The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 04252006 - C.26 CTO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, AS GOVERNING Contra BOARD OF THE FLOOD CONTROL&WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT I Costa FROM: MAURICE M. SHIU, CHIEF ENGINEER ~'4 Count Sra ovr+'- DATE: April 25, 2006 C. d?, SUBJECT: ADOPT the previously adopted City of Brentwood Prewett Ranch Mitigated Negative Declaration to address necessaryFlood Control permit issuances to Suncrest Homes and real property transactions with the City of Brentwood associated with the Drainage Area 30C, Lines A & B and Anderson Lane Extension project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Brentwood area. (District III) [CDD-CP# 06-05]Project No. 0651-6L083A(Flood Control Permit 622-05) SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDED ACTION: ADOPT the previously adopted City of Brentwood Prewett Ranch Mitigated Negative Declaration to address necessary Flood Control permit issuances to Suncrest Homes and real property transactions with the City ofBrentwood associated with the Drainage Area 30C,Lines A&B project,including the extension of Anderson Lane in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act,(the custodian of which is the Community Development Department located at 651 Pine Street, Martinez., and DIRECT the Director of Community DevI lopment to file a Notice of Determination, and AUTHORIZE the Chief Engineer to arrange for payment of a$25 fee to the Community Development Department for processing, and a$25 fee to the Couniy Clerk for filing the Notice of Determination. Continued on Attachment: ® SIGNATURE: �� 2'-APPROVE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Irk ❑ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER r SIGNATURE(S): i� ACTION OF BO ON :�/ APPROVED AS COMM NDED OTHER ❑ I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on VOT OF SUPERVISORS the date shown. UNANIMOUS(ABSENT d AYES: NOES: { pY/� ATTESTED: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: I I JOHN CULLEN,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County TT:ms Administrator G:\GrpData\EngSvc\ENVIRO\BO\2006\ (04-25-06)CEQA-DA30C Lines A&B-Adopt Btwd(Prewett)MND.doc Orig.Div:Public Works(Environmental Section) By ,Deputy Contact: Trina Torres,(313-2176) cc: Administrator—Alm.E.Kuevor Auditor-Controller Community Development—H.Li Public Works: Accounting Construction—1.Dowling Environmental—T.Torres Flood Control -1.La Rocque i SUBJECT: ADOPT the previously adopted City of Brentwood Prewett Ranch Mitigated Negative Declaration to address necessary Flood Control permit issuances to Suncrest Homes and real property transactions with the City of Brentwood associated)with the Drainage Area 30C, Lines A & B and Anderson Lane Extension project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Brentwood area. (District III) [CP#06-05] Project No. 0651-61,083A(FCP 622-05) DATE: April 25, 2006 PAGE: 2 of 2 FISCAL IMPACT: The issuance of the Flood Control Permits will not have an impact on the County General Funds. Funding is 100% Contra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District Permit Fees. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS'AND BACKGROUND: In July 2005,the City of Brentwood Community Development Department(City)published the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Prewett Ranch(Subdivision 8954). On September 28, 2005, the City of Brentwood City Council adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration) The adoption of the Mitigated Negative De( laration by the Board is needed in order to address the issuance of necessary Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District)Flood Control permits to conduct real property transactions associated with the Drainage Area 30C,Lines A &B (DA30C,Lines A&B) and Anderson Lane Extension project. The District intends to issue a flood control permit to Suncrest Homes so they may construct improvements and address real property transactions in existing Flood Control right-of-way in support of the development project, including the extension of Anderson Lane. IA portion of the improvements is located within District right-of-way in DA30C, Lines A & B. The District's flood control permit will require the developer to obtain all necessary regulatory permits from the resource agencies. The real property transactions will allow the City to have road and utility easements at Anderson Lane. I CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Delay in adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration will prevent the issuance of necessary Flood Control permits and real property transactions and will delay implementation of the project. i i CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NOTICE+OF DETERMINATION CONTRA COSTA COUNT 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 651 PINE STREET 4TH FLOOR NORTH WING MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553-0095 Telephone: (925) 313-2176 intact Person: Trina Torres, Environmental Assistant Project Description, Common Name (if any) and Location: Drainage Area 30C, Lines A & B (Flood Control Permit 622-05) and Anderson Lane Extension, CP#06-05. In July, 2005, the City of Brentwood Community Development Department published a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Prewett Ranch (Subdivision 8954). On September 28, 2005, the City of Brentwood City Council adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, as the governing body of the Contra Costa County Flood Control District(District), intends to adopt the City of Brentwood's(City)previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration to address necessary Flood Control District Permit issuances to the Suncrest Homes, and address real property transactions in support of the development Jproject, including the extension of Anderson Lane. The project is located in the City of Brentwood within DA30C, Lines A&B right of way,and on Anderson Lane,from Grant Street to Lone Tree Way. I The purpose of the project is to issue Flood Control Permit(FCP)622-05 to Suncrest Homes for improvements and various real property transactions that will authorize construction of storm drain outfalls, concrete culverts, and storm drain pipes, installing a maintenance/pedestrian road, curb,gutter,sidewalk,driveway cuts,asphalt concrete roadway, bollards, fences, utilitylines, and extending Anderson Lane in existing Flood Control right of way, identified as Drainage Area 30C, lines A anld B(DA30C, Lines A&B). The District will also grant easements to the City for roadway and utilities at Anderson Lane. The District's Flood Control permit will require the developer to obtain all necessary regulatory permits from the resource agencies. 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# ). ® A Negative Declaration was adopted by the City of Brentwood, in July 2005. 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. ❑ The Project will have 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 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 II Title Title Applicant: Depart I ent of Fish and Game Fees Due Public Works Department ❑ El L$850 Total Due: $$50.00 255 Glacier Drive ❑ Neg� Dec.-$1,250 Total Paid $ Martinez,CA 94553 ❑ DeMinimis Findings-$0 Attn: Trina Torres ®County Clerk-$50 Receipt#: G:\GrpData\EngSvc\ENVIRO\Flood Control\DA 30C,Lines A&B(FCP 622-05)\CEQA\NOD.doc (Rev.3/4/99) Updated 11/3/04 i CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NOTICE OF DETERMINATION I CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 651 PINE STREET 4TH FLOOR NORTH WING MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553-0095 Telephone: (925) 313-2176 CIontact Person: Trina Torres, Environmental Assistant I Project Description, Common Name (if any) and Location: Drainage Area 30C, Lines A & B (Flood Control Permit 622-05) and Anderson Lane Extension, CP#06-05. In July, 2005, the City of Brentwood Community Development Department published a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Prewett Ranch (Subdivision 8954). On September 28, 2005, the City of Brentwood City Council adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, as the governing body of the Contra Costa County Flood Control District(District), intends to adopt the City of Brentwood's(City)previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration to address necessary Flood Control District Permit issuances to the Suncrest Homes, and address real property transactions in support of the development project, including the extension of Anderson Lane. The project is located in the City of Brentwood within DA30C, Lines A&B right of way, and on Anderson Lane,from Grant Street to Lone Tree Way. The purpose of the project is to issue Flood Control Permit(FCP)622-05 to Suncrest Homes for improvements and various real property transactions that will authorize construction of storm drain outfalls, concrete culverts, and storm drain pipes, installing a maintenance/pedestrian road, curb,gutter,sidewalk,driveway cuts,asphalt concrete roadway, bollards, fences, utility lines, and extending Anderson Lane in existing Flood Control right of way, identified as Drainage Area 30C, Lines A and B(DA30C, Lines A&B). The District will also grant easements to the City for roadway and utilities at Anderson Lane. The District's Flood Control permit will require the developer to obtain all necessary regulatory permits from the resource agencies. 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# ). ® A Negative Declaration was adopted by the City of Brentwood, in July 2005. 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. ❑ The Project will have 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 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 I Title Applicant: Departm Int of Fish and Game Fees Due Public Works Department ❑ EIR-$850 Total Due: $$50.00 255 Glacier Drive ❑ Neg. Dec.-$1,250 Total Paid $ Martinez, CA 94553 ❑ DeMinimis Findings-$0 Attn: Trina Torres ®County Clerk-$50 Receipt#: G:\GrpData\EngSvc\ENVIRO\Flood Control\DA 30C,Lies A&B(FCP 622-05)\0EQAIN0D.doc (Rev.3/4/99) Updated 11/3/04 I i NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: _ Office of Platuung and Research FROM:City of Brentwood 1400 Tenth Street Community Development.Dept. Sacramento, CA 95814 104 Oak Street Brentwood, CA 94513 X County Clerk County of Contra Costa 822 Main Street, P.O.Box 350 Martinez,CA 94553 SUBJECT: FILING OF NOTICE JOF DM,PUi4INA1 07 PL£r ON 2I108 OR 21152 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE. I Project Title: RZ 05-06;VTSM 8954;DR 05-07 (Prewett Ras Stage Clearinghouse Number: N/A T OCT 1 8 2005 —' Contact Person: Erik Nolthenius, Seni r Planner 6,L, WEIR, u0UNTY CLERK CONTRA '005TA COUNTY Area Code/Number/Extension: (925) 516.5405 B EPUTY Project Location: Between Lone Tree Way and Grarit Street t cast of ar a Avenue Project Description: The single-family Liclendal Prewett Ranch project consists of the following cntidernents: (1) A Rezone (RZ 05-06) from R-1-6, R-I-Ii, and PD-39 to PD-39 with die establishment of dcvcloprncnt standards for an approximate 1�12-acre site (2) A Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (V SM 8954) to subdivide the site into 240 single-family residential lots (3) A Design Review (DR 05.07) for I3 models of single-family houses and related improvements This is to advise that the Cit),of Brentwood-approved the above-described project on September 2'i, 2005, and has spade the following detcrmination I regarding the above-described project: I- The project %vil) not have a signnlicatzt effect on die environment.. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuan{.to the provisions of CES. 3. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the design of die project. This is to certify that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and record of project approval is available to the Gciheral Z' lie t: e Community,evetopmem Departnhent, 101 Oak Street,Brentwood, California 945)3. i �--- --- -- --------------_ Senior Planner Signature (Public Agency) Tide Date September 28, 2005 RECEIVED NOV 16 2005 Contra Costa County Flood Control And STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY r DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME e_' 2 5 J V 1 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH A -,,Ip-r 6FG753S3*011L � Lead Agency: 9 (IJ 0 CC / Date: �J County i State Agency of Filing; I C C-( r �6 eft 7 c/ Document No.: Project Title: 2' V ! �"t 1 `� Project Applicant Name: F�Cd�ne I� be'r' t �s Project Applicant Address: C V f I d� fr "' `-`rr_3 Project Applicant(check appropriate box): Local Public Agency School District Other Special District 11 State Agency Private Entity CHECK APPLICABLE FEES:, �- ( j } En nmental Impact Report �} � if(0 $850.00 S ( egattve Declaration + C� llC $T,250A0 $ / Z ( j Application Fee Water Diversion(State Wafer Resources Control Board Only) $850.00 S ( } Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs flip 5850.00 $ _— ( ) County AdministrativelFae COUNTY( r pt($25.00 S ( } Project that is axe mptlfrom fees TOTAL RECEIVED $( 7 Signature and title of person receiving payment: t WHITC-PROJECT APPLICANT I YELLOW,DFGYFAS nx.LEADAGENCY GOLDENROD-STATE AGENCY OF FILING RECEI[p VED NOV 16 2005 inv 2" Contra Costa Cougty Flood Control And u - Water Conservation District , !!? ' E .•, " }3IJ.1A, _,WC i f BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SCHEDULE AND DEADLINES CA,LENDAR YEAR 2006 �FtECINIINARK : ' FINAL P%tCK£i ISSIO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:4F�AFT•:•:•:•AGENDA:•:•,.. .. . . •:•: ::MAIL"EA:tO: : MEETING MEETING •MEET•OR'•'•'•DEADt1NE •'•'TYPED' •'•'•' REVIEVO•'•'•' •' REVIEW:' BOARD' :•bAYES: :':STp1'.•. ;:...'UANCl;C:'.':'72:!)0 QN•:•.•.12: dbM.•. : :•�:31�t�:M.•:•: : :•&30•AtN1:•.'. .'.'MEtAB E2S•:•. . .s#a ;>' :•:•: : : :•:•:•: :•: ' : :•: :• TmiNsd' s :•: . . at>d . . . ,.:,..: M. .da's :•: ' Wetltie5da' ' : : : '►3da's : : Jan 03 NO Cancel NEW YEARS HOLIDAY Jan 10 YES Meet Dec 27 Dec 30 Dec 30 Jan 04 Jan 05 Jan 17 YES/ Meet Jan 05 Jan 09 Jan 09 Jan 11 Jan 12 Jan 24 YES Meet Jan 11 Jan 13 Jan 13 Jan 18 Jan 19 Jan 31 NO ,Cancel FIFTH TUESDAY Feb 07 YES/ Meet Jan 26 Jan 30 Jan 30 Feb 01 Feb 02 Feb 14 YES Meet Feb 02 Feb 06 Feb 06 Feb 08 Feb 09 Feb 21 NO /Cancel + PRESIDENTS DAY Feb 28 YES� Meet Feb 14 Feb 17 Feb 17 Feb 22 Feb 23 Mar 07 YES Meet Feb 23 Feb 27 Feb 27 Mar 01 Mar 02 Mar 14 YES /Meet Mar 02 Mar 06 Mar 06 Mar 08 Mar 09 Mar 21 YES ✓ Meet Mar 09 Mar 13 Mar 13 Mar 15 Mar 16 c Mar 28 NO //Cancel I FIFTH TUESDAY Apr 04 YES\// Meet Mar 22 Mar 27 Mar 27 Mar 29 Mar 30 Apr 11 YES / Meet Mar 30 Apr 03 Apr 03 Apr 05 Apr 06 Apr 18 NO Cancel SPRING BREAK Apr 25 YES Meet Apr 17 Apr 17 Apr 19 Apr 20 May 02 YES I set Apr 20 Apr 24 Apr 24 Apr 26 Apr 27 May 09 YES /Meet Apr 27 May 01 May 01 May 03 May 04 May 16 YES Meet May104 May 08 May 08 May 10 May 11 May 23 YES Meet Mayf 11 May 15 May 15 May 17 May 18 May 30 NO )4/Cancel I MEMORIAL DAY �n 06 YES ., Meet May 31 Jun 01 VO�u 13 YES J Meet Juni 01 Jun 05 Jun 05 Jun 07 Jun 08 ✓jun 20 YES �/Meet Jun 08 Jun 12 Jun 12 Jun 14 Jun 15 �un 27 YES /////��eet Jun 15 Jun 19 Jun 19 Jun 21 Jun 22 Jut 04 — NO �// ancel INDEPENDENCE DAY Iz /(ul 11 YES Meet Jul 03 Jul 03 Jul 05 Jul 06 �ul 18 YES Meet Jul 06 Jul 10 Jul 10 Jul 12 Jul 13 u125 YES eat Jul 13 . Jul 17 Jul 17 Jul 19 Jul 20 ;�ug 01 YES Meet Jul 20 Jul 24 Jul 24 Jul 26 Jul 27 g 08 YES eet Jut 27 Jul 31 Jul 31 Aug 02 Aug 03 �u JAug 15 YES7anc�el et Aug 03 Aug 07 Aug 07 Aug 09 Aug 10 Aug 22 NO, SUMMER BREAK Aug 29 NO cel FIFTH TUESDAY Sep 05 NOcel LABOR DAY 12 YES eet _ Sep 06 Sep 07 19 YES eet Sep 07 Sep 11 Sep 11 Sep 13 Sep 14 ,oEr)) 26 YES Meet Sep 14 Sep 18 Sep 18 Sep 20 Sep 21 �Cfct 03 YES //Meet Sep 21 Sep 25 Sep 26 Sep 27 Sep 28 Oct 10 YES J/ Meet Sep 28 Oct 02 Oct 02 Oct 04 Oct 05 ,,Oct 17 YES Meet Oct 05 Oct 09 Oct 09 Oct 11 Oct 12 Vct 24 YES Meet Oct 12 Oct 16 Oct 16 Oct 18 Oct 19 Oct 31, NO Cancel I FIFTH TUESDAY Nov 07. NO Cancel VETERANS DAY ,Wov 14 YES ✓ Meet Nov 06 Nov 06 Nov 08 Nov 09 V Nov 21 NOV . Cancel THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY N 28 NO ✓L� 6cel I CSAC ANNUAL MEETING 05 YES t �� Nov 27 Nov 27 Nov 29 Nov 30 a 12 YES eet Nov 30 Dec 04 Dec 04 Dec 06 Dec 07 ��bbec 19 YES Meet Dec 07 Dec 11 Dec 11 Dec 13 Dec 14 Dec 26 NO /cancel CHRISTMAS * Note: Emboldeneddaresvaryfrom the normal schedule due to conflicts with holidays. "Note: The Board will reorganize on,January 10,2006; The Board will commemorate artin Luther King Junior's birthday on January 17,2006; The Board will commemorate Cesar Chavez's birthday on April 4,1006, CITY OF BRENTWOOD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BREI T-U ODD . . PREWETT RANCH MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION July 2005 Prewett`Rauh' Initial Study p INITIAL.STUDY July 2005 4 4 L BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: Prewett Ranch 2, Lead Agency Name and Address Cityof Brentwood, Community Development Department 104 Oak Street a . Brentwood; CA 94513 3. 'Contact Person and.Phone Numbe% = Erik Nolthenius Senior Planner Y(925)516- `5405 .. .. k 4: Project Location:," south of Lone Tree Way and east 6f0!Hara Avenue 3 City of Brentwood Contra Costa County 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Suncrest Homes Inc. 300 H Street, Suite D Antioch, CA 94509 (925) 706=7887 6. General Plan Designation: Low (L)and Very Low(VL)Density Residential 7. Existing Zoning: R-1-6, R-1-E, and PD-39 8. Proposed Zoning: Planned Development (PD-39) 9. Project Description Summary: The proposed project consists of the following requested entitlements from the Planning Commission and/or City Council: • Rezone to PD-39 and the establishment of development standards • Vesting Tentative Subdivision Man to subdivide 112.4 acres into'240 single-family residential lots and 13 remainder parcels; and • Design Review for 230 of the 240 proposed single-family residential lots. x 1: July 2005 :a H Pre.;sett Ranch Initial Study II. SOURCES The following documents are referenced information sources utilized by this analysis: L. Air.Quality Impact.Analysis for the Proposed Prewett Ranch Project, Brentwood; Donald Ballanti,Certified Consulting,'V pteorologisf,.July 2005 2. Archaeological .Field Survey and Assessment of the Prewett Ranch Property, William Self Associates,.February.22; 2005 3.. Biological Assessment 'for the Approximately- 112-Acre Prewett Ranch Project, Sycamore Associates, LLC;Apel 15;2005 4: City of Brentwood General Plan, City of Brentwood,November 2001 5: City of Brentwood General Plan EIR; City of Brentwood,November 2001 6. Contra Costa'County GenerahPlan EIR, County`bf Contra Costa; July 1.496 7. Geotechnical Exploration for Prewett Ranch,ENGEO Incorporated,April 28,2005- 8. Noise Section;Bollard Acoustical Consultantsi July 2005 9: Phase T Environmental;Site 11 sessment; Lone Tree Way Parcels, EN(31EO Incorporated, l February 24,2005 10 Soil Candidate. Listing for Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance in Contra Costa Gounty,:Cahfoma'Departnent of:Conservahon July 19, 2004- s 11 'Soil Survey of Contra Costa, Countyf California, USDA .Soil Conservation Service;: September 1977 Statefoia; .of Cahrnill .Public Resources Code SS5-24.L Title 14 CCRSection 4852,2003 , 13 Stormwater Control.Plan ,1Carlson ,Barbee&.;Gibson,;Inc:,Apni 27,2005:: 14. Traffic.Iffi ! Analysis for the,`,Estates at Prewett Ranch, Fel r-&Peers Transportation Consulants,;Eebruary.2005: � ... 