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. 20

Meeting Date: May 27, 2008

Subject/Title: Adopt a resolution 1) Adopting the Negative Declaration and 2) Adopting the 2008/09-2012/13 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.

Prepared by: Kerry Breen, Business Services Manager

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

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution 1) Adopting the Negative Declaration and 2) Adopting the 2008/09-2012/13 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 March 25, 2008, the City Council held a public workshop on the proposed CIP budget.

BACKGROUND
Adoption of the 2008/09-2012/13 CIP will continue the five-year Capital Improvement Program for City projects. An annual update will take place in 2009 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.

The following changes have been made to the 2008/09-2012/13 CIP since the March 25th workshop:

Roadway Improvements:

American Avenue Improvements – This project has been added to the 2008/09 – 2012/2013 CIP. The project improvements are based on the joint agency task force recommendations and will address concerns regarding safety and traffic congestion at Heritage High School and Adams Middle School.
Brentwood Business Park Improvements – The project was updated to reflect the Wastewater Fund contributing $550,000 in FY 2008/09 for the sewer/storm drain line extension on Sellers Avenue.
John Muir Parkway Extension – Phase II – This section of roadway has been split from the John Muir Parkway Extension project in the Development Section of the CIP Budget. The development project originally included a portion of roadway that was the responsibility of the developer and a portion of roadway that was to be constructed by the Highway 4 Bypass Authority. The developer portion of the project has been completed. The remaining portion, which is the responsibility of the Highway 4 Bypass, is in jeopardy due to funding issues. In order to ensure this remaining portion of the project is constructed in conjunction with the City’s John Muir Parkway Extension / Foothill Drive - Phase I project, the City is pursuing a reimbursement agreement with the Highway 4 Bypass Authority.
Pavement Management Program – Funding from the General Fund decreased in FY 08/09 by $175,000 and Federal/State Funding increased by $175,000 in FY 08/09. The change in funding is due to the receipt of the 06/07 Targeted Rubberized Asphalt Grant for $175,000.

Parks and Recreation Improvements:

Veterans Park Public Art – Staff has determined this project will not be completed by June 30, 2008. Therefore, this project was added to the 2008/09 – 2012/13 CIP.

Wastewater Improvements:

Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion - Phase II – The majority of the funding for this project was moved to 2011/12 due to the results of the annual evaluation of the Wastewater Treatment Plant capacity which indicated expansion isn’t required until 2011. Evaluations of plant capacity will continue to be done on an annual basis and may affect the timing of this project in the future.

Community Facilities Improvements:

Downtown Parking Solutions – The location description has changed to include the specific study areas that will be part of this project. In The Review and Comment section the amount that will be used from the existing bond funds has changed from $980,000 to $1,000,000.
Interim Civic Center Facilities – Based on staff analysis of the requirements for the interim Civic Center facilities, the total budget of this project has been reduced by $250,000.
New City Hall – $500,000 has been moved from FY 2008/09 to FY 2010/11 to reflect the current project schedule.

Development Improvements:

John Muir Parkway Extension – Since the developer portion of this project has been completed, and the remaining portion of the project has been transferred to the new John Muir Parkway Extension – Phase II project, this project was removed from the FY 2008/09 – 2012/13 CIP Budget.
Vineyards at Marsh Creek - Amphitheater – The Review and Comment section was updated to clarify funding sources and more accurately define project status.

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. On May 6, 2008, the Planning Commission found the 2008/09-2012/13 CIP to be consistent with the City of Brentwood General Plan and recommended that the City Council certify the Negative Declaration. The draft of the May 6th Planning Commission minutes are attached. Based on this, staff recommends that the City Council certify the Negative Declaration and file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk.

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.

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal year 2008/09 costs, from various funding 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
May 6th Planning Commission Minutes (CIP Budget Item)
Initial Study and Negative Declaration dated May 2008
Notice of Determination

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD 1) ADOPTING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND 2) ADOPTING THE 2008/09 – 2012/13 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 May 6, 2008, the Planning Commission found the 2008/09– 2012/13 Capital Improvement Program to be consistent with the General Plan and recommended that the City Council certify the Negative Declaration; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration and all oral testimony and written comments received.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that:

1. The City Council of the City of Brentwood hereby finds that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record, that the 2008/09 – 2012/13 CIP, as revised from previous CIP’s, may have a significant effect on the environment and the Negative Declaration reflects the Council’s independent judgment and analysis; and
2. The City Council adopts the Negative Declaration; and

