City of Brentwood
Home PageContact Us!Back

City Administration

2010 Council Goals and Strategic Plan | City Council Members | Calendar of Events | Elections
eNotification | Sub-Committees| Pledge of Allegiance Sign Ups | Invocation Sign Up
Live Streaming Council Meeting | Streaming PC Help |
Streaming Mac Help |

Current Council Agenda and Past Meeting Information

 

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM NO. 18



Meeting Date: April 10, 2007

Subject/Title: Public hearing of an appeal filed by Bailey Neff of Minnesota Rentals, Inc., of the Planning Commission’s decision adopting a mitigated negative declaration and approving an application for a tentative subdivision map (TSM 8446). The property is located at 1060 Minnesota Avenue (APN 017-080-007).

Prepared by: Debbie Hill, Associate Planner

Submitted by: Howard Sword, Community Development Director


RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal filed by Bailey Neff of Minnesota Rentals, Inc., in regard to the Planning Commission’s decision approving an application for a tentative subdivision map (TSM 8446), except for the modification of condition of approval No. 6 regarding drainage, adopt the mitigated negative declaration and approve TSM 8446.

BACKGROUND
The applicant, Bailey Neff of Minnesota Rentals, Inc., is appealing the Planning Commission’s decision approving an application for a tentative subdivision map (TSM 8446), for an 8-lot residential subdivision.

The project consists of a tentative subdivision map to subdivide one 3.66-acre parcel into 8 single-family residential lots intended for sale as custom home lots. The site is currently developed with one older single-family dwelling unit that is partially on both Lots 7 and 8 as well as several miscellaneous outbuildings and structures on the entire acreage. The dwelling unit and other structures would need to be demolished and replaced with the new dwelling units. The project site is bounded by the Carmel Estates residential subdivision currently undergoing grading to the north and northeast, the Randy Way residential subdivision to the south and southeast, and the existing Spinnaker Ridge subdivision to the west across Minnesota Avenue. Since the project is for subdivision only with the intent to sell the parcels to individual custom homebuilders and all lots are in excess of 15,000 square feet in size, in accordance with Section 16.050.015 of the Brentwood Municipal Code, no design review is required in connection with this tentative subdivision map application.

In addition, the applicant has been concurrently processing a minor subdivision for 4 lots and a remainder parcel on this same property. This minor subdivision application was brought to the Planning Commission for public hearing on October 3, 2006, at which time the applicant requested a continuance to a date uncertain.

On August 8, 2003, the applicant submitted a universal application form for a 13-lot tentative subdivision map, TSM 8446, which was not in conformance with the City’s General Plan. Since that time, the applicant has processed and received a RGMP allocation for an 8-lot subdivision on this same property. Staff has been working with the applicant on the proposed tentative subdivision map applications in order to deem the application complete and move forward to a public hearing before the Planning Commission, which was finally accomplished and approved by the Planning Commission on March 6, 2007.

Mr. Neff had previously submitted an appeal of the Community Development Department’s determination regarding the completeness of his application for TSM 8446, which was subsequently heard and denied by the Planning Commission on October 3, 2006, by Resolution No. 06-105. Mr. Neff then appealed this Planning Commission decision regarding the completeness of his application to the City Council. At the meeting of October 24, 2006, this appeal was heard and denied by the City Council by Resolution No. 2006-273, with findings as follows:

1. The proposed tentative subdivision map application (TSM 8446) is not a valid application as application fees were not, and have not yet, been submitted with the application for subdivision as required under Section 16.050.020 of the city’s Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance and California Government Code Section 65943; and

2. The City is not obligated to process the application until the required application fees are paid. Such application fees are necessary in order to compensate the City for staff time associated with the processing of applications; and

3. The proposed tentative subdivision map application is otherwise incomplete in that not all of the required technical studies have been submitted in order to prepare the required environmental document in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and

4. In order to take action either approving, conditionally approving or denying a tentative subdivision map application, the Planning Commission must consider the environmental report prepared for the project and determine that no significant impacts will occur on the project site.

Subsequent to this City Council action, the applicant did submit the required fees and technical studies in order to deem the project complete as of February 1, 2007, which has resulted in a public hearing and approval of the tentative subdivision map by the Planning Commission on March 6, 2007, as mentioned above.

ANALYSIS
The appeal statement prepared by Daniel A. Muller of Morgan Miller Blair is requesting several revisions to the conditions of approval placed on the project as well as a request for a refund of a portion of the application fees. Pursuant to the City of Brentwood Municipal Code sections 16.170.030(F) and 17.880.003(H), appeals are heard “de novo” and the appealing body must consider the appeal under the same criteria as the original action and shall be required to make all the prescribed findings. Therefore, the City Council must take action on the mitigated negative declaration and tentative subdivision map and make the required findings. The attached Planning Commission report and proposed resolution set forth the recommendations of staff and proposed findings regarding adoption of the mitigated negative declaration and approval of the tentative subdivision map. Staff’s recommendations remain the same.

