Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07272004 - C.13 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, as the Board of Commissioners of Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency 0�J FROM: JOHN SWEETEN,EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DATE: July 27,2004 SUBJECT: ADOPT Resolution approving the adoption of the previously certified City of Brentwood Mitigated Negative Declaration (CIP Project 336-3127), and the sale of Flood Control and Water Conservation District surplus property to the City of Brentwood. Brentwood Area. District III Project No. 7558-6D8333 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RFCOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION f. Recommended Action: A. ADOPT Resolution approving the adoption of the certified City of Brentwood Mitigated Negative Declaration(Lone Tree Way Widening Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration—CIP Project 336-3127 — City of Brentwood) for the purpose of conducting real property transactions in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, (the custodian of which is the Community Development Director,651 Pine Street,Martinez,CA) B. ADOPT Resolution approving the sale of Flood Control and Water Conservation District surplus property to the City of Brentwood. C. DIRECT the Director of Community Development to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. D. DETERMINE the property to be no longer necessary for flood control purposes. E. APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the sale of said property to the City of Brentwood, pursuant to Government Code § 25526.5. F. AUTHORIZE the Chief Engineer, or designee, to sign the Purchase Agreement on behalf of the District. F. AUTHORIZE the Chair,Board of Supervisors,to execu a Grant Deed on behalf of the District. (J A Continued on Attachment: X SSIGNATURE: 10 -;,,RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE fi ROVE OTHER SIGNATURES) ACTION OF ACEI-�CY ON S t�1,Y 26, 2 $ "ROVED AS RECOMMENDED xx OTHER- - -- VOTE OF COM1lvITSSIONERS xx UNANIMOUS(ABSENT NONE ) I hereby certify that this is a true and correct AYES: NOES: copy of an action taken and entered on the ABSENT:—____._ABSTAIN: ,_ minutes of the Redevelopment Agency on the date shown. on ODR:eh G:;GrpData\IleaIPmp12004-Files\BOSR;RES\BO Brentwood i.onettee Way.doc ATTESTED: JULY ', 2004 Orig.Div: Pub101ivia Reynolorks ds JOHN SWEETEN Agency Secretary Contact: Olivia Reynolds(313-2366) + cc: County Administrator Real Property By �, Deputy Flood Control District L.Dalziel,Board Orders Clerk Specialist,Adm. SUBJECT: ADOPT Resolution approving the adoption of the previously certified City of Brentwood Mitigated Negative Declaration (CIP Project 336-3127), and the sale of Flood Control and Water Conservation District surplus property to the City of Brentwood. Brentwood Area. District III DATE: July 27,2004 PAGE: 2 II. Fiscallmpact: Proceeds from the sale of this parcel will be deposited into the Zone I Plan. III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background: The Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District acquired certain real property on August 10, 1977 in Brentwood,CA for flood control purposes. It has been determined the property is no longer required for District purposes and it has been determined the property is now surplus. The City of Brentwood wishes to purchase the property for future development. The estimated fair market value of the property is $13,000. IV. Consequences of Negative Action. The District will retain ownership of the property and be required to maintain the parcel in an area that the City of Brentwood is developing. THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Resolution on July 27, 2004, by the fallowing vote: AYES: SUPERVISORS GIOIA, UILK MI GREENBERG, DE,SAULNIER AND GLOVER NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE RESOLUTION NO. 2004/ 408 Deerings Water code,Uncodified Acts ABSTAIN: NONE Act 1656 § 32 West's Water Code,Appendix 6431 Government Code § 25526.5} SUBJECT: ADOPT Resolution No. 2004/ 408 adopting the previously certified City of Brentwood Mitigated Negative Declaration (CIP Project No. 336-3127--City of Brentwood) in connection with the Lone Tree Widening Project, and approving the sale of Flood Control and Water Conservation District surplus property. Brentwood Area. District 111. Project No.7558-6D8333 The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County as the Governing Body of the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation district, RESOLVES THAT: The Board ADOPTS the previously certified City of Brentwood Mitigated Negative Declaration (Lone Tree Way Widening Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration— CIP Project No. 336-3127 — City of Brentwood) for the purpose of conducting real property transactions in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, (the custodian of which is the Community Development Director, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, CA), and DIRECTS the Director of Community Development to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk, and The Chief Engineer,or designee, is hereby AUTHORIZED to sign the Purchase Agreement on behalf of the District. AUTHORIZES the Chief Engineer to arrange for payment of a $25 fee to Community Development for process, and a $25 fee to the County Clerk for filing the Notice of Determination. The District acquired certain real property on August 10, 1977 in Brentwood, CA. described in Exhibit"A" attached hereto,for flood control purposes. Said property is DETERMINED to be surplus and no longer necessary for District purposes and its estimated value does not exceed $25,000.00. This Board hereby APPROVES and AUTHORIZES the sale of said property to the City of Brentwood, pursuant to Government Code Section 25526.5. and the Chair, Board of Supervisors, is herebyAUTHORIZED to execute a Grant Deed on behalf of the District in consideration for the payment received in full in the amount of $13,000.00, the estimated fair market value of the property, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Purchase Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit"B" The Deal Property Division is DIRECTED to cause said Grant Deed to be delivered to the grantee. OR:eh I hereby certify that this is a true and correct G:1GrpData\RealProp12004-Piles\BOS&RESIBR.26A Brentwood tone Tree Way.doc copy of an action taken and entered on the Orig.Dept.: Public Works(RIP) minutes of the Board of supervisors on the Contact: Olivia Reynolds(313-2306) date shown. Recording to be completed by City of Brentwood cc: Public Works Records ATTESTED: JI TLY 26a W4 Grantee(via R/P) JOHN SWEETEN,Clerk of the Board of Recorder(via RIP) Supervisors and Count Administrator Community Development Dept. Board Orders Clerk specialist,Adm. By Deputy Carrie Dovzak,CCC-Environmental -- RESOLUTION NO. 2004/408 Exhibit "A" Portion of the southwest l of Section 2, Township 1 North, Range 2 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, and more particularly described as a portion of that parcel of lana described in the deed to Rudolph J. Vera and Carmen Vera, his wife, and Louis J. Mendoza and Catherine Mendoza, his wife, recorded January 11, 1965 in Book 4780 of Official Records at page 137, being all of that parcel of land granted to Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation district, recorded August 10, 1977 in Book 8457 of Official Records at page 174, Records of Contra Costa County, State of California, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the south line of Lone Tree Way, a County road, with the southwesterly line of Fairview Avenue, a County road, thence southeasterly along said southwesterly line of Fairview Avenue South 340 46' 01" East 196.00 feet (The bearing South 341, 46' 01" East being taken for the purpose of this description); thence leaving said southwesterly line, South 55° 13' 59" West 15.00 feet to a point on a line parallel with and 15.00 fleet measured at right angles from said southwesterly line of Fairview Avenue, thence along said parallel line North 340 46' 01" West 148.00 feet; thence leaving said parallel line, North 500 46' 01" West 77.12 feet to the southerly line of Lone Tree Way; thence southeasterly along said southerly line, South 881 58' 35" East 44.71 feet to the point of beginning. Containing an area of 3646 square feet of land more or less. SUBJECT TO: A storm drain easement in favor of Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District described as follows: Commencing at the southern corner of the parcel described above parcel thence along the southwesterly line thereof north 341 46 01" west, 29.00 feet to the point of beginning, thence from said point of beginning continuing along the last line north 340 46' 01" west 14.00 feet; thence leaving said line north 550 13' 59" east 15.00 feet to a point on the northeasterly line of said "portion of C.C.C.F.C.D." parcel; thence along the last line south 340 46' 01" east, 14.00 feet; thence leaving the last line south 550 13' 59" west 15.00 feet to the point of beginning. Containing an area of 210 square feet of land more or less. "Reserving unto the Grantor: All oil, gas, casinghead gas, asphaltum and other hydrocarbons and all chemical gas now or hereafter found situated or located in all or any part of portion of the land described herein lying more than 500 feet below the surface thereof, but without any rights whatsoever to enter upon the surface of said land or upon any part or said lands within 500 feet vertical distance below the surface thereof." This real property description has been prepared by me or under my direction, in conformance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act. D SU �" IWE Signature.' Licensed Land Surveyor Contra Costa County Public Works r N 504 No,,59999 K., Dater ' ' — T.�F CAL`U EXHIBIT ►'B" PLAT TO ACCOMPANY EXHIBIT "A►► LONE TREE WAY S88058'35"E POB 44.71' 00 j t,- 0 ' � LINE DATA TABLE1� No. BearingLength L1 S 55 ""13 59 W 15.001 70 L2 N 34" 46'01" W 14.04' ' ` L3 S 34° 46'01" E 14.00' L4 IN 55° 13'59" E 15.40' Q� AREA SUBJECT TO STORM DRAIN ,,N EASEMENT TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Instrument : Grant Deed Scale: 1"$40' AP=R 2004 Drawn�BY: PP _ Series too. Recorded Cad File: RW833304.dgn � J GRANTOR' CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DiSTRICT APN: 019-060-052 Project Name: Lone Tree Widening EXHIBIT "By$ CITY OF BRENTWOOD PURCHASE AGREEMENT In consideration of the terms and conditions set forth in this Purchase Agreement (the "Agreement') Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (GRANTOR") shall deposit in an escrow designated by the City of Brentwood ("CITY"), a Grant Deed suitable for recordation and conveying from GRANTOR to CITY fee simple title as indicated in Exhibit"A", incorporated herein by this reference. In consideration of which, and the other considerations hereinafter set forth, it is mutually agreed as follows. 1. Entire Agreement The parties have herein set forth the whole of their agreement. The performance of this Agreement constitutes the entire consideration for the Grant Deed and shall relieve CITY of all further obligations or claims on this account or on account of the location, grade, construction or operation of the proposed public improvement. 2. CITY shall A. Pay the sum of Thirteen Thousand AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($13,000.00) for the property, identified in Exhibit"A"attached hereto and made a part hereof. B. Pay all escrow,recording and title insurance charges,if any,incurred in this transaction. 3. Hazardous Wastes The acquisition price of the property being acquired in this transaction reflects the fair market value of the property without the presence of contamination. If the property being acquired is found to be contaminated by the presence of hazardous waste which requires mitigation under Federal or State law, the City may elect to recover its clean-up costs from those who caused or contributed to the contamination, 4. RichtofPossession and Use It is agreed and confirmed by the parties hereto that, notwithstanding the other provisions in this Agreement, the right of possession and use of the subject property by CITY, and/or its designees or assignees including the right to remove and dispose of improvements, and install and connect utilities shall commence on July 1, 2004, or close of escrow, whichever occurs first, and that the amount shown in Clause 2A herein includes, but is not limited to, full payment for such possession and use, including interest and damages if any, from said date. 5. Binding on Successors and Assigns This Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the respective heirs, successors and assigns of the parties to this Agreement. Page I qf2 S:IBrenAvoo&TO#39-CCCFC Parcels lPurchaseAgreement-050604.doc GRANTOR: CONTRA CosTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DisTRiCT APN. 019-060-052 Project Name: Lone Tree Widening 6. Approval of CITY GRANTOR understands that this Agreement is subject to the approval of CITY. Further, that this Agreement shall have no force or effect unless and until said CITY approval has been obtained. 7. Authority to Sign GRANTOR and the signatories represent and warrant that the signatories to this Agreement are authorized to enter into this Agreement to convey real property and that no other authorizations are required to implement this Agreement on behalf of GRANTOR. 8. Counterparts Signatur This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all counterparts shall constitute one agreement. (As used above, the term, "GRANTOR"shall include the plural as well as the singular number) IN WyrNESS WHEREOF,the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year first written herein below, CITY OF BRENTWOOD: GRANTOR: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT By: By: Title: Title: Date: Date: NO OBLIGATION OTHER THAN SET FORTH HEREIN WILL BE RECOGNIZED Page 2 of 2 S.-iBrennvoo&TO#39-CCCFC ParcelslPurchase Agreement-050604.doc Recording Requested of: and When Recorded,Mail To: Mr.Mike Kirby EXHIBIT A Right of Way Agent City of Brentwood 708 Third Street Brentwood,CA 94513-1396 kace Above This Linefor.Recorder's Use APN: 019-060-052 GRANT DEED FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION,receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, a political subdivision of the State of California hereby grant(s)to the CITY OF BRENTWOOD the real property more particularly described in Exhibit"A"attached hereto and made a part hereof. SIGNED: Date: STATE OF CALIFO&NIA COUNTY OF On before me personally appeared personally known to me(or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence)to be the person(s),whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ics),and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s)or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)acted,executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature (This area for official notarial seal) MAIL TAX STATEMENTS AS DIRECTED ABOVE (City is exempt from County transfer tax) S:'Brerrtwoo&TO#39-CCCFC ParcelsiGrant Dee.4.071103.doc-Isb 123102 Recorded at the request of: Return to: Mr.Mike Kirby Right of Way Agent City of Brentwood 708 Third Street Brentwood, CA 94513-1396 Assessor's Parcel No.: 019-060-052 GRANT DEED �or valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, a political subdivision of the State of California, Grants to the City of Brentwood, a municipal corporation of the State of California, the following described real property in the City of Brentwood, unincorporated area: of the County of Contra Costa, State of California. FOR DESCRIPTION SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MAGE A PART HEREOF. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Dated JULY 26, 2004 B hair, Board of SuperYsors �^ STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA } On z!41Y 26, efore me, IlMA L. SHARP Deputy Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County, personally appeared SUP- F`E6ERAL PLO R who is personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in hislher/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/heritheir signature(s)on the instrument the person(s),or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted executed the instrument. By: Deputy Clerk G:1GrpData\RealPropl2£704-Piles104-nDE.03 Brentwood.doc 717/04 Exhibit "A" Portion of the southwest 1/4 of Section 2, Township 1 North, Range 2 East, Mount Diablo Meridian, and more particularly described as a portion of that parcel of land described in the deed to Rudolph J. Vera and Carmen Vera, his wife, and Louis J. Mendoza and Catherine Mendoza, his wife, recorded January 11, 1965 in Book 4780 of Official Records at page 137, being all of that parcel of land granted to Contra Costa County Mood Control and Water Conservation District, recorded August 10, 1977 in Book 8457 of Official Records at page 174, Records of Contra Costa County, State of California, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the south line of Lone Tree Way, a County road, with the southwesterly line of Fairview Avenue, a County road, thence southeasterly along said southwesterly line of Fairview Avenue South 340 46' 01" East 195.00 feet (The bearing South 340 46' 01" East being taken for the purpose of this description); thence leaving said southwesterly line, South 550 13' 59" West. 15.00 feet to a point on a line parallel with and 15.00 feet measured at right angles from said southwesterly line of Fairview Avenue, thence along said parallel line North 340 46' 01" West 148.00 feet; thence leaving said parallel line, North 500 46' 01" West 77.12 feet to the southerly line of Lone Tree Way; thence southeasterly along said southerly line, South 880 58' 35" East 44.71 feet to the point of beginning. Containing an area of 3646 square feet of land more or less. SUBJECT TO: A storm drain easement in favor of Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District described as follows: Commencing at the southern corner of the parcel described above parcel thence along the southwesterly line thereof north 340 46' 01" west, 29.00 feet to the point of beginning, thence from said point of beginning continuing along the last line north 340 46' 01" west 14.00 feet; thence leaving said line north 550 13' 59" east 15.00 feet to a point on the northeasterly line of said "portion of C.C.C.F.C.D." parcel; thence along the last line south 340 46' 01" east, 14.00 feet; thence leaving the last line south 550 13' 59" west 15.00 feet to the point of beginning. Containing an area of 210 square feet of land more or less. "Reserving unto the Grantor: All oil, gas, casinghead gas, asphaltum and other hydrocarbons and all chemical gas now or hereafter found situated or located in all or any part of portion of the land described herein lying more than 500 feet below the surface thereof, but without any rights whatsoever to enter upon the surface of said land or upon any part or said lands within 500 feet vertical distance below the surface thereof.," This real property description has been prepared by me or under my direction, in conformance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act. i� 0 S ZWE Signature: Licensed Land Surveyor Contra Costa County Public Works * Exp. 12-34-04 No,5999 � Date: r` CJS OF GA��� �' EXHIBIT "B" PLAT TO ACCOMPANY PANY EXHIBIT ".A„ DONE TREE WAY 5880 5813511E POB 44.71' VO LINE DATA TABLE0 No. Bearing Length L1 S 55013'59" W 15.00' L2 N 340 45'01" W 14.00' L3 S 34° 46'01" E 14.00' L4 N 55013'59" E 15.00' AREA SUBJECT TO STORM DRAIN `�'�,N EASEMENT TO CONTRA COSTA , COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Instrument : Grant Deed 'Scale: 9"=40' Date APRIL 2004 Drawn BY: PP _ Series No. Recorded Cad File: RW833304.dgn CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NOTICE OF DETERMINATION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 651 PINE STREET 4TH FLOOR NORTH WING MARTINEZ,CALIFORNIA 94553-0095 Telephone: (925) 313-2296 Contact Person: Cece Sellgren, Environmental Planner Common Name (if any), Location, and Project Description. Lone Tree Way Widening at Fairview Avenue. Project # 7558-6138333. APN:019-060-052 The County is adopting the previously certified City of Brentwood Mitigatd Negative Declaration for the purpose of conducting the Real Property transactions necessary in support of the Lone Tree Way Widening at Fairview Avenue Project. To accommodate planned and approved growth in northwest Brentwood, the City of Brentwood will widen Lone Tree Way. The project entails the sale of 3,646 sf, of surplus Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District property in East County to the City of Brentwood for the construction of the Lone Tree Way Widening Project.The County will retain a 210 sf.storm drain easement. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act: ( ) An Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified (SCH# ) ( X) A Negative Declaration (City of Brentwood)was prepared (Mitigated Neg Dec adopted by City of Brentwood--CIP Project No.336-3127 - 5128/02) Copies of the record of project approval and the Negative Declaration or the final EIR may be examined at the office of the Contra Costa County Public Works Department. ( } The Project will not have a significant environmental effect. ( X ) The Project may have a significant environmental effect, but because mitigation has been incorporated into the project plan, there will not be a significant environmental effect. { ) Mitigation measures were made a condition of approval of the project. ( } A statement of overriding considerations was adopted. ( } Findings were adopted pursuant to Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Date: By: Community Development Department Representative AFFIDAVIT OF FILING AND POSTING I declare that on I received and posted this notice as required by California Public Resources Code Section 21152(c). Said notice will remain posted for 30 days from the filing date. t Signature Title Applicant: X_ County Clerk-$50 Public Works Department Total Clue: $50 255 Glacier Drive Tota!Paid $ Martinez,CA 94553 Attn:Cece Seilgren Receipt#_ _ 03CrpDatatEngSvc,f tiV IRO\Real Prop�Lor eTreeW i dening\NOD.doc F,. Receive . 0 6 2003 ��� RESOLUTION NO. 2613 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD CERTIFYING AND ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE LUNE TREE WAY WIDENING PROJECT, GIP PROJECT NO. 336-3127. WHEREAS, on May 28, 2002 the City Council approved the 2002/07 Capital Improvement Program; and WHEREAS,. the Northwest Quadrant Project, CIP Project No. 336-3127, is part of the approved program; and WHEREAS, Staff has followed the necessary CEQA guidelines and published a notification for review and comment; and WHEREAS, no negative comments have been received regarding the environmental document for this project. I NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Brentwood does hereby adapt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Lone Tree Way Widening Project, CIP Project No. 336-3127. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Brentwood at a regular meeting held on the 9th day of July 2002 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Beckstrand, Hill, Petrovich, Mayor McPoland NOES: None ABSENT: Councilmember Gomes ichael A,'McP6�&Qf, Sr. ayor ATTEST: r tarGMC drninistrative ervices Director Lone 'free Way Widening Project Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration w . TUIODD City of Brentwood Engineering Department June 2002 di uemo as eta#tw wi 'rR3tfw • �' � 1�� �IttltilF •MfLtnwr r:� a#��'�• .r(tiii� titiititt#++ ter* �r ��" ♦ ! t �'wl Mrr•wwF�" w� '� ✓<. f � • MM MK ,www,�1.'"'. ��� an MM • ws rwi iM : iu�Ni �i rrtw iM ��w Mi M �i � � S wrw iw RwFf� Yllww !M S r � � •�i� ��!,�rw�i # �fA Jr sw fi waw now�:w.+F..wl.�wS,"t► r. S we iw waw waw MM ► ■� iw a ri iw iA w+■w w, �1 ��'` R r AR#i filrMia iwr4 R ! � fwR ww wi w!iw•�.iiR# tt#� � ��� iaw ww wM flaw i er wilt�aifes# t#tttetritt ■e'tE fi�U �� _- ►'"�! part 7!'*4!"otr wt"' ttil Wim. .. a �t U ^lM� _7EM . -i a# � 99==_ Afi sets • � w� ��� iftfti/t "� /ti#tt#ts7 r• ' �� !