Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09092003 - C.39 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, AS GOVERNING BOARD OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT FROM: MAUR.ICE M. SHIU, CHIEF ENGINEER MATE: September 9, 2003 SUBJECT: ADOPT the previously approved City of Brentwood Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act in order to issue a Flood Control Permit (FC Permit 631-02) across Sand Creek Channel to Western Pacific Housing,Brentwood area. (District III)Project No. 0651-6L083A SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION L Recommended Action: ADOPT the previously approved City of Brentwood Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act in order to issue a Flood Control Permit (FC Permit 631-02) across Sand Creek Channel to Western Pacific Housing, Brentwood area, and DIRECT the Director of Community Development to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk; and AUTHORIZE the Chief Engineer to arrange for payment of a $25 fee to Community Development for processing, and a$225 fee to the County Clerk for filing the Notice of Determination. Continued on Attachment: x SIGNATURE C COMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR �- _W-OMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE "APPROVE OTHER i SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BO ON SEPTEMBER 09, 2003 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED xx OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS xx UNANIMOUS(ABSENT V > AYES: NOES: ABSENT:.. ABSTAIN: - I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the TT:sr Board of Supervisors on the date shown. G:\GrpData\Engsvc\ENVIRO\BOo,2003\ p (09-09-03)CEQA-SandCrk PedBr(FC 631-02)Adopt-MND.doc Orig.Div: Public Works(ES) ATTESTED:_ SEPTEMBER 09, 2003 Contact: Cece Sellgren, (313-2296) JOHN SWEETEN, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors cc: E.Kuevor,CAO and County Administration Auditor-Controller K.Piona,Community Development Accounting (,tsy r � M.Consolaclon,Flood Control By- -� Deputy T.Torres,Environmental Subject: ADOPT the previously approved City of Brentwood Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan Mitigated Legative Declaration in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act in order to issue a Flood Control Permit (FC Permit 631-02) across Sand Creek Channel to Western Pacific Housing,Brentwood area. (District III)Project No. 0651-6LO83A Date: September 9, 2003 Page: 2 II. Fiscallmpaet: There is no impact to the County General Fund. This is a developer-funded project. The developer (Western Pacific Housing) will pay for the expenses of the Flood Control District related to the issuance of the necessary Flood Control Permit and the installation of the pedestrian bridge. III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background: On June 25, 2002, the City of Brentwood City Council adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration as part of their Master Plan. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors intends to adopt the City of Brentwood's Mitigated Negative Declaration to address the necessary Flood Control District transactions associated with the project. Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) intends to issue a Flood Control Permit (FC Permit 631-02) to Western Pacific Housing, Inc. (Developer), so that a pedestrian bridge can be constructed over Sand Creek Channel. The Developer is being required by the City of Brentwood to construct the bridge for pedestrian access across Sand Creek. The impacts associated with the proposed pedestrian bridge are addressed in the Mitigated Legative Declaration. IV, Cnnse uencec of Negative Action: Delay in adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration will prevent the issuing of the Flood Control Permit, so that the Developer cannot construct the pedestrian bridge across Sand Creek Channel, in compliance with the City of Brentwood's requirements. 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 Project Description,Common Name(if any)and Location: Flood Control District Transactions associated with the City of Brentwood Parks,Trails and Recreation Master Flan Mitigated Negative declaration. On May 1, 2002, the City of Brentwood, Parks and Recreation Department published a notice of a proposed adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. On June 25, 2002,the City of Brentwood City Council adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration as part of their Master Plan. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors intends to adopt the City of Brentwood's Mitigated Negative Declaration to address the necessary Flood Control District transactions associated with the project. Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District{District}intends to issue a flood control permit to Western Pacific Housing, Inc.(developer),so that a pedestrian bridge can be constructed over Sand Creek Channel.The developer is being required by the City of Brentwood to construct the bridge for pedestrian access across Sand Creek. The impacts associated with the proposed pedestrian bridge are addressed in the City of Brentwood's Parks,Trail,and Recreation Master Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration. Location. The proposed activity is located in East County, in the City of Brentwood, across Sand Creek Channel approximately 600 feet southeast of the intersection of Sand Creek Road and Fairview Avenue. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act: { } An Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified {SCH# } { } The Project was encompassed by an Environmental impact Report previously prepared for {SCH# }. {X} A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. The Mitigated Neg Dec{adopted by the City of Brentwood} is being adopted by the Board of Supervisors 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 Community Development Department. {X} The City of Brentwood determined the project will not have a significant environmental effect with the incorporation of mitigation into the project description. The Board of Supervisors is adopting the approved Mitigated Neg Dec. { ) The Project will have a significant environmental effect. {X} 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. Signature Title Applicant: Department of Fish and Game Fees Due Contra Costa County Public Works Dept. EIR-$850 Total Due: $ 255 Glacier Drive Neg. Dec. -$1,250 Total Paid $ Martinez, CA 94553 X DeMinimis Findings- $0 Attn: Trina Torres X County Clerk- $50 Receipt#: GAGrpData\EngSvc\ENVIR0\2003 Projects\CEOA\NOD\Sand Crk PedBr(FC 631-02).doc 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 Se€igren, Environmental Planner Project Description,Common Name(if any)and Location: Flood Control District Transactions associated with the City of Brentwood Parks,Trails and Recreation Master Pian Mitigated Negative Declaration. On May 1, 2002, the City of Brentwood, Parks and Recreation Department published a notice of a proposed adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. On June 25,2002, the City of Brentwood City Council adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration as part of their Master Plan. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors intends to adopt the City of Brentwood's Mitigated Negative Declaration to address the necessary Flood Control District transactions associated with the project. Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District(District)intends to issue a flood control permit to Western Pacific Housing, Inc.