This staff report will focus specifically on the items described in the appeal letter and which Mr. Neff has contested. In an effort to ease evaluation by the City Council, staff is presenting our response in the order detailed in Mr. Muller’s letter, as follows:

A. Left-Turn Ingress/Egress. The developer has requested the ability to make left turns into and out of St. James Court’s access on Minnesota Avenue. The developer has requested such access either with or without a left-hand turn pocket on Minnesota. The City Traffic Engineer has researched the request and recommends against it. The City’s Traffic Engineer has also discussed the issue with Charlie Abrams, Mr. Neff’s traffic consultant, and does not agree with Mr. Abrams’ statement, as set forth in the appeal letter, that, “a median opening where left turns can be made is clearly warranted.” To the contrary, the City’s Traffic Engineer has opined that a left-hand turn pocket is not warranted. His research uncovered a document entitled, “Left Turn Lane Installation Guidelines” by Kay Fitzpatrick and Tim Wolff, which reviews eight techniques for determining when to include a left-hand turn lane at an intersection. Although the left-hand turn in this case is not proposed at an intersection, the analysis is instructive in the absence of any other guidelines. One technique for determining when to include a left-hand turn is based on peak hour turning volume. It is assumed that in the PM peak hour the proposed development would generate 4 left turns. This total is far below the recommended minimum of 25 per hour based on the publication and when compared with traffic volumes on Minnesota Avenue. Further, analyzing the proposed left-hand turn under any of the other techniques outlined in the publication produces the same result – a left-hand turn is not warranted. Mr. Abrams has not provided any documentation supporting his claim that a median break or left-turn pocket would be warranted at this location.

Further, if the City were to allow a median break without a left turn lane, which in this case as mentioned above is not warranted, we would be creating a situation where vehicles intending to make a left-turn into the development from southbound Minnesota Avenue, could be stopped in the middle of Minnesota Avenue waiting for a break in the traffic in order to complete the turn. This would create an unsafe condition along Minnesota Avenue as other vehicles would not be expecting stopped traffic at this location. The City’s preference, based on good traffic engineering principles, would be that left turns be clustered in one location, instead of many different locations along a roadway, to minimize confusion and possible conflict points for opposing traffic. Allowing the break in the median would also encourage left-turn access out of the subdivision creating another difficult turning movement.

Lastly, allowing an unwarranted left-turn lane and/or a median cut at this location would set a precedent unrelated to traffic volumes when faced with other developments in the future.

As stated in Mr. Muller’s letter, there are examples of left-turn access points through existing medians for residential developments, such as those along the northern portion of Fairview Avenue. However, the situation on Fairview Avenue is different, as Fairview is a two-lane roadway and Minnesota is designed to be a four-lane roadway. Further, the left-turn access points on Fairview were specifically placed to accommodate the existing residents and in particular horse trailer access to these properties. There is a significant difference between traffic generated from one individual home versus eight residential units in that one individual home generates approximately 10 vehicle trips per day, where eight homes would generate approximately 80 trips per day. If one of the existing homes at the Fairview Avenue location were to subdivide, it would be likely that the City would require them to close the median break providing access to their lot due to the increase in traffic that would be generated and potential traffic safety issues.

Condition No. 7 provides that there will be no median break on Minnesota Avenue and that access into and out of the subdivision will be right-in and right-out only. This is a point of clarification only and does not require any action by the applicant. Staff, including the City’s Traffic Engineer, is recommending that Condition No. 7 remain as currently approved by the Planning Commission.

B. Private Roadway Width, Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Design. The developer has requested that his project be approved with rolled curbs and a street width narrower than the approved 28 feet. Condition No. 14 requires a 28 foot street width, with vertical curb and sidewalks on the southern side of the street and staff is recommending the condition remain as currently approved by the Planning Commission. The standard street width in the City is 36 feet with vertical curb and gutter, which includes two travel lanes and parking on both sides of the street. Engineering Procedures Manual section VIII(4)(C)(2) requires “[f]or all single-family properties, a minimum of one (1) on street parking space . . . .” Therefore, eight on street parking spaces would be required for this subdivision. As this can be met with parking on only one side of the street, which would allow for 13 spaces, City staff has agreed to recommend a 28 foot width, rather than the standard 36 feet. The 28 feet includes the standard two travel lanes and parking on one side of the street. This width would ensure adequate emergency vehicle access and parking and would accommodate pedestrians.

As stated in Mr. Muller’s letter, it is true that other small subdivisions, specifically the Taylor Project mentioned by Mr. Muller, have been approved with narrower street widths. The Taylor Project also includes rolled curbs. However, the Taylor Project included four smaller “streets” of shorter length than the one street proposed by Mr. Neff. One of Taylor’s streets was constructed with vertical curb and gutter and provides parking. The remaining three streets create more of a driveway approach than an actual street, and are thus different from the street proposed by Mr. Neff. City staff and the Planning Commission have also expressed concern about the aesthetic appearance of rolled curbs. The Taylor Project is an anomaly in the City, as numerous projects have been approved with standard vertical curb, rather than rolled curb, and greater widths.

It has been the policy of City staff to uphold certain standards in design in regard to street widths, curb and gutter to facilitate emergency services, as well as to create an aesthetically pleasing community, and changing that policy is not justified and would again set a precedent for all future development.

As to the timing of the application and Mr. Muller’s claim that the application was complete earlier than City staff contends, this issue has already been addressed through the appeal process on the completeness of Mr. Neff’s application. It was determined that the application was incomplete. Further, an application can be deemed complete in that all the required materials have been submitted, however, this does not mean that the application must be approved as submitted and indeed most applications are conditioned to comply with particular development additions or restrictions not originally proposed by the applicant.

