Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

Staff_Report_for_Agenda_Item_4_Large_File_Size.pdf by BayAreaNewsGroup

VIEWS: 32 PAGES: 372

									                                        STAFF REPORT

                     PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF

                                         JUNE 17, 2014



PREPARED BY:                                 Erik Nolthenius, Planning Manager
                                             enolthenius@brentwoodca.gov

AGENDA ITEM & FILE NUMBER:                   Item No. 4; General Plan Amendment No. 14-002

PROJECT NAME:                                General Plan Update

PROJECT LOCATION:                            Citywide

PROJECT SIZE:                                Citywide

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:                         The project includes a General Plan amendment
                                             (GPA 14-002) to facilitate a comprehensive
                                             General Plan Update, including certification of a
                                             Final Environmental Impact Report. The current
                                             General Plan was last comprehensively updated in
                                             1993 (a partial update involving the Growth
                                             Management, Land Use, and Circulation Elements
                                             was completed in 2001).

DATE OF NOTICE:                              A notice of public hearing was published in the
                                             Brentwood Press on June 6, 2014

GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:                    Citywide

ZONING:                                      Citywide

OWNER/APPLICANT:                             Various/City of Brentwood

BACKGROUND:

General Plan Update Preparation

State law requires every city and county to prepare and maintain a planning document called a
general plan. A general plan is a “constitution” or “blueprint” for the future physical development
of a city or county. The City’s General Plan was last comprehensively updated in 1993 (a partial
update involving the Growth Management, Land Use, and Circulation Elements was completed
in 2001) and an update to the Housing Element was completed in 2012.

In the fall of 2012, the City began a multi-year process to update the General Plan. As part of
the General Plan Update process, an “Existing Conditions Report” was prepared to establish a
baseline of existing conditions in the city. Two other reports – “Opportunities and Constraints”
and “Land Use Alternatives” – were prepared to identify the challenges facing the community
and to provide an opportunity for citizens and policymakers to come together in a process of
developing a common vision for the future.

The General Plan Update includes a framework of goals, policies, and actions that will guide the
community toward its common vision. The General Plan is supported with a variety of maps,
including most notably a Land Use Map and Circulation Diagram.

Visioning Workshops

In November and December 2012, the General Plan Update team held four public visioning
workshops to help kickoff the process. City residents and stakeholders attended workshops at
the Brentwood Community Center and the Brentwood Senior Activity Center. The workshops
provided an opportunity for the public to offer its thoughts on what it values about the community
and the city, and what important issues should be addressed in updating the General Plan.

Online Survey and Polls

City staff and the consultant team developed two online surveys to gather additional information
from the public related to the General Plan Update. The online surveys were available through
the General Plan Update website and were developed to pose similar questions to those posed
at the visioning workshops, and to gather additional details regarding City service levels,
residential homeownership, employment locations, and economic development priorities.

General Plan Update Working Group

The 12-member General Plan Update Working Group was appointed by the City Council in
February 2013. The Working Group, which consisted of members from the City Council,
Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and the community at-large,
collaborated with City staff and the General Plan Update consultant team throughout the
development of the General Plan. The Working Group met 14 times between March 2013 and
February 2014 to identify key issues and challenges that Brentwood faces over the next 20-30
years, and to develop the comprehensive set of goals, policies, and actions contained in the
General Plan. Each Working Group meeting was open to the public, and numerous members of
the public and other local interested agencies attended the meetings and provided detailed
input to the Working Group. In addition, each meeting of the Working Group was recorded and
posted to the project website.

Parcel Change Requests

Property owners within the General Plan Planning Area were provided an opportunity to submit
parcel change requests to have the land use designation on their properties changed as part of
the General Plan Update. Parcel change request applications were made available on the
General Plan Update website and at City Hall. Applicants were given 60 days, from mid-April
2013 through mid-June 2013, to submit applications. Applicants were asked to submit a
detailed application, which included information regarding existing uses on the property,
proposed land use designations, and an explanation of how the proposed change fits within the
context of the General Plan Update. Over 40 separate applications for parcel changes were
received by the City. These requested changes were considered by the General Plan Update
Working Group, Planning Commission, and the City Council during the development of the Draft
Land Use Map.


                                                2
City Council and Planning Commission Workshops

The City Council and Planning Commission held numerous public workshops and hearings to
review and consider the goals and policies of the existing General Plan, to review input from the
Visioning Workshops, to receive information relevant to the specific topics addressed at the
Working Group meetings, and to provide specific direction and guidance to staff and the
consultant team regarding how goals should be achieved and how current issues should be
addressed in the General Plan Update. Following is a list of these public meetings:

      September 24, 2013 – joint workshop to review Draft Goal and Policy Set #1
      October 22, 2013 – joint workshop to review Draft Goal and Policy Set #2
      December 3, 2013 – City Council workshop to review the Draft Land Use Map
      December 10, 2013 – City Council meeting to select the Draft Land Use Map
      January 14, 2014 – joint workshop to review Draft Goal and Policy Set #3
      February 25, 2014 – joint workshop to review Draft General Plan
      March 18, 2014 – Planning Commission scoping meeting for the Draft EIR
      May 29, 2014 – special City Council workshop to review public comments received

Public Outreach

For all public workshops and meetings, the Community Development Department conducted
extensive outreach, using a wide variety of methods and tools, to inform and encourage the
community to participate in the General Plan Update process. Following is a list of methods and
tools used to inform the public of meetings, workshops, and the status of the General Plan
Update work efforts:

      General      Plan    Update     Website:        The    City   maintains    a    website
       (www.brentwood.generalplan.org) devoted to informing the public about, and
       encouraging participation in, the General Plan Update process. The website includes all
       public notices, all workshop materials, presentations given to the Working Group,
       Planning Commission, and City Council, background materials, draft policy documents,
       and draft versions of the General Plan Land Use Map.
      General Plan Update Newsletters:            Periodic newsletters were prepared and
       disseminated to the public via e-mail, the General Plan Update website, and posted in
       locations throughout the city. The newsletters provide information regarding the status
       of the work efforts, upcoming meetings and workshops, and opportunities for public
       participation.
      Local Newspapers: Public notices, meeting notices, press releases, and public service
       announcements were published in the local newspaper prior to each public meeting or
       workshop.
      E-mail distribution list: This list was developed and maintained over time, and
       included approximately 300 agencies, organizations, stakeholders, and individuals.
      Regular City publications: These publications included the weekly City Manager
       Update, the monthly Brentwood Business eNewsletter, and the quarterly Brentwood
       Connection.




                                               3
Public Review of the Draft General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)

In April 2014, staff and the consultant team completed the Draft General Plan and Draft EIR.
Both of these documents were released for a 45-day public review and comment period that
began on April 8, 2014 and ended on May 23, 2014. These documents were made available to
the public and interested agencies via multiple methods, including:

      Posting the documents to the City’s General Plan Update website;
      Distribution to the General Plan Update mailing list via e-mail; and
      Direct mailings to key State and regional agencies.

Additionally, printed copies were made available for public review at the Community
Development Department.

GENERAL PLAN:

General Plan Content

The General Plan contains the following elements (i.e., chapters):

   •   The Circulation Element correlates closely with the Land Use Element, and identifies
       the general locations and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares,
       transportation routes, and alternative transportation facilities necessary to support a
       multi-modal transportation system. This element is intended to facilitate mobility of
       people and goods throughout Brentwood by a variety of transportation modes, including
       bicycle, pedestrian, and transit.
   •   The Community Services and Facilities Element includes goals, policies, and actions
       that address public services and facilities, including: parks, trails, and recreation
       facilities; police services; fire protection services; schools; and civic, library, medical, and
       other community facilities. While not specifically required by State law for inclusion in
       the General Plan, the Community Services and Facilities Element is a critical component
       in meeting the infrastructure and public services needs of businesses and residents.
   •   The Conservation and Open Space Element addresses the conservation,
       development, and use of natural resources, riparian environments, native plant and
       animal species, soils, mineral deposits, cultural/historical resources, air quality, and
       alternative energy. It also details plans and measures for preserving open space for
       natural resources and the managed production of resources.
   •   The Economic Development Element seeks to sustain and diversify the City’s
       economy, recognizing the importance of supporting existing and local businesses while
       broadening and expanding the employment base and economic opportunities within the
       city. Long-term fiscal sustainability will be supported by economic growth from
       increasing the range of business, commercial services, and high-quality jobs in the city.
       Providing a broader economic base is intended to improve the City’s economic vitality
       while increasing access for residents to local goods and services and local employment
       opportunities.
   •   The Fiscal Sustainability Element presents goals, policies, and actions relating to the
       City's long-term financial health and prosperity. The ability of the City to provide services
       such as police protection, parks, recreation, code enforcement, planning, and public
       works is dependent on the City collecting adequate revenues. Brentwood's economic
       development and fiscal vitality are inter-dependent. A vital local economy ensures that
       private investment is taking place in the community while generating needed tax


                                                  4
       revenues to support public services and facilities. When local government is adequately
       financed, it can in turn provide the infrastructure, planning, and services essential for
       maintaining a high quality of life and environment where businesses can prosper.
   •   The Growth Management Element is part of the General Plan because the City wants
       to ensure orderly and fiscally sustainable growth, while maintaining high levels of public
       services and infrastructure, and because Contra Costa County voters approved a 0.5%
       sales tax increase in November 1988, commonly known as “Measure C,” that includes
       both Transportation Improvement and Growth Management Programs (GMP). Growth
       management systems promote a variety of environmental, social, and economic goals,
       including balancing the service costs and revenues associated with development;
       protecting environmental and aesthetic qualities; encouraging the efficient use of land,
       water, and energy resources; preserving community identity; and protecting the
       economic base of the community.
   •   The Infrastructure Element includes goals, policies, and actions that address the
       following infrastructure services and facilities: water supplies, sewer services, storm
       drainage infrastructure, and solid waste disposal. While not specifically required by
       State law for inclusion in the General Plan, the Infrastructure Element is a critical
       component in meeting the infrastructure and utility services needs of businesses and
       residents.
   •   The Land Use Element designates the general distribution and intensity of residential,
       commercial, industrial, open space, public/semi-public, and other categories of public
       and private land uses. The Land Use Element includes the Land Use Map, which
       identifies land use designations for each parcel in the city limits and Planning Area
       (Figure 2.0-3).
   •   The Noise Element establishes standards and policies to protect the community from
       the harmful and annoying effects of exposure to excessive noise levels. This element
       includes strategies to reduce land use conflicts that may result in exposure to
       unacceptable noise levels.
   •   The Safety Element establishes policies and programs to protect the community from
       risk associated with geologic, flood, and fire hazards, as well as setting standards for
       emergency preparedness.

Goals, Policies, and Actions

Each element of the General Plan contains a series of goals, policies, and actions. The goals,
policies, and actions provide guidance to the City on how to direct change, manage growth, and
manage resources over the 20-year life of the General Plan. The following provides a
description of each and explains the relationship of each:

      A goal is a description of the general desired result that the City seeks to create through
       the implementation of the General Plan.
      A policy is a specific statement that guides decision-making as the City works to
       achieve its goals. Once adopted, policies represent statements of City regulations. The
       General Plan’s policies set out the standards that will be used by City staff, the Planning
       Commission, and the City Council in their review of land development projects, resource
       protection activities, infrastructure improvements, and other City actions. Policies are
       on-going and require no specific action on behalf of the City.
      An action is an implementation measure, procedure, technique, or specific program to
       be undertaken by the City to help achieve a specified goal or implement an adopted
       policy. The City must take additional steps to implement each action in the General
       Plan. An action is something that can and will be completed.


                                                5
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Draft Environmental Impact Report

The City, as lead agency, determined that the General Plan Update is a “project” within the
definition of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA requires the preparation of
an EIR prior to approving any project that may have a significant impact on the environment. For
the purposes of CEQA, the term “project” refers to the whole of an action, which has the
potential for resulting in a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical
change in the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378[a]).

An EIR must disclose the expected direct and indirect environmental impacts associated with a
project, including impacts that cannot be avoided, growth-inducing effects, impacts found not to
be significant, and significant cumulative impacts, as well as identify mitigation measures and
alternatives to the proposed project that could reduce or avoid its adverse environmental
impacts. CEQA requires government agencies to consider and, where feasible, minimize
environmental impacts of proposed development, and an obligation to balance a variety of
public objectives, including economic, environmental, and social factors.

The Draft EIR was prepared according to CEQA requirements to evaluate the potential
environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the General Plan. The Draft EIR
also discusses alternatives to the General Plan, and proposes mitigation measures that will
offset, minimize, or otherwise avoid significant environmental impacts. The Draft EIR has been
prepared in accordance with CEQA, California Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; the
Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (California Code of Regulations, Title 14,
Chapter 3).

Final Environmental Impact Report

The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the 2014 Brentwood General Plan project
has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
State CEQA Guidelines. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 requires that an FEIR consist of
the following:

      The Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) or a revision of the draft;
      Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR, either verbatim or in
       summary;
      A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR;
      The responses of the lead agency to significant environmental concerns raised in the
       review and consultation process; and
      Any other information added by the lead agency.

In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132(a), the Draft EIR is incorporated by
reference into the Final EIR.

The Brentwood City Council will review and consider the Final EIR. If the City finds that the
Final EIR is “adequate and complete,” the City Council may certify the Final EIR in accordance
with CEQA. The rule of adequacy generally holds that an EIR can be certified if:

      The EIR shows a good faith effort at full disclosure of environmental information; and


                                                6
      The EIR provides sufficient analysis to allow decisions to be made regarding the
       proposed project in contemplation of environmental considerations.

Upon review and consideration of the Final EIR, the City Council may take action to approve,
revise, or reject the project. A decision to approve the 2014 Brentwood General Plan, for which
the EIR identifies significant environmental effects, must be accompanied by written findings in
accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093. A Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program would also be adopted in accordance with Public Resources Code
Section 21081.6(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 for mitigation measures that have
been incorporated into or imposed upon the project to reduce or avoid significant effects on the
environment. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been designed to ensure
that these measures are carried out during project implementation, in a manner that is
consistent with the EIR.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

The Brentwood General Plan has been prepared to be a self-mitigating document. The policies
and actions provided in the General Plan provide mitigation for potentially significant and
significant environmental impacts, to the extent feasible. No additional mitigation is available,
as described in the Findings of Fact. The annual report on general plan status required
pursuant to the Government Code will serve as the monitoring and reporting program for the
project.

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires Brentwood, as the CEQA lead
agency to:

      Make written findings when it approves a project for which an environmental impact
       report was certified; and
      Identify overriding considerations for significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the
       EIR.

The findings explain how the City, as the lead agency, approached the significant and
potentially significant impacts identified in the environmental impact report prepared for the
2014 Brentwood General Plan (the Project). The statement of overriding considerations
identifies economic, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project that override any
significant environmental impacts that would result from the Project.

COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT GENERAL PLAN AND DRAFT EIR:

A total of 17 comment letters were received that addressed the content of the Draft General
Plan and/or the Draft EIR. Comments were received from the following agencies, organizations,
and individuals:

      San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
      East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy
      Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District
      Contra Costa County Public Works Department
      Chevron Environmental Management Company



                                                7
      City of Antioch
      Delta Stewardship Council
      California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
      Discovery Builders, Inc.
      East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD)
      Greenbelt Alliance
      Brentwood Union School District
      Grupe Investment Company, Inc.
      Property Owners Doug Moore and Grant Alvernaz
      Save Mount Diablo
      West Coast Home Builders, Inc.
      U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

On May 29, 2014 the Brentwood City Council held a public workshop to review the comments
received on the Draft General Plan and Draft EIR. The City Council directed that minor changes
be made to the General Plan and Land Use Map as a result of comments received. The
General Plan and Land Use Map contained in this agenda packet incorporate all edits and
direction provided by the City Council on May 29, 2014.

RECOMMENDATION:

      Adopt Resolution No. 14-025 recommending that the City Council certify the Final
       Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Update project, including the adoption
       of Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations
      Adopt Resolution No. 14-026 recommending that the City Council approve General Plan
       Amendment No. 14-002 for the General Plan Update project

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution No. 14-025
2. Resolution No. 14-026
3. Final Environmental Impact Report for the 2014 Brentwood General Plan Update, June
   2014
4. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the 2014 Brentwood
   General Plan Update, June 2014
5. General Plan, June 2014




                                              8
                     PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-025

       A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
       RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE FINAL
       ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, INCLUDING THE ADOPTION OF FINDINGS
       OF FACT AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, FOR THE
       GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROJECT.

         WHEREAS, in February 2010, the City Council conducted a planning workshop and
identified a strategic plan for the City Council and City staff to define both the City’s short-term
and long-term vision; and

       WHEREAS, on April 27, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2010-50
approving the City Council Goals and Strategic Plan. This plan included nine goals for the
community, with corresponding specific projects for their implementation; and

         WHEREAS, on May 10, 2011, staff presented a report to the City Council on the
possibility of undertaking a General Plan update. The City Council directed staff to return with a
draft strategic initiative to authorize this project; and

       WHEREAS, on October 25, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2011-154
adding a new project to the City Council Goals and Strategic Plan for the completion of a
comprehensive update to the General Plan; and

      WHEREAS, on February 14, 2012, the City Council reviewed the scope and
assignments for various committees, approved recommendations, and made appointments as
needed. As part of this action, the City Council established a General Plan Update Ad Hoc
Committee and appointed Vice Mayor Barr and Council Member Brockman to serve as
members; and

       WHEREAS, on April 10, 2012, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2012-45
approving the Draft General Plan Update Work Program and authorizing staff to solicit
proposals from consultants to assist in the General Plan Update process; and

        WHEREAS, on August 28, 2012, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2012-132
accepting a recommendation from the General Plan Update Ad Hoc Committee to select De
Novo Planning Group as the City’s consultant for the General Plan Update project, and directing
staff to prepare the necessary Professional Services Agreement for consideration at a future
meeting; and

       WHEREAS, on September 11, 2012, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2012-137
approving and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute a Professional Services
Agreement with De Novo Planning Group for preparation of the General Plan Update project, in
an amount not to exceed $701,288.50; and

       WHEREAS, on January 8, 2013, the City Council appointed Vice Mayor Bryant and re-
appointed Council Member Barr to the General Plan Update Ad Hoc Committee; and

      WHEREAS, on February 12, 2013, the City Council accepted the recommendation of
the General Plan Update Ad Hoc Committee and appointed Bob Brockman, John Fink, Kathy



                                                 1
Griffin, Bill Hill, Eileen Hofstadt, Dan O’Brien, Carissa Pillow, Claudette Staton, Fred
Vogelgesang, and Warren Williams to the General Plan Update Working Group, for terms
expiring upon completion of the General Plan Update; and

       WHEREAS, the City of Brentwood has determined that an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) should be prepared to analyze both the potential impacts and any necessary mitigation
measures for the General Plan Update project; and

        WHEREAS, the EIR evaluates impacts, mitigation, and alternatives at a program-level
for the General Plan Update project; and

        WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed project was
circulated on February 26, 2014 to trustee and responsible agencies, the State Clearinghouse,
and the public; and

       WHEREAS, a scoping meeting was held on March 18, 2014 with the Planning
Commission, and no public or agency comments on the NOP related to the EIR analysis were
presented or submitted during the scoping meeting; and

       WHEREAS, during the 30-day public review period for the NOP, which ended on March
28, 2014, six written comment letters were received on the NOP, and a summary of the NOP
comments is provided in Chapter 1.0 of the Draft EIR; and

        WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR was circulated to the State
Clearinghouse, all relevant agencies, and interested parties for a 45-day public comment
period, beginning on April 8, 2014 and ending on May 23, 2014; and

        WHEREAS, a total of 17 written comments were received during the public review
period for the Draft EIR, and written responses to those comments have been prepared and
included as part of the Final EIR, pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines; and

       WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing was published in the Brentwood Press on June 6,
2014, in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090; and

       WHEREAS, on June 17, 2014, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
consider the following:

       1. The recommendation that the City Council certify the Final EIR and adopt the
          Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the General Plan
          Update project; and

       2. The recommendation that the City Council approve a General Plan amendment
          (GPA 14-002) to adopt the General Plan Update.

       NOW, THEREFORE, after consideration of the record in these proceedings, including
the testimony, exhibits, and materials presented at the hearing, the Planning Commission
resolves as follows:

       1. That the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Update project, which
          consists of the Draft EIR and the Final EIR (collectively the EIR), has been



                                             2
           completed in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental
           Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines; and

      2. That the EIR was prepared, published, circulated, and reviewed in accordance with
         the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, and constitutes an
         adequate, accurate, objective, and complete Final Environmental Impact Report in
         full compliance with the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and

      3. That the EIR has been presented to it, that the Planning Commission has reviewed
         the EIR and has considered the information contained in the EIR prior to acting on
         the proposed project, and that the EIR reflects the Planning Commission’s
         independent judgment and analysis; and

      4. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093, and in support of its
         approval of the project, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council
         certify the Final EIR (Exhibit “A”) and adopt the Findings of Fact and Statement of
         Overriding Considerations (Exhibit “B”) in support of approval of the project; and

      5. The Planning Commission recommends that, upon approval of the project, the City’s
         Community Development Department file a notice of determination with the County
         Clerk of Contra Costa and, if the project requires a discretionary approval from any
         State agency, with the State Office of Planning and Research, pursuant to the
         provisions of CEQA Section 21152; and

      6. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e), the documents and other materials
         that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission has
         based its recommendation are located in, and may be obtained from, the City of
         Brentwood Community Development Department at 150 City Park Way, Brentwood,
         California.

       ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood at its regular meeting
of June 17, 2014, by the following vote:

AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:

                                                        APPROVED:



                                                        Lance Crannell
                                                        Planning Commission Chairperson

ATTEST:



Erik Nolthenius
Planning Manager


                                             3
                     PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 14-026

       A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BRENTWOOD
       RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A GENERAL PLAN
       AMENDMENT (GPA 14-002) TO ADOPT THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROJECT.

         WHEREAS, in February 2010, the City Council conducted a planning workshop and
identified a strategic plan for the City Council and City staff to define both the City’s short-term
and long-term vision; and

       WHEREAS, on April 27, 2010, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2010-50
approving the City Council Goals and Strategic Plan. This plan included nine goals for the
community, with corresponding specific projects for their implementation; and

         WHEREAS, on May 10, 2011, staff presented a report to the City Council on the
possibility of undertaking a General Plan update. The City Council directed staff to return with a
draft strategic initiative to authorize this project; and

       WHEREAS, on October 25, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2011-154
adding a new project to the City Council Goals and Strategic Plan for the completion of a
comprehensive update to the General Plan; and

      WHEREAS, on February 14, 2012, the City Council reviewed the scope and
assignments for various committees, approved recommendations, and made appointments as
needed. As part of this action, the City Council established a General Plan Update Ad Hoc
Committee and appointed Vice Mayor Barr and Council Member Brockman to serve as
members; and

       WHEREAS, on April 10, 2012, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2012-45
approving the Draft General Plan Update Work Program and authorizing staff to solicit
proposals from consultants to assist in the General Plan Update process; and

        WHEREAS, on August 28, 2012, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2012-132
accepting a recommendation from the General Plan Update Ad Hoc Committee to select De
Novo Planning Group as the City’s consultant for the General Plan Update project, and directing
staff to prepare the necessary Professional Services Agreement for consideration at a future
meeting; and

       WHEREAS, on September 11, 2012, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2012-137
approving and authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute a Professional Services
Agreement with De Novo Planning Group for preparation of the General Plan Update project, in
an amount not to exceed $701,288.50; and

       WHEREAS, on January 8, 2013, the City Council appointed Vice Mayor Bryant and re-
appointed Council Member Barr to the General Plan Update Ad Hoc Committee; and

        WHEREAS, on February 12, 2013, the City Council accepted the recommendation of
the General Plan Update Ad Hoc Committee and appointed Bob Brockman, John Fink, Kathy
Griffin, Bill Hill, Eileen Hofstadt, Dan O’Brien, Carissa Pillow, Claudette Staton, Fred
Vogelgesang, and Warren Williams to the General Plan Update Working Group, for terms
expiring upon completion of the General Plan Update; and


                                                 1
       WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing was published in the Brentwood Press on June 6,
2014, in accordance with City policies and Government Code Section 65090; and

        WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has adopted Resolution No. 14-025
recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report and adopt
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the General Plan Update
project; and

        WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood held a public hearing on
this project at its regular meeting of June 17, 2014; and

      WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the staff report, supporting
documents, public testimony, and all appropriate information that has been submitted with the
proposed project.

      NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of
Brentwood:

       A.     Hereby finds that:

              1.   The requested General Plan amendment has been processed in accordance
                   with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the
                   California Environmental Quality Act, in that the public hearing was duly
                   noticed and a Final Environmental Impact Report was prepared, including
                   discussion of the requested General Plan amendment.

              2.   Approval of the requested General Plan amendment is in the public interest
                   and accomplishes one of the goals identified in the City Council’s current
                   strategic plan.

              3.   The potential impacts of the requested General Plan amendment have been
                   assessed and have been determined not to be detrimental to the public
                   health, safety, or welfare. All potentially significant impacts have been
                   analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Report and have been mitigated
                   to less-than-significant levels, with the exception of those related to
                   Aesthetics and Visual Resources, Agricultural and Forest Resources, and
                   Noise, which have been noted as significant and unavoidable.

              4.   The requested General Plan amendment establishes a comprehensive
                   update to the City’s General Plan that is internally consistent within and
                   among the various elements, including the goals, policies, and actions of
                   each.

       B.     Hereby recommends that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No.
              14-002 to adopt the General Plan Update project.

This action is final unless an appeal is filed pursuant to Chapter 17.880 of the Brentwood
Municipal Code within ten (10) calendar days following Planning Commission action.




                                              2
       ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Brentwood at its regular meeting
of June 17, 2014, by the following vote:

AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:

                                                      APPROVED:



                                                      Lance Crannell
                                                      Planning Commission Chairperson

ATTEST:



Erik Nolthenius
Planning Manager




                                           3
	
  
	
  




       FINAL	
  ENVIRONMENTAL	
  IMPACT	
  REPORT	
  
       	
  
       FOR	
  THE	
  
       	
  
       2014	
  BRENTWOOD	
  GENERAL	
  PLAN	
  UPDATE	
  
       	
  
       SCH#	
  2014022058	
  
       	
  

       JUNE	
  2014	
  
       	
  
       	
  
       Prepared	
  for:	
  

       	
  
       City	
  of	
  Brentwood	
  
       Community	
  Development	
  Department	
  
       150	
  City	
  Park	
  Way	
  
       Brentwood,	
  CA	
  94513	
  
       	
  
       	
  
       	
  
       Prepared	
  by:	
  

       	
  
       De	
  Novo	
  Planning	
  Group	
  
       1020	
  Suncast	
  Lane,	
  Suite	
  106	
  
       El	
  Dorado	
  Hills,	
  CA	
  95762	
  
       www.denovoplanning.com	
  




              D e 	
   N o v o 	
   P l a n n i n g 	
   G r o u p 	
  

              A 	
   L a n d 	
   U s e 	
   P l a n n i n g , 	
   D e s i g n , 	
   a n d 	
   E n v i r o n m e n t a l 	
   F i r m 	
  
	
  
	
  
                                          	
  
         FINAL	
  ENVIRONMENTAL	
  IMPACT	
  REPORT	
  
                                          	
  

                                    FOR	
  THE	
  
                                          	
  
       2014	
  BRENTWOOD	
  GENERAL	
  PLAN	
  UPDATE	
  
                                          	
  

                         SCH#	
  2014022058	
  
                                          	
  

                                 JUNE	
  2014	
  
                                          	
  
                                          	
  
                                Prepared	
  for:	
  

                                          	
  
                        City	
  of	
  Brentwood	
  
                Community	
  Development	
  Department	
  
                        150	
  City	
  Park	
  Way	
  
                     Brentwood,	
  CA	
  94513	
  
                                        	
  
                                          	
  
                                 Prepared	
  by:	
  

                                          	
  
                       De	
  Novo	
  Planning	
  Group	
  
                     1020	
  Suncast	
  Lane,	
  Suite	
  106	
  
                       El	
  Dorado	
  Hills,	
  CA	
  95762	
  
                      www.denovoplanning.com	
  
	
  
       	
  
                                                                                TABLE	
  OF	
  CONTENTS	
                                    TOC	
  
	
  

FINAL	
  EIR	
  
Chapter	
                                                                                                                       Page	
  Number	
  

Executive	
  Summary .................................................................................................................... ES-­‐1	
  

1.0	
  Introduction ........................................................................................................................1.0-­‐1	
  
            1.1	
  Purpose	
  and	
  Intended	
  Uses	
  of	
  the	
  EIR ...................................................................1.0-­‐1	
  
            1.2	
  Environmental	
  Review	
  Process ..............................................................................1.0-­‐2	
  
            1.3	
  Organization	
  of	
  the	
  Final	
  EIR ..................................................................................1.0-­‐4	
  

2.0	
  Comments	
  on	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  and	
  Responses ..............................................................................2.0-­‐1	
  
            2.1	
  Introduction............................................................................................................2.0-­‐1	
  
            2.2	
  List	
  of	
  Commenters ................................................................................................2.0-­‐1	
  
            2.3	
  Comments	
  and	
  Responses .....................................................................................2.0-­‐2	
  

3.0	
  Errata...................................................................................................................................3.0-­‐1	
  
            3.1	
  Revisions	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR .......................................................................................3.0-­‐1	
  

Table	
                                                                                                                         Page	
  Number	
  
Table	
  2-­‐1:	
  List	
  of	
  Commenters	
  on	
  Draft	
  EIR ..............................................................................2.0-­‐1	
  




                   Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
                                  TOC-­‐1	
  
	
  
       TOC	
         TABLE	
  OF	
  CONTENTS	
  
	
  
                               	
  

                                                                   	
  

                                                                   	
  

                                                                   	
  

                                                                   	
  

                                                                   	
  

                                                                   	
  

                                                                   	
  

                                                                   	
  

                                                                   	
  

                                          This	
  page	
  left	
  intentionally	
  blank.	
  




       TOC-­‐2	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  
	
  
                                                                                        EXECUTIVE	
  SUMMARY	
                                                     ES	
  
	
  

INTRODUCTION	
  
The	
   City	
   of	
   Brentwood	
   (City)	
   has	
   determined	
   that	
   a	
   program-­‐level	
   environmental	
   impact	
   report	
  
(EIR)	
  is	
  required	
  for	
  the	
  proposed	
  2014	
  General	
  Plan	
  (Project)	
   pursuant	
   to	
   the	
   requirements	
   of	
   the	
  
California	
   Environmental	
   Quality	
   Act	
   (CEQA).	
   CEQA	
   requires	
   the	
   preparation	
   of	
   an	
   EIR	
   prior	
   to	
  
approving	
  any	
  project,	
  which	
  may	
  have	
  a	
  significant	
  impact	
  on	
  the	
  environment.	
  	
  For	
  the	
  purposes	
  
of	
  CEQA,	
  the	
  term	
  "Project"	
  refers	
  to	
  the	
  whole	
  of	
  an	
  action,	
  which	
  has	
  the	
  potential	
  for	
  resulting	
  
in	
  a	
  direct	
  physical	
  change	
  or	
  a	
  reasonably	
  foreseeable	
  indirect	
  physical	
  change	
  in	
  the	
  environment	
  
(CEQA	
  Guidelines	
  Section	
  15378[a]).	
  

A	
  Program	
  EIR	
  is	
  an	
  EIR	
  which	
  examines	
  the	
  environmental	
  impacts	
  of	
  an	
  agency	
  plan,	
  policy,	
  or	
  
regulatory	
   program,	
   such	
   as	
   a	
   general	
   plan	
   update.	
   	
   Program	
   EIRs	
   analyze	
   broad	
   environmental	
  
impacts	
   of	
   the	
   program,	
   with	
   the	
   acknowledgement	
   that	
   site-­‐specific	
   environmental	
   review	
   may	
  
be	
   required	
   for	
   particular	
   aspects	
   of	
   the	
   program,	
   or	
   particular	
   development	
   projects	
   that	
   may	
  
occur	
  in	
  the	
  future.	
  	
  	
  

Brentwood	
   circulated	
   a	
   Notice	
   of	
   Preparation	
   (NOP)	
   of	
   an	
   EIR	
   for	
   the	
   proposed	
   project	
   on	
  
February	
  26,	
  2014	
  to	
  trustee	
  and	
  responsible	
  agencies,	
  the	
  State	
  Clearinghouse,	
  and	
  the	
  public.	
  A	
  
scoping	
   meeting	
   was	
   held	
   on	
   March	
   18,	
   2014	
   with	
   the	
   Brentwood	
   Planning	
   Commission.	
  
Subsequently,	
  Brentwood	
  published	
  a	
  public	
  Notice	
  of	
  Availability	
  (NOA)	
  for	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  on	
  April	
  
8,	
  2014,	
  inviting	
  comment	
  from	
  the	
  general	
  public,	
  agencies,	
  organizations,	
  and	
  other	
  interested	
  
parties.	
  	
  The	
  NOA	
  was	
  filed	
  with	
  the	
  State	
  Clearinghouse	
  (SCH#	
  2014022058)	
  and	
  was	
  published	
  in	
  
the	
   Brentwood	
   Press	
   pursuant	
   to	
   the	
   public	
   noticing	
   requirements	
   of	
   CEQA.	
   	
   The	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   was	
  
available	
   for	
   public	
   review	
   from	
   April	
   8,	
   2014	
   through	
   May	
   23,	
   2014.	
   	
   The	
   Public	
   Draft	
   2014	
  
General	
  Plan	
  was	
  also	
  available	
  for	
  public	
  review	
  and	
  comment	
  during	
  this	
  time	
  period.	
  	
  	
  

This	
  Final	
  EIR	
  was	
  prepared	
  to	
  address	
  comments	
  received	
  in	
  response	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  The	
  City	
  
has	
  prepared	
  a	
  written	
  response	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  comments	
  and	
  made	
  textual	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  
EIR	
  where	
  warranted.	
  	
  The	
  responses	
  to	
  the	
  comments	
  are	
  provided	
  in	
  this	
  Final	
  EIR	
  in	
  Section	
  2.0,	
  
and	
  all	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  text	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  summarized	
  in	
  Section	
  3.0.	
  Responses	
  to	
  comments	
  
received	
  during	
  the	
  comment	
  period	
  do	
  not	
  involve	
  any	
  new	
  significant	
  impacts	
  or	
  “significant	
  new	
  
information”	
  that	
  would	
  require	
  recirculation	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  pursuant	
  to	
  CEQA	
  Guidelines	
  Section	
  
15088.5.	
  

PROJECT	
  DESCRIPTION	
  
The	
   2014	
   Brentwood	
   General	
   Plan	
   is	
   the	
   overarching	
   policy	
   document	
   that	
   guides	
   land	
   use,	
  
housing,	
  transportation,	
  infrastructure,	
  community	
  services,	
  and	
  other	
  policy	
  decisions	
  throughout	
  
Brentwood.	
  The	
  General	
  Plan	
  includes	
  the	
  seven	
  elements	
  mandated	
  by	
  State	
  law,	
  to	
  the	
  extent	
  
that	
   they	
   are	
   relevant	
   locally,	
   including:	
   Circulation,	
   Conservation,	
   Housing,	
   Land	
   Use,	
   Noise,	
   Open	
  
Space,	
   and	
   Safety.	
   The	
   City	
   may	
   also	
   address	
   other	
   topics	
   of	
   interest;	
   this	
   General	
   Plan	
   includes	
  
elements	
   related	
   to	
   Community	
   Services	
   and	
   Facilities,	
   Economic	
   Development,	
   Fiscal	
  
Sustainability,	
   Growth	
   Management,	
   and	
   Infrastructure.	
   The	
   General	
   Plan	
   sets	
   out	
   the	
   goals,	
  
policies,	
   and	
   actions	
   in	
   each	
   of	
   these	
   areas,	
   serves	
   as	
   a	
   policy	
   guide	
   for	
   how	
   the	
   City	
   will	
   make	
   key	
  

                      Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
                                                    ES-­‐1	
  
	
  
       ES	
               EXECUTIVE	
  SUMMARY	
  
	
  
planning	
  decisions	
  in	
  the	
  future,	
  and	
  guides	
  how	
  the	
  City	
  will	
  interact	
  with	
  Contra	
  Costa	
  County,	
  
surrounding	
  cities,	
  and	
  other	
  local,	
  regional,	
  State,	
  and	
  Federal	
  agencies.	
  

The	
  General	
  Plan	
  contains	
  the	
  goals	
  and	
  policies	
  that	
  will	
  guide	
  future	
  decisions	
  within	
  the	
  city.	
  It	
  
also	
  identifies	
  actions	
  that	
  will	
  ensure	
  the	
  goals	
  and	
  policies	
  in	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  are	
  carried	
  out.	
  

Refer	
   to	
   Section	
   2.0	
   (Project	
   Description)	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   for	
   a	
   more	
   comprehensive	
   description	
   of	
  
the	
  details	
  of	
  the	
  proposed	
  project.	
  	
  	
  

ALTERNATIVES	
  TO	
  THE	
  PROPOSED	
  PROJECT	
  
Section	
   15126.6	
   of	
   the	
   CEQA	
   Guidelines	
   requires	
   an	
   EIR	
   to	
   describe	
   a	
   reasonable	
   range	
   of	
  
alternatives	
  to	
  the	
  project	
  or	
  to	
  the	
  location	
  of	
  the	
  project	
  which	
  would	
  reduce	
  or	
  avoid	
  significant	
  
impacts,	
   and	
   which	
   could	
   feasibly	
   accomplish	
   the	
   basic	
   objectives	
   of	
   the	
   proposed	
   project.	
   The	
  
alternatives	
  analyzed	
  in	
  this	
  EIR	
  are	
  briefly	
  described	
  as	
  follows:	
  

       •      Alternative	
   1:	
   No	
   Project	
   Alternative.	
   Under	
   Alternative	
   1,	
   the	
   City	
   would	
   not	
   adopt	
   the	
  
              General	
   Plan	
   Update.	
   	
   The	
   existing	
   Brentwood	
   General	
   Plan	
   would	
   continue	
   to	
   be	
  
              implemented	
  and	
  no	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  General	
  Plan,	
  including	
  the	
  Land	
  Use	
  Map,	
  Circulation	
  
              Diagram,	
  goals,	
  policies,	
  or	
  actions	
  would	
  occur.	
  	
  Subsequent	
  projects,	
  such	
  as	
  amending	
  
              the	
  Municipal	
  Code	
  (including	
  the	
  zoning	
  map)	
  and	
  the	
  City’s	
  Design	
  Guidelines,	
  would	
  not	
  
              occur.	
  	
  The	
  existing	
  General	
  Plan	
  Land	
  Use	
  Map	
  is	
  shown	
  on	
  Figure	
  3.10-­‐3	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  	
  	
  
              	
  
       •      Alternative	
  2:	
  Economic	
  Development	
  Alternative.	
  Alternative	
  2	
  would	
  revise	
  the	
  General	
  
              Plan	
   Land	
   Use	
   Map	
   to	
   place	
   more	
   emphasis	
   on	
   identifying	
   areas	
   for	
   commercial	
   and	
  
              industrial	
   growth,	
   and	
   less	
   emphasis	
   on	
   future	
   residential	
   development.	
   	
   This	
   alternative	
  
              emphasizes	
  providing	
  adequate	
  land	
  for	
  a	
  range	
  of	
  commercial,	
  office,	
  and	
  industrial	
  uses	
  
              and	
  would	
  convert	
  more	
  of	
  the	
  Planning	
  Area	
  to	
  urban	
  uses.	
  	
  Figure	
  5.0-­‐1	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  
              depicts	
  the	
  Land	
  Use	
  Map	
  proposed	
  for	
  Alternative	
  2.	
  	
  This	
  alternative	
  was	
  developed	
  to	
  
              reduce	
  exposure	
  of	
  sensitive	
  receptors	
  to	
  traffic	
  noise.	
  	
  
	
  
       •      Alternative	
  3:	
  Residential	
  Growth	
  Alternative.	
  Alternative	
  3	
  provides	
  for	
  a	
  balance	
  of	
  job-­‐
              creating	
   and	
   residential	
   development	
   land	
   uses	
   within	
   the	
   city	
   limits,	
   and	
   has	
   a	
   reduced	
  
              amount	
   of	
   growth	
   within	
   the	
   Planning	
   Area	
   when	
   compared	
   to	
   Alternative	
   2	
   and	
   the	
  
              existing	
  General	
  Plan	
  (Alternative	
  1).	
  	
  This	
  alternative	
  reflects	
  areas	
  identified	
  for	
  growth	
  
              through	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   Update	
   public	
   input	
   process	
   and	
   provides	
   for	
   more	
   significant	
  
              residential	
   development.	
   	
   While	
   this	
   alternative	
   would	
   result	
   in	
   more	
   residential	
   growth	
  
              than	
  the	
  proposed	
  General	
  Plan,	
  existing	
  General	
  Plan,	
  or	
  Alternative	
  2,	
  it	
  would	
  convert	
  
              less	
  agricultural	
  and	
  undeveloped	
  land	
  in	
  the	
  Planning	
  Area	
  to	
  urban	
  uses	
  than	
  the	
  existing	
  
              General	
   Plan	
   or	
   Alternative	
   2.	
   	
   Figure	
   5.0-­‐2	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   depicts	
   the	
   Land	
   Use	
   Map	
  
              proposed	
  for	
  Alternative	
  3.	
  	
  	
  This	
  alternative	
  was	
  developed	
  to	
  reduce	
  impacts	
  associated	
  
              with	
  scenic	
  resources	
  and	
  agricultural	
  resources.	
  	