3. The City Council of the City of Brentwood hereby adopts the 2008/09 – 2012/13 Capital Improvement Program as presented; and

4. A Notice of Determination shall be filed with the County Clerk by the City Clerk.

5. The City is the custodian of the documents and other material which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which this decision is based and said documents and materials are located at the City of Brentwood, 150 City Park Way, Brentwood, California.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of May 2008 by the following vote:

Planning Commission Minutes
May 6, 2008

4. Public Hearing: A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood recommending adoption of the negative declaration and finding that the proposed 2008/09 – 2012/13 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. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this program pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, to assess potential environmental impacts. The ranges of projects included in the CIP are: improvements to roadways; parks and trails; water and wastewater systems; drainage systems; community facilities and development-financed improvements.

Applicant: City of Brentwood
File No.: 2008/09 – 2012/13 CIP
Planner: Heidi Kline

Planning Manager Heidi Kline gave a brief overview of the staff report and noted that Paul Eldredge, the City’s Assistant City Engineer, and Matthew Griggs of the City’s Finance Department were also present to answer any questions.

Chairperson Gildersleeve stated that it was the Commission’s main goal to make sure that it followed the General Plan.

Paul Eldredge introduced himself and said that he was available to answer any specific questions.

Commissioner Weber asked about the 17.859 million dollars that were allocated towards the Lone Tree Way Union Pacific Undercrossing (CIP Fund 31340) and wanted to know whether construction would start this year.

Mr. Eldredge said that the City would most likely not be doing any work on the Lone Tree Way Union Pacific Undercrossing this year. He said that the City has planned and was set up to start some of the phase improvements and noted that utilities and large petroleum lines would need to be relocated. He said that the City would start that work once they received some assurances and agreements with the UPRR, which currently was acting as a stumbling block because it was requiring some improvements that the City did not feel were necessary and were adding significant costs to the project. Mr. Eldredge said, to make matters worse, the City’s point of contact at the UPRR had left, so the City had spent the last 8 to 9 months bringing the new person up to speed.

Commissioner Weber asked if the funds should be shifted further out.

Mr. Eldredge said that the funds should be left where they were, in case the City was able to break something free with the UPRR, therefore allowing the City to be able to move forward with the project.

Commissioner Weber asked whether the City Council decided to proceed forward with the City Hall and the parking structure (CIP Fund 337).

Mr. Eldredge said that the Council would be considering the new City Hall and parking structure at the May 13 City Council meeting.

Commissioner Weber asked if Discovery Builders’ had committed to building the affordable rental units in which $430,000 a year was allocated for 2008/09 and 2009/10 (Table 7 under Development Improvements - Discovery Builders).

Mr. Eldredge said that this was outside his area of expertise and asked Planning Manager Kline to answer that question.

Commissioner Cushing said that there were a series of rental units, as discussed in a previous Land Use and Development Committee meeting, and the approval process had already been affected and agreed to.

Commissioner Weber asked about the S&S Farms Neighborhood Park. He said his understanding was that the park had been accepted, but not released. (Table 7 under Development Improvements, Lennar Homes - S&S Farms Neighborhood Park).

Mr. Eldredge didn’t believe that all of the improvements had been completed, but was certain that the park had not yet been accepted by the City.

Commissioner Weber asked about the status of the Carmel Estates Neighborhood Park. He said that one of the conditions that Pulte Homes had with Carmel Estates was that once the approval was completed, they agreed to complete the greenbelt along the railroad line from Minnesota to Sand Creek. Commissioner Weber said that Pulte hasn’t made any of the improvements in the area. Commissioner Weber said that the area was unsightly and overgrown. Mr. Weber asked staff to follow up with Ken DeSilva. Commissioner Weber asked, on page 17, whether the City should rename Item No. 351 for Suncrest Homes - Prewett Neighborhood Park, to read as Discovery Builders, since Suncrest sold the subdivision to Discovery.

Mr. Eldredge said that change could be easily done. He pointed out to the Commission that Ken DeSilva was no longer with City of Brentwood, since he retired about a month ago.

Planning Manager Kline informed the Commission that the Planning Division had since then taken on Park Planning, so she would look into the Carmel Estates Neighborhood Park issue.

Commissioner Bristow asked about the status of the Vineyards at Marsh Creek Amphitheatre project that was noted as a mandatory project priority.

