a. The General Plan EIR identifies biological resources within the City of Brentwood (see Figure 3.9-1 in the General Plan EIR). The General Plan EIR includes mitigation measures that require biological surveys on all properties to be developed within the Brentwood General Plan area. However, the General Plan EIR does not identify any resources on the project site nor have critical habitats for any listed species been identified. The General Plan EIR also identifies a cumulative loss of habitat as a significant and unavoidable impact. The findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations adopted for the EIR apply to the proposed project site. The biological resources assessment prepared by Zander Associates (September 25, 2002) concludes that the project is not expected to have a substantial adverse effect on any native plant or animal species or habitat, including special-status species and sensitive habitats, and that there is no suitable habitat for special-status plant or animal species. The assessment also concludes that, although it is unlikely that birds will nest in the tended fruit trees on site, the possibility cannot be completely dismissed. The impact on biological resources is, therefore, potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure
Implementation of the following mitigation measure will ensure that the impact on biological resources remains less-than-significant.

IV-4. Prior to the removal of any orchard trees on site, the issuance of a grading permit, or the approval of improvement plans, the developer shall have a survey prepared by a qualified biologist to comply with the terms of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The survey shall be submitted to the Community Development Department and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) for review and approval. Any appropriate protective mitigation measures shall be incorporated to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the CDFG. Mitigation measures could include avoidance of species, relocation of species, or modification to the construction schedule.
b,c. The Brentwood General Plan EIR does not identify any riparian habitat or significant natural communities on the site. In addition, there are no wetlands identified on the site. The biological resources assessment prepared by Zander Associates confirms these statements. Therefore, the development of the project site would result in no impact.

d. The project site does not support a wildlife corridor and does not contain any watercourses that would support migratory fish. The biological resources assessment prepared by Zander Associates confirms this statement. Therefore, the development of the project site would result in no impact.

e. The trees on site are associated with the orchard and will be removed as part of the project. Furthermore, the development of the project site is not guided by any specific ordinances protecting biological resources. Therefore, the development of the project site would result in no impact.

f. The City of Brentwood General Plan has several areas that are designated as areas of expected significant natural open space and an expected Habitat Conservation Plan. The project site is not located within any of these areas. Therefore, no impact would occur.


Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorp.
Less-Than-Significant Impact
No Impact

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:



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

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

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

?

?

?

?

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

Discussion

a. The Brentwood General Plan EIR does not identify any potential historical resources within the project site. Evidence of prehistoric or historically significant archaeological or architectural resources was not observed on the project site. Local, State, or Federal historically or architecturally significant structures, landmarks, or points of interest have not been recovered or identified in or adjacent to the project. The archaeological field inspection prepared by Homan & Associates confirms these statements. The development of this site, therefore, would have no impact on historical resources.

b. The General Plan EIR does not identify any archaeological resources within the project site. However, during construction and excavation activities, unidentified archaeological resources may be uncovered. This impact would be considered potentially significant.


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

V-5. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall submit plans to the Community Development Department for review and approval which indicate (via notation on the improvement plans) that if archaeological materials are uncovered during any construction or pre-construction activities on the site, all earthwork within 100 feet of these materials shall be stopped, the Community Development Department notified, and a professional archaeologist, certified by the Society of California Archaeology and/or the Society of Professional Archaeology, shall be notified. Site work in this area shall not occur until the archaeologist has had an opportunity to evaluate the significance of the find and outline appropriate mitigation measures, if they are deemed necessary.

c. The project site is not known to contain any unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features. Therefore, the construction of the proposed project would result in no impact to these 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 Incorp.
Less-Than-Significant Impact
No Impact

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
Would the project:



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



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

ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
?
?
?
?

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

iv. Landslides?
?
?
?
?

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

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

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

e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
?
?
?
?

Discussion

a,c. A geotechnical feasibility of site development was prepared by ENGEO Inc. (October 11, 2002). The project site is not located within or adjacent to any Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones (formally Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones), but is located within a Seismic Hazard Zone. The closest known active fault is the Greenville Fault, situated approximately 8 miles west of the project site.

According to the referenced report, the majority of the site soils are anticipated to be cohesive silty clays, which have a negligible potential for liquefaction. Additionally, the project site is relatively flat, making the likelihood of a landslide relatively low.

