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. 21

Meeting Date: May 23, 2006

Subject/Title: Approve an appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of a General Plan Amendment (GPA 01-01) and a Rezone (RZ 05-04) for the 134-acre mixed-use Bridle Gate project, located west of the intersection of Sand Creek Road and the State Route 4 Bypass, on both sides of the Sand Creek Road extension. This would include passing a Resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, passing a Resolution approving the General Plan Amendment, and introducing and waiving the first reading of an Ordinance approving the Rezone.

Prepared by: Erik Nolthenius, Senior Planner

Submitted by: Howard Sword, Community Development Director

RECOMMENDATION
1. Pass a Resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration;
2. Pass a Resolution approving the General Plan Amendment; and
3. Introduce and waive the first reading of an Ordinance approving the Rezone.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Bridle Gate project consists of the following five entitlements:

• A Development Agreement (DA 04-02) to govern the phasing, development and construction of the project.

• A General Plan Amendment (GPA 01-01) to modify the text of Special Planning Area (SPA) E, including the proposed land use mix.

• A Rezone (RZ 05-04) to establish development standards for the project site.

• A Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (VTSM 8506) to subdivide approximately 134 acres into 166 single-family residential lots, open space and parks, and a future site for mixed-use business park and regional commercial development.

• A Design Review (DR 01-12) for various models of single-family homes, including all related improvements, to be constructed on the 166 proposed lots.

The developer originally proposed to modify the approved 2001 General Plan Land Use Element and site-specific language for SPA E to include (1) the reduction of the minimum percentage of open space and park uses in SPA E from 40 to 32; (2) the reduction in the amount of mixed-use business park and regional commercial land from 50 acres to 35 acres; (3) the allowance for the removal of the prominent hill form by changing the requirement for preservation of the visual prominence of the hill form by adding “to the greatest extent possible”; and (4) the deletion of the reference to using open space instead of soundwalls as a separation/ buffer between the proposed residential units and the State Route 4 Bypass.

The proposed PD-36 amendment, or rezoning, includes the establishment of permitted and conditionally permitted uses, as well as site development standards. Currently, this PD is a “shell” PD and no development standards exist. Therefore, before any development of this site can be approved, these uses and standards must be created. A more detailed description of the proposed General Plan and PD-36 amendments is included in the attached resolution and ordinance.

PREVIOUS ACTION
• Special Planning Area (SPA) E was approved by the City Council on November 27, 2001 as part of the General Plan Update. Specific language regulating the development of the project site was included. The PD-36 Zone was approved by the City Council as a “shell” PD Zone, in that no land uses or development standards were established at the time it was created.

• An RGMP allocation for 166 units was approved for the Bridle Gate project by the City Council on January 11, 2005.

• The Planning Commission denied GPA 01-01 and RZ 05-04 on April 19, 2005 by a 4-1 vote (Commissioner Stirling voted no). The associated applications for Development Agreement, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, and Design Review approval were continued indefinitely until the City Council acted on any appeal relative to the General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Rezone (RZ).

• An appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision was considered by the City Council on June 14, 2005; the City Council referred the project back to the Planning Commission to address concerns raised by the Planning Commission.

• The applicant did not make any changes to the project that affected either the GPA or the RZ. The Planning Commission denied GPA 01-01 and RZ 05-04 again on November 1, 2005 by a 3-2 vote (Commissioners Stirling and Pitkin voted no).

• On November 15, 2005, the Planning Commission memorialized its November 1, 2005, action by approving Resolution No. 05-82 on a 4-0 vote (Londos was absent).

• On November 18, 2005, a letter was received from Discovery Builders appealing the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the GPA and RZ.

• On December 13, 2005, the City Council approved a consent calendar item to set January 10, 2006, as the date of the public hearing for the appeal filed by Discovery Builders.

• On January 10, 2006, the City Council considered the appeal at a public hearing and voted 4-0 (Mayor Swisher abstained) to approve the appeal, subject to the applicant making specific changes as directed by the Council, with formal approval to be considered at a future public hearing upon seeing the changes.

BACKGROUND
The application for the Bridle Gate project was originally submitted on March 9, 2001. Since that time, the project has been modified by the applicant and staff on numerous occasions. The project has also been considered at four separate public hearings (two each by the Planning Commission and City Council), beginning with the April 19, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. The most recent public hearing was the January 10, 2006 City Council meeting, at which time the Council gave specific direction to the applicant and staff in terms of revisions to the project that needed to be made in order to approve the appeal.

The primary concerns that have been raised by staff and at the various public hearings, culminating with the January 10, 2006 City Council meeting, are summarized as follows:

• Reduction in the percentage of open space and parks. The applicant originally provided 32% of the project as open space and park area, where a minimum of 40% is required by the General Plan. The applicant proposed to increase the percentage by including such areas as the Bypass on-off ramp and private property rear yards in the calculation. Neither staff nor the Council agreed with that approach, and the applicant was directed to increase the amount of usable public open space and park acreage.

• State Route 4 Bypass soundwall. New technical information relative to the Sand Creek Road/State Route 4 Bypass interchange design became available late last year that required a new noise study to be prepared in order to determine an adequate soundwall height and configuration for the project. The original project noise study was prepared in April of 2004, before design information for the interchange was available. The applicant believed that it was appropriate to condition the project for a new noise study subsequent to project approval but before construction. Neither staff nor the Council agreed with that approach, and the applicant was directed to prepare a new noise study.

• State Route 4 Bypass landscaping. Any landscaping proposed outside the soundwall in the limited area between it and the Bypass on-off ramp would need to be planted in the Bypass right-of-way, and the extent of that landscaping would not be known until the Bypass Authority receives a commitment from Caltrans as to who would be responsible for maintaining this landscaping. If the wall were to be moved back from the project boundary, landscaping could be planted by the developer and maintained through the project’s Lighting and Landscape District. The applicant was thus directed to review the feasibility of different ways to enhance the visual character of this area.

• Visual study and hillside topography at one of the City’s gateways. The General Plan indicates that it is important to preserve the visual prominence of the dominant hill form that traverses the project site. The applicant had proposed to locate 45 executive (10,000-square-foot minimum) lots on and around the hill, which would require significant grading and a lowering of the hill. Staff and the Council felt this was not necessary and that the project could be redesigned to preserve the integrity of the hill. The applicant was thus directed to revise the project in order to accomplish this. A visual study was referenced as a tool that could be used to help address this issue.

• Amount of non-residential acreage. While the General Plan calls for approximately 50 acres of mixed-use business park and regional commercial development in the northern half of SPA E, the project boundaries and physical constraints associated with the site limit the number of acres to 34.58 (including Sand Creek). Staff and the Council agreed that this change to the General Plan, while not ideal, is necessary. The applicant was thus not directed to make any modifications to this aspect of the project.

ANALYSIS
The applicant and staff have been working together over the last four months to address the concerns that were raised by the Council, and have, in staff’s opinion, revised the project in a manner that it can now support. Specifically, the project has been redesigned in the following ways:

• Reducing the number of executive lots from 45 to 42;

• Increasing the number of small (“village”) lots from 121 to 124 by decreasing the minimum lot size from 6,000-square-feet to 5,000-square-feet;

• Increasing the amount of open space and park land from approximately 43 acres to approximately 54 acres, resulting in an increase from an overall project perspective from 32% to 40%;

• Preparing a new noise study with the most current available information, resulting in revised soundwall heights that will adequately mitigate impacts on new residential properties within the project (all homes would be mitigated to 60 dB or less in conformance with General Plan policy);

• Including berms into the soundwall design to reduce visual impacts in areas where increased heights are required; and

• Preserving the integrity of the dominant hill form by relocating the executive lots to the west, or “back”, side of the ridgeline, resulting in two distinct peak elevations of approximately 210 feet and 230 feet (respectively) where public trails will lead to and from separate “overlooks” or “vista points”.

As previously referenced, the area on the north side of Sand Creek Road has remained the same, based on the physical constraints associated with it. The specific constraints are the north project boundary, the State Route 4 Bypass right-of-way (on-off ramp), the alignment of the Sand Creek Road extension, and the west project boundary. As a result, staff and the Council have previously agreed with the applicant that the current General Plan language requiring 50 acres of non-residential development in this area is not feasible, and to move forward with the approximate 35-acre parcel as shown on the project plans, rather than attempt to alter the alignment of Sand Creek Road or modify the land use south of Sand Creek Road.

FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of the appeal will allow the applicant to move forward with various infrastructure improvements and construction of the 166 proposed single-family homes. This will result in property tax revenue for the City, but will also result in increased service costs. Ultimate construction of the approximate 35-acre non-residential area will result in increased jobs and sales tax revenue for the City.

Attachments:
1. Resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration
2. Resolution approving the General Plan Amendment
3. Ordinance approving the Rezone
4. Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Bridle Gate project
5. Vesting Tentative Map, Bridle Gate, Isakson & Associates, Inc., received April 19, 2006

CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD APPROVING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE BRIDLE GATE PROJECT, LOCATED WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF SAND CREEK ROAD AND THE STATE ROUTE 4 BYPASS, ON BOTH SIDES OF THE SAND CREEK ROAD EXTENSION (APN 019-082-005).

WHEREAS, Discovery Builders, Inc. has requested that the City approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a 134-acre site located west of the intersection of Sand Creek Road and the State Route 4 Bypass, on both sides of the Sand Creek Road extension; and

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

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

WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies 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 to ensure that the impacts identified are mitigated to a less than significant level; and

WHEREAS, the availability of said environmental document for the minimum 30-day public review and comment period was begun on April 24, 2006, and ended on May 23, 2006, and no comments were received; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brentwood considered this Mitigated Negative Declaration at a public hearing at its regular meeting of May 23, 2006, and considered the staff report, all accompanying information, and testimony received from the applicant and other interested parties.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood herby approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 134-acre mixed-use Bridle Gate project, located west of the intersection of Sand Creek Road and the State Route 4 Bypass, on both sides of the Sand Creek Road extension.

CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD APPROVING THE APPEAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA 01-01) ON APPROXIMATELY 134 ACRES TO MODIFY THE TEXT OF SPECIAL PLANNING AREA E, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED LAND USE MIX, LOCATED WEST OF THE STATE ROUTE 4 BYPASS, ON BOTH SIDES OF THE SAND CREEK ROAD EXTENSION (APN 019-082-005).

WHEREAS, Discovery Builders, Inc. has requested approval of a General Plan Amendment and Rezone on approximately 134 acres located west of the State Route 4 Bypass, on both sides of the Sand Creek Road extension, in order to facilitate development of the “Bridle Gate” project (DA 04-02; VTSM 8506; and DR 01-12); and

WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment to modify the text of Special Planning Area E, including the proposed land use mix; and

WHEREAS, the applicant is concurrently requesting a Rezone to establish development standards for the project site; and

WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and additional requested entitlements for the project were considered at a public hearing before the Planning Commission on April 19, 2005, and the Commission voted 4-1 to deny the General Plan Amendment and Rezone via Resolution No. 05-26, which includes appropriate findings; and

WHEREAS, the applicant subsequently appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council; and

WHEREAS, the appeal was considered at a public hearing before the City Council on June 14, 2005, and the Council voted 2-1 to refer the project back to the Planning Commission for additional consideration; and

WHEREAS, after several months of working with City staff, the applicant did not make any substantive changes to the project and requested that it be placed on the next available Planning Commission agenda; and

WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and additional requested entitlements for the project were considered at a public hearing before the Planning Commission on November 1, 2005, and the Commission voted 3-2 to deny the General Plan Amendment and Rezone via Resolution No. 05-82, which includes appropriate findings; and

WHEREAS, the applicant subsequently appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council; and

WHEREAS, the appeal was considered at a public hearing before the City Council on January 10, 2006, and the Council voted 4-0 to approve the appeal, subject to the applicant making specific revisions to the project, with City staff returning the appeal to the Council at a future date for review and approval of the revisions, culminating in the formal approval of the appeal; and

WHEREAS, after several months of working with City staff, the applicant has made substantial revisions to the project, as requested by the City Council, including preserving the dominant hill form on the project site, maintaining approximately 40% of the project area for public open space and park use, and preparing a new noise study to adequately address potential noise impacts as a result of the project; 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 Brentwood Press on April 21, 2006, in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090; 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 presentation by City staff, the staff report, and all other pertinent goals, policies, regulations, and documents regarding the proposed General Plan Amendment; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood:

A. Hereby finds that:

1. The proposed General Plan Amendment has been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act; and

2. The revisions made by the applicant to the project since the January 10, 2006 City Council meeting have addressed all issues raised at that time; and

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

4. The project will generate a level of traffic that can be accommodated by the public circulation system, existing or planned; and

5. 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

6. 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 consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, including all relevant Elements thereof, and with any applicable Specific Plan adopted by the City.

B. Hereby approves General Plan Amendment No. 01-01 for the approximate 134-acre site as requested and as reflected in the attached Exhibit “A”, and directs City staff to make the appropriate changes to Special Planning Area E and the Land Use Map for the City of Brentwood General Plan.

C. Hereby approves the appeal filed by Discovery Builders, Inc. relative to the denial of General Plan Amendment No. 01-01 via Planning Commission Resolution No. 05-26 and Planning Commission Resolution No. 05-82.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at its regular meeting of May 23, 2006, by the following vote:

Exhibits:
“A” – New text for Special Planning Area E

EXHIBIT “A” TO
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
NEW TEXT FOR SPECIAL PLANNING AREA E (GPA 01-01)

(deleted text stricken and added text bolded):

BACKGROUND

SPA E, consisting of 160 approximately 137 acres, is bounded by Old Sand Creek Road to the north, the Highway State Route 4 Bypass to the east, the Shea Homes Property Brentwood Hills subdivision to the south, and the edge of the Planning Area and the City of Antioch’s Sphere of Influence to the west. Approximately 1/2 of the property is hilly, with elevations ranging from 125 feet to 225 approximately 230 feet above sea level. A single hill that runs approximately southeast to northwest through the middle of the property dominates the site. Sand Creek flows generally east to west through the northern portion of the site. The SPA is currently vacant with no significant buildings, but has recently historically been used for grazing and has numerous several abandoned oil and gas wells.

POLICY DIRECTION

SPA E is intended to serve as a gateway into Brentwood from the west. Adequate land area shall be set aside to provide special landscaping, open space, signage, and other unique features that will establish this area as an important entrance into the City. There are several issues that require special attention and coordination in SPA E. These issues include: the eventual widening improvement of the Highway State Route 4 Bypass, adequate buffering for the Bypass, the relocation of Old Sand Creek Road, the westward extension of San Jose Avenue and the development of the Bypass, the restoration and enhancement of Sand Creek in accordance with the Parks, Trails, and Recreation Master Plan, and implementation of the memorandum of understanding between the Cities of Brentwood and Antioch concerning open space/buffering of the shared border. It is necessary to provide adequate road connections to the property to the south through San Jose Avenue as well as other local access points south and north of the SPA.

It is important to maintain visual open space and parks as dominant features of this Planning Area, particularly the views from the Bypass, Sand Creek Road, and Sand Creek. Development shall preserve the visual prominence of the hill form in the middle of the site to the greatest extent possible through the use of open space, large single-family residential lots, and appropriate roadway alignments. Development shall utilize elements such as landscaping, berms, masonry walls and open space to provide buffering between the residential uses and the Bypass travel lanes. This Planning Area shall be designed so that it does not "wall" itself off from the Bypass and Sand Creek Road. Open space, including defined minimum setbacks from Sand Creek, and parks shall comprise at least approximately 40% of the Planning Area. Several important elements of the planning for SPA E are Design Guidelines, as well as addressing safety considerations related to abandoning the oil and gas wells historically operating within the area.