Mr. Eldredge said that he was not completely involved with the project, but believed that the City was talking with the developer to get the funding to start the planning for that project. He thought there was still some question about what would be built there.

Casey McCann, the Interim Community Development Director, said that a meeting was held last week regarding this project and it was decided that no formal action would be taken until an economic feasibility study was done, to clarify what type of facility would eventually be constructed. Mr. McCann said that the City was hoping to get the feasibility study underway by end of the year. Mr. McCann didn’t think that an action or groundbreaking on the site would happen until the demand from the community is known.

Commissioner Bristow understood that the amphitheatre was part of the conditions of approval for the Planned Development. He asked Mr. McCann if there was a chance that the amphitheatre would not be built at all.

Mr. McCann said that he was not saying that. He said that there was a chance that the scope and type of the facility might change.

Commissioner Bristow assumed that the economic state and the fact that the Trilogy homes were not being built out was being taken into consideration.

Commissioner Bristow pointed out the statement on page 2 of the staff report which says that the purpose of the five-year CIP is to, " Ensure that planning for capital improvements is tied to realistic, predictable sources of income in order to finance these improvements." and thought it was a very good statement.

Commissioner Cushing asked if the irrigation pump stations for the Vineyards at Marsh Creek project were used for watering the vineyards.

Mr. Eldredge said that the pump stations were not only used for the vineyards, but for all of the public landscaping. He said that there were two pump stations - one to pump water from the ECCID Canal up to a holding pond as where the amphitheatre would be located.

Commissioner Cushing asked if there were any concerns about the existing grapes and whether that is being sustained during this economic downturn.

Mr. Eldredge said that there was an existing interim pump station on skids that is pumping water out of the canal and it is being monitored to make sure that it isn’t turned off.

Chairperson Gildersleeve asked whether the downtown parking solution and streetscape master plan have been approved by City Council yet. Ms. Gildersleeve asked if the City had funds set aside for all of the design and preliminary work that is being done.

Mr. Eldredge said that there have been two public workshops that have been funded. He knew that there were also funds put aside to do the studies, the siting, etc. for the downtown parking solution.

Chairperson Gildersleeve said that she was just curious because it was a lot of money.

Public hearing closed.

Motion to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 08-021 of the City of Brentwood recommending adoption of the negative declaration and finding that the proposed 2008/09 - 2012/13 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is consistent with the adopted general plan and specific plans of the City of Brentwood as required by sections 65401 and 65402 of the government code.
Moved by Bristow; seconded by Weber.

Vote: 4-0-0-1
Yes: Cushing, Bristow, Gildersleeve and Weber
No:
Abstain:
Absent: Stirling

City of Brentwood
Capital Improvement Program Budget
2008/09-2012/13

NEGATIVE DECLARATION

March 2008

INITIAL STUDY

March 2008

BACKGROUND

1. Project Title: City of Brentwood
Capital Improvement Program Budget 2008/09-2012/13

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 2008/09 to 2012/13, 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 improvements, parks and trails, water, wastewater, drainage and community facilities 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 Update, City of Brentwood, November 2001.
2. City of Brentwood General Plan EIR, City of Brentwood, November 2001.
3. City of Brentwood Capital Improvement Program Budget 2007/08-2011/12, City of Brentwood, May 2007.

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is “Potentially Significant” or “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 X None

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

Balwinder S. Grewal, P.E City of Brentwood
Director of Public Works/City Engineer

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 environmental setting and impact discussion for each section of this Initial Study have been largely based on information in the 2001Brentwood General Plan Update 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 CIP consists of a list of proposed capital improvements for consideration in the City of Brentwood CIP 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 managing the CIP. All submitted 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.

Figure 1: Regional Location Map

The CIP contains individual projects within the following general categories:

1. 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, 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: Brentwood Boulevard Widening - North, John Muir Parkway Extenstion/Foothill Drive-Phase I, Walnut Boulevard Widening, and the Lone Tree Way - Union Pacific Undercrossing projects (See Table 1 for a complete listing of Roadway Improvement projects).

2. 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, Summerset Park, John Marsh Home Rehabilitation and Brentwood Senior Activity Center projects (See Table 2 for a complete listing of Parks and Trails Improvement projects).

3. 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 projects intended to improve the delivery of water and water pressure and to ensure drinking water quality standards continue to be achieved. Specific water projects include, but are not limited to: Surface Water Treatment Facility - Phases I and II, Well #15, Downtown Infrastructure, and Zone I Equalization Storage Reservoirs (See Table 3 for a complete listing of Water Improvement projects).