#tt##t# /!til�a4#moi �w * ti a � � r ! I 4 ♦ slt � 7fld U * .f ! • R CITY OF BRENTWOOD Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration As a 'result of an Initial Study of the proposed Lone Tree Way Widening Project and the adoption of certain mitigation measures as part of the project, the City intends to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the proposed project. Protect Name: Lone Tree Way Widening Project Project Location: Lone Tree Way between Jeffrey Way and Fairview Avenue Prof ect Applicant. City of Brentwood Proiect Description: To accommodate planned and approved growth in northwest Brentwood, the City of Brentwood proposes to widen Lone Tree Way.between Jeffrey Way and Fairview Avenue. This segment of Lone Tree Way, located in a rural section of Brentwood, is currently a two-lane, undivided cast/west conventional facility that lacks sidewalks, curbs, and gutters. The segment is approximately one mile in length. The proposed project would widen.Lone Tree Way from a two-lane undivided roadway to a six- lane ixlane divided roadway with a landscaped median, landscaped parking strips, and concrete curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Existing overhead utility lines would be undergrounded on the south side of Lone Tree Way within the public street right-of-way. Major intersections will be signalized, roadway lighting will be installed,Zone 2 water system facilities will be installed and sanitary sewer facilities will be installed. In addition to improvements to Lone Tree Way, intersection irnprovements at Empire Avenue and Fairview Avenue, curls returns for JeMey Way, Shady Willow Lane, and Windy Springs Lane, and driveway access improvements to,commercial sites along Lone Tree "Way will be provided. Storm Drainage Lines A, Al, A3, and A5, as included in the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District's Master Plan for Drainage Area 30C, would also be constructed as part of the proposed project. The City of Brentwood reviewed the proposed project and is of the opinion that the project, with w mitigation measures as conditions of project approval, will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration may be reviewed or obtained after June 11,2002 at the City of Brentwood Engineering Department from: Paul Eldredge Engineering Department City of Brentwood 708 Third Street Brentwood CA 94513 dept-mg neefine c@,cibrentwaod.ca us If you have questions or comments about this document,please contact the Pepartment no later than July =1,2002,when the comment period closes. B ' Date; l3 0 _ Paul Eldredge, Assistant City Engineer City of Brentwood, California Lone Tree Way Widening Project Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Project Description: To accommodate planned and approved growth in northwest Brentwood, the City of Brentwood proposes to widen Lone Tree Way between Jeffrey Way and Fairview Avenue. This segment of Lone Tree Way, located in a rural section of Brentwood, is currently a two-lane, undivided bast/west conventional facility that lacks sidewalks, curbs, and gutters. The segment is approximately one mile in length. The proposed project would widen Lone Tree Way from a two-lane undivided roadway to a six-lane divided roadway with a landscaped median, landscaped parking strips, and concrete curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Existing overhead utility lines would be undergrounded on the south side of Lone Tree Way within the public street right- of-way. ight- ofway. Major intersections will be signalized, roadway lighting will be installed,water system facilities will be installed and sanitary sewer `acilities will be installed. In addition to improvements to Lone Tree Way, intersection improvements at Empire Avenue and Fairview Avenue, curb returns for Jeffrey Way, Shady Willow Lane, and Windy Springs Lane, and driveway access improvements to commercial sites along Lone Tree Way will be provided. Storm Drainage Lines A, Al, A3, and A5, as included in the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District's Master Plan for Drainage Area 30C, would also be constructed as part of the proposed project. Determination: An Initial Study has been prepared by the City of Brentwood. Can the basis of this study, it is determined that the proposed action will have; • No impact on agricultural resources, mineral resources, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, or utilities and service systems. • A less-than.-significant impact on aesthetics, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, and population and housing. • Less-than-significant impacts oh air quality with the following incorporated mitigation measures to control dust emissions during construction. To reduce particulate matter emissions during construction and demolition phases, the contractor shall comply with the dust control strategies recommended by the BAAQMD, as appropriate, depending on the size of the project area. The City of Brentwood shall ensure compliance by requiring the contractor to include a dust control plan. The plan shall be submitted to the City of Brentwood Engineering Department, which will be responsible for field verification of the plan during construction. The plan shall comply with the City grading ordinance. The project applicant shall include in construction contracts, and the dust control plan, the following requirements or measures shown to be equally effective: Basic Control Measures: to be implemented as appropriate and feasible, depending on the size of the project area. • Cover all trucks hauling construction and demolition debris from the site; • Water all exposed or disturbed soil surfaces at least twice daily; Lone Tree Wav Wider:ing Project v Proposed'Mitigated Negative Declaration Page • Use watering to control dust generation during demolition of structures or break- up of pavement; • Wave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) sail stabilizers on all unpaved parking areas and staging areas; Sweep daily(with water sweepers) all paved parking areas and staging areas; ■ Provide daily clean-up of mud and dirt carried onto paved streets from the site. Enhancers Control Measures: to be implemented in addition to basic control measures at construction sites greater than four acres in area. • Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic sail binders to exposed stockpiles(dirt, sand, etc.); t Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph; ■ Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; ■ R6plant vegetation in disturb pd areas as quickly as possible. Optional Control Measures: strongly encouraged at construction sites that are large in area, located near sensitive receptors, or for any ether reason may warrant additional emissions reductions. ■ Install wheel washers for all existing trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site; • Install wind breaks, or plant trees/vegetative wind breaks at windward side(s) of construction.areas; ■ Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds(instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph; * Limit the area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity at any one time. • eLess-than-significant impacts on biological resources with the following incorporated "- mitigation measure to reduce potentially significant impacts to resident and migratory birds. A qualified biologist will conduct pre-construction nesting surveys no more than two weeks prior to construction to determine if nesting birds are present. If nesting birds are present, a 1501-foot buffer,zone will be observed and construction activities will be suspended in this zone until future surveys indicate that the chicks have fully fledged. Completion of pre-construction surveys and compliance with the exclusion zoning will result in a less-than-significant impact to nesting birds. If no vegetation removal occurs during the nesting period (February 1 to August 31),no mitigation will be required. If no nesting birds are present,vegetation removal may occur during the nesting period. ■ Less-than-significant impacts to cultural resources with the following incorporated mitigation measures to address discovery or recognition of any potential cultural resources or human remains on the project site, and to address impacts to a property potentially eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources. If potential historic or archaeological resources are discovered during construction, suspend all work in the immediate vicinity (within approximately 50 feet) and avoid altering the materials and their context pending site investigation by a qualified archaeological or cultural resources consultant retained by the project sponsor. Construction work shall not commence again until the archaeological or cultural resources consultant has been given an opportunity to examine the findings, assess their significance, and offer proposals for Lone Tree Way Widening Project-Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Wage 2 any additional exploratory measures deemed necessary for the further evaluation of and/or mitigation of adverse impacts to any potential historical resources or unique archaeological resources that have been encountered. If the find is determined to be an historic or unique archaeological resource, and if avoidance of the resource would not be feasible, the archaeological or cultural resources consultant shall prepare a plan for the methodical excavation of those portions of the site that would be adversely affected. The plan shall be designed to result in the extraction of sufficient volumes of non-redundant archaeological data to address important regional research considerations. The work shall be performed by the archaeological or cultural resources consultant, and shall result in detailed technical reports. Such reports shall be deposited with the City of Brentwood, the City of Antioch, and the California Historical Resources Regional Information Center. Construction in the vicinity of the find shall be accomplished in accordance with current professional standards and shall not recommence until this work is completed. The project sponsor shall assure that project personnel are informed that law prohibits -collecting significant historical or unique archaeological resources discovered during development of the project. Prehistoric or Native American resources can include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, and pestles; and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat- affected rock, or human burials. Historic resources can include nails, bottles, or other items often found in refuse deposits. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains on the project site, the contractor shall contact the Contra Costa County Coroner, pursuant to Section 7050.5(b) of the California Health and Safety Code. In this event, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner determines the origin of such remains. The coroner, upon recognizing the remains as being of Native American origin, shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. No further disturbance of the - } site may be made except as authorized by the County coroner. The Commission has various powers and duties to provide for the ultimate disposition of any Native American remains, including the designation of a Native American Most Likely Descendant. Sections 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code also call for "protection to Native American human burials and skeletal remains from vandalism and inadvertent destruction." To achieve this goal, construction personnel on the project shall be instructed as to both the potential for discovery of cultural or human remains, and the need for proper and timely reporting of such finds, and the consequences of failure to do SO. To address impacts to a property potentially eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources, the City of Brentwood shall hire an arborist to assess the health and age of the palm trees located at 6361 Lone Tree Way, and determine if relocation of the trees would be feasible. If determined feasible, the City of Brentwood shall relocate the palm trees at least 10 feet back from the pavement edge of the proposed new roadway alignment, prior to the commencement of construction. If one or both of the palm trees dies as a result of the relocation efforts, the City of Brentwood shall replace thele with mature trees of the same size and species. Less-than-significant impacts to hazardous materials with the following incorporated mitieation measures to remove potential contaminants that might be encountered. The p��P 3 Lone Tree Way Widening Protect-proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration _-� City of Brentwood shall implement a soil-sampling program prior to the start of construction activities. This soil-sampling program shall be reviewed and approved by Contra Costa County Environmental Health Department (CCCEl1D). Soil samples would be collected along representative locations where unpaved areas would be disturbed. The samples would be analyzed for pesticides [i.e., Dichloro-diphenyl- trichloroethane (DDT) and Dichloro-diphenyl-dichloroethylene (DDE)]. The location of impacted soil that may be impacted during construction activities shall be documented in a report summarizing the sampling program and submitted to CCCEHD. This information shall be used to aid in the management and disposal of any contaminated soil. A project specific Health and Safety Plan (HSI;') shall be implemented during construction activities. The HSP shall address the safety and health hazards of the project and procedures for the protection of construction workers who may be in contact with contaminated soil. The HSP shall also specify site control programs, engineering controls;.safe work practices, air Tonitoring requirements, and a description of proper personal protective equipment. `: ■ Less-than-significant noise impacts with the following incorporated mitigation measures to reduce construction-related noise. The following practices shall be incorporated into the construction documents to be implemented by the project contractor: ■ Comply with noise and vibration control measures identified in the City of Brentwood General plan. ■ Maximize the physical separation between noise generators and noise receptors. Such separation includes,but is not limited to,the following measures: i provide enclosures such as heavy duty snufflers for stationary equipment and barriers around particularly noisy areas on the site or around the entire site, as necessary; ii use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound barriers,' to inhibit transmission of noise to sensitive receptors; and iii locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community. ■ Select quiet construction equipment whenever possible,particularly air compressors.. ■ Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines near sensitive receptors. Select routes for movement of construction-related vehicles and equipment in conjunction with the City'of Brentwood such that noise-sensitive areas, including residences,hotels, and outdoor recreation areas, are avoided as much as possible. ■ Designate a noise control coordinator who will be responsible for responding to complaints about noise during construction. The telephone number of the noise control coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site. Copies of the construction schedule shall also be posted to the nearby residents. ■ Construction activities near sensitive land uses shall be limited to the hours of 7 am. to 7 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.. on Saturday. Construction shall be prohibited on Sundays and City holidays. 1,rine Tree W—, TV enine Proiect-Proposed Mitigated Negative Di-rannitinn Page 4 INITIAL STUDY AND.ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1. PROJECT TITLE: Lone Tree Way Widening 2. LEAD AGENCY: City of Brentwood 104 Oak Street Brentwood,California 94513 3. CONTACT PERSON Mitch Oshinsky AND PHONE NC UMBER: {925'}5165139 4. PROJECT LOCATION: County: Contra Costa City: Brentwood Cross Streets: Lone Tree Way between Jeffrey Way and Fairview Avenue Total Acres: N/A Assessor's Parcel No. Numerous parcels from which right-of-way has been acquired Twp: TIN Range: R.2E Base: Mount Diablo Section: Within 2 Miles: State Highway: State Route 4 Waterways: Sand Creek; Deer Creek; East Contra Costa Irrigation District(ECCID) Canal; MokelumEne Aqueduct Airports: None Railways: Union Pack Railroad Schools: La Paloma Continuing Education High School 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S City of Brentwood NAME AND ADDRESS: 708 Third Street Brentwood,California 94513 Contact Person: Paul Eldredge Phone: (925)516-5420 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: N/A 7. ZONING: N/A 8. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: To accommodate planned and approved growth in northwest Brentwood, the City of Brentwood proposes to widen Lone 'Tree Way between Jeffrey "Way and Fairview Avenue. This segment of Lone Tree Way, located in'a rural section of Brentwood, is currently a two-lane, undivided cast/west conventional facility that lacks sidewalks, curbs, and gutters. The segment is approximately one mile in length. Lane Tree Way serves as an important regional travel route, providing access to and from the City of Oakley to the north via Anderson Lane, Empire Avenue, and O'Hara Avenues; and to and from the City of Antioch and the State Route 4 Bypass to the west. West of Jeffrey Way, Lone Tree Way is currently striped as a four-'ane facility which is planed to be restriped to six lanes with the completion of the Lore Tree 'Jay Widening Project. East of Fairview Avenue, Lone Tree Way is a two-lane facility. As a related project, the City of Brentwood plans to widen Lone Tree Way east of Fairview Avenue to six lanes and, construct a grade separation for the Union Pacific Railroad crossing east of Fairview Avenues. The project limits for the proposed widening extend from just west of Jeffrey Way to just east of Fairview Avenue. Within these project limits, Jeffrey Way, Shady Willow Lane, Empire Avenue,Windy Springs Lane, and Fairview Avenue intersect Lone 'free Way. At present, Jeffrey Way and Shady Willow Lane are # two-lane roads that extend south of Lone Tree Way for a distance of approximately 1,500 feet and do not cross Lone Tree Way. Empire Avenue is a two-lane north-south road that extends to the City of Oakley to the north and ends as a dirt road approximately 2,000 feet south of its intersection with Lone Tree Way. Windy Springs Lane is an unpaved two-lane road that extends south of Lone Tree Way for approximately 2,000 feet and does not cross Lone Tree Way. Fairview Avenue is a two-lane . north-south road that extends south of Lone Tree Way to Central Brentwood and ends at Lone Tree Way. In addition to these intersections, iurnerous driveways front Lone Tree Way. The Union Pacific Railroad crosses Lone Tree Way east of Fairview Avenue. The proposed project would.widen Lone Tree Way from a two-lane undivided roadway to a six-lane divided roadway with a landscaped median; landscaped parking strips; and concrete curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Existing overhead utility lines would be undergrounded on the south side of Lone Tree Way within the public street right-of-way. Major intersections will be signalized, roadway lighting will be installed, water system facilities will be installed and sanitary sewer facilities will be installed. In addition to iniprovernexits to Lone Tree Way, intersection improvements at Empire Avenue and Fairview Avenue, curb returns for Jeffrey Way, Shady Willow Lane, and Windy Springs Lane, and driveway access improvements to commercial sites along Lone Tree Way will be provided. Storm Drainage Lines A,A1, A3, and AS, as included in the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District's Master flan for Drainage Area. 30C, would also be constructed as part of the proposed project. Specifically,the project includes the following: 1. Lone Tree.Way: Lone Tree Way improvements include roadway and utility improvements within the ultimate public right-of way from Jeffrey Lane east to Fairview Avenue, approximately one mile. Y 2. intersection Improvements: • Empire Avenue: Full intersection improvement of Empire Avenue, including roadway and utilities, and the construction of Empire Avenue approximately 250 lineal feet south and 250 lineal feet north of Lone Tree Way. • Fairview Avenue: Full intersection improvement of Realigned Fairview Avenue including roadway and utilities, and the closure of the existing Fairview intersection with Lone Tree Way. 3. Curb Returns Improvements: • Jeffrey Way; Curb returns and transition improvements will be provided at Jeffrey Way to provide access to existing uses south of Lone Tree Way. The realignment of Fairview Avenue approximately 550 feet west of its existing location was the subject of an Environmental Impact Report completed in October 2001. Construction of the realignment projected is expected to begin in fall, 2002. ■ Shady Willow Lane: In addition to the curb return and transition improvements on the south side of Lone Tree Way, Shady Willow Lane will now extend north. of Lone Tree Way into the City of Antioch, and be called Slatten Ranch Road. The Slatten Ranch Commercial Center is a separate project and is being reviewed by a separate environmental document under preparation by the City of Antioch. Windy Springs Lane: A curb return and transition improvements will be provided at Windy Springs Lane to provide access to existing residents. 4. Driveway Access Inyrovements: Existing driveway improvements will be removed and re-installed to conform to the proposed widening project. New commercial access points will be created with the Lone Tree Way Widening Project. 5. Drainage Area 30C A Al, A3 and A5 Storm Draina e Lines and Detention Basin Improvements_ Storm Drain Lines A, AD and A3 and appurtenances will be located within Lane Tree Way, connecting into Realigned Fairview Avenue and terminating at the Detention Basin to be constructed east of Fairview Avenue. Line A5 and appurtenances will be located within a storm drainage easement that travels overland east of Empire Avenue,approximately 700 feet south of Lone Tree Way. Line A5 will connect into Realigned Fairview Avenue and terminate at the Detention Basin to be constructed east of Fairview Avenue. West of Jeffrey Way, the project will conforms to the six-lane segment of Lone Tree Way (currently striped for four lanes) and the Lone'free Way interchange of the Route 4 Bypass. East of realigned Fairview Avenue, the project would conform to the existing two-lane segment of Lone Tree Way. Existing daily traffic counts(2002) along this segment of Lone Tree Way are approximately 22,900 y vehicles per day. This number is projected to increase to approximately 27,30€3 vehicles per day by the year 2025 without construction of the project. 9. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING: Land uses south of Lone Tree Way include mixed uses with commercial, large-lot single-family residences, a continuing education high school, agricultural fields and orchards. North of Lone 'free Way are large-lot single-family residences, mixed use with commercial,agricultural fields,vineyards and orchards. 10. PUBLIC AGENCIES WITH INTEREST IN THE PROJECT (i.e.permits, financing approval, participation agreement, etc.). The project site is in the jurisdiction of the cities of Brentwood and Antioch. The Cities of Antioch and Brentwood have agreed that the City of Brentwood will act as the Lead Agency for the preparation of environmental documentation for the proposed project(as defined in Section 15051 of the CEQA Guidelines) and will consider approval of the project. Other agencies that have some discretionary authority over the project or have concerns over aspects of the project are considered responsible agencies and interested agencies. Key public agencies with a particular ' interest in the proposed project include, but are not necessarily limited to, the entities listed in Table 1-1. 