The potential damage from seismic activity would be minimal due the project site location and the project proponent abiding with City and State building standards. However, the proposed project site may be subject to some seismic activity due to its location in the San Francisco Bay Area. The impact is, therefore, potentially significant.

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

VI-6. All structures shall be built in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and other applicable building codes and State laws. The developer and the City shall ensure that all structures are engineered by an independent structural engineer and built to meet or exceed the legal requirements for seismic safety.

b. The proposed project does not result in any greater exposure of soil to potential erosion or loss of topsoil. Soil is currently exposed on the project site, and past agricultural and weed abatement practices resulted in an increased soil loss. The development of new residential uses would cover much of the soil, thereby reducing the potential loss of topsoil.

The project site is relatively level and a minimal amount of grading would be required to achieve the project objectives. However, during the limited period of construction, erosion of graded material off of the project site could occur, depositing soils into nearby streets and onto nearby private properties. Potential site erosion could also have a negative secondary effect of degrading surface water quality by deposition of construction debris and other material into one or more of the creeks within the City limits. The grading of the project area during initial construction activity would be considered a potentially significant impact to soil erosion.

Mitigation Measure
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would ensure the impact is less-than-significant.
VI-7. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit a grading plan to the City Engineer for approval. If the grading plan differs significantly from the proposed grading illustrated on the approved tentative subdivision map, a map that is consistent with the new revised grading plan shall be provided for review and approval by the City Engineer.

VI-8. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit an erosion control plan to the City Engineer. This plan shall identify protective measures to be taken during construction, supplemental measures to be taken during the rainy season, permanent methods of revegetation following completion of construction, the sequenced timing of grading and construction, and subsequent revegetation and landscaping work to ensure water quality in creeks and tributaries in the General Plan Area is not degraded from its present level.

VI-9. The developer shall not leave disturbed areas that are not actively under construction exposed during the rainy season.

VI-10. Prior to approval of final facilities design, the City Engineer shall review plans for drainage and storm water runoff control systems and their component facilities to ensure that these systems and facilities are non-erosive in design.

VI-11. No grading, soil disturbance, or compaction shall occur during periods of rain or on ground that contains free 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 limits approved by the soil engineer. Approval by the soil engineer shall be obtained prior to continuing grading operations.

d. The project site is situated on flatland deposits that were formed by streams draining from the nearby mountains and foothills of the Diablo Range. The materials underlying the site consist of Holocene coarse-grained alluvium, consisting of unconsolidated, moderately sorted, permeable sand and silt with coarse sand and gravel. The Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, California published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture; Soil Conservation Service (1977) refers to the near-surface soil within the project site as Brentwood clay loam (Bb). According to the geotechnical feasibility of site development prepared for the proposed project, an area of concern is the expansive nature of the site clays. The clayey soils at the site display a medium to high expansion potential, which is an indication of a potential for shrink-swell behavior. The impacts associated with expansive soils would be 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 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 Incorp.
Less-Than-Significant Impact
No Impact

VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
Would the project:



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

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

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

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

e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
?
?
?
?

f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
?
?
?
?

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

h. Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands?
?
?
?
?


Discussion

a-b. The transport and routine use of hazardous materials is not typically associated with single-family residential development. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment concludes that there is no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the project site, with the exception of a few suspect conditions, including pesticide concentrations. As such, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment was prepared and concludes that releases of chemicals in soil, groundwater, and soil gas from current and historical activities conducted on the project site do not appear to be recognized environmental conditions and therefore should not warrant additional evaluation.

Demolition of on-site structures may be required in order to facilitate development of the project. The structures could contain asbestos materials and the demolition of these structures may present a threat of exposure to asbestos to on-site construction workers. The potential threat from asbestos in the structures is a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measure
The following mitigation measure would reduce the impact from the proposed project to a less-than-significant level.

VII-13. Prior to the demolition of any structure(s) within the project site, the developer shall conduct an asbestos survey. If the survey reveals asbestos within the structure(s), the developer shall prepare an asbestos abatement plan for the review and approval of the Chief Building Official prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the structure(s).

c. The General Plan designates a floating elementary school site northwest of the project, between Shady Willow Lane and Empire Avenue. The transport and routine use of hazardous materials is not typically associated with single-family residential development; therefore, no impact would occur.

d. According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, the project site is not listed as a hazardous materials site. Therefore, no impact would occur.