4. Wastewater Improvements, including new and upgraded sewer collectors, and expansions and upgrades of the City’s wastewater treatment plant (See Table 4 for a complete listing of wastewater improvement projects).

5. Community Facilities Improvements, including new and upgraded public buildings and City facilities, such as a new Civic Center Plaza, a new City Hall, downtown parking structures, new fire stations, improvements to the City’s solid waste transfer station, upgrades to the City’s information technology, a new Community Center and upgrades to the Maintenance Service Center and similar projects (See Table 5 for a complete listing of Community Facilities Improvement projects).

6. Drainage Improvements, including the Agricultural Runoff Mitigation, Harvest Park Basin, and Storm Drain Improvement projects (See Table 6 for a complete listing of Drainage Improvement projects).

7. Development Improvements consist primarily of road, water, sewer and drainage and similar improvements that are anticipated to be made by private development and dedicated to the City (See Table 7 for a complete listing of Development Improvement projects).

Tables 1-7 present 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 is 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 or 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 mitigation has not 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.

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 5
(Continued)

Table 6

Table 7

Table 7
(Continued)

Table 7
(Continued)

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 2008/9-2012/13 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 review applications approved by the Brentwood Planning Commission and/or City Council. Therefore, the impact would be less-than-significant related 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 that result in 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 2008/09-2012/13 CIP includes several projects that would result in minimal 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 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 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations were adopted as part of the Certification of the 2001 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, and employment projections provided by local governments, and are 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.

CIP 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 2001 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 the CIP improvements 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 the potential to increase PM10 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.

Greenhouse Gases (GHG) are those that trap heat in the atmosphere. GHG are emitted by both natural processes and human activities. The accumulation of GHG in the atmosphere regulates the earth’s temperature. However, scientists also believe that the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, petroleum, natural gas, etc.) for human activities, such as electricity production and vehicle use, have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally occurring concentrations. The increase in atmospheric concentrations of GHG has resulted in more heat being held within the atmosphere, which is the accepted explanation for Global Climate Change (GCC).

The scientific community has largely agreed that the earth is warming, and that humans are contributing to that change. However, the earth’s climate is composed of many complex mechanisms, including: ocean currents, cloud cover, as well as the jet-stream and other pressure/temperature weather guiding systems. These systems are in turn influenced by changes in ocean salinity, changes in the evapotranspiration of vegetation, the reflectivity (albedo) of groundcover, as well as numerous other factors. Some changes have the potential to reduce climate change, while others could form a feedback mechanism that would speed the warming process beyond what is currently projected. The climate system is inherently dynamic; however, the overall trend is towards a gradually warming planet.

Future CIP projects would be subject to further environmental review, which would determine potential impacts resulting from 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 related to air quality, appropriate measures would be required to ensure that impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Conclusion

Construction and earth moving activities would generate fugitive dust and exhaust emissions. In addition, increased traffic would increase major pollutants and GHGs. However, individual CIP projects would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and for those projects 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 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, the State Building Code, and the Brentwood Zoning Ordinance. 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 projects 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. At this time CIP projects are not anticipated to produce a prolonged source of odors. However, construction-related diesel emissions and construction of wastewater improvements could release temporary odors. Individual CIP projects would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and for those projects that are determined to have potential impacts from odors, 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

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,d. 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 and for those projects that are determined to have potential impacts, appropriate mitigation measures will be required. Overall, impacts to sensitive biological species are anticipated to be less-than-significant.

b, c. The City of Brentwood 2001 General Plan Update EIR indicates four creeks, Sand, Deer, Dry, and Marsh Creeks exist within the Planning Area. CIP projects would be located near one of these creeks or would traverse one or more creeks. Future CIP projects would be subject to further environmental review, which would determine the necessary mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts. However, several CIP projects are anticipated to impact 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.

e, f. The City of Brentwood approved the HCP/NCCP and authorized execution of the Implementation Agreement and Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement on January 22, 2007 (Resolution No. 12-07). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service signed the Federal permit for the HCP/NCCP on July 25, 2007, and the CDFG signed the State permit for the HCP/NCCP on August 6, 2007. Therefore, East Contra Costa County has an officially approved HCP/NCCP as of August 6, 2007. In compliance with HCP implementation, the City of Brentwood adopted Fee Resolution No. 2007-234 on October 9, 2007 and City Ordinance No. 850 on November 13, 2007. 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 HCP fees and mitigation measures. 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 or conflict with the HCP, appropriate measures and fees would be required to ensure a reduction of impacts to a less-than-significant level.