C. Additional Minnesota Avenue Frontage Dedication. The developer has requested the deletion of Conditions 12 and 13 requiring the dedication of 20 feet (not seven feet, as referenced in the appeal letter) of additional right-of-way and the construction of roadways improvements claiming a lack of “nexus.” As per Subdivision Map Act, Section 66475, and the Brentwood Municipal Code, Section 16.140.010 (Dedications generally), as a condition of approval of any map, the subdivider shall dedicate or make an irrevocable offer of dedication of all parcels of land within the subdivision that are needed for streets, alleys, including access rights and abutters’ rights, drainage, local transit facilities, bike paths, public utility easements, and other public easements as required. In addition, section 16.140.010 of the Brentwood Municipal Code requires the subdivider to install or agree to install all on- and off-site public and private street improvements, bike paths, local transit facilities, drainage facilities, utilities and fences as required. Further, the City of Brentwood Development Fee Program requires residential development to dedicate 30 feet of right-of-way for one-half the width of a roadway of 60 feet wide at no cost to the City. The additional right-of-way dedication beyond 30 feet is reimbursed through the City’s Development Fee Program.

The developer previously deeded 34 feet (rather than the 54 feet noted in the appeal letter) of right-of-way to the City, and was paid $14,800 for this deed. This payment fully compensated Mr. Neff for the loss of the 34 feet. The right-of-way acquisition at that time was to accommodate the pavement width only for Minnesota Avenue. Now, the tentative map condition is requiring Neff to dedicate an additional 20 feet. This additional right-of-way dedication is needed for the construction of sidewalk and landscape improvements and conversion of overhead utilities to construct the ultimate improvements for Minnesota Avenue. As per the Roadway Master Plan, Minnesota Avenue is a 4-lane arterial roadway with a total right-of-way width of 140 feet, which includes median landscape, pavement, sidewalk and landscape parkway. This 20 foot dedication is less than the 30 feet required under the City’s Development Fee Program and thus, Mr. Neff is not being required to dedicate as much as he is technically required to do under the City’s Program. That said, Mr. Neff will still have to meet his requirement to provide 30 feet of dedication and will, therefore, be responsible for the additional 10 feet through reimbursement to the City under Condition No. 11 requiring fair share payments per the City’s Development Fee Program. In effect, this will require Mr. Neff to reimburse the City for a portion of the compensation he received for the earlier grant deed. Mr. Neff has contacted City staff to determine the amount he will be required to pay pursuant to Condition No. 11, which, as noted above, includes among other things reimbursement for 10 feet of right-of-way. It should also be noted that the 34 feet previously acquired and the 20 foot dedication now required are equal to the net loss of 54 feet that the developer has claimed he has already lost.

Contrary to the applicant appeal statement, there is a complete nexus between the additional right-of-way dedication requirement and improvement requirements and the applicant’s proposed subdivision and its impact to the roadway network and the City of Brentwood’s Roadway Master Plan.

D. Stormwater Requirements. The developer requests the deletion of Condition No. 5 requiring compliance with the “C.3” standards. An excerpt from Contra Costa Clean Water Program Stormwater C.3 Guidebook states, “The California Regional Water Quality Control Boards for the San Francisco Bay Region and Central Valley Region (RWQCBs) have mandated that Contra Costa municipalities impose new, more stringent requirements to control runoff from development projects.“

“The RWQCBs added Provision C.3 to the municipalities’ stormwater NPDES permit in February 2003. The municipalities are phasing in the requirements from 2004 through 2006.”

The Stormwater C.3 Guidebook also states that projects deemed complete after February 15, 2005, are required to adhere to the C.3 requirements if the project creates one acre or more impervious area. On August 15, 2006, this threshold was reduced to 10,000 square feet.

Since the application was not deemed complete until February 1, 2007, after both of the above dates, and will create more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface, the project is subject to the C.3 requirements. Therefore, Condition No. 5 needs to remain on the project in order for the City to be in compliance with State and Federal law.

E. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. Mr. Neff requests that Condition No. 23, requiring a Phase II Environmental Assessment, be deleted. The City did receive a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment as part of the tentative subdivision map application, as noted in the appeal letter. Environmental site assessments for residential projects are routinely required by the City to ensure that no soil contamination, and possibly groundwater contamination, is on the project site. The document prepared by Quest Geosystems Management concluded that no further investigation of the site appeared warranted. However, one of the appendices to this report was a prior site assessment prepared by Engeo Incorporated dated February 7, 1989. The Engeo report specifically cited an interview with Dick Mello, then Deputy Agricultural Commissioner of the Contra Costa Department of Agriculture, that three regulated pesticides, Parathion, Supracide, and Thiodan, were presently registered on the project site, as well as his concerns over the possibility of Diazinon and lead arsenate, copper sulfate or other chemicals being on the project site due to the historic agriculture use (apricot orchard), as well as possible petroleum product contamination caused by equipment refurbishing activities. The recommendation was that additional research should be undertaken and that soils samples should be analyzed.

Another appendix to the Quest document is a statement by Mr. Neff stating how and where soils samples were taken and accompanying testing documentation. Proper soil sampling and documentation should have been conducted by an outside, uninterested party, following proper chain-of-command protocol to ensure actual samples from the project site are used and to ensure accurate testing results.

City staff discussed the discrepancy between the recommendations of the two documents with Eric Garcia of Quest Geosystems Management, but could not obtain a satisfactory response as to why there were two differing recommendations for the project site and as to why his recommendation was partly based on improper testing protocol of the soils samples. Therefore, the condition of approval was added requiring a Phase II environmental site assessment be completed by an outside licensed professional in order to ensure any contamination of the site will be identified and mitigated.