15. Tree Survey Report for the Approximately l 12-Acre.Prewett Ranch Project,.Sycamore Associates,LLC,,Apnl 22. 2005, 16. Vesting Tentative Map and Planned Development Plan (SUED 8954), Carlson, Barbee & Gibson,Inc., February 200.5 III. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The enviromrnental factors checkedbelow would be potentially affected by this _project; involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated"as indicated by the checklist on the following.pages. .X Aesthetics X Agriculture X Air Quality X Biological Resources X Cultural Resources X Geology/Soils X Hazards&Hazardous X Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use&Planning Materials ❑ Energy&Mineral Resources X Noise ❑ Population&Housing X Public Services ❑ Recreation X Transportation&Circulation X Utilities/Service S}'stems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance 2 July 2005 - i Prewett Ranch Initial Study j 4 IV. DETERMINATION a On the basis of this initial study. Q I find that the Proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. i X I find that although the Proposed Project could have ai significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. AiMITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one;effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have ai sim if effect on the environment; because all potentially significant effects (a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. I .2 rD i July 14,2005 i Sigriaturt Date i Erik NoIthenius Cit Qf Brentwood Printed Name For i I I 3 July 2005 j Prewett Ranch Initial Study V BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION This Initial Study-identifies and analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the:.proposed project.: The".information and.analysis presented in this document are organized in I accordance withrthe order,of the. CEQA checklist:,=in Appendix Gof the CEQA Guidelines: If tbe''analysis provided in this document identifies potentially signiftcant environmental effects of tle'project; mitigation measures that should be applied to the project are prescribed. The mitigation;measures;presen ed for environmental effects described in this.lnitial Study will be implemented in conjunction with the project, as required by CEQA: The initigatiommeasures will be;incorporated into:the;project througb•ptcject conditions of appro'.val. The City wi11`adopf findings and a Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program for the project in conjunction with its approval of the project; J The environmental setting and impact discussion for;each section of this.lnitial Study have been . largely based on information 'in4 the 2001 Draft, and Final EIR,, Brentwood':lGeneral Plan. document. In addition, awseries of detailed,technical reports,, repared specifically'for the Prewett Ranch project by subconsultan% are utilized where:appropriate. VI. PROJECT DESCRIPTION. The proposed project site consists of approximately 112 acres in the City, of Brentwood (See Figure 1: Regional Location Map Land Figure 2: Project Location Map). The site is irregularly shaped and consists of eight parcels that are identified by the Contra Costa County Assessor as follows:. 418-12.0=002, 018-120-003, 018=1'20-006, 018-120-008, 018-130-004, 0.18-130-005; 018-130-006, and O1"8-1304009. Project site boundaries include Lane Tree Way to the north, Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (CGCFC&WCD) drainage areas to the east and. south,.and'a combination of undeveloped farmland.and large residential properties to the west. Existing development on-site consists of five single-family residences. Drainage from the project site flows from west to east and discharges into the adjacent CCCFC&WCD drainage:area. 'Current land use of the property and surrounding area is a combination of agricultural and single-family residential The project site encompasses three existing zoning districts (R-1-6, R-1-E; and PD-39). According to the City of Brentwood General Plan, the land use designation for the proj ect""site is a combination of Low and Very Low Density Residential, with densities ranging from 2 to 3 units per acre. The applicant is requesting the following entitlements for the proposed Prewett Ranch project: a Rezone, Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, and Design Review. The Rezone would take the. project site from the three existing: zoning districts to one (PD-39) and would establish development standards. The Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (VTSM 8954) is being requested by the applicant to subdivide the project site-into 240 single-family residential lots and 13 remainder parcels. The Design Review entitlement is for 230 of the 240 proposed single- family residential lots (See Figure 3, Vesting Tentative Map). Four parcels, totaling 4.22-acres; will be dedicated to the City of Brentwood for public park areas, and 3.54-acres will be dedicated for open space, landscape, and trail areas. Vehicular access to the proposed project will be 4 July 2005 Prewett Ranch Initial Study: provided by Anderson Lane in two locations;with intersections'at..ZoneT.ree=-Way,:(itoth) and Grant'Street (south): Temporary;access would also be provid'ed`to the northwest::portion.ofthe site by,Lone Tree. Way.;. Two, additional: points of access, would be provided on the` west boundary of the site'(`C'I and 'D? Streets) through future connections: Pedestrian access.wiIr.be provided in the form of sidewalks; =and trails, throughout the proposed- development; in conformance with:City standards: . Discretionary Actions Implementation of the,proposed project will require the following discretion aryactions by the" City of Brentwood Planning Commission and/or City Council: . • Rezone to PD-39 and the establishment of development standards;, + Vesting Tentative Subdivision May.to subdivide 112.4 acres into 240.single-family residential lots and,l3.remainder parcdl'_s; and' Design;:Review for 230 of the 240.proposed sing le-fatnily residential lots. i a y 1 N}( Y i '.p t 5 July 2005 � ��►� o .� ire, -;a,% `�`• �. ��, ,��._ ._ ��Yi4Brr--coq�.��0�'f01;'•'®p� "l ILE p�:.e.ss:o Tel��9 �y �P 7 rM r1,81 do 1`S�7.v.. V �rd •:y .s� ��V "°a-,-�_®.e�ri: erPr � ^� G � °� •�'1�/J \=-lac_ P '� � � ��.F pp b1 I � —d11lh ..........�+\I/q+ .. 'gQx� ®/_ —_-.•� COL... —•+..� �_.�.. �" SO n+ 0 uSS;•i.+ir.'� �,a •.:w �IW.r.`�itiC�O; ��,�• � �•�pi1�A ovaa:nl® \ •^�'� ,,�� \��®J!�B�a ods' ��` � �.:�:i[il a ��v;"1,�� •_''�itfi axil�:�1%y�aA•� d .� �� µ AV .r. AO . 11 _.Tco nowayls)aivmmna'aootiiireae( � s 77 g 2f k ryhL •-YWj[y 1 n.5 , :5 it & ��wa VVWVH.0, f n�aa wv� Pmwett Ranch Initial Study Figure 3: Vesting Tentative Map iV 3 x ,f --a f f () v'� �.� nl�r� A al � IN b .. } n It •;r { 191. N F wr1. 7 ry. {, nP r in f O wt !w ,u In m J jr ' E n n 1 , . _ V.:� MaC1M 1914 4f41�.. RA[lOmuy in �. r 1 FILE # itis I 8 July 2005 Prewett Ranch Initial Study. VII: ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKIIST The following,Checklist contains the environmental checklist form presented in.Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The checklist form is used to. describe> the impacts of the proposed project: A discussion follows each environmental issue identified.in the checklist; Included in each discussion,are project-specific mitigation measures.recommended as appropriate as part of the-proposed project; For this checklist, the following des1knations•are used: Potentially ,Significant 'Impact.' An Impact that could`.be slgntficait, and' for which no mitigafion has been identified: If"any potentially significant impacts are identified; an EIR must be;prepareL'- Potentially"Significant Unless'Mitigatton Inc"o"rporated:An impact that requires mitigation,to reduce•'the'impact 1b-.'ales.s-than,-Siknificdhi,..Iev6l. Less Than-Significant Impactr Any impact that>would not be..considered significant°under CEQA;relatiye;to=existing.standards N64m0act: The projectwould not have any impact. j - - Potenfiallg - � Potentially. significant Less-Than- o. ' issues - Significant - Unless, Significant Impact - ,s 8n lmpaci Midiiano Impact - - Incotpordte�d L .' AESTHETICS Would the project., ! a— Have a substantial adverse effect on ❑ ❑ X a scenic vista? b. Substantially,damage scenic ❑ ❑ X 13 resources, including,but not.limited to,trees, rock outcroppings; and historic buildings within a State scenic highway ? ti i C. Substantially-degrade the existing, O ❑ !t ❑ visual character or:quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create.a new source,ofsubstantial ❑ X ❑ ❑ s light or glare which would adversely affect day or night-time views in the f area?: Discussion a,b,c. The City of Brentwood is located in the eastern valley area of Contra Costa County, immediately east of the Diablo Range, which includes Mt. Diablo. The City of Brentwood has recognized views of Mt. Diablo as an important visual resource to be 9 July 2005 Prcolctt Ranch Initial Study preserved (See Goal 2 of the Community Design Element of the Brentwood General Plan). Lone;Tree; Way,"�located adjacent to thenorth boundary of the project site,.is designated in the Brentwood General Plan EIR (p. 3.3-2) as:a Scenic Route. Lone Tree Way currently affords views of Mt. Diablo. The development of the ,project site would change the existing visual; setting.:from an agricultural and rural area to an urban area'`consisting of 4`. ingle-family°residential subdivision. However, the proposed "development would be corisidered°compatible.with other.residential uses(Planned Deveioprnent)'in the imiriediate vicinity,,df the projectsue and throughout the City sof Brentwood: In addition`,- the site"`has been designated for residential development in the. General Plan and the proposed`me idential subdivision is consistent with the City designated developmentplannedfor"the'site It houId lie rioted that the development of the single-family domes.requires Planning Commission`Design Review approval, which would ensure cornpatibility of the .development with the surrounding area. Therefore, the impact=would be less-lhun significant. d. The project site is currently used for agricultural puiposes, with a total of five. single= family residences on-site.1Very little light or glaie is currently einitted from the project site. The change frorn an essentially ,undeveloped site toI a, residential subdivision including;240 single-family homes would geiierafe new sources of Iiglit and glare. The project siieas bordered by Lone Tre'e'Way to thesnorth,.CCCFC&WCD drainage areas to: the east and south, and a combination of undeveloped' farmland and large 'residential: properties to the west. The residences located"in46e immediate vicinity of the site would be considered sensitive receptors and'.would,beadversely affected,by additional sources of light and glare. Therefore, the increase.in light and:glare produced y the.proposed project would be considered apotentially,sigtiificant impact. Mitigation Measure: f Implementation of the following mitigation measure would: reduce the potential impacts related,to light aid glare to a less-than-significant level.. 1-1 hi conjunction with development of the proposed project,4he developer shall shield all onlwsite lighting_so that it is,'directed withinalee project-site and does not illunrrnate a1 .djacent properti1.es. A detailed lig{iting.plan shall" be' submitted for the review and approval, of the Community Development Department,.the Police Department, and.the Engineering Department�in conjunction. with,the project.improvement plans. The .locations and design of the shielded light fixtures°shall be submitted for r - the" review and;approval gf.the Community Development Department, the Police Diepartment, acid the.Engineeriiig Department in conjunction with the approval of improvement:;plans. Al[fixtures shall be cutoff or full:cutoff classification. 10 July 2005 r Prewett Ranch Initial Study . . - _- Pgtenlidly Significant Less-Than--- No Issues Significant Unless, Signtficaut.-, -i act lhnpgci Muipilo'n,, 1 roiCi Incomoreiea. IL AGRICULTURERESOURCES. In determinitig whetl ee impacts 10 agrtcultzsral resources are signcant environmental:effects, lead!; , - agericles may refer io,the,California Agricultural Land,Evaluation,and`Site.Assessment:.ubdel(1977) prepared by;theACalifornia Dept:of Conservation,as; an optional model.to;use.in assessingi npacts on _ agriculture-&nd farmland, Mould the project a: Convert Pi"ime FanTiland,:Unique ❑ fit; ❑ ❑ Farrnland.,or Farmland of Statewide lrnportamce;(Farmland), as shown owthe, maps prepared pursuant to'the Farmland Mapping'1' ogratn of the California' r �Resources:Agenc, A naft agricultural use. b. Conflict with.existing whing.for ❑ 01 ❑ X agricultural use,or a WilliamsonAct contract?' C. Involve-other changes in the existing. ❑ ❑ 1t environment which;due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland to non- i agricultural use? Discussion a. The;City,of..Brentwood`2001 General Plan'includes agricultural`preservation policies in a the-Conservation/Open Space'Element that describe, potential agricultural preservation program components. The,General Plan:Conservation Element Policy 1.1.4 states: Secure Agriculture.Land: Establish a program that secures permanent agriculture on lands designated for agnculture m the, Gity and/or:County General Plan. The program should include 'joint" use Iconcepts (ecr. wastewater irrigation), land"dedication (e:g. secured. through development agreements), and a 4ransfer of development/in lieu,fees ordinance; The: program should also create incentives for continuing agriculture (e.g long-term irrigation water contracts) and, assurances that potential agricultural-urban conflicts will be mitigated. Although the.proposed project isnot located within a conservation area, according to the California Department of.Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the Contra Costa County Important Farmland Map (2000), and the Soil Survey. of Contra Costa County; California(1973),the proposed project site consists of Rincon clay loam (RbA) and Capay clay(CaA) and is thus classified as.Prime Farmland. ]1 July 2005 Prewett Ranch Initial Study Although the,Conservation Goal in the Brentwood '2001 General Plan EIR is restricted to Prime Farmland east of Sellers Avenue and, south of the ECCID main canal (IV.14); which excludes'.Yhe,project site, the development of the proposed project would result>in the direct loss of'Prime Farmland. Therefore, the loss of farmland woutd be considered potentially sigrrifcant, Mitigation Measure Implementation of the following mitigation measure "would mitigate potential impacts related.to theloss of agricultural resourcm1o.a less:than-sig tifreairflevel. 11-2 Prior to recordation of any final rnap'or issuance of auy grading permit, the developer shall coinply with,any City Couiicu cotrservation programs established pursuant to General,Plan "Conservation"ElementPol cy11.4 in order to Mitigate thepotential significand. impact- of the.proposed project one the.loss, of farmland The applicant; shall pay the; current agricrdtrcri l cotiservatio t Croy fee rn effect at that trine to provide funds to purchase conservation easements to nutigate the loss of farmland. .b. The project site is not under Williamson Act contract and,the site is designated'for urban, . development consisting-of single-familyiresidential uses Therefore, development of the site as proposed would'not result ihcoriflicY with a Williamson'Act contract or`existing zoning for"agriculture. Inipleinentatiori:oftheproposed projectwould result in no:impaet to agriculture zoning-or;Williatnson Adt-`6ntracts. e. Individual project impacts" to the Idss-of prime faimland are addressed through the proposed mitigation in:question "a" above: Thei PrewettRanch development::.project would: not bei.anticipated 'to promote -offsite development because; the=-proposed infrastructure is -sized to serve only. the,project area: In addition, the;project;,site is surrounded"by development. and the proposed project,;is consistent with the'type and intensity of land uses anticipated by the General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would: result in no impact: to; the existing environment that could individually or cumulatively result in loss lof farmland to non-agricultural use _ Potentially, . Potentially Significant,. Lmelan- No Issues - signirkanl unless' Significant .Impact Irtipae4 Mitigation, 1wict Incotpmated 111. _ AIR QUALITY. Ozere-available; the signi icance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or airpollutio'n control district maybe reliedupon"to make'the following determinations. fflotild the project: a. Conflict with or.pbstruct;implementation ❑ '❑ 3t ❑ of the applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or ❑ ❑ contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?' 12 July 2005 Prewett Ranch Initial Study - Patcnfially " -PutentiallY: SigmfcaM lass Than= _ No` Issues - - Significant, Unless,. Sigpificant Impact MtfigaRun =livpncl. - Inmrponted' C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net ❑ ❑ - x p increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment:under an.applicable,,federal or state ambient air quality,standard:- (including releasing emissions which'. exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone . precursors)? Expose sensitive receptor`s to substantial' ❑ K ❑ pollutant concentrations?' e. "Create objectionable odors`"affecting a....,, ❑ ❑; ❑ C substantial'.number of peopI'T Discussion a. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently in non-attainment for ozone (State and Federal ambient standards) and.PMI0 (State:ambient,standard).. While air quality. Plans" exist'for ozone, none exists.(or,is currently:required) for PM 0. The Revised San Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan for the 1-Hour National Ozone Standard.is the current'ozone air quality plan required under the Federal Clean Air Act. The-State State- mandated regional air quality plan is the Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Plan. The above.plans contain .mobile source ,controls, stationary':source controls and transportation control measures to.be implemented.in the region to attain the State and Federal ozone standards:. within the Bay Area Air-Basin..Y While the project does involve rezoning, it M consistent with the adopted .General Plan,. The City of Brentwood General Plan Update EIR analyzed the,consistency of the'updated . General Plan with the current Clean Air Plan and found that,,with appropriate'mitigafion, the updated.General Plan would be consistent with the 'Clean Air Plan. Therefore, the project.would have a less-than-significant air quality impact related to inconsistency i with the regional air quality'plan. b. The City of Brentwood is within the San Francisco Bay Area"Air Basin, which is;under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). ; .This basin is dominated by the strength and position of a semi-permanent,high-pressure,center over the Pacific Ocean. The Brentwood area is 'generally well _ventilated by .winds flowing through the Carquinez Strait and Delta. The;area is exposed,to winds from, both the east and west, and the terrain provides little.protection from the"wind. Predominant winds are from the east-southeast during winter and;from the west during the summer. Although wind ventilation may reduce the concentration of atmospheric pollutants,. Brentwood is susceptible to pollution transported:from more heavily urbanized areas to the west. Warm wininer temperatures in the Brentwood area contribute to the formation ti of ozone from hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides produced in the Oakland and Berkeley areas. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is currently designated nonattainment for 13 July 2005 Prewett Ranch Initial Study ozone, carbon monoxide;'and.suspended particulate matter (Pmlo). Under the California Clean Air Act of 1988; districts not attaining State, ambient air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide,, sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen dioxide must submit a :plan for Attaining and maintaining State standards for the pollutants. The.BAAQMD completed its ',9i Clean Air Plan,in October 1991. The air quality impacts associated with emissions from increased numberof'vehicles were analyzed in the Brentwood 20011General Plan Update EIR._ The Update,EI.R found that implementation of the mitigation measures,related to growth management and other transportation policies in the General Plan would:reduce impacts to-a,less-than-significant level. The density of the proposed project is within the range of densities anticipated in the General Plan Update. and also within the range of densities allowed by the;Zoning Ordinance. Therefore,,the project-specific air quality impacts;resulting,frorn 'increased veh16ld trips would not be considered adverse. A project u]d be judged to conflict with or obstruct implementation of:the regional�air quality ;plan if it would lbe inconsistent with the growth,_assumptions; in .terms of population; empioyi Preivett'R"anch Initial'Study. 1-Hr 87,Hr,° 1-Hr :B&Hr . 1-Hr . 8-HrI-Hr 8-Hr O'Hara 1. 4.6 3.4. 6.2 4.5 . 61 4.5, 3.0 12 Lone Tree BrentwobU 5.5 4.0 8.0 5.7 8.2, S.e$; 2.9 2:1 Lone Tree. Grant/;, 5.0 3.6 6.7 4.8. 6:8 4.9 2:7 2.0 Brentwood Sand.-Creek-/ 5:9 4.2 7.2 - 52, 7.2 5.-1 16 1.9 Brentwood. most:Stringent `20.0 . 9'.0 20.0 9.0 20.0: '9.0 20A` 9:0 Standard Table 1 shows that existing predictied concentrattoris near-the intersections ;meet the 1- hour and 8=hour` standards:. Traffic from background traffic tncreases,'would raise concentrations byup Ao 2.5'PPM Project"traffic would tncrease c6ricentritions;byup to an additional'0.2 PPM, but concentfation"s would reinarn below the,,most,stringent State or`Federal standards.' Concentraiions with-project'and cumulative traffic growth`in:2025 y would also-not exceed the'State/Federal ambient air 0ality;standards. Because project traffic would not cause. any new violations of the 8-hour standards for carbon 'monoxide, nor contributesubstantially to an existing 'or .projected violation. project impacts on local carbon.monoxide concentrations are considered to be less-than- #gn f cant. C. To evaluate emissions associated with the project ahe;URBEMIS2002 computer program was employed by Don Ballanti. The daily increase in regional emissions is�shown in Table 2 for reactive organic gases and oxides of nitrogen (two precursors` of ozone), carbon monoxide and particulate matter(PMio/PM2:j}: Tablet: Project Regional Emissions in Pounds Per Day Reactive Nitrogen PMio Organic Oxides Gases Proposed Project 22.9 23.9 21:7 BAAQMD Significance Threshold 80.0 80.0 80.0 Guidelines for the. evaluation of project impacts issued by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District consider emission increases to be significant if they exceed 80 lbs. 15 July 2005 Ptmett Ranch Initial Study per day for.regional pollutants (ROG and NOk,,-PM', MZ3).. The net increase in emissions shown in Table 2 is below- the above thresholds for all three -pollutants.. Therefore,.the project would have ales-than signiftca►it impact on regional air'quatity. d The City of Brentwood;General. Plan Update EIR identified'that short-term construction activities would:result.in dust£and equipment;exhaust;emissions- that could, at times, contribute to nuisancesor detenorati ri of,local air ,quality; The. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines state-that construction air-quality impacts doinot,,need to be quantified and. mitigation measures reduce impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, the General Plan Update EIRconcludes that wit the implementation of mitigation measures, the impacts would be considered less-than ignficant The;proposed project is consistent with the City. of Brentwood GeneralPlan land,use designations. Therefore, the effects associated with the ebuild�out of the project site.as' well as the project area have already lieeri considered'and accepted by the Sientwood City Council. ., Constructionrelated air quality; impacts'.would` occur'with;.the development of the proposed project and related ntrastructure improvements Clearing'and earth'-moving activities would,compnse the zY alor source of construction dust and diesel emissions. Therefore, the pioposed project`would result in.a pntei:t►alfyx signifcatlt impact to air quality:': on Measure Implementation of the following mitigation-measure;identified in the Gener,,al Plan 2001 Update EIR (AQ=11lj world `reduce the,constuction related impact to a less- 'Haan=aignificantlev..el. 11M Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer.shall prepare an Erosion Prevention and Dust Control Plan. The plan:shall be followed by the prq�ect's grading contractor and submitted far. review and approval by,the Engiiseering Department; whirl: will:be,responsible for field verificatio_n-of the plan during=construction. Tlie plamshaitcomply. with. the City's` grading ordinance and shall include%the fotloxwing control measures and other measures as4etermined by,the Engineering Departmen to be necessary for the proposed project • Cover all trucks hauling construction and demolition debris from the site; • Water all exposed ordisturbed soil-sur,faces at least rivice daily,• • Use watering to control dust generation, during_ demolition of structures or` break-up of pavei'»ent; • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil. stabilizers on all unpaved parkuig areas and.staging areas, • Sweep daily (with water sweepers)` all paved parking areas and staging areas; • Provide daily clean. up of mud and dirt carried onto paved streets from the site; Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-topic.soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, et cetera); • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph; 16 July 2005 Prewett Ranch initial Study • .Install"sandbags or::other erosion control measures` d prevent silt runoff to publlcroadways,, • Replant vegetation-* disturbedeareds:as gluckly as possible;' • Instol .),Heel washers for all exiting tracks, or wash off the tires or tracks of alhtrlicks and.equrpriieut leaving the site; • .Install ivil:d..breaks; or plant "tr.`ees/vegetative wind. ""breaks at wind►vardside(s) orconstrllctiortareas;=� ' �' � x� --• • <Srispend excavation andgradrrrg activity, wheir:winds fistailtaneous gusts mceed 25�mph; • Lunit'tlie area subject.to excavation,grading,and other construction z aClNlly at ally"one 11me;'µ • Unnecessary idling of construction equipment shall be avoided,, • Equipment engu es shall'be manrtarned iii"proper working condition per rriar'iufacturers'spec ficationx; • Duriilg'periods of heawrer arra pollution (ga-y to October), the constructton`per odsllatl be lerigtheired;to minimiie the amount of egtQment operatnlg at one tune;and • Where feasible,;the soristru`ctlo""n equipment shall use cleaner'fuels, add,-on control"devices and conversion to cleaner engines e. The project`would notinclude industrial or intensive-agricultural use. Therefore; aside. from the temporary construction-related diesel emissions; project ,operation 'would not create odors or toxic air contaminants: In'addition residential propertie"s typically would I not result in odors that would impact the proposed'subdivision:' Therefore, no impact from objectionable odors would.occur. . _ Aotentially Potentially Significant Less-Than- No. - - Issues Significant Unless; Significant - .. impact-- Mit gati6n ini;iact Impact Incorporated' IK, • BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. " Woidd the'project:; a. Have a substantial adverse effect; either ❑ X ❑ ❑ directly or through"habitat'modifications ; onany.species identifedas,acandidate;, sensitive,of special statusspecie.s in local or regional"plans,policies,or regulations, or bythe California Department of Fish and.Game or U.S. Fish and WildlifeService?' b. Have a substantial:adverse effect on any ❑ X ❑ ❑ riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local of regional plans,policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? 17 July 2005 Prewett Ranch Initial Study I Potentially Putentielly Significant, Less-Tion- No- Issues. Significant :Unless' Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Impact - Iocorpomt¢d C. Have a substantiAl:adverse effect on O' K ❑ ❑ federally protected wetlands asdefined by Section 404 ofthe Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marsh;: vernal pool, coasItal,:etc.) through direct remoYali,filling,hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the ❑ ❑ x ❑ movement of any, resident'&migratory fish orwildlife species©i with, established resident or migratorywildlife corridors, or impede the use of:wtidlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any,local'policies'or ❑ X` 11 El ordinances protetIng""biological resources, such-as a tree'preservation policy or ordinance? f Conflict with the-provisions of an ❑ 13 !t ❑ adopted Habitat;Conservation Plan,. Natural;Conservation Community Plan; or other approved�local,;regional, or state - habitat'conseruationplan? ' Discussion a,b. The following discussion includes a brief overview. of the results of the site biological assessment and addresses sensitive habitats and'special status plarit/wildlife species that could potentially be affected by the .proposed,-project. The discussion:is based on the biological assessment for the Prewett.Ranch.projbet by Sycamore Associates, LLC. The approximate 112-acre site has topography that ranges from.62 to, 76,feet in.elevation. The study area is composed of cultivated land, which supports.non-native.-annual grasses, a walnut orchard, and ornamental trees around the existing residences.: The site is bordered on the east and south by CCCFC&WCD drainage areas (Lines A and B). The CCCFC&WCD drailnage area vegetation consists of low grasses and lacks freshwater vegetation. The channels and banks:.are protected by rip-rap: The channels are meant to convey water andare maintained as such, thereby restricting,riparian habitat establishment. The proposed. development. includes .open space parcels along the channels. and two crossingsl.with one each at;the north and south end of Anderson Lane. Because of these crossings, e:potential exists for material to enter the waterways. 18 July 2005 Prewett Ranch Initial SWdy i Special-Status.Species- Sycamore Associates, LLC conducted a biological assessment for the Prewett Ranch 3 project site (Biological Assessment for the Approximately 112-acre Prewett.. Ranch Project, 2005). 'Sycamore Associates performed a reconnaissance level survey'of the property'for potentially occurring;special-status species.. ;The evaluation reported thatthe project site does not support any sensitive vegetation communities.' The following wildlife species were all detected on-site: • Loggerhead shrike (Federal Species of Concern and California Species of Special Concern); { Western burrowing owl (Federal Species of Concern and California Species of Special Concern); • California yellow warbler(California_.Species of Special Concern); and • White-tailed . (Federal Species, of Concern and fully:protectedunder the California Fish and Game Cod'e). The Species listed below are identified to have .a moderate potential to occur on the proposed project,site: h • Swainson's hawk (Federal Species of Concern and Listed as Threatened by the State.of California), • Western pond. turtle (Federal Species of Concern and California Species of Special Concern); • Prairie falcon (California Species of Special Concern); • Northern harrier(California,Species of Special Concern) and • Ferruginous hawk-(California Species of Special Concern): Sycamore Associates, identified a low potential of occurrence on-site for the following species: • Aleutian Canada goose (Delisted as .Federal Threatened/Endangered, but monitored for 5 yearspost-delisting); • Short-eared owl (California Species of Special Concern);` • California horned lark (Califo nia`Species of Special Concern); • Long-eared myotis (California Species of Special Concern); • Fringed myotis(Califomia Species.of Special Concern); • Pallid'bat(Califomia Species of Special Concern);and • Yuma myotis (California Species of Special'Concem). Special-status plant species: Special-status plant species were not observed on the project site during rare plant surveys conducted by Sycamore Associates. However, 36 special-status plant species have the potential to reside in the proposed, "project region. Because of the Highly disturbed nature. of the habitats on-site such as ruderal'walnut orchard,"agricultural fields, an&roads, or the absence of suitable habitat such as coastal saltmarsh, coastal' scrub, cismontane woodland, broadleaf upland forest, chaparral, valley and foothill grassland, and serpentinitic soils; none of the 36 potential species are expected to occur. 19 July 2005 Prewett Ranch Initial Study Specibl-Statics Amphibians The two. (2) amphibian species potentially oceurnng-.:oa-site are the California tiger Salamander and-.the Cai fomia red-legged frog The hger 'salamander'and-the red-legged fog are Federally=listed;as Threatened and'Califorma Species of Spedial-Conde"mi .41 Adult California.'tiger salamanders spend most of'their lives underground in :small, "mammal burrows, while adult red=legged frogs are highly,aquatic.and-spend;inost"of the r lives; within, 16 feet of aquatic habitat. The.tiger salamander'is dependent on the integrity of both" breeding ponds and adjacent upland habit& especially ;long-lasting,vernal pool' complexes. -Redlegge&frogs are dependent on;aquatic habitat The proposed project site is geographically'isolated from occupied habitat,by incompatible'landpractices such as,residential.development~and=<row, crop agriculture "-In- addition, the site does not supportthe:�necessaryhydrologic:-featuressuch as'_seasonalpools,orpondspersisting long enough to support Califomia"tiger salamander, breeding. Furthermore„the project siie>is not located within Federally proposed Critical.Habitat for California red-legged,frog in addition to being geographically isolated from known populations.. Therefore, the BiologicaLAssessment does not expect any.special=status amphibians'to occur on-site: Western Pond Turtle' 'Westein .pond turtles have habitat requirements- that ;include. slow-moving; rivers and streams, lakes, reservoirs permanent and .seasonal wetlands;'stock ponds; and even sewage treatment plants. For nesting, the turtles use upland habitat up to approximately one third of a mile away from A watercourse. The typical nesting period is June and July. Westernpond turtles have not been observed in a three-mile radius ofIttie project site: Flowever the upland areas.of the proposed project site provide;suitable habitat-;for the western pond. turtle. Ther- drainage channels to the east and -south provide,_:marginal aquatic;habitat for the turtle. Sycamore,Associates considers western pond turtles to have a:moderate potential'to occur on-site: Western Burrowing-Owl Burrowing owls are found in open, dry grasslands and typically use burrows made by burrowing mammals, such.as ground squirrels and: badger& :According to Sycamore Associates, ground squirrel activity on the site appears to be concentrated in the southwest comer, along the CCCFC&WCD -drainage areas,. with most of the burrows: actively beingmed by ground squirrels. One burrow was observed on-site.-occupied by a burrowing owl: Additionally, three burrowing owls were observed within one mile of the site during the assessment ((February 22, 2005). The California:Department ofayish and Game:recommends mitigation for any impacts to burrowing owls or loss of burrowing owl breeding and foraging habitat. Because western burrowing owls were detected, the Biological Assessment determined the species would have a high potential to occur on- site. Swainson's Hawk and Other Raptors Swainson's hawks nest in open.habitats of North America (western Canada, United States, and northern Mexico) and winter in South America and southern Mexico (open 20 July 2005 Prewett Ranch Initial Study grassland areas). The hawks typically breed from February,to early March. The California habitats preferred are desert, shrub steppe, agricultural, and ,grasslan..d The; existing,Iand use;'on.the proposed project'site is mostly agriculture (foraging area}; The. oma mental surrounding the residences,have.the,pot entialwbe usedbythe;hawks as nesting habitat, and in 2004 a Swa nson's hawk.nest was;reporte&less than three miles. from the project site., Because of the presence of;potentialforaging and nesting habitat;: Swainson'shawkhas a;moderate,potential to occur on-site. In addition to swainson's hawk, other raptors couldmest and forage on-kite,including but,, notlimited to, northern harrier and white-iaited kite. In 2005,barriers'have been observed within three miles of the site. During the on-site surveys a.white-tailed kitcl:was observed foraging over .the project site. As a result,. Sycamore-Associates considers the white- tailed.kite to have a1i&Totential tooccuron site,.-. Loggerhead;Shrike Loggerhead hrikes are extremely,territorials .Pairs`maintain territories"during-breeding ,and individuals during.winter. They prefer open habitat:such as grassland;.scrub, and open woodlands. During,the biological assessment, Sycamore Associates-observed a loggerhead shrike on=site. Because'the;site:contairis:suitable nesting and foraging habitat and an occurrence of the loggerhead shrike was observed,.,loggerhead shrikes have a high potential to occur.on-site: Special Status Bats The following,four.special status bats have the potential to occur:on_the proposed.project sites, •" Pallid bat; • Long-eared myotis; • Fringed inyotis;.and • Yuma myotis. The above species roost and form nursery`colon ies"in mature trees; snags, crevices, and man-made structures. The trees on-site provide suitable roosting habitat and the provide s- provide foraging opportunities.'Because the habitat on the proposed°project sitesupports these four species of bat and the,bats .are site faithful (they will not abandon" a roosting site unless disturbed), Sycamore.Associates considers the four bat species to have'a low potential to occur within the study area. San Joaquin Kit Fox The San Joaquin kit fox is a Federally-listed Endangered and State listed Threatened species; The kit fox requires underground dens to raise pups, avoid predators, regulate temperature; and avoid other adverse environmental conditions. The proposed project site does not contain burrows of appropriate size for denning, lacks a.suitable prey base, and is surrounded by residential development, making the site geographically isolated 21 July 2005 t,. Prewetx Ranch Initial 5iudy from,known populations of-kit fox;: Therefore the Biological Assessment does not expect the.San Joaquin kit fox to occur.:on=site: Conclusion The-.proposed project Involves ,the _development of a.240-lot single-family residential subdivision on approximately 112 acres. The development and construction activities associated with the;proposed project would; result in potential impacts to special-status wildlife species including western burrowing owl, Swainson's`hawk and other-raptors, loggerhead shrike, and fiats.;:Impacts to the above'listed biological resources would be consideredoteaidollysi nif cant p , M�tiQation Measures .