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. 24



Meeting Date: June 12, 2007

Subject/Title: Adopt a resolution adopting the Negative Declaration and adopting the 2007/08-2011/12 Capital Improvement Program

Prepared by: Kerry Breen, Business Services Manager

Submitted by: Pamela Ehler, Director of Finance and Information Systems


RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution adopting the Negative Declaration and adopting the 2007/08-2011/12 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the City of Brentwood including roadway, park, sewer, water and other municipal improvements to be constructed during the next five years.

PREVIOUS ACTION
On July 26, 1994, the City Council approved the first five-year CIP. The CIP budget was added to the City’s adopted 1994/95 budget. The City Council also authorized the creation of the CIP Team to plan, design and administer the projects outlined in the CIP report. The CIP Team is also responsible for updating the CIP report and preparing the report annually. The attached CIP report represents the efforts of the CIP Team to present the City Council with the next year’s update.

On April 24, 2007, the City Council held a workshop on the proposed CIP report. As a result of this workshop, the following changes were made to the 2007/08-2011/12 CIP:

Roadway Improvements:

American Avenue Improvements – The Review and Comment section was modified in order to more accurately define the funded and unfunded portions of the project.
Pavement Management Program – The Measure C funding was increased by $2,033,525, and the funding from the General Fund decreased by $2,033,525, to reflect the full allotment the City receives from the Measure C program.

Parks and Recreation Improvements:

Sunset Park Improvements – Staff has determined this project will be completed by June 30, 2006. Therefore, this project was removed from the 2007/08 – 2011/12 CIP.

Water Improvements

Downtown Infrastructure – The Review and Comments section was updated to reflect the Water Fund contributing in FY 2007/08, instead of FY 2008/09, and the Wastewater Fund contributing in FY 2008/09, instead of FY 2007/08.




Community Facilities Improvements:

Bus Barn Relocation – As a part of the City’s due diligence for the City Hall project, City staff, along with the City Hall architects, looked at every cost savings opportunity including alternative locations for the Civic Center project on property currently owned by the City. Based on the findings, Council elected not to use the school properties being considered for the Civic Center and will be researching options using only property owned by the City. Therefore, this project is no longer required and was removed from the 2007/08 2011/12 CIP.
Fire Station #54 (Replace DT) – Initially this project was to be funded by Fire Fees. However, since this project is replacing an existing fire station, it is no longer eligible for funding from Fire Fees. Therefore, the project now shows $4,250,000, of the $4,500,000 total project cost, as unfunded.
LUHSD Pool Relocation – As a part of the City’s due diligence for the City Hall project, City staff, along with the City Hall architects, looked at every cost savings opportunity including alternative locations for the Civic Center project on property currently owned by the City. Based on the findings, Council elected not to use the school properties being considered for the Civic Center and will be researching options using only property owned by the City. Therefore, this project is no longer required and was removed from the 2007/08 2011/12 CIP.
LUHSD Tennis Court Relocation – As a part of the City’s due diligence for the City Hall project, City staff, along with the City Hall architects, looked at every cost savings opportunity including alternative locations for the Civic Center project on property currently owned by the City. Based on the findings, Council elected not to use the school properties being considered for the Civic Center and will be researching options using only property owned by the City. Therefore, this project is no longer required and was removed from the 2007/08 2011/12 CIP.

Drainage Improvements:

Storm Drain Improvements – The $100,000 in FY 2007/08 was moved from Storm Drainage Fees to Unfunded.

Additionally, changes were made to the Facility Fees, pages 37 to 40. These changes consist of the following:

 CIP and Park Planning Administration have been modified.
 Interest assumptions have been modified.
 Debt service for the Randall Bold Water Treatment Plant has been adjusted to reflect current bond rates.

On May 22, 2007, the City Council approved the report and referred it to the Planning Commission for a consideration of conformance to the City’s General Plan.

On June 5, 2007, the Planning Commission found the 2007/08-2011/12 CIP to be consistent with the City of Brentwood General Plan and recommended that the City Council certify the Negative Declaration. A draft of the June 5th Planning Commission minutes are attached.

The CIP is too large to include as an attachment to this document. Therefore, copies of the CIP are available for public review in the following locations: City Hall lobby, Engineering lobby, Community Development lobby, Parks and Recreation lobby and at the Brentwood library.
BACKGROUND
Adoption of the 2007/08-2011/12 CIP will continue the five-year Capital Improvement Program for City projects. An annual update will take place in 2008 and every subsequent year. The preparation of this annual budget assists staff in determining and updating the development fee program which finances the majority of these projects.

A Negative Declaration has been prepared to address the potential environmental effects of the CIP. The Negative Declaration finds that no significant adverse impacts would result should this program be adopted. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council certify the Negative Declaration and file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk.

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal year 2007/08 costs from various non-General Fund sources are noted in the CIP. Future year costs and revenues will be reviewed every year by the City Council as a part of the annual update and adoption of a new five-year CIP.


Attachments:
Resolution
Draft of the June 5th Planning Commission Minutes
Initial Study and Negative Declaration dated May 2007
Notice of Determination

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPTING THE 2007/08 – 2011/12 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) FOR THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD INCLUDING ROADWAY, PARK, SEWER, WATER AND OTHER MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED DURING THE NEXT FIVE YEARS


WHEREAS, Section 65400 et. seq., of the Government Code of the State of California requires that cities should provide for means of implementing the General Plan and the efficient expenditure of public funds relating to the implementation of public projects addressed in the General Plan; and

WHEREAS, the City of Brentwood adopted a new General Plan in June, 1993, and an Updated General Plan in November, 2001, which recommended that a comprehensive Capital Improvement Program (CIP) be developed for the City of Brentwood; and

WHEREAS, the City of Brentwood adopted the first Capital Improvement Program in July, 1994; and

WHEREAS, this CIP has as its purpose to integrate the CIP with the General Plan and other City activities, ensure that planning for Capital Improvements is tied to realistic sources of income in order to finance these improvements; and

WHEREAS, the five-year CIP must be developed and adopted in conjunction with each new City budget; and

WHEREAS, it is necessary to define improvements and anticipated construction schedules to ensure proper pre-planning, design and community review before construction begins; and

WHEREAS, based upon completion of an Initial Study prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, approval of the CIP will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the environment, therefore a Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for public comment; and

WHEREAS, on June 5, 2007, the Planning Commission found the 2007/08 – 2011/12 Capital Improvement Program to be consistent with the General Plan and recommended that the City Council certify the Negative Declaration.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood hereby finds that there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record that the 2007/08 – 2011/12 CIP, as revised from previous CIP’s, may have a significant effect on the environment; therefore:

1. The City Council adopts the Negative Declaration; and

2. The City Council of the City of Brentwood hereby adopts the 2007/08 – 2011/12 Capital Improvement Program as presented; and
3. A Notice of Determination shall be filed with the County Clerk by the City Clerk.


PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of June 2007 by the following vote:






CITY OF BRENTWOOD
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES



JUNE 5, 2007
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 PM

Don Stirling, Vice Chairman Julie Gildersleeve, Commissioner
David Bristow, Commissioner Joseph Weber, Commissioner
Jim Cushing, Chairman

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES EXCERPT
– ITEM 4 –
CITY OF BRENTWOOD
JUNE 5, 2007

4. Approved a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood recommending adoption of the negative declaration and finding that the proposed 2007/08-2011/12 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is consistent with the adopted general plan and specific plans of the City of Brentwood as required by sections 65402 and 65403 of the government code. Applicant: City of Brentwood. File No.: CIP 2007-08 - 2011-12. Planner: Heidi Kline.

Planning Manager Heidi Kline gave a brief overview of the staff report. She noted a couple of comments and questions that have been raised by members of the Commission. She stated that the Commission’s focus would be to take a look at the General Plan and determine indeed that the CIP program is consistent with the General Plan. She pointed out that Paul Eldredge, the City’s Assistant Engineer, Pat Meyer from the City’s Finance Department, and Felix Errico from the City’s Park and Recreation Department were available to answer any questions that the Commission may have. Kline assured the Commission that the City staff was diligent in checking and putting forth CIP Program items that it believed were consistent with the General Plan.

Chairman Cushing gave a brief summary of Government Sections 65402 and 65403.

Commissioner Stirling asked Planning Manager Kline if the Commission could make recommendations to the City Council for any potential changes.

Assistant City Attorney Karen Murphy explained that the Commission’s responsibility would be to find that the CIP Program was consistent with the General Plan, however staff would take note of any comments and present those comments to the City Council in the form of a staff report.

Commissioner Bristow asked if the dollars noted in the CIP Program have been funded or if they are just estimates at this time. He asked about the ergonomic chair replacement program on page 275, as an example.

Paul Eldredge, the Assistant City Engineer, stated that the funds noted in the CIP Program for the ergonomic chair replacement program were currently funded from the General Plan in the specific years as shown.

Commissioner Bristow asked if these numbers could change.

Assistant City Engineer Eldredge stated that a lot of these numbers are based on their best estimates, as the projects have not been started yet. He stated that this program is updated and revised every year and that this program is a "look-ahead" of the next 5 years. He said that new information is incorporated into the next budget cycle. If the need is more pressing, then a particular budget item may be brought to the attention of the Council in order to amend the budget sheet, if the numbers change for any reason.

Commissioner Bristow wanted to make sure that these numbers, using the swimming pool and tennis courts relocations as examples, were not set in stone and would change as negotiations are made.

Assistant City Engineer Eldredge agreed that those numbers were placeholders for the time being and based on estimates of what the City thinks those improvements would cost at the time that the City constructs them.

Commissioner Weber acknowledged the City of Brentwood for the CIP report. He found that the corresponding maps that go with each project site to be very helpful in allowing the reader to visualize where the location is. He also wanted to point out the recognition of the Municipal Finance Officers Excellence in Capital Budgeting for the past fiscal year for the City, as noted on page 18, and stated that he had peace of mind that the City was operating very well. He asked about the fuel dispensing system that was budgeted for 2007/08 and 2009/10. He wanted to know which of the two facilities that the City was planning to go first with.

Assistant City Engineer Eldredge stated that the fuel dispensing station at the Corporation Yard was slated to go first. He talked about the advantage of having fuel stations at every location, but because of the stringent regulations, as well as the reporting and state inspections that are required, the City hasn’t decided yet whether it would be more advantageous to have one large fueling station as opposed to having two at different locations. He said that it was not decided yet whether there would be multiple fueling stations at this time.

Commissioner Weber said that the City would incur great cost savings by dispensing their own fuel. He asked about the Fire station No. 53 item on page 281. He said that there had been a lot of press about the support for the fire department for East County. He recommended that Fire station No. 53 be funded prior to, or ahead of the schedule as indicated in the CIP program. He asked for comments from Assistant City Engineer Eldredge.

Mr. Eldredge talked about the current schedule and stated the City is at 95% on the plan set. He talked about the Constructability Review that is currently being done and stated that, most likely at the beginning of the next fiscal year, the project would be put out to bid and construction of the facility would be started. He stated that the fire station was one of the City’s main priorities for the upcoming fiscal year to make sure that the fire station is constructed and on line.

Chairman Cushing stated that his main concern was of the City’s consistency as it relates to acquisition and improvements that are done outside the City’s limits. His understanding was that the funds represented in the CIP document were best "guestimates" and that there would be adequate time going forward for the Council and Planning Commission to resolve and look at all of the Engineering issues, concerns and economic influences that may take place throughout the City. Chairman Cushing agreed with Commissioner Weber that the Fire station No. 53 project was a priority. He thought that the CIP program was a very aggressive document which outlines a tremendous amount of improvements that need to take place.

Commissioner Stirling stated that the CIP program was a great tool. He thought that the traffic signal at Second Street and Pine Street, in front of Liberty High School, was a critical project and was glad that the project was included in the program. He thought that the Brentwood Boulevard Widening - South project should be mandatory, as opposed to being prioritized as "to be necessary". He thought that it was important for the roadway to be widened because of the upcoming growth in that area of the City. He was aware of the substantial costs, but thought that the City should move forward with the widening of the entire Brentwood Boulevard. He also talked about the trail improvement in the area where Marsh Creek crosses Brentwood Boulevard. He thought that a better connection should be made to eliminate the confusion that currently exists where the trail crosses Brentwood Boulevard.

