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

 

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 18

Meeting Date: March 9, 2004
Subject/Title: Second Reading and Adoption of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Regulate Motion Picture Theater Uses

Prepared by: Mitch Oshinsky, AICP, Community Development Director

Submitted by: Mitch Oshinsky, AICP, Community Development Director
Howard Sword, Economic Development Director

RECOMMENDATION
Waive second reading and adopt Ordinance 772.

PREVIOUS ACTION
On February 24, 2004, Council introduced and waived first reading of this Ordinance amending Chapter 17 of the Zoning Ordinance to regulate Motion Picture Theater uses. The City is currently conducting a comprehensive Specific Planning process including analyzing potential strategic locations for motion picture theaters in the downtown.

BACKGROUND
Following discussion on February 24th, Council voted 4-1 to direct staff to use the text provided to Council in an Agenda Review memo on that date, to regulate theater uses. The text will provide that until the Downtown Specific Plan, now in preparation, is adopted, new Motion Picture Theaters will not be permitted in any Zone in the City. With adoption of the Plan, the City Council will determine the most appropriate location(s) for such Theaters.

FISCAL IMPACT
Adoption of this ordinance would not have any direct impact on City finances. However, staff believes that regulating theaters can help enhance the economic vitality of our downtown and the City at large, and potentially generate positive fiscal impacts for the City.

Attachments:

Ordinance
Negative Declaration

ORDINANCE NO. 772

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD AMENDING CHAPTERS 17.230 (COR ZONE), 17.280 (CB ZONE), 17.456 (PD 6 ZONE), AND 17.466 (PD 16 ZONE) OF THE BRENTWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO MOTION PICTURE THEATERS.

WHEREAS, Downtown Brentwood consists of a mix of uses, including an existing 2 screen motion picture theater, retail, restaurants, office, automotive, services, public and quasi public facilities, and residential; and

WHEREAS, The General Plan designates Downtown land use as (Mixed Use) (DT), which is intended to meet the current and future uses of the downtown area of Brentwood. A variety of uses are allowed in this designation, including commercial, office, multiple family and single family residential, and government. The long range objective is for the area to be primarily comprised of retail and office uses, but still allow for residential as a continued use; and

WHEREAS, the General Plan emphasizes maintenance and enhancement of the downtown as an area for specialty service and retail uses, as well as a center for civic uses and activities, and states that it is important to the City that the downtown remains a destination point for Brentwood residents and visitors; and

WHEREAS, it is the City's goal to encourage and facilitate economic development, and provide convenient services to residents and businesses; and

WHEREAS, motion picture theaters are an integral part of successful strategies for the maintenance and enhancement of many downtowns throughout the state and nation. This ordinance amendment seeks to preserve theaters as a key ingredient in Brentwood’s successful downtown, and prevent the erosion or dilution of the downtowns health due to theaters locating outside downtown; and

WHEREAS, the Zoning Code presently contains provisions that list motion picture theaters as being a use that is permitted by right or permitted subject to a conditional use permit in the PD 6 and 16 Zones; and

WHEREAS, notwithstanding the provisions of the Zones mentioned above that presently permit motion picture theaters, those provisions could be contrary to the health of the downtown and City at large, if a theater were to locate in those Zone(s), and harm the existing downtown theater and downtown as a whole; and

WHEREAS, the City is currently conducting a comprehensive Specific Planning process for downtown and the Brentwood Blvd. corridor, including public workshops, which will establish the long and short term goals, policies, land use and design standards for these areas, as desired by the community and City Council; and

WHEREAS, the Specific Plan is analyzing potential strategic locations for motion picture theaters in the downtown; and

WHEREAS, this issue was recently discussed with the Council Economic Development Committee, which directed staff to proceed with the appropriate Code amendment to preserve the viability of downtown, by regulating theater uses; and

WHEREAS, until Council concludes the public process and adopts the Downtown Specific Plan, it is appropriate that theaters not be allowed in any zone. This would both serve to protect the City’s future options to have a theater downtown, if that is what the Plan deems appropriate; and it is a statement that at this point, no conclusions have yet been reached that the Downtown is the only acceptable location for a theater; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment on January 20, 2004, and recommended approval to the City Council; and