F. Notices to Lot Purchasers. The developer requests the deletion of Condition No. 32 requiring certain notices of purchasers. Notices to purchasers are generally required for any condition which could affect a particular property. Staff had identified seven areas of concern which could impact potential purchasers of the lots, as follows:

1. The presence of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks.
2. The presence of petroleum pipelines located within the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way.
3. The presence of Bristow Middle School and the likelihood of periodic events or activities that could generate glare, noise, and increased traffic volumes.
4. The widening of Minnesota Avenue.
5. That the access to Minnesota Avenue would be right-in/right-out only.
6. That St. James Court is a private street with all the maintenance responsibilities to be shared among the respective property owners.
7. That the adjacent properties may have large animals (horses, cows, etc.)

Staff is not recommending the condition regarding disclosure be revised as the above 7 items are in existence and do have the potential to create an impact on the purchaser of these lots and should be disclosed up front for each buyer’s consideration prior to purchasing the lot. It is possible that other projects in the vicinity may not have imposed the disclosure of all of the above 7 items, but that does not negate the fact that they probably should have disclosed them or that the conditions currently exist and should be disclosed.

G. Agricultural Mitigation Fee. Mr. Neff requests the deletion of Condition No. 36 requiring the payment of an agricultural mitigation fee. As identified in the mitigated negative declaration prepared for this project, the City’s General Plan includes agricultural preservation policies in the Open Space Conservation Element. The General Plan Conservation Element Policy 1.1.4 states:

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

The Contra Costa County Important Farmland Map (2000) indicates that the project area has been designated as Prime Farmland. The Contra Costa County Soil Survey identifies the project site soils as Capay Clay (CaA), which is one of the soil types listed in the Soil Candidate Listing for Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance issued by the California Department of Conservation specifically for Contra Costa County.

Although the project site is not currently utilized for agricultural purposes, it was once utilized as an apricot orchard, and the development of the proposed project would result in the loss of Prime Farmland. While the applicant’s appeal attempts to characterize the project site as “in-fill,” in fact, this site and the surrounding land was historically agricultural. Since the City started collecting its agricultural mitigation fee, each of the surrounding properties was required to pay this fee prior to development. This project cannot escape the requirement to likewise pay the fee simply because other properties developed first and now arguably make this project look more like an “in-fill” project.

The condition was identified as a mitigation measure within the mitigated negative declaration for the project to address this cumulative effect and as such cannot be changed or altered unless it is replaced with equal or more effective measures pursuant to Section 15074.1 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines or the mitigated negative declaration is modified and recirculated.

H. Additional “New” Conditions Requiring Review/Clarification. The applicant requests review/clarification of Conditions No. 6, 9 and 10. Condition No. 6, in regard to mitigating the drainage of upstream properties, is a standard condition placed on development projects as well as a requirement of State law to insure that the new subdivision does not create water pooling issues at the property lines of existing subdivisions. Staff is recommending the condition be modified to be more explicit as to our intent, as follows:

6. Developer shall be responsible for mitigating the natural run-off from adjoining upstream lots to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer to ensure that no water pooling will occur on adjacent properties, the timing of which shall be as provided in Condition of Approval No. 4.

The revised condition is included in the conditions of approval for the project attached to the proposed resolution.

Condition No. 9, as well as Condition No. 10, were placed on the project to define the type and design of the soundwall. As the project includes a soundwall along the Minnesota Avenue frontage, Condition No. 9 is to insure that proper noise attenuation will be achieved, and both conditions require the design of the wall to match that being proposed by Pulte’s Carmel Estates subdivision, thereby creating noise attenuation for the future residents and an improved Minnesota Avenue streetscape with matching walls for the two subdivisions which are adjacent to each other. The height and length of the soundwall was determined by an Environmental Noise Assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., prepared for the Carmel Estates project. Since both properties abut Minnesota Avenue and each other, it was reasoned that the noise attenuation required would be the same for both projects.

I. RGMP Issues. The applicant requests modification of the RGMP requirements set forth in Condition No. 25 from the 2005 criteria to the 2004 RGMP criteria due to the claimed extended processing delays. Staff disagrees that there were extended delays. At that time, the deadline for the second 2004 allocation was that the RGMP application must be deemed complete on June 1, 2005. Mr. Neff was notified he needed an RGMP application on September 19, 2003, but did not submit an application until June 30, 2005 and did not submit fees until July 25, 2005. His RGMP application was complete as of October 3, 2005, and heard on February 28, 2006, the earliest date any applications deemed complete after June 1. 2005, could be heard. The project could not have been heard under the 2004 RGMP criteria even if the application was deemed complete at the time of the first submittal on June 30, 2005. His project is subject to the 2005 RGMP. The applicant must comply with the criteria set forth in the RGMP allocation approval, as agreed to by the applicant at the time of processing of the RGMP application.

J. Affordable Housing Issues. The applicant expressed concern over affordable housing compliance. Staff negotiated the terms of the affordable housing requirement with Mr. Neff as set forth in Ordinance 790, Section 17.725.003, subsection B(1) and Section 17.725.004. The affordable housing requirement requested by Mr. Neff was presented to the Land Use Development Subcommittee at its meeting on March 1, 2007 and recommended. Once it is time for the final map to be approved at the City Council, the affordable housing agreement recommended by the Land Use and Development Committee, and requested by Mr. Neff, will be placed on the consent calendar of the City Council agenda for its consideration. All of these actions are consistent with Ordinance 790.