2 Fehr&Peers Associates,Inc., June 2002. Table 1-1 Key Public Agencies with Interest in the Proposed Project Agency Responsibility Federal and State Agencies U.S. Environmental Protection The primary federal and state agencies concerned with degradation of the Agency(U.S.EPA), California environment and how it affects human health. EPA t California Department of Responsible for approval of roadway improvements along state highways. Transportation(Caltrans District 4) Central'Valley Regional Water Responsible for evaluating appropriate uses of water and responsible for Quality Control Board(#5) issuing waste discharge permits to protect water duality. All State Office of Historic Responsible for administering state and federal lists of historical and Preservation archaeological resources and for formulating appropriate measures to record and/or preserve them. Native American Heritage Responsible for administering information related to Native American Commission Heritage resources and for formulating appropriate measures to record and/or preserve them. Regional Agencies Bay Area Air Quality Serves as the San Francisco Bay County Air Pollution Control District and Inas Management District the responsibility for the implementation of the California Clean Air Act: (BAAQMD) BAAQMD's authority extends throughout the nine-county,San Francisco Bay Area,including Contra Costa County. East Contra Costa County Holds local surface water rights and water supply contracts. Irrigation District "w Contra Costa County Flood Responsible for maintenance and operation of major flood control facilities Control and Water Conservation and stream channels throughout Contra Costa County. District Contra Costa Water District, Responsible for water supply and treatment agreements with the City of Diablo Water District Brentwood. East Diablo Fire District Responsible for fire protection service to a 140-square-mile area that includes the City of Brentwood. Local Agencies Contra Costa County,City of These jurisdictions will act as Interested Agencies with the proposed project Antioch, and City of Oakley because they are located directly adjacent to the City of Brentwood. A s substantial portion of the widening project will lie within the city limits of the City of Antioch. Liberty Union High School Responsible for school services in the City of Brentwood. District,Brentwood Union School District,Knightsen Union School District Tri Delta Transit Responsible for public transit service to the City of Brentwood. ,source: EIP Associates,My 200 L 11. OTHER PREVIOUS RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: City of Brentwood General Plan Final EIR, July 1993 City of Brentwood General Plan Update EIR, September 17, 2001 Fairview Avenue/Lone Tree Way Re-alignment EIR,October 2001 City of Brentwood Lone Tree Center EIR,January 18,2002 a Arcadia Mixed Use Planned Development EM,March 2002 City of Brentwood Capital Improvement Program 2001-2006 Initial Study/Negative Declaration, April 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS pOTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact"or is"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated,"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Q Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources 99 Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources 0 Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous 0 Hydrology and Water Quality 0 Land Use and Planning Materials Mineral Resources 0 Noise 0 Population and Housing ❑ Public Services Recreation Q Transportation and Traffic 0 Utilities and Service Systems �, Mandatory Findings of Significance e DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation.: I rind that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. i 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 project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I rind that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an El ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impact"or a"potentially significant unless mitigated"impact on the environment,but at least one effect(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and(Z)has 13 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 or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards,and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier,EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing further is required. 01L�r Si ature Irate Printed Name Title a Lone Tape Way Widening Project—initia? Study Pace 5 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: L A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact" answers that are adequately su'pported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the project. A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. 2. All answers trust take account of the whole action involved. Answers should address off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. (Ince the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate, if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant or potentially significant, or if the lead agency lacks information to make a finding of Insignificance. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, preparation of art Environmental Impact Report is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures have reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII,"Earlier Analyses,"may be crass-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIII;,or other CEQA process, an effect has been analyzed adequately in 'an earlier Elft or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are"Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation, measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and ether sources used or' individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. S 8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies normally should address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9. The explanation of each issue should identify the following items: a) The significance criteria or threshold,if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact. Incorporated Inn: act No Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Source: 6) Discussion: The project area is a segment of Lone Tree Way approximately one mile in length. Lone Tree Way is a two-lane roadway in the northern part of Brentwood. Landscape elements in the project area consist of agricultural s fields, single-family ranchettes, a church, and a continuing education high school. Views are expansive in most directions along the segment, with distant scenic vistas of Mt. Diablo and its foothills to the southwest. Immediate views on both the north and south sides along the project area vary from open agricultural fields and fences to common landscape trees and homes that are set back at various distances from the road. Neither distant nor immediate views would be affected by the proposed project, because the project does not include any structural or building elements which would act to block existing views. As such, the project does not have the potential to adversely affect scenic views. b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not 1--7 0 n limited to,trees,rack outcroppings,and historic buildings t�t u within a state scenic highway? (Source: 6) Discussion: The project site contains no scenic resources such as rock outcroppings,nor is it a state scenic highway. Mature trees along Lone Tree Way would be removed as part of the proposed project, but they are not considered significant trees in accordance with the City of Brentwood Tree Ordinance. No historic buildings would be removed as part of the proposed project. Ultimate improvements will include landscaped medians and parkways. Consequently,damage to scenic resources is not considered an impact of the project. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ® 0 ® Q quality of the site and its surroundings? (Source: 6) Discussion: The visual character of Lone Tree Way would change from a rural two-lane road to a six-lane major arterial roadway, with signalized intersections and turning lanes. Most of the area surrounding Lone Tree Way has been designated for commercial development in the City of Brentwood General Ilan land Use Element. The City has anticipated the aesthetic transition from rural to urban development in its Community Design Element. Consequently, adverse effects on the existing visual character of the project area are not considered an impact of the project d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Sources: 1,6) Discussion.: Existing sources of light along Lone Tree Way within the project limits include streetlights and site lighting on individual lots,consisting of building,parking lot,porch, and yard lighting.The proposed project would be a new source of light typical of a six-lane major arterial roadway,with illumination from additional vehicle headlights, stoplights, and streetlights. However, because the area has been designated for commercial and residential development and the City has anticipated the aesthetic transition from rural to urban development,the new source of light from the proposed expansion would have a less-than-significant impact on day or nighttime views in the area. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless .Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information:Sources): Impact Incor�orated Iin.Part No Im part TI. AGRICULTURAL 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(1997)prepared by the California Dept.of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland � " of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (Sources: 1,17) Discussion: Lands adjacent to Lone Tree Way are mapped as Prince Farmland on the Contra Costa County Farmland Map (1985). Land Vises consist of the existing two-lane Lone Tree Way, single-family ranchettes, a continuing education high school, a church, and undeveluoed agricultural land. The agricultural areas are a mix of active farmland and land that is not in cultivation and is mowed or disced annually for weed and fire control. The proposed project would replace portions of this agricultural land;however,both sides of Lone Tree Way between Jeffrey Way and Fairview Avenue are no longer designated for agriculttual purposes. This area has long been designated for urbanization in the General Plan. Prime far land conversion was addressed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report(EIR)and the Agricultural Preservation Programs.. The General Plan contains policies to reduce the conversion of farmlands to urban arses by limiting annexations and concentrating on infill development. Specifically, Conservation/Open Space policy 1.1.5 protects farmland south of the East Contra Costa Irrigations District(ECCII7) main canal and east of Sellers Avenue, directing urban growth to the north and west, where the proposed project is located. Because the City envisioned development along this segment of Lone Tree Way in its General Plan and dealt with potential impacts in the General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report(2001),no further impact is expected. The conversion of agricultural land at this site is not considered an impact of the project b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a 0 0 0 Willlamson Act contract' (Sources: 1,17) Discussion: The proposed widening of Lone Tree Way is consistent with the Circulation Element of the City of Brentwood General Plan. The project area is not currently zoned for agriculture and there are no Williamson Act lands in the project vicinity. Consequently,the proposed project does not cossflict with existing zoning for agricultural use. c) Involve other changes In the existing environment which, 0 0 0 21 because of their location or nature,could result In conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? (Source: 1) Discussion: As discussed above, the proposed project would replace portions of agricultural land along Lone 'free Way; however,both sides of Ione Tree Way between Jeffrey Way and Fairview Avenue are no longer designated for agricultural purposes. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the conversion of farmland to non.- agricultural use. IZI. 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 0 air quality plan? (Sources: 13,14) Discussion: The BAAQMD is the primary agency responsible for planning, implernenting, and enforcing federal and state ambient standards in the Bay Area. The BAAQMD maintains the region's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone, and,because of the ozone violations, is required to prepare a Clean Air Plan(CAI') to ar:aLn the state standard.. The 2000 CAP includes specific measures to reduce ground-level ozone by reducing emissions of ozone precursors (ROG and NOX). Potentially Significant Potentially finless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant -ISSUES(and,Supporting Information Sources): hn_pact No .10pact To analyze if the proposed project is consistent with the 20010 CAP, the project must demonstrate that I)population growth for the jurisdiction will not exceed the values included in the current CAP, 2) the rate of increase in vehicle mites traveled (VMT) for the jurisdiction is equal to or lower than the rate of increase in papulation, and 3)demonstrate local plan consistency with CAP Transportation Control Measures(TCMs). According to the current General Plan Update,population growth may exceed the values used for air quality planning I purposes in the 2000 CAP; therefore, emissions related to human activity in Brentwood (from motor vehicle trips, energy use, and miscellaneous area sources) could be greater than those assumed in the CAP. However, mitigation measures introduced in the new General Plan Update,regarding land use and growth management within the City, are aimed to reduce the effects of population growth by,metering the number of new residential dwelling projects approved per year as well as minimizing project-related motor vehicle emissions. Regarding, the rate of VMT increase proposed by the City, the General Plan Update includes land use policies promoting pedestrian-scaled design, circulatiodpolicies promoting use of transit and pedestrian travel, and growth management policies encouraging implementation.of"Smart Growth'development principles and job development to balance expected future residential growth. Each of these features would contribute to reducing vehicular emissions because they would contribute to either reducing the number of new vehicle trips or reducing the length of trips. Compared to the existing General Plan,implementation of the General Plan Update would reduce the number of motor vehicle trips occurring in the Planning Area. Without implementation of the General Flan Update, approximately 506,0010 average daily trips would be expected to occur at buildout. Through the growth management and land use policies of the General PIan Update,approximately 56,000 average daily trips would be eliminated,and the associated motor vehicle emissions would not occur. The project, in and of itself; demonstrates the General Plan Update's consistency with the current CAP because it represents a number of CAP TCMs. The implementation of this project would l)improve arterial traffic management and 2)promote traffic calming measures. As discussed in Section XV,Transportation/Traffic,future traffic conditions without the implementation of this project would result in significant traffic delays along Lone Tree Way, thus promulgating an increase in vehicle pollutant emissions caused by such delays. The traffic analysis demonstrates that the implementation of the project would result in acceptable levels of service(LOS)and traffie delays at intersections along this roadway segment. b) 'Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially 0 to an existing or projects air quality violation? (Source: f 3) Discussion: Foreseeable construction activities would occur due to new road construction (including grading, rehabilitation, and intersection improvement). Heavy construction activity on dry soil or dry wind-blown portions of the Planning Area exposed during construction phases could cause emissions of dust (PM,o). Reactive organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and additional particulate matter emissions would also occur as a result of diesel fuel combustion by the heavy equipment and construction worker vehicle exhaust. Throughout the construction phases, construction and demolition-related emissions would vary day to day depending on the specific phase or combination of phases in progress at any given time. When considered in the context of long-teem project operations, construction and demolition-related emissions would be considered to be short-term and temporary, but these activities could still cause significant effects on local air quality. The BAAQMD has developed an analytical approach that obviates the need to quantitatively estimate construction emissions. Emissions of carbon monoxide and ozone precursors(ROG and NO,,)from,exhaust and other construction activities are included by the BAAQMD in the emission inventory that is the basis for regional air quality planning, and the BAAQMD does not consider these emissions to impede attainment or maintenance of ambient air quality standards. These regulatory programs minimize the potential effects related to emissions from equipment exhaust. To minimize dust emissions, the BAAQMD has identified a set of feasible PMio control measures for all construction sites in the air basin. Implementation of the appropriate BAAQMD-recommended measures (Mitigation Measure AQ-I) for individual projects would reduce the inipacts caused by construction dust to a level of insignificance. With the following mitigation, impacts would be considered less than significant.(LTS) Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ,t',$'SUE,S'(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact AQ-1 Implement Recommended Dust Control Measures. To reduce particulate matter emissions during construction and demolition phases, the contractor shall comply with the dust control strategies recommended by the BA.AQMD, as appropriate,depending on the size of the project area. The City of Brentwood shalt ensure compliance by requiring the contractor to include a dust control plan. The plan shall be submitted to the City of Brentwood Engineering Department,which will be responsible for field verification of the plan during construction.The plan shalt comply with the City grading ordinance. The project applicant shall include in construction contracts, and the dust control plan,the following requirements or measures shown to be equally effective: Basic Control Measures:to be implemented as appropriate and feasible,depending on the size of the project area. ■ Cover all trucks hauling construction and demolition debris from the site; • Water all exposed or disturbed soil surfaces at least twice daily; ■ Use watering to control dust generation during demolition of structures or break-up of pavement; ■ Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved parking areas and staging areas; • Sweep daily(with water sweepers)all pived parking areas and staging areas; ■ Provide daily clean-up of mud and dirt carried onto paved streets from the site. Enhanced Control Measurers:to be implemented in addition to basic control measures at construction sites greater than four acres in area. ■ Enclose,cover,water twice daily or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles(dirt, sand,etc.); ■ Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph; • Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; ■ Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Optional Control Measures: strongly encouraged at construction sites that are Targe in area, located near sensitive receptors,or for any other reason may warrant additional emissions reductions. ■ Install wheel washers for all existing trucks,or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site;- ■ Install wind breaks,or plant treeslvegetative wind breaks at windward side(s)of coustruetidn areas; • Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds(instantaneous gusts)exceed 25 nnph; ■ Limit the area subject to excavation,grading,and other construction activity at any one time. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any ❑ ❑ 99 0 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)? (Source: 13) - Discussion: Per the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelinw, if a project does not have a significant air duality impact as a project, the determination of significant cumulative impact should be based on an evaluation of the consistency of the project with the local general plan and of the general plan with the regional air quality plan(CAP). As discussed in Illa,the project is consistent with the current general plan which in turn,is consistent with the current CAP. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant n Q 0 3 concentrations? (Source: 13) Discussion: See above discussion under item b. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ® 0 people? (Source: 13) Discussion: The proposed project would not have the potential to expose nearby sensitive receptors ','near,,y residential areas and schools) to objectionable odors. According to BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, industrial and commercial operations such as wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills; petroleum refineries, chernical factories, Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information,sources): Impact Incorporated Irn aet No Impact and paint and coating operations typically emit objectionable odors. The proposed project consists of widening Lone Tree Way. Objectionable odors may occur during the construction phase of the project, however,this is a temporary exposure and would not be expected to affect a substantial number of people. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESCJIJItCES. Would the project. a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through El 0 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? (Sources: 1,3,4,6,7) Discussion: ET Associates assessed the projeq area for significant biological resources on January 4, 2002. This biological site assessment focused on the habi t suitability and subsequent likelihood of occurrence on the site of special-status plant and animal species known to occur in eastern Contra Costa County and the presence of jurisdictional wetlands on the site. The California Department of Fish and Game's (CDFG) Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), other CDFG lists and publications, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2002) list of Endangered and Threatened Species that May Occur in or be Affected by Projects in the Brentwood Quad, and on-site observations were reviewed to identify documented or potential presence of special-status plant and animal species on or near the project site. Several special-status plant and animal species occur in east-central Contra Costa County(Appendix A). A search of the CDFG Natural Diversity Database found no documented occurrences of special-status species on the site and no special-status species were observed using the site during EIP's site visit Consequently, there would be no impacts to special-stags species associated with the proposed project Common species of landscape trees and shrubs as well as fruit trees occurring in orchards or on residential lots adjacent to Lone Tree Way provide potential nesting habitat for resident and migratory songbirds and raptors. Removal of vegetation during the nesting period,from February 1 to August 31, could result in"take"of adult birds, their nests, eggs, or young. This would result in violation of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and- California Fish and Game Code(Section 3503.5,1.992),and would be a potentially significant impact The following mitigation measure shall be incorporated into the grading and construction contracts to address the potential to encounter nesting birds. Implementation of this mitigation treasure would reduce potentially significant impacts to resident and migratory songbirds and raptors resources to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation BR-1. Avoid Vegetation Removal During Nesting S2ason. It is unlikely that construction activities could be timed to avoid vegetation removal during the nesting period,from February l to August 31. Because this cannot be accomplished, a qualified biologist would conduct pre-construction nesting surveys no more than two weeks prior to construction to determine if nesting birds are present. If nesting birds are present, a 150-foot buffer zone would be observed and construction:activities would be suspended in this zone until fixture surveys indicate that the chicks have fully fledged. Completion of pre-construction surveys and compliance with the exclusion zoning would result in a less-than-significant impact to nesting birds. Ifni vegetation removal occurs during the nesting period,no mitigation would be required. If no nesting birds are present,vegetation removal may occur during the nesting period. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or 13 11 n other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and'Wildlife Service? (Sources: 1,3,4,6,'7) Discussion- There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community on, or adjacent to, the project limits. The site is a mixture of single-family residences, cornmercial establishments, churches, and undeveloped agricultural land- PoiLions of the agricultural land that are not in cultivation are classified as non-native annual grassland that is Potentially Significant Potentially hitless Less Tuan Significant Mitigation ,Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact mowed or disced annually for weed and fire control. Consequently, the proposed project would have no affect on existing riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities that have been identified is local or regional plans. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clears'Water Act (including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal, etc.)through direct removal,filling,hydrological I interruption,or other means? (Source: 6) Discussion: No wetlands, including intermittent or seasonal streams, ponds, or vernal pools occur within, or are adjacent to,the project limits of the proposed project. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native t__I 0 ❑ rXI resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife rprridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites (Sources. 