� . , The following. mitigation measures' would reduce, impacts to the habitats .and sensitive species 1►sted to a less;than significant level. Special Status)z tiles.,Twestern pond.turtle) IV-4 A pre-cbhstruction survey shallxbe conducie&no more than 24 hours prion to.:i►iitial'construetiori activities;("clearing,..grading) by a qualified biologist. The biologist,shall relocate any western pond turtle outside of _ the -impact area:; The.results of the-survey shall be submitted for the review of the.Carnmunty'DeuelopmentDepartinent and.CDFG. Western burrowing owl: i IV-5a Prior-to grading permitissuance, the project proponent shall submit:.to CDFG and"the Community Development Department rapre-construction survey of tIwprojecrsite for`burrowing;owl performed in accordance with,CDFG standards.A'qualif14 d&biologist.shall conduct the survey not mare. than 30:days.prior to{the• application for a grading permit. In addition, :if ground disturbing activities are. delayed or suspended for I more than 30 days-after the pre-construction survey,.the site.shah be re- surveyed IV-Sb If burrowing owls are not discovered,further mitigation is not required If burrowing owls are observed duringahe pre-construe#on.surveys, the applicant shall perform the following measures to limit the impact on the burrowing:owls: a A fence 3M- bot:buffer shall be create. &between the nesting site(s). (that is, the.active,burrow(s)).and any earthmoving activity or other disturbance: This 300 foot buffer could be removed once it is determined by a 9wilifed-'raptor biologist that the young.have fledged. Typically, the young fledge by. August 31; however this date may be earlier or later than August 31 and would ?rave to. be determined by;a qualified raptor,biologist. b. After theburrowing owls are finished.nesting on theproject•site, and after CDFG approves a mitigation site, any remaining burrowing 22 July 2005 Prewett Ranch Initial Study owls that.are residents on tl:eproject site"shall be passives relocated by a qualified biologist in accordance: with CDFG's,policies for passive rehioval.Any per""Mit required to passively, remove burrowing owls must be obtained from CDFG prior to the passive"removal of resident owls from the.project<site. Ver fcation of compliance with this measure= shall be submitted to.the, Cominunity 1bevelopment; Department. Roptors and Landbirds IV---6a Mthin,30 days prior toremoval of any1rees or`shrubs :a nesting bird survey shall be performed by a;gyalifed ornithologist for review and'. approval by. the Community Development Department unless tree removal occurs between September l.through Decembek..11 - .y JV-6b Protocol-level.-:nesting. surveysfor' Swainson's• hawk,'.'-which encompass the area., within 0.5 miles: of the project site, shall be conducted prior to i4l'ie. beginning "'of'any construction -related disturbance. The results I of 4ke'survey shall be submitted.to the Community Development Departn:ent and CDFG. IV-& All trees' with active.nests shall,:be fagged:and a non-disturbance buffer zone shall be established" around the nesting tree in coordination with CDFG Depending on the species involved, site. conditions, and type of work proposed, the briffer zone can-range in size from 50 feet°to 500 feet: A. qualified ornithologist shall .monitor active nests to determine when the young have fedgedand are feeding on their own. CDFG` shall, be consulted for. clearance before, construction activities. resume Special-Status Bats IV-74 Prior to removal of any trees or buildings, a survey for roosting bats shall be performed by a qualifiedbiologist for review and approval by the Community Development Department IV-7b If any bats are found, CDFG shall-be'""consulted for guidance on. establishing a disturbance free buffer zone during the maternity roost season (March 1 through`July 31)` or for approval to safely evict bats4f,deemed appropriate.. C. Sycamore Associates conducted. a preliminary =wetland delineation study on-site. Although standing water was present from recent rain, no obligatory plant species were observed. As stated above, the CCCFC&WCD channels do not contain wetland plants. In addition, the site soil composition is non-hydric. According to the study, the channels were excavated in an upland habitat and are not expected to fall within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Howeverr the Army Corps holds the sole authority to determine jurisdiction or non jurisdiction; and'a formal request"for a 404 permit from the -23 July 2005 Prewctt Ranch. Initial story U.S. Army Corps of-Engineers should' be submitted- to establish the perceived non- jurtsdictional;nature,of the;drainage areas with:certainty. Additionally, consultation with the. :California Regional Water Quality Control t Board (CRWQCB) and ,'California Department of fish and-`Game (CDFG) should`bet initiated to.determine jurisdiction and applicable permitting req ured. - Junsdtcti"onal waters,including wetlands;,are regulated under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean_Water Act.,Any:discharge into jurisdictional waters, such as.fill for placement of.a bridge or,outfall, .would'=require appropriate_pennitting;and-review by Federal and State regulatory agencies. The�implementation of theproposed praject;is designed to cross the CCCFC&WCD drainage areas at two;locations. Becauseof these crossings, the potential exists for,material,to enter the waterways.- Therefore,Ahe implementation.of the pioposed projectwould have a potentially"sigt%ifcant impact IV-8a. AE Streambed Alteration Agreement shall be, obtained 'from the Cauyornia!Departmeitt.of Fish and Game (GDFGJ,pursuant to Section 1. 00,of the Californta:Fish and-Game.Code,for'any,-activities affecting the bed,,•bank, or associated xripa. aiv vegetation, dloug'CCCFC&.WCD drainagerarea L nes:A.an'd& If required;the developer,shall'coordinate with CDFG in developing appropriate mitigation, and:shall abide by the conditions IoIf any executed permits IV-8b An appropriate Section 404 permit shall be acquired for any bridge over CCCFC&'WCD'.drdinage area.Lures A and B if construction requires:fill within the,jurisdiction.;afthe U.S.-Army Corps,Of, Engineers; (Corps). - Constriictiait of all storiniyaier outfalls,zf applicable, would;also require Seciion 404:permits: Section, 401< water`.quality,certif cation or: wa fver will also be req"u rete d:. On January25, 2000,the Contra;_Costa,County Board;of Supervi`sors,declared its.intent to participate in the development of a Habitat Conservation Plan,(HCP) for East Contra Costa,County. -On June,. 0j 200Q;. the:East.Contra,Costa County Habitat Conservation PlanAssociation A greement went into effect. This agreement established the:EastContra Costa Habitat.Conseryatiori Plan Association (HC PA) as the lead agency in drafting the Habitat Conservation Pla11n-for submittahto the governing boards and councils of member agencies,, oversee compliance with the California Environ rnentaLQuality Act (CEQA) and the.National Environmental PolicyAct(NEPA), and would,serve.as the lead agency under CEQA for developing .the HCP. .- The PreliminaryWorking Draft East Contra Costa County-Habitat Conservation Plan (November 2003) shows movement corridors for San Joaquin kit fox west of the City of Brentwood. The nearest San Joaquin kit:fox movement corridor is approximately I miles west'of the project site. Given the distance to the movement corridor;:and the:fact thatxhe project site is-surrounded by development. to-the east and to the south, it isnot likely'that the site provides:a significant.movement corridor .for San Joaquin kit fax 'or other :species.. Other major wildlife'movement comdors are not known in the vicinity of ithe project. site. Therefore, a less=than- signif cant impact to movement;.corridors would occur. 24 July 2005 Prew&Ranch' ;f Initial Study The. City of Brentwood has a draft Tree Protection Ordinance. The Ordinance-(p; 10) states that the provisions shall:not,apply to fruit or nut trees; when parfof arr.orchard. The Ordinance:is concerhed'phimarilywith native and heritage trees- Th Ordinance (p. 7) defines a Heritage tree as: 1).any,single-tiunked.:tree'Vith a ci'rc'umference'of fifty=five inches or"more, measured four and one-half feet above ground level;;`);"any multi=trunked tree of which the two largest trunks have a circumference; of fifty-five inches or more measured four and.-one=half:feet above;,,ground level,.3),anytree"of 33"feet or snore'in height; 4) any tree of particular historical significance specifically:desigiiat'ed by official action; or 5) a stand.of trees,.the nature of which makes each dependent,uppri1he;:6ther for survival or the.area"s natural.beauty: On-site trees consist of a mixture of ii orchard; o"rnamental, and'sliade tree species. Construction of the proposed,project would result in the removal?of all 'on-site trees except within the designated open "space and trail areas. . In addition, any trees to be retained,could be damaged if not-properly cared for •both during construction :and thereafter. .The tree:survey report for the project: wasprepared by'Sycamore-Associates (April 22,,:2005), °.which: states :that impacts- frorrf `the development preclude the recommendation of anytrees for;preservat on. Therefore,`the proposed project would result in apotentiallysigniftcant impact to trees: �r Mitigation Measure' The following mitigation measure' would reduce impacts on trees to a less-thair- signiftcant level. IV-9 The grading plan. shall idents all trees: 44thin the project site, as referenced'in the tree°survey for the project. All trees identified by the survey to be in at leash. "good" condition .shall be preserved,, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the Director of Parks & Recreation, and: shall be identified on the grading plan. Appropriate protective measures shall be taken-to ensure preservation duringgrading activityy. Any tree in at least "good"condition'thatts not able:to be saved shall.be replaced to the satisfaction of the'Cot>munity Development Director and the Director of Parks,& Recreation. Removal of any tree, regardless: of its condition,' sliall"be done outside of the raptor nesting season (September .]-through-February 1) or°a nesting raptor survey shall. be prepared:immediately prior to removal. if an active nest is found, removal shall be:delayed until:the young fledge. Said survey shall be. submitted to the Community Development Departmentfor approval:. f. The City of Brentwood 2001 General Plan Figure 16 shows areasthat are designated as "Expected Significant Natural Open Space" In addition; the figure indicates. that selected Open Space areas are anticipated to be part of a proposed'habitat,conservation plan. The Prewett Ranch project site does not.fall within a designated Open Space area or the habitat .conservation plan. The project site is not currently within any proposed "acquisition areas" and no conflicts with the preliminary HCP have been identified. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-sign ifcant impact. i 25 July 2005 Prewett Ranch Initial Study . 15sugs letisasll,y Potant9!Iy, sPB Less-Thap SrCItlnsigniGtantTa , . Yo Mitigation Impact Incoiporited Y, CULTURALRErSOURCES. Would the project: a. , Cause.a substantial,adverse change in the ❑ D x D significance of'a historical resource as 'defined in Section15664�.`5? b. Cause a'substantial adverse change in the ❑ X ❑ ❑ significance of a.umque:archaeological 'resource'pursuant to Section 15064 5.? c.: Directly.or indirectly destroy ".unique ❑ x ❑ ❑ paleontoiogicai�,iesource on site;or unii ue.geologic=features?, fid.: "Disturb any human remains,including D ❑ ❑ fit: thosd interred outside' of"formal"=` cemeteries ' Discussion a. The Cultural, 'Survey, and Assessment of the, Prewett Ranch property performed specificallyfor the project by William'S'elf Associates, Inc , consultants„m archaeology and histone preservation. (February 22 2005), establishes chat none of the`. buildings:or structures on the-project 'site appear eligible for the California Register of.Historical ,Resources or theYNational Registerof HistoricPlace..s. 1. In addition, the.-City of iBrentwood 2001 General Plan EIR states :that..,within the. Brentwood Planning Area,jtwo sites are listed on the National Register ofHistoric.Places and 14,properties are fisted in the State.Himnic Properties Directory . The project site is not included:among.those listed. Therefore, development of the pro posed project would have a less-than signif card impact on historical resources. b,c. The City of Brentwood 2001 General Plan .MR (3:10-3) 'indicates that the City of Brentwood has a'low to moderate, sensitivity for the;presence.,of prehistoric sites. In general,portions of the City in the flat valley 'reveal-.a low sensitivity.for prehistoric sites, except along drainageways! The hills to the south and,;west of Brentwood, particularly around springs and streams, reveal a high sensitivity for prehistoric'sites. The project site is located in a relatively flat area.with a highly,disruptiverland,use., The site is bordered to the northeast; east, andlsouth by CCCFC&WCD, drainage areas (Eines A and B). Therefore, the potential for 'the existence of',prehistoric, resources may be low to moderate. According to the Cultural Survey and Assessment of the Prewett Ranch property performed specifically for the project:by:William Self Associates,Inc., a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System for the project site found no historical resources (prehistoric or historic sites,objects,,or historic. structures or buildings). In addition, the field survey did-`not -identify archaeological resources: However,the General Plan states that-a possibility of buried prehistoric.sites-exists in the area and that due to alleviation,, land leveling and re-channelization of drainageways, sites may have been obscured or capped-off, leaving no surface evidence. Therefore, 26 July 2005 Prewett.Ranch: Initial'Study during construction and excavation activities,.unidentified archaeological resources may be uncovered,resulting"in a potentially significant<impact. Mitit:ation'Measure Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the construction-. related impact to a less-than-significant level. V-IO Prior to grading permit issuance,"the developer shalt submit plans to the Community Development Department for review and ;approval which indicate (via notation on the improvement plans) that if historic andlor cultural. resources are encountered'during site;grading or other site. work, all such work shall:be halted nnm"ediately°within the area of discovery and the developer shd11"immediately notify the Community Development Department of,the"discovery."'In "such'"case, .the developer slialt be required, at its,own expense;�to rgtalii'tlie`services of a qualified archaeologist far the purpose of recording,;protecting, p.r curating the discovery asappropriata The archaeologist"shall be required to submit to..th&Community Development"Departnietit for review""and approval a report, of,the Hidings and method of caration..or protection of the resources. Further"grading or site work within the area of discovery'will not be allowed until the preceding work has occurred.; d. The project site has not been identified as:a burial location for human remains; therefore, the construction of the proposedproject would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formai cemeteries`and no•impact would•occur: Potentially' Potentially Significant Leis-Than- iNo Issues _ - Significant Unless. Significant Irvaal' Mitigation -Impacl Impact, Incoryorited' VL GEOLOGYAND 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 ❑ X ❑ ❑ fault; as delineated'on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area'based on other substantial evidence of a known r _ fault? ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ x ❑ ❑ iii. Seismic-related ground failure; ❑ ❑ K• ❑ including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? El ❑ it ❑ 27 July 2005 Prewett Ranch Initial.Study otentially. Poteauatly :Signifuien[' Less-Than- Issues Sigpitienni:' Unless Significant Impact .. Impact Mitigati(M Impact . iircoryoratetl - . b.; Result in substantial soil erosionor the - .Vit.R Q p loss;of topsoil?1 . C. Be.located on a[lgeologic unit orsoil that, ❑ ❑ X' 0 is unstable, or thatwould become unstable as"a resulto€the,project, and potentially result in on= or off-site landslide f lateral spreaimg,'subsidence; liquefaction or collapse d Be loc'•ated`on.expans"ive soil, as defined [I it ❑ ❑ n Table 18 1B of the Uniform Buildin& Corley' , II e. < Have sods incapable:of adequate]y' ❑> ❑ <❑ 34 alternae-waste wafe eptic tanks or- PP. g d, alternative systems; where ssewers,re not:available%for the•,-- disposat of waste water?. Discussion : .; a i u:, .According to the G6ofec'hni6al:Ekploiaiion performed by.ENGEO, Inc;,(Apri128,2005). and the 200f Brentwood General Plan Update M'jllth"e project'site.isnot within .an .Alquist-Priolo Speeial;Studies Zone;:however,.the E1 '. indicates that the Brentwood area is: located. in a3 seismically'active'.zone. e .ac Fivtive .faults are `located, within an: approximate 504hile radius of ihe,projeetsite Three of the closest,ar&as follows: . s The Greenville F ault •.>> :TheConcord/Green Valley Fault; •.. Great Uall"ey:Fault: Development of the proposed project in this seismically active..zone'could expose',people . or structures to substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury:, of death involving:rupture of a'known:earthquake fault and/or` strong seismic ground`shaking. The report states`primaryfault ground rupture is'unlikely"to occur. However, an earthquake of moderate fo hig}i magnitude,generated within the: San Franclsco Bay Region could cause-considerable ground shaking. ' Therefore, a potentially significant impact could result: : ;K Mitigation Measure Implementation of the follow ing•:mitigation measure would ensure the impacts are less-tlian-sigdflcant. VI-11 All grading and foundation.plans for the development'designed;by the project Civil and.Structural Engineer must be reviewed and approved by the: Cit Engineer and'''Chipf `Building OJfic ul prior to is`suan`ce. of grading' and building""permits to ensure': that all geotechnical 28 July`2005 Prewett Ranch lnitial Study; recommendations specified in the geotechnical report .are properly i ,corporated•and.!ntil nizedin design. a:iii, c. The;Brentwood 2001 General Plan-siates'that during a seismic event",rapid loading of saturated, 'fine-grained sail may<create excess pore pre sstzres,'which'may .not dissipate rapidly. The excess pressure may result in a.loss of shear strength; which is referred,to as, liquefaction. The potential for liquefaction is greater when'`the,groundwaterist shallow (less than 50 feet). The Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, California identifies the site as'containing the following soil types: (RbA) Rincon clay.loam and,(CaA) Capay clay-,,The`Soil Survey' defines Rincon clay loam, found in the majority of tiie•,project;site; as:nearly level soil formedin valley fill. In 'addition;. the Geotechnical Exploration of the- project site conducted specifically for'the Prewett Ranch project by ENGEO'lnc (April 28, 2005), , found that on-site soils consist. of`natural alluvial deposits and.shallow >deposits of residual-soil over bedrock: Furthermore,the.Geotechnical Explorat an'.