(developer),so that a pedestrian bridge can be constructed over Sand Creek Channel.The developer is being required by the City of Brentwood to construct the bridge for pedestrian access across Sand Creek. The impacts associated with the proposed pedestrian bridge are addressed in the City of Brentwood's Parks,Trail,and Recreation Master Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration. Location: The proposed activity is located in East County, in the City of Brentwood, across Sand Creek Channel approximately 600 feet southeast of the intersection of Sand Creek Road and Fairview Avenue. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act: ( ) An Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified (SCH# ) ( } The Project was encompassed by an Environmental Impact Report previously prepared for {SCH# ). (X) A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. The Mitigated Neg Dec(adopted by the City of Brentwood)is being adopted by the Board of Supervisors 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 Community Development Department. (X) The City of Brentwood determined the project will not have a significant environmental effect with the incorporation of mitigation into the project description. The Board of Supervisors is adopting the approved Mitigated Neg Dec. { ) The Project will have a significant environmental effect. (X) 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 PILING 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. Signature Title Applicant: Department of Fish and Game Fees Due Contra Costa County Public Works Dept. EIR- $850 Total Due: $ 255 Glacier Drive Neg. Dec. -$1,250 Total Paid $ Martinez, CA 94553 X DeMinimis Findings -$0 Attn: Trina Torres X County Clerk- $50 Receipt#: GAGrpData\EngSvcIFNVIR0\2003 Pro1acts\CEQAIN0D\Sand Crk Ped8r(FC 631-02).doc 07/231'2003 14; 55 51G-5447 rARKREC PAGE 01/03 RESOLUTION NUMBER NO. 2508 CITY OF BRENTWOOD CITY COUNCILADOPTI(ON OF THE BRENTWOOD PARKS TRAILS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WHEREAS, the City of Brentwood, Parks and Recreation Department, with significant public input over the past two years Inas developed the Parks Trails and Recreation Master Plan hereinafter referred to as the "Master Plan". The Master Plan is intended to establish the goals, policies, and objectives under which the City paries, trails, and recreation facilities will be developed and managed, and; WHEREAS, on April' 10, 2002 the City of Brentwood, Parks and Recreation Department mailed notice of proposed adaption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and availability of the accompanying Initial Study for the proposed Master Plan to responsible agencies, including the Governors Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse for a 30-day public comment period, and; WHEREAS, the Public Notice of Availability of an Initial Study and Proposed Negative .Declaration was posted, pursuant to Public Resources Code 2109.2.3 at the County Clerk Office, and, WHEREAS, on May 1, 2002, the City of Brentwood, Parks and Recreation Department published notice of a proposed adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and availability of the accompanying Initial Study for the Master Plan in the Ledger Dispatch, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Brentwood, and; WHEREAS, the public comment period for the Initial Study and proposed Negative Declaration closed at 5:00 p.m. on May 13, 2002, and; WHEREAS, on May 1, 2002 the City of Brentwood, Parks and Recreation Department published notice of a public hearing for the date of May 30, 2002 to consider the Master Plan in the Ledger Dispatch, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Brentwood, and; WHEREAS, on May 21, 2002, the City of Brentwood Planning Commission reviewed and commented on the Master Plan, and; WHEREAS, the City of Brentwood, Park and Recreation Commission, at its regular meeting of May 30, 2002, held a public hear;ng and considered public cornmants, arid; WHEREAS, on May 30, 2002, the City of Brentwood, Park and Recreation Commission reviewed and considered the Initial Study with comments received during the public review period and public hearing, and determined it to be complete and in compliance with the California environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21,000,.et seq.), and; WHEREAS, the City of Brentwood, Park and Recreation Commission has considered the impacts presented in the Initial Study and firids that all the significant impact presented in the initial Study resulting from implementing the Master Plan can be reduced to a less-than significant level with implementation of the mitigation measures set forth in the Initial Study dated April 9, 2002, and; WHEREAS, the City of Brentwood, Park and Recreation Commission has reviewed the Mitigation Monitoring and reporting Program and found it to be consistent with the Mitigation 07/23!2603 14;55 516-5447 PARKREC PAGE 02/03 Measures identified in the initial Study and any modification presented in the responseto comrnents, and; WHEREAS, on May 30, 2002, the City of Brentwood, Faro; and Recreation Commission passed Resolution 1 recommend;ng that the Brentwood City Council adopt the Brentwood Parks Trails and recreation 'Master Plan, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Master Plan, and, WHEREAS, on June 25, 2002, the City of Brentwood, City Council reviewed and considered the Initial Study with comments received during the public review period and public bearing, and determined it to be complete and in compliance with the California EnvircrimentGi Quaiity Act (Public Resources Code Section 21,000, at seq,), and; WHEREAS, the City of Brentwood, City Council has considered the impacts presented in the Initial Study and rinds that all the.significant impact presented In the initial Study resulting from implementing the Master Plan can be reduced to a less-than significant level with the implementation of mitigation measures set forth in the lnitial Study dated April g, 2002, and; WHEREAS, the City of Brentwood, City Council has reviewed tine Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and found it to be consistent with the Mitigation Measures identified in the Initial Study and any modification presented in the response to comments, and; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study and response to comments be made a part of the Master Flan, and; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a DeMinimus Finding be made, and; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Brentwood, City Councii file a Notice of .Determination with the Clerk of the. County of Contra Costa and the Governors Office cif Planning and Research in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and provide a copy of said notice to anyone previously requesting a notice, and; 3i BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Brentwood City Council adopt the Brentwood Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration. and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Master Plan. Passed and adopted by the following vote: AWES: Councilmembers Games, Hill, Petrovich; Mayor McPoland NOES: None ASSENT: Councilmember Beckst~and 'Ki lchael AA, Mc- of n , Sr. Mayer ATTEST. Karen tiaz, CMC City ClerVDirector of AJministative Services City of Brentwood Parks and Recreation Department Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (Public Resources Code Section 21O8O(c)and California Code of Regulations,Title 14, Sections 15070—15073) Date of Preparation: April 9, 2002 Lead Agency: City of Brentwood, Parks and Recreation Department 7018 Third Street Brentwood, CA 94513-1396 Contact Person: Mr. Craig D. Bronzan Director of Parks and Recreation (925) 516--5444 Project Tine: City of Brentwood Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan Project Description: The City of Brentwood Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan is a comprehensive plan designed to guide the City in meeting a variety of goals for parklands and its uses. The proposed project is an update to the City's 1994 Park and Recreation Master Plan. The proposed project incorporates elements of the 1991 City of Brentwood Creek Trails and Revegetation Master Plan, the 1995 City of Brentwood East Contra County Irrigation District/East Bay Regional Park District Trails Feasibility Study and the 1995 City of Brentwood Bicycle Transportation Master Plan into a single comprehensive plan. While not an element of the City of the City General Plan, the proposed project clarifies long-range strategies and planning for the development of parks and recreation facilities identified in the City General Plan.Development of this long-range master plan includes a needs assessment; identification and description of existing,approved park and recreational facilities; the planned general siting of future park, and recreational facilities consistent with the City's General Plan; provides fiscal planning policies for parkland acquisition; and sets policy for development and long-term operations of park and recreation facilities. Public Review: 0)n April 12, 2002, the City of Brentwood distributed an Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration to"Responsible" "Trustee" and other public agencies which may exercise authority over the resources that may be affected by the project or which have jurisdiction by law over some aspect of the project for a 30 day review and comment period. A copy of this document may be reviewed I obtained at the above noted Lead Agency address. The public 30-day review and comment period ends at 5:00 p.m. on May 13,2002. Any written comments on this document must be received at the above noted Lead Agency address by the end of the review period. A "Public Notice of Availability„ has been printed in the Ledger Dispatch newspaper for general public circulation, and has been posted at the Office of the County Clerk. A public hearing to accept oral comments regarding the proposed project and/or Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will be held on May 30,2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 708 Third Street, Brentwood California. t i ^ 3 Finding I Determination: The City of Brentwood has reviewed and considered the proposed project, and has prepared and/or independently reviewed and analyzed the Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. Based on the proposed project description,mitigation measures presented in the Initial Study, it is determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended for this project. Crag Br zan Di ector f rks and Recreation 2 City of Brentwood Parks and Recreation Department Initial Study 1. Project Title: City of Brentwood Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan 2. Lead Agency: City of Brentwood Parks and Recreation Department 708 Third Street Brentwood, CA 94513-1396 3. Lead Agency Contact Person: Craig D. Bronzan Director of Parks and Recreation Phone: (925) 516-5365 Fax: (925) 516-5445 4. Project Location: The City of Brentwood is located in eastern Contra Costa County, approximately 50 miles east of San Francisco and approximately 50 miles southwest of Sacramento. State Route 4 passes through Brentwood and provides access to Interstates 80 and 680 to the west, and Interstate 5 to the east. The Cities of Antioch and Oakley are located to the west and north of the City of Brentwood, respectively. Exhibit 1 illustrates the project's regional location. The City of Brentwood Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan Area covers approximately 52 square miles,'which is reflective of the City of Brentwood General Plan Planning Area shown in Exhibit 2. As shown in Exhibit 2, the Brentwood Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan Area is generally bound by Neroly Road to the north, Bixler Road to the east, Marsh Creek Road and Camino Diablo Road to the south, and Deer Valley Road and Heidorn Ranch Road to the west. The proposed project site is exhibited on the Brentwood 7.5-minute United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map. The project site is roughly bound by Section 3, Range 2 East, Township 1 South to the northwest; Section 5, Range 3 East, Township 1 North to the northeast; Section 32, Range 3 East, Township I North to the southeast; and Section 3, Range 2 East, Township 1 East to the southwest. Page 1 r I n o n i 0 t • tx z z a 2 umrr� � H 7C t�oy 1- r a t..r.r r r..! r■ r r r.rr a r r■rur r r HEIDORN RANCH ROAD r in �m rn CA X LA f W r j EIC7 ' p EMPIRE AVENUE A R4: m Aty �----} AIRVIEW.AV " - FAIRVIEW AVENU w i'.j jMINO'HARA AVENUE NEr�A 'AVENUE. I? � / ORCHARD LAN � f f j U / `-- i ANDERSON LANE E #� ° CDF S WALNUT BOULEVARD BOULEVARD BRENTWOOD BOULEVARD CHI # tA arW..r Y X m nT m i iwww tirr � ,«r `' _` MARSH c,q., j y j nr.r.nti., s SELLERS AVENUE D� `SELLERS AVENUE s rna v) ! 3 SCALE Y m: o w ro 00000 3 yyg ro •n e ro .q +e -n Y ro ro ro b ro A C7 rn 0 � CD s 0 'Q W CL 0 oEn � c X 73 rn ,� CD (n m a � n o � a � 0 ` m o u; go 90 chm O Erro s f OS a X Initial Stud San Rafael As Stockton wmkwt Czo*k BRENTWOOD E}aktiwrd ws San Fta"ci*c JT ���� m 7rscy Ip H y wd Regional Location Exhibit 1 Page 2 ul 93 o c 0 x ``" UJ c� C) z w 1ry3..E ::D z Com) p ? w w W U 0 W o Vj cm z c Iwo L5 c W �. WAM U 4- i pg C # v j f K 4 ! { tuLn 3nN3AV SN3113S ..r. lull A113 3AV SIM135 Lu w w E a ui a y� v Ulce o r I c • b�, CHVA3Z{1a8 aaoM.tN3" n�e 1nN�VM t t } 3NVI NOSN3aNV W ON V Uld 0.1 3AV VNVH,0 r 3AV V1093NNIW 1� w s VON 1 a anuanV taa}A f L23 �` `� ~N33NJ HSNVW w I i 3nvi+;31AVIVA znNzd� � �x- � z 3nN3AV MdW3 0 {' 3nN3AV UO)Na7 uit BE ,.� � .. o..._...fir....._. ._.... ' �....�.�..... at+ON JN Z3H W ! W ON k311VA N33a i z a t ' fi l 3 Initial stun v 5. Project Description: Purpose The City of Brentwood Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan (proposed project) is a comprehensive plan designed to guide the City in meeting a variety of goals for parklands and its uses. The proposed project Is an update to the City's 1994 Park and Recreation Master Plan. As a comprehensive plan, the proposed project incorporates elements of the 1991 City of Brentwood Creek Trails and Revegetation Master Plan, the 1995 City of Brentwood East Contra County irrigation District/ East Bay Regional Park District Trails Feasibility Study and the 1995 City of Brentwood Bicycle Transportation Master Plan into a single comprehensive plan. Existing, proposed and future parks, bikeways and trails are identified in Exhibit 3 (Parks, Trails, and Recreational Master Plan). The location, type and size of the approved parks identified in Exhibit 3 have already been approved through individual subdivision map applications. The City has also approved proposed trails identified in Exhibit . Park sites identified as "future parks" in Exhibit 3 are park sites identified in the City's General Plan. No new park or trail system is being introduced under the proposed project. While not an element of the City General Plan, the proposed project clarifies lona-range strategies and planning for the development of parks and recreaticilities identified in the City