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 Update 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 Update EIR (page 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, not leaving surface evidence. Several CIP projects could impact or would involve rehabilitation of 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(i-iv). 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 major CIP projects are anticipated to obtain geotechnical analyses per standard City requirements and to follow site-specific construction recommendations to ensure a less-than-significant impact.

b. The 2001 General Plan Update 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, the CIP projects are anticipated to 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 chlorine generator upgrade. At this time, the CIP projects anticipated to result in potential impacts from transporting hazardous materials would be required to comply 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 Voluntary Cleanup Agreement (VCA) was signed on August 18, 2004 with the Bypass Authority. A Removal Action Workplan was prepared to evaluate cleanup alternatives and reviewed in 2006. Therefore with the cleanup of the former landfill, CIP projects would not be located on hazards materials sites and a less-than-significant impact would occur.

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 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 and the “C.3” stormwater provision for Contra Costa County. 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 the wastewater treatment plant is anticipated to comply with NPDES and C.3 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. However, the CIP includes several improvements that would increase the water supply and improve quality. These water improvements include rehabilitation of the water distribution system, downtown infrastructure improvements, and construction of the surface water treatment facility phases I and II. Because the development of the CIP projects includes water infrastructure 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 pipelines. 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 reaching a 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 indicate that since 1868 tsunami 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, the project site would not 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 the roadway CIP projects are not anticipated to 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 2008/09-2012/13 CIP.

c. The City of Brentwood approved the HCP/NCCP and authorized execution of the Implementation Agreement and Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement on January 22, 2007 (Resolution No. 12-07). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service signed the Federal permit for the HCP/NCCP on July 25, 2007, and the CDFG signed the State permit for the HCP/NCCP on August 6, 2007. Therefore, East Contra Costa County has an officially approved HCP/NCCP as of August 6, 2007. In compliance with HCP implementation, the City of Brentwood adopted Fee Resolution No. 2007-234 on October 9, 2007 and City Ordinance No. 850 on November 13, 2007. 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 HCP fees and mitigation measures. 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 or conflict with the HCP, appropriate measures and fees would be required to ensure a reduction of impacts 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, gas, and sand as the significant mineral resources within the area. Proposed CIP projects would not be expected to result in the loss of availability of a 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. Ldn (Day-night level)/CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level)values are used to develop noise contours. Typically, Ldn and CNEL values are measured in increments of 5 dBA (decibels) with 55 Ldn being insignificant, and 65 Ldn and greater being termed significant exposure. Ldn or CNEL 65 is used to identify compatible and noncompatible land uses, as residential development in areas located within 65 Ldn or greater are generally incompatible. For 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.

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, that would result in a potentially significant impact would require a buffer 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 vibration 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 2008/09-2012/13 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.

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 airstrips. 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, no impact would result.

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



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 a more cost-effective application of existing resources and 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 Plan Area with one station located 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 provision 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 benefit the local school district, such as the Empire Avenue Elementary School Park. 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 projects 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 2008/09-2012/13 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 2008/09-2012/13 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, and 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 the CIP projects are anticipated to 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 future CIP projects are anticipated to comply with City design standards and would result in a less-than-significant impact to safety hazards.

e. Roadway improvements CIP projects, such as the Lone Tree Way Union Pacific Railroad undercrossing 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 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,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.

b. The 2008/09-2012/13 CIP includes the Surface Water Treatment Facility – Phases I and II, Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion – Phase II, and other treatment projects. 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.

d. The 2008/09-2012/13 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 all CIP projects are anticipated to have a less-than-significant impact to water supply service.

e. A majority of future CIP projects would require minimal additional wastewater capacity. A few potential projects, such as construction of new local parks and a fire station, 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. Individual projects would be subject to review on a case-by-case basis prior to construction, and for those projects that are determined to have potential impacts to solid waste generation, 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

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. However, several CIP projects are anticipated to impact 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 for the proposed project.

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.



Brentwood Capital Improvement Program Budget 2008/09-2012/13
Negative Declaration

Errata Sheet
May 6, 2008

Wording added is printed in double-underlined text. Wording deleted is printed in strikeout.