Commissioner Bristow agreed with Commissioner Stirling that the CIP program contained many great projects, however did not agree with some of them personally. He thought that the CIP Program was a great document to have for future reference. He had no issues with the adoption of the Negative Declaration.

Commissioner Gildersleeve stated that she had met with Assistant City Engineer Eldredge and all of her questions had been answered at that time.

Chairman Cushing talked about the need for shade and park improvements. He thought that the CIP Program was a phenomenal document and was very well done. He could not find anything in the program that did not support the General Plan.

Commissioner Gildersleeve agreed that the need for shade structures was a very important issue that needed to be addressed. She stated that the Planning Commission discusses the shade issue when reviewing new developments and thought that shade needs to be more focused on when looking at the City parks.

Motion to Close Public Hearing.
Moved by Weber; seconded by Stirling.
Vote: 5-0
Yes: Cushing, Stirling, Bristow, Gildersleeve, and Weber.

Public Hearing Closed.

Planning Commissioner Stirling noted that the Planning Commission commented on the need for more shade for the preceding year's CIP program and agreed that it was important.

Planning Manager Heidi Kline read back a summary of the comments that were shared by the Planning Commission. She mentioned the widening of Brentwood Boulevard South.

Planning Commissioner Stirling commented that the widening of Brentwood Boulevard South should be noted to be just as important as it is to the North.

Planning Manager Kline read back the Marsh Creek trail crossing at Brentwood Boulevard.

Chairman Cushing talked about the John Muir Parkway extension on page 95. He thought that the improvements seemed extensive, as the property would end up with very little useful life. He asked about the lighted intersection that was to go in across from Heritage High School and thought that the improvement of the trails was important and would be a tremendous benefit.

To obtain clarification on the lighted intersection that Chairman Cushing spoke of, Commissioner Bristow stated that Guthrie Lane was not close to Heritage High School.

Commissioner Stirling clarified that Chairman Cushing was speaking of the lighted intersection in front of Harvest Park Center.

Chairman Cushing agreed that he meant to say the lighted intersection in front of Harvest Park Center. He didn't understand why a lighted intersection was needed in this area.

Commissioner Stirling stated that future community growth and development would occur to the east of that intersection.

Planning Manager Kline stated that the future La Paloma School, the Police Department, the school site and the business designation in the back would benefit from the lighted intersection.

Commissioner Stirling asked Ms. Kline to also make mention of the need for more shade.

Commissioner Gildersleeve agreed with Commissioner Stirling that the widening of Brentwood Boulevard South was equally important as the northern portion of Brentwood Boulevard.

Motion to Approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 07-043 of the City of Brentwood recommending adoption of the negative declaration and finding that the proposed 2007/08-2011/12 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is consistent with the adopted general plan and specific plans of the City of Brentwood as required by sections 65402 and 65403 of the government code.
Moved by Bristow; seconded by Stirling.
Vote: 5-0
Yes: Cushing, Stirling, Bristow, Gildersleeve, and Weber.


















City of Brentwood
Capital Improvement Program Budget
2007/08-2011/12


NEGATIVE DECLARATION



May 2007



INITIAL STUDY

May 2007


BACKGROUND

1. Project Title: City of Brentwood Capital Improvement Program Budget 2007/08-2011/12

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Brentwood
150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Marna Huber
Management Analyst
City of Brentwood
(925) 516-5162

4. Project Location: City-wide, City of Brentwood
Contra Costa County

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

6. General Plan Designation: City-wide applicability

7. Existing Zoning: City-wide applicability

8. Proposed Zoning: City-wide applicability

9. Other public agency required approvals:

Additional permits may be required from Federal, State, County and other agencies and organizations, depending on the type and location of an individual project included as part of the CIP

10. Project Description Summary:

The proposed project is the City’s Capital Improvement Program Budget (CIP) for fiscal years 2007/08 to 2011/12, which identifies proposed capital improvements and preliminary budgets for projects throughout the City over a five-year period. Capital improvements include a range of public works and infrastructure projects to improve the quality of life for local residents and visitors. Proposed projects include: Roadway, parks and trails, water, wastewater, drainage and community facility improvements, plus development-funded improvements throughout the City of Brentwood.

SOURCES

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

1. City of Brentwood General Plan Updated, City of Brentwood, May 2005.
2. City of Brentwood General Plan EIR, City of Brentwood, November 2001.
3. Contra Costa County General Plan EIR, County of Contra Costa, July 1996.

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Less-Than-Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” 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

Marna Huber 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 is 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 resulting from 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 City will adopt findings and a Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program for the project in conjunction with its approval of the CIP.

The environmental setting and impact discussion for each section of this Initial Study have been largely based on information in the Brentwood General Plan EIR document.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed project site is the City of Brentwood Planning area that is located in the eastern portion of Contra Costa County. The Brentwood planning area includes approximately 30 square miles bounded by the City of Antioch to the west and northwest, the City of Oakley to the north and unincorporated Contra Costa County agricultural lands to the south and east (See Figure 1: Regional Location Map)

The Capital Improvement Program consists of a list of proposed major capital improvements for consideration in the City of Brentwood Budget. Because capital improvements could take up to several years to plan, design, finance, and complete, the CIP is created as a five-year program.

Projects Managers and the CIP Executive Committee, consisting of the City Manager, the City Engineer, and the Director of Finance, are responsible for overseeing the Capital Improvement Program. The projects are prioritized and funding is distributed. Any remaining projects are designated as unfunded. All projects are included in the CIP and recommended for approval by the City Council. City Council and citizens proceed to review the proposed CIP Budget via a CIP Workshop. Furthermore, the Planning Commission reviews the CIP document for determination of General Plan conformance and the draft document is presented to the City Council and public review prior to the City Council’s final approval.

The CIP Executive Committee manages the CIP on an ongoing basis throughout the fiscal year, by providing reports to the Council, evaluating new opportunities and resolving issues.