  	
  




       ES-­‐2	
           Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  
	
  
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  EXECUTIVE	
  SUMMARY	
     ES	
  
	
  
Alternatives	
   are	
   described	
   in	
   detail	
   in	
   Section	
   5.0	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR.	
   As	
   summarized	
   in	
   Table	
   5.0-­‐5	
   of	
  
the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   Alternative	
   2	
   is	
   the	
   environmentally	
   superior	
   alternative	
   because	
   it	
   provides	
   the	
  
greatest	
  reduction	
  of	
  potential	
  impacts	
  in	
  comparison	
  to	
  the	
  other	
  alternatives.	
  

COMMENTS	
  RECEIVED	
  
The	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   addresses	
   environmental	
   impacts	
   associated	
   with	
   the	
   proposed	
   project	
   that	
   were	
  
known	
   to	
   the	
   City,	
   raised	
   during	
   the	
   Notice	
   of	
   Preparation	
   (NOP)	
   process,	
   or	
   raised	
   during	
  
preparation	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  	
  The	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  discusses	
  potentially	
  significant	
  impacts	
  associated	
  with	
  
aesthetics/visual	
  resources,	
  agricultural/forest	
  resources,	
  air	
  quality,	
  biological/natural	
  resources,	
  
cultural	
   resources,	
   geology/soils/minerals,	
   greenhouse	
   gases/climate	
   change,	
   hazards,	
  
hydrology/water	
   quality,	
   land	
   use/population,	
   noise,	
   public	
   services/recreation,	
  
transportation/circulation,	
  utilities,	
  and	
  cumulative	
  impacts.	
  

NOP	
  Comments	
  
During	
   the	
   NOP	
   process,	
   the	
   City	
   received	
   comments	
   from	
   the	
   following	
   public	
   agencies,	
  
organizations,	
  or	
  individuals:	
  

               •               California	
  Delta	
  Protection	
  Commission	
  

               •               California	
  Department	
  of	
  Transportation	
  (Caltrans)	
  

               •               City	
  of	
  Antioch	
  

               •               Contra	
  Costa	
  Local	
  Agency	
  Formation	
  Commission	
  (LAFCO)	
  

               •               Greenbelt	
  Alliance	
  

               •               West	
  Coast	
  Home	
  Builders,	
  Inc.	
  

Draft	
  EIR	
  Comments	
  
During	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   review	
   process,	
   the	
   City	
   received	
   comments	
   from	
   the	
   following	
   public	
  
agencies,	
  organizations,	
  or	
  individuals:	
  

               •               San	
  Francisco	
  Bay	
  Area	
  Rapid	
  Transit	
  District	
  (BART)	
  

               •               East	
  Contra	
  Costa	
  County	
  Habitat	
  Conservancy	
  

               •               Contra	
  Costa	
  County	
  Flood	
  Control	
  &	
  Water	
  Conservation	
  District	
  

               •               Contra	
  Costa	
  County	
  Public	
  Works	
  Department	
  

               •               Chevron	
  Environmental	
  Management	
  Company	
  

               •               City	
  of	
  Antioch	
  



                ES-­‐3	
                                     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  
	
  
       ES	
              EXECUTIVE	
  SUMMARY	
  
	
  
       •      Delta	
  Stewardship	
  Council	
  

       •      California	
  Department	
  of	
  Transportation	
  (Caltrans)	
  

       •      Discovery	
  Builders,	
  Inc.	
  

       •      East	
  Bay	
  Municipal	
  Utility	
  District	
  (EBMUD)	
  

       •      Greenbelt	
  Alliance	
  

       •      Brentwood	
  Union	
  School	
  District	
  

       •      Grupe	
  Investment	
  Company,	
  Inc.	
  

       •      Property	
  Owners	
  Doug	
  Moore	
  and	
  Grant	
  Alvernaz	
  

       •      Save	
  Mount	
  Diablo	
  

       •      West	
  Coast	
  Home	
  Builders,	
  Inc.	
  

       •      U.S.	
  Army	
  Corps	
  of	
  Engineers	
  

Acting	
  as	
  lead	
  agency,	
  the	
  City	
  of	
  Brentwood	
  has	
  prepared	
  a	
  response	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  comments.	
  	
  
The	
  responses	
  to	
  the	
  comments	
  are	
  provided	
  in	
  this	
  Final	
  EIR	
  in	
  Section	
  2.0	
  (Comments	
  on	
  Draft	
  
EIR	
   and	
   Responses)	
   and	
   all	
   changes	
   to	
   the	
   text	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   are	
   summarized	
   in	
   Section	
   3.0	
  
(Errata).	
   Responses	
   to	
   comments	
   received	
   during	
   the	
   comment	
   period	
   do	
   not	
   involve	
   any	
   new	
  
significant	
   impacts	
   or	
   “significant	
   new	
   information”	
   that	
   would	
   require	
   recirculation	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
  
EIR	
  pursuant	
  to	
  CEQA	
  Guidelines	
  Section	
  15088.5.	
  	
  

	
  
	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  

	
  




       ES-­‐4	
          Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  
	
  
                                                                                                           INTRODUCTION	
                                         1.0	
  
	
  
This	
   Final	
   Environmental	
   Impact	
   Report	
   (FEIR)	
   was	
   prepared	
   in	
   accordance	
   with	
   the	
   California	
  
Environmental	
   Quality	
   Act	
   (CEQA)	
   and	
   the	
   State	
   CEQA	
   Guidelines	
   (Section	
   15132).	
   The	
   City	
   of	
  
Brentwood	
  is	
  the	
  lead	
  agency	
  for	
  the	
  environmental	
  review	
  of	
  the	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  
(General	
  Plan,	
  General	
  Plan	
  Update,	
  or	
  Project)	
  and	
  has	
  the	
  principal	
  responsibility	
  for	
  approving	
  
the	
  project.	
  	
  This	
  FEIR	
  assesses	
  the	
  expected	
  environmental	
  impacts	
  resulting	
  from	
  approval	
  and	
  
adoption	
  of	
  the	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
   Plan	
  and	
  responds	
  to	
  comments	
  received	
  on	
  the	
  Draft	
  
EIR.	
  	
  

The	
   2014	
   Brentwood	
   General	
   Plan	
   is	
   the	
   overarching	
   policy	
   document	
   that	
   guides	
   land	
   use,	
  
housing,	
  transportation,	
  infrastructure,	
  community	
  services,	
  and	
  other	
  policy	
  decisions	
  throughout	
  
Brentwood.	
  The	
  General	
  Plan	
  includes	
  the	
  seven	
  elements	
  mandated	
  by	
  State	
  law,	
  to	
  the	
  extent	
  
that	
   they	
   are	
   relevant	
   locally,	
   including:	
   Circulation,	
   Conservation,	
   Housing,	
   Land	
   Use,	
   Noise,	
   Open	
  
Space,	
   and	
   Safety.	
   The	
   City	
   may	
   also	
   address	
   other	
   topics	
   of	
   interest;	
   this	
   General	
   Plan	
   includes	
  
elements	
   related	
   to	
   Community	
   Services	
   and	
   Facilities,	
   Economic	
   Development,	
   Fiscal	
  
Sustainability,	
   Growth	
   Management,	
   and	
   Infrastructure.	
   The	
   General	
   Plan	
   sets	
   out	
   the	
   goals,	
  
policies,	
   and	
   actions	
   in	
   each	
   of	
   these	
   areas,	
   serves	
   as	
   a	
   policy	
   guide	
   for	
   how	
   the	
   City	
   will	
   make	
   key	
  
planning	
  decisions	
  in	
  the	
  future,	
  and	
  guides	
  how	
  the	
  City	
  will	
  interact	
  with	
  Contra	
  Costa	
  County,	
  
surrounding	
  cities,	
  and	
  other	
  local,	
  regional,	
  State,	
  and	
  Federal	
  agencies.	
  

1.1	
   PURPOSE	
  AND	
  INTENDED	
  USES	
  OF	
  THE	
  EIR	
  
CEQA 	
   R EQUIREMENTS	
  FOR	
  A	
   F INAL	
   EIR	
  
This	
   FEIR	
   for	
   the	
   2014	
   Brentwood	
   General	
   Plan	
   has	
   been	
   prepared	
   in	
   accordance	
   with	
   the	
  
California	
   Environmental	
   Quality	
   Act	
   (CEQA)	
   and	
   State	
   CEQA	
   Guidelines.	
   State	
   CEQA	
   Guidelines	
  
Section	
  15132	
  requires	
  that	
  an	
  FEIR	
  consist	
  of	
  the	
  following:	
  	
  

       •      the	
  Draft	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  (Draft	
  EIR)	
  or	
  a	
  revision	
  of	
  the	
  draft;	
  	
  
       •      comments	
   and	
   recommendations	
   received	
   on	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   either	
   verbatim	
   or	
   in	
  
              summary;	
  	
  
       •      a	
  list	
  of	
  persons,	
  organizations,	
  and	
  public	
  agencies	
  commenting	
  on	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR;	
  	
  
       •      the	
   responses	
   of	
   the	
   lead	
   agency	
   to	
   significant	
   environmental	
   concerns	
   raised	
   in	
   the	
  
              review	
  and	
  consultation	
  process;	
  and	
  	
  
       •      any	
  other	
  information	
  added	
  by	
  the	
  lead	
  agency.	
  	
  

In	
   accordance	
   with	
   State	
   CEQA	
   Guidelines	
   Section	
   15132(a),	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   is	
   incorporated	
   by	
  
reference	
  into	
  this	
  Final	
  EIR.	
  	
  

An	
   EIR	
   must	
   disclose	
   the	
   expected	
   environmental	
   impacts,	
   including	
   impacts	
   that	
   cannot	
   be	
  
avoided,	
   growth-­‐inducing	
   effects,	
   impacts	
   found	
   not	
   to	
   be	
   significant,	
   and	
   significant	
   cumulative	
  
impacts,	
   as	
   well	
   as	
   identify	
   mitigation	
   measures	
   and	
   alternatives	
   to	
   the	
   proposed	
   project	
   that	
  
could	
  reduce	
  or	
  avoid	
  its	
  adverse	
  environmental	
  impacts.	
  	
  CEQA	
  requires	
  government	
  agencies	
  to	
  
consider	
  and,	
  where	
  feasible,	
  minimize	
  environmental	
  impacts	
  of	
  proposed	
  projects,	
  and	
  obligates	
  
them	
   to	
   balance	
   a	
   variety	
   of	
   public	
   objectives,	
   including	
   economic,	
   environmental,	
   and	
   social	
  
factors.	
  	
  	
  


                      Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
                                                    1.0-­‐1	
  
	
  
       1.0	
             INTRODUCTION	
  
	
  
P URPOSE	
  AND	
   U SE 	
  
The	
  City	
  of	
  Brentwood,	
  as	
  the	
  lead	
  agency,	
  has	
  prepared	
  this	
  Final	
  EIR	
  to	
  provide	
  the	
  public	
  and	
  
responsible	
  and	
  trustee	
  agencies	
  with	
  an	
  objective	
  analysis	
  of	
  the	
  potential	
  environmental	
  impacts	
  
resulting	
   from	
   approval	
   and	
   implementation	
   of	
   the	
   2014	
   General	
   Plan.	
   	
   Responsible	
   and	
   trustee	
  
agencies	
  that	
  may	
  use	
  the	
  EIR	
  are	
  identified	
  in	
  Chapter	
  1.0	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  

The	
  environmental	
  review	
  process	
  enables	
  interested	
  parties	
  to	
  evaluate	
  the	
  proposed	
  project	
  in	
  
terms	
   of	
   its	
   environmental	
   consequences,	
   to	
   examine	
   and	
   recommend	
   methods	
   to	
   eliminate	
   or	
  
reduce	
   potential	
   adverse	
   impacts,	
   and	
   to	
   consider	
   a	
   reasonable	
   range	
   of	
   alternatives	
   to	
   the	
  
project.	
   While	
   CEQA	
   requires	
   that	
   consideration	
   be	
   given	
   to	
   avoiding	
   adverse	
   environmental	
  
effects,	
   the	
   lead	
   agency	
   must	
   balance	
   adverse	
   environmental	
   effects	
   against	
   other	
   public	
  
objectives,	
   including	
   the	
   economic	
   and	
   social	
   benefits	
   of	
   a	
   project,	
   in	
   determining	
   whether	
   a	
  
project	
  should	
  be	
  approved.	
  

This	
  EIR	
  will	
  be	
  used	
  as	
  the	
  primary	
  environmental	
  document	
  to	
  evaluate	
  all	
  subsequent	
  planning	
  
and	
   permitting	
   actions	
   associated	
   with	
   the	
   proposed	
   project.	
   Subsequent	
   actions	
   that	
   may	
   be	
  
associated	
   with	
   the	
   proposed	
   project	
   are	
   identified	
   in	
   Chapter	
   2.0	
   (Project	
   Description)	
   of	
   the	
  
Draft	
  EIR.	
  	
  This	
  EIR	
  may	
  also	
  be	
  used	
  by	
  other	
  agencies	
  within	
  Contra	
  Costa	
  County,	
  including	
  the	
  
Contra	
   Costa	
   Local	
   Agency	
   Formation	
   Commission	
   (LAFCO),	
   which	
   may	
   use	
   this	
   EIR	
   during	
   the	
  
preparation	
  of	
  environmental	
  documents	
  related	
  to	
  annexations,	
  Municipal	
  Service	
  Reviews,	
  and	
  
Sphere	
  of	
  Influence	
  decisions	
  in	
  the	
  Brentwood	
  Planning	
  Area.	
  	
  	
  

1.2	
   ENVIRONMENTAL	
  REVIEW	
  PROCESS	
  
The	
   review	
   and	
   certification	
   process	
   for	
   the	
   EIR	
   has	
   involved,	
   or	
   will	
   involve,	
   the	
   following	
   general	
  
procedural	
  steps:	
  

N OTICE	
  OF	
   P REPARATION	
   	
  
The	
   City	
   of	
   Brentwood	
   circulated	
   a	
   Notice	
   of	
   Preparation	
   (NOP)	
   of	
   an	
   EIR	
   for	
   the	
   proposed	
   project	
  
on	
  February	
  26,	
  2014	
  to	
  trustee	
  and	
  responsible	
  agencies,	
  the	
  State	
  Clearinghouse,	
  and	
  the	
  public.	
  
A	
   scoping	
   meeting	
   was	
   held	
   on	
   March	
   18,	
   2014	
   with	
   the	
   Brentwood	
   Planning	
   Commission.	
   No	
  
public	
  or	
  agency	
  comments	
  on	
  the	
  NOP	
  related	
  to	
  the	
  EIR	
  analysis	
  were	
  presented	
  or	
  submitted	
  
during	
  the	
  scoping	
  meeting.	
  	
  However,	
  during	
  the	
  30-­‐day	
  public	
  review	
  period	
  for	
  the	
  NOP,	
  which	
  
ended	
   on	
   March	
   28,	
   2014,	
   six	
   written	
   comment	
   letters	
   were	
   received.	
   	
   A	
   summary	
   of	
   the	
   NOP	
  
comments	
  is	
  provided	
  in	
  Section	
  1.8	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  The	
  NOP	
  and	
  all	
  comments	
  received	
  on	
  it	
  are	
  
presented	
  in	
  Appendix	
  A	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  	
  

N OTICE	
  OF	
   A VAILABILITY	
  AND	
   D RAFT	
   EIR	
  
The	
  City	
  of	
  Brentwood	
  published	
  a	
  public	
  Notice	
  of	
  Availability	
  (NOA)	
  for	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  on	
  April	
  8,	
  
2014,	
   inviting	
   comment	
   from	
   the	
   general	
   public,	
   agencies,	
   organizations,	
   and	
   other	
   interested	
  
parties.	
  	
  The	
  NOA	
  was	
  filed	
  with	
  the	
  State	
  Clearinghouse	
  (SCH#	
  2014022058)	
  and	
  was	
  published	
  in	
  
the	
   Brentwood	
   Press	
   pursuant	
   to	
   the	
   public	
   noticing	
   requirements	
   of	
   CEQA.	
   	
   The	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   was	
  



       1.0-­‐2	
         Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  
	
  
                                                                                                        INTRODUCTION	
                                1.0	
  
	
  
available	
   for	
   public	
   review	
   from	
   April	
   8,	
   2014	
   through	
   May	
   23,	
   2014.	
   	
   The	
   Public	
   Draft	
   2014	
  
General	
  Plan	
  was	
  also	
  available	
  for	
  public	
  review	
  and	
  comment	
  during	
  this	
  time	
  period.	
  	
  	
  

The	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   contains	
   a	
   description	
   of	
   the	
   project,	
   description	
   of	
   the	
   environmental	
   setting,	
  
identification	
  of	
  project	
   impacts,	
  and	
  mitigation	
  measures	
  for	
  impacts	
  found	
  to	
  be	
  significant,	
  as	
  
well	
   as	
   an	
   analysis	
   of	
   project	
   alternatives,	
   identification	
   of	
   significant	
   irreversible	
   environmental	
  
changes,	
   growth-­‐inducing	
   impacts,	
   and	
   cumulative	
   impacts.	
   	
   The	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   identifies	
   issues	
  
determined	
  to	
  have	
  no	
  impact	
  or	
  a	
  less	
  than	
  significant	
  impact,	
  and	
  provides	
  detailed	
  analysis	
  of	
  
potentially	
   significant	
   and	
   significant	
   impacts.	
   	
   Comments	
   received	
   in	
   response	
   to	
   the	
   NOP	
   were	
  
considered	
  in	
  preparing	
  the	
  analysis	
  in	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  	
  	
  

R ESPONSE	
  TO	
   C OMMENTS /F INAL	
   EIR 	
   	
  
The	
  City	
  of	
  Brentwood	
  received	
  17	
  comment	
  letters	
  regarding	
  the	
  Draft	
  General	
  Plan	
  and	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  
from	
  public	
  agencies,	
  organizations,	
  and	
  members	
  of	
  the	
  public	
  during	
  the	
  45-­‐day	
  review	
  period.	
  	
  	
  

In	
   accordance	
   with	
   CEQA	
   Guidelines	
   Section	
   15088,	
   this	
   Final	
   EIR	
   responds	
   to	
   the	
   written	
  
comments	
   received	
   on	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR.	
   	
   The	
   Final	
   EIR	
   also	
   contains	
   minor	
   edits	
   to	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
  
which	
  are	
  included	
  in	
  Chapter	
  3.0	
  (Errata).	
  	
  This	
  document	
  and	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR,	
  as	
  amended	
  herein,	
  
constitute	
  the	
  Final	
  EIR.	
  

C ERTIFICATION	
  OF	
  THE	
   EIR/P ROJECT	
   C ONSIDERATION	
   	
  
The	
  Brentwood	
  City	
  Council	
  will	
  review	
  and	
  consider	
  the	
  Final	
  EIR.	
  	
  If	
  the	
  City	
  Council	
  finds	
  that	
  the	
  
Final	
  EIR	
  is	
  "adequate	
  and	
  complete,"	
  then	
  it	
  may	
  certify	
  it	
  in	
  accordance	
  with	
  CEQA.	
  	
  The	
  rule	
  of	
  
adequacy	
  generally	
  holds	
  that	
  an	
  EIR	
  can	
  be	
  certified	
  if:	
  

       1) The	
  EIR	
  shows	
  a	
  good	
  faith	
  effort	
  at	
  full	
  disclosure	
  of	
  environmental	
  information;	
  and	
  	
  

       2) The	
  EIR	
  provides	
  sufficient	
  analysis	
  to	
  allow	
  decisions	
  to	
  be	
  made	
  regarding	
  the	
  proposed	
  
          project	
  in	
  contemplation	
  of	
  environmental	
  considerations.	
  

Upon	
   review	
   and	
   consideration	
   of	
   the	
   Final	
   EIR,	
   the	
   Brentwood	
   City	
   Council	
   may	
   take	
   action	
   to	
  
approve,	
  revise,	
  or	
  reject	
  the	
  project.	
  	
  A	
  decision	
  to	
  approve	
  the	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan,	
  for	
  
which	
   this	
   EIR	
   identifies	
   significant	
   environmental	
   effects,	
   must	
   be	
   accompanied	
   by	
   written	
  
findings	
  in	
  accordance	
  with	
  State	
  CEQA	
  Guidelines	
  Sections	
  15091	
  and	
  15093.	
  	
  	
  

Policies	
  and	
  actions	
  to	
  mitigate	
  potential	
  environmental	
  impacts	
  have	
  been	
  incorporated	
  into	
  the	
  
project,	
   to	
   the	
   extent	
   feasible.	
   	
   No	
   additional	
   mitigation	
   is	
   feasible	
   or	
   available,	
   as	
   described	
   in	
  
Chapters	
   3.1	
   through	
   4.0	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR.	
   The	
   annual	
   report	
   on	
   general	
   plan	
   status	
   required	
  
pursuant	
   to	
   the	
   Government	
   Code	
   will	
   serve	
   as	
   the	
   monitoring	
   and	
   reporting	
   program	
   for	
   the	
  
project.	
  	
  




                    Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
                                        1.0-­‐3	
  
	
  
           1.0	
         INTRODUCTION	
  
	
  
1.3	
   ORGANIZATION	
  OF	
  THE	
  FINAL	
  EIR	
  
This	
   Final	
   EIR	
   has	
   been	
   prepared	
   consistent	
   with	
   Section	
   15132	
   of	
   the	
   State	
   CEQA	
   Guidelines,	
  
which	
  identifies	
  the	
  content	
  requirements	
  for	
  Final	
  EIRs.	
  	