Page 30, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, question d., is hereby revised as follows:

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 Voluntary Cleanup Agreement (VCA) was signed on August 18, 2004 with the Bypass Authority. A Removal Action Workplan was prepared to evaluate cleanup alternatives and reviewed in 2006. In addition, a review of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Geotracker database indicated several leaking underground storage tank and chemical spill, leak and release sites in the Brentwood CIP area. Furthermore, contaminated properties not listed in the DTSC or RWQCB databases could exist in the CIP area. Therefore with the cleanup of the former landfill, CIP projects would not be located on hazards materials sites and a Where necessary future proposed projects in the vicinity of these known sites and working within or under the established groundwater level would be subject to further environmental review, which would determine the potential impacts resulting from exposure to hazards and hazardous materials for each individual CIP project, as well as necessary mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact would occur.

The above revision does not change the conclusions of the Negative Declaration and does not constitute significant new information pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(a).

City of Brentwood
Capital Improvement Program Budget
2008/09-2012/13

Response to Comments

May 2008

Response to Comments on Capital Improvement Program Budget 2008/09-2012/13

Introduction

This document is prepared in response to the comments received by the City of Brentwood regarding the Negative Declaration prepared for Capital Improvement Program Budget 2008/09-2012/13, State Clearing House reference number 2008042013. If you have questions regarding the response to comments, please contact the City of Brentwood Finance Department at (925) 516-5460. Information regarding the project may be obtained at the City of Brentwood, 150 City Park Way, Brentwood, CA 94513. In all, the City received four (4) letters regarding the Negative Declaration from the agencies listed below:

1. Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission;
2. Contra Costa County Public Works Transportation Engineering Division;
3. East Bay Municipal Utility District, Water Distribution Planning; and
4. Department of Toxic Substances Control, Northern California Coastal Cleanup Operations Branch.

Letter 1: Lou Ann Texeira, Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (April 2, 2008)

Comment Letter 1 is a letter requesting that the Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) be included on future project notices that require boundary changes. The letter does not address the adequacy of the Brentwood CIP Budget 2008/09-2012/13 Negative Declaration, and therefore does not require a response under CEQA. Consistent with standard City practice, LAFCO will be included in the distribution of noticing on any project requiring a boundary change.

Letter 2: Jenna Caldwell, C.E., Contra Costa County Public Works Transportation Engineering Division (April 24, 2008)

Comment Letter 2 is a letter requesting that the Contra Costa County Public Works Transportation Engineering Division be included on future project notices that would impact County maintained roads and facilities. The letter does not address the adequacy of the Negative Declaration. The Contra Costa County Public Works Transportation Engineering Division will be included in the distribution of noticing on any project impacts County facilities.

Letter 3: William R. Kirkpatrick, East Bay Municipal Utility District (April 21, 2008)

Comment Letter 3 is a letter requesting that design drawings for projects planned adjacent to the Mokelumne Aqueducts right-of-way be submitted for review, approval, and permitting by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). The letter does not address the adequacy of the Brentwood CIP Budget 2008/09-2012/13 Negative Declaration, and therefore does not require a response under CEQA. The City will submit design drawings for review, approval, and permitting for projects planned on or across property or rights of way owned and operated by EBMUD.


Letter 4: Denise M. Tsuji, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Northern California Coastal Cleanup Operations Branch (April 29, 2008)

Letter 4 comments that the Negative Declaration did not adequately address the potential hazards of contaminated areas within the CIP area. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) recommends that in addition to a review of the database, a search of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) database and assessment of past land uses be conducted for individual project areas. Based on the comment, the following revisions to the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the Negative Declaration were made:

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 Voluntary Cleanup Agreement (VCA) was signed on August 18, 2004 with the Bypass Authority. A Removal Action Workplan was prepared to evaluate cleanup alternatives and reviewed in 2006. In addition, a review of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Geotracker database indicated several leaking underground storage tank and chemical spill, leak and release sites in the Brentwood CIP area. Furthermore, contaminated properties not listed in the DTSC or RWQCB databases could exist in the CIP area. Therefore with the cleanup of the former landfill, CIP projects would not be located on hazards materials sites and a Where necessary future proposed projects in the vicinity of these known sites and working within or under the established groundwater level would be subject to further environmental review, which would determine the potential impacts resulting from exposure to hazards and hazardous materials for each individual CIP project, as well as necessary mitigation measures to minimize adverse impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact would occur.

However, the revisions do not change the conclusions of the Negative Declaration, and a less-than-significant impact would remain for the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section.

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), 2008/2013
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 May 27, 2008, 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: May 27, 2008
 
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