(p. 9).concludes that`based.'on the material types and,Aensities.,of granular materials encourttered in ENGEO's borings'and the lack of ground water,the risk'of iquefaction is'considered;low at' the project. site. Therefore, liquefaction would;'be ;expected,tohave a less than- significantimpacton the p"roposed project; a:iv': Seismically induced landslides are triggered by earthquake ground shaking; The risk of this hazard is greatest in the late,winter when groundwatef levels are highest;and hillside colluvium is saturated: Because the proposed prof ect site is relatively flat,.the above risk: has a lowpotential to occur. Therefore, a1ess-than-significant impact would-occur:to the prc ject.as:a result•of landslides. b. Although the,development.of the project would involve the removal of.several buildings and structures, the proposed:residential development would.overlay much of the ground', with.heavy, impermeable surfaces. The constructed surfaces .would both shield the soil from wind and water, and secure the soil from movement. In.addition,,ne"w'b meowners typically further reduce loss of topsoil by installing various'other'-impermeable/semi- permeable surfaces such as patios, landscaping, and swimming pools.- Therefore, long- term alterations to the land by the proposed project would not promote.a significant loss. of-topsoil. The Brentwood General Plan EIR states that soil erosion potential in the Planning Area is. not.4 significant problem in most ocations due•to the generally, flat topography and the cohesive nature of the soils'.. However, because construction..activitics include,excavation and.,,grading_operations,. which would relocate topsoil and, break; the soil into. easily transported particles, earth surfaces would be susceptible to erosion from wind and water. Therefore, impacts from soil erosion resulting from grading of the project area would be considered potentially significant. Mitieation Measures Implementation of the following mitigation measures would ensure the impact, is less-than-significant. VI-12.; Prior to grading permit issuance, the applicant shall submit a grading plan to the City Engineer for review and approval. If the grading plan 29 July 2005 Prewett Ranch Initial Study differs significantly from theproposed grading illustrated on the approved project plans,'plans that are consiste►it `with The ne►v:revised grading plan shall be provided for review and'approval by The City. Engnreer.1 VI-13 Airy appl cll ant for a grading permit shall submit t erosioncontrol plan to the City'Etigineer for review and approval This plan shall identify - Protective measures to, be taken during constructwir supp[etne►tial measures to be taken duriirg$'the raury'season,the sequenced tions.6f grading,and construction,.and subsequent revegetatron'and landscaping work to etrsurewater quality in creeks and fr`ibutarries-inthe -General Plan Area is not degraded from its=pres et t Ieveb All protective:measures shall be shown on 71re gradr►ig:pla"ns acid specify the 6dity responsible forcompleting and%r monitoring t e measure and include the. circumstances and/or timing far:imptenientatian ; YI14 Prior to approval of:final facilities. design;,plans.for, drainage and stormwaterlrunoff control systems and;theirx.compbneni facilities shall' be submitted to the Engineering.Depdetment.for..'reyieWFa'nd dpprdiidl to ensure tlrattlresesystems and facihttes are non-erosive in-design;; VI-1 S Grading, soil disturbance,'or con pactiona`shall not occur during penods of rain or on ground,that;contains freestanding water Sot1'thathas:been x soaked and wetted by,rain orairy other}cause shall not be- compacted until completely draine&and:uniil the moisture content is within Ike limit approved#y,a Soil Engineer. Approval by a'Sotl Engineer shall be . obtained prior to the eonhnuance of grading operations'=Confirmation of this approval shall.be provided to tlr'e Engineering Department prior to commencement ofgrading. d. Expansive soils shrink/swell when subjected to moisture. fluctuations, Which can cause .11 heaving and cracking of slabs on grade,:pavements, and stnictures founded'.on shallow foundations. The Geotec}inical Exploration conducted seep iically for the'Prewett Ranch project by ENGEO indicates that soils near the surface are'highly.expansive. Therefore, because of the presence_of expansive soils. on the site a poterrtiallysigriifzcant.impact could occur. Mitigation Measure Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure-the impacts are less-than-significant. VI-16 The developer shall submit a design level soils report prepared by a licensed engineer which"evaluates the condition of theproject site soil. The results of this survey shall be considered and incorporated,into the. design of the project structures to be,built to ensure that foundation design would be adequate for the soils on the project site. The soils report shallbe reviewed and approved by the City.Engineer prior to the approval of improvement plans. 30 July 2005 Prewett Ranch':. Initial Study: e._ The,,project :has been ,designed to:;;connect to extended or "existing sewer systems: Therefore„no impact would occur related”to soils incapable of adequatelysupport ng the. use of septic tanks. Potentially. - Potentially. significapi Less Than- , Issues• - Significant Ihile}s "Significant l a _ Impac{ Mitigation: Impact It�'act . - incorporated, VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the proVecfc a. Create a significant;hazard to:the,publicor ❑ ❑' ❑ ❑, i' the environment through"the routine - transport,use,or disposal ofhazardous " materials? b. Creawa significant:hazard to the public`or ❑ ❑ ❑ the:environment through reasonably foreseeable upset andcaceidenfaondttions involving the likely release,df hazardous materialsinto the environment? r - c, Emit hazardous emissions or handle ❑ hazardous or'acutely hazardous materials;, substance"s, or waste"withinone`-quarter mile, of an existing or proposed'school? d. Be located ona site which is includedson a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ list of hazardous materials sites;compiled` pursuant to Government"Code Section .65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e Fora project,located within anairportland ❑ p p; ❑ use.;plan or,:where"such a$lan has notbeen adopted, within two miles of a public airport or pnblic.use airport; wouldthe"project'result in safety hazard for people`residing'or working in the project area? f. For a project within the,vicinity of a private ❑ ❑ p ❑ airstrip;would the project result in a-safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g, Impair implementation of or physically D ❑ ❑ interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 31 July 2005 7- > PrewettRanch Initial Study ' '- Piitontially " P.oteiiially. Significant-: t.ess-Thant. ko Issues - - siggiticant ``t)nless, Si.O ficant - ,.1nvact MIngation impact'' Fact . Ineorpomled. h. Expose people,or;structures to therisk:of loss,injury;or death involving wildland'fres, including where wildlands are adjacent'to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Discussion:- a-c: ENGEO •Incorporated performed a Pk eA I- Envir"giimental Site Assessment:°of the proposed project site on February 3, 2005. The hazardsadentified byENGEO as,having a potentially'significant impact are the five (5)water supply wells, septic tanks and leach fields, 'empty/partially full chemtca'V,petroleum containers, residual' effects "from the. former::500=gallon underground;fuel storage tank (UST), and the pq entral presence of asbestos/kmd-based paint. WaterSupply;Wells A totahof five (3) water supply`wells exts"t on the proposed project site. Two wells,are locate&west.ofithe=northem Pr'eweti Ranch residence, one well_is.atahe Lamport-home site, one`atahe APN`018-+130-008 residence, and bneInactive well standprpe'also`at the APN-O18=13.0-008 residence° According"to'ahe:Phase I 14ort; only'four of the wells appear functional. As'part of,tbe prajectj the wateF"supply wells would be,abandoned by a 'licensed.contractor;consistent with State and Aocat regulations. As;a: result„.°adverse impacts would not result to project residents from existing water wells:. Septic-flanks and Leach Fields' Septic 'tanks and leach fields are located at the existing residential areas of the project site. However, the specific location of the tanks was not determined:;fom the-'Phase I Report.<: ,At ,the.:APN -018 130-008,:residence, gtte��evidence=of recent'reparr§" d/or removal of the septic system were observed 7an&f0potted'in.the ENGEO;report. Due. to the unknown location of the septic- components, an adverse affect may, result to construction workers and/or future residents,. Chemical/Petroleum Containers Severalsmall,containers>:of potentially hazardous materials were observed within several storage ,structures. In addition, numerous 'fertilizers, pesticides, '-pool chemicals, plus empty drums, buckets, and small empty petroleum product containers were observed at the residence sites. These materials could,adversely impact construction workers and/or future residents if not removed and disposed of properly. " Underground Fuel Stora, i Tank:(UST) A. Limited Environmental Soil Sampling and Laboratory Analysis was performed by ENGEO Incorporated for the project site (June 2004). The purpose of the study was to 32 July 2005 Prewett:Ranch Initial Study rovide an assessment-of the otential environmental concerns as p � potential �� associatedwith'! a former 50Q gallon UST at the Pr"ewett Ranch site and the past ,agricultural.,use of the parcels. Based;on the findings of the soil sampling and analyses, evidence'of significant irrpaets associated rwith "the former UST orpast agricultural.activities'at the site`were nohfound However, -the Analysis noted that organicvapor reading"s-were recorded from tbe'US.T trenches; .which could. cause potential "nuisance"''conditrons-"associated with the -odoriferous soil. Asbestos/Lead-Based Paint On-site buildings; are limited to the existing,home sites:. The structures-are of wood framed construction and were`built more than 40 years ago. In 1978/79 the; Federal government banned,nearly all;use of friable asbestos in.building rnatenialg.i Because onai site structures, were:constructed_prior to 'this ban, the. potential ;exists,-".for -asbestos- containing.:matenals kA, l,Ms) to have,been used in building ,the ,structures. Asbestos- contaming'mate rials (AGMs) "can include, but are not limited to,.resilient;floQr.'coverings; drywall,joint compounds,;acoustic; ceiling]les, piping insulation;:electrical insulation; and.fireproofing materials. In terms of lead-based paint, exposure to lead from older vintage paint is 'typically possible when the paint is in poor condition or being removed. `In construction settings, workers could be:exposed to airborne lead during;renovation;.maintenance, or removal work. Lead-based paints were phased out ofproduction.in the early 1970s On= site.structures were constructed prior to the.ban,on lead-based paint&and therefore.may contain these materials; although it is unlikely due to the types of structures remaining on;=site:. Yet, the possibilityexists that the introduction ofipeople'to the site:as a.result of the development of the proposed project could expose ,people to asbestos and lead. materials. Therefore; potentially significant impacts could occur based on,:the above potential: impacts: Miti ga ti o n°M ea su res. Implementation of the following mitigation .measures would mitigate, potential impacts to.a less-than-significant level:: - Septic Tanks and Leach Fields VII-17Prior.to grading permit issuance, the on-site septicc tanks shaffbe located and abandoned by a licensed contractor in compliance with Contra Costa County Environmental Health Department standards. Confirmation of the abandonment; shall be submitted to 4he City Engineer.; , ChenticaMtroleum Containers VII-18 Prior to issuance of a grading permit or demolition permit; whichever is first, and in accordance with the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (February 24 2005); the existing empty and partially full chemicallpetroleutn containers shall be removed from the.proposed, project.site by a:licensed contractor and properly disposed as approved by the,City Engineer.' 33 July 2005 Pre„vett Kanch Initial Study Underground Fuel Storage Task(UST) VII-19 Priorto issuance of building permits.and"in accordance with the'Phase I E►rviroitmental Site Assessmiml (Tebruary 24,. 2003),. and Limited E►avirorrmenlal Soil Sampling and Laboratory.Analyses(June 2004) the soil►vit/tin the.area of the former USTshall beovemtcavated and placed . within fiiture street' sections, or outside of residential lot" areas as approved 4y the CityEngmeer.. Asbestos/Lead-Based faint. V11--20 Prior to issuance of a, demolition permit by;the City far any.on-site structures l any identified asbestos co►ttatnuig butlding.;tnateri tZs,present in each of the structures to be drsmantied.shall,be removed under acceptable a►rgi►:citing methods a►rd licensed `(work practices r by ar asbestos abatement contractor prior, to removal These practices include,; but are not limned i'o; cnntarninent of the'tirea by plastic, negative air fltrahon,, i"vet removal tec`Jinxgxres and personal respxratyry protection and: decviitamxnation, The process shall"'be designed:and nio►ritored by _a California eertifled Asbestos 'Consriitartt The abatement and ►nonitnring plan shall he developed tied submitted,for review and.approvalby"the Comm'uiiity:l7evelapinelit Departrrient`prior. td4fie'issuanc'e of ti* fition,per VII-21 Prior to the, issua►rce=of a demolition permit fAWsMi on-site structures, all-loose"aid peeling:pdiiii shall;be=re►►toved and itisposed of by a licensed and certified ea paint.removal contractor, to=,accordance with local,{ State, and Federalg.utatiorrs.; The, abaten:int .and monitoriigj plan shalt`be developed '=and submittedfor review 'and approval by the Community Deuelop►sent Department prior to the issuance ofla dentolition permit VII-22 Prior to the issuance of it 'demolition permit for 'existing on-site: structures, the"derrialitioxt.contractor. sliall be itiformed..thctt all paint on the buildings °shall be considered: as containing Jettd, • Ursder..":the supervision of the Community Aevelopment Department,the contractor shalt take appropriate precautions to_ •protect .his✓her "workers, ;ehe surraurzdink' community, and to dispose" =of construction `►waste containing lead paint in accordance with local,, State, and.Federal regulations: d. The project site has not been identified on a-list of hazardous'materials,sites compiled pursuant to Government.Code Section,65962;5. Asa result; the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to.the public or the environment." therefore;no: impact would occur. e-f. The project site is not within an airport land use plan of within two miles"of an airport. Therefore,no impact would occur. g. Development of the project site would not interfere with an adopted'emergency,response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore,.no impact"wouldoccur. 34 July 2005 PrewetiRaacli .Initial Study: h. The;site is riot located within an area where wildland'f res occur, Therefore;nv.fmpaet. would occur iParantiaIly Potenttat4y ' %SitmiCuainr LcwThan• tJa issnas' Si�tCstani Unku- Si�siriaant li�gmci i'J��'` >lfi(i$ation Smpacc VI11. HYDROLOGYAND WATER,QUAL17Y. i361d the prvject ' a;. Violateanywater quality standartlsor waste OE ❑ ` Ci 1ischarge4equirernents? b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ❑ p x p interfere'substanti0y with grqundwater`.recharge such that;there would beta het deficit in`aqu. er, t'vo,lume,-ar a loiwenjh of'the-local groundwater table, the pre duction r e o f pre existing nearby Weds would dropao,a 2eyel whictiwauld,not , _ support existing land uses or;planned,uses for whichttpermitg,hay.ehe6ngranted) . c. ' Substantialty alter the existing drainage pattezn of ❑ O ❑ thesite"pr area,including through,the alterationtof the'course of a stream-or river, in:a°manner which would;result`iii substantia] erasion or siltation on- or off=site? d:: Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of ❑ V ❑ ❑ the'site or area,"including through;the alt eration,of the course of a stream or river, or 7substantially,, increase the rate or amount of surface runoff irr a manner.which wouid.result in flooding c;n-,or off 1 Si . te? v_ ,R e: Create br contribine runoff water which would:-: ❑ at ❑ ❑ exceed the..capacity of existing or-planned '- :stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional:sources of polluted runoff? f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? D it. ❑ ❑ g. Place housing within a 100- year floodplain,as ❑ ❑ #t ❑ mapped on:a federal Flood,Hazard Boundary or ciod Ins"urance Rate Map or outer flood Hazard delineation map?` h. Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which 0 ❑ X Cl would impede or redirect flood flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ❑ ❑ X ❑ loss, injury or death involving flooding; including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, t J. Inundation by seiche,tsunami, or faudfloiW7 D 0 0 X x 35 July 2005 Prewett Ranch Initial Study Discussion a,f. Shortterm grading and.construction activities cause the exposure of bare soil and soil particles. Exposed soill.is susceptible to wind and water brosion wluch leads to sediinentation of the waters of the State:-The.State Waier'R'esources Control Board and the Califorhia,Regtonal"Water Quality. Control Board'c`onsider sedimenta pollutant. The above agericies;.have,junsdtction over'fhe: waters of' 4eState and" pollution'of those waters-through the.Nafoiial Poll.ution'Discharge,Elimination System""(NPDES)',"permits. The .city .of Brentwood=is responsible> for "ensuring compliance with Ahd"stormwater pollution control standards.:=The proposed project's construction activities cool "result'in an increase in erosion,.and consequently, affect water-qualityTherefore,.a potentially significantimpact could occur. MiflOttion'Measure, Implementation of the following mitigation.measure would reduce the "Radts to 'a less than signi,ficant level . # 1 , VIII-23 " Prior to:�grading=pernut issuance; the applicant shall obtain a General t"onstruction A'Ovity Stormwater Permit 'arid :at National Pollutant Discharge El tmiriatron:'System (NPDES) permit-from the. Regional Water Qtahty Control Board. The per►nits are"r°equ�red";#o control both. construction and;'operation ,bcttvtties that may°-adverse`ly affect water quality ;-Tlte applicant,shall also prepare a ,Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan;(SWPPA) thatdeseribes the,site;,erosion and sediment controls using Best iYlanageirient Practices NO).and Best Available Technologies (- ATS), nieansy i0f, waste. disposal, lmpleriientdtron: of approved local p,[ans, controCofpost constr;�ction;sedimenvand erosion control ,Typical.BMPs" that could be Bused during;construction of the proposed projects, nclude;'hut are not limited to;the following:. Temporaryfacilities such as straw wattles and„sandbags may"be used during construchon Temporaryfacilities will ctipture a majdrity oflhe silidti6 i;'resulthi''from' construction activtties prior to discharging into existing natural:channels.,Iiiaddition, they►viii trap possible fuel and oil spills from construction equipment to prohibit contamination'wfsurface flows or groundwater The construction, contracior would;he required to nto�iitor an`d maiitain all'-BMPs during, construction to ensure they. function pr�perly b. The Brentwood',2001 'General :Plan indicates '.that water is,provided by the City of Brentwood,_ and'theprimary water supply :is _grounQu%ater supplemented by treated Brentwood,_ water. The 2001 General Plan Update EIRsuggests that, at build-out, Brentwood's water demand,is"projected to be approximately:19,million gallons:"per day (iVIGD): Available'water supply is projected to be' 19.45 .MGD. Because the development of the project site is anticipated in'the build-out of the General Plan, the proposed projectwould Bove a less-than4igtiifiO. t impact'to oundwater supplies and recharge. 