  This	
  Final	
  EIR	
  is	
  organized	
  in	
  the	
  following	
  
manner:	
  

C HAPTER	
   1.0 	
   – 	
   I NTRODUCTION 	
  
Chapter	
   1.0	
   briefly	
   describes	
   the	
   purpose	
   of	
   the	
   environmental	
   evaluation,	
   identifies	
   the	
   lead	
  
agency,	
   summarizes	
   the	
   process	
   associated	
   with	
   preparation	
   and	
   certification	
   of	
   an	
   EIR,	
   and	
  
identifies	
  the	
  content	
  requirements	
  and	
  organization	
  of	
  the	
  Final	
  EIR.	
  	
  

C HAPTER	
   2.0 	
   – 	
   C OMMENTS	
  ON	
   D RAFT	
   EIR 	
  AND	
   R ESPONSES 	
  
Chapter	
   2.0	
   provides	
   a	
   list	
   of	
   commenters,	
   copies	
   of	
   written	
   comments	
   made	
   on	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR	
  
(coded	
  for	
  reference),	
  and	
  responses	
  to	
  those	
  written	
  comments.	
  

C HAPTER	
   3.0 	
   -­‐ 	
   E RRATA 	
  
Chapter	
  3.0	
  consists	
  of	
  minor	
  revisions	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  in	
  response	
  to	
  comments	
  on	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  	
  
The	
  revisions	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  do	
  not	
  change	
  the	
  intent	
  or	
  content	
  of	
  the	
  analysis	
  or	
  mitigation.	
  

	
  	
  




           1.0-­‐4	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  
	
  
                                COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                                                    2.0	
  
	
  

2.1	
   INTRODUCTION	
  
No	
   new	
   significant	
   environmental	
   impacts	
   or	
   issues,	
   beyond	
   those	
   already	
   covered	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
  
Environmental	
   Impact	
   Report	
   (Draft	
   EIR)	
   for	
   the	
   2014	
   Brentwood	
   General	
   Plan	
   Update,	
   were	
   raised	
  
during	
   the	
   comment	
   period.	
   Responses	
   to	
   comments	
   received	
   during	
   the	
   comment	
   period	
   do	
   not	
  
involve	
  any	
  new	
  significant	
  impacts	
  or	
  “significant	
  new	
  information”	
  that	
  would	
  require	
  recirculation	
  of	
  
the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  pursuant	
  to	
  CEQA	
  Guidelines	
  Section	
  15088.5.	
  

CEQA	
   Guidelines	
   Section	
   15088.5	
   states	
   that:	
   New	
   information	
   added	
   to	
   an	
   EIR	
   is	
   not	
   “significant”	
  
unless	
   the	
   EIR	
   is	
   changed	
   in	
   a	
   way	
   that	
   deprives	
   the	
   public	
   of	
   a	
   meaningful	
   opportunity	
   to	
   comment	
  
upon	
   a	
   substantial	
   adverse	
   environmental	
   effect	
   of	
   the	
   project	
   or	
   a	
   feasible	
   way	
   to	
   mitigate	
   or	
   avoid	
  
such	
   an	
   effect	
   (including	
   a	
   feasible	
   project	
   alternative)	
   that	
   the	
   project’s	
   proponents	
   have	
   declined	
   to	
  
implement.	
  	
  	
  

Chapters	
  2.0	
  and	
  3.0	
  of	
  this	
  Final	
  EIR	
  include	
  information	
  that	
  has	
  been	
  added	
  to	
  the	
  EIR	
  since	
  the	
  close	
  
of	
  the	
  public	
  review	
  period	
  in	
  the	
  form	
  of	
  responses	
  to	
  comments	
  and	
  errata.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

2.2	
   LIST	
  OF	
  COMMENTERS	
  
Table	
  2-­‐1	
  lists	
  the	
  comments	
  on	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  that	
  were	
  submitted	
  to	
  the	
  City	
  during	
  the	
  45-­‐day	
  public	
  
review	
   period.	
   The	
   assigned	
   comment	
   letter	
   number,	
   letter	
   date,	
   letter	
   author,	
   and	
   affiliation,	
   if	
  
presented	
  in	
  the	
  comment	
  letter	
  or	
  if	
  representing	
  a	
  public	
  agency,	
  are	
  also	
  listed.	
  	
  
                                                                                    	
  

                                                            TABLE	
  2-­1:	
  	
  LIST	
  OF	
  COMMENTERS	
  
   RESPONSE	
              INDIVIDUAL	
  OR	
  
                                                                                            AFFILIATION	
                                               DATE	
  
    LETTER	
                 SIGNATORY	
  
                         Robert	
  Powers,	
  
       A	
              Assistant	
  General	
                     San	
  Francisco	
  Bay	
  Area	
  Rapid	
  Transit	
  District	
                  5-­‐23-­‐14	
  
                            Manager	
  

                    John	
  Kopchik,	
  Executive	
  
       B	
                                                        East	
  Contra	
  Costa	
  County	
  Habitat	
  Conservancy	
                       5-­‐23-­‐14	
  
                              Director	
  

                      Homira	
  Shafaq,	
  Staff	
         Contra	
  Costa	
  County	
  Flood	
  Control	
  &	
  Water	
  Conservation	
  
       C	
                                                                                                                                            5-­‐23-­‐14	
  
                          Engineer	
                                                        District	
  

                      Mary	
  Halle,	
  Associate	
  
       D	
                                                        Contra	
  Costa	
  County	
  Public	
  Works	
  Department	
                        5-­‐22-­‐14	
  
                              Engineer	
  

                     Mike	
  Oliphant,	
  Project	
  
       E	
                                                       Chevron	
  Environmental	
  Management	
  Company	
                                  5-­‐19-­‐14	
  
                              Manager	
  

                         Steve	
  Duran,	
  City	
  
       F	
                                                                                 City	
  of	
  Antioch	
                                    5-­‐15-­‐14	
  
                             Manager	
  

                     Cindy	
  Messer,	
  Deputy	
  
       G	
                                                                      Delta	
  Stewardship	
  Council	
                                     5-­‐22-­‐14	
  
                       Executive	
  Officer	
  



                          Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
                                      2.0-­‐1	
  
	
  
       2.0	
                COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  
                                                               TABLE	
  2-­1:	
  	
  LIST	
  OF	
  COMMENTERS	
  
   RESPONSE	
                INDIVIDUAL	
  OR	
  
                                                                                               AFFILIATION	
                                                     DATE	
  
    LETTER	
                   SIGNATORY	
  
                      Erik	
  Alm,	
  District	
  Branch	
  
       H	
                                                         California	
  Department	
  of	
  Transportation	
  (Caltrans)	
                            5-­‐19-­‐14	
  
                                      Chief	
  

        I	
                   Louis	
  Parsons	
                                       Discovery	
  Builders,	
  Inc.	
                                        5-­‐23-­‐14	
  

                       William	
  R.	
  Kirkpatrick,	
  
        J	
             Manager	
  of	
  Water	
                        East	
  Bay	
  Municipal	
  Utility	
  District	
  (EBMUD)	
                           5-­‐20-­‐14	
  
                       Distribution	
  Planning	
  

                      Joel	
  Devalcourt,	
  Regional	
  
       K	
                                                                                 Greenbelt	
  Alliance	
                                             5-­‐23-­‐14	
  
                              Representative	
  

                              Dana	
  Eaton,	
  
       L	
                                                                      Brentwood	
  Union	
  School	
  District	
                                     5-­‐21-­‐14	
  
                            Superintendent	
  

                            Jeremy	
  S.	
  White,	
  
       M	
                                                                      Grupe	
  Investment	
  Company,	
  Inc.	
                                      5-­‐22-­‐14	
  
                               President	
  

                       Doug	
  Moore	
  and	
  Grant	
  
       N	
                                                                                  Property	
  Owners	
                                               5-­‐23-­‐14	
  
                                Alvernaz	
  

                      Juan	
  Pablo	
  Galván,	
  Land	
  
       O	
                                                                                 Save	
  Mount	
  Diablo	
                                           5-­‐23-­‐14	
  
                               Use	
  Planner	
  

                          Richard	
  D.	
  Sestero,	
  
       P	
                                                                       West	
  Coast	
  Home	
  Builders,	
  Inc.	
                                  5-­‐23-­‐14	
  
                           Project	
  Manager	
  

                       Kathleen	
  A.	
  Dady,	
  Ph.D,	
  
       Q	
             Chief,	
  California	
  South	
                             U.S.	
  Army	
  Corps	
  of	
  Engineers	
                                  5-­‐21-­‐14	
  
                                  Branch	
  

	
  

2.3	
   COMMENTS	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
R EQUIREMENTS	
  FOR	
   R ESPONDING	
  TO	
   C OMMENTS	
  ON	
  A	
   D RAFT	
   EIR	
  
CEQA	
  Guidelines	
  Section	
  15088	
  requires	
  that	
  lead	
  agencies	
  evaluate	
  and	
  respond	
  to	
  all	
  comments	
  on	
  
the	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   that	
   regard	
   an	
   environmental	
   issue.	
   	
   The	
   written	
   response	
   must	
   address	
   the	
   significant	
  
environmental	
   issue	
   raised	
   and	
   be	
   detailed,	
   especially	
   when	
   specific	
   comments	
   or	
   suggestions	
   (e.g.,	
  
additional	
   mitigation	
   measures)	
   are	
   not	
   accepted.	
   	
   In	
   addition,	
   the	
   written	
   response	
   must	
   be	
   a	
   good	
  
faith	
  and	
  reasoned	
  analysis.	
  	
  However,	
  lead	
  agencies	
  only	
  need	
  to	
  respond	
  to	
  significant	
  environmental	
  
issues	
  associated	
  with	
  the	
  project	
  and	
  do	
  not	
  need	
  to	
  provide	
  all	
  of	
  the	
  information	
  requested	
  by	
  the	
  
commenter,	
   as	
   long	
   as	
   a	
   good	
   faith	
   effort	
   at	
   full	
   disclosure	
   is	
   made	
   in	
   the	
   EIR	
   (CEQA	
   Guidelines	
   Section	
  
15204(a)).	
  

CEQA	
  Guidelines	
  Section	
  15204	
  recommends	
  that	
  commenters	
  provide	
  detailed	
  comments	
  that	
  focus	
  
on	
   the	
   sufficiency	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   in	
   identifying	
   and	
   analyzing	
   the	
   possible	
   environmental	
   impacts	
   of	
  
the	
   project	
   and	
   ways	
   to	
   avoid	
   or	
   mitigate	
   the	
   significant	
   effects	
   of	
   the	
   project,	
   and	
   that	
   commenters	
  

        2.0-­‐2	
            Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                                                  COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                                                        2.0	
  
	
  
provide	
   evidence	
   supporting	
   their	
   comments.	
   	
   Pursuant	
   to	
   CEQA	
   Guidelines	
   Section	
   15064,	
   an	
   effect	
  
shall	
  not	
  be	
  considered	
  significant	
  in	
  the	
  absence	
  of	
  substantial	
  evidence.	
  	
  

CEQA	
  Guidelines	
  Section	
  15088	
  also	
  recommends	
  that	
  revisions	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  be	
  noted	
  as	
  a	
  revision	
  
in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   or	
   as	
   a	
   separate	
   section	
   of	
   the	
   Final	
   EIR.	
   	
   Chapter	
   3.0	
   of	
   this	
   Final	
   EIR	
   identifies	
   all	
  
revisions	
  to	
  the	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  Update	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  

RESPONSES	
  TO	
  COMMENT	
  LETTERS	
  
Written	
   comments	
   on	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   are	
   reproduced	
   on	
   the	
   following	
   pages,	
   along	
   with	
   responses	
   to	
  
those	
   comments.	
   To	
   assist	
   in	
   referencing	
   comments	
   and	
   responses,	
   the	
   following	
   coding	
   system	
   is	
  
used:	
  

              •       Each	
   comment	
   letter	
   is	
   lettered	
   (i.e.,	
   Letter	
   A),	
   each	
   comment	
   within	
   each	
   letter	
   is	
  
                      numbered	
   (i.e.,	
   Comment	
   A-­‐1,	
   Comment	
   A-­‐2,	
   etc.),	
   and	
   each	
   response	
   is	
   numbered	
  
                      correspondingly	
  (i.e.,	
  Response	
  A-­‐1,	
  Response	
  A-­‐2,	
  etc.).	
  

Where	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  text	
  result	
  from	
  the	
  response	
  to	
  comments,	
  those	
  changes	
  are	
  included	
  
in	
  the	
  response	
  and	
  identified	
  with	
  revisions	
  marks	
  (underline	
  for	
  new	
  text,	
  strike	
  out	
  for	
  deleted	
  text).	
  




                              Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
                                                  2.0-­‐3	
  
	
  
       2.0	
         COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐4	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐5	
  
	
  
       2.0	
                 COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  
	
  

Response	
  to	
  Letter	
  A	
  	
  	
   Robert	
   Powers,	
   Assistant	
   General	
   Manager,	
   San	
  
                                          Francisco	
  Bay	
  Area	
  Rapid	
  Transit	
  District	
  (BART)	
  
	
  

Response	
  A-­‐1:	
           The	
  commenter	
  provides	
  introductory	
  remarks	
  and	
  expresses	
  support	
  for	
  the	
  MUPT	
  
                               land	
   use	
   designation	
   near	
   the	
   junction	
   of	
   SR	
   4	
   and	
   the	
   Mokelumne	
   Trail.	
   	
   The	
  
                               commenter	
   notes	
   that	
   much	
   future	
   work	
   would	
   be	
   required	
   before	
   eBART	
   is	
  
                               extended	
   to	
   Brentwood,	
   and	
   commends	
   the	
   City	
   on	
   the	
   use	
   and	
   application	
   of	
   this	
  
                               land	
   use	
   designation.	
   	
   This	
   comment	
   is	
   noted	
   and	
   has	
   been	
   forwarded	
   to	
   the	
  
                               Planning	
   Commission	
   and	
   City	
   Council	
   for	
   their	
   consideration.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   has	
  
                               not	
  addressed	
  the	
  adequacy	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  and,	
  as	
  such,	
  no	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  
                               are	
  warranted.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  A-­‐2:	
           The	
   commenter	
   urges	
   the	
   City	
   to	
   incorporate	
   jobs	
   and	
   higher	
   density	
   housing	
   into	
  
                               the	
  MUPT	
  area,	
  and	
  notes	
  the	
  benefits	
  of	
  these	
  types	
  of	
  land	
  uses	
  in	
  a	
  transit-­‐friendly	
  
                               zone.	
   This	
   comment	
   is	
   noted	
   and	
   has	
   been	
   forwarded	
   to	
   the	
   Planning	
   Commission	
  
                               and	
   City	
   Council	
   for	
   their	
   consideration.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   has	
   not	
   addressed	
   the	
  
                               adequacy	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  and,	
  as	
  such,	
  no	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  

Response	
  A-­‐3:	
  	
       The	
  commenter	
  notes	
  that	
  the	
  MUPT	
  designation	
  supports	
  the	
  transition	
  of	
  a	
  future	
  
                               transit	
   facility	
   from	
   a	
   park-­‐and-­‐ride	
   lot,	
   and	
   reiterates	
   the	
   benefits	
   of	
   the	
   MUPT	
  
                               location	
   for	
   future	
   transit-­‐oriented	
   land	
   uses.	
   This	
   comment	
   is	
   noted	
   and	
   has	
   been	
  
                               forwarded	
  to	
  the	
  Planning	
  Commission	
  and	
  City	
  Council	
  for	
  their	
  consideration.	
  	
  The	
  
                               commenter	
  has	
  not	
  addressed	
  the	
  adequacy	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  and,	
  as	
  such,	
  no	
  changes	
  
                               to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  

Response	
  A-­‐4:	
  	
       The	
  commenter	
  urges	
  the	
  City	
  to	
  establish	
  a	
  Priority	
  Development	
  Area	
  (PDA)	
  at	
  the	
  
                               MUPT	
   location,	
   and	
   commends	
   the	
   City	
   on	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   Update	
   process	
   and	
  
                               resulting	
  work	
  effort.	
  This	
  comment	
  is	
  noted	
  and	
  has	
  been	
  forwarded	
  to	
  the	
  Planning	
  
                               Commission	
   and	
   City	
   Council	
   for	
   their	
   consideration.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   has	
   not	
  
                               addressed	
  the	
  adequacy	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  and,	
  as	
  such,	
  no	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  
                               warranted.	
  




       2.0-­‐6	
             Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                2.0	
  
	
  




                                                                                                                       	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐7	
  
	
  
       2.0	
             COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  
Response	
  to	
  Letter	
  B	
  	
  	
   John	
   Kopchik,	
   Executive	
   Director,	
   East	
   Contra	
   Costa	
  
                                          County	
  Habitat	
  Conservancy	
  
	
  

Response	
  B-­‐1:	
       The	
  commenter	
  provides	
  information	
  regarding	
  the	
  East	
  Contra	
  Costa	
  County	
  Habitat	
  
                           Conservation	
   Plan	
   (HCP),	
   including	
   details	
   on	
   how	
   the	
   City	
   may	
   utilize	
   permit	
  
                           streamlining	
   benefits	
   for	
   future	
   development	
   projects.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   notes	
   that	
  
                           most	
  areas	
  within	
  the	
  Planning	
  Area	
  are	
  covered	
  by	
  the	
  HCP,	
  with	
  the	
  exception	
  of	
  
                           those	
  that	
  are	
  designated	
  as	
  a	
  high	
  priority	
  for	
  conservation,	
  and	
  that	
  the	
  HCP	
  does	
  
                           not	
  restrict	
  the	
  City’s	
  ability	
  to	
  make	
  land	
  use	
  designations	
  through	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  
                           Update	
   process.	
   This	
   comment	
   is	
   noted	
   and	
   has	
   been	
   forwarded	
   to	
   the	
   Planning	
  
                           Commission	
   and	
   City	
   Council	
   for	
   their	
   consideration.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   has	
   not	
  
                           addressed	
  the	
  adequacy	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  and,	
  as	
  such,	
  no	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  
                           warranted.	
  




       2.0-­‐8	
         Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                2.0	
  
	
  




                                                                                                                       	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐9	
  
	
  
       2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐10	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                 2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐11	
  
	
  
       2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐12	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                 2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐13	
  
	
  
       2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐14	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                 2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐15	
  
	
  
       2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐16	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                 2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐17	
  
	
  
       2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐18	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                 2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐19	
  
	
  
       2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐20	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                 2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐21	
  
	
  
       2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐22	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                 2.0	
  
	
  




                                                                                                                        	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐23	
  
	
  
       2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




                                                                                                                        	
  




       2.0-­‐24	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                                               COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                                               2.0	
  
	
  
Response	
  to	
  Letter	
  C	
  	
  	
                Homira	
   Shafaq,	
   Staff	
   Engineer,	
   Contra	
   Costa	
   County	
  
                                                       Flood	
  Control	
  &	
  Water	
  Conservation	
  District	
  
	
  

Response	
  C-­‐1:	
           The	
  commenter	
  notes	
  that	
  Brentwood	
  is	
  within	
  the	
  Lower	
  Marsh	
  Creek	
  Watershed,	
  
                               and	
  recommends	
  that	
  direct	
  impacts	
  to	
  the	
  creeks	
  and	
  their	
  tributaries	
  be	
  mitigated	
  
                               for	
   all	
   future	
   projects	
   and	
   development.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   also	
   notes	
   the	
   likely	
  
                               requirement	
   for	
   permits	
   from	
   regulatory	
   agencies	
   for	
   future	
   projects	
   within	
   the	
  
                               watershed.	
   	
   This	
   comment	
   is	
   noted.	
   	
   The	
   City	
   agrees	
   with	
   the	
   commenter’s	
  
                               suggestions,	
  and	
  the	
  commenter	
  is	
  directed	
  to	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  policies	
  and	
  actions	
  
                               in	
   support	
   of	
   Goal	
   COS	
   4,	
   which	
   provide	
   protection	
   measures	
   for	
   creeks	
   and	
   other	
  
                               water	
   resources	
   within	
   the	
   Lower	
   Marsh	
   Creek	
   Watershed.	
   	
   	
   No	
   changes	
   to	
   the	
   Draft	
  
                               EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  C-­‐2:	
           The	
   commenter	
   notes	
   that	
   future	
   projects	
   and	
   developments	
   that	
   create	
   new	
  
                               impervious	
   surface	
   areas	
   located	
   within	
   specified	
   Drainage	
   Areas	
   are	
   subject	
   to	
   a	
  
                               drainage	
  fee.	
  	
  The	
  City	
  appreciates	
  this	
  comment,	
  and	
  will	
  work	
  with	
  the	
  District	
  to	
  
                               ensure	
   that	
   all	
   new	
   development	
   projects	
   subject	
   to	
   these	
   fees	
   are	
   appropriately	
  
                               assessed.	
  	