General Plan.. Development of this lona-range master plan includes a needs assessment; identification of existing, approved park and recreational facilities; the planned general siting locations for future park and recreational_facilitiesconsistent with the City's General Plan; provides fiscal planning policies for parkland acquisition; and sets policy for development and long-term operations of parks and recreation facilities. Planning and Needs Assessment The project offers a road map and guidelines; incorporating flexibility to capture opportunities while planning for the future needs of Brentwood's citizens. The Parrs, Trails and Recreation Master Plan was prepared using an interactive process involving the public, City staff, and consultants. A series of workshops and a questionnaire were two of the tools used to gather community input and form the basis of a "Needs Assessment". The assessment includes a review of population characteristics including growth trends and distribution, and age distribution to identify recreation needs. Existing Parks and Recreation Facilities The Master Plan inventoried the City's existing system of parkland and recreational facilities that serve the community of Brentwood. The City's existing system of parkland and recreational facilities includes 1 community park, 15 neighborhood parks and 4 trails Citywide totaling approximately 6 miles. The following table lists the City's existing system of parkland and recreational facilities. The Master Plan also inventoried parks, open space and recreational facilities operated by other agencies that are used by the citizens of Brentwood. The existing system of parkland and recreational facilities were reviewed to determine their ability to adequately serve the City's existing as well as projected recreational needs. Page 4 Initial Stmty City of Brentwood Park Facilities Matrix 2001 20, "� Ab �' + m 'R. u z�rA kf #3it5 e ti". cu.sa:� d '3 .` 'fs `'�4 �' .')J 4 �+ '4% R T, R P 3S { Y x h �""' #„fir 3 t sy i9a <" id . y$ a °c ,y{d�M13'.�t.'@ Apple HillPark 5 ( + • • • r • i e •j . r Brentwood Family Sb.3' e e 1 • { e • .' i • r • Aquatic Center Clory Park ( + • • ' • i Spirit Park e.5 • + � + City Park 12-94 • + • • ' e . , MHomecoming 9.5 • • • • + • • 0,14 + 6.4 • • • • e 1 2 r • i i e • ! • Loma Vista Park 5.3 1 • • r r e Marsh Creek Vista Park 0,47 • + McCiarren Park 3.24! • • . • r e e I Sunset Park 9.8 •i + + + • • + • Summerwood Park 857 • i • i • • • • f •, Windsor ay Park 036 . • * � Deer Creek Trail IIs Marsh Creek Trail 5 Mi.l 1 1 1 Sand'Creek Trail j¢ rf12. { Dry Creek Trail � 1 Goals, Objectives and Policies The Master Plant includes goals, objectives and policies for the siting, development and maintenance of parks, trails and recreational facilities. These goals, objectives and policies address a variety of passive and active recreational needs of the community from neighborhood parka to sports facility requirements. Park Development Guidelines The park development guideline components of the Master Plan are policy-level guidelines that set the parameters for park development. The park development guidelines set the parameters for the size and service area, location, site characteristics, basic design features typical of park and recreational facilities that are to be provided in the community, .Wage 6 initial.Siudy Implementation Pian Full implementation of the Master Plan would improve the quality of existing parks and recreational facilities as well as guide the implementation of new parks in the form of neighborhood and community parks, sports complexes, open space and trails. The Master Plan identifies steps for an effective implementation program. Adoption of the City of Brentwood Parks; Trails and Recreation Master Plan does not obligate, direct or implement any site-specific projects. Rather, adoption of the Master Plan establishes policy and guidelines for the City to consider in implementing and developing park and recreation facilities necessary to respond to growth anticipated by the City General Plan, ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors listed below would be potentially affected by this project, but have been reduced to less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics N Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources n Cultural Resources ( Geology/Soils Hazards& Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: © I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ■ l 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. E find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2} has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 'age 7 initial Studry, 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. r Signature Date Lo s 131_e�Wo Printed name For EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The following checklist represents the environmental checklist form found in Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The checklist form is used to describe the environmental effects of the proposed project. All responses have taken account of the whole action involved, including on- and off-site impacts; project and cumulative direct and indirect impact; construction impacts; and operational impacts. Included in each discussion, where appropriate, are project-specific mitigation measures recommended as part of the project. For each topical issue or environmental effect evaluated in this checklist, the criteria for significance is based on CEQA Guidelines, City of Brentwood policies and/or standards, and/ or the "significance threshold"of local, regional, state or federal agencies. For this checklist, the following designations are used: Potentially Significant- Substantial evidence is available that an impact could be significant for which no mitigation has been identified. If there is one or more potentially significant impact identified for which no mitigation is provided, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared. Leas Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated -•Applies where incorporation of recommended mitigation measures will reduce the impact from "potentially significant"to "less than significant". Less Than Significant—An impact that is adverse, but does not meet the significance criteria. No Impact—The project will not have an impact. 'se 8 Initial Study Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than {SSUeS Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incarporatian impact impact €. AESTHETICS—Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its El surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion: a-c) Distant views to the Diablo Range and Mount Diablo to the west are visible throughout the community. Distant views to the Sierra Nevada foothills to the east are visible on clear days along roadways and undeveloped areas of the community. Views within the community are primarily of developed areas, open agricultural land or orchards. The character of Brentwood can be best described as a community typified by well-defined residential neighborhoods that extend beyond the historical downtown core. The outlying areas surrounded the City is composed of agricultural land. There are no designated scenic highways or roadways in the Brentwood area. The park development guidelines and implementation action plans described in the Master Pian will guide future park and recreational improvements: Development associated with the proposed Master flan would not substantially alter the existing visual character or quality and urban design of the Brentwood Planning