K. Processing/Review Fees. The appeal letter requests the refund of a portion of the applicant’s review/processing fee. The applicant asserts that less time is spent on processing an 8-lot subdivision versus a 50-lot subdivision. There is no substantiation of this claim. In this particular case, staff has spent considerably more time on this particular application than on other larger residential subdivisions. This increased amount of staff time for smaller subdivisions was also true with the processing of the Taylor subdivision (TSM 8808) along Grant Street, east of Fairview Avenue. Since smaller subdivisions are usually processed by inexperienced developers who are not as familiar with the development process, this results in delays by the developer in submission of materials which are acceptable for processing and in more “hand holding” and guidance by staff in order to assist them through the process.

In addition, the application fees imposed for this project are in accordance with the City’s adopted cost allocation plan.

L. Other Concerns, and Damages Caused by Delays. The items detailed in this section of the appeal were also considered under the appeal filed by Mr. Neff on the decision of the Planning Commission denying his appeal of the Community Development Department’s determination regarding the completeness of his application for TSM 8446, the findings for which are listed previously in this report.

FISCAL IMPACT
The applicant paid the required $118.00 appeal fee. The applicant has also requested a refund of a portion of their processing fee of $29,791.00, however, as mentioned earlier, staff does not support this request.

Attachments:
1. Appeal application received from Minnesota Rentals, Inc., dated “Received March 16, 2007”
2. Letter from Daniel A. Muller of Morgan Miller Blair dated March 16, 2007
3. Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 6, 2007
4. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum
5. Minutes from March 6, 2007, Planning Commission Meeting on TSM 8446
6. Letter from Daniel A. Muller of Morgan Miller Blair dated March 6, 2007 (provided at Planning Commission hearing)

CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD DENYING THE APPEAL FILED BY BAILEY NEFF OF MINNESOTA RENTALS, INC., OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (TSM 8446), ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PROJECT AND APPROVING TSM 8446. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1060 MINNESOTA AVENUE (APN 017-080-007).

WHEREAS, Bailey Neff/Minnesota Rentals, Inc., has requested that the City adopt a mitigated negative declaration and approve a tentative subdivision map for the subdivision of that 3.66-acre site generally located on the east side of Minnesota Avenue, south of Carmel Parkway and north of Randy Way into eight single-family residential lots, as well as related improvements; and

WHEREAS, on July 11, 2006, the City Council of the City of Brentwood granted an allocation of 6 units in accordance with the requirement of the Residential Growth Management Program to Bailey Neff/Minnesota Rentals, Inc., allowing the site to be developed with a total of 8 residential dwelling units after taking the one existing unit and one required affordable unit into consideration; 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 for the St. James Court project 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 availability of said environmental document was circulated for a minimum of 20 days, beginning on February 9, 2007, and ending on March 1, 2007, for public review and comment, and no comments were received; and

WHEREAS, the mitigated negative declaration identified potentially significant environmental effects associated with the proposed project which can be feasibly mitigated or avoided by project-sponsored measures, and implementation of those measures, or measures substituted in an addendum are being included in the project conditions of approval and are found to reduce identified impacts to a less than significant level; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood considered this mitigated negative declaration, with an addendum substituting two mitigation measures, at a public hearing at its regular meeting of March 6, 2007, and considered the staff report, all accompanying information, and testimony received from the applicant and other interested parties and adopted the mitigated negative declaration; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood considered TSM 8446 at its regular meeting of March 6, 2007, along with the staff report, supporting documents, public testimony, and all appropriate information that has been submitted with the proposed project, and approved TSM 8446 with conditions; and


WHEREAS, the applicant has appealed the Planning Commission decision approving his application for TSM 8446; and

WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was distributed to all property owners of record within 300 feet of the project and published in the Brentwood Press on March 30, 2007, in accordance with City policies and Government Code section 65090; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brentwood held a public hearing on this appeal at its regular meeting of April 10, 2007; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff report, supporting documents, public testimony, and all appropriate information that has been submitted with the proposed project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, based on the facts in the staff report, written and oral testimony and exhibits presented that:

A. The City Council hereby denies the appeal filed by Bailey Neff of Minnesota Rentals, Inc., of the Planning Commission’s decision regarding an application for Tentative Subdivision Map 8446, with the exception of a modification to Condition No. 6.

B. With respect to the mitigated negative declaration and addendum, the City Council hereby:

1. Acknowledges that it has reviewed and considered the information contained within the initial study and mitigated negative declaration and addendum and all oral testimony and written comments received; and

2. Based upon the mitigated negative declaration and addendum and comments and testimony received, finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the mitigated negative declaration reflects the City Council’s independent judgment and analysis; and

3. Adopts the mitigated negative declaration and the mitigation monitoring program, together with the addendum, attached hereto; and

4. Designates the City as the custodian of the documents and other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based, which documents and other materials are located at the City of Brentwood, Community Development Department, 104 Oak Street, Brentwood, CA 94513; and

5. Directs staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of Contra Costa following the approval of Tentative Subdivision Map 8446.