  No	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  C-­‐3:	
  	
       The	
   commenter	
   recommends	
   that	
   a	
   map	
   showing	
   all	
   of	
   the	
   District’s	
   facilities	
   be	
  
                               included	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR.	
   	
   Maps	
   depicting	
   the	
   locations	
   of	
   all	
   the	
   District’s	
   facilities	
  
                               within	
   the	
   Brentwood	
   Planning	
   Area	
   are	
   available	
   for	
   review	
   at	
   the	
   Community	
  
                               Development	
  Department	
  (150	
  City	
  Park	
  Way,	
  Brentwood,	
  CA	
  94513).	
  	
  The	
  inclusion	
  
                               of	
   these	
   maps	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   would	
   not	
   alter	
   or	
   strengthen	
   the	
   environmental	
  
                               analysis	
  contained	
  in	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  

Response	
  C-­‐4:	
  	
       The	
   commenter	
   notes	
   that	
   all	
   future	
   projects	
   and	
   developments	
   should	
   be	
  
                               conditioned	
   to	
   design	
   and	
   construct	
   storm	
   drain	
   facilities	
   to	
   adequately	
   collect	
   and	
  
                               convey	
   stormwater	
   to	
   the	
   nearest	
   drainage	
   facility	
   or	
   natural	
   watercourse,	
   without	
  
                               diversion	
  to	
  the	
  watershed.	
  	
  The	
  City	
  appreciates	
  this	
  comment	
  and	
  agrees	
  with	
  the	
  
                               commenter.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   is	
   directed	
   to	
   General	
   Plan	
   Policy	
   IF	
   4-­‐3,	
   which	
   requires	
  
                               all	
  development	
  projects	
  to	
  demonstrate	
  how	
  stormwater	
  runoff	
  will	
  be	
  detained	
  or	
  
                               retained	
   on-­‐site	
   and/or	
   conveyed	
   to	
   the	
   nearest	
   drainage	
   facility	
   as	
   part	
   of	
   the	
  
                               development	
  review	
  process.	
  	
  This	
  issue	
  has	
  been	
  addressed	
  in	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  and	
  
                               Draft	
  EIR,	
  and	
  no	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  C-­‐5:	
           The	
  commenter	
  states	
  that	
  all	
  future	
  projects	
  within	
  the	
  100-­‐year	
  flood	
  boundary	
  as	
  
                               designated	
   on	
   the	
   Federal	
   Emergency	
   Flood	
   Rate	
   Maps	
   should	
   be	
   aware	
   of	
   the	
  
                               Federal	
   Flood	
   Insurance	
   Program	
   as	
   they	
   pertain	
   to	
   the	
   construction	
   of	
   any	
  
                               structures.	
   	
   The	
   City	
   appreciates	
   this	
   comment	
   and	
   agrees	
   with	
   the	
   commenter.	
   	
   The	
  
                               commenter	
   is	
   directed	
   to	
   General	
   Plan	
   Policies	
   SA	
   2-­‐4	
   and	
   2-­‐5,	
   which	
   specifically	
  

                             Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
                                       2.0-­‐25	
  
	
  
       2.0	
                 COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  
                               address	
  this	
  topic.	
  This	
  issue	
  has	
  been	
  addressed	
  in	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  and	
  Draft	
  EIR,	
  
                               and	
  no	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  

Response	
  C-­‐6:	
  	
       The	
   commenter	
   states	
   that	
   the	
   District’s	
   50-­‐year	
   Plan	
   supports	
   community	
   goals	
   of	
  
                               restoring	
   creeks,	
   and	
   recommends	
   that	
   future	
   projects	
   implement	
   restoration	
  
                               activities	
   to	
   improve	
   creek	
   habitat.	
   	
   The	
   City	
   appreciates	
   this	
   comment	
   and	
   agrees	
  
                               with	
   the	
   commenter.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   is	
   directed	
   to	
   General	
   Plan	
   Policies	
   COS	
   4-­‐1	
  
                               through	
   4-­‐10,	
   which	
   include	
   specific	
   requirements	
   for	
   creek	
   and	
   surface	
   water	
  
                               protection	
   and	
   restoration.	
   This	
   issue	
   has	
   been	
   addressed	
   in	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   and	
  
                               Draft	
  EIR,	
  and	
  no	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  

Response	
  C-­‐7:	
  	
       The	
   commenter	
   states	
   that	
   the	
   District’s	
   issuance	
   of	
   an	
   Encroachment	
   Permit	
   and/or	
  
                               conveyance	
   of	
   an	
   easement	
   are	
   discretionary	
   projects	
   subject	
   to	
   CEQA,	
   and	
  
                               recommends	
   that	
   the	
   City	
   include	
   such	
   requirements,	
   as	
   applicable,	
   in	
   the	
  
                               subsequent	
  CEQA	
  review	
  of	
  future	
  projects	
  within	
  Brentwood.	
  This	
  comment	
  is	
  noted	
  
                               and	
   has	
   been	
   forwarded	
   to	
   the	
   Planning	
   Commission	
   and	
   City	
   Council	
   for	
   their	
  
                               consideration.	
  	
  The	
  commenter	
  has	
  not	
  addressed	
  the	
  adequacy	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  and,	
  
                               as	
  such,	
  no	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  




       2.0-­‐26	
            Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                 2.0	
  
	
  
	
  




                                                                                                                        	
  



       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐27	
  
	
  
       2.0	
             COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  
Response	
  to	
  Letter	
  D	
  	
               Mary	
   Halle,	
   Associate	
   Engineer,	
   Contra	
   Costa	
   County	
  
                                                  Public	
  Works	
  Department	
  
	
  

Response	
  D-­‐1:	
       The	
  commenter	
  provides	
  introductory	
  remarks	
  and	
  expresses	
  appreciation	
  to	
  the	
  City	
  
                           with	
  respect	
  to	
  the	
  descriptions	
  in	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  regarding	
  the	
  need	
  for	
  cooperation	
  
                           with	
  the	
  County	
  to	
  address	
  traffic	
  congestion	
  issues.	
  This	
  comment	
  is	
  noted	
  and	
  has	
  
                           been	
   forwarded	
   to	
   the	
   Planning	
   Commission	
   and	
   City	
   Council	
   for	
   their	
   consideration.	
  	
  
                           The	
   commenter	
   has	
   not	
   addressed	
   the	
   adequacy	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   and,	
   as	
   such,	
   no	
  
                           changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  

Response	
  D-­‐2:	
       The	
   commenter	
   requests	
   that	
   General	
   Plan	
   Action	
   CIR	
   1d	
   be	
   modified	
   to	
   include	
  
                           addressing	
   proportional	
   impacts	
   to	
   unincorporated	
   County	
   roads	
   in	
   the	
   region,	
   as	
  
                           well	
  as	
  the	
  impact	
  to	
  roadways	
  in	
  the	
  city	
  limits.	
  	
  The	
  General	
  Plan	
  includes	
  a	
  range	
  of	
  
                           policies	
  and	
  actions	
  aimed	
  at	
  addressing	
  regional	
  transportation	
  issues.	
  	
  For	
  example,	
  
                           Policy	
   CIR	
   1-­‐4	
   requires	
   the	
   City	
   to	
   maintain	
   the	
   Multimodal	
   Transportation	
   Service	
  
                           Objective	
   (MTSO)	
   standards	
   set	
   forth	
   for	
   regional	
   transportation	
   facilities	
   as	
  
                           identified	
  in	
  the	
  East	
  County	
  Action	
  Plan	
  for	
  Routes	
  of	
  Regional	
  Significance.	
  	
  Policy	
  
                           CIR	
   1-­‐18	
   requires	
   the	
   City	
   to	
   consider	
   the	
   impacts	
   of	
   growth	
   in	
   surrounding	
  
                           jurisdictions	
   when	
   designing	
   Brentwood’s	
   circulation	
   network,	
   which	
   will	
   assist	
   in	
  
                           reducing	
   regional	
   traffic	
   congestion.	
   	
   Action	
   CIR	
   1a	
   requires	
   the	
   City	
   to	
   cooperate	
  
                           with	
   other	
   jurisdictions	
   in	
   the	
   county	
   to	
   reduce	
   transportation	
   congestion,	
   and	
  
                           includes	
  six	
  specific	
  actions	
  that	
  the	
  City	
  will	
  implement,	
  or	
  continue	
  to	
  implement,	
  in	
  
                           order	
  to	
  help	
  reduce	
  regional	
  traffic	
  congestion.	
  	
  The	
  commenter’s	
  request	
  to	
  modify	
  
                           the	
   language	
   contained	
   in	
   Action	
   CIR	
   1d	
   is	
   noted,	
   and	
   has	
   been	
   forwarded	
   to	
   the	
  
                           Planning	
   Commission	
   and	
   City	
   Council	
   for	
   their	
   consideration.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   has	
  
                           not	
  addressed	
  the	
  adequacy	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  and,	
  as	
  such,	
  no	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  
                           are	
  warranted.	
  




       2.0-­‐28	
        Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                 2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐29	
  
	
  
       2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐30	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                 2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐31	
  
	
  
       2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐32	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                 2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐33	
  
	
  
       2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐34	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                                               COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                                               2.0	
  
	
  
	
  

Response	
  to	
  Letter	
  E	
  	
  	
                Mike	
   Oliphant,	
   Project	
   Manager,	
                                                           Chevron	
  
                                                       Environmental	
  Management	
  Company	
  
	
  

Response	
  E-­‐1:	
           The	
   commenter	
   provides	
   introductory	
   remarks	
   and	
   provides	
   background	
   information	
  
                               regarding	
  former	
  pipeline	
  activities	
  in	
  the	
  Planning	
  Area.	
  	
  The	
  commenter	
  notes	
  that	
  
                               this	
   information	
   is	
   provided	
   in	
   order	
   to	
   assist	
   the	
   City	
   in	
   subsequent	
   planning	
   efforts.	
  
                               This	
   comment	
   is	
   noted	
   and	
   has	
   been	
   forwarded	
   to	
   the	
   Planning	
   Commission	
   and	
   City	
  
                               Council	
  for	
  their	
  consideration.	
  	
  The	
  commenter	
  has	
  not	
  addressed	
  the	
  adequacy	
  of	
  
                               the	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   and,	
   as	
   such,	
   no	
   changes	
   to	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   are	
   warranted.	
   All	
   of	
   the	
  
                               supporting	
   information	
   provided	
   by	
   the	
   commenter	
   has	
   been	
   included	
   in	
   this	
   Final	
  
                               EIR,	
  and	
  may	
  be	
  utilized	
  by	
  the	
  City	
  during	
  the	
  subsequent	
  review	
  of	
  future	
  projects.	
  

Response	
  E-­‐2:	
           The	
   commenter	
   provides	
   background	
   information	
   regarding	
   risk	
   assessments	
   that	
  
                               were	
   conducted	
   on	
   pipelines	
   in	
   the	
   Planning	
   Area.	
   This	
   comment	
   is	
   noted	
   and	
   has	
  
                               been	
   forwarded	
   to	
   the	
   Planning	
   Commission	
   and	
   City	
   Council	
   for	
   their	
   consideration.	
  	
  
                               The	
   commenter	
   has	
   not	
   addressed	
   the	
   adequacy	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   and,	
   as	
   such,	
   no	
  
                               changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  All	
  of	
  the	
  supporting	
  information	
  provided	
  by	
  
                               the	
   commenter	
   has	
   been	
   included	
   in	
   this	
   Final	
   EIR,	
   and	
   may	
   be	
   utilized	
   by	
   the	
   City	
  
                               during	
  the	
  subsequent	
  review	
  of	
  future	
  projects.	
  

Response	
  E-­‐3:	
  	
       The	
  commenter	
  provides	
  website	
  links	
  to	
  additional	
  information	
  regarding	
  historical	
  
                               pipeline	
   data.	
   This	
   comment	
   is	
   noted	
   and	
   has	
   been	
   forwarded	
   to	
   the	
   Planning	
  
                               Commission	
   and	
   City	
   Council	
   for	
   their	
   consideration.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   has	
   not	
  
                               addressed	
  the	
  adequacy	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  and,	
  as	
  such,	
  no	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  
                               warranted.	
  	
  All	
  of	
  the	
  supporting	
  information	
  provided	
  by	
  the	
  commenter	
  has	
  been	
  
                               included	
   in	
   this	
   Final	
   EIR,	
   and	
   may	
   be	
   utilized	
   by	
   the	
   City	
   during	
   the	
   subsequent	
  
                               review	
  of	
  future	
  projects.	
  	
  	
  




                             Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
                                       2.0-­‐35	
  
	
  
       2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐36	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                 2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐37	
  
	
  
       2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐38	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                 2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐39	
  
	
  
       2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐40	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                 2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐41	
  
	
  
       2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐42	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                                              COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                                          2.0	
  
	
  
	
  

Response	
  to	
  Letter	
  F	
  	
  	
               Steve	
  Duran,	
  City	
  Manager,	
  City	
  of	
  Antioch	
  
	
  

Response	
  F-­‐1:	
           The	
   commenter	
   expresses	
   concern	
   over	
   General	
   Plan	
   policies	
   related	
   to	
   SPA	
   2,	
   and	
  
                               notes	
   the	
   1992	
   Memorandum	
   of	
   Understanding	
   (MOU)	
   between	
   Brentwood	
   and	
  
                               Antioch	
   regarding	
   this	
   area.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   notes	
   that	
   the	
   MOU	
   policies	
   support	
  
                               maintaining	
   this	
   area	
   as	
   an	
   open	
   space	
   buffer	
   and/or	
   incorporating	
   urban	
   design	
  
                               features	
   to	
   separate	
   and	
   distinguish	
   the	
   two	
   communities.	
   This	
   comment	
   is	
   noted	
  
                               and	
   has	
   been	
   forwarded	
   to	
   the	
   Planning	
   Commission	
   and	
   City	
   Council	
   for	
   their	
  
                               consideration.	
  	
  The	
  commenter	
  has	
  not	
  addressed	
  the	
  adequacy	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  and,	
  
                               as	
  such,	
  no	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  	
  All	
  of	
  the	
  supporting	
  information	
  
                               provided	
  by	
  the	
  commenter	
  has	
  been	
  included	
  in	
  this	
  Final	
  EIR,	
  and	
  may	
  be	
  utilized	
  
                               by	
  the	
  City	
  during	
  the	
  subsequent	
  review	
  of	
  future	
  projects.	
  

Response	
  F-­‐2:	
           The	
  commenter	
  states	
  that	
  General	
  Plan	
  Action	
  LU	
  1e	
  and	
  Policy	
  LU	
  1-­‐9	
  are	
  in	
  direct	
  
                               conflict	
   with	
   the	
   above-­‐referenced	
   MOU.	
   This	
   comment	
   is	
   noted	
   and	
   has	
   been	
  
                               forwarded	
  to	
  the	
  Planning	
  Commission	
  and	
  City	
  Council	
  for	
  their	
  consideration.	
  	
  The	
  
                               commenter	
  has	
  not	
  addressed	
  the	
  adequacy	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  and,	
  as	
  such,	
  no	
  changes	
  
                               to	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   are	
   warranted.	
   	
   All	
   of	
   the	
   supporting	
   information	
   provided	
   by	
   the	
  
                               commenter	
  has	
  been	
  included	
  in	
  this	
  Final	
  EIR,	
  and	
  may	
  be	
  utilized	
  by	
  the	
  City	
  during	
  
                               the	
  subsequent	
  review	
  of	
  future	
  projects.	
  

Response	
  F-­‐3:	
  	
       The	
  commenter	
  requests	
  that	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  be	
  amended	
  to	
  comply	
  with	
  the	
  MOU	
  
                               currently	
   in	
   effect.	
   This	
   comment	
   is	
   noted	
   and	
   has	
   been	
   forwarded	
   to	
   the	
   Planning	
  
                               Commission	
   and	
   City	
   Council	
   for	
   their	
   consideration.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   has	
   not	
  
                               addressed	
  the	
  adequacy	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  and,	
  as	
  such,	
  no	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  
                               warranted.	
  	
  All	
  of	
  the	
  supporting	
  information	
  provided	
  by	
  the	
  commenter	
  has	
  been	
  
                               included	
   in	
   this	
   Final	
   EIR,	
   and	
   may	
   be	
   utilized	
   by	
   the	
   City	
   during	
   the	
   subsequent	
  
                               review	
  of	
  future	
  projects.	
  




                             Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
                                2.0-­‐43	
  
	
  
       2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




                                                                                                                        	
  




       2.0-­‐44	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                 2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐45	
  
	
  
       2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐46	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                                               COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                                               2.0	
  
	
  
	
  

Response	
  to	
  Letter	
  G	
  	
  	
   Cindy	
   Messer,	
   Deputy	
   Executive	
   Officer,	
   Delta	
  
                                          Stewardship	
  Council	
  
	
  

Response	
  G-­‐1:	
           The	
   commenter	
   provides	
   introductory	
   remarks	
   and	
   expresses	
   support	
   for	
   the	
  
                               General	
   Plan’s	
   guiding	
   principal	
   of	
   preserving	
   agricultural	
   lands	
   surrounding	
  
                               Brentwood,	
   as	
   well	
   as	
   the	
   land	
   use	
   pattern	
   that	
   promotes	
   conservation	
   and	
  
                               preservation	
   of	
   agricultural	
   lands	
   and	
   resources.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   notes	
   that	
   the	
  
                               Delta	
   Plan	
   should	
   be	
   acknowledged	
   in	
   the	
   Final	
   EIR’s	
   description	
   of	
   the	
   project’s	
  
                               environmental	
  setting.	
  	
  The	
  commenter	
  provides	
  specific	
  comments	
  in	
  the	
  following	
  
                               sections,	
  which	
  are	
  addressed	
  individually	
  below.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  G-­‐2:	
           The	
  commenter	
  states	
  that	
  the	
  Final	
  EIR	
  should	
  discuss	
  any	
  inconsistencies	
  between	
  
                               the	
  proposed	
  project	
  and	
  the	
  Delta	
  Plan.	
  	
  The	
  commenter	
  is	
  referred	
  to	
  Chapter	
  3.0	
  
                               of	
  this	
  Final	
  EIR,	
  which	
  includes	
  an	
  analysis	
  of	
  the	
  General	
  Plan’s	
  consistency	
  with	
  the	
  
                               Delta	
  Plan.	
  	
  As	
  described	
  in	
  greater	
  detail	
  in	
  Chapter	
  3.0,	
  the	
  proposed	
  General	
  Plan	
  
                               would	
  not	
  conflict	
  with	
  the	
  Delta	
  Plan,	
  and	
  no	
  new	
  mitigation	
  is	
  required.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  G-­‐3:	
  	
       The	
   commenter	
   states	
   that	
   Special	
   Planning	
   Area	
   1,	
   as	
   shown	
   on	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
  
                               Land	
   Use	
   Map,	
   is	
   outside	
   of	
   the	
   voter-­‐approved	
   Urban	
   Limit	
   Line,	
   and	
   the	
  
                               development	
   of	
   residential,	
   commercial,	
   and	
   industrial	
   land	
   uses	
   in	
   this	
   area	
   may	
  
                               conflict	
   with	
   Delta	
   Plan	
   Policy	
   DP	
   P1.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   is	
   referred	
   to	
   the	
   discussion	
   of	
  
                               General	
  Plan	
  consistency	
  with	
  the	
  Delta	
  Plan,	
  included	
  in	
  Chapter	
  3.0	
  of	
  this	
  Final	
  EIR.	
  	
  
                               As	
   discussed	
   in	
   Chapter	
   3.0,	
   while	
   the	
   Draft	
   Land	
   Use	
   Map	
   identifies	
   land	
   uses	
  
                               outside	
  of	
  the	
  city	
  limits,	
  it	
  is	
  important	
  to	
  note	
  that	
  all	
  lands	
  outside	
  of	
  the	
  city	
  limits	
  
                               remain	
   under	
   the	
   jurisdiction	
   and	
   land	
   use	
   planning	
   authority	
   of	
   Contra	
   Costa	
  
                               County.	
   	
   Adoption	
   and	
   implementation	
   of	
   the	
   proposed	
   Brentwood	
   General	
   Plan	
  
                               would	
   not	
   directly	
   result	
   in	
   the	
   construction	
   of	
   any	
   residential,	
   commercial,	
   or	
  
                               industrial	
  land	
  uses	
  on	
  lands	
  within	
  the	
  Delta	
  Plan’s	
  boundaries,	
  nor	
  would	
  it	
  entitle	
  
                               or	
  result	
  in	
  the	
  direct	
  approval	
  of	
  any	
  development	
  projects.	
  	
  	
  

                               The	
  designation	
  of	
  lands	
  on	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  Land	
  Use	
  Map	
  is	
  meant	
  to	
  reflect	
  to	
  the	
  
                               City’s	
  vision	
  for	
  future	
  land	
  use	
  patterns	
  in	
  the	
  Planning	
  Area.	
  	
  As	
  stated	
  above,	
  land	
  
                               use	
  planning	
  authority	
  outside	
  of	
  the	
  city	
  limits	
  in	
  the	
  unincorporated	
  areas	
  of	
  Contra	
  
                               Costa	
   County	
   rests	
   with	
   the	
   County.	
   	