A major intent of this special planning area, in addition to serving as a gateway into Brentwood, is to provide a location for mixed-use business park and regional commercial land uses. In order to provide maximum flexibility for this type of land use development, a minimum of 50 34 acres (including the area reserved for Sand Creek and its associated minimum setbacks) in the northern portion of the SPA west of the Highway 4 Bypass shall be allocated for regional commercial and mixed-use business park uses, to be located at the northwest corner of Sand Creek Road and the State Route 4 Bypass. The remaining acreage shall be allocated for a mix of permanent open space and parks, and low density residential uses, and approximately 4 three (3) acres of high density residential uses for senior housing. These uses shall be situated so that the compatibility between existing and planned uses is maintained as phased development occurs.

Since the City wishes to maintain the flexibility to allow this special planning area to develop at its highest and best use for the benefit of all future residents, a specific land use mix is not being suggested at this time. The City will initially consider a specific land use mix for this area in conjunction with a coordinated planned development, which the City will adopt at the time that the property owners are committed to develop in the area. The mix of uses shall be refined as site plans for individual development proposals are submitted for review and approval.

DESIGN OBJECTIVES

• Provide open space and parks to (1) preserve the hill form on the site, (2) develop a gateway entry element into the City, and (3) provide adequate buffering of the Highway State Route 4 Bypass and Sand Creek Road through the use of setbacks from travel lanes, berming, masonry walls, open space and landscaping.

• Safely abandon the oil and gas facilities as the planning area is developed.

• Preserve and enhance Sand Creek in accordance with the Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan.

• Concentrate mixed-use business park and regional commercial uses adjacent to the Highway State Route 4 Bypass, and north of Sand Creek Road.

• Recognize the memorandum of understanding between the cities of Brentwood and Antioch to create an open space buffer between the communities along the common planning boundary.

• Designate approximately 40% of the SPA for open space and park uses.

• Reserve approximately 50 34 acres (including the area reserved for Sand Creek and its associated minimum setbacks) for regional commercial and mixed-use business parks park development.

• Designate approximately 4 three (3) acres for high density residential senior housing in the southeast corner of the SPA.

• Develop the remaining acreage as low density residential uses, with careful attention to protection of scenic hillsides that are to remain as open space to protect existing views.

• Cluster homes in the flatter portion of the site, in close proximity to the commercial uses planned for the north side of Sand Creek Road.

ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD APPROVING THE APPEAL OF A REZONE (RZ 05-04) ON APPROXIMATELY 134 ACRES TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE MIXED-USE BRIDLE GATE PROJECT SITE, LOCATED WEST OF THE STATE ROUTE 4 BYPASS, ON BOTH SIDES OF THE SAND CREEK ROAD EXTENSION (APN 019-082-005).

WHEREAS, Discovery Builders, Inc. has requested approval of a General Plan Amendment and Rezone on approximately 134 acres located west of the State Route 4 Bypass, on both sides of the Sand Creek Road extension, in order to facilitate development of the “Bridle Gate” project (DA 04-02; VTSM 8506; and DR 01-12); and

WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment to modify the text of Special Planning Area E, including the proposed land use mix; and

WHEREAS, the applicant is concurrently requesting a Rezone to establish development standards for the project site; and

WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and additional requested entitlements for the project were considered at a public hearing before the Planning Commission on April 19, 2005, and the Commission voted 4-1 to deny the General Plan Amendment and Rezone via Resolution No. 05-26, which includes appropriate findings; and

WHEREAS, the applicant subsequently appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council; and

WHEREAS, the appeal was considered at a public hearing before the City Council on June 14, 2005, and the Council voted 2-1 to refer the project back to the Planning Commission for additional consideration; and

WHEREAS, after several months of working with City staff, the applicant did not make any substantive changes to the project and requested that it be placed on the next available Planning Commission agenda; and

WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment, Rezone, and additional requested entitlements for the project were considered at a public hearing before the Planning Commission on November 1, 2005, and the Commission voted 3-2 to deny the General Plan Amendment and Rezone via Resolution No. 05-82, which includes appropriate findings; and

WHEREAS, the applicant subsequently appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council; and

WHEREAS, the appeal was considered at a public hearing before the City Council on January 10, 2006, and the Council voted 4-0 to approve the appeal, subject to the applicant making specific revisions to the project, with City staff returning the appeal to the Council at a future date for review and approval of the revisions, culminating in the formal approval of the appeal; and

WHEREAS, after several months of working with City staff, the applicant has made substantial revisions to the project, as requested by the City Council, including preserving the dominant hill form on the project site, maintaining approximately 40% of the project area for public open space and park use, and preparing a new noise study to adequately address potential noise impacts as a result of the project; 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 Brentwood Press on April 21, 2006, in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090; 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 presentation by City staff, the staff report, and all other pertinent goals, policies, regulations, and documents regarding the proposed Rezone; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has passed a Resolution approving the appeal of General Plan Amendment No. 01-01.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood:

A. Hereby finds that:

1. The proposed Rezone has been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act; and

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

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

4. The proposed Rezone will establish clear development standards for the uses permitted under the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and conditionally approved entitlements for the “Bridle Gate” project; and

5. The proposed Rezone will provide standards resulting in development that is consistent and compatible with surrounding uses; and

6. The proposed Rezone will provide for adequate public uses and private open space; and

7. The project will generate a level of traffic that can be accommodated by the public circulation system, existing or planned; and

8. 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

9. The proposed development will clearly result in a more desirable use of land, and a better physical environment than would be possible under any combination of zones; and

10. The proposed Rezone is on property that has a suitable relationship to one or more thoroughfares, and said thoroughfares are adequate to carry any traffic generated by the development; and

11. 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 adequate landscaping and/or screening is included if necessary to ensure compatibility; and

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

13. 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 consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and with the City's General Plan, including all relevant Elements thereof, and with any applicable Specific Plan adopted by the City; and

14. The revisions made by the applicant to the project since the January 10, 2006 City Council meeting have addressed all issues raised at that time.

B. Hereby approves Rezone No. 05-04 for the approximate 134-acre site as requested and as reflected in the attached Exhibit “A”, and directs City staff to make the appropriate changes to the Brentwood Municipal Code.

C. Hereby approves the appeal filed by Discovery Builders, Inc. relative to the denial of Rezone No. 05-04 via Planning Commission Resolution No. 05-26 and Planning Commission Resolution No. 05-82.

PASSED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at its regular meeting of May 23, 2006, by the following vote:

Exhibits:
“A” – Development standards for the PD-36 Zone

EXHIBIT “A” TO
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PD-36

CHAPTER 17.486
PD-36 (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 36) ZONE
BRIDLE GATE

17.486.001 AUTHORITY, PURPOSE AND INTENT

17.486.002 PERMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA “A” (MIXED-USE BUSINESS PARK AREA)

17.486.003 PERMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA “B” (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL AREA)

17.486.004 PERMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA “C” (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREA – 5,000 SQUARE FEET MINIMUM LOT SIZE)

17.486.005 PERMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA “D” (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREA – 10,000 SQUARE FEET MINIMUM LOT SIZE)

17.486.006 PERMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA “E” (OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION AREA)

17.486.007 OTHER REGULATIONS

17.486.008 SUBAREA MAP FOR PD-36

17.486.001 AUTHORITY, PURPOSE AND INTENT:

The authority, purpose and intent for the adoption of the PD-36 (Planned Development No. 36) Zone are as follows:

A. AUTHORITY: The PD-36 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-36 Zone is to permit and regulate the orderly development of the area as shown on Attachment “A” in accordance with the Brentwood General Plan for mixed-use business park, regional commercial, single-family residential, and open space and recreation uses. The PD-36 Zone is divided into five (5) subareas as shown in Section 17.486.008.

C. INTENT: The PD-36 Zone is intended to provide a distinguished mixed-use area in conformance with the adopted General Plan.

17.486.002 PERMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA “A” (MIXED-USE BUSINESS PARK AREA)

PERMITTED USES FOR SUBAREA “A”
1. Business, professional, financial, and medical offices;

2. Light industrial uses, including by way of example but not limited to, computer software and biotechnology companies, medical supply companies, medical, dental, and optical laboratories, and warehouses (distribution and wholesale);

3. Research and development facilities;

4. Light manufacturing uses, such as small assembly and printing shops, which generate minimal noise, odor, smoke, waste material, and other similar impacts;

5. Uses that manufacture their primary product on the premises, such as a drapery shop, cabinet shop, or upholstery shop, including ancillary retail sale of these products;

6. General retail sales, including food service, that do not exceed 10% of the respective building area;

7. Financial institutions;

8. Commercial services, including by way of example but not limited to, barber and beauty shops, laundry and dry cleaning facilities, copying and printing facilities, electronic repair facilities, small equipment rental and repair, technology access and telecommuting centers, messenger and stenographic services, and travel agencies;

9. Other similar uses as determined by the Community Development Director.

CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES FOR SUBAREA “A”

1. Public and quasi-public uses such as hospitals, convalescent hospitals, and business and technical schools;

2. Health clubs;

3. Bars and lounges;

4. Industrial uses that would have a moderate to high impact on surrounding uses, including by way of example but not limited to, metal fabrication, machine shops, and welding shops;

5. Conference facilities, meeting halls, and similar uses;

6. Outdoor storage yards or outdoor industrial yards;

7. Restaurants, excluding drive-thrus, subject to a parking analysis indicating current development and the availability of parking;

8. Manufacture of food products, pharmaceuticals, and similar products, excluding the production of fish or meat products, or similar products that create excessive sewage or odor problems, provided all manufacturing activities are performed completely within an enclosed building;

9. On or off-site alcohol sales;

10. Other uses that the Community Development Director determines because of the type of operation, material stored or sold, or other special circumstances that require special consideration and conditioning through the conditional use permit process.

GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA “A”

1. Minimum Lot Area: One acre, except that a master planned development may be subdivided into parcels having a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet.

2. Minimum Lot Width: 100 feet

3. Minimum Lot Depth: 100 feet

4. All development shall comply with Chapter 17.200 of the Municipal Code.

5. All development shall comply with the adopted City of Brentwood Design Guidelines.

6. All lighting shall incorporate cut-off designs, and shall be included in details submitted with formal development plans.

7. Formal development plans shall include, as part of any application and to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, a photomontage of existing and proposed conditions.

8. Appropriate City entry signage shall be designed and submitted in conjunction with formal development plans to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.

9. Maximum Building Height: Four stories, not to exceed 60 feet.

10. Building Setbacks:
• Sand Creek Road: 30 feet from right-of-way
• Brentwood/Antioch City limit line: 50 feet
• Sand Creek: 60 feet from top of bank
• State Route 4 Bypass: 50 feet
• Public street frontage: 30 feet
• Interior property lines: 10 feet and clear of any utility easements

11. All pavement, hardscape, or any other impervious surfaces shall be set back a minimum of 60 feet from the top of the creek bank

17.486.003 PERMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA “B” (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL AREA)

PERMITTED USES FOR SUBAREA “B”

1. Large-scale regional retail sales uses, including by way of example but not limited to, big-box stores, factory outlets, discount and similar retail uses requiring or best suited for operation within a warehouse-type facility; large department stores; large-scale general merchandise, sporting goods, home furnishings, home improvement and building materials (with or without lumber sales), home appliances, nursery, garden supply, hardware, electronics, office supply, and off-sale liquor sales stores; large-scale book, video, music, and toy stores; large-scale pet and pet supply stores, including on-site veterinary clinics (excluding kennels); and large-scale automobile, motorcycle, recreational vehicle, and boat parts and accessory stores;

2. Temporary outdoor display and/or sale of merchandise on sidewalks that front buildings, subject to Chapter 17.850 of the Brentwood Municipal Code. Sales and display areas are to cover no more than 50% of the sidewalk area in front of a user’s building or unit, and are to be maintained in an attractive, neat, and clean appearance;

3. General retail sales, including by way of example but not limited to, junior department stores; supermarkets; drugstores; general merchandise, sporting goods, home furnishings, home improvement, home appliance, nursery, garden supply, hardware, electronics, office supply and off-sale liquor sales stores; book, video, music, and toy stores; pet and pet supply stores, including on-site veterinary clinics (excluding kennels); and automobile, motorcycle, recreational vehicle, and boat parts and accessory stores;

4. Specialty merchandise and convenience sales, including by way of example but not limited to, specialty foods, delicatessen, bakery, pastry, candy, ice cream, butcher, meat market, wine, tobacco, apparel and accessory, jewelry, cosmetics, gift, stationery, shoe, kitchenware, hobby and specialty interest stores;

5. Video arcades; bowling alleys; and skating rinks;

6. Commercial services, including by way of example but not limited to, barber and beauty shops; electronic, appliance, watch and clock repair; small equipment rental and repair; technology and telecommuting centers; addressing and mailing service; blueprinting, photostatting, and desktop publishing service; drafting, messenger, answering, and stenographic service; telegraph office; private postal box service; and travel agency;

7. Financial institutions;

8. Business, professional, financial, and medical offices, including by way of example but not limited to, large-scale single and/or multi-tenant office uses;

9. Studios and instructional facilities, such as dance studios, music studios, or similar establishments;

10. Health clubs, subject to a plan indicating current development and the availability of parking, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director;

11. Restaurants, excluding drive-thrus;

12. Other similar uses as determined by the Community Development Director.

CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES FOR SUBAREA “B”

1. Liquor stores, bars, lounges, and drive-thru restaurants;

2. New or used car, boat, or recreational vehicle sales;

3. Hotels and motels;

4. Conference facilities, meeting halls, and similar uses;

5. Veterinary facilities, including kennels;

6. Other uses that the Community Development Director determines because of the type of operation, material stored or sold, or other special circumstances that require special consideration and conditioning through the conditional use permit processed by the Community Development Director.

GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA “B”

1. Minimum Lot Area: One acre, except that a master planned development may be subdivided into parcels having a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet.

2. Minimum Lot Width: 100 feet

3. Minimum Lot Depth: 100 feet

4. All development shall comply with Chapter 17.200 of the Municipal Code.

5. All development shall comply with the adopted City of Brentwood Design Guidelines.

6. All lighting shall incorporate cut-off designs, and shall be included in details submitted with formal development plans.

7. Formal development plans shall include, as part of any application and to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, a photomontage of existing and proposed conditions.

8. Maximum Building Height: Three stories, not to exceed 45 feet.
9. Building Setbacks:
• Sand Creek Road: 30 feet from right-of-way
• State Route 4 Bypass: 50 feet from right-of-way
• Sand Creek: 60 feet from top of bank
• Public street frontage: 30 feet
• Interior property lines: 10 feet and clear of any utility easements

10. All pavement, hardscape, or any other impervious surfaces shall be set back a minimum of 60 feet from the top of the creek bank

17.486.004 PERMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA “C” (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL – 5,000 SQUARE FEET MINIMUM LOT SIZE)

A) PERMITTED USES FOR SUBAREA “C”

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

B) CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES FOR SUBAREA “C”

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

C) GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA “C”

1. Minimum Lot Size: 5,000 square feet

2. Minimum Lot Width: 50 feet

3. Minimum Lot Frontage: 35 feet at the front property line for lots on cul-de-sacs, knuckles, or curvilinear streets.

4. Minimum Front Yard Setback: 20 feet for front-facing garages; 15 feet for building walls and porches.

5. Minimum Side Yard Setback: five feet, with the sum of both sides 12 feet; corner lots shall maintain a minimum setback of 10 feet on the street side yard.

6. Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 15 feet, with an average of 20 feet.

7. Maximum Building Height: two stories, not to exceed 30 feet.

8. Corner Lot Fence Setback: five feet from the street side property line; all other fence regulations shall adhere to the requirements of Chapter 17.660 of the Municipal Code.

9. Lots adjacent to open space shall utilize a 6-foot high open space fence along the common property line(s), as approved through VTSM 8506.

10. Accessory structures shall be prohibited in side or rear yards for areas exceeding a 3:1 slope.

11. Maximum Lot Coverage: 40% for two-story homes and 45% for single-story homes.

12. Maximum Number of Primary Dwelling Units: 124

17.486.005 PERMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA “D” (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL – 10,000 SQUARE FEET MINIMUM LOT SIZE)

A) PERMITTED USES FOR SUBAREA “D”

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

B) CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES FOR SUBAREA “D”

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

C) GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA “D”

1. Minimum Lot Size: 10,000 square feet

2. Minimum Lot Width: 90 feet

3. Minimum Lot Frontage: 45 feet at the front property line for lots on cul-de-sacs, knuckles, or curvilinear streets.

4. Minimum Front Yard Setback: 20 feet for front-facing garages; 15 feet for building walls and porches.

5. Minimum Side Yard Setback: five feet, with the sum of both sides 15 feet; corner lots shall maintain a minimum setback of 10 feet on the street side yard.

6. Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 15 feet, with an average of 20 feet.

7. Maximum Building Height: two stories, not to exceed 30 feet.

8. Corner Lot Fence Setback: five feet from the street side property line; all other fence regulations shall adhere to the requirements of Chapter 17.660 of the Municipal Code.

9. Lots adjacent to open space shall utilize a 6-foot high open space fence along the common property line(s), as approved through VTSM 8506.

10. Accessory structures shall be prohibited in side or rear yards for areas exceeding a 3:1 slope.

11. Maximum Lot Coverage: 40% for two-story homes and 45% for single-story homes.

12. Maximum Number of Primary Dwelling Units: 42

17.486.006 PERMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES AND GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA “E” (OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION AREA)

PERMITTED USES IN SUBAREA “E”

1. Active and passive public recreational areas including any structures incidental to such use;

2. Public or quasi-public rights-of-way for utility, irrigation, drainage, or similar areas utilized for or having the potential to be utilized for linear trails, bicycle, pedestrian or horse trails and similar uses;

3. Open space as a reserve for fire protection, seismic safety, water conservation, protection of view, or similar appropriate purposes;

4. Parks, playgrounds, and recreational trails;

5. Conservation easements for wetland and habitat preservation and mitigation related to development of SPA E.

CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES IN SUBAREA “E”

1. An addition to an existing structure which will increase the coverage of the structure by 500 square feet, or any new structure in excess of 500 square feet, except minor recreational structures such as playground equipment, trellises, and similar uses;

2. Any commercial use which may be conducted on open space land without substantially detracting from its value as open space such as golf courses, riding academies or stables, tennis or swim clubs, and similar recreational-related uses of a predominantly open nature.

GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN SUBAREA “E”

All uses are subject to the design and site development review procedures established in Section 17.820. The setback, building height, parking, and other design and performance criteria shall be established at the time of the proposed development and in accordance with any development standards established by resolution for the type of use proposed.

17.486.07 OTHER REGULATIONS:

1. Off-street parking, unless otherwise specifically addressed in this chapter, shall be provided pursuant to Chapter 17.620 and Section 17.100.004.H;

2. The parking and storage of boats, trailers, and similar vehicles and equipment shall be subject to the provisions of Section 17.620.016;

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

4. All signage for Subareas “A” and “B” shall be in accordance with an approved Master Sign Program;

5. The development of the PD-36 Zone shall be substantially in accordance with the various approved plans for each subarea.

CITY OF BRENTWOOD
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

BRIDLE GATE DEVELOPMENT
Development Agreement 04-02
General Plan Amendment 01-01
Rezone 05-04
Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map 8506
Design Review 01-12

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

April 2006

INITIAL STUDY
April 2006

BACKGROUND

1. Project Title: Bridle Gate

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
Senior Planner
(925) 516-5137

4. Project Location: Both sides of the Sand Creek Road extension, directly west of the
State Route 4 Bypass

City of Brentwood
Contra Costa County

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Discovery Builders, Inc.
4061 Port Chicago Highway, Suite H
Concord, CA 94520
(925) 682-6419

6. General Plan Designation: Special Planning Area E

7. Zoning: Planned Development No. 36

8. Project Description Summary:

The proposed project consists of the following requested entitlements from the Planning Commission and City Council:

• Development Agreement to govern the phasing, development, and construction of the project;
• General Plan Amendment to modify the text of Special Planning Area E, including the proposed land use mix;
• Rezone to establish development standards for the project site;
• Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide approximately 134 acres into 166 single-family residential lots, 47.51 acres of parks and open space, and a 34.58-acre site for future mixed-use business park and regional commercial development; and
• Design Review for the single-family homes to be constructed on the 166 proposed residential lots.

SOURCES

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

1. Air Quality Impact Analysis for the Proposed Bridle Gate Project, City of Brentwood, Don Ballanti, May 2004;
2. Arborwell, Tree Inventory, Bridle Gate at Brentwood, August 2003;
3. Breeding Season Survey for the Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea), Wetland Research Associates, Inc., July 2003;
4. Bridle Gate Residential Project Traffic Impact Analysis, City of Brentwood, RBF Consulting, February 2004;
5. California Red-Legged Frog Field Survey Report, Bridlegate (Ellisondo), Wetland Research Associates, Inc., October 2003;
6. Bridle Gate California Red-Legged Frog Site Assessment Report, Wetland Research Associates, Inc., February 2003;
7. California Tiger Salamander Site Analysis and Habitat Assessment, Bridle Gate Subdivision, Contra Costa County, CA, Wetland Research Associates, Inc., October 2003;
8. City of Brentwood General Plan, November 2001;
9. City of Brentwood General Plan EIR, November 2001;
10. City of Brentwood General Plan EIR, June 1993;
11. Bridle Gate, Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation, Brentwood, Contra Costa County, CA, R. Windmiller, April 2004;
12. Delineation of Potential Jurisdictional Wetlands Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Bridle Gate Subdivision, Contra Costa County, CA, Wetland Research Associates, Inc., June 2003;
13. Special-status species reports for the Bridle Gate Project, Brentwood, California, Wetland Research Associates, April 2006;
14. Bridle Gate Residential Project, Brentwood, CA, Environmental Noise Assessment, Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., April 2006;
15. Geotechnical Exploration Ellisondo Parcel Brentwood, California, ENGEO Inc., September 1999;
16. Habitat Suitability Site Assessment of the Bridle Gate Study Area for the Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea), Wetland Research Associates, Inc., April 2003;
17. Letter from Mary Serra, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, dated March 29th 2001;
18. Letter from Michael Finan (Regulatory Branch 200300517), Department of the Army, dated April 15th 2004;
19. Phase One Environmental Site Assessment Elissondo Property Brentwood, California, June 1998;
20. Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan, City of Brentwood, RRM Design Group, June 2002;
21. Rare Plant Assessment, Bridle Gate Subdivision, Contra Costa County, CA, Wetland Research Associates, Inc., June 2003;
22. Redevelopment Plan for the Brentwood Redevelopment Project, Brentwood Redevelopment Agency, 1982;
23. San Joaquin Kit Fox Early Evaluation Report, Bridle Gate, Contra Costa County, CA, Wetland Research Associates, Inc., March 2003; and
24. Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, California, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 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 Services  Recreation  Transportation & Circulation
 Utilities/Service Systems  Mandatory Findings of Significance

DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial study:

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

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

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

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

 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier 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.
_____________________________
Signature Date

Erik Nolthenius City of Brentwood_______________¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
Printed Name For

BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

This Initial Study identifies and analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The information and analysis presented in this document are organized in accordance with the order of the CEQA checklist in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. If the analysis provided in this document identifies potentially significant environmental effects of the project, mitigation measures that should be applied to the project are prescribed.

The mitigation measures prescribed for environmental effects described in this Initial Study will be implemented in conjunction with the project, as required by CEQA. The mitigation measures will be incorporated into the project through project conditions of approval. The City will adopt findings and a Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program for the project in conjunction with its approval of the project.

The environmental setting and impact discussion for each section of this Initial Study have been largely based on information in the 2001 Draft and Final EIR, Brentwood General Plan document and the Redevelopment Plan for the Brentwood Redevelopment Project (Brentwood Redevelopment Agency, 1982). In addition, a series of detailed technical reports, prepared specifically for the Bridle Gate project by subconsultants, are utilized where appropriate.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed project site consists of approximately 134 acres in the City of Brentwood (See Figure 1 – Project Location Map). The site is bounded by Old Sand Creek Road to the north, the State Route 4 Bypass to the east, the single-family residential Brentwood Hills (TSM 7882) development to the south, and the edge of the Planning Area and the City of Antioch’s Sphere of Influence to the west. A small segment of existing San Jose Avenue bounds the project site at its farthest southeastern corner. A total of four buildings and structures are located on-site. A large barn, a small barn, an outbuilding, and the ruins of a bridge that crossed Sand Creek are located within the farthest northwestern corner of the project site. A wide swale runs along the west side of the subject property and drains into Sand Creek. The City of Brentwood has an easement and maintains a water pipeline that runs roughly down the center of the western swale. Current land use of the property is cattle grazing, and surrounding land uses include residential, commercial, livestock grazing, and agriculture. The site is approximately square in shape, and is diagonally bordered along its eastern boundary by the State Route 4 Bypass. The project site is identified by the Contra Costa County Assessor by Parcel Number 019-082-005.

The proposed project site is zoned Planned Development No. 36 (PD-36). According to the City of Brentwood General Plan, the land use designation for the project site is Special Planning Area E. The Land Use Element of the General Plan (Pg. II. 1-30) states that “A major intent of this special planning area, in addition to serving as a gateway into Brentwood, is to provide a location for regional commercial land uses… [and] a mix of permanent open space and parks, and low density residential uses […].”

According to the USGS Brentwood Quadrangle, the project site falls within the Brentwood Oil and Gas Field. As described in the letter from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB), the project site previously contained active oil production wells and an oil tank farm that facilitated oil production and waste treatment. The site also previously contained 24 active groundwater monitoring wells. The oil wells, tank farm, groundwater monitoring wells, and associated facilities have been properly abandoned under the oversight of the CRWQCB. The CRWQCB letters dated December 19, 1996, July 7, 2000, and March 29, 2001 confirm that the former oil wells, tank farm, and monitoring wells were all remediated, and no further investigation or monitoring is required. Development of the proposed project would require the provision of appropriate setbacks from abandoned oil wells as dictated by the Brentwood Zoning Ordinance. Development of the proposed project would also require the demolition of the buildings and structures located at the northwestern corner of the project site.

The applicant is requesting approval of the following entitlements for the proposed Bridle Gate project: a Development Agreement, a General Plan Amendment, a Rezone, a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, and a Design Review. The Development Agreement would govern specific aspects of the project, including construction timing. The General Plan Amendment would modify the text of Special Planning Area E, including a change in the proposed land use mix, and the Rezone would establish development standards for the project site. The Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (VTSM 8506) is being requested by the applicant to subdivide the project site into 166 single-family residential lots, parks and open space, and a site for future mixed-use business park and regional commercial development. The Design Review entitlement is for the various models of single-family homes to be developed on the 166 proposed single-family residential lots (See Figure 2 – Tentative Map). Two parcels, totaling just over five acres, would be dedicated to the City of Brentwood for public park areas, and just over 42 acres would be dedicated for open space, some or all of which may be used for project mitigation within 10 years. Vehicular access to the proposed project would be provided in three locations, with one on the westerly extension of Sand Creek Road (at its intersection with the northerly extension of San Jose Avenue), another on the westerly extension of San Jose Avenue, and the third on the northerly extension of St. Regis Avenue. Pedestrian access would be provided in the form of sidewalks and trails throughout the proposed development, in conformance with City standards.

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.

Figure 1
Project Location Map

Figure 2
Bridle Gate Tentative Map

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

I. AESTHETICS.
Would the project:

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

b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? (no scenic resources damaged on site)

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 night-time views in the area?

Discussion

a,c. The City of Brentwood is located in the eastern valley area of Contra Costa County, immediately east of the Diablo Range, which includes Mt. Diablo. The City of Brentwood has recognized views of Mt. Diablo as an important visual resource to be preserved (See Goal 2 of the Community Design Element of the Brentwood General Plan). The State Route 4 Bypass, located adjacent to the east boundary of the project site, is designated in the Brentwood General Plan EIR (p. 3.3-2) as a Scenic Route. The Bypass currently affords views of Mt. Diablo. The extension of Sand Creek Road west of the Bypass, as well as the design of the resulting separated interchange, has the potential to adversely impact views of Mt. Diablo. The design was just finalized in the latter part of 2005, with Sand Creek Road to be extended underneath the Bypass, resulting in an elevation change of up to 27-feet. This means that, taking one spot elevation as an example, the Bypass will be raised from 134.3 feet (current) to 161.43 feet (future). While this is not a direct impact of the project, Sand Creek Road is shown to extend west of the Bypass in the General Plan, so it is something that has been anticipated for the last several years. Given the importance of Sand Creek Road as a major arterial through Brentwood, it is conceivable that its extension and the resulting interchange would happen irrespective of whether the Bridle Gate project is approved. While views of Mt. Diablo will thus certainly be affected by the raising of the Bypass, impacts as a result are considered less than significant based on the foregoing analysis.

Another visual concern related to the project involves the preservation of the prominent hill that traverses the site in a northwest-southeast fashion, beginning at the approximate mid-point of the site’s southern boundary and ending roughly at the Sand Creek Road extension near Sand Creek. As previously mentioned, the Brentwood General Plan identifies the project site as Special Planning Area (SPA) E. Included in the Design Objectives for SPA E (See Brentwood General Plan – pg. II. 1-30) is an objective related to the preservation of the hill form on the site. As can be seen in Figure 2, the proposed project concentrates the development of single-family homes on either side of the hill, thereby preserving its integrity. If the project is approved, grading plans will be reviewed to ensure that the elevations shown on the tentative map for the house pads as well as the hill are maintained. It should also be noted that the development of the single-family homes for the project requires Planning Commission Design Review approval, which would ensure that home designs are not incompatible with the surrounding area, including the hill. Based on the foregoing analysis, potential impacts related to the hill are considered less than significant.

d. The project site is currently used for agricultural purposes (grazing), with a total of four buildings and structures on site. Very little light or glare is currently emitted from the project site. The change from an uninhabited agricultural property to a mixed-use area including 166 single-family homes would generate new sources of light and glare. The project site is bordered by Old Sand Creek Road to the north, the Bypass to the east, the single-family residential Brentwood Hills (TSM 7882) development to the south, and the edge of the Planning Area and the City of Antioch’s Sphere of Influence to the west. The residences located in the immediate vicinity of the site would be considered sensitive receptors and would be adversely affected by additional sources of light and glare. Therefore, the increase in light and glare produced by the proposed project would be considered a potentially significant impact.