The CIP contains individual projects within the following general categories:

Roadway Improvements, including purchase of land for new roads and improvements to existing roads, such as road widenings, construction and/or realignment of roads, installation of and/or upgrades to traffic signals, sidewalk replacement, acoustic wall construction, repaving and overlay of streets, roadway grade crossings, bridge crossings over creeks and related actions, including traffic calming. Major roadway improvements envisioned in the CIP include, but are not limited to the widening of American Avenue, the extension of John Muir Parkway, Brentwood Boulevard widening, and the Lone Tree Way widening and undercrossing. (See Table 1 for a complete listing of Roadway Improvement projects)

Parks and Trail Improvements, including purchase of land for new parks, development of new parks and improvements to existing parks, public art programs, creek enhancements and development of recreational trails within the community. A number of these proposed improvements include, but are not limited to, City Park Redesign, Summerset Park, Sand Creek Park Soccer Complex, John Marsh Home Rehabilitation, a senior adult education center, a joint-use gymnasium, Senior Adult Education Center, and similar facilities. (See Table 1 for a complete listing of Parks and Trails Improvement projects).

Water Improvements, including purchase of land for new and upgraded water lines, construction and upgrading of water reservoirs, water well upgrading, a well monitoring program, a surface water treatment facility, rehabilitation of existing water lines, water treatment facilities, and similar facilities intended to improve the delivery of water and water pressure and to ensure drinking water quality standards continue to be achieved. Specific major water projects include a new surface water treatment facility, construction of Well #15, Downtown Infrastructure, and Brentwood Boulevard Sewer and Water Main. (See Table 1 for a complete listing of Water Improvement projects).

Wastewater Improvements, including new and upgraded sewer collectors, development of a recycled water program to reduce the need for potable water, and expansions and upgrades of the City’s wastewater treatment plant. (See Table 1 for a complete listing of wastewater improvement projects).

Community Facilities Improvements, including new and upgraded public buildings and City facilities, such as a Civic Center Plaza, a new City Hall, a downtown parking structure, two new fire stations, improvements to City’s solid waste transfer station, upgrades to the City’s information technology, a new Community Center and upgrades to Maintenance Service Center and similar facilities. (See Table 1 for a complete listing of Community Facilities Improvement projects).

Drainage Improvements, including a program to mitigate agricultural water runoff, Harvest Park Basin and Storm Drain Improvements. (See Table 1 for a complete listing of Drainage Improvement projects).

Development Improvements consist primarily of road, water, sewer and drainage and similar improvements that are anticipated to be made by private developers and dedicated to the City. (See Table 1 for a complete listing of Development Improvement projects).

Table 1 presents a summary of the City’s proposed projects by CIP category. The City staff and Brentwood City Council shall review the proposed list of projects. Although changes to the list of projects may occur, the projects listed are considered to commence within the five-year timeframe. A more complete description of these proposed projects are available at the City of Brentwood Public Works Department, 120 Oak Street, Brentwood, during normal business hours.

The Council approval of the five-year CIP does not constitute an appropriation of funds to the specific project(s). Projects are funded as a result of budget approval or specific allocation of funds by the City Council. In addition, some projects may proceed as a result of grant approval of funding from other sources (development, county, state, or federal).

As the City obtains more specific information through specific design processes and individual project initiation, additional environmental reviews, if required, would occur for each individual project contained within the CIP.

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.

Less-Than-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: Regional Location Map


























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

I. AESTHETICS.
Would the project:





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





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





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





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





Discussion

a,b,c. The development of 2007/8-2011/12 CIP projects would include roadway improvements, parks, and trails that increase access to scenic vistas. Proposed infrastructure improvements to water and wastewater projects would typically affect underground facilities and not impact scenic resources. Proposed projects, including construction of above ground facilities, would be subject to further environmental review. In addition, major community facilities, such as, a new City Hall, fire stations, community center, and downtown parking structures would be subject to design reviews approved by the Brentwood Planning Commission. Therefore, the impact would be less-than-significant to aesthetics.

d. Projects including minor additions to existing facilities or underground utility lines would cause minimal increase to light and glare. However, future CIP projects including new sources of light and glare and potential impacts to surroundings properties would be subject to specific project related mitigation measures. Therefore, the increase in light and glare would be considered a less-than-significant impact.




Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Less-Than-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,b,c. The proposed 2007/08-2011/12 CIP includes several projects that would result in little or no impact to the loss of prime farmland, conflicts with agricultural zoning, or convert farmland to a non-agricultural use. However, major facilities and improvements, including the proposed City Hall, fire stations, community center, parks, and roads, could convert existing prime, unique, or statewide importance farmland to non-agricultural uses. Urbanization of prime agricultural soils is considered a significant and irreversible impact in the General Plan EIR and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted as part of the Certification of the 1993 General Plan EIR. Projects potentially impacting farmland are subject to the City’s Agricultural Enterprise Program and would require additional environmental review and specific project mitigation. Therefore, loss of prime farmlands, conflicts with agricultural zoning, and conversion of prime farmland to non-agricultural use would be a less-than-significant impact.



Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Less-Than-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. The City of Brentwood is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, which is a state and federal “non-attainment” area for ozone and a state “non-attainment” area for particulate matter with less than a 10-micron diameter (PM10). The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), has recently prepared the 2005 Ozone Strategy. The plan is a guide for the San Francisco Bay Area to achieve compliance with the State one-hour air quality standard for ozone and reduce transport of ozone and ozone precursors to neighboring air basins. Although the California Clean Air Act does not require the region to submit a plan for achieving the State PM10 standard, the Ozone Strategy would reduce PM10 emissions. The current plans for achieving ozone attainment standards consists of the Revised San Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan for the 1-Hour National Ozone Standard (in compliance with the Federal Clean Air Act) and the Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Plan (in compliance with state law). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently revoked the 1-hour federal ozone standard; however, the region is designated nonattainment for the new 8-hour standard that replaced the older one-hour standard. Until the region either adopts an approved attainment plan or attains the standard with a maintenance plan, the Revised San Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan for the 1-Hour National Ozone Standard remains as the current federally approved plan. The plans contain mobile source controls, stationary source controls and transportation control measures (TCMs) to be implemented in the region to attain the State and Federal ozone standards within the Bay Area Air Basin. The plans are based on population, employment projections provided by local governments, usually developed as part of the General Plan update process.