area. In general, park and recreational improvements would be low profile and therefore would not substantially interfere with the distant views of the Diablo Range or the Sierra Nevada foothills. Overall, park and recreational improvements would be in concert with planned development outlined in the City General Plan. Specific park or recreational improvements have or will be addressed when specific proposals for new park or recreation facilities are presented. d) The specific locations of future parks are unknown and the improvements for future parks are only conceptually described in the Master Plan. Improvements may include installation or expansion of new lighting structures. Specific park or recreational improvements will be addressed when specific proposals for new park or recreation facilities are made. Compliance to Mitigation Measure 1 would ensure that park improvements would not cause substantial light or glare. Mitigation Measure 1 During the design phase of any existing or new park or recreational facility requiring upgrading of existing lighting or new lighting facilities, lighting shall be designed in such a manner as to minimize glare or excessive lighting of off-site areas. Pa ,ge 9 Initial Study Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Issues significant Mitigation significant No impact incorporation Impact Impact 11. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES -Would the project; a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or ❑ ® ❑ Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural ❑ ❑ ❑ use. or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing ❑ ❑ ❑ environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Discussion: a-c)The proposed project will not amend current City land use designations or zoning districts. Rather, the purpose of the Master Plan is to complement the existing and planned land use designations identified in the City General Plan. "Existing" "approved" and "future" parks are all located in areas currently designated for urban development. Nevertheless, implementation of the City's Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Flan would result in the conversion of farmland to an urbanized use. However, such farmland conversion has been planned and anticipated for in the City's General Plan. Park development involving the conversion of productive agricultural land would be required to comply with the conservation programs established pursuant to the City's General Plan Conservation Element Policy 1.14 in order to mitigate the potential significant impact of a site specific recreational facilities that involve the conversion of productive agricultural land. Compliance with Mitigation Measure 2 would reduce agriculture resource impacts to a level of less than significant. Mitigation Measure 2 The Parks and Recreation Department shall ensure that the current City fee for agricultural preservation shall be paid prior to commencement of any construction activity or any recordation of any final map, whichever comes first, that would result in the conversion of productive agricultural land. These funds shall be provided to implement the City's Agriculture Enterprise Program including the purchase of conservation easements to mitigate the loss of farmland. Ill. AIR QUALITY -Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the © ❑ ❑ applicable air quality pian? b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net ❑ ❑ ❑ increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an Page 10 Initial Sturdy Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Issues Significant Mitigation significant No lmpact incorporation Impact Impact applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ pollutant concentrations? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a ® 1:1 11substantial number of people? Discussion: a-c)The City of Brentwood is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Air Quality Management District. This District is currently nor:-attainment for the state and federal one-hour ozone standard as well as for the eight- hour ozone standard The District is also non-attainment for state particulate matter (PM-10) standard. Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the District's adopted air quality management pian. There may be temporary air quality impacts during construction of park and recreational facilities. Future park and recreational improvements could result in short-term fugitive dust and increased particulate matter(PM-10) levels. To minimize dust emissions, the BAAQMD has identified a set of feasible PM,ocontrol measures for all construction sites in the air basin. Implementation of the appropriate BAAQMD-recommended measures (Mitigation Measure 3) for site-specific projects would reduce the impacts caused by construction dust to a level of less than significant. Mitigation Measure 3 All contractors involved in the construction of Park and recreation facilities 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 future improvement plans 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 pian shall comply with the City grading ordinance. The dust control plan shall include the following requirements or measures: a) Basic Control Measures:To be implemented as appropriate and feasible, depending on the size of the project area.. 1) Cover all trucks hauling construction and demolition debris from the site; 2) Water all exposed or disturbed soil surfaces at least twice daily; 3) Use watering to control dust generation during demolition of structures or break-up of pavement; 4) Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply(non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved parking areas and staging areas; f i nitia!Stray Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than ISSU83 Significant Mitigation Significant No impact Incorporation impact impact 5) Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved parking areas and staging areas; 6) Provide daily clean up of mud and dirt carried onto paved streets from the site. b) Enhanced Control Measures:to be implemented in addition to basic control measures at construction sites greater than four acres in area. 1) Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.); 2) Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads,to 15 mph; 3) Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; 4) Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. d-e) it is not anticipated that future park or recreational facility siting would expose park visitors to substantial pollutant concentration, nor is it anticipated that future park and recreational facilities would create objectionable odors. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -Would the project:: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either ❑ ❑ ❑ directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of f=ish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any ❑ ❑ t—t riparian habitat or other sensitive natural u community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ❑ El❑ protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Page 12 Initial Study Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No IssuesImpact Incorporation Impact Impact e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion: a-d) The EIR for the City of Brentwood General Plan adopted November 2001 identified several sensitive biological resources. The EIR documented special status species recognized by either state, federal, private resource management agencies, or conservation organizations. Sensitive species have been identified through a search of the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), the California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California as well as review of other recent environmental reports prepared for the General Plan Planning area and Vicinity. CNDDB observations and observations from other relevant reports are mapped on Exhibit 4. Pour creeks traverse the project area-- Sand Creek, Marsh, Deer Creek, Dry Creek and Marsh Creek. Remnant riparian habitats are found along the channels of Marsh and Sand Creeks. The southwestern portion of the project area provides habitat for the San Joaquin kit fox. Depending on the location and type of park or recreational facility improvement, particularly with construction of recreational facilities along Marsh Creek or Sand Creek, potential impacts to state or federally listed threatened or endangered plant, invertebrate or wildlife species could occur. Implementation of Error! Reference source not found. would reduce potential biological impacts to a level of less than sionificant. Mitigation Measure 4 Biological resource surveys shall be conducted to determine presence, absence or use of a site- specific site by any local, state or federally listed rare, threatened, or endangered plant or animal species. The biological survey shall be conducted prior to any site-specific project design or construction, and shall be conducted following appropriate survey methods and protocols. The survey shall include a delineation of habitats and location of sensitive species, as applicable. Qualified biologists trained in resource agency assessment protocols shall conduct surveys. The survey shall include a delineation of habitats and location of sensitive species, as applicable. Should future park or recreational projects include potential sensitive species or sensitive species habitat, the City of Brentwood Parks and Recreation Department shall consult with state and federal regulatory agencies to design and implement appropriate mitigation plans to offset potential impacts. If a species of concern is found to be present, state or federal regulatory agency may require a management plan to ensure long-term habitat viability and/or residency of the species. The City of Brentwood Parks and Recreation Department shall obtain, as applicable, all appropriate state and federal permits and authorizations prior to beginning construction of any new facility. Page 13 - Ir:ilial Stun v Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation significant No Issues Impact_ Incorporation Impact Impact e-f) At this time, there are no habitat conservation plans (HCP) or Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCP) in place within the project area. Nor has the city a tree protection ordinance. However, the city is participating in a regional MCP process that involves Contra Costa Water District, East Bay Regional Parks District, Contra Costa County, neighboring cities, California Department of Fish and Came,and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, if this process is successful, the City is expected to develop its own HCP that will focus on the southern portion of the City's General Plan Planning Area. IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES-Would the project: a) Caisse a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined El 11 in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §150164.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those El ■ El 11 interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion a-d) The specific locations for future parks are unknown. It is possible that cultural resources could be discovered and potentially impacted by construction activity or by future public access into previously undisturbed areas. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5 would reduce these potential impacts to a level of less than significant. Mitigation Measure 5 Prior to the design and construction of improvements, a records search shall be conducted as part of the site-specific review by a qualified archeologist through the Northwest Information Center. All areas to be disturbed by construction activities shall be systematically surveyed for cultural resources,by a qualified archeologist. All discrete site locations should be recorded on state approved site survey forms. Site plans shall be revised,where practical,to avoid direct disturbance to resources. If avoidance is not a possibility, evaluate the significance of the cultural site and develop mitigation plans to record the significance of the cultural resource prior to commencement of grading and construction activity. To the extent feasible, the Parks and Recreation Department shall implement the following strategies to minimize impacts to cultural finds: Page 15 ` z Initial Stsa� Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Issues Significant Mitigation Significant No impact incorporation impact impact a) Redesign, portions of the project to avoid direct impact; c) Cover prehistoric resources and sensitive portions of historic resources with sufficient fill cover to protect the resource; d) Build on the fill cover with no excavation below the fill cover, e) Monitor all construction in covered or uncovered sensitive areas; and f) Implement surface collection of significant data prior to construction, covering with fill or other impacts. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as ❑ ❑ ❑ delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ❑ liquefaction? iv. Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in E3 ❑ ❑ Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? d) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting F-1 ❑ the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Pale 16 Initial Stubs Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Issues Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation impact impact Discussion: a) No existing, proposed or future park sites are or would be intersected by an active fault. While existing fault lines intersect existing and proposed trails, none of the trails are located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. Local slope instability is present in the hilly western and southwestern portions of the project area. Localized slope instability is also found along the steep stream banks of Marsh Creek. Marsh Creek trail and trails Located in the hilly western and southwestern portions of the project area could be subject to localized slope instability under extreme wet weather conditions Pursuant to the requirements of the California Building Code (CBC), a geotechnical investigation is required during site-specific project planning phases. The detailed geotechnical and foundation investigations include site preparation and earthwork, grading, slope protection, etc. In accordance with the CSC, specifications necessary to design buildings, roads, etc. to address potential soil limitations need to be included in construction plans submitted to the City Engineer and are required to conform to the City's engineering Design Standard. Therefore the requirements of the CBC would reduce potential impacts to a level less than significant. b-e) Proposed or future park and recreation facilities would not be located on expansive soils which would create substantial risk to life, result in significant soil erosion or on soils which would be unable to support septic systems if the City were unavailable. New or renovated structures would be required to conform to seismic requirements of the Uniform Building Code. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle ❑ ❑ ❑ hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list ❑ ❑ ❑ of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.6 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the Public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use ❑ ❑ ❑ plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or Page 17 Initial Study Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No IssuesImpact Incorporation Impact impact public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere ❑ ❑ ❑ with ars adopted emergency response pian or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Discussion: a-c) Hazardous materials (e.g., solvents, pesticides, herbicides) are stored and used at existing park facilities and are anticipated to be stored and used at proposed and future parks. The storage and use of hazardous materials are regulated by Cal/OSHA regulations concerning the storage and use of hazardous materials. Adherence to Cal/OSHA regulations would minimize the potential for inadvertent release of hazardous materials which could affect the environment. d) Existing, proposed and future park sites and trails are not subject to the presence of known hazardous materials. e-f) No existing, proposed or future park or trail is located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of an existing airport. g) The proposed project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan, or expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project a) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ❑ ❑ ❑ interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (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)? Page 78 r Iraiial.Study Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than ISSUE'S Significant Mitigation significant No Impact incorporation impact Impact b) Substantially after the existing drainage pattern ❑ of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern ❑ ❑ ❑ of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? d) Create or contribute runoff water that would ❑ ❑ ❑ exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or.provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? e) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard ❑ ❑ Elarea as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Mood insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area ❑ ❑ Elstructures that would impede or redirect flood flows? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk ❑ ❑ ❑ of lass, injury or death involving flooding; including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? i) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? r—t ❑ n 0 Discussion: u u a) Improvements to existing parks and the development of proposed and future parks and trails would require a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPP) and the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) to reduce construction effects on receiving water quality. Compliance with the requirements contained in a SWPP and BMPs would ensure project activities would not violate any water quality standards. . '` Irfitial,i2u� Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation significant No Issues Impact incorporation impact im act b) Improvements to existing parks and the development of proposed and future parks and trails would not substantially increase the demand for groundwater through the direct withdrawals resulting in a change in the quantity of groundwater available. There are no large underground storage basins or large-scale development of groundwater resources in the project vicinity. c-f)While park and trail improvements would result in an increase in the amount of impervious surface, the project does not propose substantial alterations to existing creeks and their tributaries. The increase in the amount of impervious surface would, however, generate additional surface runoff and reduce the present level of infiltration of surface. Nevertheless, as noted above, compliance with the requirements contained in the SWPP and SMP's would ensure that project activities would not violate water quality standards. g-i) The City General Plan Implementation Measures encourage the incorporation of recreational trails and parkway vegetation design in flood control channel improvements and to utilize detention basins for parks, ball fields and equestrian areas. Goals and policies included in the City's General Plan would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. j) The project area is not subject to seiche, tsunami or mudflows. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING-Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, El 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? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat El conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Discussion: a-b) The proposed project is intended to implement the City's General Plan policies of providing adequate parks and recreation facilities to meet the needs of the community. The project does not establish land use policies that would detrimentally affect the present and planned land uses for the community. Rather, the proposed project includes park and recreation design guidelines and standards which complement the City's General Pian. For example,the proposed project design guidelines and standards include avoiding the placement of high impact recreational (e.g., lighted sports fields) adjacent to existing and planned residential areas to void potential land use nuisance (e.g., noise, lighting, etc.) impacts.The use and operation of site specific parks, trails and recreational facilities would also be subject to local ordinances. .Page 20 Initial Stuty Less Than Significant Potentially with Cess Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact. Incorporation Impact Impact c) No habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan has been adapted which applies to the area covered by this pian. X, MINERAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Discussion: a-b) The State Mining and Geology Board has not classified or designated any mineral resources in the project area pursuant to the Surface Mining Reclamation Act(SMARA). No active mines or mineral resources have been identified in the project site or in the immediate surrounding area. Xl. NOISE-Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise 0 13 levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project"? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in �. ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing Without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Pa ge 21 I nitial Stun v Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant "Mitigation Significant No Issues }m act incorporation }m gci Impact f) For a project within the vicinity of a private ❑ ® ❑ airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion: a-c) City of Brentwood General Plan establishes noise level criteria limits for various land use cater oriel. Compliance with City General Plan noise level criteria limits would require the design of new park facilities to take into consideration adjacent land uses, especially noise sensitive land uses would not be exposed to applicable noise levels established by the City. d) Construction of proposed and existing parks and trails would cause a temporary increase in noise levels that may exceed City noise criteria standards. In addition to construction noise, noise may be generated from playing fields located at park sites. Noise generated from playing fields would be primarily crowd noise from those attending youth sporting events. Compliance to Mitigation Measure 6 and Mitigation Measure 7 would reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 6 Restrict construction activities to the hours between 8 AM and 5 PM on weekdays and 9 AM to 4 PM on Saturday. Construction shall be prohibited on Sundays and holidays. Mitigation Measure 7 Limit the use of park playing fields to specified times and days. Each park shall be examined separately, and hours and days of sporting events shall be determined on a case by case basis and shall consider adjacent land uses. e) No existing approved or proposed park or trail is located within a public airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport. f) Sunset Park, an existing park approved for expansion, is located within two miles of an agricultural related private airstrip. The private airstrip is located west of Sellers Avenue,between Sunset Road and the Mokelumne Aqueduct. The park could experience noise levels exceeding 70 decibels due to infrequent aircraft flyovers. However, the location of Sunset Park would be compatible with local noise standards. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the project: a) induce substantial population growth in an ❑ ❑ ❑ area, either directly(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Page 22 Initial stmr v Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Issues significant Mitigation Significant No impact Incorporation impact Impact c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ ❑ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion: a-c) The project would not affect population location, distribution or the growth rate of the project area. The project is necessary to support the level of and distribution of parkland and recreational facilities to support existing development and planned growth identified in the City General Plan. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES— Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the Public services: a) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Schools? ❑ ® ❑ 0 d) Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ E Discussion: a-b) Implementation of proposed and future park and trails could result in increased need for services from police and fire departments. However, development fees are collected to ensure police and fire services is provided to new development including parks and trails. c} Implementation of the proposed project would not directly result in impacts to school facilities. The proposed project encourages the placement of new parks be adjacent to but not within school sites or other municipal facilities. d) The proposed project is necessary to support the level of and distribution of parkland and recreational facilities to support existing development and planned growth identified in the City. General Plan. XIV. RECREATION a) Wound the project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur Mage 23 Initial s tiny Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Issues significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporation impact impact or be accelerated? b) Coes the project include recreational facilities © ® [� or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion: a-b)The project is necessary to support the level of and distribution of parkland and recreational facilities to support existing development and planned growth identified in the City General Plan. New parks and trails would have a positive impact on the community as it creates areas of open space and provides additional public areas for the community to enjoy recreational opportunities. XV.TRANS PORTATIONITRAFFiC -Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial ❑ in relation to the existing traffic load and El capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the El , county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a El change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ 0 f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation E3 0 (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Page 24 Initial,,tms Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact. lncor oration lLnpact Impact Discussion: a-b) The objective of the proposed project is to support existing and planned growth identified in the City General Plan. While implementation of the proposed project would, by nature, result in increased traffic volumes in and around parks that support sport or cultural event activities, implementation of the proposed project would not alter traffic projections identified in the City General Plan. c) Existing, proposed nor future parks and trails are located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport. Thus the proposed project would not result in an alteration to existing air traffic patterns. Sunset 'ark, an existing park approved for expansion, is located within two miles of a private airstrip.The private airstrip is an agricultural base airstrip. Expansion of Sunset Park is planned to include ball fields. Improvement plans, particularly lighting improvements,would be required to comply with the local land use plan policies. Compliance to local land use plan policies would ensure expansion improvements for Sunset Park would void substantial aircraft- related safety risks. d-g) Site specific street alignments adjacent to proposed parks have been addressed and conditioned as part of previously approved tentative subdivision reaps. Locations of future parks are only conceptual. Site-specific improvements for future parks would be addressed at a project level when specific proposals for a new park acquisition and design are made. The proposers project includes development standards that focus on site-specific park design requirements such as park and trail access (vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian), parking needs and emergency access and service provisions. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project. a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new ® El storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that€t has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in Page 25 Initial Study Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues ITPact Incor oration Impact impact p__ addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted El capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Discussion: a-g) Implementation of proposed project would not exceed the projected wastewater treatment, requirements of applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. Wastewater, water, drainageand solid waste demand needs and services for proposed parks have been addressed and conditioned as part of previously approved tentative subdivision maps. Locations of future parks are only conceptual. Site-specific utility and service improvements for future parks would be addressed at a project level when specific proposals for a new park acquisition and design are made. XVILMANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade El the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerabi4? ("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)? c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Page 26 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No IssuesImpact Incorporation im act impact Discussion: a-c} The proect, with the mitigation measures contained in this environmental assessment, will not substantially degrade the quality of the environment or result in other conditions requiring a mandatory finding of significance. Page 27