36 July 2005 Prewettk=6 Initial Study c=e; The project consists of a single-family residentiaLdevelopment in `a land use area thafi"is designated as such. Although development wouldnot.alter existing-drainage.courses and would be accommodated-;in the 'existing:City of Brentwood "storm drainage system;: implementation of the proposed:project would addimpervious surfaces'to'the"area An increase in impervious surfaces could result"in ,a decrease in infiltratrdn rates and an increase in stonriwater"runoff rates, "The:: proposed"drainage infrastructure-consists of larger".trunk, mains that:;collect, water from a" network';"of."smaller°"pipes thi' would: discharge to the existing.infiasiructure ;' The project drainage'�sysiem`: outfalls ao the. exi`shng CCCFC&WCD.drainage: areas (Lines A'and(B).=r"Because the project would; result in,.an increase-in stormwater,runoff rates, a potentially: sign fcant;-irripaet.could result. Mitigation Measures Implementation of the following mitigation measures would censure°:the.;impact is less-than-significant. r VIII-24 Prior"to grading"permit issuance, the developersshall",sitbmitto the City Engineer for review and approval a Drainage :Master Pla& which implements BMPs-tocoritro!"quality "ofstormwater runoff." The plan shall' :describe h°ow, on=site• drainage systems' 'will be designed :to contpegsdte for"the reduced water absorption capacity of the site;and 1.to prevent flooding'of adjacent properties. The plan must ensure that all stormwater entering or origitrgting wittiin:the, project site shall be conveyed,'without diversion'of"the watershed, toalre nearest adequate,: r:atrtral watercourse, ar.adegrrare manmade-drainage facility.;. s. VIII-25 Design of both the on Prewett Ranch. Initial Study necessary permits from'.the Contra Costa County Flood Controt& Water Conservation District(District)for the outfall and any other work within the Dislrkes right-of-way. Additional:perinittit:g fri)ni the Army Corps of E�tgneers, the California Department of Fish and. Game,,;and the California Regional Tl'ater�Iua?ty �ois`trot Board may,he regr�lrell.: g-i. According to.theTEMA map that includes tbe_project site; the 1064-year floodplain does not extend beyond the banks of any adjacent creeks or,canals in the vicinity of the project site. Because the proposed project site;is not,witbin the foo-year floodplain; a less-than-' significant impact would result from implementation of the proposed project: j: Ts'una'mis are °de'fined `as.jsea waves created by undersea fault movement. A tsunami poses little danger away from`shorelmes, however, when if reaehes thesharehne; a high sweII of watebre raks aind washes inland With,.-.greatforce. Waves may'reach 50'feet'in hergbt on unprotected:'coasts: ' Histone zecorcls of the Bay Area used by one.study indicate that nineteen'tsuniamis were zecorded at Safi l~i ancrsco Bay during the period of 1868='1968 Ivlaxirnum:wave height recorded at the Golden Gate tide gauge (whe"re wave heights peak)` was, 7.Q feet::The available data'mdic'ate;,a'staniard- decrease` of'onginal wave>height=from the Golden Gate to about Half original wave height`on the shoreline near:Richmond,-and tonil'at the liead'of the Carquinez:;Strait. As Brentwooel'is several. miles inland from the Carquinez Strait; the project site is not exposed to;flooding risks from tsunamis and adverse,impacts would notresult F A se'iche is a long=waveldngth;.'large-scale wave action set up:in a{closed body:of water such:as::a,lake or reservoir,{whose destructive'capacatyis notas great,as that of tsunamis; - Seiches are known to haver occurred-during earthquakes; but rtorie-have been recorded in. -the„ Bay Area.,; In-addition, the:project:is ;note located:near it elosed body sof=water: TIherefore,,it is not.anticip Ated that the proidct.srte would be impacted by s'ei6he_s in the 11 future. Mudflows,typically occur in mountainous or,hilly terrain. Given the relatively flat existing and proposed„topography of the project site and the minimal threat;of'tsunamis and seiches,na impact.would occur., :.Potentially Potentially Significant: Less Than.. Ko ,Issues Significant I Unless Stgniocia impart Mitigation Impact ' Incorporated I IX. LAND'USE AND PLANNING.- Would,the project: a. .Physically divide,an established ❑ ❑ )t ❑ community? b. Confliawith>any applicable land use plans, ❑ ❑ . )t ❑ policies,or regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over.the project(including,but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)adopted forthe.purpose of avoiding or mitigating on environmental effect? 38 July 2005 Prewett Ranch Initial Study _ . Poterilially. �: "" Potenually,� Significant Liss-.Than= IS,buCs - _ _ - Stgnifieani'" ` 'Unless: Sigmficani No Impact - - Impac[ Mitigation r,Impacu ,., Incoipotated:C. Conflict with any,applicable habitat O" ❑ ❑ `X consery Ion'planornaturalcommunities conservation".plan? Discussion, a, As noted in the General Plan, the City of Brentwood has planned for orderly; logical development.that supports compatibility among adjacent uses, The,General.Phn,goals. seek to reiain the character.of,"existing communities and;ensure that:future land uses are: compatible>.with existing .uses." , The project site,consists of agricultural;.larid;with the• exception;gf five. single"-family residences: and associated outbuildings.-, Although 'the residences:would"need:to be removed in order for.the project to be consttricted;240 new houses would"be placed on the project site,as a result.ofconstruction " Inaaddition, the project site is surrounded, by =land:anticipated for: single-fainily development in the . Brentwood General. Plan.,; .Therefore, .the proposed :project, would not divide an established community, resulting in a less;than-slg»'ificant.impact: , b. As previously rnentioned the Brentwood General Plandesignates the project site for Low and Very Low Density residential development. The proposed project'includes arequest to rezone the entire site'to PD-39'since, while.the currentzoning',.on the project site is consistent with; the General -Plan, "the, applicantI'needs to create a customized set of development standards to regulate; the unique design ofthe project✓ The"PD zoning would allow the applicant to spread the planned density=for the site more evenly. and: establish specific development standards. 'The Brentwood General Plan show&,a future high school planned on the eastern portion of the site: However', it should be noted that " this is a "floating location, and the high school will,ultimately be.built where deemed appropriate by"the Liberty�Union High"Schboi District. Impacts related"to consistency" with the City's zoning ordinance would beless-than-sigriifccant: C. The project site is not located within.the area designated by.the General Plan as Expected Habitat Conservation Pian.or Area of Significant.Natural Open Space. Therefore, no impact would occur. Potentially - _ 'Potentially Significant Less=Than- No , I Issues Significant; Unless. Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact `# Incoipmated t l X. MINERAL RESOURCES. j Would theproject.- a. project.a. Result in the loss of availability of a known ❑ ❑ x ❑ mineral resource that would be of value to ,K the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a.locally- ❑ ❑ �t ❑ important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific 39July 2005 i Prewett Ranch Initial Study. Potentially= Potentially Significalit Less-Than No Issues Significant . 'Unless - SignifiNo cant. In Impact Mitigation impact ipact - plan or other land use plan? Discussion a,b. The 1 r.dhtrivood 2001 General Plan Update EIR fd6ntiR esl,coal,oil and gas, and,.sand as the significant rninerai,resources within the area. The site does.not contain any of the above iriiiieral resources.. Therefore, a less than-s;g�!ifcant impact:wouid occur.. : , r Potentially; Potentially significant Less-Than= No ISSUOS Significant. Unless - .::Significant Impact �M1fitigatiom Impact. Impact . Incorporated - I YJ. NorsE: Would the project result,ih: EL Exposure of persons to of.gendfation.of _ 0 ❑ >K ❑ noise levels in excess of standards - esfablLsh'ed m the'local general,plan or noise ordnartce,;or applIca- a; cable standards of other agenctes� b. Ex osure of. .erson i, p p s-. o or generation of ❑ ❑ X ❑ excessive groundbor. a vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. A'substantial permanent increaseAnambient- ❑ - ❑ �t ❑ noise levels in the'project victmty above. levels exist ngi Prewett Ranch Initial.Study . . .. _. Potentially - Potenially SigniGpdnt Less-Than? No Issues _. - Stgrdficant Unless:_ Significant _Impact' ImpactMitigation. Impact Incotporaied. Discussion a. The City of Brentwood General Plan Noise Element sets forth land use. compatibility criteria for. various community noise: levels. For noise generated. by Transportation sources such as traffic, the Noise Element specifies that residential land uses' are compatible with exterior noise levels of up to 60,dB Ldri without the need for:noise mitigation. The 60 dB,Ldn.noise level 'standard' Is considered'fan acceptable :n'oised environment for residential outdoor activities TheCtty:may allow an eztenornome level ofup10 65 dB LdiVCNEL'provided'that;available°exterior'notse;level rWilction"measures have been implemented and;interior noise levels are.in compliance with City;standards. The Gitf s interior noiserlevel criterion of 45 dB;Ldn is specified in the Noise Element for residential land uses exposed to transportation noise-sources.. The.;; ntent ;of this interior noise.standard is to provide a suitable environment for-indoor communication and' sleep. Using the. Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic, Noise Prediction.Model (FHWA RD-77-108), Bollard Acoustical Consultants,Tnc predicted fiifure;traffic noise levels at the project.site. Traffic on Lone Tree Wayarid Grant Street has been identified as a noise source that could potentially impact the project site. Traffic' information': provided by Fehr&.Peers.Transportation Consultants was utilized in conjunction with the FHWA model to predict future traffic noise,levels.at The nearest proposed noise-sensitive; receivers. The results are shown inTable 3'. Table 3:' Predicted Future"Traffic Noise Levels The Estates at PrewettRanch Project-]Brentwood, California`. Distance to Noise Contours} Distance to Predlcted�. Location(s) Roadway 60 dB Ldn 65'd13 Ldn Centerline Noise-Level 'uc��ra� S f t *.� �Y g.."�.ry kms.r't tom'`' �.*�,.F-; E•` $A.k��1'rzt `Es3$ ,'1 ^'�'S-r�.yy, i v+d "; +rt," P§ a f3 ? �,.✓ 'S.Y 3 �7 '"'in n � : s"'c£ J• �.rt L �aaa -aft sa bR.y{"b i'A� rt �' �ckF �'a +e, K�,`}'$' � Y"+ W ' �I�fr.EZc.,.� a;.. '' ta.��vn, ��}, �• fit,^:'h,^Gn�i�y�lsaj�t��+r»fa��"�ren?9f� .KK,ETr z3.fir rrr�`�i*.��' a.,C.x Nearest Back ards 200 ft: 60 dB Ldn_ 211 ft.. 98 ft. a�{It •qt �FF,it^' < " .12 ` i6 '� «, Nearest Backyards 60 ft. 59,dB Ldn. 53A 25 ft. I Predicted distances to noise level contours are from the roadway centerline: Note: A complete listin :of FHWA Model inputs and resultsCis provided in A endiic E: 41 July2005 Prewett Ranch Initial Study Based upon the analysis shown in Table 3, future traffic noise levels at the residences located nearest to Lone Tree Way and Grant Street will be in compliance with thdj City.of Brentwood 60 dB Ldnnoise level standard m ad"dition;tto roadway traffc, the existing;batch Iilanfto the east of the project=site was identified as a potential noise source that .could impact the project site.. OnApril 2fl, 2005, Bollard Acoustical Consultants, Inc. performed a,noise.level measurement at the eastern boundary of the project site. Noise.levels at this"location were measured to be . Approximately 44 dB Leq land 54 dB Lmax, and would be in compliance with :the City's daytitne .and.:nighttime "noise r level criteria: 'Furthermore the batch plant= was`.not identified as "the.ld6minant noise":.source :at• this location. Therefore, .a less-than signif cant impact would occur. b. B011ard.AcouStical Consultants, Inc..staff observed•no.perceptible vibration on the project• site during a project site inspection In`:additi h the proposed'project`does not include any significant"sources ofavibration. Therefore;"'persons"are not predicted to be exposed to excessive"Vibration,resulting in a less-than=significant impact, C. A thorough noise analysis alio needs;to consider the noise impact that a project:may have on.the 'surrounding environment Table 4 is„based upon recommendations made”. in August: 1992„by the Federal. Interagency "Committee,on ;Noise (FICON} to. provide' guidance m the;assessment of changes"m..ambieixt noise levels resulting from aircraft operations. The;recommendations are; ased.upon°studies that.relate"aircra$-noise-levels #o the: percentage" of persons highly annoyed`by the =noise; Although the FICON recommendations were specif cally developed to;assess'aircraft noise impacts, it,has, een ass erted%that they are applicable-to all sources of noise:described intermsof cumulative noise""exposure,metn such as""the Ldn:,_ Generally, a projecfniay have a significant effeet on the environment'if the"project:will substantially increase tl e�anibient noise levels-foradioining":areas,or. expose people,to :severe, noise levels:: In practicemore specific professional standards have been developed. These standafd ie,,kate that a'noise impactmay be considered•significant"if it would generate noise that would conflict with 1oca1 planning criteria=or ordinances, or substantially increase.noise'levels atnoise-sensiti q land uses. To assess noise.' impacts due to project-related traffic increases on,the Jocal roadway ffi network, trac noise levels were.predicted ata representative distance for.both near term; andluture, project and no-project conditions. Noise impacts are identified at existing noise-sensitive areas if the noise-level increases that result from the project exceed the Table 4 significance thresl olds: Table 4: Significance of Changes in Cumulative Noise Exposure Ambient Noise Level Without Project,Ldn, Increase Required for Si nificant Impact <60 dB: +5.0 dB=or.more 60=65 dB A0 dB or more >65 dB +I.S dB or more 42 July 2005. Prewett Ranch Initial Study El- .. Traffic volumes for near term and fkure conditions andscenarios Were obtained`from.the project transportation engineers. Table 5 shows the predicted'increases in"traffic noise levels on the local .roadway network.for-near term (Year 2007):conditions thaf would result from the project;_: t Table'5, Near Term,(Year 2007)Traffic Noise Levels (Ldn @.100 feetfrom Roadway'Centerlines) The Estates:at Prewett Ranch Project Vicinity Road*ays No Project With Project Increase Contour' Intersection Direction dB (dB): (dB) (feet).: Lone Tree Way at O'Hara Avenue North 62 62 0, 110 East` 64, 64 0` 199 South"- 32 32' 6, - 1 West 65"- 65 0 206 Lone Tree Way at Anderson Lane North 55, 55 0. 48: East: 65 71 0 207 South,- 35x 35= 0. 21 . West . 64s 71 0: 199. Lone Tree Way at Brentwood Blvd. North 65 65 0 207 East 56 57 0: : 5911. South 66 67 01 277' West 65 65I 0' 20T Prewett Ranch Access at O'Hara Ave. North NA NA` NA NA. East'- NA'' NA-- ` NA NA- South NA!, NA NA NA West NA NA NA NA Prewett Ranch Access at Anderson Lane .North NA NA INA' NA East. NA, 51, NA 25 South NA. 55': NA 44 West NA 52: NA- 30, Grant Street af'O'Hara Avenue North NA NA NA NA East '.. . 58 581' 0` `' 74. South 58 571 60, West 55 56' 1 57, Grant.Street at Anderson Lane North' NA 55= INA. , 44, East NA_ 59:_- . NA. 90'' South NA 54, NA 38:; West NA 59- NA. 811. Grant Street at.Brentwood Blvd. North 67 67 0 294 East 62 62 0 1,44' South 66 66 0 269 West 66 61 1 115' Sand Creek Road at Brentwood Blvd. North 66 66 0 245 East INA NA NA NA South 165 65 0' 213 West 162 62 0 143 Notes: Distances to 60 dB Ldn traffic noise contours from the centerlines of the roadways(with project) FHWA Model input data are provided in Appendices B1=B2. 43 July 2005 Prewett Ranch nitialStudy (Source:FHWA-RD-77-108,Fehr&:Peers Transportation Consultants;and BAC. Based on the:data in Table 5,the prcject would cause an increase in traffic noise,levels of 0=1 dB when compared to the:near term traffic noi IevIs'withodt the proJecft' Based upon the FICON crite,nwin Table 4;"none of the;identified tncreases`would be significant. Table:°6 sbows the.,cumulative {Year 2025).traffi6 noise,levels on the major°project area roadways,both"with and'without the.proposed project. Table`6 Cumulative(Year3025)`Traffic Naiw Levels(Ldii.'`Q 100-feet from Roadway Ceniterlines) The Estates a"t�,Prewett Ranch Prp'ect'Vic ni Roadrva's' - m Wtth Project No Project 6113 Increase Contour Intersection Direction dB , ,. dB' feet LoneTrec Wayat,0'Hara.Avenue: I. " North, —60 - 60;;. D ,; 107 I East: 65 ': 65i 0: 2I°1: 1 South JZ.' 60; 0: 103 West',:, 664,, ,. 66 0'.: 147. Lohe 7,iee Wiv at Anderson Lane' ' North .`` 53:, 'J, 54`.'; l' ? 39' 65.E South 49 53 4 33 West 65. . � ; x'65 02,111 Lon'e,Trec;Wa at Brentwood"Blvd, .I 59= <;59 0. ;. . 87i I East b2 , 62. . : 0 -.. 11,33 South: 63 63 G: 160 West.' 63'. 63 0; l`r70 Prewett11mchAccess at:0'Hara.Ave. North NA 61; NA' :40 J East NA 48 NA 17. " South NA" '61" NA: - -x:1'09 .. ':West: '`' NA, NA" ATA; : PrewetCRanch'Access at Ariderson=Lane"I orth..- �' • NA` 63�`` NA >:15;1 I East NA 49 NA 19: South NA 63 NA 150 West. Grant:Street at O'Hara Avenue i North 60 60 Oil 407 East 55 55 a45 South 63'': 63,_ 0. 149 West 60; '60, 0, 96: Grant Stieet at'Anderson Lane r Norfti 5, & 57 1 65' East: 55' 56 1. 32: South`. 7 55, ., . . 56 h 53; Vilest 53 54'' 117 Grant Street at Brentwood`Blvd: North 611 146 East 57 `57. 0 61 South. 62 62,,. 0;; 136: West, 54 55. 1 47' Sand Creek Road at Brenhvood Blvd North 61 61:.,- .: 0' 121:, East. 60: 60 0s. 108: South. 58 — 5$' 0:: 76 ( West; _ 60 60 0 9.7 Notes: Distances to 60 dB Ldn-tr Iffic noise contours fromthe centerlines of the,roadva s(with project) 44 July 2005 Prewett kanch Initial,Study FHWA Model'inpuCdata are pro��ided m Ap,'pendicesW B.4,, .- .