   The	
   County’s	
   General	
   Plan	
   Land	
   Use	
  
                               designations	
   for	
   lands	
   within	
   the	
   Planning	
   Area,	
   outside	
   of	
   the	
   Brentwood	
   city	
   limits,	
  
                               are	
  shown	
  on	
  Figure	
  3.10-­‐4	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR.	
   	
   These	
   land	
   use	
   designations	
   currently	
  
                               (and	
   will	
   continue	
   to)	
   regulate	
   land	
   use	
   decisions	
   within	
   the	
   Planning	
   Area,	
   until	
   such	
  
                               time	
   as	
   these	
   lands	
   may	
   be	
   annexed	
   into	
   Brentwood.	
   	
   Annexation	
   would	
   require	
  



                             Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
                                       2.0-­‐47	
  
	
  
       2.0	
                 COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  
                               approval	
   by	
   the	
   Contra	
   Costa	
   Local	
   Agency	
   Formation	
   Commission	
   (LAFCO)	
   and	
  
                               would	
  require	
  a	
  voter-­‐approved	
  change	
  to	
  the	
  existing	
  Urban	
  Limit	
  Line.	
  	
  	
  

                               The	
  proposed	
  project	
  would	
  not	
  result	
  in	
  a	
  conflict	
  with	
  Delta	
  Plan	
  Policy	
  DP	
  P1,	
  since	
  
                               adoption	
   of	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   would	
   not	
   result	
   in	
   the	
   formal	
   re-­‐designation	
   of	
   any	
  
                               lands	
   outside	
   of	
   the	
   city	
   limits	
   to	
   residential,	
   commercial,	
   or	
   industrial,	
   nor	
   would	
  
                               adoption	
   of	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   entitle	
   or	
   otherwise	
   approve	
   any	
   residential,	
  
                               commercial,	
   or	
   industrial	
   lands	
   or	
   projects	
   outside	
   of	
   the	
   city	
   limits.	
   	
   As	
   such,	
   the	
  
                               proposed	
  project	
  does	
  not	
  conflict	
  with	
  Delta	
  Plan	
  Policy	
  DP	
  P1.	
  	
  The	
  potential	
  for	
  the	
  
                               General	
   Plan	
   to	
   conflict	
   with	
   the	
   Delta	
   Plan	
   is	
   considered	
   a	
   less	
   than	
   significant	
  
                               impact,	
  and	
  no	
  additional	
  mitigation	
  is	
  required.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  G-­‐4:	
  	
       The	
  commenter	
  notes	
  that	
  buildout	
  of	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  may	
  result	
  in	
  significant	
  and	
  
                               unavoidable	
  impacts	
  to	
  agricultural	
  lands	
  and	
  resources,	
  and	
  expresses	
  appreciation	
  
                               for	
   the	
   inclusion	
   of	
   mitigation	
   measures	
   to	
   offset	
   potential	
   impacts	
   to	
   agricultural	
  
                               lands.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   recommends	
   additional	
   mitigation	
   measures,	
   which	
   are	
  
                               drawn	
   from	
   the	
   Delta	
   Plan’s	
   Final	
   EIR,	
   to	
   further	
   protect	
   farmlands	
   to	
   the	
   greatest	
  
                               extent	
  feasible.	
  	
  The	
  General	
  Plan	
  includes	
  a	
  robust	
  set	
  of	
  policies	
  and	
  actions	
  aimed	
  
                               at	
  protecting	
  agricultural	
  lands	
  and	
  agricultural	
  resources	
  throughout	
  Brentwood	
  and	
  
                               the	
   Planning	
   Area.	
   	
   The	
   policies	
   and	
   actions	
   included	
   in	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   would	
  
                               accomplish	
  the	
  implementation	
  goals	
  of	
  the	
  policies	
  suggested	
  by	
  the	
  commenter	
  for	
  
                               inclusion	
   in	
   the	
   Final	
   EIR.	
   	
   While	
   the	
   City	
   appreciates	
   the	
   input	
   and	
   suggestions	
  
                               provided	
   by	
   the	
   commenter	
   with	
   respect	
   to	
   agricultural	
   mitigation,	
   the	
   existing	
  
                               policies	
   and	
   actions	
   included	
   in	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   accomplish	
   the	
   goals	
   of	
   the	
   Delta	
  
                               Plan	
  to	
  the	
  greatest	
  extent	
  feasible,	
  and	
  the	
  inclusion	
  of	
  the	
  language	
  suggested	
  by	
  
                               the	
   commenter	
   would	
   not	
   alter	
   the	
   conclusions	
   related	
   to	
   agricultural	
   impacts	
  
                               contained	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR;	
   therefore,	
   this	
   impact	
   would	
   remain	
   significant	
   and	
  
                               unavoidable.	
  	
  	
  

	
                             As	
   described	
   in	
   Chapter	
   3.0	
   of	
   this	
   Final	
   EIR,	
   the	
   following	
   policies	
   and	
   actions	
   are	
  
                               included	
   in	
   the	
   General	
   Plan,	
   which	
   would	
   provide	
   for	
   extensive	
   and	
   robust	
  
                               protection	
   of	
   agricultural	
   lands.	
   	
   These	
   policies	
   and	
   actions	
   represent	
   the	
   most	
  
                               aggressive	
   feasible	
   approach	
   to	
   agricultural	
   mitigation,	
   and	
   no	
   changes	
   to	
   these	
  
                               policies	
  and	
  actions	
  are	
  required.	
  

                               Policy	
   COS	
   2-­‐1:	
   Support	
   and	
   encourage	
   the	
   preservation	
   of	
   agricultural	
   lands	
  
                               throughout	
  Brentwood’s	
  Planning	
  Area,	
  particularly	
  in	
  areas	
  to	
  the	
  south	
  and	
  east	
  of	
  
                               the	
  city	
  limits.	
  	
  	
  

                               Policy	
  COS	
  2-­‐2:	
  	
  Maintain	
  permanent	
  agricultural	
  lands	
  surrounding	
  the	
  city	
  limits	
  to	
  
                               serve	
  as	
  community	
  separators	
  and	
  continue	
  the	
  agricultural	
  heritage	
  of	
  Brentwood.	
  	
  	
  



       2.0-­‐48	
            Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                        COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                                        2.0	
  
	
  
         Policy	
  COS	
  2-­‐3:	
  	
  Encourage	
  and	
  support	
  programs	
  that	
  create	
  or	
  establish	
  permanent	
  
         agricultural	
  areas	
  in	
  Brentwood’s	
  Planning	
  Area.	
  	
  	
  

         Policy	
  COS	
  2-­‐4:	
  	
  Participate	
  in	
  regional	
  planning	
  efforts	
  with	
  agencies	
  such	
  as	
  Contra	
  
         Costa	
   County,	
   the	
   cities	
   of	
   Antioch	
   and	
   Oakley,	
   land	
   trusts,	
   and	
   other	
   regional	
  
         partners	
   to	
   establish	
   and	
   maintain	
   permanent	
   agricultural	
   areas	
   surrounding	
  
         Brentwood.	
  	
  	
  

         Policy	
  COS	
  2-­‐5:	
  	
  Work	
  with	
  the	
  Local	
  Agency	
  Formation	
  Commission	
  (LAFCO)	
  on	
  issues	
  
         of	
  mutual	
  concern	
  including	
  the	
  conservation	
  of	
  agricultural	
  land	
  through	
  consistent	
  
         use	
   of	
   LAFCO	
   policies,	
   particularly	
   those	
   related	
   to	
   conversion	
   of	
   agricultural	
   lands	
  
         and	
   establishment	
   of	
   adequate	
   buffers	
   between	
   agricultural	
   and	
   non-­‐agricultural	
  
         uses,	
   and	
   the	
   designation	
   of	
   a	
   reasonable	
   and	
   logical	
   Sphere	
   of	
   Influence	
   (SOI)	
  
         boundary	
  for	
  the	
  City.	
  	
  	
  

         Policy	
  COS	
  2-­‐6:	
  	
  Minimize	
  conflicts	
  between	
  agricultural	
  and	
  urban	
  land	
  uses.	
  

         Policy	
   COS	
   2-­‐7:	
   	
   Require	
   the	
   use	
   of	
   buffers	
   such	
   as	
   greenbelts,	
   drainage	
   features,	
  
         parks,	
  or	
  other	
  improved	
  and	
  maintained	
  features	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  separate	
  residential	
  and	
  
         other	
   sensitive	
   land	
   uses,	
   such	
   as	
   schools	
   and	
   hospitals,	
   from	
   agricultural	
   lands	
   and	
  
         agricultural	
  operations.	
  	
  

         Policy	
   COS	
   2-­‐8:	
   	
   Require	
   new	
   development	
   to	
   have	
   structural	
   setbacks	
   that	
   respect	
  
         agricultural	
  operations.	
  

         Policy	
   COS	
   2-­‐9:	
   	
   Developers	
   shall	
   be	
   responsible	
   for	
   mitigating	
   impacts	
   upon	
   nearby	
  
         agriculture.	
   	
   Setbacks	
   and	
   buffers	
   shall	
   be	
   provided	
   by	
   the	
   developer	
   and	
   not	
  
         encroach	
  upon	
  productive	
  agricultural	
  areas.	
  

         Policy	
   COS	
   2-­‐10:	
   Limit	
   incompatible	
   uses	
   (i.e.,	
   schools,	
   hospitals,	
   and	
   high	
   density	
  
         residential)	
  near	
  agriculture.	
  

         Policy	
   COS	
   2-­‐11:	
   Work	
   with	
   agricultural	
   landowners	
   to	
   improve	
   practices	
   that	
   have	
  
         resulted	
   in	
   adverse	
   impacts	
   to	
   adjacent	
   properties.	
   	
   Such	
   practices	
   include	
   site	
  
         drainage	
  and	
  flood	
  control	
  measures.	
  

         Policy	
   COS	
   2-­‐12:	
   Promote	
   best	
   management	
   practices	
   in	
   agricultural	
   operations	
   to	
  
         reduce	
  emissions,	
  conserve	
  energy	
  and	
  water,	
  and	
  utilize	
  alternative	
  energy	
  sources.	
  

         Policy	
   COS	
   2-­‐13:	
   Assist	
   agricultural	
   landowners	
   and	
   farmers	
   with	
   a	
   variety	
   of	
  
         programs	
   aimed	
   at	
   preserving	
   agricultural	
   lands,	
   increasing	
   opportunities	
   for	
   local	
  
         sales	
  of	
  agricultural	
  products,	
  and	
  increasing	
  access	
  to	
  local	
  commodities	
  markets.	
  	
  	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
                               2.0-­‐49	
  
	
  
       2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  
                        Policy	
  COS	
  2-­‐14:	
  Encourage	
  agricultural	
  landowners	
  in	
  Brentwood’s	
  Planning	
  Area	
  to	
  
                        participate	
   in	
   Williamson	
   Act	
   contracts	
   and	
   other	
   programs	
   that	
   provide	
   long-­‐term	
  
                        protection	
  of	
  agricultural	
  lands.	
  	
  	
  

                        Policy	
   COS	
   2-­‐15:	
   Support	
   the	
   procurement	
   of	
   expanded	
   and	
   additional	
   water	
   rights	
  
                        which	
  provide	
  for	
  contractual	
  supply	
  reliability	
  for	
  agricultural	
  use.	
  

                        Policy	
  COS	
  2-­‐16:	
  Encourage	
  small-­‐scale	
  food	
  production,	
  such	
  as	
  community	
  gardens	
  
                        and	
   cooperative	
   neighborhood	
   growing	
   efforts,	
   on	
   parcels	
   within	
   the	
   city	
   limits,	
  
                        provided	
  that	
  the	
  operations	
  do	
  not	
  conflict	
  with	
  existing	
  adjacent	
  urban	
  uses.	
  

                        Policy	
  COS	
  2-­‐17:	
  Encourage	
  and	
  support	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  new	
  agricultural	
  related	
  
                        industries	
  featuring	
  alternative	
  energy,	
  utilization	
  of	
  agricultural	
  waste,	
  biofuels,	
  and	
  
                        solar	
  or	
  wind	
  farms.	
  

                        Policy	
  LU	
  1-­‐4:	
  	
  Require	
   new	
   development	
   to	
   occur	
   in	
   a	
   logical	
   and	
   orderly	
   manner,	
  
                        focusing	
  growth	
  on	
  infill	
  locations	
  and	
  areas	
  designated	
  for	
  urbanization	
  on	
  the	
  Land	
  
                        Use	
   Map	
   (Figure	
   LU-­‐1),	
   and	
   be	
   subject	
   to	
   the	
   ability	
   to	
   provide	
   urban	
   services,	
  
                        including	
  paying	
  for	
  any	
  needed	
  extension	
  of	
  services.	
  	
  	
  

                        Policy	
  LU	
  1-­‐5:	
  	
  Encourage	
   new	
   development	
   to	
   be	
   contiguous	
   to	
   existing	
   development,	
  
                        whenever	
  possible.	
  

                        Policy	
  LU	
  2-­‐7:	
  	
  Strongly	
   encourage	
   residential	
   development	
   in	
   the	
   city	
   in	
   a	
   balanced	
  
                        and	
   efficient	
   pattern	
   that	
   reduces	
   sprawl,	
   preserves	
   open	
   space,	
   and	
   creates	
  
                        convenient	
  connections	
  to	
  other	
  land	
  uses.	
  

                        Policy	
   LU	
   5-­‐1:	
   Maintain	
   significant	
   areas	
   of	
   permanent	
   agricultural	
   lands	
   and	
   open	
  
                        space	
  surrounding	
  the	
  city	
  limits.	
  	
  	
  

                        Policy	
  LU	
  5-­‐2:	
  	
  Protect	
   agricultural	
   land	
   from	
   urban	
   development	
   except	
   where	
   the	
  
                        General	
  Plan	
  Land	
  Use	
  Map	
  has	
  designated	
  the	
  land	
  for	
  urban	
  uses.	
  

                        Action	
  COS	
  2a:	
  Continue	
  to	
  implement	
  Chapter	
  8.01	
  (Right	
  to	
  Farm)	
  of	
  the	
  Brentwood	
  
                        Municipal	
  Code	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  protect	
  farming	
  uses	
  from	
  encroaching	
  urban	
  uses	
  and	
  to	
  
                        notify	
  potential	
  homebuyers	
  of	
  nearby	
  agricultural	
  operations.	
  

                        Action	
   COS	
   2b:	
   Consider	
   impacts	
   to	
   agricultural	
   lands	
   and	
   agricultural	
   productivity	
  
                        when	
   reviewing	
   new	
   development	
   projects,	
   amendments	
   to	
   the	
   General	
   Plan,	
   and	
  
                        rezoning	
  applications.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

                        Action	
  COS	
  2c:	
  Amend	
  Title	
  17	
  (Zoning)	
  of	
  the	
  Brentwood	
  Municipal	
  Code	
  to	
  include	
  
                        specific	
   agricultural	
   buffer	
   requirements	
   for	
   residential	
   and	
   sensitive	
   land	
   uses	
   (i.e.,	
  
                        schools,	
   day	
   care	
   facilities,	
   and	
   medical	
   facilities)	
   that	
   are	
   proposed	
   near	
   existing	
  
                        agricultural	
   lands	
   in	
   order	
   to	
   protect	
   the	
   associated	
   agricultural	
   operations	
   from	
  


       2.0-­‐50	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                        COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                                            2.0	
  
	
  
         encroachment	
  by	
  incompatible	
  uses.	
  	
  	
  Buffers	
  shall	
  generally	
  be	
  defined	
  as	
  a	
  physical	
  
         separation,	
   depending	
   on	
   the	
   land	
   use,	
   and	
   may	
   consist	
   of	
   topographic	
   features,	
  
         roadways,	
   bike/pedestrian	
   paths,	
   greenbelts,	
   water	
   courses,	
   or	
   similar	
   features.	
   The	
  
         buffer	
  shall	
  occur	
  on	
  the	
  parcel	
  for	
  which	
  a	
  permit	
  is	
  sought	
  and	
  shall	
  favor	
  protection	
  
         of	
  the	
  maximum	
  amount	
  of	
  agricultural	
  land.	
  

         Action	
   COS	
   2d:	
   Collaborate	
   with	
   water	
   suppliers	
   and	
   wastewater	
   treatment	
   plant	
  
         operators	
   to	
   increase	
   the	
   availability	
   of	
   treated	
   or	
   recycled	
   water	
   for	
   agricultural	
  
         purposes.	
  

         Action	
   COS	
   2e:	
   Work	
   with	
   Contra	
   Costa	
   County	
   to	
   establish	
   and	
   implement	
   consistent	
  
         policies	
   for	
   agricultural	
   lands	
   in	
   Brentwood's	
   Planning	
   Area	
   that	
   prioritize	
   the	
  
         preservation	
  of	
  agricultural	
  lands	
  and	
  support	
  ongoing	
  agricultural	
  activities.	
  

         Action	
   COS	
   2f:	
   Continue	
   to	
   implement,	
   and	
   periodically	
   review/update	
   as	
   necessary,	
  
         Chapter	
   17.730	
   (Agricultural	
   Preservation	
   Program)	
   of	
   the	
   Brentwood	
   Municipal	
  
         Code.	
  

         Action	
   COS	
   2g:	
   Continue	
   to	
   implement	
   the	
   Agricultural	
   Enterprise	
   Implementation	
  
         Plan	
   to	
   assist	
   local	
   farmers	
   with	
   a	
   variety	
   of	
   programs	
   that	
   facilitate	
   infrastructure	
  
         improvements,	
   business	
   ventures,	
   and	
   other	
   initiatives	
   to	
   grow	
   the	
   agricultural	
  
         industry	
  in	
  and	
  around	
  Brentwood.	
  	
  	
  

         Action	
   COS	
   2h:	
   Coordinate	
   with	
   groups	
   such	
   as	
   the	
   Agricultural-­‐Natural	
   Resources	
  
         Trust	
   of	
   Contra	
   Costa	
   County	
   (ANRT),	
   the	
   Brentwood	
   Agricultural	
   Land	
   Trust	
   (BALT),	
  
         and	
   Harvest	
   Time	
   in	
   Brentwood	
   in	
   order	
   to	
   fund	
   agricultural	
   easements,	
   programs	
  
         that	
  protect	
  agricultural	
  lands,	
  and	
  programs	
  that	
  provide	
  marketing	
  assistance	
  and	
  
         economic	
  support	
  to	
  local	
  farmers.	
  	
  	
  

         Action	
  COS	
  2i:	
  	
  Develop	
   a	
   program	
   to	
   provide	
   additional	
   support	
   for	
   agricultural	
  
         tourism,	
  u-­‐pick	
  farms,	
  and	
  other	
  agricultural	
  activities	
  that	
  serve	
  as	
  a	
  regional	
  draw	
  
         to	
  Brentwood	
  and	
  enhance	
  its	
  agricultural	
  heritage.	
  	
  	
  

         Action	
   LU	
   1c:	
   Prioritize	
   the	
   processing	
   of	
   development	
   applications	
   for	
   infill,	
  
         underutilized,	
   or	
   vacant	
   parcels	
   designated	
   for	
   urban	
   uses	
   over	
   those	
   projects	
  
         requiring	
  annexation.	
  	
  	
  

         Action	
  LU	
  5a:	
  	
  Continue	
   to	
   designate	
   agricultural	
   lands	
   to	
   the	
   south	
   and	
   east	
   of	
   the	
  
         city	
  limits	
  as	
  Agricultural	
  Conservation	
  on	
  the	
  Land	
  Use	
  Map.	
  	
  	
  

         Action	
   LU	
   5b:	
   Coordinate	
   with	
   Contra	
   Costa	
   County	
   to	
   encourage	
   and	
   facilitate	
   a	
  
         variety	
   of	
   agricultural	
   enterprises	
   on	
   lands	
   identified	
   as	
   the	
   Agricultural	
   Enterprise	
  
         Area	
   in	
   the	
   Brentwood	
   General	
   Plan.	
   Agricultural	
   uses	
   within	
   this	
   area	
   should	
   be	
  
         flexible	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  maximize	
  the	
  economic	
  vitality	
  of	
  smaller	
  agricultural	
  parcels	
  that	
  


       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
                                  2.0-­‐51	
  
	
  
       2.0	
             COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  
                           may	
  not	
  be	
  suitable	
  for	
  large-­‐scale	
  commercial	
  agricultural	
  operations.	
  	
  Allowed	
  uses	
  
                           should	
  be	
  agricultural	
  in	
  nature	
  and	
  may	
  include,	
  but	
  are	
  not	
  limited	
  to,	
  the	
  following:	
  

                                            1. Visitor-­‐serving	
   uses	
   that	
   support	
   and	
   are	
   incidental	
   to	
   agricultural	
  
                                            production,	
   such	
   as	
   tasting	
   rooms,	
   including	
   sales	
   and	
   promotion	
   of	
  
                                            products	
   grown	
   or	
   processed	
   in	
   the	
   region,	
   educational	
   activities	
   and	
   tours,	
  
                                            incidental	
   sales	
   of	
   items	
   related	
   to	
   local	
   area	
   agricultural	
   products,	
  
                                            promotional	
   events,	
   and	
   farm	
   homestays,	
   which	
   allow	
   visitors	
   to	
   visit	
   a	
  
                                            farm	
   in	
   the	
   form	
   of	
   a	
   vacation,	
   that	
   support	
   and	
   are	
   secondary	
   and	
  
                                            incidental	
  to	
  local	
  agricultural	
  production.	
  	