C. With respect to Tentative Subdivision Map 8446, the City Council hereby finds:

1. The proposed tentative subdivision map, together with the provisions for the design and improvement of the proposed subdivision, are in conformance with the City General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance, in that the number of units is within the density range specified in the Special Planning Area “L” land use designation and the lots meet the development standards in accordance with the regulations of Planned Development 26 (PD-26); and

2. The proposed project location is outside of the Brentwood redevelopment project area and is not within the boundaries of any specific plan; and

3. The discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision will not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board because the developer will be required to make the necessary improvements to tie in to the City’s stormwater and sewer facilities, as well as treat all stormwater through bioswales on the project site; and

4. The design of the subdivision and the associated improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, nor is it likely to unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat as all potential impacts have been analyzed through the initial study prepared for the project and addressed through mitigation measures placed on the project as conditions of approval; and

5. The design of the subdivision and the associated improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems due to the fact that this project will be required to construct all of the necessary improvements needed to ensure a safe and healthy development, including all Federal, State, and local regulations; and

6. The site is physically suitable for the type and the density of development proposed, in that it complies with the density specified in the General Plan land use designation for Special Planning Area “L”, the General Plan density transition policy, and the development standards approved for Planning Area 16 of the Planned Development 26 Zone; and

7. The design of the subdivision and the associated improvements will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision as no such easements have been accepted by the County of Contra Costa nor the City of Brentwood.

D. The City Council hereby approves Tentative Subdivision Map No. 8446 subject to the conditions of approval listed in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and made a part of this resolution, and all City standards applicable to this project.

PASSED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at its regular meeting of April 10, 2007, by the following vote:


EXHIBIT “A” TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP NO. 8446

1. All applicable Standard Conditions of Approval for Tentative Subdivision Maps, dated May 2005, are hereby incorporated by reference and shall be complied with by the developer, unless modified by any of the conditions below.

2. The Final Map shall be in substantial compliance with the Tentative Subdivision Map 8446, prepared by Benchmark Consultants, dated “Received March 23, 2006,”unless otherwise amended by the conditions of approval contained herein.

3. The developer shall correct the wording on the map to read “Tentative Subdivision Map” instead of “Tentative Minor Subdivision”, “Planning Area 16 – PD-26”, and replace the Assessor’s Parcel Number with the correct number, 017-080-007, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department and submit this revised map for the City’s documentation within 30 days of project approval and prior to final map approval.

4. Developer shall either (a) construct all improvements prior to the approval of the final map to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works or (b) enter into a subdivision improvement agreement and post the necessary security to construct the improvements to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer concurrent with final map approval. Improvements shall include but are not limited to pavement, gate, curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscape, sound wall, irrigation, utilities, signing, conduit, street lights striping and marking as described in these conditions. In any case, these improvements shall be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit for any residential unit within this subdivision.

5. The developer shall design storm water bio-filtration areas to meet the C3 requirements of the NPDES Permit in accordance with the project Storm Water Control Plan and the Contra Costa County Cleanwater Program Guidebook to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. Such improvements shall be constructed by the developer to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer the timing of which shall be as provided in Condition of Approval No. 4.

6. Developer shall be responsible for mitigating the natural run-off from adjoining upstream lots to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer to ensure that no water pooling will occur on adjacent properties, the timing of which shall be as provided in Condition of Approval No. 4.

7. The access to the subdivision from Minnesota Avenue shall be right-in and right-out only. The adjacent developer of Subdivision 8311 will construct a raised median along their frontage as well as along the frontage of this development. This development shall not be permitted to cut an opening in the raised median of Minnesota Avenue for access to the subdivision.

8. Developer shall install a catch basin on Minnesota Avenue north of the proposed private street and tie in to the City storm drain to drain run-off from the public right-of-way to satisfaction of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer the timing of which shall be as provided in Condition of Approval No. 4.

9. Developer shall construct a soundwall consistent with Carmel Estates Subdivision 8311, which includes the installation of a 7 to 8 foot berm/soundwall along the properties abutting Minnesota Avenue with 6 foot returns as well as mechanical ventilation systems that would allow windows to remain closed at the resident’s option for multi-story homes constructed along Minnesota to the approval of the Community Development Department the timing of which shall be as provided in Condition of Approval No. 4.

10. The design of all soundwalls shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to installation and shall be hand-laid block masonry design along Minnesota Avenue and either hand-laid block or other acceptable material for the return walls to match the Carmel Estates design. All returns shall extend the full length of any affected lot to the approval of the Community Development Department.

11. Developer shall pay its fair share for roadway and utility improvements previously installed or to be installed by Subdivision 8311 along the Minnesota Avenue project frontage as per the City’s Development Fee Program prior to final map approval to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer.

12. Developer shall design and construct remaining improvements to Minnesota Avenue along the project frontage the timing of which shall be as provided in Condition of Approval No. 4 to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Parks and Recreation Director. The improvements shall include but are not limited to soundwall, sidewalk, utilities, 20’ parkway, landscape, irrigation, signing, marking and striping.

13. Developer shall dedicate additional right-of-way for Minnesota Avenue along the project frontage to construct a 20 foot landscape parkway behind the face of curb to match with Subdivision 8311 on the north at no cost to the City, prior to approval of the final map.

14. Developer shall have the private roadway designed as per City standards and of minimum 28 feet roadway pavement with parking on one side, standard curb and gutter (no rolled curb) and a 5 foot wide monolithic sidewalk on the south side of the private street up to the driveway of Lot # 4 to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer prior to final map approval. The improvements shall be constructed as provided in Condition of Approval No. 4.

15. Developer shall be responsible for coordinating the retaining wall along the boundary of the project with adjacent property owners for the height of the retaining wall and fence and/or wall to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer.

16. The median planter at the entry way of the private roadway shall be moved out of the public right-of-way to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer prior to final map approval. In addition, adequate distance and adjustment to the entrance median and access point must be provided in front of the gate for a vehicle to turn back safely to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer prior to final map approval. Minor adjustments to the lot lines shall be made to accommodate this condition and shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer and Community Development Director for review and approval prior to final map approval.