� source:FHW, R"D-77-:108-,',Fehr=&Peers Transpodation Consultants;,,and BAC: Based.uponahe data in Table 6; the project would cau"se an increase in.traffic:notse.'levels of 0-4 dB;Wbe1n compared to,.the curnulative traffic:noise levels without,the proidet. A substantial increase in traffic noise'levels is. defined as 1.5, 3; or 5 dB depending on cumulative traffic noise levels without the proleet,(as indicated iri;Table 4) Because none of the segments evaluated would experience„traffic.:noise levels in.excess of the Table 4 standards,the impact is considered to be less than significant, Therefore,,because the proposedprojecf generated.;traffic woulds not.exceed, the4.Gity standards of.60 dB ; cause excessive groundbome-yvibration, or..create a substantial= increase in ambienf:noseaevels,.the proposed project would have arless=than-sigriificanf impact. do During the construction phase of the project,noise.from construction activities would add 'ta' the noise. environment,'in the immediateproject vicinity. Activities. involved-in construction would ;generate maximum- noise- levels ranging from 85 to 90 .dB: at: a• distance of, 50' feet. Construcfion activities would be tem ora, ' .nature and' are P ry; anticipated to occurdiiri4.normal daytime working flours: Noise would.also.be-generated during the construction phase by increased,truck traffic on a area, roadways: A significant project-generated noise .source would be 'thick traffic associated with transport'of'heavy.materials and equipment to and from.;construction sites'. This noise increase would be of short!duratiori, and would likely occur primarily during daytime hours: The. Brentwood General Plan identifies that ,a noise level of 60 dBA is acceptable for residential land uses. Therefore; the temporary inorease in noise levels during construction would:be considered a potentially significant impact. Mitication'Measures Implementation of the following mitigation measures would ensure the'. impact is less-tlzan-significant.. Xr-31 Construction, activities shall be limited to lite hours set forth by the:,G& Engiheer and the Ghief,Buildlngl Oficial. Construction shall be prohibited ort- Sundays and' City ;=holidays:- These; criteria shall- be; included in the,grading plan submitted by the developer for review and approval of;the 'Community Development. Director prior, to, grading permit issuance. Exceptions to allow expanded coiisiruciion activities shall:be reviewed on a case-by-cak basis"as determined 6y al, Chief Building Official and/or City Engineer. M-32 All construction equipment shall use roperlY operating m�ufflers,`. and t no combustion equipment strch as pumps or generators shall be allowed t to operate within:500jeefof any occupied residence,during construction g hours, unless the equipment is.surrounded'by. a noise protection barrier acceptable to the Community Development Department. These criteria 45 July 2005 i Prewett Ranch L itial Study shall be included in the grading plait submitted by the developer for revi6s, and approval of the Comnimi nity.Development Director prior to grading permit issuance. e,f: The project site is not located near"an existing airport and is not within;area covered by an existin%g airport land use;plan. Therefore, no i►npactwould occur. Poti7ntizlly Potrnt 01" Sigtiricant: Less-Than- No Issues- Significant Unless significant Impac6 - 17*6. 'Midg3tion Invacl fneopoiSted -- I X11. POPULATIONr1 ND HOUSING. - Would the project: a. Inducesub'stantial population growth in an area., . i ❑ , either directly(for:example,by proposing new homes and businesses)''or indirectly(e g., through projects in an undeveloped,area:orextension of major _ in dstructure). b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, ❑ ❑ X ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing,. elsewhere?" C., Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating ❑ ❑ fit`. ❑ Pe construction.ofreplacement housing elsewhere? Disctisston a An tm act to opulatlon'and housing"is considered significant if,thc project would induce substantial'population growth 'in an area either directly or indirectly. The `proposed project includes the construction of 240 new. residences. The proposed pray'' is consistent with the lyp.e and intensity of development identified for the p"rojecusite;in the Brentwood;General Plank and would not be"expected 'to. create subsfantlal population growth an the area." It should also be noted:""that the area surrounding the project"site is anticipated forsingle-family development in'the Brentwood General"Plan The"refore;.a less-than-signifteant impact would'occur.' with regards to,Ithe" project increasing substantial population growth in an area that,has not been previously"anticipated for such growth. b,c. Five.residences exist on:the project site and development of the proposed pr"oject would involve 'the demolition,..of the residences and associated outbuildings. "°However, the displacement of the occupants of the residences would not be=considered substantial. In addition, the proposed project would not,reguire the construction of replacement housing: because;the project-involv ,c es the of 240 single-family residences. thdrdfdtel, approval and implementation oftbe proposed project would neithendisplace a,substantial' amount of existing housing nor necessitate the construction of replacement housing, and the project would resultin a less:than-significant impact. 46 July 2005 Pre.wettRancii Initial Study x: su ,Pote"Hy, :r s[jmHeant Less-Phan- . I$3uc5 Spmtican[ Unless' signfinnt0 Impact Mitiga[idri .Impact Ir"Pact., .. Incorporated . X111 PUBLICSI RVICES Would 1hepr"6ject result in substantial,adv&s.e P y : steal impgcts=associated wtth''the`provisiori of new orphtjsicalby alteredgovernmental faciliftes; need for nein or physically altered which,& could l facilities, the;construction,of -" causesignificant environmental' = impacts, in:order to maintain acceptable service' ratios, respgnse tinier or otlier performance`,:• J objectives for'any of the public services: a.. Fire protection? ❑ 3C. p: ❑ b. Police:,protection? D �t [7; ❑. c. 'Schools? ❑, K ❑ ❑ d. Parks? D !]` 3V D' Discussion a,b On. September 12, 20029 the East.Contra Costa Fire Protection District (ECCFPD) was created by the unification of the Bethel Island; East Diablo, and Oakley Fire Protection, Districts: The; new organization, governed by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors; was created in order to allow more :cost-effective;application of.existing resources`to 'provide a Higher level of fire protection and emergency medical, response services 10 the area: The,.ECCFPD currently "has.;nine stations,, two of"which are located in the City of Bfeatwood. ' Other' stations within_-the ECCFPD• may -also, be: called .to;-respond to etnergeneie's in Brentwood depending on theparticular,emergency event. 'The.ECCFPD currently has:approximately.75 fire:-suppression staff, including paid on,call staff=and full-time personnel.,, The ECCFPD` does not'have a staffing. standard, but strives to maintain a first-engine response time'of five(5)minutes. The City of Brentwood Police Department would provide law enforcement"services to the project site with one(1)`station location in Brentwood;:ae.the southeast corner of Guthrie Lane and Brentwood Boulevard. The Police Department currently has '44 sworn personnel and 13 non-swom personnel. The;City has adopted a public safetYpolicy that includes the provision_of`capital facilities. and personnel'sufficient to' .maintain 'an officer/population ratio of 1.5 officers per 1,000Brentw6od residents. Development of the project site would not affect the overall operations of the service providers or expand their district boundaries: However,, development of the proposed project would add to the overall demand for fire;and police protection services. This increase in service requirements for the proposed project is considered a:potentially significant impact. S +r 47 July 2005 I Piewett Ranch initial'Study Mitigation Measares: . Tmplement4tion of thelfbllowing mitigation measures would reduce the impacts to a less-tlrau slgr'uficari,"Llevel. �., . XIIM3 w PrMr.to buiidi/tg pern:it issxiance; the developer shall cnmply'witle' all applicable require/nents of lite .Uniform Fire Codex and,t... °adopted policies-of the East Contra. Costa 'Fire Protection District (ECCFPD). The City's Bir"ildir:g.Divlsto/r steal! reveew fJ:e budd�rig plat:s iorensirre XIII-34 Prior to building permit issua/tce, tithe developer shall provide an adequate and reliable water's .4 ly or fire protection with.aminimum fire flow to the sattsfactlo/r of ECCF.PD. The Engineering Departiuent `shall.'ensure�the'/nan/ntum fire;fTo�rei�uirements are satisfed.� XIII.-35 Pk,or ;to building "Permit',Issuance, 'the developer shalT yrovide. :the,: number and pe of liydrantsrcatled for by ECCFPD;-,, )*ant locations will be determined by ECCFPD prcor:'to issuance of any ericroaclment anrllor,butldu:g permits " XIII-3b Prcar to co menctng.;constrrrctlon,, the developer sJiallprovide 'access roadways having all-weather, drivl/ig surfaces of mot less>tltan 20 feet unobstructed width, and not tens .titan„13 feet 6-inches-taf rvertical clearance, 'ta within 450 feetr of:travel distance .to °a11 yortions,a ihe. exleriar wa',lls of ever.}',bulldng .-,Access roads shall.;nai-;exceed X6% gr"ade,;shatl have a mfnimuni outside"turn inggradius of 4S feet, and must be cap able:*of`supporting imposed loads Off re'-app aratus(37 tons)' The City Eng1heer shalt ensure compltonce: XIII-37 Prior to, Issuance of encroachment ancUor building permits. for • i/nprovements; 'the. developer (and all subsequent" property ownerslhoi/seowners)...shall submit plans and,specifcaddlis to ECCFPD anid'the City,E inecr fpr review and approval in accordance.,i4 .codes, regulations; and ordinances administered by CCCFPD and the State Fire Marshal's Office, XIII-38 Prior to bl ilding permit issuance, the developer shall comply with any adopted Fire Protection and Paramedc'Servlce Program adopted by the City Cou Icil. XIII-39 Prior to,building perinxt issuance, the:developer sl:alt_participate in the CitYo fB ntwood Capital Improvenlerlt FinancingP.rograrirb XIII-40 The.Poli Department shall review the design,plaits for this project prior to building permit. issuance in order to ensure than the site plan, incorporates appropriate crime prevention features. 48 July 2005 Prewett Ranch Initial;Study c. The project site is located within the boundaries of the!"LZberty Union Thg1�. Sehool District and,fhe Brentwood Union School;District:.; The development of'singl'e-family. ". residential units would add to the demand'for services provided liy loth Districts: Many of "the elementary schools in the area are at capacity or approaching ,capacity.. Implementation of the proposed project;would resulYin a potentially signifrcantimpaet related to schools. Mitiption.Measure . � t, Consistent with State law, implementation of the„following;. initigation measure would reduce the impacts"to a fess-than-significant level. XIII41 1'rfor to 6nildurg permit issuancethe developer shall submit to ithe Coinnr'unity:-Development'Departmebt written. proof-from the Liberty° Union High School District aid the Brentivood-Union School,District that appropriate school iuitigatiara fees hu"ve`beeii paid.'' d The"City of.Brentivood encourages'an urban fotmi that is based on open space throughout an d'aroundahe'community: 'D en the pMect site`witli new"residences"would increase the!demand`for neighborhood, community; and regional;parks and,recreation: facilities. The proposed project includes246" single=family. residences: Applying -the Brentwood standard of 3.1.residents per dwelling unit,.the.proposed project would create housing for approximately :744 additional residents. The Brentwood General Platt calls for 5 gross acres of park per 1,000`residents. The proposed project would thus require approximately" 3.72gross acres of park space- far thes& additional residents: The proposed project includes four (4) parcels for parkpuf ses, totaling 4.22 gross acres. Because he proposed project would dedicate 4.22 gross.acres to the City for park- area; which.exceeds the General Plan requirement, as well. as the 3:54-gross acres of open space and trail areas surrounding the project,site, the development:of the project would. result in a less-than-significant impact to parks. Poicntially, Significant: Less•Timn. Ro Issues - - signifcpni' ' Unless signiricam Impact .. lmpper Miligption lmimcl Jr rponka XIi! RECREATION. Would the project' a. Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ XC ❑ neighborhood and`regional parks or other, . recreational facilities such that:substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b. Does the:project include recreational facilities ❑ ❑ K'" ❑ or require the constructionor expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 1 i Discussion a,b. The Brentwood General Plan Update includes general guidelines for meeting Brentwood's future parks and recreation needs, and the Parks, Trails, and.Recreation 49 July 2005 I Prewett Ranch tnitiat�Study Master Plan provides specific-details about planned parks iand recreation facilities and services: -The:City uses a service standard'of 5; gross acres of%parkl,space, per 1,000 residents. Development-of tile' ,project site would result in new residences and would therefore Increase the demaitd,for neighborhood, community,.and regional parks and, Otherrecreational facilities. -Basedon the=Brentwood.standard, of 31 residents .per dwelling unit, the proposed 240:dwelling units3vould.resuIt in a population.increase:of' approximately 744 residents. The required 'park area for 744 new residents would be approximately 3 72 gross acres., The proposed. project includes four.,parcels for park purposes, totaling 4.22 gross acres. Because'th'e proposed project would dedicate 4.22 moss acres to the City for park, area, which well exceeds the;General Plan requirement; the development would result in a'le's=than-significant impact to,"' ks:` s Puientwiiy' _ Pouniia]ly, $ignif Gini 1,6s4hin...:,'. No:: Issues SigrtMOM ;UnIco' Sign7eant. Impact 3mp3pi . , ,fitiugation; Impact Incorporated XT? TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Woielii-the project a. Cause an. Increase I in; :traffc which ;is ❑ K - ❑ Cl substantial u relation'to the existing-,Aratfic load and capacity.. of the 'street system (I:e result in a substantial increase in either the number of" vehicle� trips; the volume to_ capacity ratio on; roads, or congestion at intersections)? 1+ b E1.xceed,.either individually:or cumulatively,. . ❑ K; ❑ D a:.level of`'service standard established by the county congestion management agency for.designated roads or higfiways?;, c. Result in :a change in .air traffic patterns, ❑ ❑ ❑ )t iricluding either an increase in traffic levels or a change in,. location- that results in substantial`safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards "due to a ❑ ❑ k ❑ design features (e.g., sharp, curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible ' usese. ( g• ..farm equipment)? . e. Result in'inadequate emergency access? ❑ X 1i C1 f. Result in inadequalte K parking capacity?` ❑ ❑ ❑ g. Conflicts,with adopted, policies supporting ❑ X ❑ ❑ Alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Discussion ab. The proposed project is located in the northeast.quadrant of:Brentwood. The proposed deyelopment, is a.240-Iot single-family.tesideniial subdivision. The project is Iocated 50 July 2005 Preurett Ranch Initial'Study south•ofLone;Tree Way and west;of]3renhvood.Boulevaid Segnnerits of the proposed extensions:of O'Hara Avenue and Grant'Street would be located'"adjace' t.fo the project: Fehr & Peers:prepared "a Traffic Impact Analysis (February 2005) for the '"proposed project_ The traffac'analysis assessed existing, near- erm,,:and cumulattvefti to;off--site traffic"impacts on the following intersections: " • Lone Tree Way/671.1ara Avenue(Existing signalized intersection); • Lone Tree Way LA Lane-(Existing ansignalized intersection);' " * Lone Tree,Way/Brentwood Boulevard,(Existing signalized,intersection); • Prewett R"anch Ac'c'ess/O'Hara Avenue"(Future"unsignalized intersection); • Prewett Ranch Access!Anderson Lark(Future.."unsignaIized intersection); • Grant Streef"/O'Hara Avenue(Future signalized intersection); Grant Streets/Anderson Lane(Future'.signalized intersection);. • Grant Street/'Brentwood Boulevard.(Existing signalized intersection); and • Sand Creek Road/-Brentwood Boulevard(Existing"sigriahzed`intersection)'. In addition to the study. :intersections,`thc' traffic report'also: analyzed two (2) roan' segments: Lone Tree Way'(O'Hara Avenue to Brentwood;Boulevard) and Brentwood Boulevard(Lone Tree Wayto'Sand Creek Road): Significance Criteria According to the. `City of Brentwood and the Contra" Costa Transportation Authority (OCTA), a significant traffic-related impact would occur if:the addition of,project-related traffic results in the following: • Deterioration of a signalized intersection from', an acceptable LOS to an. unacceptable LOS; • An increase in the V/C ratio more than 0.01 at a signalized intersection operating at an=unacceptableLOS; • The degradation of LOS at an unsignalized'intersection to below mid-LOS D or causing an unsignalized intersection to meet trafficssignal wairants:based on peak hour volume:warrant for urban areas as listed in the'Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices(MUTCD); • Creation of'significant` traffic impacts not"identified-during the analysis :of the project traffic because of incremental traffic from construction ofthe,project; • Increased hazards or,congestions due to a design feature.or incompatible uses; • Inadequate emergency access; and: • A conflict with adopted alternative transportation policies,•plans, or programs. Existing Conditions Vehicle traffic associated:with the proposed project would load directly onto'Grant"Street' and Lone Tree Way, which constitute the souther and northern borders of the project site, respectively. At"the proposed project site; Lone"Tree Way'has a total of'two lanes; while other segments outside of the study area to the west'have been"widened"to six lanes. 51 July 2005 i Prewett Ranch Initial Study Grent"Street consists of two (2)-segments in the proJect.area,. 'The first Segment of Grant_ Street extends east from Shady-Willowiane and,,connects;to: Minneso ;:,Avenue The' second",se,inent extends west from Brentwood Boulevard :and. provides access to residential properties.; The City Qf, Brentwood,is proposing to: extend Grant Street'to provide al-parallel route to Lone Tree Way and Sand,:Creek.Road All infe'rsections studied were",identified'as curreritly operatmg atfan acceptable-L0S (see Table 7) �- TABLE 7 ; EXISTING 2005)PEAK-HOUR'LEVELDF:SERVICE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS- - ..... VIC Ratto 6r LoCalifort' Z Control Peak Hour Dela .. LOS en Lone-Tree lU.HaraAv y, ua r Srgrial '41'9, _ D48 -: A' . Lane TreeWay(AndersanLane- + SSS" -- AM 17seconds"" ' C' ' PM 22 seconds" C AIv1" Lane Tree Way l er,6( otari"Btvd + Signal . PM 0.48 A, Grant Street!Brentwood Blvd' ' Stgn.,al D B5 _Be Ph1 0.70; -'- B Sand Creek Rd!6rentwood Blvd ,; Signal 9-'44,: A PAA 0;67, Notes: - t, ..I ' Signals S+gna)ized;+Mersachon;S5S Side?siieetstap' - 2 Vdume to capaafy ra4o determ+ned for a1t`3gna1a&d iruersechons'usrngCCTA'EOS methodology. For al{waystaP controNed ,r mtersegpns,average delay calrailated usin`g`the Highway Capay>ry.'Manuar(Transportation,Research 8aard 2000)metlroddogy yFor Snde street stop contro1w intersedons,delay calculated foreside sheet' movement operaLng underfraffic control Worst s+de street movement o reported: Source:,Fehr S Peers;2005` Near-Term Conditions `The Near Term:scenario traffic,irieWdes;existing>traffic.counts.and traff c.from.approved: ,developments Therefore(the Near-Terin scenario rep rments.the,likely traffic-levels with:, the opening"of the"project within"the:next several°years`. The;latest City ofSrentwood Proaect Status:Report (January. 