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

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

h. The site is not located within an area where wild land fires occur. Therefore, no impact would occur.


Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorp.
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 storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
?
?
?
?

f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
?
?
?
?

g. Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
?
?
?
?

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

i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam.
?
?
?
?

j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
?
?
?
?

Discussion

a,f. Short-term grading and construction activities may cause an increase in erosion leading to sedimentation of streams in the affected watershed. Storm water pollution control is the responsibility of the State Water Resources Control Board and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Storm water pollution control is implemented through the use of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. The increase in erosion and the effect on water quality is considered a potentially significant impact.

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

VIII-14. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the 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 storm water runoff.
VIII-15. 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 residential development. The 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, which would result in a decrease in absorption rates and an increase in storm water runoff rates. The General Plan EIR considered this to be a potentially significant impact.

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

VIII-16. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall submit to the City Engineer for review and approval a Drainage Master Plan that implements BMPs to control quality of storm water runoff. The plan shall describe how on-site drainage 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 storm water entering or originating within the project site shall be conveyed, without diversion of the watershed, to the nearest adequate natural watercourse or adequate man-made drainage facility.

VIII-17. 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-18. 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-19. The construction plans shall indicate roof drains emptying into a pipe leading out to the street for the review and approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits.

VIII-20. 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-21. The developer shall ensure that each lot or parcel shall drain into a street, public drain, or approved private drain in such a manner that there will be no undrained depression. Satisfaction of this measure shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer.

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

j. The project site is not located near a major body of water that could result in a seiche. The risk of potential mudflows is considered low based on the general flat topography of the surrounding area. The proposed project is of sufficient distance from any large body of water that could produce a tsunami due to seismic activity. Therefore, no impact would occur.


Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorp.
Less-Than-Significant Impact
No Impact

IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING.
Would the project:



a. Physically divide an established community?
?
?
?
?

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

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

Discussion

a. The proposed project would not physically divide an established community because there are no established residential areas located within or adjacent to the project site. Although the project site has historically been utilized for agricultural production, the site is designated in the General Plan for residential development. There are no existing residences on the project site. Therefore, no impact would result on the physical arrangement of the community.

b. The proposed project is consistent with the City of Brentwood General Plan land use designation and is not in conflict with a policy to preserve the environment. The type and density of the residential development is consistent with the existing PD-35 and R-1-10 zoning classifications of the project site. Therefore, the impact is considered to be less-than-significant.

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


Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorp.
Less-Than-Significant Impact
No Impact

X. MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:



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

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

Discussion

a,b. The project site has not been identified in the City of Brentwood General Plan as containing any mineral resources that would be considered a significant resource. Therefore, no impact would occur.


Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorp.
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 ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
?
?
?
?

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

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

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

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



Discussion

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

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

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

XI-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 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. These criteria shall be included in the grading plan submitted by the 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 an existing airport land use plan. Therefore, no impact would occur.


Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorp.
Less-Than-Significant Impact
No Impact

XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING.
Would the project:



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

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

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


Discussion

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

b,c There are no existing residences on the project site. Any structures are accessory to the agricultural use of the project site. Therefore, the construction of the project would not displace any existing homes or people, requiring the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, no impact would occur.


Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorp.
Less-Than-Significant Impact
No Impact

XIII. PUBLIC WORKS.
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 works:



a. Fire protection?
?
?
?
?

b. Police protection?
?
?
?
?

c. Schools?
?
?
?
?

d. Parks?
?
?
?
?

Discussion

a,b. The proposed project is located within the jurisdiction of the East Diablo Fire Protection District and the City of Brentwood Police Department. Implementation of the proposed project would add to the overall demand for fire and police protection services. The 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 the issuance of building permits, the developer shall participate in a 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 the issuance of building permits, the 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 Chief Building Official shall review the building plans to ensure compliance.

XIII-27. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the 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 developer shall provide the number and type of hydrants called for by the EDFPD. Hydrant locations will be determined by the EDFPD prior to the issuance of encroachment and/or building permits.

XIII-29. Prior to commencing construction, the developer shall provide access roadways having all-weather driving surfaces of not less than 20' of unobstructed width, and not less than 13'6" of vertical clearance, to within 150' 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 42', and must be capable of supporting imposed loads of fire apparatus (37 tons). The City Engineer shall ensure compliance.