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

I-1. In conjunction with development of the proposed project, the developer shall shield all on-site lighting, utilizing cutoff classified fixtures for all street, parking lot, and non-residential building-mounted lighting, so that it is directed within the project site and does not illuminate adjacent properties. A detailed lighting plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Community Development Department, the Police Department, and the Engineering Department in conjunction with the project improvement plans. The locations and design of the shielded light fixtures shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Community Development Department, the Police Department, and the Engineering Department in conjunction with the approval of improvement plans.

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

a. The City of Brentwood 2001 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 project is not located within the conservation area. Additionally, the Brentwood General Plan has identified this area for a mix of non-residential and residential development.

The General Plan Conservation Element Policy 1.1.4 states:

Secure Agriculture Land: Establish a program which 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 agricultural-urban conflicts will be mitigated.

The Contra Costa County Important Farmland Map (2000) indicates that the project area has been designated as Prime Farmland. Although the Conservation Goal in the Brentwood 2001 General Plan EIR is restricted to Prime Farmland east of Sellers Avenue and south of the ECCID main canal (IV.1-4), which excludes the project site, the development of the proposed project would result in the direct loss of Prime Farmland. Therefore, 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 any final map or issuance of any grading permit, the developer shall comply with any City Council conservation programs established pursuant to General Plan Conservation Element Policy 1.1.4 in order to mitigate the potential significant impact of the proposed project on the loss of farmland. The applicant shall pay the current agricultural conservation City fee in effect at that time to provide funds to purchase conservation easements to mitigate the loss of farmland.

b. The project site is not under Williamson Act contract and the site is designated for urban development consisting of mixed-use business park, regional commercial, open space, recreational, and single-family residential uses. Therefore, development of the site as proposed would not result in conflict with a Williamson Act contract or existing zoning for agriculture. Implementation of the proposed project would result in no impact to agriculture zoning or Williamson Act contracts.

c. Individual project impacts to the loss of prime farmland are addressed through the proposed mitigation in question “a”, above. The Bridle Gate development project would not be anticipated to promote off-site development because the proposed infrastructure is sized to serve only the project area. In addition, the project site is partially surrounded by development and the proposed project is consistent with the type and intensity of land uses anticipated by the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would result in no impact to the existing environment that could individually or cumulatively result in loss of farmland to non-agricultural use.

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

Although wind ventilation may reduce the concentration of atmospheric pollutants, Brentwood is susceptible to pollution transported from more heavily urbanized areas to the west. Warm summer temperatures in the Brentwood area contribute to the formation of ozone from hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides produced in the Oakland and Berkeley areas. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently designated nonattainment for Ozone, carbon monoxide, and suspended particulate matter (PM10). Under the California Clean Air Act of 1988, districts not attaining State ambient air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen dioxide must submit a plan for attaining and maintaining State standards for the pollutants. The BAAQMD completed its '91 Clean Air Plan in October 1991.

The air quality impacts associated with emissions from increased number of vehicles were analyzed in the Brentwood 2001General Plan Update EIR. The Update EIR found that implementation of the mitigation measures related to growth management and other transportation policies in the General Plan would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. The density of the proposed project is within the range of densities anticipated in the General Plan Update and also within the range of densities allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the project-specific air quality impacts resulting from increased vehicle trips would not be considered adverse.

A project would be judged to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional air quality plan if it would be inconsistent with the growth assumptions, in terms of population, employment or regional growth in Vehicle Miles Traveled. The project would not conflict with any of the growth assumptions made in the preparation of these plans nor obstruct implementation of any of the proposed control measures contained in these plans.

The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines recommend estimation of carbon monoxide concentrations for projects where project traffic would impact signalized intersections or roadway links operating at Level of Service D, E, or F or would cause Level of Service to decline to D, E, or F.

The traffic study prepared for the project found that project traffic would not cause LOS at any existing or future signalized intersections or roadway links to decline to LOS D or worse with project and cumulative traffic increases. Therefore, the BAAQMD threshold trigger level for estimating carbon monoxide modeling of concentrations would not be exceeded.

Considering that the proposed project is in an attainment area for carbon monoxide (the State and Federal ambient standards are met) and that eastern Contra Costa County has relatively low background levels of carbon monoxide compared to other parts of the Bay Area, it is concluded that the project’s impact on carbon monoxide concentrations would be less-than-significant.

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

The City of Brentwood General Plan Update EIR indicates that short-term construction activities would result in dust and equipment exhaust emissions that could, at times, contribute to nuisances or deterioration of local air quality. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines state that construction air quality impacts do not need to be quantified and mitigation measures reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. In addition, the General Plan Update EIR concludes that with the implementation of mitigation measures, the impacts would be considered less-than-significant. The proposed project is consistent with the various City of Brentwood General Plan land use designations. Therefore, the effects associated with the build out of the project site as well as the project area have already been considered and accepted by the Brentwood City Council.

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 and diesel emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a potentially significant impact to air quality.

Mitigation Measure
Implementation of the following mitigation measure identified in the General Plan 2001 Update EIR (AQ-1.1) would reduce the construction-related impact to a less-than-significant level.

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

• Cover all trucks hauling construction and demolition debris from the site;
• Water all exposed or disturbed soil surfaces at least twice daily;
• Use watering to control dust generation during demolition of structures or break-up of pavement;
• Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved parking areas and staging areas;
• Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved parking areas and staging areas;
• Provide daily clean up of mud and dirt carried onto paved streets from the site;
• Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, et cetera);
• Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph;
• Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways;
• Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible;
• Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site;
• Install wind breaks, or plant trees/vegetative wind breaks at windward side(s) or construction areas;
• Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts exceed 25 mph;
• Limit the area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity at any one time;
• Unnecessary idling of construction equipment shall be avoided;
• Equipment engines shall be maintained in proper working condition per manufacturers’ specifications;
• During periods of heavier air pollution (May to October), the construction period shall be lengthened to minimize the amount of equipment operating at one time; and
• Where feasible, the construction equipment shall use cleaner fuels, add-on control devices and conversion to cleaner engines.

e. The project would not include industrial or intensive agricultural use. Therefore, aside from the temporary construction-related diesel emissions, project operation would not create odors or toxic air contaminants. In addition, residential properties typically would not result in odors that would impact the proposed subdivision. Therefore, no impact from objectionable odors would occur.

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

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:

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

b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, 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,b,c. The following discussion is based on a series of reports performed for the Bridle Gate project by Wetlands Research Associates, Inc. (WRA). WRA prepared the following reports for the project site:

• Breeding season survey for the western burrowing owl (July 2003)
• California tiger salamander site analysis and habitat assessment (October 2003, Revised June 2004)
• California red-legged frog site assessment (February 2003)
• California red-legged frog field survey report (October 2003)
• Delineation of potential jurisdictional wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (June 2003)
• Habitat suitability site assessment of the Bridle Gate study area for the western burrowing owl (April 2003)
• San Joaquin kit fox early evaluation report (March 2003)
• Rare Plant Assessment (June 2003)
• Special-status species reports for the Bridle Gate project (March 2006)

The WRA reports are available for review in the project file at the City of Brentwood. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers verified the WRA wetlands delineation in a letter dated April 15, 2004 (Corps Reg. No. 200300517). The following discussion includes a brief overview of the results of the site assessments and addresses sensitive habitats and special status plant/wildlife species that could potentially be affected by the proposed project.

The 134-acre site has topography which ranges approximately from 130 to 230 feet in elevation. The study area is predominantly composed of non-native annual grassland and is currently used to graze cattle. The grassland available on site is currently grazed by cattle and has a history of frequent disturbance. A wide swale runs along the western portion of the property and Sand Creek runs through the northern most portion of the project site. Two barns, a chicken coop, a house trailer, and a network of fences are present on-site.

Special-status plant species

WRA conducted a rare plant assessment on the Bridle Gate project site to determine the potential occurrence of special-status plant species. No special-status plant species were observed on the project site during rare plant surveys conducted by WRA. However, several California walnuts were located on the project site along Sand Creek. Northern California black walnut (Juglans californica var. hindsii) is a CNPS List 1B species. California walnut is frequently found in northern California growing as a planted ornamental and also hybridizes freely with English walnut (Juglans regia). The walnut trees present within the study area are likely to be planted individuals rather than natural populations. Naturalized occurrences do not have special status protection under CEQA. Therefore, because there are no special plant species on site, and the walnut trees occurring on site are not protected under CEQA, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant.

Riparian Habitat

Sand Creek flows west to east through the northern portion of the study area and supports both native riparian vegetation and a variety of escaped or planed ornamentals. Riparian habitat along Sand Creek is considered a sensitive habitat. In order to avoid impacts to the riparian habitat, the biological assessment recommends a 50-foot buffer along the riparian corridor. The proposed project includes a continuous 60-foot minimum buffer along the entire length of the creek, as measured from the top of bank. The proposed non-residential portion of the Bridle Gate project crosses Sand Creek in at least one location (extension of San Jose Avenue). Because the creek averages seven feet in width, any crossing would span the creek and not encroach into potential jurisdictional or sensitive areas. Furthermore, the proposed buffer exceeds the recommended buffer by at least 10 feet. However, at this time, precise locations of all proposed buildings have not been determined. Should any of the buildings encroach into the identified buffer, a potentially significant impact would result.

Jurisdictional waters of the U.S.

WRA conducted a delineation study to describe the location and extent of jurisdictional waters, including wetlands, on the Bridle Gate site. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers verified the WRA delineation in a letter dated April 15, 2004 (Corps Reg. No. 200300517). Jurisdictional waters within the project area include Sand Creek and a 7.14-acre seasonal swale along the western portion of the project area. Sand Creek is a perennial blue-line stream that flows through the north end of the study area. Potential U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jurisdiction in the creek extends to the ordinary high water mark. Channel width averages about seven feet within the study area, ranging from about five to ten feet.

Jurisdictional waters, including wetlands, are regulated under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act. Any discharge into jurisdictional waters, such as fill for placement of a bridge or outfall, would require appropriate permitting and review by State and Federal regulatory agencies. Implementation of the proposed project would include construction of a bridge across Sand Creek to facilitate the extension of Sand Creek Road by the City, potentially another bridge within the non-residential portion of the project site, one or more pedestrian/bicycle bridges within the non-residential portion, and outfalls into Sand Creek. Proposed single-family residential lots (13-32) are located adjacent to the wetland swale on the western side of the project site; however, the proposed daylight line is located outside of the jurisdictional wetlands. Any fill within Sand Creek for proposed creek crossings and outfalls would be considered a potentially significant impact.

Burrowing owl

WRA prepared a habitat assessment and focused surveys for western burrowing owl. Burrowing owls are found in open, dry grasslands and typically use burrows made by fossorial mammals, such as ground squirrels and badgers. According to WRA, ground squirrel activity on the site appears to be concentrated in the southeast corner and along Sand Creek, with most of the burrows actively being used by ground squirrels. Focused surveys for burrowing owl conducted by WRA found one burrow that was occupied. Additionally, three burrowing owls were observed on the site during a February 2003 site visit. WRA assumes that up to three owls used the Bridle Gate property during the 2003 breeding season. The California Department of Fish and Game recommends mitigation for any impacts to burrowing owls or loss of burrowing owl breeding and foraging habitat. Implementation of the proposed project could potentially affect wintering or nesting burrowing owls and would remove potential burrowing owl nesting and foraging habitat, which would be considered a potentially significant impact.

San Joaquin kit fox

WRA prepared an Early Evaluation report for San Joaquin kit fox dated March 2003. According to the WRA report, the Bridle Gate study area is bordered by development to the east and south. Housing developments to the north begin two miles from the study area. The grazed annual grasslands and steeper topography to the west is the only habitat corridor available between the Bridle Gate study area and uninterrupted annual grasslands that may support San Joaquin kit fox. Two areas within the Bridle Gate study area contain a number of ground squirrel burrows and burrow complexes. No evidence of kit fox was observed at any of the burrow sites. Based on the information from the biological report and from documented kit fox occurrences within the last 25 years, it is unlikely that the San Joaquin kit fox uses the Bridle Gate study area. Therefore, because the project will not adversely affect the San Joaquin kit fox species, impacts as a result of the project are considered to be less than significant.

California red-legged frog

WRA conducted a habitat assessment for California red-legged frog (CRLF) at Bridle Gate in February 2002 that identified potential aquatic breeding habitat, upland, and dispersal habitat for CRLF. Sand Creek provides perennial water and contains deep, still pools suitable for breeding. Quality upland habitat is present along Sand Creek and in the adjacent grassland habitat. Many ground squirrel and small mammal burrows that may be used by CRLF for cover to escape predators were observed along the creek bank. Known populations of CRLF occur in a stock pond approximately 2 miles west of the project site and within Sand Creek approximately 3 miles west, or upstream, of the project site. According to the WRA report, the Sand Creek corridor contains no development that would prevent dispersing frogs in the area, and frogs may also disperse to and from the urbanized stock pond in the neighborhood park to the south. WRA conducted focused surveys for CRLF in 2003. WRA did not observe any CRLF on or adjacent to the Bridle Gate project site during the daytime or nocturnal surveys of Sand Creek during the 2003 protocol surveys.

Implementation of the proposed project would include construction of a bridge across Sand Creek to facilitate the extension of Sand Creek Road by the City, potentially another bridge within the non-residential portion of the project site, one or more pedestrian/bicycle bridges within the non-residential portion, and outfalls into Sand Creek, and would not result in grading for non-residential buildings or homes within 60 feet of Sand Creek. Although California red-legged frog was not observed within the project site during 2003 surveys, given the proximity of known populations of this species, the proposed project may remove potential breeding, dispersal, and upland habitat for CRLF and construction could directly affect adults or juveniles if they were present in the construction area. This would be considered a potentially significant impact.

California tiger salamander

California tiger salamander is a State species of concern and a Federally-listed proposed threatened species. WRA prepared a California tiger salamander site analysis and Habitat Assessment for the Bridge Gate project site (October 2003 and revised June 2004). A search of the California Natural Diversity Database found a total of 96 documented California tiger salamander occurrences in the vicinity of the study area. Fifteen of these occurrences are within one mile of the project site, located to the west and south. WRA found low quality aquatic breeding habitat present in a seasonal wetland located on the northwest portion of the project site. Additionally, WRA noted that a modified stock pond is located off-site, immediately to the southwest in a new residential development. Additionally, the report notes that suitable estivation habitat is present on the project site, particularly in the southern portion of the Study Area.

WRA notes that no barriers to dispersal exist between the Study Area and the population observed west of the project site in Lone Creek Valley. Recent development south of the study area and increasingly heavy traveled roads may pose a barrier to dispersal in this direction, while development of the State Route 4 Bypass and shopping center to the east preclude any possibility of dispersal eastward. Although no barriers to dispersal exist to the north of the site, dense development approximately one mile north of the site blocks any dispersal attempts. No tiger salamander populations have been detected to the east or north of the study area.