4,6,7) Discussion: Areas surrounding the project limits contain ho established wildlife migration corridors or native wildlife nursery sites. Therefore, the proposed widening of Ione Tree Way would not substantially interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. The project area presently contains minimal plant or animal resources other than agricultural land, landscape trees and shrubs, and ruderal (weedy) non-native annual grassland. The proposal will adhere to the General Plan policies and mitigation measures regarding biological resources. These include general measures intended to protect existing natural resources and requirements for individual projects to conduct field surveys and consult with resource agencies as needed.Therefore,the project would have no impacts on the movement of existing biological resources. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting © 1:1 0 biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Sources: 1,2,3,6) Discussion: The project area presently contains minimal plant or animal resources other than non-native annual- gmssland. No significant biological resources occur within the project limits. Trees occurring along Lone Tree Way are common horticultural varieties of landscape trees or fruit trees. Therefore,the proposed project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat w 0 0 0 10 Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation flan, or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? (Sources: 1,2,3) Discussion: The segment of Lone Tree Way proposed for widening is not located within, or adjacent to, any designated critical habitat units. The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of any applicable local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore,the project would have no affect on these resources. V. , CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 0 0 historical resource as defined in§15064.5? (Sources. 8,9) Discussion: A review of records and literature on file at the Northwest Information Center indicates that the City of Brentwood and its immediate environs,including the project alignment, contain 14 recorded Native American cul^irai resources, 21 recorded historic cultural resources, six isolated resources, and 14 historic properties on the Historic Properties Directory (MPD), published by the State Office of Historic Preservation(SOHP). Two of the 14 historic properties on the HPD are listed on the National Register of Historic Places: the John Marsh House and the lvlcCabe Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and.Supporting information.Sources): Impact Incorporated Inlet N2 Impact House. None of the cultural resources identified in the literature search are located on or near the project alignment. Approximately 18 properties are located along this portion of Lone Tree Way, ten of which are 45 years old or older, and as such, may qualify as historic resources if other criteria apply. The ten structures built prior to 1957 were evaluated for their potential historic significance by a qualified historic preservation specialist in April 2002. .Evaluation forms are available in Appendix'B of this report. Of the ten surveyed buildings, one was found to be potentially eligible for listing as a locally significant historic resource; a 1935 bungalow-style farmhouse at 6361 Lone Tree Way(Nobriga Property). According to the survey, the Nobriga Property"is one of the earlier residences along 4 Lone Tree Way; and pre-dates this area's incorporation into the City of Brentwood. This farmhouse represents an era when eastern Contra Costa County was still largely agricultural in nature, and was likely associated with the orchard industry,which began in this area around the turnn of the century,but is largely non.-existent today. The residence and its immediate surroundings appear to be in their original condition, and retain integrity of materials,workmanship,and setting. The mature palms are typical landscape elements associated with this era. Although this residence is not listed as a local or state historic resource,it may be eligible for local listing due to its age, integrity,and as an example of the bungalow,style of architecture. The residence may be additionally eligible for local listing as an example of agricultural development and settlement;important events in Brentwood's history.,' 'Me proposed project would reduce the property frontage by approximately 15 feet, eliminating the two palms trees which are character-defining landscape elements and help to convey the property's historic significance. Removal of the palm trees could significantly alter the historic setting of the property and reduce its potential eligibility for listing on the California Register or Historic Resources as a locally significant resource. This is considered a potentially significant impact. PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES: Mitigation measures would be necessary to reduce potentially significant impacts to historic resources to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation CR-1: The City of Brentwood shall hire an arborist to assess the health and age of the palm trees, and deternrkine if relocation of the trees would be feasible. If determined feasible,the City of Brentwood shall relocate the palm trees at least 10 feet back from the pavement edge of the proposed new roadway alignment, prior to the commencement of construction. If one or both of the palm trees dies as a result of the relocation off`orts, the City of _ Brentwood shall replace them with matkure trees of the same size and species. Implerruentatiorm of this mitigation measure would reduce historic resource impacts to a less-than-significant level. - b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 0 � 13 11 archaeological resource pursuant to§15064.5" (Source: 9) Discussion: Native American archaeological sites in this portion of Contra Costa County tend to be situated near seasonal and perennial water sources and near the base of hills surrounded by alluvial plains. Based on the knowledge of the prehistory and history of the region, it may be concluded that the site has low sensitivity for the presence of prehistoric archaeological sites because of its location in flat valley with no water sources. Agricultural activities along the project alignment would have disturbed such resources, if extant and located near the surface. No recorded archaeological resources are located on or near the project alignment. Although unlikely to occur, it is not possible to determine the existence of buried archaeological resources without excavation. Project-related ground disturbance may indirectly affect previously unknown archaeological resources significant under CEQA Section 15064.5. Disturbance of these resources would result in potentially significant impacts. The following mitigation measure shall be incorporated into the grading and construction contracts to address the potential to encounter previously unknown archaeological resources. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce potentially significant impacts to archaeological resources to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation CR-2. Cease Construction Work Upon the Discovery of historic or Archaeological Resources. if potential historic or archaeological resources are discovered during construction, suspend all work in the immediate vicinity (within approximately 50 feet) and avoid altering the materials and their context pending site: investigation by a qualified archaeological or cultural resources consultant retained by time project sponsor. Construction work shall not commence again until the archaeological or cultural resources consultant has been given an opportunity to examine the findings, assess their significance, and offer proposals for any additional exploratory measures deemed necessary for Potentially Significant Potentially Unless .Less 77zan Significant Mitigation Signiflfcazzt ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources). IMact Inco. orated Impact No Impact the further evaluation of and/or mitigation of adverse impacts to any potential historical resources or unique archaeological resources that have been encountered. If the find is determined to be an historic or unique archaeological resource,and if avoidance of the resource would not be feasible, the archaeological or cultural resources consultant shall prepare a plan for the methodical excavation of those portions of the site that would be adversely affected. The plan shall be designed to result in the extraction of sufficient volumes of non-redundant archaeological-data to address important regional research considerations. The $ work shall be performed by the archaeological or cultural resources consultant, and shall result in detailed technical reports. Such reports shall be deposited with the City of Brentwood, the City of Antioch,and the California Historical Resources Regional Information Center. Construction in the vicinity of the find shall be accomplished in accordance with current professional standards and shall not recommence until this work is completed. The project sponsor shall assure that project personnel are informed that law prolubits collecting significant historical or unique archaeological resources discovered during development of the project. Prehistoric or Native American resources can include chert or obsidian flakes,projectile points, mortars, and pestles; and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat-affected rock,or human burials. Historic resources can include nails,bottles,or other items often found in refuse deposits. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 resource or site unique geologic feature? (Source: 17) Discussion: The surface of the site is a level alluvial plain similar to alluvial areas throughout the Sacramento-San Joaquin valley. Consequently, no unique geological features exist along the project alignment. The alluvial deposits consist of material that has been reworked by the action of rivers in recent geologic history. Consequently, unique paleontological resources are unlikely to occur. As such, the project would have no impact on ,geologic or paleontological features. d). Disturb any human remains,including those interred- t_.t � ❑ ❑ outside of formal cemeteries? (Source. 10) Discussion: No human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries,are knows.;to exist along the project alignment. A file check with the Native American Heritage Commission revealed no sacred lands on or near the project alignment. Although unlikely to occur, it is not possible to determine the existence of buried human remains on the project site without excavation. Project-related ground disturbance may indirectly affect previously unknown burials. Implementation of the following standard mitigation measure pursuant to CEQA Section I5064.5(e) of and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 would reduce potential impacts to unknown burials to a less-than- significant level: Mitigation CR-3. Cease Work upon the Discovery ofHuman Remains. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains on the project site,the contractor shall contact the Contra Costa County Coroner, pursuant to Section 7050.5(b) of the California Health and Safety Code. In this event,there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner determines the origin of such remains. The coroner, upon recognizing the remains as being of Native American origin, shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. No further disturbance of the site may be made except as authorized by the County coroner. The Commission has various powers and duties to provide for the ultimate disposition of any Native American remains, including the designation of a Native American Most Likely Descendant. Sections 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code also call for "protection to Native American. human 4 burials and skeletal remains from vandalism and inadvertent destruction." To achieve this goal,construction personnel on the project shall be instructed as to both the potential for discovery of cultural or human remains,and the need for proper and timely reporting of such finds, and the consequences of failure to do so. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than .Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources); linpact Incorporated in act No Im act VT. GEOLOGY A.�I'1 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 i Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or basest on other substantial evidence of a known fault?(Refer to the California Division of Mines and Geology Spec. Pub.42)(Sources: 11,12) Discussion: No known active faults are mapped along the project alignment and no faults mapped in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone trend toward the site. The nearest State of California zoned, active faults are the Greenville fault,9 miles southwest of the project area;an(#..'the Concord fault, 14 miles west of the project area. The Great Valley fault is mapped approximately 2 miles from the project site. The Great Valley fault is considered a seismically active thrust fault,but because it does not extend to the ground surface,it is not zoned by the State of California. Several inactive faults are indicated near the project area. Oil and gas exploration wells in the vicinity confirm the presence of faulting in the .Eocene-aged bedrock (Markley formation, marine sandstone, 58 to 30 million years old). Younger rocks are not known to be offset by faulting, and there is no published evidence of Holocene(about the last 10,000 years)fault displacement. It does not appear that these inactive faults are likely to present a seismic hazard risk during the design life of the project. Based on this information,surface rupture along an active fault is not considered a hazard associated with this project. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?(source: 18) ® � � 0 Discussion: Because of the presence of active faults in the San Francisco Bay region, the Brentwood area is considered seismically active. An earthquake of moderate to high magnitude similar to those that have occurred previously would cause moderate to very strong groundshaking in the project area. The proposed project does ftot include any structural or building elements,and as such, is not subject to the California Building Code. However, the proposed widening would comply with the design requirements of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) regarding seismic safety. Therefore, strong seismic ground shaking is not considered a hazard associated with this project. sy lii) Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? - El 0 59 11 (Sources: 12,22) Discussion: Based on a review of a recent geotechnical report conducted for this project,the following soil conditions have been reported: The primary geologic deposits underlying the project vicinity are descnbed as Quaternary alluvial deposits consisting predominantly of clay and silt with occasional deposits of sand and gravel. Soil maps completed by the United States Department of Agriculture (OSTIA) indicate that the sails can be classified as Rincon clay loam (RbA) and Capay clay(CaA). RbA sails are indicated as having a moderate shrink-swell potential. CaA soils are described as having a high shrink-swell potential. Groundwater was reported at depths of 25 to 28 feet within the a project vicinity. Because of the density of the sails encountered in the vicinity of the project,their high clay content, and,the depth to groundwater, liquefaciion potential is considered low to unlikely. Ground lurching(the result of the rolling motion imparted to the ground surface during an earthquake) is possible,but the offset(in the form of ground cracks) is expected to be minor because of the stiffness of the clay and the density of the sand. The stiffness of the silty clays and the density of the sandy layer encountered during the previous geotechnical investigation make densification caused by earthquake shaking unlikely. Lateral spreading is unlikely because the liquefaction potential is low(because of the depth that groundwater was encountered). Based on this information, seismically related ground failure is not considered a significant impact associated with this project. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Sign ifacalit ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources). Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact iv) Landslides? (Source: 12) El z Discussion: The project area is nearly flat, sloping from about 99 'l: feet above mean sea level to about 93 ! feet above mean sea level. This represents an average slope of about % of 1 percent to the northeast,which is consistent with adjacent downslope areas. Because the area is so nearly level and is not adjacent to steeper slopes, impacts from landslides at the project site are negligible. Based on this information, landsliding is not considered an impact associated with this site. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Q (Source.22) Discussion: The proposed project would widen Lone Tree Way between Jeffrey Way and Fairview Avenue, a distance of approximately one mile. There are no standing water bodies on the site,and the average slope of the site is about 'l2 of I percent. When the project is completed,the site would consist almost entirely of an impervious surface. Consequently, there is little likelihood that soil erosion would occur on the site after the project is completed. Stormwater runoff would be collected by a staff drainage system and delivered to the City/County system in Lone "Tree Way(see Section VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality). Consequently, there is little likelihood of off-site soil erosion adjacent to the completed project. During the construction period, an erosion control plan would be required as part of the Construetion.Storm Water Pollution.Protection Plan(see Section VIII,Hydrology and Water Quality). 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? (Sources: 12,22) Discussion: As stated previously,the soils and shallow subsurface within the vicinity of the project are not considered unstable or susceptible to lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. Based on this information, geologic instability is not considered an impact associated with this project. d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined In Table 18-1-8 of 0 the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? (Source: 12) Discussion: The soils on the site are Capay clay, which has a high expansion potential,and Rincon Clay loam,which has a moderate expansion potential. Laboratory tests of soil samples from the site confirm that they have a high Plasticity Index, indicating that they wiil, shrink and swell with moisture changes (expansive soil characteristics) sufficiently to damage pavements, slabs-on-grade, and structures supported on shallow foundations. However, the project does not involve building structures or foundation supports. The new roadway segments will be graded and compacted and will include imported or engineered soils to mitigate the effects of expansive soils per Caltrans design requirements. Based on this information, soil expansion is considered a less-than-significant impact associated with construction at this site. e) Have soils Incapable of adequately supporting the use of ❑ El 0 septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (Source: 12) Discussion: The proposed project does not include any buildings or septic systems, or the Need for connection w:tl the City's sanitary sewer system.Therefore,the capacity of the soils on the project site to support septic systems is not pertinent. Based on this information,the septic system capacity of on-site soils is not considered an impact associated with the proposed project. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 0 0 ❑ E9 environment through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? (Sources: 1,1"7) Discussion: The project involves the widening of an existing roadway. The project in and of itself will not use or l dispose of hazardous materials. The transport of hazardous materials may occur on this roadway. However,the U.S. Department of Transportation has the regulatory responsibility for the safe transportation of hazardous materials. Department of Transportationn regulations govern all means of transportation, except for those packages shipped by mail,which are covered.by U.S.Postal Service regulations. Department of Transportation regulations are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 49(49 CI~R),Postal Service regulations are in 39 CFR. The State of California has adopted the Department of Transportation regulations for the intrastate movement of hazardous materials. State regulations are contained in California Code of Regulations, Title 26 (26 CCR). Therefore, the transportation of hazardous materials is not considered an impact A'sociated with this project. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 0 � 0 0 environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials Into the environment? (Sources: 1,17) Discussion: Grading activities involved with the construction of this project may have an impact to the public and environment in the form of fugitive dust and diesel exhaust emissions. Historically,the properties surrounding the site were used for agricultural purposes. The soil at the site may contain chemical fertilizers,pesticides,and herbicides. In addition,aerially deposited lead may be encountered in the unpaved areas along the existing roadway segments of the project. Given the possible past application of agrichemicals adjacent to the project site and the potential for deposited lead along unpaved areas along the existing roadway, surface-soil sampling and laboratory testing is required to address potential residual chemicals in the site soils prior to site grading and/or excavation activities. In addition, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District has listed feasible control measureg for construction emissions of fugitive dust, also known as fine particulate matter less than or equal to 10 micron in diameter (PMNn) (see Section III,Air Quality). Based on this information and the implementation of the following mitigation measures, the release of hazardous materials into the environment is considered a less-than-significant impact. Mitigation HW-1. Implement a Soil-Sampling Program. The City of Brentwood shall implement a soil-sampling _program prior to the start of construction activities. This soil-sampling program shall be reviewed and approved by Contra Costa County Environmental Health Department (CCCEHD). Soil samples would be collected along representative locations where unpaved areas would be disturbed. The samples would be analyzed for pesticides [i.e., Dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DD'I") and Dichloro-diphenyl-dichloroethyiene(DDE)). The location of impacted soil that may be impacted during construction activities shall be documented in a report surnrnarizing the sampling program and submitted to CCCEHD. This information shall be used to aid in the management and disposal of any contaminated soil. Mitigation HW-Z. Implement a Project Specific Health and Safety Plan. A project specific Health and Safety Plan (HSP)shall be implemented during construction activities. The HSP.shall address the safety and health hazards of the 41 project and procedures for the protection of construction workers who may be in contact with contaminated soil. The HSI' shall also specify site control programs, engineering controls, safe work practices, air monitoring requirements, and a description of proper p6rsonal protective equipment. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely 0 hazardous material,substances,or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school:' (Sources. 1,17) Discussion: La Paloma Continuing Education High School is located adjacent to the southern boundary of the project. Hazardous emissions related to construction equipment exhaust, as mentioned in the Section III, Air Quality, will Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES('acrd.Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Ini act occur on a temporary basis. Mitigation measures related to this impact are presented in the Section M, Air Quality, and would mitigate this_impact to a less-than.-significant-level. Based on this information, hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous substance within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school is considered a less-than- significant impact associated with this project. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous r'"1 r11I materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code I Section 65962.5 and,as a result,would It create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Sources: 1,17) Discussion: Previous Phase I Environruental Site Assessment reports have been conducted for projects near the _ project site. Based on a review of these documents, the project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites maintained by federal, state, or local agencies. Accordingly, public health risks from exposure to listed hazardous materials sites are not considered an impact associated with this 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 pubic use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Sources: 1,1'7) Discussion: The project site is not located within an airport land use plan nor is it located within two miles of a public airport~ Consequently, this issue in not considered an impact of the project. The Byron Airport is about I I miles southeast of the project site. This is too great a distance to affect safety or the noise environment at the site. I) 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? (Sources: 1,17) Discussion: The project site is not located in the vicinity of any private airstrip. Consequently, this issue in not considered an impact of the project. g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,an 13 11 adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Sources: 1,17) Discussion: The proposed project would serve to improve access and circulation in the vicinity of the project area by widening Lone Tree Way to six lanes and adding left and right tum channelization and deceleration lanes. The project has been designed to conform with existing and proposed roadways adjacent to the segment of Lone Tree Way proposed for widening. Thus, it would not interfere physically with any emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan that uses the local roadways. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, 0 0 Injury,or death involving wildland fires,Including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where a residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Sources. 1, 17) Discussion: The site and vicinity is not designated as "wildlands" in the current General Plan.Wiidland fire hazards are typically associated with areas that have excessive dry fuel sources,sloping topography and hot,dry climates. The project site is not consistent with this classification. Based on this information,exposure of people or structures to a significant risk from wildlard fires is not considered an impact associated with this project. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Irrrpaet VIJI. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project. a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 0 0 ® ❑ requirements? (Sources: 2,3,15,23) Discussion: Stormwater discharge from the project area, including oil, grease and other pollutants associated with 1 vehicle traffic, would increase as a result of additional lanes on Lone Tree Way. The City's Stormwater Ordinance (No. 670)requires that the project undertake all practicable measures to reduce such pollutants. Construction of paved areas covering 5,000 or more square feet, such as the proposed project, must incorporate permanent stormwater treatment facilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Therefore,during the operational period, there would be a low likelihood of violation of waste discharge requirements. .During the construction period, there is a potential for temporary violation of waste discharge requirements. Because the project site is in the Marsh Creek watershed(`cart of the greater Sacramento/Sart Joaquin River Delta),runoff from the project site enters Marsh Creek and,potentially, can reach San Francisco Bay. Grading and excavation activities could result in erosion that would degrade water quality of local drainages. The implementation of policies described in the City's General Plan, the Stormwater ordinance (No. 670), and mitigation measures described in the General Plan ESR. would reduce erosion and sedimentation impacts during the construction period to a less-than-significant level. The Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB)has adopted a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPD ES) General Permit for stormwater discharge associated with construction activity. Stormwater runoff from construction sites of 5 acres or more, which includes the proposed project,must be covered under the State's General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit and must be managed by a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). A SWPPP describes measures to control or minimize pollutants from entering stormwater. Developers(of projects 5 acres or more)must file a Notice of Intent with the RWQCB to obtain coverage under the General Permit. The General Permit requires the applicant to develop a SWPPP that addresses both gradingferosion impacts and non- point source pollution impacts of the development project including post-construction impacts. Trnpl�rnentation of and compliance with the SWPPP will mitigate potentially significant construction related water quality impacts to a less- than-significant level. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 0 substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,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? (Source: 17) Discussion: The project area is not considered a significant groundwater recharge area for domestic supply. The alluvial fan deposits and soils in the project area have moderate to very low infiltration rates and generally are not permeable enough to act as primary recharge areas, although some slow infiltration of rainwater through fan deposits does take place. Therefore, even though there would be an increase in impermeable surfaces associated with the proposed project, it would not have a significant effect on regional groundwater recharge or groundwater supplies, s c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site n 0 or area,including through the alteration of the course of a streams or river,in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? (Sources: 2,3,15) Discussion: The construction phase of the project would entail re-grading and associated minor earthwork, including minor excavation. This could affect quality of runoff and result in potential pollution of local drainage facilities by addina sediment to the water. Temporary impacts (sail erosion and sedimentation) associated with construction Potentially .Significant Potentially Untess Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and.Supporting Information Sources): Impact Inco orated Ion actNo Xen act activities would be offset by the implementation of erosion and sediment control measures required by City, County and State policies. Construction vehicle traffic on the widened road could affect the quality of the runoff, as described in item a), above, Potential hydrology and water quality project and cumulative impacts during operation of the project would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by mitigation measures adopted as part of the 1998 Northwest Annexation and 6 Prezoning Project (particularly Mitigation Measure 3, Page 26), and by policies in the City's General Plan and Stormwater Ordinance (No. 670). All construction contractors performing work in the City must conform to the requirements of the "Best Management Practices(BMP&)for Construction Sites"required by the City, in addition to the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board as shown in the Stormwater Pollution prevention Plan (SWPPP). As a minimum, such BMPs would include provision for filter materials to preclude an increase in debris and sediments entering the stormwater system over"non-project"(historical)conditions. Given the regulatory conditions under which theAconstrcxction would be permitted, these drainage pattern and runoff issues are considered less than significant. 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 or surface runoff in a manner which would result In flooding on-or off-site? (Sources:2,3,15,23) Discussion: The project site is located in Drainage Area 30C(DA 30C), as determined by the Contra Costa County Flood Control&Water Conservation District(CCCFCWCD). The land use anticipated for the project area at the time the County designed the storm drainage master plan.for DA 30C was office,retail,and light industrial land uses,which is consistent with the existing zoning. The DA 30C plan is in the process of being updated for approval by the County Board of Supervisors. The revised plan is designed to accommodate the increase in stormwater runoff,anticipated in the original plan, which would be generated from the development of sites adjacent to Lone`free Way. The City of Brentwood Capital Improvement Project (CTP), with developer contributions collected in acc6rclance with Flood Control Ordinance Number 98-57,will provide the necessary improvements to the existing storm drain system in order_ to comply with the recently updated DA 30C Plan. The implementation of the proposed improvements would minimize the potential for flooding on or offsite. The storm drain improvements would be completed concurrent with, the widening of lone Tree Way. Therefore, the widening of Lone'free Way would not result in aro increase in the potential for flooding in the project area. 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? (Sources: 2,3,I5,23) Discussion: See above discussion under item d). f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? }� (Sources: 2,3,15,23) Discussion: See above discussion under item a). g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Irate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Source: 3) Discussion: The project site is located within the 100-year flood zone as indicated by tate local FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps; however, the proposed project does not include any housing elements. Therefore, no impact is expected. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources); hn act Inco orated Iin act No Impact h) Place within a 104-year flood hazard area structures which ❑ ❑ ❑ Z would impede or redirect ootid flows? (Source: 3) Discussion: The project site is located within the 100-year flood zone as indicated by the local FNMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps; however, the proposed project does not include any buildings or structures. Therefore, no impact is expected. l 1) 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? (Source: 3) Discussion: There are no major levees or dams close to the project area that would expose people to significant risks involving flooding due to failure of levee or darn. Therefore,no impact is expected. j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? (Source- 3) ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion: Marsh Creek is the closest water body to the site. The amount of water stored at any one time within the creek would not be sufficient to allow for the generation of a seiche. In addition, the site is far removed from the ocean and therefore would not be exposed to either a seiche or tsunami. The terrain immediately around the project area is generally flat. 'Thus,there is low risk of mudflow at the project site. Therefore,no impact is expected. M LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ® ❑ M ❑ (Sources: 1,25) Discussion: The proposed project would expand existing Lone Tree Way between Jeffrey Way and Fairview Avenue with the addition of four lanes. Along this segment, Lone Tree Way is currently a two-lane roadway that bisects a rural area of low-density single-family ranchettes, agricultural land, a continuing education high school and a church,. Although the proposed project could act as a potential physical barrier to current residents, it will also improve access' throughout the project area. The project area is in a transitional phase from rural to urban development. Parcels in the project area are in the process of being developed consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Element and appropriate intersection controls would be installed for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Therefore, the proposed widening is consistent with the General Plan,and no significant impact is expected. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or _ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ regulation 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 an environmental effect? (Source: 14) Discussion: The Circulation Element of the Brentwood General Plan contains a Roadway Circulation Plan which outlines future changes and improvements to the City's roadway system. At buildout of Brentwood, the planned development and resulting increased trips would necessitate additional road facilities and improvements to existing roadways. Lone Tree Way is considered a key route within and through Brentwood, and the proposed widening to six lanes in this area is included in the Circulation Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the Circulation Element, and as such,would not conflict with the General Plan. No significant impact is expected. c) Conflict N-vith any applicable habitat conservation plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ X❑ natural community conservation plan?(Source: 14) Discussion: No habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans exist in the project area. Consequently,the proposed project would not conflict with any such plans. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant - Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Inforination Sources): lin act Incorporated Impact No lin act X. MINERAL RESQURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral * 1 21 resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Sources: 19,20) Discussion: The project area is classified by the California Division of Mines and Geology as MRZ-1, a Mineral Resource Zone for which there is adequate information to indicate there are no aggregate mineral resources present. According to the California Department of Conservation,Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, the project vicinity is not a recognized methane problem areas Development in the project area could preclude extraction from the .Brentwood Oil and Gas Field. The City's Oil and Gas Production. Ordinance (Chapter 17.680.021 of the City Municipal Code) requires that access to these resources be maintained, if desired by the holders of mineral rights. Construction and.operation of the project would not involve quarrying,alining,or extraction of any known regionally or locally important mineral,oil,or gas resource�bn site,nor would it deplete any nonrenewable natural resource. The western half of the project alignment is in the northeast corner of the Brentwood Oil and Gas Field. No existing oil or gas wells are present along the alignment, however, a few plugged and abandoned or dry Bole.gas wells are located within half a mile of the project' None of the wells in the vicinity of the project is in operation.. Widening of Lone Tree Way would involve enlarging the amount of paved surface covering the alignment, thereby paving over a small portion of the oil and gas field. The paving could inhibit further oil and gas extraction along the alignment; however,Brentwood's Oil and Gas Production Ordinance restricts proposed development that could jeopardize oil and gas extraction. According to the ordinance, new development most meet one of two requirements: (.A) to show that existing petroleum facilities would be protected and integrated into the proposed development, or (B) to contact all mineral rights owners who have rights of surface entry on the property and negotiate a waiver of their rights to drill for oil and gas under the surface of the subject site. In the case of right-of-way acquisition, the City policy is to allow the mineral rights owners to retain rights below 500 feet bgs (below ground surface), if desired, but with no rights of surface entry. This policy allows access to potential oil and gas resources through directional drilling while protecting the surface right-of-way from possible deleterious effects of drilling. Consequently, there would.-be no impact on mineral resources. K b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-Important 0 0 mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan,or other land use plan? (Sources: 19,20) Discussion: As described in item a),above,construction and operation of the project would not involve extraction of locally important mineral, oil, or gas resources nor would it preclude access to potential oil and gas resources in the Brentwood Oil and Gas.Field. Consequently,there would be no impact on mineral resources. XL 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? (Sources: ) Discussion: Sensitive receptors present in the vicinity of the proposed project include residences along Lone Tree Way, La Paloma Continuing Education High School, and the Golden hills Community Church. Constriction noise 3 ENVIRON International Corporation, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Lone Tree Way, Brennvooci, Cal Porn a, ENVIRON International Corporation, Irvine, California, July 2000. 4 ENVIRON International Corporation, 2000, op. cit. 3.n�r1 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impart No Impact could increase daytime noise levels at these sensitive receptors by more than 10 dBA L., over the existing daytime noise levels. This would be a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-then-significant level. kfitigation NO-I. .Implement Best Management Practices to Reduce Construction Noise. The following practices shall be incorporated into the construction documents to be implemented by the project contractor: •1 Comply with noise and vibration control measures identified in the City of Brentwood General Plan. • Maximize the physical separation between noise generators and noise receptors. Such separation includes,but is not limited to,the following measures: i provide enclosures such as heavy duty mufflers for stationary equipment and barriers around particularly noisy areas on the site or around the entire site,as necessary; ii use shields, impervious fences, or othee$hysical sound barriers, to inhibit transmission of noise to sensitive receptors;and iii locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community. ■ Select quiet construction equipment whenever possible,particularly air compressors. ■ Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines near sensitive receptors. ■ Select routes for movement of construction-related vehicles and equipment in conjunction with the City of Brentwood such that noise-sensitive areas, including residences,hotels, and outdoor recreation areas, are avoided as much as possible. ■ Designate a noise control coordinator who will be responsible for responding to complaints about noise during construction. The telephone number of the noise control coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site. Copies of the construction schedule shall also be posted to the nearby residents. • Construction activities near sensitive land uses shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m.to 7 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m.to 5 p.m.on Saturday. Construction shall be prohibited on Sundays and City holidays. b) Exposure of persons to,or generation ail,excessive ® » groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Source: 25) Discussion: Construction of the proposed project would not require pile driving or other construction techniques likely to cause perceptible off-site ground6ome noise or vibration. Activities associated with the movement of heavy- duty trucks and similar construction equipment would occur ori a temporary basis. Consequently, groundbome noise or vibration impacts are not considered an impact of this project. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient Iroise levels in MA the project vicinity,above levels existing without the project? (Sources: ) Discussion: A traffic noise analysis was conducted using the Federal Highway Administration's(FHWA's)Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-R D-77-148) with California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) Emission Levels. Traffic noise along Lone Tree Way was calculated for existing conditions, future conditions(with and without the project) in the year 2007, and future cumulative conditions(with and without the project)in the year 2025. Eased on the FHWA model, existing traffic noise, based on the community noise descriptor(i.e., Lda), was 64 dBA at 100 feet from the centerline of the roadway. In the year 2047,the traffic noise is predicted to be 66 dBA without the project and 68 dBA with the project. In the year 2025,the traffic noise is predicted to be 65 dBA without the project and 67.5 dBA with the project. In general, a 3 dBA increase in ambient noise levels is considered a just-noticeable difference while a change in level of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change to community response would be expected. Therefore, the project would not create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the protect vicinity, above levels existing without the project. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): �rnpaat No Impact d) A substantial temporary or periodic Increase in ambient noise levels to the project vicinity,above levels existing 0 without the project? (Sources: Discussion: See above discussion under item a). e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles 0 I of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working In the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 1) Discussion: The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport- Consequently,airport-related noise impacts do not apply at this project site. t) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstAp,would El 0 the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Source: 1) Discussion: The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Consequently, airport-related noise impacts do not apply at this project site. MI. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly(e.g.,by proposing new homes and businesses)or Indirectly(e.g.,through extensions of roads or other infrastructure)? (Sources: 1,24) Discussion: The proposed project is part of the City's Capital Improvement Program,which is a planned response to the approved growth projected in the General Plan. The project would accommodate this'growth in the north Brentwood area, as the area adjacent to this segment of Lone Tree Way is built out according to the designated commercial and residential development planned for the area. In itself, the proposed project would not induce population growth, but would accommodate growth projected to occur in the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on population growth. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, El 0 0 necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Source: 3) Discussion: The proposed project may displace up to four existing housing units. Adequate replacement housing exists in the City of Brentwood and surrounding areas and several new multiple-unit housing developments are planned along Lone Tree Way. Consequently, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on housing. c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the ar construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Source: 11 0 0 3) Discussion: See discussion for b)above, 1 ono T— IV—, fni�,—d--Stllslil-- —25 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Iinpact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. a) 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? RM E Fire protection? (Source: 21) ❑ E] ❑ Discussion: The East Diablo Fire Protection District(EDFPD) provides fire protection services to the project area. The proposed project would not increase the risk of fire or calls for emergency services because no new buildings or habitable structures would be constructed. Instead,the proposed project would serve to improve access and circulation in the vicinity of the project area by widening Ione Tree Way to sic lanes and adding left and right turn channelization and deceleration lanes. Therefore, the project would allow for improved access and response times for fire and emergency protection services and would have tto adverse impact an these services. MA Police Protection? (Source: 21) ❑ ❑ ❑ LIN Discussion: The City of Brentwood Police Department(BPD)provides police services for the Brentwood community. As stated in the discussion for fire services above, the proposed project would not increase calls for police services be no new buildings or habitable structures would be constructed. The proposed project would improve circulation, therefore reducing the number of potential vehicular accidents. Improved circulation would also improve emergency access to the north Brentwood area. As a result, the proposed project would have no adverse impact on police services. Schools? (Source: 25) ❑ t'a ❑ D Discussion: The proposed project is a transportation improvement project and does not involve residential uses. Therefore,the proposed project is not anticipated to result in new demand for schools. The project will improve access La Paloma Continuing Education High School adjacent to Lone Tree Way. No adverse impact is expected. Parks? (Source: 25) ❑ ❑ ❑ 59 -.