17. Developer shall establish easements for access, parking, emergency vehicle access, and public utilities over the private roadway for the benefit of the City and all lot owners on the final map to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer.

18. Water meters for each lot shall be placed at accessible locations along the adjacent private roadway to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer.

19. Developer shall form or annex into the most current street lighting and landscape maintenance assessment district for maintenance of all public street lights and landscaping within or adjacent to the project prior to final map approval to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer.

20. Developer shall form or annex into the most current City of Brentwood Community Facilities District to fund fire, emergency medical and public safety personnel, open space maintenance and operations, and flood and storm drain services prior to final map approval to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer.

21. Developer shall install all signs and pavement markings including lane lines, legends, limit lines, etc., to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer, and consistent with the Traffic Division Guidelines for preparation of Effective Signing and Striping Plans for Residential Development the timing of which shall be as provided in Condition of Approval No. 4.

22. All gates to the project shall be equipped with Opticom control devices at the time of installation to provide access for emergency vehicles as required by the City and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer.

23. Developer shall conduct a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment by a qualified professional which shall include test borings on the project site to determine if there are any contaminants in the soil or groundwater due to pesticides, lead, asbestos or petroleum/fuel products prior to final map approval to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. Test borings completed shall follow normal chain-of-command protocol to ensure accuracy. Any hazardous materials or contaminants identified on the site shall be remediated at the developer’s expense to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer prior to final map approval.

24. Developer shall establish utility easements for water and sewer mains and landscape irrigation and maintenance throughout the project site to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer. These easements shall be recorded in a manner satisfactory to the Director of Public Works/City Engineer prior to the recordation of a final map for this project.

25. In accordance with the Residential Growth Management Program allocation approved for this project, the subdivision shall adhere to all improvements as identified on the final RGMP score sheet to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Director of Community Development prior to final map approval. These include the provision of $63,000 of infrastructure improvements, $42,000 of infrastructure improvements which shall not be reimbursed and a contribution of $39,900 to the City of Brentwood’s PEC (Planned Employment Center) fund.

26. The Developer shall submit a comprehensive fencing plan for the review and approval of the Community Development Director prior to issuance of any building permit. The design of the fences shall be approved by the Community Development Director. Fences shall be constructed prior to final occupancy on any lot.

27. Each individual lot owner or their representative shall submit a design review application for individual residential design review in accordance with Chapter 17.820 Design and Site Development Review of the City of Brentwood Municipal Code. Additionally, the applicable application fees shall be paid at the time of each design review submittal. The applicable building permit and associated fees shall be paid at the time of building permit issuance.

28. No two lots within this subdivision map shall be plotted with the same home design, as this project is proposed as a custom home tract.

29. The developer shall work with the Housing Division of the Community Development Department to satisfy their requirement to provide one housing unit at an affordable level or an approved alternative. An affordable housing agreement shall be approved by the City Council to approval of the final map.

30. All existing on-site structures shall be demolished and removed prior to final map approval. Demolition permits shall be obtained from the Community Development Department prior to removal of any existing structure from the project site. In conjunction with any demolition permit, all hazardous material including asbestos shall be removed from the project site. Removal shall be conducted in accordance with all local, State, and Federal regulations. The removal and disposal of hazardous materials shall be monitored by the Community Development Department and Public Works Department and the developer shall provide written verification that the hazardous material has been remediated prior to final demolition permit inspection.

31. The final map shall reflect Lots 1 through 4 with a minimum of 20,000 square feet gross areas in accordance with the City’s General Plan density transition policy. Minor changes to the lot line configuration shall be permitted, if needed, to accommodate this requirement.

32. The developer shall notify all purchasers of lots, either through the Department of Real Estate Subdivision Report or, if there is no Subdivision Report, through a written statement signed by each buyer and submitted to the City, of the following circumstances:

a. That the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks lie east of the project site and that over time, these facilities may see a substantial increase in daily train traffic volumes.

b. The presence of petroleum pipelines located within the UPRR right-of-way east of the project site.

c. The presence of Bristow Middle School and the likelihood of periodic events or activities that may generate glare, noise, and increased traffic volumes affecting the project site.

d. That Minnesota Avenue shall be widened resulting in potential increased traffic volumes over time.

e. That the Minnesota Avenue access is right-in/right-out only.

f. That St. James Court is a private street with all maintenance responsibilities to be shared among the respective property owners.

g. That adjacent properties may have large animals (horses, cows, etc.).

The above disclosure statements shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval prior to approval of the final map.

33. The project developer shall submit project CC&Rs for review with the improvement plan that create a homeowners association/ property owners association for the project to provide maintenance of common improvements within the project. A plan clearly showing these areas of association-maintained facilities shall be submitted for review by the Community Development Director and Director of Public Works/City Engineer prior to approval of the final map. The CC&Rs shall be submitted for review and approval to the City Attorney and the City shall be granted the rights and remedies of the association, but not the obligation, to enforce the maintenance responsibilities of the association. The CC&Rs shall also prohibit the property owners of the lots from modifying the front yards in such a manner that will disturb the functionality of the bioswales. These CC&Rs shall be recorded with the final map for the project.

34. Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant/developer shall remove all hogs/pigs from the property and shall not permit the reinstatement of any hogs/pigs upon any lot to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.