The biological assessment states that California tiger salamander is unlikely to be present in the Study Area for the following reasons:

• Surveys in the mid-1990’s resulted in no sightings of the species in ponds adjacent to the Study Area.
• California tiger salamanders have not been observed in the Sand Creek watershed east of Deer Valley Road.
• Development to the north, east, and south limit dispersal of California tiger salamanders from those directions; salamander occurrences to the west would require the crossing of Deer Valley Road and 1.5 miles of undeveloped lands to disperse to the study area.
• Aquatic habitat in Sand Creek and in an adjacent pond is occupied by mosquitofish and/or threespine stickleback; according to Jennings and Hayes (1994), mosquitofish can eliminate an entire cohort of developing salamander embryos of larvae. Others (Shaffer and Fisher 1991; Shaffer and Stanley 1992, and Shaffer et al. 1993) identified a strong inverse correlation between the occurrence of California tiger salamanders and fish, emphasizing that salamanders were very rarely found in aquatic habitat with fish.

However, there are a large number of known occurrences of California tiger salamander near the project site. Given that the project site supports suitable breeding habitat and estivation habitat, and no barriers to dispersal exist between the Study Area and the known populations of tiger salamander to the west of the project site, California tiger salamander could be present on the project site or disperse onto the project site prior to construction activities. Because the project may adversely affect California tiger salamander, the project would have a potentially significant impact on this species.

Conclusion

Riparian habitat

Sand Creek flows west to east through the northern portion of the study area and supports both native riparian vegetation and a variety of escaped or planed ornamentals. The proposed non-residential portion of the Bridle Gate project crosses Sand Creek in at least one location (extension of San Jose Avenue). Because the creek averages seven feet in width, the crossings would span the creek and not encroach into potential jurisdictional or sensitive areas. Furthermore, the project plans indicate that non-residential buildings would not be located within 60-feet of the riparian edge. However, at this time, precise locations of all proposed buildings have not been determined. Should any of the buildings encroach into the identified buffer, a potentially significant impact would result.

Jurisdictional waters of the U.S.

Jurisdictional waters within the project area include Sand Creek and a 7.14-acre seasonal swale along the western portion of the project area. Jurisdictional waters, including wetlands, are regulated under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act. Any discharge into jurisdictional waters, such as fill for placement of a bridge or outfall, would require appropriate permitting and review by State and Federal regulatory agencies. Implementation of the proposed project would include construction of a bridge across Sand Creek to facilitate the extension of Sand Creek Road by the City, potentially another bridge within the non-residential portion of the project site, one or more pedestrian/bicycle bridges within the non-residential portion, and outfalls into Sand Creek. Any fill within Sand Creek for proposed creek crossings and outfalls would be considered a potentially significant impact.

Special-status Wildlife

The proposed project involves the development of a mix of land uses on approximately 134 acres. The development and construction activities associated with the proposed project would result in potential impacts to special-status wildlife species including western burrowing owl, California red-legged frog, and California tiger salamander. Impacts to the above listed special-status wildlife species would be considered potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures would reduce impacts to the habitats and sensitive species listed below to a less-than-significant level.

Riparian Habitat

IV-4a. A Streambed Alteration Agreement shall be obtained from the California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG), pursuant to Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code, for any activities affecting the bed, bank, or associated riparian vegetation along Sand Creek. If required, the developer shall coordinate with CDFG in developing appropriate mitigation, and shall abide by the conditions of any executed permits.

IV-4b. Any final map associated with the project site shall include a 60-foot minimum buffer along both sides of Sand Creek, as measured from the top of bank. The map shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval.

Jurisdictional Waters

IV-5a. An appropriate Section 404 permit shall be acquired for any bridge over Sand Creek if construction requires fill within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Construction of all stormwater outfalls, if applicable, would also require Section 404 permits. Section 401 water quality certification or waiver will also be required.

IV-5b. Implement MM IV-4a and 4b.

Western burrowing owl

IV-6a. Prior to issuance of a stockpiling or grading permit, the project proponent shall submit to CDFG and the Community Development Department a pre-construction survey of the project site for burrowing owl performed in accordance with CDFG standards. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist not more than 30 days prior to the application for the grading permit. In addition, if ground disturbing activities are delayed or suspended for more than 30 days after the pre-construction survey, the site shall be re-surveyed.

IV-6b. If burrowing owls are not discovered, further mitigation is not required unless the City has adopted an HCP fee. If burrowing owls are observed during the pre-construction surveys, the applicant shall perform the following measures to limit the impact on the burrowing owls:

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

b. The project sponsor shall allocate replacement land for protection of the displaced burrowing owls, allowing 6.5 acres for each pair or individual owl. Protected lands shall be adjacent to occupied burrowing owl habitat on-site or other off-site location as approved by CDFG.

c. Prior to issuance of a stockpiling or grading permit, the project proponent shall submit a Mitigation Plan and Mitigation Agreement to CDFG and the Community Development Department for review and approval. The Mitigation Plan shall identify any activities necessary to enhance the site, including the construction of artificial burrows. Note that the WRA report prepared for the project site recommends that four (4) artificial burrows shall be constructed on the protected lands. The Plan shall also include a description of monitoring and management methods proposed at the mitigation site. Monitoring and management of any lands identified for mitigation purposes shall be the responsibility of the applicant for at least five years. An annual report must be prepared for submittal to CDFG by December 31 of each monitoring year and a copy of the report shall be forwarded to the Community Development Department. Contingency measures for any anticipated problems should be identified in the plan.

d. After the burrowing owls are finished nesting on the project site, and after CDFG approves a mitigation site, any remaining burrowing owls that are residents on the project site shall be passively relocated by a qualified biologist in accordance with CDFG’s policies for passive removal. Any permit required to passively remove burrowing owls must be obtained from CDFG prior to the passive removal of resident owls from the project site. Verification of compliance with this measure shall be submitted to the Community Development Department.

California red-legged frog

IV-7. The formal California red-legged frog Site Assessment prepared by WRA shall be submitted to the Corps and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) as part of the Corps Section 404 permit application for any Sand Creek bridge. Informal consultation or “technical assistance” shall be requested so that the Corps and USFWS may evaluate potential impacts and determine if formal consultation will be required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Should the Corps determine that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the California red-legged frog, no formal consultation or mitigation is required. Should the Corps determine that the proposed project may affect the California red-legged frog, formal consultation with USFWS is required to ensure that any mitigation measures developed are adequate to protect this species. Currently, there is a Programmatic Formal Consultation in effect for projects that may affect CRLF in Contra Costa County (USFWS, 1999). This programmatic consultation may apply to any proposed bridge expansion and outfall construction projects. At a minimum, this plan shall include all of the following measures:

a. A USFWS-approved biologist shall survey the bridge, levee, and/or outfalls construction site at least two weeks prior to the onset of any construction activity. If CRLF eggs, tadpoles, or adults are found, USFWS shall be contacted to determine if an appropriate relocation site exists. The USFWS shall oversee any activities associated with the capture and handling of CRLF.

California tiger salamander

IV-8. The California tiger salamander Site Analysis and Habitat Assessment prepared by WRA shall be submitted to the Corps and the USFWS as part of the Corps Section 404 permit application for any bridge over Sand Creek. Informal consultation or “technical assistance” shall be requested so that the Corps and USFWS may evaluate potential impacts and determine if formal consultation will be required under Section 7 of the ESA. Should the Corps determine that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the California tiger salamander, no formal consultation or mitigation is required. Should the Corps determine that the proposed project may affect the California tiger salamander, formal consultation with USFWS is required to ensure that any mitigation measures developed are adequate to protect this species.

d. On January 25, 2000, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors declared its intent to participate in the development of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for East Contra Costa County. On June 30, 2000, the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan Association Agreement went into effect. This agreement established the East Contra Costa Habitat Conservation Plan Association (HCPA) as the lead agency in drafting the Habitat Conservation Plan for submittal to the governing boards and councils of member agencies, oversee compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and would serve as the lead agency under CEQA for developing the HCP. The Preliminary Working Draft East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan (November 2003) shows movement corridors for San Joaquin kit fox west of the City of Brentwood. The nearest San Joaquin kit fox movement corridor is approximately 3 miles west of the project site. Given the distance to the movement corridor, and the fact that the project site is surrounded by development to the east and to the south, it is not likely that the site provides a significant movement corridor for San Joaquin kit fox, or other species. There are no other major wildlife movement corridors known in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, impacts as a result of the project are considered to be less than significant.

e. A Tree Inventory was prepared for the proposed project by Arborwell, which uses a tree retention index to assign a particular value to each tree on the project site. Using a condition index ranging from “Dead” to five (5): Dead, 1) Poor, 2) Fair, 3) Good, 4) Very Good, and 5) Excellent. In total, 183 trees currently exist on the 134-acre project site. Of the trees inventoried, eight were identified for removal: tree 9 is a California Walnut (8” dbh) with an index value of 1; tree 62 is an Almond (25” dbh) with an index value of Dead; tree 79 is a London plane (32” dbh) with an index value of Dead; tree 87 is an Almond (77” dbh) with an index value of Dead; tree 89 is an Almond (19” dbh) with an index value of Dead; tree 92 is a London plane (9” dbh) with an index value of Dead; tree 98 is an Almond (25” dbh) with an index value of Dead; and tree 109 is an Almond (11” dbh) with an index value of Dead.

According to the Tree Inventory, on-site trees consist of a mixture of non-native orchard trees and native species. Construction of the proposed project could result in the removal of unhealthy trees and the few trees which are not within the designated open space areas and trees within the riparian corridor adjacent to Sand Creek. In addition, the trees to be retained could be damaged if not properly cared for both during construction and thereafter. Therefore, the proposed project could result in a potentially significant impact to trees.

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

IV-9. Prior to grading permit issuance, mitigation shall be established by a certified arborist for trees fitting the criteria of the tree protection ordinance that are removed from the site. The mitigation shall include inch for inch replacement of the trees based on trunk diameter at 54” above ground level. A report shall be prepared and submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval.

f. The City of Brentwood 2001 General Plan Figure 16 shows areas that are designated as “Expected Significant Natural Open Space.” In addition, the Figure indicates that selected Open Space areas are anticipated to be part of a proposed habitat conservation plan. The Bridle Gate project site falls within a designated Open Space area; however, the subject Open Space area is not shown as part of the habitat conservation plan. The Inventory area for the Preliminary Working Draft East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan (November 2003) includes the proposed project site. The site is located within an area identified on the Preliminary permit area as within an “urban limit” area. The project site is not currently within any proposed “acquisition areas” and no conflicts with the preliminary HCP have been identified. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact.

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

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. Four buildings and structures exist on the project site. The Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation performed specifically for the project by Ric Windmiller, Consulting Archaeologist, in April 2004, establishes that none of the buildings and structures on the project site appear eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources or the National Register of Historic Places.

In addition, the City of Brentwood 2001 General Plan EIR states that within the Brentwood Planning Area, two sites are listed on the National Register of Historic Places and 14 properties are listed in the State Historic Properties Directory. The project site is not included among those listed. Therefore, development of the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on historical resources.

b,c. The City of Brentwood 2001 General Plan EIR (3.10-3) indicates that the City of Brentwood has a low to moderate sensitivity for the presence of prehistoric sites. In general, portions of the City in the flat valley reveal a low sensitivity for prehistoric sites, except along drainageways. The hills to the south and west of Brentwood, particularly around springs and streams, reveal a high sensitivity for prehistoric sites. The project site is located in a partially hilly environment with a swale to the west and a creek to the north. Therefore, the potential for the existence of prehistoric resources may be moderate-to-high. According to the Cultural Resources Inventory conducted specifically for the project by Ric Windmiller, M.A., a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System for the project site found no historical resources (prehistoric or historic sites, objects, or historic structures or buildings). In addition, the field survey identified no archaeological resources. However, the General Plan states that a possibility of buried prehistoric sites exists in the area and that due to alluviation, land leveling and re-channelization of drainageways, sites may have been obscured or capped-off, leaving no surface evidence. Therefore, during construction and excavation activities, unidentified archaeological resources may be uncovered, resulting in a potentially significant impact.

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

V-10. Prior to grading permit issuance, the developer shall submit plans to the Community Development Department for review and approval which indicate (via notation on the improvement plans) that if historic and/or cultural resources are encountered during site grading or other site work, all such work shall be halted immediately within the area of discovery and the developer shall immediately notify the Community Development Department of the discovery. In such case, the developer shall be required, at its own expense, to retain the services of a qualified archaeologist for the purpose of recording, protecting, or curating the discovery as appropriate. The archaeologist shall be required to submit to the Community Development Department for review and approval a report of the findings and method of curation or protection of the resources. Further grading or site work within the area of discovery will not be allowed until the preceding work has occurred.

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

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

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
Would the project:

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

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

ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?

iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

iv. Landslides?

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

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

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

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

Discussion

a.i-ii. According to the 2001 Brentwood General Plan Update EIR, the project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone; however, the EIR indicates that the Brentwood area is located in a seismically active zone. Five active faults are located within an approximate 50-mile radius of the project site. Development of the proposed project in this seismically active zone could expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault and/or strong seismic ground shaking. Therefore, a potentially significant impact could result.

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

VI-11. All grading and foundation plans for the development designed by the project Civil and Structural Engineer must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Chief Building Official prior to issuance of grading and building permits to ensure that all geotechnical recommendations specified in the geotechnical report are properly incorporated and utilized in design.

a.iii, c. The Brentwood 2001 General Plan states that during a seismic event rapid loading of saturated, fine-grained soil may create excess pore pressures, which may not dissipate rapidly. The excess pressure may result in a loss of shear strength, which is referred to as liquefaction. The potential for liquefaction is greater when the groundwater is shallow (less than 50 feet).

The Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, California identifies the site as containing the following soil types: (RbA) Rincon clay loam, (Sp) Sycamore silty clay loam (clay substratum), (CaA) Capay clay, (Bb) Brentwood clay loam, (AbD) Altamont clay (9 to 15 percent slopes), and (AbE) Altamont clay (15 to 30 percent slopes). The Soil Survey defines Rincon clay loam, found in the northwest corner of the project site, as nearly level soil formed in valley fill. Soils on the hilly portions of the site consist of Altamont clay (AbD, AbE). In addition, the Geotechnical Exploration of the project site, conducted specifically for the Bridle Gate project by ENGEO Inc., (September 1999), found that on-site soils consist of natural alluvial deposits and shallow deposits of residual soil over bedrock. Furthermore, the Geotechnical Exploration (p. 16) concludes that based on the material types and densities of granular materials encountered in ENGEO’s borings and the lack of ground water, the risk of liquefaction is considered low at the project site. Therefore, liquefaction would be expected to have a less than significant impact on the proposed project.

a.iv. Seismically induced landslides are triggered by earthquake ground shaking. The risk of this hazard is greatest in the late winter when groundwater levels are highest and hillside colluvium is saturated. This risk is also present at the project site to varying degrees depending on the slope conditions and time of year. Portions of the project site where residences are proposed are hilly. According to the Geotechnical Exploration prepared for the project site, the hazard of seismically induced landsliding to the proposed structures can be best mitigated by properly engineered stabilization of hillslopes or creation of sufficient buffers between hillslope areas and development areas. Should final project design not incorporate the recommendations in the Geotechnical Exploration prepared for the project site by ENGEO, a potentially significant impact would occur to the project as a result of landslides.