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

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

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

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

XIII-32. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall submit to the Community Development Department written proof from the Liberty Union High School District and the Brentwood Union School District indicating that appropriate school mitigation fees have been paid.
d. The City of Brentwood General Plan encourages an urban form that is based on open space throughout and around the community. The General Plan policy recommends park acreage be 5 acres per 1000 residents. The General Plan also utilizes a ratio of 2.86 persons per dwelling unit. The proposed project would create 59 new dwelling units, thus increasing the population by 169 persons. This would require approximately 0.85 acres of park and recreational facilities. The project includes a 0.70-acre neighborhood park centrally located within the subdivision at the east boundary. This park will tie into one of the park sites for the Montelena subdivision (TSM 8469). Parks and recreation facility fees will be collected at the time of building permit issuance. Therefore, the impact is considered to be less-than-significant.


Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorp.
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,b. The City of Brentwood General Plan encourages an urban form that is based on open space throughout and around the community. The General Plan policy recommends park acreage be 5 acres per 1000 residents. The General Plan also utilizes a ratio of 2.86 persons per dwelling unit. The proposed project would create 59 new dwelling units, thus increasing the population by 169 persons. This would require approximately 0.85 acres of park and recreational facilities. The project includes a 0.70-acre neighborhood park centrally located within the subdivision at the east boundary. This park will tie into one of the park sites for the Montelena subdivision (TSM 8469). Parks and recreation facility fees will be collected at the time of building permit issuance. Therefore, the impact is considered to be less-than-significant.

Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorp.
Less-Than-Significant Impact
No Impact

XV. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the project:



a. Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
?
?
?
?

b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
?
?
?
?

c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
?
?
?
?

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

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

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

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

Discussion

a. The number of lots proposed as part of the project (59) does not meet the threshold number of units (100) that would require a site specific traffic study and the 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 (CCTA) and Contra Costa County. Approval of this project will require the developer to contribute to the construction of planned regional and local facilities.

Although consistent with the development levels, the proposed project would impact regional circulation. Several off-site traffic improvements are identified to be implemented within the next 5 to 10 years and be included within the City’s 5-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Therefore, a potentially significant impact would occur.

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

XV-33. The developer shall pay applicable thoroughfare facility fees (plus any annual increase) in effect at the time of building permit issuance and shall participate in the City’s Capital Improvement Financing Plan (CIFP) to finance necessary roadway infrastructure. In addition, this specific project may be conditioned to pay their fair share of other off-site improvements that are outside the parameters of the CIP.

b. The City of Brentwood General Plan describes the growth of the City through the year 2020. The Circulation Element is based on trip generation projections and includes a corresponding transportation system designed to adequately accommodate the movement of vehicles. The proposed project is consistent with development levels identified in the Brentwood General Plan for the site. The circulation network is also planned and designed to meet the planned level of growth and development identified in the project area. The proposed project consists of 59 residential units, which would not generate enough project specific traffic to adversely affect the local circulation. Therefore, the impact is considered to be less-than-significant.

c. The proposed project does 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 does not include any unusual design features in the layout of the streets that would increase hazards. There is no impact associated with the proposed development.

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

f. The proposed project consists of 59 new single-family residences. Development of the single-family homes must be consistent with the applicable zoning requirements to ensure that adequate parking exists for the subdivision. Therefore, no impact would occur.

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


Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorp.
Less-Than-Significant Impact
No Impact

XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the project:



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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Discussion

a-e. The proposed project 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 Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) already has sufficient facilities to provide gas and electricity to the General Plan area. However, to ensure adequate capacity to serve the proposed project, the applicant must ensure that the project area 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-34. The developer shall be required to connect to the existing Brentwood utility network as well as pay all applicable fees in effect in order to ensure adequate capacity to serve the proposed project, 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 on the site. Therefore, the impact is considered to be less-than-significant.


Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorp.
Less-Than-Significant Impact
No Impact

XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.



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

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

c. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
?
?
?
?

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

Discussion

a,b. Development of rural areas to urban or 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. 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. They may be mitigated to a degree through mitigation measures cumulatively applied as development occurs, or they have been considered subject to findings of overriding benefit by the lead agency. The proposed development is consistent with the level of development that was anticipated in the General Plan. The previous mitigation and findings of overriding benefit result in a less-than-significant impact for the proposed subdivision.

 

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