  

                                            2. Commercial	
  uses	
  that	
  directly	
  support	
  agricultural	
  operations,	
  including	
  
                                            roadside	
  stands,	
  wholesale	
  and	
  retail	
  agricultural	
  sales,	
  and	
  wineries.	
  

                                            3. Agricultural-­‐based	
   tourism	
   uses,	
   including	
   u-­‐pick	
   farms,	
   dude	
   ranches,	
  
                                            lodging,	
   horseshows,	
   rodeos,	
   crop-­‐based	
   seasonal	
   events,	
   and	
   ancillary	
  
                                            restaurants	
  and/or	
  stores.	
  

                                            4. Equestrian	
  centers	
  and	
  facilities,	
  including	
  boarding	
  facilities.	
  

Response	
  G-­‐5:	
       The	
  commenter	
  requests	
  an	
  explanation	
  of	
  why	
  agricultural	
  land	
  would	
  be	
  converted	
  
                           to	
  non-­‐agricultural	
  uses,	
  given	
  that	
  the	
  proposed	
  General	
  Plan	
  is	
  anticipated	
  to	
  result	
  
                           in	
   a	
   lower	
   buildout	
   population	
   than	
   the	
   current	
   General	
   Plan.	
   	
   As	
   shown	
   in	
   Table	
   3.2-­‐
                           1	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   the	
   California	
   Department	
   of	
   Conservation	
   Farmland	
   Mapping	
   and	
  
                           Monitoring	
   Program	
   (FMMP)	
   identifies	
   approximately	
   1,700	
   acres	
   of	
   Important	
  
                           Farmland	
  within	
  the	
  Brentwood	
  city	
  limits,	
  including	
  635.39	
  acres	
  of	
  Prime	
  Farmland,	
  
                           27.85	
  acres	
  of	
  Farmland	
  of	
  Statewide	
  Importance,	
  0.29	
  acre	
  of	
  Unique	
  Farmland,	
  and	
  
                           1,036.5	
  acres	
  of	
  Farmland	
  of	
  Local	
  Importance.	
  	
  The	
  majority	
  of	
  the	
  lands	
  within	
  the	
  
                           Brentwood	
  city	
  limits	
  are	
  designated	
  for	
  urban	
  land	
  uses	
  on	
  both	
  the	
  current	
  General	
  
                           Plan	
  Land	
  Use	
  Map	
  and	
  the	
  proposed	
  General	
  Plan	
  Land	
  Use	
  Map.	
  	
  The	
  designation	
  
                           of	
  lands	
  within	
  the	
  city	
  limits	
  for	
  urban	
  land	
  uses	
  represents	
  a	
  land	
  use	
  pattern	
  that	
  
                           would	
   promote	
   infill	
   development	
   and	
   protect	
   agricultural	
   lands,	
   agricultural	
  
                           resources,	
  and	
  Williamson	
  Act	
  contract	
  lands	
  throughout	
  areas	
  beyond	
  the	
  city	
  limits.	
  
                           The	
   Brentwood	
   General	
   Plan	
   emphasizes	
   and	
   prioritizes	
   infill	
   development	
   as	
   a	
   key	
  
                           strategy	
   to	
   preserve	
   and	
   protect	
   the	
   greatest	
   amount	
   of	
   agricultural	
   land	
   feasible.	
  	
  
                           While	
   all	
   of	
   the	
   Important	
   Farmlands	
   within	
   the	
   city	
   limits	
   may	
   eventually	
   be	
  
                           converted	
   to	
   non-­‐agricultural	
   uses,	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   seeks	
   to	
   preserve	
   and	
   protect	
  
                           significant	
   quantities	
   of	
   agricultural	
   lands	
   outside	
   of	
   the	
   city	
   limits,	
   within	
   the	
  
                           Planning	
  Area.	
  	
  	
  

                           Table	
   3.2-­‐2	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   identifies	
   the	
   proposed	
   land	
   use	
   designation	
   for	
   the	
  
                           Important	
  Farmland	
  acres	
  located	
  in	
  the	
  Planning	
  Area.	
  	
  As	
  shown	
  in	
  this	
  table,	
  of	
  the	
  
                           14,757	
   acres	
   of	
   Important	
   Farmland	
   located	
   within	
   the	
   Planning	
   Area,	
   12,534	
   acres	
  

       2.0-­‐52	
        Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                                                           2.0	
  
	
  
         (approximately	
   85%)	
   are	
   assigned	
   land	
   use	
   designations	
   on	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   Land	
  
         Use	
  Map	
  that	
  would	
  protect	
  the	
  agricultural	
  viability	
  of	
  the	
  land.	
  	
  	
  

         As	
   described	
   in	
   greater	
   detail	
   in	
   Chapter	
   2.0	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   the	
   Agricultural	
  
         Conservation	
   land	
   use	
   designation	
   is	
   designed	
   to	
   protect	
   agricultural	
   lands	
   and	
  
         agricultural	
   operations.	
   	
   The	
   Permanent	
   Open	
   Space	
   designation	
   identifies	
   lands	
   that	
  
         are	
  permanently	
  protected	
  from	
  future	
  urban	
  development	
  through	
  the	
  application	
  
         of	
   conservation	
   easements	
   or	
   other	
   formal	
   mechanisms	
   to	
   ensure	
   that	
   open	
   space	
  
         uses	
  are	
  continued	
  in	
  perpetuity.	
  	
  The	
  Park	
  designation	
  in	
  the	
  Planning	
  Area	
  applies	
  
         only	
   to	
   Marsh	
   Creek	
   State	
   Park,	
   and	
   does	
   not	
   include	
   any	
   parcels	
   proposed	
   for	
  
         development	
  of	
  formal	
  recreational	
  facilities.	
  	
  The	
  Urban	
  Reserve	
  designation	
  serves	
  
         as	
   a	
   placeholder	
   for	
   future	
   urban	
   development.	
   	
   The	
   land	
   designated	
   as	
   Urban	
  
         Reserve	
   is	
   located	
   beyond	
   the	
   existing	
   Sphere	
   of	
   Influence	
   (SOI)	
   and	
   outside	
   the	
  
         Urban	
  Limit	
  Line.	
  Lands	
  designated	
  Urban	
  Reserve	
  shall	
  not	
  be	
  extensively	
  subdivided	
  
         or	
   developed	
   until	
   it	
   is	
   appropriate	
   to	
   develop	
   the	
   lands	
   with	
   urban	
   levels	
   of	
  
         residential,	
   commercial,	
   parks	
   and	
   recreation,	
   and	
   public/semi-­‐public	
   uses.	
   	
   It	
   is	
  
         expected	
  that	
  more	
  specific	
  planning	
  and	
  feasibility	
  studies	
  will	
  be	
  required	
  prior	
  to	
  
         the	
   development	
   of	
   these	
   areas.	
   	
   Additionally,	
   there	
   are	
   areas	
   of	
   land	
   within	
   the	
  
         Planning	
  Area	
  that	
  do	
  not	
  have	
  a	
  formal	
  land	
  use	
  designation,	
  which	
  consist	
  primarily	
  
         of	
   utility	
   easements,	
   rights-­‐of-­‐way,	
   and	
   other	
   non-­‐developable	
   areas	
   that	
   are	
   not	
  
         subject	
  to	
  urban	
  development.	
  	
  	
  

         As	
  noted	
  in	
  Chapter	
  3.0	
  of	
  this	
  Final	
  EIR,	
  while	
  the	
  Draft	
  Land	
  Use	
  Map	
  identifies	
  land	
  
         uses	
   outside	
   of	
   the	
   city	
   limits,	
   it	
   is	
   important	
   to	
   note	
   that	
   all	
   lands	
   outside	
   of	
   the	
   city	
  
         limits	
  remain	
  under	
  the	
  jurisdiction	
  and	
  land	
  use	
  planning	
  authority	
  of	
  Contra	
  Costa	
  
         County.	
   	
   Adoption	
   and	
   implementation	
   of	
   the	
   proposed	
   Brentwood	
   General	
   Plan	
  
         would	
   not	
   directly	
   result	
   in	
   the	
   construction	
   of	
   any	
   residential,	
   commercial,	
   or	
  
         industrial	
   land	
   uses	
   on	
   lands	
   within	
   the	
   Delta	
   Plan	
   boundaries,	
   nor	
   would	
   it	
   entitle	
   or	
  
         result	
  in	
  the	
  direct	
  approval	
  of	
  any	
  development	
  projects.	
  	
  	
  

         The	
   designation	
   of	
   lands	
   on	
   the	
  General	
   Plan	
   Land	
   Use	
  Map	
  is	
  meant	
  to	
  reflect	
  the	
  
         City’s	
  vision	
  for	
  future	
  land	
  use	
  patterns	
  in	
  the	
  Planning	
  Area.	
  	
  As	
  stated	
  above,	
  land	
  
         use	
  planning	
  authority	
  outside	
  of	
  the	
  city	
  limits	
  in	
  the	
  unincorporated	
  areas	
  of	
  Contra	
  
         Costa	
   County	
   rests	
   with	
   the	
   County.	
   	
   The	
   County’s	
   General	
   Plan	
   Land	
   Use	
  
         designations	
   for	
   lands	
   within	
   the	
   Planning	
   Area,	
   outside	
   of	
   the	
   Brentwood	
   city	
   limits,	
  
         are	
  shown	
  on	
  Figure	
  3.10-­‐4	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR.	
   	
   These	
   land	
   use	
   designations	
   currently	
  
         (and	
   will	
   continue	
   to)	
   regulate	
   land	
   use	
   decisions	
   within	
   the	
   Planning	
   Area,	
   until	
   such	
  
         time	
   as	
   these	
   lands	
   may	
   be	
   annexed	
   into	
   Brentwood.	
   	
   Annexation	
   of	
   lands	
   would	
  
         require	
   approval	
   by	
   the	
   Contra	
   Costa	
   Local	
   Agency	
   Formation	
   Commission	
   (LAFCO)	
  
         and	
   would	
   require	
   a	
   voter-­‐approved	
   change	
   to	
   the	
   existing	
   Urban	
   Limit	
   Line.	
   	
   No	
  
         changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  required.	
  	
  	
  


       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
                                                   2.0-­‐53	
  
	
  
       2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐54	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                 2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐55	
  
	
  
       2.0	
             COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  
	
  

Response	
  to	
  Letter	
  H	
  	
  	
   Erik	
   Alm,	
   District	
   Branch	
   Chief,	
                                                                 California	
  
                                          Department	
  of	
  Transportation	
  (Caltrans)	
  
	
  

Response	
  H-­‐1:	
       The	
  commenter	
  provides	
  introductory	
  remarks	
  and	
  notes	
  that	
  specific	
  comments	
  on	
  
                           the	
  General	
  Plan	
  and	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  provided	
  in	
  the	
  following	
  comments.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  H-­‐2:	
       The	
   commenter	
   states	
   that	
   the	
   use	
   of	
   “Delay	
   Index”	
   for	
   analysis	
   of	
   the	
   freeway	
  
                           facility	
  is	
  insufficient,	
  and	
  asks	
  for	
  a	
  study	
  of	
  the	
  freeway’s	
  level	
  of	
  service.	
  

                           As	
   indicated	
   on	
   page	
   3.13-­‐28	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   the	
   Delay	
   Index	
   metric	
   has	
   been	
   set	
   by	
  
                           the	
  Contra	
  Costa	
  Transportation	
  Authority	
  (CCTA)	
  and	
  TRANSPLAN	
  as	
  the	
  Multimodal	
  
                           Transportation	
   Service	
   Objective	
   (MTSO)	
   to	
   be	
   applied	
   on	
   State	
   Route	
   4	
   in	
   East	
  
                           Contra	
   Costa	
   County.	
   	
   Justification	
   for	
   the	
   use	
   of	
   the	
   Delay	
   Index	
   instead	
   of	
  
                           conventional	
   freeway	
   level	
   of	
   service	
   methodologies	
   is	
   outlined	
   in	
   the	
   East	
   County	
  
                           Action	
   Plan	
   for	
   Routes	
   of	
   Regional	
   Significance,	
   TRANSPLAN,	
   2009.	
   	
   The	
   adopted	
  
                           standard	
   is	
   that	
   the	
   Delay	
   Index	
   should	
   not	
   exceed	
   2.5	
   during	
   the	
   AM	
   or	
   PM	
   peak	
  
                           period	
  for	
  SR	
  4.	
  	
  Following	
  is	
  an	
  excerpt	
  from	
  page	
  28	
  of	
  the	
  East	
  County	
  Action	
  Plan:	
  

                                     “Anticipated	
   growth	
   that	
   has	
   already	
   been	
   approved	
   is	
   likely	
   to	
   be	
  
                                     faster	
   than	
   the	
   ability	
   of	
   local	
   jurisdictions	
   and	
   Caltrans	
   to	
   provide	
  
                                     capacity	
   relief.	
   	
   It	
   is	
   unreasonable	
   to	
   expect	
   that	
   uncongested	
  
                                     conditions	
  can	
  ever	
  be	
  achieved	
  in	
  a	
  single	
  hour.	
  	
  Travelers	
  in	
  urban	
  and	
  
                                     suburban	
   areas	
   have	
   come	
   to	
   accept	
   peak	
   hour	
   congestion,	
   especially	
  
                                     on	
  the	
  freeway	
  routes.”	
  

                           While	
   the	
   commenter	
   provides	
   no	
   suggestion	
   for	
   alternative	
   methods	
   of	
   freeway	
  
                           performance,	
  one	
  alternative	
  method	
  commonly	
  used	
  is	
  based	
  on	
  projected	
  average	
  
                           speeds	
   during	
   peak	
   hours.	
   	
   Such	
   an	
   approach	
   is	
   used	
   by	
   the	
   Contra	
   Costa	
  
                           Transportation	
   Authority	
   in	
   its	
   Congestion	
   Management	
   Program	
   and	
   monitoring	
  
                           efforts,	
   including	
   the	
   2011	
   Congestion	
   Management	
   Program	
   Monitoring	
   Report,	
  
                           CCTA.	
  

                           The	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   provides	
   average	
   speeds	
   for	
   both	
   peak	
   hours	
   by	
   direction	
   in	
   Tables	
  
                           3.13-­‐19	
   and	
   3.13-­‐20.	
   	
   These	
   projections	
   are	
   summarized	
   in	
   the	
   following	
   table	
   for	
  
                           reference,	
   along	
   with	
   the	
   estimated	
   freeway	
   level	
   of	
   service	
   based	
   on	
   the	
   speed-­‐
                           based	
  LOS	
  criteria	
  utilized	
  by	
  CCTA.	
  




       2.0-­‐56	
        Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                                                 COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                                                    2.0	
  
 	
  
                                	
  

                                       SR	
  4	
  FREEWAY	
  PERFORMANCE	
  –	
  SR	
  160	
  TO	
  LONE	
  TREE	
  WAY	
  
	
                                             EASTBOUND	
                                                           WESTBOUND	
  
	
                                                AM	
  Peak	
  Hour	
                  PM	
  Peak	
  Hour	
           AM	
  Peak	
  Hour	
                   PM	
  Peak	
  Hour	
  
Buildout	
  to	
  City	
  Limits	
                     58.2/B	
                              48.8/D	
                       31.8/E	
                               60.9/A	
  
Buildout	
  to	
  Planning	
  Area	
                   56.7/C	
                              49.8/D	
                       33.0/E	
                               59.8/B	
  
 	
  Note:	
                    Results	
  expressed	
  as	
  Average	
  Speed/Level	
  of	
  Service	
  
 	
                             Average	
  Speed	
  values	
  obtained	
  from	
  DEIR	
  Tables	
  3.13-­‐19	
  and	
  3.13-­‐20	
  
 	
                             Level	
  of	
  Service	
  thresholds	
  based	
  on	
  CCTA	
  2011	
  CMP	
  Monitoring	
  Report,	
  Table	
  3	
  

 	
                             The	
  analysis	
  of	
  potential	
  traffic	
  impacts	
  to	
  freeway	
  facilities	
  contained	
  in	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  
                                is	
  appropriate,	
  and	
  is	
  consistent	
  with	
  methodology	
  recommended	
  by	
  the	
  East	
  County	
  
                                Action	
   Plan	
   for	
   Routes	
   of	
   Regional	
   Significance.	
   	
   No	
   changes	
   to	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   are	
  
                                warranted.	
  	
  	
  

 Response	
  H-­‐3:	
  	
       The	
  commenter	
  states	
  that	
  General	
  Plan	
  Policy	
  CIR	
  1-­‐4	
  and	
  Figure	
  CIR-­‐2	
  reference	
  the	
  
                                SR	
   4	
   Bypass,	
   and	
   notes	
   that	
   SR	
   4	
   has	
   been	
   adopted	
   by	
   Caltrans	
   and	
   is	
   no	
   longer	
   a	
  
                                bypass.	
   	
   This	
   comment	
   is	
   noted.	
   	
   Policy	
   CIR	
   1-­‐4	
   lists	
   and	
   references	
   the	
   Routes	
   of	
  
                                Regional	
  Significance	
  identified	
  in	
  the	
  East	
  County	
  Action	
  Plan	
  for	
  Routes	
  of	
  Regional	
  
                                Significance,	
   produced	
   by	
   the	
   TRANSPLAN	
   Committee	
   and	
   the	
   Contra	
   Costa	
  
                                Transportation	
   Authority	
   (CCTA).	
   	
   In	
   order	
   to	
   maintain	
   consistency	
   with	
   this	
  
                                document,	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   lists	
   the	
   Routes	
   of	
   Regional	
   Significance	
   in	
   the	
   same	
  
                                manner	
  as	
  they	
  are	
  identified	
  in	
   the	
  East	
  County	
  Action	
  Plan	
  for	
  Routes	
  of	
  Regional	
  
                                Significance.	
   	
   Additionally,	
   Figure	
   CIR-­‐2	
   was	
   taken	
   directly	
   from	
   the	
   East	
   County	
  
                                Action	
  Plan	
  for	
  Routes	
  of	
  Regional	
  Significance,	
   and	
  was	
  intentionally	
  not	
  modified	
  by	
  
                                the	
  City	
  prior	
  to	
  inclusion	
  in	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  maintain	
  consistency	
  with	
  
                                the	
  East	
  County	
  Action	
  Plan	
  for	
  Routes	
  of	
  Regional	
  Significance.	
  	
   Figure	
  CIR-­‐1	
  in	
  the	
  
                                General	
  Plan	
  is	
  the	
  City’s	
  Circulation	
  Diagram,	
  and	
  identifies	
  the	
  former	
  alignment	
  of	
  
                                SR	
  4	
  as	
  Brentwood	
  Boulevard,	
  and	
  identifies	
  the	
  former	
  alignment	
  of	
  the	
  SR	
  4	
  Bypass	
  
                                as	
   SR	
   4.	
   	
   The	
   City	
   appreciates	
   this	
   comment,	
   however,	
   the	
   use	
   of	
   language	
   and	
  
                                graphics	
   derived	
   directly	
   from	
   the	
   East	
   County	
   Action	
   Plan	
   for	
   Routes	
   of	
   Regional	
  
                                Significance	
   is	
   appropriate,	
   and	
   no	
   changes	
   to	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   or	
   General	
   Plan	
   are	
  
                                warranted.	
  	
  	
  

 Response	
  H-­‐4:	
  	
       The	
   commenter	
   requests	
   that	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   incorporate	
   the	
   Contra	
   Costa	
  
                                Transportation	
  Authority’s	
  future	
  plans	
  for	
  SR	
  4,	
  and	
  notes	
  that	
  SR	
  4	
  is	
  planned	
  as	
  a	
  
                                four-­‐lane	
  freeway	
  with	
  a	
  wide	
  median.	
  	
  The	
  commenter	
  also	
  requests	
  that	
  the	
  Draft	
  
                                EIR	
   reflect	
   the	
   issues	
   raised	
   in	
   this	
   letter.	
   	
   Regarding	
   the	
   future	
   plans	
   for	
   SR	
   4;	
   this	
  
                                comment	
   is	
   noted	
   and	
   has	
   been	
   forwarded	
   to	
   the	
   Planning	
   Commission	
   and	
   City	
  
                                Council	
   for	
   their	
   review	
   and	
   consideration.	
   	
   All	
   of	
   the	
   comments	
   raised	
   in	
   the	
  




                              Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
                                             2.0-­‐57	
  
 	
  
       2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  
                        commenter	
   letter	
   have	
   been	
   addressed	
   in	
   the	
   responses	
   provided	
   above,	
   and	
   no	
  
                        changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  	
  	
  




       2.0-­‐58	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                 2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐59	
  
	
  
       2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐60	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                 2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐61	
  
	
  
       2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐62	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                                           COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                                                  2.0	
  
	
  
	
  

Response	
  to	
  Letter	
  I	
  	
  	
            Louis	
  Parsons,	
  Discovery	
  Builders,	
  Inc.	
  