WHEREAS, this action has been reviewed per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the City Council finds that a Notice of Negative Declaration for the subject Zoning Ordinance Amendment has been prepared as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and that this project will result in no potentially significant adverse effects to the environment; and in addition, pursuant to Sections 15168(c) and 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the project is within the scope of development evaluated in the Brentwood General Plan Program EIR. No substantial changes have occurred to the circumstances under which that EIR was certified and no new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time that the EIR was certified as complete, has become available relating to the environmental effects of this project. Therefore, the Program EIR for the General Plan, and the project specific Negative Declaration are adequate for the approval relating to the project; and

WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was legally advertised in the Ledger Dispatch, and mailed according to City policies and Government Code Section 65091; and

WHEREAS, after close of the public hearing, the City Council considered all public comments received both before and during the public hearing, the presentation by City staff, the staff report, the recommendations, and all other pertinent documents and associated actions regarding the proposed ordinance amendment; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brentwood makes the following findings per the Brentwood Municipal Code associated with this amendment:

1) The Negative Declaration (ND) for the project has been prepared and circulated in accordance with all applicable provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and represents the independent judgment of the City of Brentwood. Pursuant to Sections 15168(c) and 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that the project is within the scope of the development levels evaluated in the Program EIR prepared for the City of Brentwood General Plan. The Initial Study has further evaluated potential project specific impacts to the environment. Based upon this evidence and the Negative Declaration this Planning Commission finds that no potentially significant adverse environmental impacts will be generated by this project.

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

3) This amendment is consistent with the General Plan and other applicable City plans, and is appropriate to the public interest, in that it will help achieve General Plan Goals and Policies, and help support economic development and provide convenient services to residents and businesses.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Brentwood ordains as follows:

SECTION 1. The Negative Declaration prepared for this project in accordance with CEQA is hereby adopted.

SECTION 2. The foregoing recitals and staff report are found and determined to be true and correct.

SECTION 3. Title 17 of the Brentwood Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows (added text underlined, deleted text stricken):

CHAPTER 17.230
COR (COMMERCIAL OFFICE/RESIDENTIAL) ZONE

17.230.005. Other Regulations

D. Motion Picture Theaters. Until the Downtown Specific Plan, now in preparation, is adopted, new Motion Picture Theaters will not be permitted in any Zone in the City. With adoption of the Plan, the City Council will determine the most appropriate location(s) for such Theaters.

CHAPTER 17.280
CB (CENTRAL BUSINESS) ZONE

17.280.005. Other Regulations

D. Motion Picture Theaters. Until the Downtown Specific Plan, now in preparation, is adopted, new Motion Picture Theaters will not be permitted in any Zone in the City. With adoption of the Plan, the City Council will determine the most appropriate location(s) for such Theaters.

CHAPTER 17.456
PD 6 (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 6) ZONE

17.456.002. Permitted Uses and Conditionally Permitted Uses

Regional Commercial Office Commercial
Movie Theater P P

CHAPTER 17.466
PD 16 (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 16) ZONE

17.466.003

C.4. Cinemas and/or Theaters
.
SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty days following its adoption and, prior to the expiration of fifteen days after its adoption, it shall be published once with the names of the council members voting for and against it in a newspaper of general circulation, available in the City of Brentwood.

SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, the holding shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining provisions, and the council declares that it would have adopted each provision of this ordinance irrespective of the validity of any other provision.

SECTION 6. Any judicial review of this Ordinance shall be by writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure 1085. Any action or proceeding seeking to attack, review, set aside, void or annul this ordinance shall be commenced within 90 days after the adoption of this Ordinance.

SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall be published in accordance with Government Code Section 36933 by either posting or publishing the ordinance in accordance with that law. Further, the City Clerk is directed to cause Section 3 of this Ordinance to be entered in the Brentwood Municipal Code.

SECTION 8. In accordance with Government Code Section 65863.5, upon the effective date of this Ordinance, a copy shall be delivered to the County Assessor.