2005) proxides;=a:.list .of approved"deyeIopments. A number. of dev,elopmenis were,.identified that could add" additional traffic through the study area (see table 6 of the.Traffic;Report";for";the hst) excepf-for locations where the project will be constructing improvements such as the ,project connection to Anderson Lane; south of Lone:Tree Way. The NearJerm lane configurations are the same,:as the existing,roadways. Traffic generated by he known NearJerm developments was.added to the:,existing traffic volumes toprovide:the basis.for the Near-Tehn`analysiS'ofproject impacts. ; The Near-Term traffic assessment identified five,(S) intersections°:that would operate-'at deficientlevels: .However,', onl.ythree (3) of the.five intersections would.lave significant impactsbecause,the addition of the project traffic,causes:the VLC ratio to hot.increase at the Lone Tree Way/Ot'Hara Avenue and 'Sand Creek" Road/Brentwood Boulevard intersections (refer to table 8 below). Below are the three (3) impacted intersections,; • , Lone;Tree WayiIAnderson:Lane; . • Lon1.e Tree Way/Brentwood Boulevard; and.. • Grant Street/BrentWood Boulevard; 52 July 2005 .. -Preweit Ranch Initial Study. , s TABLE 8' NEAR-TERM(2007)WITHOUTAAND VATH%PROJECT;PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVEL OF;SERVICE,, FOR sidNALIZEO INTERSECTIONS a< ="r Peak . . Withcutproject `,; . WithProject_ fiterseetion Control Hour V_7c Ratio' LOS, ; VIC Ratio' LOS W *^f< Lone Tree.Way1 O'Hara Avenue: Signal :AAd 6,T1` C' 0.71- < C" i 04.. :x;. F A.04 F. Lone Tree.Way 1 Anderson Laner. SSS 1�1vt s5U seconds. F, , -SO;seconds . tiF PFt. >30 seoonds " 'F ` >50 seAonds `F Lone-Tree:Way/Brentvrood Blvd. Signal AM 083„ D D 8qi. D" „ PM 1. 21 FF O!Hara"Avenue 1 Grant"Stteet,: Signal AM 0:13 A .. 0,131 A RM 0.15A, ii, OiSu� tA. ` Ate 10 set onds A Anderson Lane(Prewett Ranch Access SSS' Not Built RM- 11seconds" B AM, Grant Street!AndersotilLane' Signal FM Not Built 0.21 A Gran}5tree AM 1,1i' F" M 1T F ` 1/Brentwood t3fvd Signal, ec Sand Creek Rd 1"Brentw6o&Blvd Signal AM OJO. B. 0.70; PM 0.93: : E: Q93s, E .. 1: Signal signalized intersection,-SSS--side street stop controlled intersection 21 Voiuinean-capacity ratio determined for all signalized intersections using,CCTA LOS:methodology: 3: Delay at unsignalized intersections shown in.seconds of delay based on 2000 HC64imethodology; source:Fehr B"Peers,2005: For the traffic report, Segment 1 of the State Route 4 Bypass(Bypass), which is expected I.to:;be"complete in 2007, is assumed to be incomplete-for"the near=term:.Lssessment The completion of Segment;] would reduce Traffic volumes on.many of"the"roadways in the' project area: Additionally;. the analysis ;assumes that 'the project would" construct Anderson.Lane (with bicycle lanes):south to connectthe:project'to"Grant Street and Lone Tree Way (north o f the piojddt"boundAry),.Anderson'Lane:and O'"Nara Avenue"are;opep; (south.of Grant`Street), and O'Hara Avenue is not open:: Lone Tree Way/Anderson Lane The.:intersection of Lone Tri and Anderson Lane is expected1o;operate at a level of:service (LOS) of"`F~ after the"addition of the-project traffiic, �An LOS'Yexceeds-the City significance threshold of LOS D. The LOS F derives from the conflict'between vehicles turning into and out of Anderson Lane and the,heavy through volumes on Lone Tree Way. However, prior to the introduction of the proposed project' raffic.. the intersection would operate: at LOS F. Therefore; the Intersection would operate at'a ' deficient Aevel of service with or without the proposed project traffic,'resulting .in a potentially significant impact: Lone Tree Way/Brentwood Boulevard The intersection of Lone.Tree Way and Brentwood>Boulevard;is'projected to operate.at LOS F in the near-term traffic assessment after the addition of the.proposed project in the PM peak period. The current City of Brentwood Capital Improvement Program (CIP) 53 July:2005 i Prewett Rancb Initial Study proposes to widen Lone,Tree Way through the Lone:.Tree Way/Brentwood Boulevard location from two (2) lanesad :f6ur'(4). Ph' :.to the introduction of project traffic, the, intersection would:aperaEe:a't'I ©S,F in the PM peak pend.= Therefore, the 11intersection w6uld,6perate';at,4 defcientfleveI of,service-with°or Without:the:proposed°project traffic. u no t the planned improvemeht-has been coixipleted, resulting.in a. 'sntentially pgnif zpnn . unpacOL t; Grant-Street/Brentwood!Bouleazd The intersection of GradStreet.and Brentvvopd toulevard is`prolected to operate at LOS F in the AM, and PM periods affe'r the addition ofille proposed project traffic. Grant Sfreet would serve�as_the main access route to`.the:piojeGt with Lone Tree,Way as?a secondary access, route. Grant' Street would :also, provide access to other. recently=. constnicted'.and approved projects in°the Prewett Ranch project area .:With the increase' in development, the-volumes on the eastbound-approach on Grant Street are ezpected by Fehr & Peers`#o nearly triple,from the ex*stang•caants tivtthin tfenext one (1) to two { ) years. ,Prior to the introduction of the proposed protect traffic, the intersection would Operate at,MS:"F. Therefore,the intersection would operate at.a deficient Level of service, with or without the.pxoposed pr`ojecYtraffic,resuiting in;a potentraMY Sigrufeant:impact;. tr mutative Future Conditions The cumulative future traffic assessment xassumes that ail the: planned,. roadway improvements#have b'e'en impidineinted'and completed, including 1 z • all segments ofthe Bypass, • the Lone Tree, Way undercrossing of the Union Pacific, Railroad tiracks arid. widening to four and six lanes,.-east and west of the tracks,respectively; • extending O'Mara. Avenue as a continuous roadway from, Lane Tree Way- to .. Central Boulevard; and; •= the widening,of Brentwood Boulevard to four lanes througbouf Brentwood." Because of the above im'provements, all but one of the intersections studied by Fehr& Peers would operate at an acceptable levelof service bath with and Without the'proposed project traffic(see Tablel9). The Prew.ett Ranch Access t Anderson Lane intersection is expected to operate at LOS E after the introduction;of project traffic: in the; PM peak period; 54 July 2005 Prewett Ranch Initial Study TABLES; CUMULATIVE(2025)WITHOUr'iAND WITH PROJECT PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LEVELOFSERVICE-SIGNALIZE()INTERSECTIONS ., SPeak: Without Pir1WIth1Project Intersection Control Ratio or LOS Ratfo or,,.,, LOS Houi V!C VIC Deiny�' �Delay�' " Lone Tree way[O'Hara Avenue Signa AM 0.53 A 054 A PM oAt6 _ ` ''FA . 0.47.., .,. ,A AM tl40 .: A' 041 A Lone Tree W*!Anderson Lane Signal .:0:42,a: A Loh6Tree Way.l,Bre6tw6od Blvd: Signal' AM'. SS-45. fi 04B A PM" 048 _ A 449 _ A' 0'Hata'A`ventielPre WettRanch`Access SSS .AM` =Not Built'' 12sec B' PM ' 12 sec, B. Attdetsan Lane t Prewett Ranch'Access SSS , : AM Nol,Butlf: 21"_sec C' Ph4 d6 sec E O'Hara Avenue i Granf Street Signal , RM 0.34-_ A 0.35 A: `' A, Granf5tieet/`AndeisonlaneSignal' A 0:14:"E A: PM 0:12 A OA3 A Grant StreetI Brentwood.Btvd Signal AM 025 A' 0.25 A - PM 0:29 A 039 A AM Sand Greek Road'I Brenh4bod Blvd. Signal 0.2.1 A 0.26 A PM 0.35 A 0:35 A Notes: f 1:..Signal=signalized.intersection.SSS=sWe street stop controlled rote section; 2. Volume-to•capa' ratio'datermined for ali;signalized intersections using:CCTA LOS methodology; 3. Delayatunsipalizedintersections.shown:in seconds of delay based on200DHCMmethodology. Source:Fehr&peers:2005: t With the development of.adjacent properties, the,.traffe'volumes on Anderson.Lane. are expected bvIehr&Peers to increase and therefore create delays.for vehicles turning4rito and'out.of the proposed project at the Prewett Ranch.Access / Anderson.Lane location; resulting in.A potentially significant impact. Conclusion . The increased traffic from the proppsedk project would cause an impact forthe near-term.. and the cumulative scenarios. Therefore, the Prewett Ranch project would have a potentially sgnificantirnpact on traffic in the project area. Mitieation Measures Implementation of the following mitigation measures would mitigate potential impacts to a less-than-significant level- XV-42 The developer shall pay applicable thoroughfare facility fees (plus any ' annual increase) in effect at the.time of building permit issuance and shall participate in the City's Capital Improvement Financing Plan it (CIFP) to finance necessary roadway infrastructure. In addition, this i specific project may be conditioned to pay its fair share:of other off-site improvements that are outside the parameters of the CIP. 55 July-2005 Prewett Ranch Initial Study XV43 . T],e deue1, shalt secure.alt necessary per►nxts from the iCantrra Cosfa L^ounty "Flom:>vo�xtrol & WatenxGonservation District (Distric( and EBMUD for;the eztensxon of Anderson Lane, bej?orrd;tla`e; subrtursiotx hour:clary°aril any oihertiuorlc within the:right-ol=`way.pf said agencies. Additional permitting from the Arml .y Corps of Engineers, the Catifarnla Department of 1xs1 ` and,Gamo;;,and .Iher.r. California Region l Water Quatiry Corrtrol:Board may be "q !p_ c The:proposed protect pwould not require any changes, to existyng; regional air traffic activity and the`project site is not.located.near an.arport. Therefore, rio`irnpact:would occur,' 1 d. The design`of the proposed projectywould`comply .with the City of Brenttuooddesign standards:. Compliance with design standards would,ensure that the proposed .project would not include:any unusual designfeatures sn ftie layout of theinternal; streets that would increase Hazards: Therefore, `the.pro;osed: project would; :have;a less-tlrarr:- sign leant impactwith regard to hazards create by project design features: e The'protecf site is accessthle'from a vanety of roadways that,provide;access,to residential streets 1'eadirg dir`ecfly#o the<individual homes F�urtlermore as:stated above, the poject would comply with fhe City of Brei twood'deszg-n,standards. Therefore, it;is.extremely unlikely,that an emergency vehicle;would be`tilocked of oh structed'while',driving within the;proposed proje ;viite; However,,with parking allowed near-the pr6idet,access points (Lone Tree;Way At.itlid Prewett Ranch Access and;Anderson:Lane,, and'G"rant Street.at Anderson Lane),the potential exists for the.olastructian of an emergency vehicle; In addition to the above;teI porary mpacts:during construction could occur. Delivery, of materials would potentially cause,added,congestion,to-#he.project,area.roadways during; peak liburs. .. < The potential obstmction of emergency vehicles; and construction added .congestion would be a'potentiallysignificant impacts Mitigation Measure Implementation: of the following`:mitigation' measures would mitigate potential impacts to a less-than-signifcant level:. XV-44 Prion to approval of Improvement.Plans and.in.accordance with the Fehr &.Peers Traffc ,Impact:Analysis (February,2005); the applicant shall restrict on-streetparking,within 50feet of the"project erxtrances as approved by the City Engineer; f The City of Brentwood p�king requirement for single-family residential unit.is two (2). spaces per. residence. Based on the ahove,'the proposed project would prvide 480 spaces. In !addition, the internal roadways provide parking on both sides creating. extensive parking opportunities. Therefore,,because`the project provides parking spaces consistent with the City of Brentwood Zoning Ordinariee; a less-than-significant impact would occur: 56 July 2005 Prewett Ranch Initial Siudy g.,. The_ Ciryof Brerirwood General,-Plan (adopte&.Jn; 2001) :clearly indicates the City's preference to-accomtnodate,;all modes„of transportation.-This policy tater the following: 'Develop'and maintain a balanced'ti ansportation sysfem within;the;:City that provides a choice of transit;,bicycle;equestrian pedestrian, and pnVate automobile modes."" All oftl e major roadways would be consistent with,Crty standards and'.construcfed with the required ;bicycle and pedestrian'`facilities. For'exainpl`e; Ariderson Lane Would be, constructed to,include both sidewalks and in-street bicycle lanes. The,typical,interior streets would also be constructed with sidewalk's:' Haiwever, pedestnan`;exposure., to V ehicular traffic when crossing: the proposed'project interrial roadways can be further minimize.d,,as recommended by Fehr &Peers. The-unnecessary exposure ofpedestrians to potential,vehicular hazards would cause a potentially significant impact: Miti�ahon;Measir'e= ; Implementation of' the following. mifigatiori measurewould mitigate potential impacts toa Tess=than-significant leYel: ' XV-45” Prior to approval;oflmprovement Plans,,the applicant shall show traffic cairn ng'meusures of atl internal oadway iritersect ons. to be reviewed and.approved by thel•Chy Engineer.' I . Potentially: #potentially: 'significant Leri-Than- No Issues signiricant:- Weis Si 14 impact. Impant 'Mitigation. Ittq�acF - inoorpmted XYI. UTILITIESAND SERHCE'SYSTEMS. I GVquld rheproject a. ' Exceed wastewater treatmentrequirements of 0 �t ❑ p the.applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. , Require or result in the construction of new ❑ >K. ❑ ❑ 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 ❑ X ❑ ❑ storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing'facilities,the construction of which could cause s gnificantenvironmental.effects? d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve ❑ >t ❑ p the project from existing entitlements and, resources,or are new or expanded entitlements ; needed? e. Result in a determination by he wastewater ❑ if , ❑ ❑ i`" treatment provider which serves or may.serve- the erve ,the projectthat`ithas adequate capacity to.serve the proJect's projected demand in addition to the 57 July 1005 i Prewett Ranch Initial'Stoy - Poieniiett}; Polenti511y Sigpific5nt Less-Than-: No Issues` - Significant unless Si rlon. 1,, t C. impact Mtttge"tion. Iriipayt ... .. .... .._. _. Inemparated provider's existing comrriitinents? f. Be.served by a landfill kith sufficientpermitted ❑ ❑. ; capacity to accommodate the projects solid. waste disposal needs? g Comply with federal,sta,,tei an d.local stautes..and. regulations related to solid D ❑ ,- X O. waste? Discussion a-e. The proposed project includes the development of 240 single family residences, 4.22. acres of park area, and 3 4 acres<of additianaI open space and trails as weir:as internal circulation systems-and-street lighting requirmg-the installation and extension of all utility lines,for water, sewer, electricity,natural gas,telephone, and cabie'communleations. The. General EIan EIR indicates that Pacific:Gas &Electric has sufficient facilipes`to provide gas and electricity,to the General Plan area The,:C'ity-of Brentwood provides water and. sewer service to the. entire City,; Including the project site The General Plan EIR concludes that the City has adequate wvater to implement:buildout of the,General Plan. The proposed project is consistent'witkthe type and intensity,of development Identified in the General Plait. As a result, the City!of Brentwood;possesses adequate capacity to serve the development, conditioned upon•payment of sullictentimprovement fees by the developerof the project, in+conjunction wtth the City's'Capital�.ImVenient Financing Program. -However, to guarantee adequate delivery capacity to serve;the proposed. project, the developer Iriusti ensure that th&r'ojeet'is adequately 66nnected1othe existing' facilities. Therefore, the.impact fromthe`proposed project on public utilities would be potentially.sign ficont:. Mitieation 1Vleasure: Implementation of the following mitigation measure ,would reduce the impacts to.a - �.; less.tlian=sagnifcont level( XVI-'46' The devefia shall be,rgquiretod co, ect m t/te existi�;g Brentfvood utility network as'well as,pay all,applicable fees in effect'at the time of biildtitg permit issuance.` Improv'ement plans i►>dicatiiig,co►rfarmance to City of Brentwood Standards shall be pr'epared,,submitted, 'and approved by tlre,City Engtreer prior to elicroachmerit permit issuance. I' the development of single:family residences ata density fg: The proposed project consists of that is consistent,, the General Plan land use designations for the protect site. The solid waste generated by the development would,be;consistent with the levels that have been anticipated for .the site. The City of Bienttivood'operates, its own solid,.waste disposal service and has.,anticipated this potential increase In usage. Therefore, the impact of the proposedprotect wouldbe� less than'-r* ifica�it. 58' July:2005. Prewett Ranch "Initial Study' Potentially. Potentially Significant Less-"nwn= ,. Issues Significant Unless Signifennt No fact - = - impact Mttt ?1cn:. lfnpact;. . Incatpor5ted V1 MANDATOR.YFINDINGS OF.SIGNIFICANCE. a. Does the project have.the potential to degrade ❑. �.❑ _ x _ ❑ the quality of the environment; substantially` reduce the habitat of a fish-or wildlife species, cause- fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eli ninate a plant or animal communityreduce the ntirriber . or restrict the range of a rare or endangered,plant or animal or eliminate important-examples of the: major"periods of Californa.history or Prehistory? b. Dges the,project have theotentlal;to;achieve D (� X` ❑ P , ;.: short term;to the disadvantage of long-term; environmental goals? . c. Does.the project have impacts that are ❑ ❑ X I7 indivdually limited;'but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively eonsideratile" means that the incremental effects, f:&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)? A Does:the project have environmental effects'` ❑ ❑ X ❑ which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either�directlgor indirectly? Discussion a,b. Development that converts rural areasto iAan/suburban uses 'rnay be regarded as achieving; short-term; goals to the disadvantage of long-term' environmental 'goals: However; the inevitable impacts resulting from population and economic growth are mitigated by long-range planning to establish'pohctes, programs, and measures for the efficient and"economical use of.resources:` Long-term environmental goals, .both broad and specific, have been addressed,previously in several environmental documents, the most comprehensive being the General Plan Final EIR certified in 1493, and the General Pian Update BIR certified in 2001. Therefore, the impact is less-tlzan-significant. c,d. The loss of prime agricultural land is,considered a"cumulatively 'considerable impact?' and a "substantial`adverse impact;" both direct and indirect: However,"this'Intti"al'Study includes mitigation.in order to reduce 'the-impacts of the proposed project on Prime Farmland conversion to a less-than-significant: level. Other cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project may be identified in the categories o ,popu ation growth, use of resources; demand for ;services; and physical 'changes'to the natural environment. These impacts would be considered potentially significant. However,, either the above impacts would be mitigated to a degree through mitigation measures 59 July 2065; Pieivef.Ranch ImhaStudy cumulatively applied as development occurs, or they have been considered to`:be subject to findings of overriding bene€it bythe.lead agency, in this case, the City. of Brentwood. The previous mitigation) and findings of overriding beneft result in a less-than- . 191 cant impact for the proposed project, 60 July 2005