The following are mitigation measures identified within the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for this project and as such cannot be changed or altered unless they are replaced with equal or more effective measures pursuant to Section 15074.1 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. These following mitigation measures are included as conditions of project approval:

35. In conjunction with development of the proposed project, the Applicant/Developer shall shield all on-site lighting so that it is directed within the project site and does not illuminate adjacent properties or public rights-of-way. The project site shall be illuminated between the range of 0.5 to 7 foot candles. A Lighting Plan shall be approved by the Public Works Department in conjunction with approval of improvement plans. The shielded light fixtures and photometrics shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department in conjunction with the approval of improvement plans.

36. At the time of grading permit, the Applicant/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 developer shall pay the current City fee of $5,618 per acre of lost farmland, or the fee in effect at the time of grading permit issuance.

37. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant/Developer shall prepare an Erosion Prevention and Dust Control Plan. The plan shall be followed by the project’s grading contractor and submitted to the Public Works Department, which will be responsible for field verification of the plan during construction. The plan shall comply with the City’s grading ordinance and shall include the following control measures and other measures as determined by the Public Works 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 time daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved parking areas and staging areas;
• Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved parking areas and staging areas;
• Provide daily clean-up of mud and dirt carried onto paved streets from the site.
• Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.);
• Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph;
• Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways;
• Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
• Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site;
• Install wind breaks, or plant trees/vegetative wind breaks at windward side(s) or construction areas;
• Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts exceed 25 mph;
• Limit the area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity at any one time;
• Unnecessary idling of construction equipment shall be avoided;
• Equipment engines shall be maintained in proper working condition per manufacturers’ specifications;
• During periods of heavier air pollution (May to October), the construction period shall be lengthened to minimize the amount of equipment operating at one time;
• Where feasible, the construction equipment shall use cleaner fuels, add-on control devices and conversion to cleaner engines.

38. In order to avoid impacts to passerine birds protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or the California Fish and Game Code, the developer shall have a nesting bird survey conducted by a qualified professional prior to any tree removal if the trees are to be removed during the nesting season (March 1 through August 1) to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. If a preconstruction nesting survey is conducted and nesting birds are identified during the survey, the nesting tree/shrub shall be avoided until the birds have finished nesting. An appropriate, fenced, non-disturbance buffer would have to be established around the next tree by a qualified ornithologist. Once the birds are finished nesting, the buffer fence could be removed and the tree/shrub taken out without further regard for the nest site. Trees can be removed without a nesting bird survey outside of the nesting season (March 1 through August 1).

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

40. Prior to issuance of grading/improvement permits, the applicant/developer shall submit, for review and approval of the Community Development Department, plans which indicate (via notation on the improvement plans) that if human remains are encountered during grading or other site work, all such work shall be halted immediately within the area of discovery and the project contractor shall immediately notify the Contra Costa County Coroner. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. Construction may resume after the remains have been appropriately transported off of the site.

41. 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.

42. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer 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 plans, a revised plan shall be provided for review and approval by the City Engineer.

43. 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.

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

45. 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 Public Works Department prior to commencement of grading.

46. The applicant/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.

47. Prior to the issuance of any permit and/or any demolition of any structures on the project site, the developer shall conduct an Asbestos Containing Material Inspection by a qualified professional for review and approval by the Community Development Director. All recommendations contained in the report shall be complied with by the developer to the approval of the Community Development Director prior to any permit issuance, including but not limited to grading and demolition.

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

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

50. 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 and Water Conservation Districts prior to the issuance of grading permits.

51. Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Drainage fees for the Drainage Area shall be paid prior to filing of the Final Map.

52. The construction plans shall indicate roof drains emptying into a pipe leading out to the street for the review and approval of the Chief Building Official prior to the issuance of building permits.

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

54. The Applicant/Developer shall ensure that each lot or parcel shall drain into a street, public drain, or approved private drain, in such a manner that undrained depression shall not occur. Satisfaction of this measure shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer.

55. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7am-to-7pm on weekdays and 9am-to-5pm on Saturdays. Construction shall be prohibited on Sundays and City holidays. These criteria shall be included in the grading plan submitted by the Applicant/Developer for review and approval by the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of grading permits. Exceptions to allow expanded construction activities shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis as determined by the Chief Building Official.

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

57. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant/Developer shall participate in the City of Brentwood Capital Improvement Financing Program.

58. The Police Department shall review the design plans for this project prior to the issuance of building permits in order to ensure that the site plan incorporates appropriate crime prevention features.

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

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

61. Prior to approval of the improvement plans, the Applicant/Developer shall provide the number and type of hydrants called for by EDFPD. Hydrant locations shall be determined by the EDFPD prior to issuance of encroachment and/or building permits.

62. Prior to commencing construction, the Applicant/Developer shall provide access roadways having all-weather driving surfaces of not less than 20', unobstructed width, and not less than 13'6" of vertical clearance, to within 150 feet of travel distance to all portions of the exterior walls of every building. Access roads shall not exceed 16% grade, shall have a minimum outside turning radius of 42 feet, and must be capable of supporting imposed loads of fire apparatus (20 tons). The City Engineer shall ensure compliance.

63. Prior to issuance of encroachment and/or building permits for improvements, the Applicant/Developer shall submit plans and specifications to the EDFPD and the City Engineer for review and approval in accordance with codes, regulations, and ordinances administered by the EDFPD and the State Fire Marshal’s office.
64. The Applicant/Developer shall pay applicable thoroughfare facility fees (plus any annual increase) in effect at the time of building permit issuance and shall participate in the City’s Capital Improvement Financing Plan (CIFP) to finance necessary roadway infrastructure. In addition, this specific project may be conditioned to pay their fair share of other off-site improvements that are outside the parameters of the CIP.


 

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