THIS ORDINANCE was introduced with first reading waived at a regular meeting of the Brentwood City Council on the 24th day of February 2004, and adopted at a regular meeting of the Brentwood City Council on the 9 day of March 2004 by the following vote:

MO/DT.Theater.CC.Ord.3.9.04

CITY OF BRENTWOOD
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

Downtown Theater Zoning
Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 04-01
INITIAL STUDY AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
December 31, 2003

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background 3
Project Description 8
Environmental Checklist 8

List of Figures

Figure 1 Area Zoning Map 4

INITIAL STUDY

I. BACKGROUND

1. Project Title: Downtown Theater Zoning
ZOA No. 04-01

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

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Mitch Oshinsky, Community Development Director
(925) 516-5405

4. Project Location: Central Business (CB),
Commercial Office/Residential (COR), PD 6 and PD 16
Zones
City of Brentwood
Contra Costa County

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: City of Brentwood
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513

6. General Plan Designation: Downtown (Mixed Use) (DT), Special Planning Area
(SPA) D, General Commercial (GC)

7. Zoning: CB, COR, PD 6, PD 16 Zones

8. Project Description Summary:

A Zoning Ordinance Amendment (RZ 04-01) to not allow Motion Picture Theaters, until the Downtown Specific Plan, now in preparation, is adopted, new Motion Picture Theaters will not be permitted in any Zone in the City. With adoption of the Plan, the City Council will determine the most appropriate location(s) for such Theaters.

II. SOURCES

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

1. 2001 City of Brentwood General Plan Update and EIR
2. 1993 City of Brentwood General Plan and EIR
3. City of Brentwood Zoning Ordinance and Map, December 2003

III. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

None of the environmental factors listed below would be potentially affected by this project, 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.

12/31/03
Signature Date

Mitch Oshinsky 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 project.

Downtown Brentwood consists of a mix of uses, including an existing 2 screen motion picture theater, retail, restaurants, office, automotive, services, public and quasi public facilities, and residential.

The General Plan designates the land use for downtown as Downtown (Mixed Use) (DT), which is intended to meet the current and future uses of the downtown area of Brentwood. A variety of uses are allowed in this designation, including commercial, office, multiple family and single family residential, and government. The long range objective is for the area to be primarily comprised of retail and office uses, but still allow for residential as a continued use.

In November 2001, the City of Brentwood adopted a General Plan Update, which revised the Land Use, Growth Management, and Circulation Elements of the 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. As the General Plan Update only addresses three elements of the General Plan, the remaining elements are addressed in the 1993 General Plan. The 1993 General Plan adoption also included certification of a Program EIR addressing full implementation of the Plan.

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

VI. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project consists of an amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to not allow Motion Picture Theaters, until the Downtown Specific Plan, now in preparation, is adopted, new Motion Picture Theaters will not be permitted in any Zone in the City. With adoption of the Plan, the City Council will determine the most appropriate location(s) for such Theaters.

Discretionary Actions

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

• Approval of this Negative Declaration; and
• Approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment, as referenced in Section VI. Project Description, above.
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.

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? (1,2)





b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? (1,2)





c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (1,2)





d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (1,2)





Discussion

a-d. This project, which is a Zoning Ordinance Amendment, does not propose any specific development project. The project sites are not within an area designated as a scenic vista or scenic highway, nor does it include any significant scenic resources such as heritage trees, or rock outcroppings. Per the 1993 General Plan EIR, Downtown is the historic center of the City. The physical characteristics of the Downtown, including historic buildings and the city park, are essential to the character of Brentwood. There is an existing motion picture theater in the downtown, and if downtown is designated by the Specific Plan as the appropriate location for a theater, any future motion picture theater proposed in the downtown would have to be reviewed and approved by the City for environmental review, a conditional use permit and design review, including conformance with the City’s Design Guidelines. Such review would ensure that any new building was harmonious and compatible with the visual and historic character of the downtown. The project sites are relatively flat, although the coastal range surrounds Brentwood, including views of Mount Diablo. The City of Brentwood has recognized views of Mount Diablo as an important visual resource. This project does not propose any specific development, therefore no aesthetic impacts would be generated. However, any proposed development would be reviewed for project specific environmental impacts. Therefore, there is 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:

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

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? 0





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. This project does not propose any specific development, therefore no agricultural impacts would be generated. However, any proposed development would be reviewed for project specific environmental impacts. Therefore, there is no impact.