- Discussion: 9 -..Discussion: The demand for parks is directly linked to the residential population in Brentwood. The proposed project does not include new residential uses and therefore, would not result in a direct demand for parks. No impact is expected. Other public facilities? (Source: 25) _ ❑ ❑ 13 Discussion: Because the proposed project does not include residential uses, it would not result in direct demands for other public services such as libraries and recreational centers. No impact is expected. MV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ El 1:1neighborhood,and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Source: 25) Discussion: Construction of the proposed project would have no impact on neighborhood, community, or regional parks and other recreational facilities because the proposed project would not include residential uses that generate a demand for these facilities. Therefore,no impact is expected. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless ,Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUE'S{and Supporting Information Sources}: .1111pact Incorporated Impact No Impact b) lilies the project include recreational facilities or require ❑ ❑ ❑ the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Source: 25) .Discussion: The widening of Lone Tree Way would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore,no impact is expecte(L KV. TRANSPORIATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial In relation to ❑ ElM 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 rof*,or congestion at intersections? (Sources: 26) Discussion: A traffic impact assessment was performed for the proposed widening project. This assessment evaluated the operation of Lone Tree Way tinder the following scenarios: existing(year 2002)conditions from recent traffic counts; interim conditions (year 2007) with and without the proposed widening project based on forecasted conditions that take into account background growth,trips from near-term,future developments and near-term roadway improvements; and cumulative(year 20325) conditions with and without the proposed widening project that take into account the buildout of the Brentwood General flan and all planned roadway improvements. The analysis determined that with implementation of the proposed project,average daily traffic(ATi'I)would increase along this segment of Lone'free Way over the no-project scenario. However, because the project will widen Leine Tree Way from two to six lanes, this increase would not be considered substantial in relation to the resultant capacity of Lone Tree Way. As described below,the traffic impact assessment determined that implementation of the proposed project would improve the operation of intersections along Lone Tree Way over the interim and cumulative conditions under the no-build scenario. The traffic impact assessment examined the operation of the following intersections: Lone Tree Way/Shady Willow Lane; Lone Tree WayfErnpire Avenue; and Lone Tree Way/Fairview Avenue. The analysis used the level of service (LOS) methodology developed by the Contra Costa Transportation.Authority (CCTA) and determined that without construction of the prosposed project,all study intersections would operate at an unacceptable LOS(LOS D with a V/C ratio of 0.85 or worse )during peals periods in year 2007. With the exception of the AM peak hour at the Lone Tree Way/Fairview Avenue intersection,all study intersections would continue to operate at unacceptable levels during year 2025 without implementation of the widening project. With the implementation of the proposed project, all of the study intersections would operate at LOS U with a V/C ratio of 0.84 or better during all peak periods for year 2007 and. year 2025. In the majority of situations, these intersections would operate at LOC C or better. Based on this information, while the proposed project would cause an increase in traffic relative to the existing situation, this increase would not result in a substantial increase in the VIC ratio or lead to congestion at intersections but will improve the LCIS and V/C ratio for ultimate buildout conditions. b) Exceed,either Individually or cumulatively,a level of ❑ ❑ service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Sources: 26) Discussion: As described above, the traffic impact assessment used the level of service (LOS) methodology and significance criteria developed by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (OCTA) and the City of Brentwood. With the implementation of the proposed project, all of the study intersections would operate at LOS D with a V/C $ The significance criteria used to determine impacts was based on criteria used by both CCT A and the City of Brentwood. Faye 27 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less.Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact. incorporated Irnpaet No Lrnpact ratio of 0.84 or better during all peak periods for year 2007 and year 2025. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed the LOS standard established by CCTA or the City. 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? (Sources: Project Description) 9 Discussion: The widening of Lone Tree Way does not include the construction of structures which would interfere with air travel. Therefore,the proposed project would have no effect on air traffic patterns. d) Substantially increase hazards because of a design feature ❑ ❑ ❑ (e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous Intersections)or incompatible uses? (Source: 25) Discussion: The proposed project would serve to improve access and circulation in the vicinity of the project area by widening Ione Tree Way to six lanes and adding left and right turn channelization and deceleration lanes. Lone Tree Way would continue to be a straight, fiat roadway. Major intersections would be signalized and minor intersections would be controlled by stop signs. Based on this information, the proposed project would not increase hazards because of design features,it will improve public safety and traffic circulation. e) Result in Inadequate emergency access? (Source: 25) ❑ ❑ ❑ X❑ Discussion: The proposed project has been designed to conform to the existing or proposed roadways in the vicinity of the site. Thus, it would not interfere physically with emergency response access or emergency evacuation access that uses the local roadways. Instead, the proposed.project would serve to improve access and circulation in the vicinity of the project by widening Lone Tree Way to six lanes and adding left and right turn channelization and deceleration lanes. f) Result in Inadequate parking capacity? (Source: 25) ❑ ❑ ❑X Discussion: The proposed project, in itself,would not result in the removal of existing parking or create the demand` for new parking. It would provide access to commercial and residential land uses that would create the need for parking,but those parking needs would be met by each of those new project Therefore,the proposed project would not have an effect on parking capacity. g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative w ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? (Source: 25) Discussion: The design of the proposed project includes bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and bus turnouts. Therefore, the proposed project would support alternative transportation and would not have an adverse impact on them. XVI,UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: �a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ ❑ ❑ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Source:25) Discussion: As a road improvement project, the proposed project does not include any buildings or strictures that would require wastewater services. Therefore, the project would have no impact on wastewater treatment requirements or facilities. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less 77ran Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated .impact No Impact b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ❑ . ❑ ❑ ❑R wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Source: 25) Discussion: See discussion for a)above. 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? (Sources: ) Discussion: As.stated in Section VM Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project lies within Drainage Area 30C. Storm drain improvements planned for this drainage area will accommodate increases in stormwater runoff anticipated by the development of the drainage 4''rea, including the widening of Lone Tree Way to six lanes. These improvements will be in concurrent with the widening of Lone Tree Way. Therefore, the proposed project will not require the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project ❑ ❑ ❑ 7❑C from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Source: 25) Discussion: As a road improvement project, the proposed project does not include any buildings or structures that would require connection to a water supply. Therefore, the project would have no impact on water supply but will improve water distribution by constructing water lines. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑C 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? _^ (Source: 25) Discussion: See discussion for a)above. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ❑ ❑ ❑ ?❑ accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (Source: 25) _ Discussion: As a transportation improvement project, the proposed project does not include any buildings or structures that would require solid waste service. Therefore,the project would have no impact on landfill capacity. g) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ❑ regulations related to solid waste? (Source: 25) Discussion: See discussion for f)above. T nn"r—1V— Potentially ,Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Im act Incor orated I'rn act No ImDact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of 0 1 the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threatens 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? (Sources: 4,5,61718,91 and 10) Discussion: The proposed project would occur on a previously developed/disturbed site with little or no habitat. Based on the findings of this Initial Study, the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment, 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 plata or animal co pity,or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. No examples of California history or prehistory are known to exist at the project site, however, potential discovery of such resources could occur during project excavation and construction. These potential effects would be reduced with implementation of the mitigation measure described in Section V, Cultural Resources. As a result,the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on these resources. b) Does the project have Impacts that are individually limited, 0 21 0 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.) (Sources:) Discussion: The proposed widening of Lone Tree 'Way is consistent with the City of Brentwood General Pian. Therefore, the proposed project was included in the cumulative analysis of the EER for the General Plan Update. Mitigation measures identified iri the EIR would reduce all cumulative impacts related to the widening of Lone Tree Way to a less-that-significant level. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or Indirectly? (Sources- 1,3,4,6;7,9,10,13,15, 17,and 23) Discussion: See Sections III, Air Quality; V, Cultural Resources, VII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and VIII, Hydrology and Water Quality, above, which indicate that potential risks to humans would be regulated by existing City or regional programs and by policies and mitigation measures established in the General Plan or in this Initial Study. XVIII. SOURCES. Earlier analyses has been used,pursuant to the CEQA Initial Study process, to indicate effects that have been analyzed adequately in an earlier study,EER,or Negative Declaration. CEQA Section 1.5063 (c)(3)(D)• Information sources and earlier documents prepared and used in this analysis are listed below: Reference# Source # 1 City of Brentwood Conimunity Development Department Brentwood General Plan 1993-2014, adopted 8 June 1953. 2 City of Brentwood Community Development Department,Planned Development 38,Zoning and Development Standards,Initial Study and Negative Declaration, 16 March 2001. 3 City of Brentwood,Community Development Department, City of Brentwood General Flan Environmental Impact Report,July 1993,SCH##92063113. 4 California Department of Fish and lame--Natural Diversity Data Base(CNDDB)Rarehnd Report, Information dated January 2002. 5 California Native Plant Society(CLAPS)Electronic Inventory,August 2001,sixth edition. 6 EIP Associates site visit,January 4,2402. 7 U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)list of Endangered and Threatened Species that May Occur in or be Affected by Projects in the Brentwood Quad(January 2002): 8 Timothy Jones,Northwest Information Center,Letter Re:Cultural resources records search for the City of Brentwood General Plan Update EIR,to Binu Chandy,EIP Associates,January 9,2001 (File No.00- 1023). 9 Timothy Jones,KWIC,Personal communication with Brad Brewster,EIP Associates,July 19,2001. 10 Debbie Pilas-Treadway,Native American Heritage Commission,Letter Re:Proposed Police Station, "- Contra Costa County,February 20,2002). 11 California Division of Mines and Geology,Special Publication 42,Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in ♦.v California,Revised 1999. 12 ENGEQ,Incorporated,Draft Geotechnical Exploration, 20-Acre Site,Brentwood, California, 2 February 2001. 13 Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD)CEQA Guidelines. 14 City of Brentwood Community Development Department,Draft General plan Update,June 2001. 15 City of Brentwood Municipal Code. 16 Jim Wilson,Staff Engineer,Contra Costa County Flood Control&Water Conservation District, communication with EIP Associates,July 18,2001. 17 City of Brentwood Community Development Department,Lone Tree Center Environmental Impact .Report,January 18,2002,SCH#2001072016. 18 Associate of Bay Area Governments,.bay Area Shaking Hazard Maps, www.abag,ca.govlbayarea/egrmps/mapsba.htiA October 13, 1999. 19 Stinson,M.C.,M.W.Mattson,and J.J.Plappert,Mineral Land Classification:Aggregate Materials in the San Francisco-Monterey Bay Area, Part IL- Classification of Aggregate Resource Areas, South San Francisco.bay Production-Consumption Region,California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 146,Part 11, 1983, 75 maps at scales 1:485 000, 1:250 000, 1:48 000,Plate2.28, Brentwood Quadrangle,Mineral Land Classification Map,Aggregate Resources Only. 20 Anderson Geotechnical Consultants, Slope Stability,Oil and Gas Field,and Mineral Deposit Data, Contra Costa County,compilation December 1999. 21 City of Brentwood Engineering Department,Fairview avenuelLone Tree Way Re-alignment EIR, October 2001,SCH#2001082602. 22 Mark Thomas&Co., Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report, Lone Tree Tray Widening Project, City of Brentwood, C,i,January 2002. 23 City of.Brentwood,Community Development Department,Northwest Area annexation and Preaoning Project Initial StudylNegative Declaration,May 1998. t 24 City of Brentwood,Initial StudylNegative Declaration, Capital Improvement Program 2001-2006, April 2001. 25 Lone Tree way Widening Project Description. 26 Lone Tree Way Widening;--Traffic Impact Assessment,Fehr&Peers Associates,Inc.,April 23,2002. a Appendix A Special-Status Plant and Animal Species s ENCLOSURE A Endangered and Threatened Species that May Occur in or be Affected by Projects in the Selected Quads Listed Below Reference Pile No. 1-1-02-SP-554 January 8, 2002 QUAD :463B BRENTWOOD Listed Species Mammals 4 riparian (San Joaquin Valley)woodrat, N6otoma fuscipes riparia (E) riparian brush rabbit, Sylvilagus bachmani riparius (E) San Joaquin kit fox, Vulpes macrotis mutica (E) Birds bald eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus (T) Reptiles Alameda whipsnake, Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus (T) Critical habitat, Alameda whipsnake, Masticophis laterall's euryxanthus (T) giant garter snake, Thamnophis gigas (T) Amphibians California red-legged frog, Rana aurora draytonii (T} Fish Critical habitat, delta smelt, Hypomesus transpacifrcus (T) delta smelt, Hypomesus transpaciflcus (T) Central Valley steelhead, Oncorhynchus mykiss (T) NMFS Sacramento splittail, Pogonichthys macrolepidotus (T) Invertebrates longhorn fairy shrimp, Branchinecta longiantenna (El vernal pool fairy shrimp, Branchinecta lynchi (T) valley elderberry longhorn beetle, Desmocerus califomicus dimorphus (T) vernal pool tadpole shrimp, Lepidurus packardi (E) Proposed Species Birds s mountain plover, Charadrius montanus (PT) Candidate Species Amphibians California tiger salamander, Armbystorna californiense (C) Reference File No. 1-1-02-SP-564 Page 2 Fish Central Valley fall/late fall-run chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (C) NMFS Spdcies of Concern Mammals Pacific western big-eared bat, Corynorhinus(=Piecotus) townsendii townsandii (SC) greater western mastiff-bat, Eumops perotis califomicus (SC) small-footed myotic bat, Myotis ciliolabrum (SC) long-eared myotis bat, Myotis evolis (SC) fringed myotis bat, Myotis thysanodes (SC) long-legged myotis bat, Myotis volans (SC) Yuma myotis bat, Myotis yumanensis ASC) San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, Neotoma fuscipes annectens (SC) San Joaquin pocket mouse, Perognathus inomatus (SC) Birds tricolored blackbird,Agelaius tricolor (SC) grasshopper sparrow, Ammodramus savannarum (SC) short-eared owt,Asio flamrneuss (SC) western burrowing owt,.Athene cunicularia hypugaea (SC) Aleutian Canada goose, Branta canadensis leucopareia (D) Swainson's hawk, Buteo Swainsoni (CA) ferruginous hawk, Buteo regalis (SC) Costa's hummingbird, Calypte costae (SC) Lawrence's goldfinch, Carduelis lawrencei (SC) Vaux's swift, Chaetura vauxi (SC) black tern, Chlidonias niger (SC) white-tailed (black shouldered) kite, Elanus leucurus (SC) little willow flycatcher, Empidonax traiflli brewsteri (CA) American peregrine falcon, Falco peregrinus anatum (d) greater sandhill crane, Grus canadensis tabida (CA) loggerhead shrike, Lanius ludovicianus (SC) Lewis` woodpecker, Melanerpes lewis (SC) long-billed curlew, Numenius americanus (SC) white-faced ibis, Plegadis chihi (SC) bank swallow, Riparia riparia (CA) rufous hummingbird, Selasphorus rufus (SC) Reference File No. 1-1-02-SP-554 Wage 3 Allen's hummingbird, Selasphorus sasin (SC) Reptiles silvery legless lizard, Anniella pulchra pulchra (SC) northwestern pond turtle, Clemmys marmorata marmorata (SC) southwestern pond turtle, Clernmys marmorata pallida (SC) San Joaquin coachwhip(=whipsnake), Masticophis flagellum ruddocki (SC) s California horned lizard, Phrynosoma coronatum frontale (SC) Amphibians foothill yellow-legged frog, Rana boylii (SC) western spadefoot toad, Scaphiopus hammondii (SC) Fish green sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris (SC) river lamprey, Lampetra ayresi (SC) Pacific lamprey, Lampetra trxdentata (SC) longfin smelt, Spirinchus thaleichthys (SC) Invertebrates Antioch Dunes anthicid beetle, Anthicus antiochensis (SC) Sacramento anthicid beetle,Anthicus sacramento (SC) curved-foot hygrotus diving beetle, Hygrotus curvipes (SC) California linderieila fairy shrimp, Linderiella occidentalis (SC) rr olestan blister beetle, Lytta molesta (SC) yellow-banded andrenid bee, Perdita hirticeps tuteocincta (SC) Plants Big plant, Blepharizonia plumosa ssp. plumosa (SC) s Reference File No. 1-1-02-SP-564 page 4 KEY: (E) Endangered Listed (in the Federal Register) as being in danger of extinction. (T) Threatened Listed as likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. (P) Proposed Officially.proposed (in the Federal Register) for listing as endangered or threatened, (PX) Proposed Proposed as an area essential to the conservation of the species. Critical Habitat I(C) Candidate Candidate to become a proposed species. (SC) Species of May be endangered or threatened. Not enough biological information has been Concem gathered to support listing at this time. (MB) Migratory Bird Migratory bird NMFS NMFS species Under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service. Contact them directly. (D) Delisted Delisted. Status to be�monitored for 5 years. (CA) State-Listed Listed as threatened or endangered by the State of Califorriia. Extirpated Possibly extirpated from this quad. ( "} Extinct Possibly extinct. Critical Habitat Area essential to the conservation of a species. a Appendix B IFR. Forms State of California---'the Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRl# PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRNP Status Cade Other Listings Review Carie Reviewer Bate Page 1 of 2 Resource name(s)or number(assigned by recorder) Batten Property P1. Cather identifier:6294 Lone Tree flay *P2. Location: CINot for Publication [ElUnrestricted *a. County Contra Costa *b.USGS 7.5'Quad Brentwood.Calif.- Bate: 1978 *e. Address 6294 Lone Tree Way City Brentwood Zip 945,113 *e.tither Locational Data:Assessor's Parcel Number 056-120-012-2 Block: nfa Lot: n/a *P3d Description: (Desaxibe resource and its major elements. Include design,materials,condition,alterations,size,setting,and boundaries.) The Slatten Property is a one-story minimal traditional-style residence with a crass-hipped roof clad in asphalt shingles. Building plan is roughly square,with an inset entry porch supported by three wood posts. A hipped roof addition is located toward the north (rear)of the property. Exterior walls are clad in stucco. Windows are original aluminum frame,fixed and sliding types. Non- original aluminum awnings over front and side windows. Central brick chimney. According to assessor's records,this property was constructed in 1954. A number of outbuildings are visible toward the rear of the property,including a low-pitched,side-gable shed/barn with a rectangular plan,a flat-roofed front porch(non-original),and horizontal wood siding. Agricultural products were sold from this building. A diagonally-striped parking lot is, ssoclated with this commercial use. Other outbuildings include a newer carport,and additional shed structure with a low-pitched side gable roof and a rectangular plan,located behind the*store." Mature landscape trees surrounds the residence. A large open field containing remnant orchard trees surrounds the property on all sides, The residence appears to be in good condition. *P31b. Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes) HP2—Single Family Residence *P4. Resources Present: OBuilding OStructure 00bject 13Slte 131Dlstrict DElernent of District 130ther P5a. Photo P51b.Photo:(view and date) View from the southeast,looking ski r xc>:' rk:{i northwest. yri f ,r k April 19,2002 k ;s, *P6, Date ConstructedlAge and Sources: Ohistoric s. *P7. Owner and Address: *. . J, Slatten 6294 Lane Tree Way 'pp Brentwood,CA 94513 *P8, Recorded by: 'Brad Brewster EIP Associates 601 Montgomery St.,Ste 500 San Francisco,CA 94111 *P9. tate Recorded: April 24,2002 *P10. Survey Type: ..< Reconnaissance *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources,or enter"none*) *Attachments: ©None 01-ocation Map OSketch Map OC:ontinuation Sheet OBuilding, Structure, and Object Record OArchaeologlcat Record 0DIstrict Record 01-inear Feature Record OMilling Station Record ORock Art Record CIAr4dfact Record OPhotograph Record 0 Other(list) DPR 523A(1195) *Required Information State of California The Resources Agency primary# DEPARTMENT OF DARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Fuge 2 of 2 *NRNP Status Code *Resource Name or Slatten ProperEy B1. Historic name:Slatten Property B2. Common name: Slatten Property B3. Origlhal Use: Residence B4. Present use:Residence *B5. Architectural Style: Minimal Traditional *86. Construction History: (Construction date,alterations,and date of alterations) The Slatten Property was constructed 1954 as a minimal traditional Farmhouse. Alterations to this property include Aluminum awnings over the front windows and a small,hipped-roof addition to the rear. The largest of the outbuildings appears to {post-date the residence,and has been extensively altered to become a connmercial space for selling farm products. A diagonally- striped parking lot is associated with this commercial use. A shed outbuilding was constructed to the rear of the primary residence (date unknown,but possibly contemporaneous with primary residence). The property was once a working faun,as evidenced by the large open field with remnant orchard trees. The property no longer appears to be a working farm and the commercial space is closed. *B7. Moved? ONo Wes DUnknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: Mature landscape trees,outbuilding,described above. B9a. Architect: unknown - b. Builder unknown *B".0.Significance: Theme, ricl cultural Development and Settlement Araya Ester_Contra Costa County Period of Significance 1920-1960 Pro-party Type Residence Applicable Criteria (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme,period,and geographic scope. Also address Integrity) Constructed in 1954,the Station Property was originally a working farm during an era when eastern Contra Costa County was still largely agricultural in nature,and was associated with the row-crop industry,which began in this area around the turn of the century,but is largely non-existent today. The residence is relatively unaltered except for the newer aluminum awnings and a small addition to the rear. The minimal traditional-style of the property does not appear to be architecturally signtfrcant,and is a relatively common building form In this part of Contra Costa County. Th sem has been extensively altered with the conversion of a bamished into a commercial space,and the construction of the associated parking lot. The property is not listed as a local or state historic resource(NWIC,2001),and has no known associations with events Important to California's history,the lives of persons important in our past,or the distinctive characteristics of an architectural type. As a mutt,the Slatten Property does not appear to qualify for Inclusion In the California Register of Historic Resources. » 811. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes} *812. References: Timothy Jones,Northwest Information Center,Letter Re:Cultural Sketch Map resources records search for the City of BrentwoodGeneral Plan Update EIR,to€3inu Chandy,EIP Associates,January 9,2001 (File No.00-1023) Contra Costa County Assessors Office,APN Report: 056-120-012-2 April 17,2002 813.Remarks: *814.Evaluator. Brad Brewster, EIP Associates (This space reserved for official comments.) *(fate of Evaluation: April 24,2002 DPR 5238 (11!35) *Required information State of California—The Resources Agency Primary# �� DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION NRI# PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial,' NRNP Status Cade Other Listings Review Corse Reviewer Date Page 1 of 2 Resource name(s)or nurnber(assigned by recorder) Pierce Property P1. Other Identifier:686.1 Lone Tree Way *P2. Location: ©Not for Publication IMUnrestricted *a County Contra Costa *b.USCS 7.5'Quad Brentwood,Calif. Date-.1978 *c. Address 6861 Lone Tree Way City Brentwood .Zip 94513 *e.Other Locational Data:Assessor's Parcel Number 019-060-009-8 Block: n/a Lot: n/a *P3A. Description: (Describe,resource and its major element,. Include design,materials,condition,alterations,size,setting,and boundaries.) The Pierce Property Is a one-story ranch style residence with a low-pitch,side-gable roof with a shed roof extension over a front porch. Building plan is roughly rectangular in plan with wood pier posts'supporting the porch roof which extends along the full front and side elevations. Non-original porch railing. Exterior walls are clad In horizontal painted wood siding with painted wood trim. Heavy vegetation obscured other details,such windows,doors,and roofing material. According to assessor's records,the building was originally constructed in 1942 with an outbuilding constructed In 1962. This outbuilding' is a side-gable one-story structure with horizontal wood siding and appears to be a small barn or garage.Mature tresevegetation surround the property. This building appears to be In fair condition. .01 *P3b. Resource Attributes: (list attributes and cedes) HP2--Single Family Residence *P4. Resources Present: ®Building OStructure DObject 13Site 0District ClElement of District 00ther P5a. Photo P5b.Photo:(view and-date) View from the north,looking east, April 19,2002 'i1M•M y *P6. Date Constructed#Age and Sources: Whistoric =` t 1942 *P7. Owner and Address: Rose Marie Pierce 6221 Lone Tree Way Brentwood,CA 94513 *138. Recorded by: Brad Birewster EIP Associates 601 Montgomery St.,Ste 500 San Francisco,CA 94111 *P9. Date Recorded: April 24,2002 *P10. Survey Type: Y Reconnaissance *P11. Report Citations:(Cite survey report and tither sources,or enter'rine*) *Attachments: ONone GlLocation Map OSketch Map €DCWontinuation Sheet 11Building,Structure,and Object Record ClArchaeological Record ODistrict Record CSL€near Feature Record, DMilling Station Record ORock Art Record OArtlfact Record OPhotograph Record 0 Other(list) DPR 523A(1195) *Required information State of California—The Resources Agency Primary� DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRl# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 2 of 2 *NRNP Status Code *Resource Name or# Pierce Property B1. Historic name: Pierce Property B2. Common name: Fierce Property 83. Original Use: Residence 134. Present use:Residence "135. Architectural Style: Ranch Style farmhouse *136. Construction History: (Construction date,alterations,and date of alterations) The Pierce Property was originally constructed In 1942 as a single-family farmhouse. One related outbuilding (barn)was constructed in 1962 to the west of the primary structure. The P€erce Property appears to have been a working farm and later converted to single-family residence;the barn appears to have been converted into a garage. No significant alterations/additions to the main structure are apparent. *87. Moved? IXINo ©Yes OUnknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: Original landscaping, including mature treeslvegeta#bon soround the property. Outbuilding,described above,is a related feature. Baa. Architect: unknown: b. Builder: unknown *810.Significance: Theme Agricultural Develotrment and Sett€ement Area Eastern Contra Costa County Period of Significance 124PLI96q Property Type Residence Applicable Criteria (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme,period,and geographic scope. Also address integrity) Constructed in 1942,the Pierce Property appears to have been a working farm during and an era when eastern Contra Costa County was still largely agricultural in nature,and was likely associated with the orchard-growing industry which began In this area around the tum of the century,but Is largely non-existent today. The residence and its immediate surroundings generally appear to be in their original condition and location,and retains some integrity of materials and workmanship. The property was heavily obscured by vegetation,and as a result,eva€uatl6ris of Integrity and alterations were not recorded. The ranch style elements of the property that were visible do not appear to be architecturally significant,and is a relatively common building form In arts part of Contra Costa County. The tater 1962 barrrlgarago outbuilding has somewhat altered the 1940`s setting of the property. This residence is not listed as a local or state historic resource(NWIC,20101),and has no known associations with events important to California's history,the lives of persons important In our past,or the distinctive characteristics of an architectural type. As a result, the fierce Property does not appear to qualify for Inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources. B1 t. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codas) �.. *812.References: Timothy Jones,Northwest information Center,Letter Re:Cultural resources records search for the City of Brentwood General Pian Sketch Map Update EIR,to Binu Chandy,EIP Associates,January 9,2001 (File No.00-1023) Contra Costa County Assessors Office,APN Report: 019-060-00" April 17,2002 B13.Remarks: *814. Evaluator. Brad Brewster,EIP Associates *Date of Evaluation:April 24,20012 (This space reserved for official comments.) DPR 523E(1195) *Required information State of California---The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRNP Status Code Other Listings { Review Code__-- Reviewer Date Page 'I of 2 Resource name(s)or number(assigned by recorder) Nobriga Property w P1. Other Identifier:6361 Lone Tree Way *P2. Location: ONot for Publication OUnrestricted *a,County Contra Costa *b. USGS 7.5'Quad Brentwood.Calif. Date: 1975 *c. Address 6,361 Lone Tres Way City Brentwood Zip 94513 *e.Other Locational Data:Assessor`s Parcel Number 019-040-016-8 Block: n/a Lot: nla 9 *133a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design,materials,condition,alterations,size,setting,and boundaries.) The Nobriga Property is a one-story bungalow-style farmhouse with a pyramidal roof clad in asphalt.shingles. Building plan is a modified L approximately 1,540 square feet In size. Exterior walls are clad in stucco with painted wood trim. Pier posts support a porch roof which runs the full length of the front fagade and the east side of the building. Porch floor is constructed of brick which extends along the base of the building(front and side facades). Exterior brick chimney Is located on the west side of the building. Windows are original double-hung types(1 over 1). Front windows contain decorative multi-light transoms over single panes. Doors are original wood frame types. According to assessors records,the building was originally constructed in 9935. Various outbuildings on the property which appear contemporaneous with the primary structure include a detached,two-story tower with a pyramidal roof,stucco siding,and a single-pane window,a one-car garage with a low-pitched gable-end roof, and a side able agricultural shed building located toward the wrest(rear)of the residence. Some of these outbuildings appear to have been modified somewhat over the years with smaller shed additions. Two mature palm trees In the front yard:appear to date from around the time of construction. This building appears to be In good condition with few alterations. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes) HP2--Single Family Residence *P4 Resources Present; OBuilding OStructure 00bject 0Site 130istriet OElement of District 00ther P5a. Photo , P5b.Photo:(view and date) View from the north,looking south. April 19,2002 *P6. mate ConstructeWAge and Sources-. 0historic 1935 - *PT. Owner and Address: Tony and Rose Nobriga 6361 Lone Tree Way Brentwood,CA W13 *P8. Recorded by: Brad Brewster EIP Associates 601 Montgomery St.,Ste 500 Sari Francisco,CA 04111 *P9. Date Recorded: AprII 23,2002 *1310. Survey Type: Reconnaissance *PI I. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources,or enter"none *Attachments.BNone 01-ocation Map OSketch Map OContinuation Sheet OBuilding,Structure,and Object Record 0Archaeological record ODistrict Record OLinear Feature Record DMilling Station Record DRock Art Record OArtifact Record OPhotograph Record Q Other(list) DPR 523A(1195) `itequ€reel inforrrmatior, State of California—The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRl# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 2 of 2 *NRHP Status Cade *Resource Name car# Nobncla F�restserEy B1. Historic name: Nobriga Property B2. Common name: Nobriga Property B3. Original Use: Residence 84. Present use:Residence *Ba. Architectural Style: Bungalow farmhouse *B6. Construction History: (Construction date,alterations,and date of alterations) The Nobdga Property was originally constructed in 1935 as a single-family residence. Various outbuildings surround the property that match the residence in terms of architectural detail,and appear to have been built around 1935. No apparent alterations/additions have occurred to the residence,although a later shed addition appears to have been constructed on to the tower outbuilding. *B7. Moved? 0No OYes OUnknown Date:_y_ Original Location: *B8. Related Features: Original landscaping,including two large,mature,elate palms,are located in the front yard. Outbuildings, described above,are related features. B9a. Architect: unknown b. Builder: unknown *12110.Significance. Theme Agricultural£3evelmment and Settlement Area Eastern Contra Costa County Period of Significance 19 1940 Property Type Residential Applicable Criteria A and C (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme,period,and geographic scope. Also address integrity) Constructed in 1935,the Nobriga Property is one of the earlier residences along Lone Tree Way,and pre-dates this area's incorporation into the City of Brentwood. This farmhouse represents an era when eastern Contra Costa County was still largely agricultural in nature,and was likely associated with the orchard-growing industry,which began in this area around the turn of the century,but is largely non-existent today. The residence and its immediate surroundings appear to be In their original condition, and retains integrity of materials,workmanship,and setting. The mature palms are typical landscape elements associated with this era. Although this residence is not listed as a local or state historic resource, it may be eligible for local listing due to its age, integrity,and as an example of the bungalow style of architecture. The residence may be additionally eligible for local listing as an example of agricultural development and settlement,important events in Brentwood's history. 811. Additional resource Attributes: (List attributes and odes} *B12. References: T Timothy Jones,Northwest Information Center,Letter Re:Cultural resources records search for the City of Brentwood General Plan Update EIR,to gnu Chandy,E1P Associates,January 9,2401 (File No.00-1423) Contra Costa County Assessors Office,APN Report: 019-040-016-8 Sketch Map April 17,202 813. Remarks: *1314.Evaluator: Brad Brewster,EIP Associates *Date of Evaluation.April 23,2002 DPR 523E(IM) *Required information (This space reserved for official comments.) State of California—The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code � } Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date Page 1 of 2 Resource name(s)or number(assigned by recorder) Mendoza Property P1. Other identifier:6860 Lone Tree Way *P2. Location: ©Not for Publication IMUnrestriicted *a, County Contra Costa *b.USGS 7.5'Quad Brentwood, Calif. Date: 1978 *c. Address 6860 Lone Tree Way City Brentwood Zip 94513 *e.Other Locational Data:Assessor's Parcel Number 099-010-011-5 Block: nla Lot: n/a *P30. description: (Describe resource and Its major elements. Include design,materials,condition,alterations,size,setting,and boundaries.) The Mendoza Property Is a two-story vernacular farmhouse with a cross-gable roof clad in asphalt shingles and Spanish tile, Building plan Is a modified rectangle approximately 2,100 square feet in size. Wall materials include original horizontal ship-lap siding at the gable ends,with later masonry cladding on the first story,and stucco and scored plywood on the second story. Painted wood trim. A one-story porch surrounds the south and east elevations. Windows are non-original aluminum-frame replacement types. Doors are wood;non-original. According to assessor's record,the building was originally constructed in 1912,with alterationsladditions In 9962. This later alteration Is likely the cane-story,brick-dad shed addition with a Spanish the roof that is visible on the eastern elevation. Another addition&the second floor was also made In 9987,according to the assessor's report. Various other shed extensions appear toward the rear(north)and side(west)elevations. A number of alterations and/or additions to the setting have occurred,Including newer plywood and aluminum storage sheds,a swimming poral,construction of a large brick wall and entrance gates,and extensive landscaping and paving. An older palm tree on the property appears to date from around the time of construction. This building appears to be In good condition. *133b. Resource Attributes. (list attributes and codes) HP2–Single Family Residence *P4. Resources Present: IfIBuilding OStructure 13Object OSlte 13DIstrict E EIement of District 00ther P5a. Photo P5b. Photo:(view and date) View from the southwest,looking northeast. E r February 28,2002 ? *P6. Cate Constructed/Age and Sources: LXIhlstoric 9912, '1962, 1987 *P7. Owner and Address: John Plerre Mendoza 6860 Lone Tree Way. r ' Brentwood,CA 94513 ` *PS. Recorded by. Brad Brewster EIP Associates 601 Montgomery St.,Ste 5007 San Francisco,CA 94111 *P9. Hate Recorded, February 28,203012 *P107. Survey Type: Reconnaissance a *P11. Report Citation:(Cite survey report and other sources,or enter"none' *Attachments: ONone OLocation Map OSketch Map ClContinuation Sheet [XIBuilding, Structure,and Object Record OArchaerol ogical Record 00istrict Record E31-inear Feature Record Ll Milling Station Record ORock Art Record OArtifact Record oPhotograph Record Q Other(list) DPR 523A(1195) *Required information State of California---The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 2 of *NRNP Status Code *Resource Name or# Mendoza P% rt`L B1. Historic name:Mendoza Property B2. Common name: Mendoza Property 83. Original Use: Residence B4. Present use:Residence *85. Architectural Style: Vernacular farmhouse *B6. .Construction History: (Construction date,alterations,and date of alterations) The Mendoza Property was originally constructed In 1912 as a single-family residence. A number of later alterationsladditions occurred in 1962 and 9987,as windows were replaced with aluminum frame types,original wood siding was replaced with stucco ani#scored plywood,a shed extension to the east(groundfloor)was added,a second floor addition was constructed,various newer storage sheds were placed on the property,and extensive landscaping/paving features were added to the front(south elevation)of the property. *B7. Mowed? #SiNo OYes OUnknown Date: Original Location: *88. Related Features: Some original landscaping,Including a large,mature,da0e palm,is located In the front yard. B9a. Architect: unknown b. Builder: unknown *B10.Significance: Theme Agricultural Development and Settlement Area Eastern Contra Costa County Period of Significance 1900-1939 Property T'ypa Resi¢en#iai Applicable Criteria (Discuss Importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by them-,period,and geographic scope. Also address Integrity) Constructed in 1912,The Mendoza Property is one of the earilest residences along lone Tree Way,and pre-dates this area's incorporation into the City of Brentwood. This farmhouse represents an era when eastern Centre Costa County was still largely agricultural in nature,and was likely associated with the orchard-growing Industry,which began in this area around the tum of the century,but is largely non-existent today. The residence and Its Immediate surroundings were extensively altered In 9962 and 1987,and as a result,the property no longer retains integrity of materials,workmanship,or setting. A review of records and literature on file at the Northwest information Center Indicate that of the 14 historic properties in Brentwood on file with the Historic Properties birectory(HPD),publishad by the State Office of Historic Preservation(SOHP),none are located on or near the project . site. The residence has no known associations with events Important to California's history,the lives of persons important in our past,or the distinctive characteristics of an architectural type. As a result,the Mendoza property does not appear to be qualify for Inclusion In the California Register of Historic Resources. i B91. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *812. References: Timothy Jones, Northwest Information Center,Letter Re:Cultural Sketch Map resources records search for the City of Brentwood,General Plan Update EIR,to Binu Chandy,EIP Associates,January 9,2001 (File No. 00-1023) Contra Costa County Assessors Office,APN Report; 01"10-011-5 April 17,2002 H13. Remarks: *1314.Evaluator. Brad Brewster, EIP Associates (This space reserved for official comments.) *Date of Evaluation: February 28, 2002 DPR 5236 (1t95) "Required information State of California The Resources Agency Primary 1� DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI PRIMARY RECORD Trinomla NRNP Status Code Other L€stings Review Code_ Reviewer Date Page I of 2 Resource name(s)or number(assigned by recorder) Martin Property P1. Other Identifier:6770 Lone Tree Way *P2. Location: ONot for Publication [FlUnrestricted *a.County Contra Costa *b. USGS 7.5'Quad Brentwood,Calif. Date-_1978 *c. Address 6770 Lone Tree Way City Brentwood Zip 94513 *e.Other Locational Data:Assessor's Parcel Number 019-010-008-1 Block: n/a Lot: n/a *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements, lncludedesi' boundaries,) gn,materials,condition,alterations,size,setting,and The Martin Property is a one-story ranch-style residence with a low-pitch,end-gable roof clad in asphalt shingles. Building plan is rectangular,with an inset porch supported by wood posts. Exterior walls are clad in stucco with brick cladding below front windovv. Exterior brick chimney located within the inset porch. Non-original windows are vinyl-frame types. Non-original corrugated metal carport/porch addition in rear of property. According to assessor's records,this property was constructed in 1955. A side-gable corrugated metal outbuilding(barn)which pre-dates the residence is located to the north (rear)of the residence. This outbuilding has a newer shed addition to the east and Is In overall dilapidated condition. Mature landscape trees surrounds the residence. A large open field,once possibly containing row crops,SURtunds the property to the west. The residence appears to be in good condition. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (list attibutes and codes) HP2—Single Family Residence *P4. Resources Present EMBuIlding OStrudure DObject 0SIte ODistrict 136ement of District 00ther PSa. Photo 125b.Photo:(view and date) View from the southwest,looking northeast. April 19,2002 *P6. Date ConstructedfAge and Sources: OhIstoric 1955 *P7. Owner and Address: Martin 6770 Lone Tree Way Brentwood, CA 94513 *P8. Recorded by- Brad Brewster EIP Associates 601 Montgomery St,Ste 500 San Francisco,CA 94111 *P9. Date Recorded: Apr!124,2002 *PIG. Survey Type: Reconnaissance *P11. Report Citation:(Cite survey repoil and other sources,or enter*none") *Aftachmen ts: ONone OLocation Map OSketch Map OContinuation Sheet ElBuilding,Structure, and Object Record ©Archaeological Record 001strict Record OUlnear Feature Record OMilling Station Record ORock Art Record OArtifact Record OPhotograph Record 0 Other(list) DPR 523A(1195) *Required Informatlon -----------­------------ State of California--The Resources Agency Primary# [DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page z of 2 *NRHP Status Code *Resource Nacre or# Martin Proierty 81. Historic name:Martin Property B2. ComMon name: Martin Property B3. Original Use: residence 84. Present use: Residence *135. Architectural Style: Ranch Style *B6. Construction History* (Construction date,alterations,and date of alterations) The Martin Property was constructed 1955 as a single-family residence. The property was once a working farm, as evidenced by the older 1920-30's corrugated metal bam and large open field on the property. According to Paul Martin, the owner's son,the original farmhouse was demolished and replaced by the current residence,in 1955 in the same location. Alterations to the house include new vinyl-clad frame windows and a later corrugated metal carport/porch addition toward the rear. The bam is in somewhat dilapidated condition and has been altered with modern additions to its south fagade. *BT. Moved? ONo OYes 0LInknown Date: Priginat Location: : *138. Related Features: Mature landscape trees,outbuilding,described above. ' B9a. Architect unknown b. Builder: unknown *B1 ti.Significance: Thorne Agricultural Development aria Settlement Area Eastern Contra Costa_County Period of Significance 1920-1960 Property Type Residence Applicable Criteria (Dscuss Importance In terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme,period,ani geographic scope. Also address integrity) The Martin Property was constructed In 1955 as a single fancily residence replacing an earlier farmhouse in the same location. The property was originally a working farm during an era when eastern Contra Costa County was still largely agricultural in nature,and was likely associated with the row-crop industry,which began in this area around the tum of the century,but is largely non-existent today. The residence has been somewhat altered in terms of newer windows and a metal carport The bam is in somewhat dilapidated condition and has been altered with modem additions to its south fagade. Both of these alterations have somewhat reduced the property's integrity of materials and workmanship. The ranch-style elements of the property do not appear to be architecturally significant,and it is a relatively common building form in this park of Contra Costa County. Although the barn may date from the 1920s--1930s,such barns are still relatively abundant in this rural portion of Contra Costa County. Numerous examples of barns in better condition remain throughout the area. The property is not listed as a local or state historic resource (NWIC,2001),and has no known associations with events Important to California's history,the lives of persons important in our past,or the distinctive characteristics of an architectural type. As a result,the Marrdn Property does not appear to qualify for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources. B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) - *1312. References: Timothy.lanes,Northwest information enter,Letter Re:Cultural Sketch Map resources records search for the City of Brentwood General Flan Update EIR,to Binu Chandy,filo Associates,January 9,2001 (File No.00-1023) Contra Costa County Assessors Office,APN Report: 019.010-008-1 April 17,2002 Paul Martin,Martin Land Company,Personal communication with Brad Brewster,EIP Associates,July 17,2001. B1 9.Remarks- *814. Evaluator: Brad Brewster, EIP Associates *[pate of Evaluation:April 24,2002 State of California—The Resources Agency Primary DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial_ NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review Code .Reviewer Date Page 1 of 2 Resource name(s)or number(assigned by recorder) Lee Property P1. Other identifier:6685-6691 Lone Tree Way *P2. Location: ®Not for Publication IMUnrestricted *a. County Contra Costa *b.USGS 7.5'Quad Brentwood._Calif. Date: 1978 *c. Address 6685-6691 Lone`tree Way City Brentwood Zip 94413 *e.Other Locational Data:Assessor's Parcel Number 0119-0354-€325-6 Block: nla Lot: n/a *P3h. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design,materials,condition,alterations,size,setting,and boundaries.) The Lee Property is a one-story ranch-style residence with a law-pitch,cross-gable roof clad in asphalt shingles. Building plan is roughly L-shaped. Exterior walls are clad in stucco with painted wood trim. Knee bracing details are located on all visible gable ends. Inset front entry porch. Central brick chimney. Non-original windows are aluminum frame types. Later chain-link fence surrounding the property. According to assessor's records,this property was constructed in 1947. A number of other buildings share this property,including a one-story ranch-style residence built in 1963 and a number of shed outbuildings located to the crest (rear)of the main residence(s). A lame,paved drivewaylpntry court is located between the residences. Both residential buildings appear to be in good condition. ' *P3b. Resource Attributes: 01st attributes and codes) HP2_Single Family Residence *P4. Resources Present: IMBuilding 13Structure 00bject OSite ©District ©Element of District Ci®ther PSa. Photo PSb.Photo:(view and date) View from the north,looking south. April 19,20142 Li` ..'^•" *P6. date Constructed/Age and Sources. ®historic 1947,1963 ` :.";:` • ' *P7. Owner and Address: Arnold and Bernice Lee 6685-6591 Lone Tree Way Brentwood, CA 94513 *P'8. Recorded by: Brad Brewster EIP Associates 601 Montgomery St..Ste 500 San Francisco,CA 94111 *P9. Date Recorded: April 24,2002 *P10. Survey Type: Reconnaissance *P11. Report Citation:(Cite survey report and other sources,or enter"rione") *Att*hments: ©None 01-ocation Map "0Sketch Map OContinuation Sheet OBuilding, Structure,and Object Record OArchaeological Record CIDlstrict Record OUnear Feature Record DMilling Station Record ❑Rock Art Record OArtifact Record OPhotograph Record 0 Other(list) DPR 523A(1195) *Required information State of California—The Resources Agency Primary# - - -- DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HR€# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 2 of 2 *NRHP Status Code *Resource Name or# Lee Property B1. Historic name:Lee Prop" B2. Common name: Lee Property B3. Original Use: Residence B4. Present use: Residence *SS. Architectural Style: Ranch Style farmhouse *B6. Construction History: (Construction date,alterations,and date of alterations) The Lee Prop"was constructed 1947 as a single-family residence,possibly a farmhouse. Alterations to the house include new aluminum frame windows. Stucco siding appears to be non-original. Later additions to the property include a second residence cpnstructed In 1963,as well as a number of small outbuildings toward the rear of the property of unknown date. Front yard was extensively paved with a dr€vewaylentry court,probably in the early 1960's when the second residence was constructed. *B7. Moved? ONo OYes iDUnknown Date: Original Location: ; *BS. Related Features: Second residence and 6utbuildings,described above. : s B9a. Architect: unknown b. Builder: unknown *B10.Significance: Theme Agricultural Development and Settle_mer}t Area Eastern Contra Costa County Period of Significance 1 J4 - g6{3 PropertyType... Eggidengo Applicable Criteria (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme,period,and geographic scope. Also address integrity) Constructed in the late 1947,the Lee Property was likely constructed as a single family house,although it may have been part of a working farm during an era when eastern Contra Costa County was largely agricultural in nature. The residence and its Immediate surroundings have been extensively altered,significantly reducing the property's integrity of materials and setting. The ranch-style elements of the property do not appear to be architecturally significant,and is a relatively common building fours in this part of Contra Costa County. This residence is not fisted as a local or state historic resource(NWIC,2041),and has no known associations with events Important to California's history,the lines.of persons important in our past,or the distinctive characteristics of an architectural type. As a result,the Lee Property dotes not appear to qualify for inclusion In the California Register of Historic Resources. B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) ,- *B12.References: Timothy Jones,Northwest Information Center,Getter Re:Cultural resources records search for the City of Brentwood General Plan Update EIR,to Binu Chandy,EIS'Associates,January 9,2001 (File No.00-1023) Contra Costa County Assessors Office,APN Report: 019-056-025-6 Sketch Map April 17,2002 4 B13. Remarks: *B14.Evaluator: Brad Brewster, EIP Associates *Date of Evaluation:April 24,2002 DPR 5238{1195} *Required information (This space reserved for official comments.) ................ ............. ...... State of California--The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial— NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review CodeReviewer Date Page 1 ' of 2 Resource name(s)or nuMber(assigned by recorder) Golden"Hills Community Church P1. Other Identifier 6221 Lone Tree Way *P2. Location: UNot for Publication MUnrestricted *a. County Contra Costa *b.USGS 7.5'Quad Brentwood. Calif. Date: 1978 *c. Address 6221 Lone Tree Way City Brentwood Zip 94513 .e.Other Locational Data:Assessor's Parcel Number 019-040-042-4 Block: n/a Lot: n/a *P3h. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design,materials,condition,alterations,size,setting,and boundaries.) The Golden Hills Community Church is a one-story vernacular farmhouse now owned by the Golden Hills Community Church and used for religious purposes. The former residence has a hipped (almost pyramidal)roof with a front gable element and small dormer,clad In asphalt shingles. Building plan is rectangular with pier posts supporting a parch roof which extends along the full front and side elevations. Mon-original lattice porch railing. Exterior walls are clad in painted wood siding with painted wood trim, Windows appear to be original double-hung wood frame types(I over 1). Doors also appear to be original wood frame types with multi-light window insets. According to assessor's records,the building was originally constructed In 1920 with a later shed addition to the rear facade constructed in 1959. Two out6ulldings are located on the property, a small barn with vertical rough- hewn wide plank cladding and a front-gabled roof,and an adjunct building With a rectangular plan, horizontal wood siding,and a side-gable roof,both of which appear to date from around the period of construction(1920), Mature trees/vegetation surround the property which may date from around the time of construction. This building appears to be In good condition. *P3b. Resource Attributes* (list attributes and codes) HP16—Religious Building *P4. Resources Present 1XIBuIlding OStructure 00bject 13SIte 0DIstrict 13EIement of District 00ther P5a. Photo P5b. Photo:(view and date) View from the northwest looking southeast. April 19,2002 *P6. Date ConstructeWAge and Sources: 1XIhistoric 1920 *P7. Owner and Address: Golden Hills Community Church 6221 Lone Tree Way Brentwood,CA 94513 *Pg. Recorded by: Brad Brewster EIP Associates 601 Montgomery SC, Ste 500 San Francisco,CA 94111 *Pg. Date Recorded: AprH23,2002 *P10. Survey Type: Reconnaissance ..... *P11. Report Citation. (Cite survey report and other sources,or enter*none) *Attachments: ©None ©Location Map ©Sketch Map 13Continuation Sheet OBuilding, Structure, and Object Record OArchaeological Record 13DWrict Record OUnear Feature Record 0MIlling Station Record CRock Art Record OArtifact Record OPhotograph Record 13 Other(list) DPR 523A(1195) *Required Infomatior State of California—The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HR€# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 2 of 2 *NRNP Status Cade *Resource Name or# Golden Hills Community Church B1. Historic name:Golden Hills Community Church B2. Common name: Golden Hills Community Church B3. Original Use: Residence B4. Present use:Religious Building *B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular farmhouse *86. Construction History: (Constructions date,alterations,and date of alterations) The Golden Hills Community Church was originally constructed in 1920 as a single-family farmhouse, and was later acquired by the church for use as a religious building. Two outbuildings surround the property appear to have been built around 1920. A small sh&d addition to the rear of the building was constructed in 1959. Some tater details have:been added to the building,including lattice porch railings. The building was moved approximately 25-30 feet back from Lone`tree Way by the City of Brentwood in 2001-2002. *B7. Mowed? ONo' 0Yes OUnknown Late: 2001-2002 Original Location:25-30 feet closer to Lone Tree Way on same progerty *138. Relater!Features:' s Some original landscaping,Including mature treeslvegetabon in the front yard. Outbuildings,described above,are related features. B9a. Architect: unknown b. Builder. unknown *1310.Significance. Theme Ar ricui rat Development and Settlement Area Eastern Contra Costa County Period of Significance_1900-1940 4940 Property Type Religious Applicable Criteria (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme,period,and geographic scope. Also address Integrity) Constructed in 1820,the Golden Hills Community Church appears to be one of the earlier residences along lone Tree Way,and pre-dates this area's incorporation into the City of Brentwood. This former farmhouse represents an era when eastern Contra Costa County was stili.largely agricultural in nature,and was likely associated with the orchard-growing industry which began in this area around the turn of the century;but Is largely non-existent today. The residence generally appears to be in its original condition,and retains some integrity of materials and workmanship. However,the setting has been somewhat altered by the relocation of the building approAmately 25-30 hack from Larne Tree Way. The 1959 shed addition to the rear of the building and the non-original porch railings have somewhat compromised the property's integrity. This residence is not listed as a local or state historic resource,and has no known associations with events important to California's history,the lives of person's important in our past,or the distinctive characteristics of an architectural type. As a result,the Golden Hills Community Church does not appearto qualify for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources. B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and c odes) *812.References: Sketch Map Timothy Jones,Northwest Information Center,Letter Re:Cultural resources records search for the City of Brentwood General Plan Update E€R,to Binu Chandy,EIP Associates,January 9,2001 (File No.00-1023) Contra Costa County Assessors Office,APN Report: 019-040-042-4 April 17,2002 B13. Remarks: (This space reserved for official comments.) *B14. Evaluator: Brad Brewster, EIP Associates State of California---The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial � NRHP Status Code I Other Listings I Review Code Reviewer Crate � Page 1 of 2 Resource names)or number(assigned by recorder) Glannini Property P1. rather Identifier:2522 Empire Avenue *P2. Location: ONot for Publication MUnrestricted *a. County Contra Costa *b. USGS 7.5' Quad Brentwood, Calif. hate: 1978 *c. Address 2522 Empire Avenue City Brentwood Zip 94593 *e.Other Locational Data:Assessor's Parcel Number 019-090-097-3 Block. nla Lot: nla *P3k. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. include design,materials,condition,alterations,size,setting,and boundaries.) The Glannini Property is a one-story ranch-style residence with a low-pitch,side-gable roof clad in asphalt shingles. Building plan is rear-facing T-shaped. Exterior walls are clad in asbestos shingles above a horizontal stained wood siding. East-facing gable- end projection is a possible addition,Glad entirely in horizontal wood siding. Exposed rafter ends are located on all visible gable ends. Non-original windows are aluminum frame types. According to assessor's records,this property was constructed in 9947. A side-gable shed outbuilding is located to the north(rear)of the residence. Mature landscape trees surrounds the property,which also contains remnant orchard trees. The building appears to be in good condition. *P31b. Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes) HP2—Single Family Residence *P4. Resources Present: IMBuilding ©Structure 130bject 0Site [3District OElement of District ElOther P5a. Photo P5b.Photo:(view and date) ..:y View from the southeast,looking northwest` April 19,2002 *P6. Date ConstructeellAge and >�Y Sources: 0historic 1947 4 *P7. Owner and Address: Ralph band Mary Glannirui 2522 Empire Avenue Brentwood,CA 94513 *P8.-Recorded by: Brad Brewster BIP Associates 601 Montgomery St.,Ste 500 San Francisco, CA 94911 *P9. Date Recorded: April 24,2002 *P10. Survey Type: Reconnaissance f ' g *P11. Report Citation:(Cite survey report and other sources,or enter"none") *Att hments: 0None []Location Map [3Sketch Map OContinuation Sheet Building,Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record ClDistrict Record taLlnear Feature Record ©Milling Station Record ORock Art Record OArtifact Record ©Photograph Record 13 Other(list) DPR 523A(1195) *Required information State of California-- The Resources Agency Primary# - DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 2 of 2 *NRHP Status Code *Resource Name or#_Giannini Prope B1. Historic name:Glannini Property B2. Common name: Glannini Property B3. Original Use: Residence B4. Present use: Residence *B5. Architectural Style: Ranch Style farmhouse *86. Construction History: (Construction date,alterations,and date of alterations) The Glannini Property was constructed 1947 as a single-family residence,possibly a farmhouse. Alterations to the house include new aluminum frame windows and an end-gable projection to the rear which appears to be a later addition. Horizontal wood siding appears to be non-original. The small outbuilding toward the rear of the property is of unknown date. *B7. Moved? MNo OYes Citlnknown Crate: Ori State of California—The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# _ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRNP Status Code Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date Page 1 of 2 Resource name(s) or number(assigned by recorder) Cranmer Property P1. Other Identifier: 6390 Lone"Gree Way *P2. Location: ®Not for Publication MUnrestricted *a. County Contra Costa *b.USGS 7.5'Quad Brentwood, Calif. Date: 1978 *c. Address 6390 Lone Tree Way City Brentwood Zip 94513 *e.Other Locational Data:Assessor's Parcel Number 056.120-016-3 Block: nfa Lot: n/a 4 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design,materials,condition,alterations,size,setting,and boundaries.) The Cranmer Property is a one-story ranch-style residence with a side-gable roof clad in asphalt shingles. The building plan its rectangular,with a deeply inset front porch along the entire length of the front facade,supported by four wood posts. A shed/porch addition constructed toward the rear of the property. Exterior walls are clad in newer vertical siding. Non-original windows are aluminum or vinyl-frame,double-hung types. Exterior brick chimney. According to assessors records,this property was constructed in 1939,with a"miscellaneous building"constructed in 1962. The additional building is likely the second residence located to the north{rear}of the primary residence. A side.-gable shed outbuilding is located to the north (rear)of the residence which appears contemporary with the primary residence. Mature landscape trees surrounds the residence,including a large palm. A large open field containing remnant orchard trees,surrounds the property to the west. The residence appears to be In fair condition. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (list attributes and odes) HP2--Single Family Residence *P4. Resources Present= ElBuitding OStructure ©Object 0S;Ite ©DIstrict [39ernent of District 00ther P5a. Photo P5b.Photo: (view and date) View from the southeast,looking H e northwest` April 19,2002 *P6. Daae ConstructedlAge and Sources: 0historic 1939, 1 g62 *P7. Owner and Address: - Crammer-Lone"Gree Partnership Ori y 6390 Lone Tree Way yF Yap Brentwood,CA 94513 *P8. Recorded by: Bran Brewster EIP Associates 601 Montgomery St., Ste 504 San Francisco,CA 94111 *P9. Elate Recorded: April 24,2002 *P10. Survey Type: Reconnaissance SE...�• .r ��' r .a.� ~.�' ' ? J *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources,or enter'none) *Attachments: ONone 01-ocation Map OSketch Map OContinuadon Sheet 1XIBuilding,Structure,and Object Record OArchaeological Record ODistrict Record 01-inear Feature Record 0Milling Station Record ORock Art Record OArtlfact Record OPhotograph Record CI Other(list) DPR 523A(I W) +Required information. State of California---The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 2 of 2 *NRNP Status Code *Resource Name or# Cranmer Property B1. Historic name:Cranmer Property 62. Common name: Cranmer Property B3. Original Use: Residence B4. Present use:Residence *B5. Architectural Style: Ranch Style *B6. Construction History: (Construction date,alterations,and date of alterations) The Cranmer Property was constructed 1939 as a farmhouse. Alterations to this property include newer vertical siding, re lacement windows and doors,and a shed/porch addition to the rear. A second residence was constructed in 1962 to the rear of th primary residence. A shed outbuilding was constructed to the rear of the primary residence(date unknown,but possibly contemporaneous with primary residence). The property was once a working farm,as evidenced by the large open field with remnant orchard trees. The property no longer appears to be a working farm. *137. Moved? ISINo E Yes OUnknown . Dans: Orlginal Location: *B8. Related Features: Mature landscape trees,outbuilding,described above. ? B9a. Architect: unknown b. Builder: unknown *B10.Significance: Theme Agricultural Develorsment and Settlement Area Eastern Contra Costa County Period of Significance 1920-1960 Property Type Residence Applicable Criteria (C`scuss Importance In terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme,period,and geographic scope. Also address integrity) Constructed in 1939,the Cranmer Property was originally a working farm during an era when eastern Contra Costa County was still largely agricultural in nature,and was likely associated with the row-crop industry,which began in this area around the turn of the century,but is largely non-existent today. The residence has been extensively altered In terms of newer windows,front door, siding,and a shed addition to the rear. The setting has been extensively altered with the construction of a second residence in 1962. The property is not listed as a local or stat historic resource(NVVIC,2001) and has no known associations with events important to California's history,the.lives of persons Important in our past,or the distinctive characteristics of an architectural type. As a-result,the Cranmer Property does not appear to qualify for inclusion In the California Register of Historic Resources.. B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12.References: Timothy Jones,Northwest Information Center,Letter Re:Cultural resources records search for the City of Brentwood General Plan Update EIR,to Binu Chandy,EIP Associates,January 9,2001 (File No.00-1023) Contra Costa County Assessors Office,APN Report 056-120-016-3 April 17, 2002 Sketch Map 813. Remarks: *1314.Evaluator: Brad Brewster,EIP Associates *Date of Evaluation:April 24,2002 DPR 52313(1/05) *Required information (This space reserved for official comments.) i State of California—The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRl# PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial l NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review Cade Reviewer Date Page 1 of 2 Resource name(s)or number(assigned by recorder) Albers Property P1. Other identifier:6820 Lone Tree Way *P2. Location: 0Not for Publication ElUnrestricted *a.County Contra Costa *b.USGS 7.5'Quad Brentwood,Calif. Date: 1978 *c. Address 6820 Lone Tree Way City Brentwood Zip 94513 *e.tither Locational Data,:Assessor's Parcel Number 019-010-009-9 Block: n/a Lot: n/a *133d. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. include design,materials,condition,alterations,size,setting,and boundaries.) The Albers Property is a one-story ranch style residence with a low-pitch,side gable roof with a side-gable roof shed roof extension to the east,both clad in green composite materials. Building pian is roughly rectangular In plan with an inset front porch. Three pier posts support the porch roof. Exterior walls are clad in horizontal painted wood siding with painted wood trim. Original windows are four-light fixed and double-hung wood frame types. Non-original windows in the shed extension are four-over-two double-hung vinyl types.. Non-original vertical wood board fence. No assessor's records for this property were available. However,the building appears to have been constructed in the late 1940's. The shed extension to the east was either a garage that was later converted to interior use,or was an entlrely=new addition. A shed outbuilding with a flat roof is located to the north (rear)of the main residence. Mature trees/vegetation surround the property. This building appears to be in good condition. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes) HP2–Single Family Residence *P4. Resources Present: 1XBui€ding OStructure ©Object ©Site 0DIstri State of California--The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 2 of 2 *NRHP Status Code *Resource Name or# Albers Prooerty B1. Historic name:Albers Property B2. Common name: Albers Property 83. Original Use: Residence 64. Present use:Residence *B5. Architectural Style: Ranch Style farmhouse *B6. Construction History: (Construction date,alterations,and date of alterations) The Albers Property appears to have been constructed in the late 1940's as a single-family residence, possibly a farmhouse. The shed extension to the east was either a garage that was recently converted to interior use,or was an entirely new addition. One related outbuilding appears to have been constructed after the primary residence. *137. Moved? EMNo QYes OUnknown Date: —original Location: *B8. Related Features: Original landscaping,including mature trees/vegetation surround the property. Outbuilding,described above, is a related feature. B9a. Architect: unknown b. Builder. unknown *1310.Significance: Theme Agriculturai_Development and Settlement Area Eastern Contra Costa County . Period of Significance 1940-1960 Property Type Residence Applicable Criteria (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme,period,and geographic scope. Also address integrity) Constructed in the late 1940's,the Albers Property may have been a working farm during an era when eastern Contra Costa County was still largely agricultural in nature,and was likely associated with the orchard-growing industry which began In this area around the tum of the century,but is largely non-existent today. The residence and its immediate surroundings generally appear to be in their original condition and location,although the later shed extension to the east has altered the property's integrity. The ranch style of the property does not appear to be architecturally significant, and is a relatively common building form in this part of Contra Costa County. This residence is not listed as a local or state historic resource(NW€C,2001),and has no known associations with events important to California's history,the lives of persons important in our past,or the distinctive characteristics of an architectural type. As a result,the Albers Property does not appear to qualify for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resources. 811. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *1312. References: Timothy Janes, Northwest Information Center,tetter Re:Cultural resources records search for the City of Brentwood General Plan Update E1 R,to Binu Chandy, EIP Associates,January 9,2001 (Pile No.00-1023) Contra Costa County Assessors Office,APN Report: 019-010-009-9 Sketch Map April 17,2002 813.Remarks: *814.Evaluator. Brad Brewster, EIP Associates *Date of Evaluation:April 24,2002 DPR 5238(1195) *Required information (This space reserved for official comments.)