The Brentwood General Plan is applicable to the proposed project. The General Plan sets forth various goals, policies and programs that would apply to projects in the City of Brentwood. The following goals, policies and programs from the Conservation/Open Space Element are applicable to the proposed project.

Policy 3.3 – Air Quality: Preserve and improve air quality in the Brentwood Planning Area.

3.3.1 – Program Implementation: Work with Contra Costa County and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to implement programs aimed at improving regional air quality.

3.3.2 – Development Review: Discourage development that does not support alternative transportation modes and improve the jobs/housing balance with the Planning Area.

Capital Improvement Plan trail projects would provide alternatives to automobile travel and reduce transportation emissions. In addition, landscape improvements associated with the Community Beautification project, Tree Reforestation project, and other planting of trees and vegetation would serve to reduce air pollutants such as carbon monoxide.

The proposed CIP is consistent with the adopted City of Brentwood General Plan. The City of Brentwood General Plan Update EIR analyzed the consistency of the updated General Plan with the current Clean Air Plan and found that, with appropriate mitigation, the updated General Plan would be consistent with the Clean Air Plan. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant air quality impact related to inconsistency with the regional air quality plan.

b. Construction of roadway improvements, development improvements, and new public buildings could violate air quality standards. Two potential impacts are identified as short-term construction and long-term operation air quality impacts.

Short-term Construction Impacts

Projects including construction activities such as earthmoving, excavation and grading operations, construction vehicle traffic, and wind generated fugitive particulate matter would generate exhaust emissions and fugitive particulate matter emissions that would effect local and regional air quality. The effects of construction activities would include an increase in fugitive dust and elevated PM10 downwind of construction activity. Individual CIP projects would be reviewed on a case-by-base basis, and for those projects that are determined to have potential impacts to PM10 and fugitive dust levels, appropriate measures would be required to ensure that impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Long-term Operation Impacts

Roadway improvements and alterations would change traffic circulation of the local street network. However, project related emissions from vehicle routes are anticipated to be below thresholds of significance from major pollutants. Future CIP projects would be subject to further environmental review, which would determine potential impacts resulting from construction of individual CIP projects as well as necessary mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts. Individual CIP projects would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and for those project that are determined to have potential impacts to air quality, appropriate measures would be required to ensure that impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level.

c. Several CIP projects would assist in supporting development anticipated in the Brentwood General Plan. Future CIP projects would be subject to further environmental review, which would determine potential impacts resulting from construction of individual CIP projects as well as necessary mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts. Air quality impacts associated with the General Plan could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by complying with goals and policies contained in the General Plan, and adhering with local zoning requirements, State Building Code, and Brentwood Zoning ordinance. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for significant and unmitigatable regional air pollutants as indicated in the General Plan EIR. Individual Therefore, with further environmental review, cumulative air pollutants would be a less-than-significant impact.

d. During construction of CIP projects, the operation of equipment and vehicles used for construction would emit hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter (consisting of windblown dust and diesel particulate). Emissions would affect both local and regional air quality. Without control measures, emissions would result in a potentially significant impact to health. Proposed CIP project located adjacent to residences would require necessary mitigation to minimize the temporary air quality impacts from construction. The BAAQMD’s approach to analysis of construction impacts is to emphasize implementation of effective and comprehensive control measures rather than detailed quantification of emissions (BAAQMD 1996, updated 1999). Clearing and earth-moving activities would comprise the major source of construction dust and diesel emissions and projects would be required to implement BAAQMD control measures for controlling emissions from construction activities. Therefore, with implementation of the BAAQMD mitigation, a less-than-significant impact to air quality would occur.

e. CIP projects would not produce a source of odors except for temporary construction-related diesel emissions. Therefore, no impact with respect to odors would occur.




Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Less-Than-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. A majority of the CIP projects are located in urbanized areas and are minor improvements. However, a number of projects, primarily new roads, trails, new parks, new drainage facilities, and the proposed Creek Habitat Enhancement Program, could impact wetland or upland special-status species or wildlife. In addition, new or extended roadways and waterlines could impact wetland resources. Impacts to biological resources from proposed CIP projects would require appropriate individual environmental reviews conducted prior to each project’s approval. Overall, impacts to sensitive biological species are anticipated to be less-than-significant.

b, c. The City of Brentwood General Plan EIR indicates four creeks, Sand, Deer, Dry, and Marsh Creek, exist within the Planning Area. CIP projects would be located close to a creek or would traverse one of more creeks. Future CIP projects would be subject to further environmental review, which would determine the necessary mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts. However, at this time it is anticipated several CIP projects would result in impacts to nearby creeks, riparian habitat and wetlands. Individual CIP projects would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and for those projects that are determined to have potential impacts to creeks and riparian habitat, appropriate measures will be required to ensure that implementation of project specific mitigation would result in a less-than-significant impact to creeks and riparian habitat.

d, e, f. 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. Although the HCP final plan has not been adopted, future CIP projects would be subject to comply with HCP elements. CIP projects would be reviewed on a project-by-project basis, and for those project that are determined not to be in compliance with the HCP, appropriate measures will be required to ensure that impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant impact.




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

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:





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





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





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





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





Discussion

a-d. 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 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. 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. Several CIP projects could impact or would involve upgrading historic structures, such as the John Marsh House. Individual CIP projects would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and for those projects that are determined to have a potential impact to cultural or historic resources, appropriate measures will be required to ensure that impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level.




Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Less-Than-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. The Brentwood planning area is not within the boundaries of an Alquist-priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. However, the City Planning Area is subject to seismic activity from a number of local and regional earthquake faults, including the San Andreas Fault, located approximately 45 miles west of the City, the Hayward Fault, located approximately 27 miles west, and the Calaveras fault, approximately 18 miles southwest. Future CIP projects would be subject to further environmental review, which would determine the potential impacts from construction of individual CIP projects as well as necessary mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts. At this time it is anticipated that major CIP projects would be required to obtain geotechnical analyses per standard City requirements and to follow site-specific construction recommendations to ensure a less-than-significant impact.

b. The Brentwood General Plan EIR states that generally flat topography, cohesive nature of the soils, and low soil erosion potential in the Planning Area is not a significant impact in most locations. However, 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, future CIP projects would be subject to further environmental review, which would determine the potential impacts from construction of individual CIP projects as well as necessary mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts. Individual projects would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and for those projects that are determined to have a potential impact to soil erosion resulting from grading and excavation of the CIP project areas, appropriate measures would be required to ensure that impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level.

c, 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. Future CIP projects would be subject to further environmental review, which would determine the potential impacts resulting from construction of individual CIP projects as well as necessary mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts. However, at this time it is anticipated that CIP projects would result in impacts from expansive soils or similar hazards. Individual CIP projects would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and for those projects that are determined to have potential impacts to potential lateral spreading, liquefaction, landslip or collapse, appropriate measures would be required to ensure that impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level.

e. Proposed CIP projects do not include use of septic systems. Therefore, no impact is anticipated with regard to septic tanks.



Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Less-Than-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. The majority of proposed CIP projects would not entail the routine transport or disposal of hazardous materials. A small number of projects would include use of potentially hazardous materials, such as the proposed well disinfection system and well chlorination. At this time it is anticipated that CIP projects that would result in potential impacts from transporting hazardous materials, would be done in compliance with local, state, and federal safety standards. Individual CIP projects would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and for those projects that are determined to have potential impacts while transporting hazardous materials, appropriate measures would be required to ensure that impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level.

b. Proposed CIP projects, with the exceptions of those related to water and wastewater improvements, do not involve processes in which accidental releases of hazardous materials would occur. Future proposed water and wastewater improvements would be subject to further environmental review, which would determine the potential impacts resulting from each individual CIP project, as well as necessary mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts to a less-than-significant level.

d. The State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) database indicates one active site within the City of Brentwood as containing contaminated soil or groundwater conditions. The Brentwood Gun Club had a trap and skeet field, rifle and pistol ranges, and an air gun range. Prior to that the property was used as a sanitary landfill. Contra Costa County acquired the property in August 1999 in preparation for the construction of the State Route 4 Bypass through the site. A VCA was signed on August 18, 2004 with the by-pass authority. A Removal Action Workplan is being prepared to evaluate cleanup alternatives and reviewed in 2006. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would result from the CIP projects.

e. The planning area is not within a public airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport. Therefore, no impact would occur.

f. The planning area is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no impact would occur.

g. Development of the CIP project sites would temporarily add construction vehicles to the surrounding roadway network. However, proposed roadway improvements are anticipated to have a beneficial impact by offering responding personnel additional routes throughout the City. Therefore, temporary construction vehicles would cause a less-than-significant impact to occur.

h. Few of the proposed facilities would be located at the perimeter of the City. Further, most peripheral areas are developed or cultivated to minimize the possibility of wildland fire. Therefore, no impact would result.



Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Less-Than-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 cause the exposure of bare soil and soil particles. Exposed soil is susceptible to wind and water erosion, which leads to sedimentation of the waters of the State. The State Water Resources Control Board and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board consider sediment a pollutant. The above agencies have jurisdiction over the waters of the State and pollution of those waters through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. The City of Brentwood is responsible for ensuring compliance with the stormwater pollution control standards. Future CIP projects would be subject to further environmental review, which would determine potential impacts resulting from construction of individual CIP projects as well as necessary mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts. Individual CIP projects would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and for those project that are determined to have potential impacts to water quality and supply, appropriate measures would be required to ensure that impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level. However, at this time it is anticipated that the wastewater treatment plant would comply with NPDES discharge requirements and proposed surface drainage improvements would have a beneficial impact

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 at 19.45 MGD. Because the development of the CIP projects includes new water wells and well improvements, a less-than-significant impact to groundwater supplies and recharge is anticipated.

c-e. Many of the proposed projects included in the CIP would involve minor additions to existing surface facilities (i.e., installation of traffic signals at existing intersections and sidewalk upgrades), or would be underground facilities such as water, sewer and/or drainage pipeline. Neither of these types of projects would contribute to flooding or increased stormwater runoff. For larger projects, such as construction of new roads, public buildings, parking lots, parks, and similar projects, grading plans would be prepared and reviewed by the City Engineer as part of final construction drawings and specifications to ensure that anticipated runoff would not exceed stormwater drainage system capacity. In addition, construction of proposed drainage facilities would improve existing drainage patterns and result in a beneficial impact. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur.

g-i. Future CIP projects would not involve the construction of new housing or impede flood flows. Therefore no impact would occur.

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 nineteen tsunamis were recorded in San Francisco Bay during the period of 1868-1968. Maximum wave height recorded at the Golden Gate tide gauge (where wave heights peak) was 7.4 feet. The available data indicate a standard decrease of original wave height from the Golden Gate to about half original wave height on the shoreline near Richmond, and to nil at the head of the Carquinez Strait. As Brentwood is several miles inland from the Carquinez Strait, the project site is not exposed to flooding risks from tsunamis 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 relatively flat existing and proposed topography of the City of Brentwood and the minimal threat of tsunamis and seiches, no impact would occur.




Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Less-Than-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. The proposed CIP roadways projects include improvement, extension, and/or widening of existing roadways. All other projects listed in the CIP would not physically divide an existing community. Future roadway CIP projects would be subject to further environmental review, which would determine the potential impacts resulting from construction of individual CIP projects as well as necessary mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts. However, at this time it is anticipated that some roadway CIP projects would result in impacts that could physically divide a community. Individual projects would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and for those that are determined to have potential impacts to communities, appropriate measures would be required to ensure that impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level. In addition, one of the proposed community facilities projects involves installation of traffic calming devices in portions of the community to assist in neighborhood cohesion. Therefore, the proposed projects would help to reintegrate the community with appropriate mitigation, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.

b. The CIP is consistent with the City’s General Plan goals, policies, and objectives. No impact would therefore result from the implementation of the 2007/08-20011/12 CIP.

c. The City of Brentwood is a participant in the development of the East Contra Costa Habitat Conservation Plan. The City adopted the ECC HCP in October 2006. Future CIP projects would be subject to further environmental review, which would determine the potential impacts resulting from construction of individual CIP projects as well as necessary mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts. Individual projects would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and for those that are determined to have potential impacts to the habitats in the planning area, appropriate measures would be required to ensure that impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level.



Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Less-Than-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. The Brentwood 2001 General Plan Update EIR identifies coal, oil and gas, and sand as the significant mineral resources within the area. Proposed CIP projects are not located in proximity to a significant mineral resource. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur.



Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Less-Than-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,d. The City of Brentwood General Plan Noise Element sets forth land use compatibility criteria for various community noise levels. Noise generated by transportation sources such as traffic, the Noise Element specifies that residential land uses are compatible with exterior noise levels of up to 60 dB Ldn without the need for noise mitigation. The 60 dB Ldn noise level standard is considered an acceptable noise environment for residential outdoor activities. The City may allow an exterior noise level of up to 65 dB Ldn/CNEL provided that available exterior noise level reduction measures have been implemented and interior noise levels are in compliance with City standards.

Construction of roadway improvements, new civic buildings, parks, trails, and other CIP facilities would increase noise levels on properties adjacent to proposed projects. Future CIP projects would be subject to further environmental review, which would determine the potential impacts resulting from construction of individual CIP projects as well as necessary mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts. Individual CIP projects would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and for those projects that are determined to have potential impacts to noise levels, appropriate measures will be required to ensure that impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level.

b. A few of the CIP projects are industrial activities that would generate groundborne vibrations. The industrial projects, such as municipal water and wastewater operations, which would result in a potentially significant impact, are buffered from incompatible land uses. Future CIP projects would be subject to further environmental review, which would determine the potential impacts resulting from construction and operation of individual CIP projects as well as necessary mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts. Individual CIP projects would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and for those projects that are determined to have potential impacts to groundborne and construction noise levels, appropriate measures would be required to ensure that impacts are reduced. Therefore, the CIP projects would result in a less-than-significant impact.

c. New roadways and well projects included in the proposed 2007/08-20011/12 CIP could result in a permanent increase in ambient noise levels. Future CIP projects would be subject to further environment review, which would determine the potential impacts resulting from construction and operation of individual CIP projects as well as necessary mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts. To assess noise impacts due to project-related traffic increases on the local roadway network, traffic noise levels were predicted at a representative distance for both near term and future, project and no-project conditions. Noise impacts are identified at existing noise-sensitive areas if the noise level increases that result from the project exceed the Table 2 significance thresholds.

Table 2
Significance of Changes in Cumulative Noise Exposure

Ambient Noise Level Without Project, Ldn
Increase Required for Significant Impact
<60 dB
+5.0 dB or more
60-65 dB +3.0 dB or more
>65 dB
+1.5 dB or more
Source: FICON, 1992.

Individual CIP projects would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and for those projects that are determined to have potential impacts to ambient noise levels, appropriate measures would be required to ensure that impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level.

e,f. The CIP project sites are not located near existing public or private airstrip. Therefore no impact would occur.



Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Less-Than-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 City of Brentwood has experienced cyclical population growth over the past few decades. Most recently, the community has experienced rapid residential growth, mirroring a strong Bay Area economy. Population forecasts prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) as a part of Projections 2006 indicate that anticipated population for the City is expected to increase. The CIP is a planned response to the growth projected in Brentwood’s General Plan. The program does not result in growth itself. Therefore, there would be no impact.

b,c. The proposed CIP projects would not result in the displacement of residential units. Therefore, there would be no impact.



Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Less-Than-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. Other?





Discussion

a. On September 12, 2002, the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District (ECCFPD) was created by the unification of the Bethel Island, East Diablo, and Oakley Fire Protection Districts. The new organization, governed by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, was created in order to allow more cost-effective application of existing resources to provide a higher level of fire protection and emergency medical response services to the area.

The ECCFPD currently has nine stations, two of which are located in the City of Brentwood. Other stations within the ECCFPD may also be called to respond to emergencies in Brentwood depending on the particular emergency event. The ECCFPD currently has approximately 100 fire suppression staff, including paid on-call staff and full-time personnel. The ECCFPD does not have a staffing standard, but strives to maintain a first-engine response time of five (5) minutes.

The Brentwood CIP contains several proposed projects that would serve to improve fire protection in the community, including upgraded water lines and water reservoirs to increase water quantity and pressure and improve roads to expedite emergency access to various portions of the community. Included in the roadway category are several proposed grade separation projects that, when complete, would eliminate emergency vehicle conflicts with trains. In addition, two new fire stations are included in the Community Facility portion of the proposed CIP budget. Although future CIP projects, such as a new city hall and community center, would generate need for additional fire services; the new fire stations would generate adequate services for the planning area, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.

b. The City of Brentwood Police Department provides law enforcement services to the planned area with one (1) station location in Brentwood, at the southeast corner of Guthrie Lane and Brentwood Boulevard. The City has adopted a public safety policy that includes the provision of capital facilities and personnel sufficient to maintain an officer/population ratio of 1.5 officers per 1,000 Brentwood residents.

Development of the CIP would serve to improve police protection service in the community, including improved roads to expedite emergency access to various portions of the community. Therefore, adoption of the CIP would increase service requirements and result in a less-than-significant impact.

c. The planning area is located within the boundaries of the Liberty Union High School District and the Brentwood Union School District. Proposed CIP projects would not include the construction of new residences that would generate new school-aged children. The CIP does include several projects to assist the local school district, such as joint use of a gymnasium with the Brentwood Unified School District. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in no impact to schools.

d. The City of Brentwood provides public facility maintenance, including roads, parks, street trees and other public facilities. CIP facilities, once constructed, would be built to City standards and would not require maintenance for a number of years. One of the proposed CIP elements is a pavement management program that would prioritize local roadways in need of maintenance. Therefore, no impact would occur.



Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Less-Than-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. The proposed 2007/08-20011/12 CIP projects would not include additional residential development, which would increase the need for parks and recreation service. Therefore, no impact would result from the proposed CIP.

b. The proposed 2007/08-20011/12 CIP projects include a number of projects involving park and recreational facilities and improvements, including Empire Avenue joint school and park facility, Sand Creek soccer complex, new community trails among others. Major CIP parks and facilities projects would be subject to further environmental review, which would determine the potential impacts resulting from the construction of individual CIP projects as well as necessary mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts. Individual CIP projects would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and for those projects that are determined to have a potential impact to recreation facilities, appropriate measures would be required to ensure that impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level.



Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Less-Than-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. Several of the proposed CIP projects include roadway improvements designed to increase roadway capacity, increase the number of roadway connections, and ease traffic movements, resulting in a beneficial impact to traffic level of service (LOS). However, a few projects, such as a new fire station and a new City Hall, would be subject to further environmental review, which would determine the potential impacts resulting from construction of individual CIP projects as well as necessary mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts. At this time it is anticipated that CIP projects would result in a less-than-significant impact to traffic and LOS.


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

d. Several of the proposed CIP projects include roadway improvements designed to reduce hazards due to undersized streets and similar conditions. However a few projects, such as a new fire station and a new City Hall, would be subject to further environmental review, which would determine the potential impacts resulting from construction of individual CIP projects as well as necessary mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts. However, at this time it is anticipated future CIP projects would comply with City design standards and would result in a less-than-significant impact to safety hazards.

e. Roadway improvements CIP projects, such as grade separation of Lone Tree Way and the Union Pacific Railroad tracks in the northerly portion of Brentwood, would serve to improve emergency access. Future CIP projects would comply with City design standards and would result in a less-than-significant impact to emergency access.

f. Individual CIP projects would require on-site parking, per the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Although the downtown parking structure project would increase the parking availability in the downtown area, all other CIP projects would be subject to further environmental review, which would determine the potential impacts resulting from construction of individual CIP projects as well as necessary mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts. Future CIP projects would comply with City zoning standards and would result in a less-than-significant impact to parking capacity.

g. The City of Brentwood General Plan (adopted in 2001) clearly indicates the City’s preference to accommodate all modes of transportation. This policy states the following: “Develop and maintain a balanced transportation system within the City that provides a choice of transit, bicycle, equestrian, pedestrian, and private automobile modes.”

Future CIP projects would be subject to further environmental review, which would determine the potential impacts from construction of individual CIP projects as well as necessary mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts to alternative transportation. Individual CIP projects would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and for those projects determined to have potential impacts to adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation, appropriate measures will be required to ensure that impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level.




Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Less-Than-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,b,c. The CIP is a planned response to the growth projected in Brentwood’s General Plan. The proposed CIP itself does not result in growth. The project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board, require new water or wastewater facilities, or new storm drainage facilities. Therefore, no impact is anticipated.

d. The 2007/08-20011/12 CIP is an infrastructure and improvement response to projected growth in Brentwood’s General Plan. Future CIP projects would increase the demand for water supplies, including construction of new neighborhood parks, fire stations, a new City Hall and other new landscaping. Requirements for additional water to serve these facilities are subject to further review at the time of actual construction. However at this time it is anticipated that all CIP projects would have a less-than-significant impact to water supply service.

e. A majority of future CIP projects would require minimal additional wastewater capacity. Although, a few potential projects, such as construction of new local parks and two fire stations, may require new wastewater connections. Individual projects would be subject to review on a case-by-case basis at the time of construction, and for those projects that are determined to have potential impacts to wastewater generation, appropriate measures would be required to ensure that impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level.

f,g. Construction and operation of individual CIP projects would generate additional quantities of solid waste and construction debris. However, the amount of additional solid waste generated is anticipated to be less-than-significant.



Issues
Potentially Significant Impact
Less-Than-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. The CIP is a long-range planning program that assists in mitigating inevitable impacts resulting from population and economic growth. Implementation of the CIP would result in the construction of public infrastructure over five years that would service the public on a long term basis. The CIP attempts to meet long-term environmental goals, both broad and specific, which have been addressed previously in several environmental documents, the most comprehensive being the General Plan Final EIR certified in 1993, and the General Plan Update EIR certified in 2001. Therefore, the impact is less-than-significant.

c,d. Cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project may be identified in the categories of the use of resources, demand for services, and physical changes to the natural environment. These impacts would be considered potentially significant. However, either the above 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.

NOTICE OF DETERMINATION

TO:___ Office of Planning and Research FROM: City of Brentwood
1400 Tenth Street Public Works Department
Sacramento, CA 95814 150 City Park Way
Brentwood, CA 94513
X County Clerk
County of Contra Costa
555 Escovar Street
Martinez, CA 94553

SUBJECT: FILING OF NOTICE OF DETERMINATION IN COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 21152 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE.

Project Title: City of Brentwood CIP

State Clearinghouse Number: 2007052010

Contact Person: Balwinder S. Grewal, Director of Public Works/City Engineer

Area Code/Number/Extension: (925) 516-5420

Project Location: City wide, City of Brentwood, Contra Costa County, State of California

Project Description: Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP), 2007/2012
The CIP consists of proposed major capital improvements for consideration in the City of Brentwood. Because capital improvements can take up to several years to plan, design, finance and complete, the CIP is created as a five-year program. The City Council approval of the five-year CIP does not constitute an appropriation of funds to the specific project(s). Projects are funded as a result of budget approval or specific allocation of funds by the City Council. In addition, some projects may proceed as a result of grant approval of funding from other sources (i.e. County, State or Federal).

This is to advise that the City of Brentwood approved the above described project on June 12, 2007, and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project:

1. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
2. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
3. Mitigation measures were not made a condition of the approval of the project.
4. A statement of Overriding Considerations was not adopted for this project.
5. Findings were not made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.

This is to certify that the Negative Declaration and record of project approval is available to the General Public at: Engineering Division, 120 Oak Street, Brentwood, California 94513.


_______________________________ Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Signature (Public Agency) Title

Date: June 13, 2007
 

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