VI-12. Implement mitigation measure VI-11.

b. The project site currently consists of vacant land with several abandoned buildings and structures. Although the development of the project would involve the removal of the buildings and structures, the proposed residential development would overlay much of the ground with heavy, impermeable surfaces such as homes, streets, driveways, and sidewalks. The constructed surfaces would both shield the soil from wind and water and secure the soil from movement. In addition, new owners typically further reduce loss of topsoil by installing various other impermeable/semi-permeable surfaces including patios, landscaping, and swimming pools. Therefore, long-term alterations to the land by the proposed project would not promote a significant loss of topsoil.

The Brentwood General Plan EIR states that soil erosion potential in the Planning Area is not a significant problem in most locations due to the generally flat topography and the cohesive nature of the soils. However, soil erosion potential is considered potentially significant in areas with slopes over 5 percent and in areas with sandy soils. The project site is not uniformly flat; therefore, erosion resulting from slope factors could result in adverse impacts.

Furthermore, because construction activities include excavation and grading operations, which would relocate topsoil and break the soil into easily transported particles, earth surfaces would be susceptible to erosion from wind and water. Therefore, impacts from soil erosion resulting from grading of the project area would be considered potentially significant.

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

VI-13. Prior to grading permit issuance, the applicant shall submit a grading plan to the City Engineer for review and approval. If the grading plan differs significantly from the proposed grading illustrated on the approved project plans, plans that are consistent with the new revised grading plan shall be provided for review and approval by the City Engineer.

VI-14. Any applicant for a grading permit shall submit an erosion control plan to the City Engineer for review and approval. This plan shall identify protective measures to be taken during construction, supplemental measures to be taken during the rainy season, the sequenced timing of grading and construction, and subsequent revegetation and landscaping work to ensure water quality in creeks and tributaries in the General Plan Area is not degraded from its present level. All protective measures shall be shown on the grading plans and specify the entity responsible for completing and/or monitoring the measure and include the circumstances and/or timing for implementation.

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

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

d. Expansive soils shrink/swell when subjected to moisture fluctuations, which can cause heaving and cracking of slabs-on-grade, pavements, and structures founded on shallow foundations. The Geotechnical Exploration conducted specifically for the Bridle Gate project by ENGEO indicates that a high shrink-swell potential exists in the soils underlying the site. Therefore, because of the presence of expansive soils on the site, a potentially significant impact could occur.

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

VI-17. The developer shall submit a design level soils report prepared by a licensed engineer which evaluates the condition of the project site soil. The results of this survey shall be considered and incorporated into the design of the project structures to be built to ensure that foundation design would be adequate for the soils on the project site. The soils report shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the approval of improvement plans.

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

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

VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
Would the project:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

a-c. Wells

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Report) was prepared for the project site by ENGEO, Inc. (June 16, 1998). The Report states on page five that eight (8) former oil well sites are located on the project site, along with a former gas production/above ground tank complex located in the southeast area of the site. The Report also states that these facilities have been decommissioned and remediated, where necessary, in accordance with State regulations.

Twenty-four (24) active groundwater monitoring wells were on-site to address impacts resulting from the former oil/gas well facilities (Report, p. 12). After remediation work in 1996, review of groundwater monitoring reports for the wells indicates site groundwater has been impacted with low-level TPH, with trace concentrations of aromatic hydrocarbons (BTEX) and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The Report (p. 17) notes that the reported contaminant concentrations would not be considered a health risk because site groundwater is not considered a domestic supply source. The Report further notes that Fluor Daniel/GTI has requested closure from the CRWQCB. CRWQCB has provided documentation that all wells have been satisfactorily abandoned.

In addition, the on-site building setbacks would have to be consistent with the Brentwood Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.680.021, which states the following regarding oil and gas wells:

“Tentative maps, planned development and other development plans submitted to the City shall show the exact location of all wells drilled on the property. Development shall be designed such that the Building Official is satisfied that no structure will be built within ten feet of any well that has been properly abandoned pursuant to DOG requirements. Any lot or parcel containing an abandoned well shall be encumbered with a deed restriction specifying the exact location of such well and prohibiting any construction within said ten-foot area. If a final map is recorded, the encumbrance shall be recorded concurrent with the final map. The DOG, at its discretion, may also require that any abandoned well be uncovered, tested for leakage, require remedial work on leaking wells, and be accurately located on the final map before recordation of the map.”

Therefore, because the project buildings would have setbacks from the oil wells consistent with the Brentwood Zoning Ordinance and because the low-levels of detected contaminants would not pose a threat to domestic water supply, the abandoned on-site gas/oil wells would not have adverse impacts on future project residents. The 24 abandoned groundwater monitoring wells, however, pose a potentially significant impact to future residents.

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

VII-18. Prior to recordation of any final map, the applicant shall submit proof to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that all planned development on-site is at least 10 feet from any abandoned wells. Precise locations of all oil well sites shall be depicted on the final map.

VII-19. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall confirm, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Community Development Director, the lot locations of all on-site wells, and shall confirm that subject well locations are incorporated into all subject lot deeds, and shall confirm that all proposed buildings on the project site are at least 10 feet from any abandoned oil well locations.

Asbestos/Lead-Based Paint

The Report (p. 1) prepared for the project site indicates that on-site buildings are limited to the homesite complex, which included an abandoned single-family residence, garage, barn, and several small outbuildings. The residence and garage were on the Bypass property and not a part of this Project; both of those structures have been burnt to the ground in a fire department exercise and no longer exist. The two barns, chicken coop, and house trailer (which will be removed by its owner) remain on the project site. The structures are of wood-framed construction and were built more than 50 years ago. In 1978/79 the Federal government banned nearly all uses of friable asbestos in building materials. Because the on-site structures were constructed prior to this ban, the potential exists for asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) to have been used in building the structures. ACMs can include, but are not limited to: resilient floor coverings, drywall joint compounds, acoustic ceiling tiles, piping insulation, electrical insulation, and fireproofing materials.

In terms of lead-based paint, exposure to lead from older vintage paint is typically possible when the paint is in poor condition or is being removed. In construction settings, workers could be exposed to airborne lead during renovation, maintenance, or removal work. Lead-based paints were phased out of production in the early 1970s. The on-site structures were constructed prior to the ban on lead-based paints and therefore may contain these materials, although it is unlikely due to the types of structures remaining on-site. Yet, the possibility exists that the introduction of people to the site as a result of the development of the proposed project could expose people to asbestos and lead materials, resulting in a potentially significant impact.

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

VII-20. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit by the City for any on-site structures, any identified asbestos containing building materials present in each of the structures to be dismantled shall be removed under acceptable engineering methods and work practices by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor prior to removal. These practices include, but are not limited to: containment of the area by plastic, negative air filtration, wet removal techniques and personal respiratory protection and decontamination. The process shall be designed and monitored by a California Certified Asbestos Consultant. The abatement and monitoring plan shall be developed and submitted for review and approval by the City of Brentwood Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a demolition permit.

VII-21. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for existing on-site structures, all loose and peeling paint shall be removed and disposed of by a licensed and certified lead paint removal contractor, in accordance with local, State, and Federal regulations. The abatement and monitoring plan shall be developed and submitted for review and approval by the City of Brentwood Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a demolition permit.

VII-22. Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for existing on-site structures, the demolition contractor shall be informed that all paint on the buildings shall be considered as containing lead. Under the supervision of the City of Brentwood Community Development Department, the contractor shall take appropriate precautions to protect his/her workers, the surrounding community, and to dispose of construction waste containing lead paint in accordance with local, State, and Federal regulations.

d. The project site has not been identified on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. As a result, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. 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 project, as proposed, would provide open space parcels adjacent to Lots 1-42 and 48-64. Wildland fires, originating either within the open space parcels or within one of the residential lots, would result in a potentially significant impact.

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

VII-23. Prior to the recordation of any final map for the project site, the applicant shall have a wildland management plan prepared by a qualified professional to address ongoing maintenance of open space areas and prevention of wildland fires. The plan shall be submitted for the review and approval of the Community Development Department and the Contra Costa County and East Contra Costa Fire Protection Districts.

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 which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

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

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

f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

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

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

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

j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Discussion

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

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

VIII-24. Prior to grading permit issuance, 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 stormwater runoff.

VIII-25. Prior to grading permit issuance, a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction permit shall be obtained for any disturbance of more than one acre.

b. The Brentwood 2001 General Plan indicates that water is provided by the City of Brentwood, and the primary water supply is groundwater supplemented by treated surface water. The 2001 General Plan Update EIR suggests that, at build-out, Brentwood’s water demand is projected to be approximately 19 million gallons per day (MGD). Available water supply is projected to be 19.45 MGD. Therefore, because the development of the project site is anticipated in the build-out of the General Plan, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to groundwater supplies and recharge.

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

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

VIII-26. Prior to grading permit issuance, the developer shall submit to the City Engineer for review and approval a Drainage Master Plan which implements BMPs to control quality of stormwater runoff. The plan shall describe how on-site 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 stormwater entering or originating within the project site shall be conveyed, without diversion of the watershed, to the nearest adequate, natural watercourse, or adequate man-made drainage facility.

VIII-27. 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 grading permit issuance.

VIII-28. Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District drainage fees for the Drainage Area shall be paid prior to approval of any Final Map.

VIII-29. The construction plans shall indicate roof drains emptying into a pipe leading out to the street for the review and approval of the City Engineer and Chief Building Official prior to building permit issuance.

VIII-30. The improvement plans shall indicate concentrated drainage flows not crossing sidewalks or driveways for the review and approval of the City Engineer prior to grading permit issuance.

VIII-31. 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. As illustrated on the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for the proposed project, Sand Creek runs through the northern portion of the project site, where the future mixed-use business park and regional commercial site is proposed. According to the FEMA map, which includes the project site, the 100-year floodplain extends beyond the banks of the creek in the vicinity of the project site, which could potentially result in damage to structures being introduced to the project site as part of the proposed project. Therefore, a potentially significant impact would result from implementation of the proposed project.

VIII-32. The improvement plans shall indicate that the lowest habitable floor of all structures shall be elevated to at least one foot above the 100-year flood plain for the review and approval of the City Engineer prior to grading permit issuance.

j. Tsunamis are defined as sea waves created by undersea fault movement. A tsunami poses little danger away from shorelines; however, when it reaches the shoreline, a high swell of water breaks and washes inland with great force. Waves may reach 50 feet in height on unprotected coasts. Historic records of the Bay Area used by one study indicate that 19 tsunamis were recorded in San Francisco Bay during the period of 1868-1968. Maximum wave height recorded at the Golden Gate tide gauge (where wave heights peak) was 7.4 feet. The available data indicate a standard decrease of original wave height from the Golden Gate to about half original wave height on the shoreline near Richmond, and to nil at the head of the Carquinez Strait. As Brentwood is several miles inland from the Carquinez Strait, the project site is not exposed to flooding risks from tsunamis and adverse impacts would not result.

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

Mudflows typically occur in mountainous or hilly terrain. Given the existing and proposed topography of the project site, it can be characterized as hilly terrain. A Geotechnical Exploration was prepared for the project site by ENGEO, Inc., which provides recommendations for the design and construction of the project. Mitigation measure VI-9 of this Initial Study requires that all grading and foundation plans be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Chief Building Official prior to grading and building permit issuance to ensure that all geotechnical recommendations specified in the geotechnical report are properly incorporated and utilized in design. This would ensure that potential impacts resulting form mudslides would be less than significant.

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

IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING.
Would the project:

a. Physically divide an established community?

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

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

Discussion

a. As noted in the General Plan, the City of Brentwood has planned for orderly, logical development that supports compatibility among adjacent uses. The General Plan goals seek to retain the character of existing communities and ensure that future land uses are compatible with existing uses. The project site consists of vacant land with the exception of four buildings and structures located in the northeast corner of the project site; all of the buildings on site are abandoned. As a result, the current project site does not contain an existing community, nor does it propose to divide an existing community. All buildings and structures on-site would be removed as a result of the proposed project; however, building removal would not cause displacement of any residents. Therefore, the proposed project would not divide an existing community and would result in a less than significant impact.

b. As previously mentioned, the Brentwood General Plan identifies the project site as Special Planning Area (SPA) E. The following two General Plan Design Objectives for SPA E are of particular concern as they relate to the project plans for Bridle Gate:

• Provide open space and parks to (1) preserve the hill form on the site, (2) develop a gateway entry element into the City, and (3) provide adequate buffering of the State Route 4 Bypass and Sand Creek Road.
• Cluster homes in the flatter portion of the site, in close proximity to the commercial uses planned for the north side of Sand Creek Road.

As can be seen in Figure 2, the proposed subdivision map concentrates the development of single-family uses on either side of the hill located in SPA E. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the above stated Design Objectives for SPA E. Any resulting impacts are thus anticipated 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 Incorporated
Less-Than-Significant Impact
No Impact

X. MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:

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

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

Discussion

a,b. Regarding the loss of availability of locally important mineral resource recovery, the project site is located within a designated gas field. The Brentwood 2001 General Plan Update EIR identifies coal, oil and gas, and sand as the significant mineral resources within the area. In addition, although the development of the project site would not result in loss of access to possible oil and gas deposits off-site, should the well sites within the project area not be identified prior to project development, a potentially significant impact would occur.

Mitigation Measure
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure the impact is less-than significant.

X-33. Implement Mitigation Measures VII-18 and VII-19.

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

XI. NOISE.
Would the project result in:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

a,c. Existing Conditions

According to the Noise Assessment conducted specifically for the project (Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., April 2006), the existing noise environment at the project site is primarily the result of traffic along the State Route 4 Bypass (Bypass).

Future Exterior Noise Environment

The future exterior noise environment at the project site would be comprised primarily of traffic along the Bypass, Sand Creek Road, and San Jose Avenue. The Bridle Gate traffic study and the City of Brentwood General Plan build-out forecasts were used to model future traffic noise levels along the above roadways.

The Brentwood General Plan Noise Element establishes the normally acceptable interior and exterior noise levels for residential uses at 45 dB and 60 dB, respectively. As a result of information that was obtained in late 2005 relative to the Sand Creek Road/State Route 4 Bypass interchange, the noise assessment concludes that future residences within the project site would be subject to noise levels exceeding those mandated by the General Plan. The conclusions within the noise assessment are based, in part, on an analysis of the future roadway elevations and house pad elevations in conjunction with projected traffic volumes and noise levels. The noise assessment recommends the construction of a soundwall and berm-soundwall combination at various locations and heights in order to offset the potentially significant noise impacts on the project from roadway traffic.

Mitigation Measure
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure the impact is less-than-significant.

XI-34. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall construct berms/soundwalls in accordance with the Noise Assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. (April 2006). Specifically, the applicant shall follow the details provided in Figures 2 and 3 of the Noise Assessment for precise locations and heights of the barriers (the City shall determine whether Figure 4 or Figure 5 is appropriate for the “Pestana Parcel”). These shall also be reflected where applicable on the final grading and improvement plans for the project, to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department and the Community Development Department. The design of the barriers shall be approved by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the associated tentative map and design review applications.

XI-35. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit documentation to the Community Development Department that verifies interior noise levels will not exceed 45 dB. This shall be accomplished by providing appropriate insulation features (i.e. mechanical ventilation and sound-rated construction) in accordance with the Noise Assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. (April 2006).

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

XI-36. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours set forth below:

Monday-Friday 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM
Saturday 9:00 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 grading permit issuance. 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-37. All construction equipment shall use properly operating mufflers, and no combustion equipment such as pumps or generators shall be allowed to operate within 500 feet of any occupied residence during construction hours, unless the equipment is surrounded by a noise protection barrier acceptable to the Community Development Department. These criteria shall be included in the grading plan submitted by the developer for review and approval of the Community Development Director prior to grading permit issuance.