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

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

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





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





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





d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?





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





Discussion

a-e. This project does not propose any specific development, therefore no air quality impacts would be generated. However, any proposed development would be reviewed for project specific environmental impacts. Therefore, there is no impact.


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, 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? (no adopted plan)




Discussion

a-f. This project does not propose any specific development, therefore no biological impacts would be generated. However, any proposed development would be reviewed for project specific environmental impacts. Therefore, there is no impact.

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

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:

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





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





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





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





Discussion

a-d. This project does not propose any specific development, therefore no impacts would be generated. The downtown does contain potential historical resources. Therefore, any proposed development would be reviewed for project specific environmental impacts. Therefore, there is no impact.

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

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
Would the project:

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

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





ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?





iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?





iv. Landslides?





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





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





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





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





Discussion

a-e. This project does not propose any specific development, therefore no impacts would be generated. However, any proposed development would be reviewed for project specific environmental impacts. Therefore, there is no impact.

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

VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
Would the project:

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





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





c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (no existing or proposed school within 1/4 mile)





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





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





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





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





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





a-h. This project does not propose any specific development, therefore no impacts would be generated. However, any proposed development would be reviewed for project specific environmental impacts. Therefore, there is no impact.

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

VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
Would the project:

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





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





c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?





d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site?





e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?





f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?





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





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





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





j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?





Discussion

a-j. This project does not propose any specific development, therefore no impacts would be generated. However, any proposed development would be reviewed for project specific environmental impacts. Therefore, there is no impact.

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

IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING.
Would the project:

a. Physically divide an established community?





b. Conflict with any applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating on environmental effect? (1, 2)





c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? (no adopted plan)





a-c. This project does not propose any specific development, therefore no impacts would be generated. Motion picture theaters are an integral part of successful strategies for the maintenance and enhancement of many downtowns throughout the state and nation. This ordinance seeks to preserve theaters as a key ingredient in Brentwood’s successful downtown, and prevent the erosion or dilution of the downtowns health due to theaters locating outside downtown. However, the Specific Plan will determine the best location for theaters, and any proposed development would be reviewed for project specific environmental impacts. Therefore, there is no impact.

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

X. MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:

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





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





a-b. This project does not propose any specific development, therefore no impacts would be generated. However, any proposed development would be reviewed for project specific environmental impacts. Therefore, there is no impact.

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? (site is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport)





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? (no private airstrips within the immediate vicinity of the site)





Discussion

a-f. This project does not propose any specific development, therefore no impacts would be generated. However, any proposed development would be reviewed for project specific environmental impacts. Therefore, there is no impact.

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

XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING.
Would the project:

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





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





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





Discussion

a-c. This project does not propose any specific development, therefore no impacts would be generated. However, any proposed development would be reviewed for project specific environmental impacts. Therefore, there is no impact.

Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
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? (not a residential project)





Discussion

a-d. This project does not propose any specific development, therefore no impacts would be generated. However, any proposed development would be reviewed for project specific environmental impacts. Therefore, there is no impact.

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

XIV. RECREATION.
Would the project:

a. 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? (not a residential project)





b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?





a-b. This project does not propose any specific development, therefore no impacts would be generated. However, any proposed development would be reviewed for project specific environmental impacts. Therefore, there is no impact.

Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Potentially Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
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? (site is not in the immediate vicinity of a public airport or a private airstrip)





d. Substantially increase hazards due to 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-g. This project does not propose any specific development, therefore no impacts would be generated. However, any proposed development would be reviewed for project specific environmental impacts. Therefore, there is no impact.

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

XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the project:

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





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





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





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





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





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





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





Discussion

a-g. This project does not propose any specific development, therefore no impacts would be generated. However, any proposed development would be reviewed for project specific environmental impacts. Therefore, there is no impact.

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

XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.

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





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





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





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





Discussion

a-d. This project does not propose any specific development, therefore no impacts would be generated. However, any proposed development would be reviewed for project specific environmental impacts. Therefore, there is no impact.
 

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