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

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

XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING.
Would the project:

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

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

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

Discussion

a. The density of the project would not exceed the Brentwood General Plan land use designations for the project site, as the description of Special Planning Area E anticipates a mix of residential, non-residential, and open space uses. The City foresaw that flexibility would be required for this area, and has stated that the specific standards for the development would be adopted at the time of proposed development, as follows:

“Since the City wishes to maintain the flexibility to allow this special planning area to develop at its highest and best use for the benefit of all future residents, a specific land use mix is not being suggested at this time. The City will initially consider a specific land use mix for this area in conjunction with coordinated planned development, which the City will adopt at the time that the property owners are committed to develop in the area. The mix of uses shall be refined as site plans for individual development proposals are submitted for review and approval.”

Although the development would increase the population in the area, the development of the proposed project would not exceed population levels projected within the Brentwood General Plan. Therefore, the impact is anticipated to be less than significant.

b,c. One abandoned house trailer (that the owner will remove), two barns, and a chicken coop currently exist on the project site, and development of the proposed project would involve the demolition of all four buildings. As the former residential building and accessory structures are abandoned, no displacement of occupants would occur. In addition, the lack of displacement would preclude the need for replacement housing for the occupants. Therefore, approval and implementation of the proposed project would neither displace housing nor necessitate the construction of replacement housing, and the project would thus result in a less than significant impact.

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

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

a. Fire protection?

b. Police protection?

c. Schools?

d. Parks?

Discussion

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

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

XIII-38. Prior to building permit issuance, the developer shall participate in the City of Brentwood Capital Improvement Financing Program.

XIII-39. The Police Department shall review the design plans for this project prior to building permit issuance in order to ensure that the site plan incorporates appropriate crime prevention features.

XIII-40. Prior to building permit issuance, the developer shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and the adopted policies of the Contra Costa County and East Contra Costa Fire Protection Districts. The City of Brentwood Chief Building Official shall review the building plans to ensure compliance.

XIII-41. Prior to building permit issuance, 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) for the residential area. 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. Flow requirements for the commercial areas will be determined by the ECCFPD prior to issuance of encroachment and/or building permits.

XIII-42. Prior to building permit issuance, the developer shall provide 50 hydrants of the East Bay type. Hydrant locations will be determined by the ECCFPD prior to building and/or encroachment permit issuance.

XIII-43. Prior to commencing construction, the developer shall provide access roadways having all-weather driving surfaces of not less than 20' unobstructed width and not less than 13'6" of vertical clearance to within 150 feet of travel distance to all portions of the exterior walls of every building. Access roads shall not exceed 16% grade, shall have a minimum outside turning radius of 42 feet, and must be capable of supporting imposed loads of fire apparatus (37 tons). Center divide medians on any access roadways shall leave a minimum remaining lane width of 16 feet on each side. Median length shall not exceed 150 feet when a 16-foot lane width is used. A rolled curb and an unobstructed drivable surface on the median may be used to assist with meeting apparatus turning radius requirements. The City Engineer shall ensure compliance.

XIII-44. Prior to building permit issuance, the developer shall provide an emergency vehicle access between Millbrook Place and St. Regis Court, connect these two streets, or otherwise provide an additional access point for the homes to be located along these streets, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Community Development Department.

XIII-45. Prior to building permit issuance, the developer shall provide dead end Fire District access roads in excess of 150 feet long with approved provisions for the turning around of Fire District apparatus. The City Engineer shall ensure compliance.

XIII-46. Where open space is maintained for public or private use, the developer shall provide access into these areas from the public ways. These access ways shall be a minimum of 16 feet width to accommodate fire department equipment. The City Engineer shall ensure compliance.

XIII-47. Prior to encroachment and/or building permit issuance for improvements, the developer (and all subsequent property owners/homeowners) shall submit plans and specifications to the ECCFPD and the City Engineer for review and approval in accordance with codes, regulations, and ordinances administered by the ECCFPD and the State Fire Marshal’s office.

XIII-48. Prior to building permit issuance, the developer shall comply with any Fire and Paramedic Service Program adopted by the City Council.

c. The project site is located within the Liberty Union High School District and the Brentwood Union School District. The development of single-family residences would add to the demand for services provided by both Districts. Many of the elementary schools in the area are at capacity or approaching capacity. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a potentially significant impact related to schools.

Mitigation Measure
Consistent with State law, implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level.

XIII-49. Prior to building permit issuance, the developer shall submit to the Community Development Department written proof from the Liberty Union High School District and the Brentwood Union School District that appropriate school mitigation fees have been paid.

d. The City of Brentwood encourages an urban form that is based on open space throughout and around the community. Development of the project site with new residences would increase the demand for neighborhood, community, and regional parks and recreation facilities. The proposed project includes 166 single-family residences. Applying the Brentwood standard of 3.1 residents per dwelling unit, the proposed project would create housing for approximately 515 additional residents. The Brentwood General Plan calls for 5 acres of park per 1,000 residents. The proposed project would thus require approximately 2.58 acres of park space for these additional residents. The proposed project includes two parcels for park purposes, totaling just over five acres. Since the proposed project includes the dedication of this acreage to the City for public park area, which meets the General Plan requirements, in addition to the open space parcels totaling just over 42 acres in the southwest portion of the project site, the development of the project would not result in an increased demand for park area. Therefore, impacts as a result of the proposed project are anticipated to be less than significant.

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

XIV. RECREATION.
Would the project:

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

b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

Discussion

a,b. The Brentwood General Plan Update includes general guidelines for meeting Brentwood’s future parks and recreation needs, and the Parks, Trails, and Recreation Master Plan provides specific details about planned parks and recreation facilities and services. The City uses a service standard of 5 acres of park space per 1,000 residents. Development of the project site would result in new residences and would therefore increase the demand for neighborhood, community, and regional parks and other recreational facilities. Based on the Brentwood standard of 3.1 residents per dwelling unit, the proposed 166 dwelling units would result in a population increase of approximately 515 residents. The required park area for 515 new residents would be approximately 2.58 acres. The proposed project includes two parcels for park purposes, totaling just over five acres. Since the proposed project includes the dedication of this acreage to the City for public park area, which well exceeds the General Plan requirement, the development of the project would not result in an increased demand for park area. Therefore, impacts of the proposed project are anticipated to be less than significant.

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

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

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

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

e. Result in inadequate emergency access?

f. Result in inadequate parking capacity?

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

Discussion

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

The following discussion is based largely on a Traffic Report performed in February 2004, specifically for the proposed project, by RBF Consulting. The Traffic Report presents the results of the traffic impact study of the proposed project. The proposed project consists of 166 single-family dwelling units and future non-residential uses. The two primary access points to the proposed development are Sand Creek Road and San Jose Avenue.

Analysis Methodology

Study Intersections

The study methodologies are in accordance with those adopted by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) as outlined in the Technical Procedures (September 1997). The traffic study evaluates the impacts generated by the proposed project on seven intersections and four roadway segments in the immediate project vicinity. The study intersections are listed below:

1. San Jose Avenue/Sand Creek Road (Future Signal);
2. Portofino Drive – Elementary School Entrance/San Jose Avenue (Future Signal);
3. St. Regis Avenue/San Jose Avenue;
4. Cherrywood Street/San Jose Avenue;
5. SR 4 Bypass/Sand Creek Road (Signal);
6. SR 4 Bypass Southbound Off-Ramps/Sand Creek Road (Future Signal); and
7. SR 4 Bypass Northbound Off-Ramps/Sand Creek Road (Future Signal).

Scenarios

The traffic study for the proposed project evaluates the following scenarios:

• Existing Conditions
• Near-Term Without Project Conditions;
• Near-Term With Proposed Project Conditions;
• Forecast Year 2025 Background Without Project Conditions;
• Forecast Year 2025 Background With Proposed Project Conditions.

Level of Service Criteria

Level of Service (LOS) is commonly used as a qualitative description of intersection operation and is based on the type of traffic control and experienced delay at the intersection. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) LOS methodology was utilized to determine the operating LOS of the signalized study intersections. The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) analysis methodology for Unsignalized Intersections was utilized to determine the operating LOS of the unsignalized study intersections.

The CCTA analysis methodology describes the operation of an intersection using a range of LOS from LOS A (free-flow conditions) to LOS F (severely congested conditions), based on corresponding Volume to Capacity (V/C) ratio ranges for signalized intersections as shown in Table 3. The HCM analysis methodology also describes the operation of an intersection using a range of LOS A to LOS F based on corresponding stopped delay per vehicle ranges for unsignalized intersections shown in Table 3.

Table 3
LOS, V/C Ratio & Delay Ranges
LOS V/C Ratio Delay (Seconds/Vehicle)
CCTA – Signalized Intersections HCM – 4-Way Stop Unsignalized Intersections
A < 0.60 ≤ 10.0
B 0.61 to 0.70 > 10.0 to ≤ 15.0
C 0.71 to 0.80 > 15.0 to ≤ 25.0
D 0.81 to 0.90 > 25.0 to ≤ 35.0
E 0.91 to 1.00 > 35.0 to ≤ 50.0
F > 1.00 > 50.00
Source: Traffic Impact Analysis, RBF Consulting, Inc., 2/2004.

The City of Brentwood and Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) target for peak hour intersection operation is a V/C Ratio of 0.85 or better for signalized intersections and delay/vehicle of 30.0 seconds or less (Mid-LOS D) for unsignalized intersections.

Thresholds of Significance

The City of Brentwood and CCTA define significant traffic related impacts as follows:

 The addition of project related trips results in an increase in the (V/C) of a deficiently operating intersection by more than 0.01; or

 The addition of project related trips causes an intersection deficiency.

Existing Conditions

The important roadways in the City of Brentwood serving the project site are described below:

Portofino Drive is a two-lane undivided roadway, with on-street parking allowed, trending in a north-south direction. Currently, Portofino Drive terminates on the north at San Jose Avenue, across from an access driveway for Loma Vista Elementary School.

State Route 4 Bypass (SR 4 Bypass) is a two to four-lane divided highway facility with a striped median trending in a north-south direction and parking is prohibited. Currently, the SR 4 Bypass is an at-grade facility (the exception being the overpass at San Jose Avenue) and is planned to be constructed as a grade-separated freeway facility by 2025 with a full-interchange connection to SR 4 at Lone Tree Way, Sand Creek Road, and Balfour Road. The SR 4 Bypass currently terminates to the north at Lone Tree Way and to the south at Balfour Road.

Sand Creek Road is a two to four-lane divided roadway with raised landscaped medians, trending in an east-west direction, on-street striped bike lanes (class II), with on-street parking prohibited. Currently, Sand Creek Road terminates to the west at the SR 4 Bypass. For near-term analysis conditions, it is anticipated that Sand Creek Road will be constructed west of the SR 4 Bypass and effectively bisect the project site into a north and south half.

San Jose Avenue is a two-lane undivided roadway, trending in an east-west direction. San Jose Avenue is grade-separated at the SR 4 Bypass and currently terminates at St. Regis Avenue to the west, near the southeast corner of the project site. San Jose Avenue is planned to be extended through the middle of the project site by near-term with project conditions, terminating just west of the project driveway that intersects Sand Creek Road.

Table 4 summarizes existing AM and PM peak hour V/C ratios in signalized intersections, and Table 5 summarizes average stopped delay per vehicle for unsignalized intersections with the corresponding LOS based on existing peak hour intersection volumes; detailed HCM and CCTA analysis sheets are provided in Appendices B and C of the traffic study.

Table 4
Existing Peak Hour V/C and Level of Service (LOS)

Signalized Study Intersection V/C LOS
AM PM AM PM
#5 – SR-4 Bypass/Sand Creek Rd 0.37 0.57 A A
Source: Traffic Impact Analysis, RBF Consulting, Inc., 2/2004.

Table 5
Existing Peak Hour Delay and Level of Service (LOS)

Signalized Study Intersection V/C LOS
AM PM AM PM
#2 -- Portofino Dr.-School Entrance/
San Jose Avenue
7.3
7.6
A
A
Source: Traffic Impact Analysis, RBF Consulting, Inc., 2/2004.

As shown in Tables 4 and 5, all existing study intersections are currently operating at an acceptable Level of Service (Mid-LOS D or better).

Near Term Conditions

Near Term Without Proposed Project Conditions

To account for traffic growth in the project area, the City has identified a three percent annual growth rate factor to account for background projects in the project vicinity. Two background projects are planned by the City of Brentwood but have not yet been constructed. One background project is a residential site located on the adjacent Bypass property, directly southeast of the project site, while the other is the future 34.58-acre mixed-use business park and regional commercial component of the Bridle Gate project itself, located immediately north of the proposed residential project area. For the purposes of this document, both background projects are included in the analysis.

Table 6 summarizes the ITE trip generation rates used to calculate the number of trips forecast to be generated by the mixed-use business park and regional commercial background project.

Table 6
Proposed Commercial Project ITE Trip Rates

Land Use (ITE Code) AM Peak Hour Rates PM Peak Hour Rates
ADT
In Out Total In Out Total
Business Park (770) 1.20 0.23 1.43 0.30 0.99 1.29 12.76
Source: Traffic Impact Analysis, RBF Consulting, Inc., 2/2004.

Table 7
Background Commercial Project Without Proposed Project Trip Generation

Land Use AM Peak Hour Rates PM Peak Hour Rates
ADT
In Out Total In Out Total
Business Park 480 92 572 120 396 516 5,104
Source: Traffic Impact Analysis, RBF Consulting, Inc., 2/2004.

As shown in Table 7, the mixed-use business park and regional commercial background project is forecast to generate approximately 5,104 daily trips, which include approximately 572 AM peak hour trips, and approximately 516 PM peak hour trips.

All other planned, approved, and constructed projects are assumed accounted for by the growth rate factor (3%) which includes residential development to the south of the project site and the shopping center to the east. In addition, background residential project traffic volumes have been applied to the south leg of Intersection #3 (St. Regis Avenue/San Jose Avenue) to account for the localized background project traffic volumes.

The roadway network for near-term without project conditions is improved with the following projects:

 Sand Creek Road extension from SR 4 Bypass to the intersection of Old Sand Creek Road/Sand Creek Road; and
 San Jose Avenue extension from St. Regis Avenue to Sand Creek Road terminus at the mixed-use business park and regional commercial background project site.

Table 10 summarizes near-term without project AM and PM peak hour V/C ratios for signalized intersections, and Table 11 summarizes average stopped delay per vehicle for unsignalized intersections with the corresponding LOS based on near-term without project peak hour intersection volumes.

Table 10
Near-Term Without Proposed Project Peak Hour V/C and LOS

Signalized Study Intersection V/C LOS
AM PM AM PM
#1 – San Jose Ave/Sand Creek Rd 0.51 0.73 A C
#5 – SR-4 Bypass/Sand Creek Rd 0.50 0.83 A D
Source: Traffic Impact Analysis, RBF Consulting, Inc., 2/2004.

Table 11
Near-Term Without Proposed Project Peak Hour Delay and LOS

Signalized Study Intersection V/C LOS
AM PM AM PM
#2 -- Portofino Dr.-School Entrance/
San Jose Avenue
8.8
9.7
A
A
#3 – St. Regis Ave/San Jose Ave 9.2 9.6 A A
#4 – San Jose Ave/Cherrywood St 8.8 9.0 A A
Source: Traffic Impact Analysis, RBF Consulting, Inc., 2/2004.

As shown in Tables 10 and 11, all study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS (Mid-LOS D or better) according to City of Brentwood and CCTA performance criteria for near-term without project conditions.

Proposed Project

Project Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment

The residential portion of the proposed Bridle Gate project consists of 166 single-family dwelling units. A future background project includes a 34.58-acre mixed-use business park and regional commercial site to the immediate north of the Bridle Gate residential area. The project site is located immediately west of the SR 4 Bypass in the City of Brentwood. The project is scheduled to begin in 2006, and the project site is essentially vacant at this time. Access to the proposed project is planned at three locations: Sand Creek Road, San Jose Avenue, and St. Regis Avenue. In order to facilitate project-related traffic to and from the project site, Sand Creek Road will be extended west of its existing intersection with the SR 4 Bypass.

The vehicle trip generation for the proposed project was estimated using information contained in Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers, Sixth Edition). The residential development is expected to generate 1,589 daily trips and 128 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 169 trips during the PM peak hour. Table 12 summarizes the trip generation rates used to calculate the number of trips forecast to be generated by the proposed project. Table 13 summarizes the trips forecast to be generated by the proposed project utilizing the trip generating rates in Table 12.

Table 12
Proposed Project ITE Trip Rates

Land Use (ITE Code) AM Peak Hour Rates PM Peak Hour Rates
ADT
In Out Total In Out Total
Single-Family Detached Housing (210) 0.19 0.58 0.77 0.65 0.37 1.02 9.57
Source: Traffic Impact Analysis, RBF Consulting, Inc., 2/2004.

Table 13
Proposed Project Trip Generation

Land Use AM Peak Hour Rates PM Peak Hour Rates
ADT
In Out Total In Out Total
166 Single-Family Dwelling Units 32 96 128 108 61 169 1,589
Source: Traffic Impact Analysis, RBF Consulting, Inc., 2/2004.

The trip distribution of the proposed project was developed using existing traffic volumes and knowledge of the study area. Project-generated trips were assigned to the surrounding roadway network based on the distribution assumptions.

Table 14 summarizes the trips forecast to be generated by the background mixed-use business park and regional commercial project plus the proposed project.

Table 14
Forecast Commercial Background Plus Proposed Project Trip Generation

Land Use AM Peak Hour Rates PM Peak Hour Rates
ADT
In Out Total In Out Total
Business Park 480 92 572 120 396 516 5,104
166 Single-Family Dwelling Units 32 96 128 108 61 169 1,589
Total 512 188 700 228 457 685 6,693
Source: Traffic Impact Analysis, RBF Consulting, Inc., 2/2004.

As shown in Table 14, the mixed-use business park and regional commercial background project plus the proposed project are forecast to generate approximately 6,693 daily trips, which include approximately 700 AM peak hour trips, and approximately 685 PM peak hour trips.

Near-Term With Project Conditions

The roadway network for near-term with project conditions is improved with the following projects:

 Sand Creek Road eastbound widening at San Jose Avenue along project frontage with one left-turn lane, two through lanes and one right-turn lane; and

 San Jose Avenue northbound widening at Sand Creek Road to one left-turn lane and one shared through/right-turn lane.

Table 15
Near-Term With Proposed Project Peak Hour V/C and LOS

Signalized Study Intersection Near-Term Without Project Near-Term With Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS
#1 – San Jose Ave/Sand Creek Rd 0.51 A 0.73 C 0.37 A 0.44 A
#5 – SR-4 Bypass/Sand Creek Rd 0.50 A 0.83 D 0.51 A 0.85 D
Source: Traffic Impact Analysis, RBF Consulting, Inc., 2/2004.

Table 16
Near-Term With Proposed Project Peak Hour Delay and LOS

Signalized Study Intersection Near-Term Without Project Near-Term With Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay
(Sec) LOS Delay
(Sec) LOS Delay
(Sec) LOS Delay
(Sec) LOS
#2 – Portofino Dr-School Entrance/
San Jose Ave 8.8 A 9.7 A 8.9 A 10.1 B
#3 – St. Regis Ave/San Jose Ave 9.2 A 9.6 A 9.4 A 10.2 B
#4 – Cherrywood St/San Jose Ave 8.8 A 9.0 A 9.2 A 9.9 A
Source: Traffic Impact Analysis, RBF Consulting, Inc., 2/2004.

As shown in Tables 15 and 16, all study intersections are forecast to continue operating at an acceptable LOS (Mid-LOS D or better) with the addition of project-generated trips according to City of Brentwood and CCTA performance criteria for near-term with project conditions.

Long-Term Conditions (Year 2025)

To account for traffic growth in the project area, the City has identified a three percent annual growth rate factor for background projects in the project vicinity for forecast year 2025. Forecast year 2025 without project conditions volumes for intersections #6 and #7 were provided by the City.

The forecast year 2025 roadway system is improved from the near-term roadway system as follows:

 The at-grade intersection #5 (SR 4 Bypass/Sand Creek Road) is replaced by a grade-separated highway facility (SR 4 Bypass) with two signalized intersections (#6 and #7) created at the terminus of the northbound and southbound SR 4 Bypass ramps at Sand Creek Road; and

 The highway interchange is assumed as a partial-cloverleaf per City comments with direct onloop-ramps provided for eastbound Sand Creek Road traffic to northbound SR 4 Bypass, and also for westbound Sand Creek Road traffic to southbound SR 4 Bypass.

With the completion of SR 4 Bypass improvements, drivers are anticipated to revise their routes within the study area. As such, the forecast year 2025 trip percent distribution of background projects generated peak hour trips as reviewed and approved by City staff for use in this analysis.

Table 17 summarizes forecast year 2025 without project AM and PM peak hour V/C ratios for signalized intersections, and Table 18 summarizes average stopped delay per vehicle for unsignalized intersections with the corresponding LOS based on forecast year 2025 without project peak hour intersection volumes.

Table 17
Forecast Year 2025 Without Proposed Peak Hour V/C and LOS

Signalized Study Intersection V/C LOS
AM PM AM PM
#1 – San Jose Ave/Sand Creek Rd 0.46 0.59 A A
#6 – SR-4 Bypass SB Ramps/
Sand Creek Road 0.44 0.64 A B
#7 – SR-4 Bypass NB Ramps/
Sand Creek Road 0.49 0.60 A A
Source: Traffic Impact Analysis, RBF Consulting, Inc., 2/2004.

Table 18
Forecast Year 2025 Without Proposed Project Peak Hour Delay and LOS

Unsignalized Study Intersection Delay (Seconds) LOS
AM PM AM PM
#2 -- Portofino Dr.-School Entrance/
San Jose Avenue 9.4 12.3 A B
#3 – St. Regis Ave/San Jose Ave 10.8 17.9 B C
#4 – San Jose Ave/Cherrywood St 10.6 14.3 B B
Source: Traffic Impact Analysis, RBF Consulting, Inc., 2/2004.

As shown in Tables 17 and 18, all study intersections are forecast to continue operating at an acceptable LOS (Mid-Los D or better).

Forecast Year 2025 With Proposed Project Conditions

Forecast year 2025 with project traffic volumes were derived by adding project-generated trips to forecast year 2025 without project traffic volumes. Table 19 summarizes forecast year 2025 with project AM and PM peak hour V/C ratios for signalized intersections, and Table 20 summarizes average stopped delay per vehicle for unsignalized intersections with the corresponding LOS based on forecast year 2025 with project peak hour intersection volumes.

Table 19
Forecast Year 2025 With Proposed Project Peak Hour V/C and LOS

Signalized Study Intersection Forecast Year 2025
Without Project Forecast Year 2025
With Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS
#1 – San Jose Ave/Sand Creek Rd 0.46 A 0.59 A 0.48 A 0.64 A
#6 – SR-4 Bypass SB Ramps/
Sand Creek Road 0.44 A 0.64 B 0.44 A 0.66 B
#7 – SR-4 Bypass NB Ramps/
Sand Creek Road 0.49 A 0.60 A 0.49 A 0.60 A
Source: Traffic Impact Analysis, RBF Consulting, Inc., 2/2004.

Table 20
Forecast Year 2025 With Proposed Project Peak Hour Delay and LOS

Unsignalized Study Intersection Forecast Year 2025
Without Project Forecast Year 2025
With Project
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay
(Sec) LOS Delay
(Sec) LOS Delay
(Sec) LOS Delay
(Sec) LOS
#2 -- Portofino Dr.-School Entrance/San Jose Avenue 9.4 A 12.3 B 9.5 A 12.4 B
#3 – St. Regis Ave/San Jose Ave 10.8 B 17.9 C 10.9 B 20.4 C
#4 – San Jose Ave/Cherrywood St 10.6 B 14.3 B 11.5 B 19.8 C
Source: Traffic Impact Analysis, RBF Consulting, Inc., 2/2004.

As shown in Tables 19 and 20, all study intersections are forecast to continue operating at an acceptable LOS (Mid-LOS D or better) with the addition of project-generated trips for forecast year 2025 with project conditions.

Conclusion

All study intersections are currently operating, and for near-term without project conditions, are forecast to continue operating at an acceptable Level of Service (Mid-LOS D or better) according to City of Brentwood and CCTA performance criteria.

At present, unsignalized study intersection #2 (Portofino Drive-School Entrance/San Jose Avenue) is not warranted for signalization. However, when the area develops, for improved circulation, access, and potential reduction in vehicular conflicts, motorists in the area may benefit from the signalization of San Jose Avenue/Sand Creek Road (future) intersection #1 and Portofino Drive-School Entrance/San Jose Avenue intersection #2. To signalize the aforementioned intersections, the developer should pay its fair share, as determined by City staff. If the developer does not pay its fair share for signalization of the aforementioned intersections, the proposed project impacts to traffic would be considered potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the following mitigation measures, prescribed within the Traffic Report performed by RBF Consulting, would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level.

XV-50. Prior to recordation of any final map or building permit issuance, the developer shall pay the project’s fair share of the following Near Term roadway improvements:

• Sand Creek Road eastbound widening at San Jose Avenue and along project frontage with one left-turn lane, two through lanes and one right-turn lane;
• San Jose Avenue northbound widening at Sand Creek Road to one left-turn lane and one shared through/right-turn lane;
• Modify the existing signal and geometry at intersection #5 (State Route 4 Bypass/Sand Creek Road) to accommodate project-related traffic on the west leg of the intersection;
• Signalize San Jose Avenue/Sand Creek Road intersection upon addition of the mixed-use business park and regional commercial project;
• All-way stop control at Cherrywood Street/San Jose Avenue intersection; and
• All-way stop control at San Jose Avenue/St. Regis Avenue intersection.

XV-51. Prior to recordation of any final map or building permit issuance, the developer shall pay the project’s fair share of the following Long Term roadway improvements.

• The at-grade intersection #5 (SR 4 Bypass/Sand Creek Road) is replaced by a grade-separated highway facility (SR 4 Bypass) with two signalized intersections (#6 and #7) created at the terminus of the northbound and southbound SR 4 Bypass ramps at Sand Creek Road; and
• The SR 4 Bypass/Sand Creek Road interchange is assumed as a partial-cloverleaf per City comments with direct onloop-ramps provided for eastbound Sand Creek Road traffic to northbound SR 4 Bypass, and also for westbound Sand Creek Road traffic to southbound SR 4 Bypass.

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

d-g. The design of the proposed project would comply with the City of Brentwood design standards. Compliance with design standards would ensure that the proposed project would not include any unusual design features in the layout of the internal streets that would increase hazards. In addition, compliance with design standards would ensure that adequate resident and visitor parking would be provided by the proposed project.

The proposed Bridle Gate residential project consists of 166 single-family dwelling units. A future background project includes a 34.58-acre mixed-use business park and regional commercial center to the immediate north of the Bridle Gate residential area. The project site is located immediately west of the SR 4 Bypass in the City of Brentwood. The project is scheduled to begin in 2006, and the project site is essentially vacant at this time. Access to the proposed project is planned at three locations: Sand Creek Road, San Jose Avenue, and St. Regis Avenue. In order to facilitate project-related traffic to and from the project site, Sand Creek Road will be extended west of its existing intersection with the Bypass.

According to the Bridle Gate Traffic Analysis, conducted specifically for the Bridle Gate project, Class II Bike Lanes currently exist along Sand Creek Road; the Parks, Trails, and Recreation Master Plan Map (2002), shows that Class II or III Bikeways are proposed along the Sand Creek Road segment which extend into the Bridle Gate project. As a result, the proposed development is consistent with the alternative transportation anticipated for the project area. The project is also consistent with existing transit connections, as bus routes to the Bridle Gate project already exist in the form of the Tri Delta Transit “Dimes-A-Ride” Program. Two bus routes currently run immediately adjacent to the proposed project along Sand Creek Road. Additionally, to ensure compliance with City development standards, all design standards must be approved by City staff prior to implementation of the project. Therefore, because the proposed project would comply with the City of Brentwood design standards, provide adequate emergency vehicle access, provide adequate pedestrian/bicycle facilities and alternative transportation access, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant.

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

XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS.
Would the project:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

a-e. The proposed project 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 has sufficient facilities to provide gas and electricity to the General Plan area. The City of Brentwood provides water and sewer service to the entire City, including the project site. The General Plan EIR concludes that the City has adequate water to implement the General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the type of development identified in the General Plan for Special Planning Area E. Therefore, the City of Brentwood possesses adequate capacity to serve the development, conditioned upon payment of sufficient improvement fees by the developer of the project in conjunction with the City's Capital Improvement Financing Program. However, to guarantee adequate delivery capacity to serve the proposed project, the developer must ensure that the project is adequately connected to the existing facilities. Therefore, the impact from the proposed project on public utilities would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level.

XVI-52. The developer shall be required to connect to the existing Brentwood utility network as well as pay all applicable fees in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Improvement plans indicating conformance to City of Brentwood Standards shall be prepared, submitted, and approved by the City Engineer prior to encroachment permit issuance.

f,g. The proposed project consists of the development of single-family residential and non-residential uses at a density that is consistent with the various land uses described for Special Planning Area E in the General Plan Land Use Element. The solid waste generated by the development would be consistent with the levels that have been anticipated for the site. The City of Brentwood operates its own solid waste disposal service and has anticipated this potential increase in usage. Therefore, any impacts as a result of the project are considered less than significant.

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

XII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.

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

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

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

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

Discussion

a,b. Development that converts rural areas to urban/suburban uses may be regarded as achieving short-term goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. However, the inevitable impacts resulting from population and economic growth are mitigated by long-range planning to establish policies, programs, and measures for the efficient and economical use of resources. Long-term environmental goals, both broad and specific, have been addressed previously in several environmental documents, the most comprehensive being the General Plan Final EIR certified in 1993, and the General Plan Update EIR certified in 2001. Therefore, any impacts are 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. However, this Initial Study includes mitigation in order to reduce the impacts of the proposed project on Prime Farmland conversion to a less-than-significant level. Other cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project 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. However, either these impacts would be mitigated to a degree through mitigation measures cumulatively applied as development occurs, or they have been considered to be subject to findings of overriding benefit by the lead agency, in this case, the City of Brentwood. The previous mitigation and findings of overriding benefit result in a less than significant impact for the proposed project.

17.486.08 SUBAREA MAP FOR PD-36
 

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