	
  

Response	
  I-­‐1:	
       The	
  commenter	
  requests	
  a	
  land	
  use	
  designation	
  change	
  to	
  the	
  parcel	
  located	
  at	
  1700	
  
                           Lone	
   Oak	
   Road.	
   	
   This	
   comment	
   is	
   noted	
   and	
   has	
   been	
   forwarded	
   to	
   the	
   Planning	
  
                           Commission	
   and	
   City	
   Council	
   for	
   their	
   review	
   and	
   consideration.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
  
                           does	
   not	
   address	
   the	
   adequacy	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   and,	
   as	
   such,	
   no	
   changes	
   to	
   the	
   Draft	
  
                           EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  	
  	
  




                         Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
                                         2.0-­‐63	
  
	
  
       2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐64	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                 2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐65	
  
	
  
       2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐66	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                 2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐67	
  
	
  
       2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐68	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                 2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐69	
  
	
  
       2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐70	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                 2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐71	
  
	
  
       2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐72	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                 2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐73	
  
	
  
       2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐74	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                 2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐75	
  
	
  
       2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐76	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                                         COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                                      2.0	
  
	
  
	
  

Response	
  to	
  Letter	
  J	
  	
  	
          William	
   R.	
   Kirkpatrick,	
   Manager	
   of	
   Water	
  
                                                 Distribution	
   Planning,	
   East	
   Bay	
   Municipal	
   Utility	
  
                                                 District	
  (EBMUD)	
  
	
  

Response	
  J-­‐1:	
       The	
   commenter	
   notes	
   that	
   Brentwood	
   is	
   located	
   outside	
   of	
   EBMUD’s	
   Ultimate	
  
                           Service	
  Boundary,	
  and	
  notes	
  that	
  EBMUD’s	
  Mokelumne	
  Aqueducts	
  are	
  located	
  within	
  
                           the	
  city	
  boundaries.	
  	
  This	
  comment	
  is	
  noted.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  J-­‐2:	
       The	
   commenter	
   states	
   that	
   future	
   projects	
   within	
   Brentwood	
   which	
   may	
   impact	
  
                           EBMUD	
  right-­‐of-­‐way	
  must	
  adhere	
  to	
  EBMUD’s	
  procedures	
  and	
  requirements	
  for	
  use	
  
                           of	
   the	
   right-­‐of-­‐way.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   provides	
   reference	
   materials	
   related	
   to	
   these	
  
                           requirements.	
   	
   This	
   comment	
   is	
   noted	
   and	
   appreciated.	
   	
   The	
   City	
   will	
   continue	
   to	
  
                           coordinate	
   with	
   EBMUD	
   regarding	
   projects	
   within	
   Brentwood	
   that	
   may	
   impact	
  
                           EBMUD	
   right-­‐of-­‐way	
   and/or	
   infrastructure,	
   and	
   will	
   continue	
   to	
   ensure	
   that	
   all	
  
                           projects	
   and	
   actions	
   implement	
   the	
   appropriate	
   requirements.	
   	
   No	
   changes	
   to	
   the	
  
                           Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  	
  	
  




                         Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
                           2.0-­‐77	
  
	
  
       2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐78	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                 2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐79	
  
	
  
       2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐80	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                 2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐81	
  
	
  
       2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐82	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                                          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                                            2.0	
  
	
  
	
  

Response	
  to	
  Letter	
  K	
  	
  	
   Joel	
   Devalcourt,	
   Regional	
   Representative,	
   Greenbelt	
  
                                          Alliance	
  
	
  

Response	
  K-­‐1:	
       The	
  commenter	
  provides	
  introductory	
  remarks	
  and	
  states	
  that	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  does	
  not	
  
                           adequately	
   study	
   and	
   mitigate	
   for	
   significant	
   impacts	
   of	
   proposed	
   future	
   planning	
  
                           and	
  development.	
  	
  Specific	
  responses	
  to	
  issues	
  raised	
  in	
  the	
  commenter’s	
  letter	
  are	
  
                           provided	
  below.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  K-­‐2:	
       The	
   commenter	
   states	
   that	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   encourages	
   sprawl-­‐type	
   development	
  
                           on	
  open	
  space	
  and	
  prime	
  farmland,	
  resulting	
  in	
  impacts	
  related	
  to	
  traffic,	
  air	
  quality,	
  
                           farmland,	
   open	
   space,	
   and	
   scenic	
   viewsheds.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   requests	
   that	
   the	
   Final	
  
                           EIR	
   consider	
   the	
   fiscal	
   impacts	
   of	
   developing	
   farmland	
   and	
   open	
   space.	
   	
   The	
  
                           commenter	
   does	
   not	
   provide	
   any	
   specific	
   details	
   or	
   information	
   regarding	
   impacts	
   to	
  
                           the	
   range	
   of	
   environmental	
   topics	
   listed	
   above	
   in	
   this	
   particular	
   portion	
   of	
   the	
  
                           comment	
  letter.	
  	
  The	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  includes	
  a	
  thorough	
  and	
  detailed	
  analysis	
  of	
  impacts	
  
                           related	
   to	
   (among	
   others)	
   traffic,	
   air	
   quality,	
   farmland,	
   open	
   space,	
   and	
   scenic	
  
                           resources.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

                           The	
   inclusion	
   of	
   a	
   fiscal	
   analysis	
   is	
   not	
   appropriate	
   for	
   the	
   Final	
   EIR.	
   The	
   CEQA	
  
                           Guidelines	
   define	
   the	
   parameters	
   under	
   which	
   the	
   consideration	
   of	
   socioeconomic	
  
                           impacts	
   is	
   included	
   in	
   an	
   environmental	
   evaluation.	
   CEQA	
   Guidelines	
   Section	
   15131	
  
                           states	
   that	
   “[e]conomic	
   or	
   social	
   information	
   may	
   be	
   included	
   in	
   an	
   EIR	
   or	
   may	
   be	
  
                           presented	
   in	
   whatever	
   form	
   the	
   agency	
   desires.”	
   Further,	
   Section	
   15131(a)	
   of	
   the	
  
                           Guidelines	
  states	
  that	
  “[e]conomic	
  or	
  social	
  effects	
  of	
  a	
  project	
  shall	
  not	
  be	
  treated	
  as	
  
                           significant	
  effects	
  on	
  the	
  environment.	
  An	
  EIR	
  may	
  trace	
  a	
  chain	
  of	
  cause	
  and	
  effect	
  
                           from	
   a	
   proposed	
   decision	
   on	
   a	
   project	
   through	
   anticipated	
   economic	
   or	
   social	
  
                           changes	
   resulting	
   from	
   the	
   project	
   to	
   physical	
   changes	
   caused	
   in	
   turn	
   by	
   the	
  
                           economic	
   or	
   social	
   changes	
   [emphasis	
   added].	
   The	
   intermediate	
   economic	
   or	
   social	
  
                           changes	
   need	
   not	
   be	
   analyzed	
   in	
   any	
   detail	
   greater	
   than	
   necessary	
   to	
   trace	
   the	
   chain	
  
                           of	
  cause	
  and	
  effect.	
  The	
  focus	
  of	
  the	
  analysis	
  shall	
  be	
  on	
  the	
  physical	
  changes.”	
  CEQA	
  
                           Guidelines	
   Section	
   15131(b)	
   also	
   provides	
   that	
   “[e]conomic	
   or	
   social	
   effects	
   of	
   a	
  
                           project	
  may	
  be	
  used	
  to	
  determine	
  the	
  significance	
  of	
  physical	
  changes	
  caused	
  by	
  the	
  
                           project.”	
  

                           The	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  includes	
  a	
  detailed	
  and	
  comprehensive	
  analysis	
  of	
  potential	
  impacts	
  to	
  
                           farmland	
   and	
   undeveloped	
   lands	
   within	
   the	
   city	
   limits	
   and	
   the	
   Planning	
   Area.	
   	
   The	
  
                           commenter	
  is	
  referred	
  to	
  Chapter	
  3.1	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR,	
  which	
  includes	
  an	
  analysis	
  of	
  
                           impacts	
   to	
   aesthetics	
   and	
   visual	
   resources,	
   and	
   Chapter	
   3.2,	
   which	
   includes	
   an	
  
                           analysis	
   of	
   impacts	
   to	
   agricultural	
   and	
   forest	
   resources.	
   	
   Both	
   of	
   these	
   Draft	
   EIR	
  

                         Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
                                  2.0-­‐83	
  
	
  
       2.0	
             COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  
                           chapters	
   identify	
   a	
   range	
   of	
   policies	
   and	
   actions	
   included	
   in	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   that	
  
                           would	
  reduce	
  impacts	
  to	
  these	
  resources	
  to	
  the	
  greatest	
  extent	
  feasible.	
  	
  	
  

                           As	
  stated	
  above,	
  the	
  inclusion	
  of	
  a	
  fiscal	
  analysis	
  in	
  the	
  EIR	
  is	
  not	
  required.	
  	
  As	
  such,	
  
                           no	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  K-­‐3:	
       The	
   commenter	
   states	
   that	
   all	
   of	
   the	
   land	
   within	
   SPAs	
   1	
   and	
   2	
   are	
   outside	
   of	
   the	
  
                           Urban	
   Limit	
   Line	
   (ULL),	
   and	
   notes	
   multiple	
   ballot	
   measures	
   related	
   to	
   the	
   ULL.	
   	
   The	
  
                           recommendations	
   for	
   inclusion	
   in	
   the	
   Final	
   EIR	
   provided	
   by	
   the	
   commenter	
   consist	
  
                           primary	
  of	
  ballot	
  measures	
  that	
  are	
  not	
  currently	
  in	
  effect,	
  including	
  ballot	
  measures	
  
                           that	
   were	
   rejected.	
   	
   The	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   correctly	
   and	
   accurately	
   identifies	
   the	
  
                           requirements	
  of	
  Measure	
  J	
  (see	
  page	
  3.10-­‐28),	
  and	
  notes	
  Measure	
  J’s	
  relationship	
  to	
  
                           the	
  currently	
  enforceable	
  ULL.	
  	
  The	
  background	
  narrative	
  provided	
  by	
  the	
  commenter	
  
                           has	
  no	
  bearing	
  on	
  the	
  analysis	
  or	
  accuracy	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  	
  This	
  comment	
  is	
  noted,	
  
                           and	
   has	
   been	
   forwarded	
   to	
   the	
   Planning	
   Commission	
   and	
   City	
   Council	
   for	
   their	
  
                           consideration.	
  	
  No	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  K-­‐4:	
       The	
   commenter	
   states	
   that	
   if	
   development	
   in	
   SPA	
   1	
   and	
   SPA	
   2	
   moves	
   forward,	
   it	
  
                           would	
   require	
   a	
   voter-­‐approved	
   amendment	
   to	
   the	
   ULL	
   and	
   would	
   require	
  
                           annexation	
  into	
  the	
  city	
  limits.	
  	
  This	
  comment	
  is	
  noted.	
  	
  The	
  identification	
  of	
  SPAs	
  1	
  
                           and	
  2	
  on	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  Land	
  Use	
  Map	
  would	
  not	
  formally	
  move,	
  alter,	
  or	
  break	
  the	
  
                           existing	
  ULL.	
  	
  If	
  future	
  development	
  projects	
  within	
  SPAs	
  1	
  and	
  2	
  were	
  proposed	
  for	
  
                           annexation	
   into	
   Brentwood,	
   the	
   annexation	
   would	
   require	
   LAFCO	
   approval.	
  	
  
                           Additionally,	
  future	
  development	
  within	
  SPAs	
  1	
  and	
  2	
  would	
  require	
  an	
  amendment	
  
                           to	
  the	
  existing	
  ULL.	
  	
  The	
  fiscal	
  impacts	
  of	
  such	
  actions	
  are	
  not	
  appropriate	
  for	
  analysis	
  
                           in	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR,	
  as	
  described	
  under	
  Response	
  K-­‐2.	
  	
  No	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  
                           warranted.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  K-­‐5:	
       The	
  commenter	
  states	
  that	
  Figure	
  2.0-­‐3	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  should	
  include	
  the	
  ULL,	
  and	
  
                           notes	
  that	
  the	
  ULL	
  is	
  shown	
  on	
  Figure	
  2.0-­‐2	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  Both	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  
                           and	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   identify	
   the	
   location	
   of	
   the	
   ULL.	
   	
   It	
   is	
   not	
   necessary	
   to	
   depict	
   the	
  
                           existing	
   ULL	
   on	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   Land	
   Use	
   Map	
   (Figure	
   2.0-­‐3	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR).	
   This	
  
                           comment	
   is	
   noted	
   and	
   has	
   been	
   forwarded	
   to	
   the	
   Planning	
   Commission	
   and	
   City	
  
                           Council	
  for	
  their	
  consideration.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  K-­‐6:	
       The	
   commenter	
   includes	
  recommended	
  text	
  related	
  to	
  historic	
  growth	
  measures	
  and	
  
                           the	
  ULL.	
  	
  This	
  comment	
  is	
  noted.	
  	
  The	
  commenter	
  is	
  referred	
  to	
  Response	
  K-­‐3.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  K-­‐7:	
       The	
  commenter	
  recommends	
  including	
  language	
  related	
  to	
  buildout	
  of	
  SPAs	
  1	
  and	
  2	
  
                           with	
   respect	
   to	
   the	
   ULL.	
   	
   This	
   comment	
   is	
   noted.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   is	
   referred	
   to	
  
                           Response	
  K-­‐4.	
  	
  	
  




       2.0-­‐84	
        Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                                             COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                                              2.0	
  
	
  
Response	
  K-­‐8:	
         The	
   commenter	
   recommends	
   that	
   Figure	
   2.0-­‐3	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   include	
   the	
   ULL	
  
                             boundary.	
  This	
  comment	
  is	
  noted.	
  	
  The	
  commenter	
  is	
  referred	
  to	
  Response	
  K-­‐5.	
  

Response	
  K-­‐9:	
         The	
   commenter	
   questions	
   how	
   SPAs	
   1	
   and	
   2	
   would	
   benefit	
   Contra	
   Costa	
   County	
  
                             residents,	
   and	
   states	
   that	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   objectives	
   for	
   the	
   Final	
   EIR	
   should	
   be	
  
                             defined	
   broadly	
   enough	
   so	
   that	
   alternatives	
   can	
   be	
   examined	
   that	
   offer	
   choices	
   for	
  
                             living	
  within	
  the	
  established	
  ULL	
  and	
  city	
  limits.	
  	
  The	
  objectives	
  of	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  
                             are	
  identified	
  on	
  Page	
  2.0-­‐18	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  	
  These	
  10	
  objectives	
  reflect	
  the	
  input	
  
                             received	
   during	
   the	
   extensive	
   public	
   review	
   and	
   outreach	
   process	
   over	
   nearly	
   two	
  
                             years	
   of	
   General	
   Plan	
   Update	
   development.	
   	
   The	
   stated	
   objectives	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR	
  
                             meet	
   the	
   requirements	
   of	
   CEQA,	
   and	
   express	
   and	
   articulate	
   the	
   desires	
   of	
   the	
  
                             community,	
   General	
   Plan	
   Update	
   Working	
   Group,	
   Planning	
   Commission,	
   and	
   City	
  
                             Council.	
   	
   The	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   addresses	
   a	
   range	
   of	
   reasonable	
   project	
   alternatives,	
   in	
  
                             compliance	
  with	
  CEQA	
  Section	
  15126.6(f).	
  	
  This	
  comment	
  has	
  been	
  forwarded	
  to	
  the	
  
                             Planning	
   Commission	
   and	
   City	
   Council	
   for	
   their	
   consideration.	
   	
   No	
   changes	
   to	
   the	
  
                             Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  K-­‐10:	
   The	
   commenter	
   notes	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   buildout	
   population	
   projections	
   within	
   the	
  
                        city	
   limits	
   and	
   requests	
   language	
   describing	
   why	
   the	
   proposed	
   Planning	
   Area	
   is	
  
                        needed	
  and	
  how	
  it	
  is	
  an	
  effective	
  land	
  use	
  strategy.	
  The	
  designation	
  of	
  lands	
  on	
  the	
  
                        General	
   Plan	
   Land	
   Use	
   Map	
   is	
   meant	
   to	
   reflect	
   the	
   City’s	
   vision	
   for	
   future	
   land	
   use	
  
                        patterns	
   in	
   the	
   Planning	
   Area.	
   	
   The	
   proposed	
   Land	
   Use	
   Map	
   reflects	
   the	
   land	
   use	
  
                        pattern	
   and	
   distribution	
   supported	
   by	
   the	
   community,	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   Update	
  
                             Working	
   Group,	
   the	
   Planning	
   Commission,	
   and	
   the	
   City	
   Council.	
   	
   The	
   Draft	
   EIR	
  
                             includes	
   a	
   detailed	
   analysis	
   of	
   the	
   range	
   of	
   environmental	
   impacts	
   associated	
   with	
  
                             buildout	
   of	
   the	
   proposed	
   General	
   Plan	
   to	
   the	
   city	
   limits,	
   as	
   well	
   as	
   buildout	
   of	
   the	
  
                             proposed	
  General	
  Plan	
  to	
  the	
  Planning	
  Area	
  boundaries.	
  	
  The	
  analysis	
  in	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  
                             is	
  sufficient	
  to	
  provide	
  the	
  decision-­‐makers	
  with	
  the	
  information	
  needed	
  to	
  make	
  an	
  
                             informed	
   decision	
   regarding	
   the	
   environmental	
   implications	
   of	
   adoption	
   of	
   the	
  
                             General	
  Plan.	
  	
  No	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  K-­‐11:	
   The	
   commenter	
   states	
   that	
   the	
   FEIR	
   should	
   specify	
   that	
   the	
   City	
   Limits	
   Buildout	
  
                        Alternative	
  would	
  not	
  include	
  SPAs	
  1	
  and	
  2,	
  and	
  states	
  that	
  development	
  of	
  SPAs	
  1	
  
                        and	
   2	
   would	
   cause	
   irreparable	
   harm	
   to	
   prime	
   farmland,	
   range	
   land,	
   and	
   scenic	
  
                        viewsheds.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   states	
   that	
   an	
   alternative	
   that	
   removes	
   SPAs	
   1	
   and	
   2	
  
                        should	
   be	
   analyzed.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   is	
   referred	
   to	
   Pages	
   2.0-­‐14	
   and	
   2.0-­‐15	
   of	
   the	
  
                        Draft	
   EIR.	
   	
   As	
   specifically	
   described	
   on	
   these	
   pages,	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   evaluates	
   two	
  
                        buildout	
   scenarios	
   associated	
   with	
   the	
   proposed	
   General	
   Plan.	
   The	
   Draft	
   EIR	
  
                        evaluates	
  the	
  maximum	
  projected	
  development	
  that	
  could	
  occur	
  within	
  the	
  existing	
  
                        city	
  limits	
  if	
  every	
  parcel	
  in	
  the	
  city	
  developed	
  at	
  or	
  near	
  the	
  higher	
  end	
  of	
  densities	
  
                        and	
   intensities	
   allowed	
   under	
   the	
   proposed	
   General	
   Plan.	
   The	
   second	
   development	
  
                        scenario	
   addressed	
   in	
   the	
   EIR	
   is	
   the	
   maximum	
   projected	
   development	
   that	
   could	
  


                          Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
                                       2.0-­‐85	
  
	
  
       2.0	
             COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  
                             occur	
  within	
  the	
  existing	
  city	
  limits	
  and	
  the	
  Planning	
  Area	
  if	
  every	
  parcel	
  in	
  the	
  city	
  
                             and	
   the	
   Planning	
   Area	
   developed	
   at	
   or	
   near	
   the	
   higher	
   end	
   of	
   densities	
   and	
  
                             intensities	
  allowed	
  under	
  the	
  proposed	
  General	
  Plan.	
  

	
                           The	
   General	
   Plan	
   Land	
   Use	
   Map	
   clearly	
   indicates	
   that	
   SPAs	
   1	
   and	
   2	
   are	
   located	
  
                             outside	
   of	
   the	
   city	
   limits.	
   	
   Additionally,	
   Table	
   2.0-­‐2	
   shows	
   that	
   new	
   development	
  
                             within	
   SPAs	
   1	
   and	
   2	
   would	
   occur	
   within	
   the	
   Planning	
   Area,	
   rather	
   than	
   the	
   city	
   limits.	
  	
  
                             The	
   information	
   requested	
   by	
   the	
   commenter	
   has	
   been	
   included	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR.	
  	
  
                             Rather	
   than	
   include	
   a	
   City	
   Limits	
   Buildout	
   Alternative,	
   as	
   suggested	
   by	
   the	
  
                             commenter,	
  the	
  City	
  has	
  comparatively	
  addressed	
  the	
  impacts	
  related	
  to	
  buildout	
  of	
  
                             the	
  General	
  Plan	
  to	
  the	
  city	
  limits	
  and	
  to	
  the	
  Planning	
  Area	
  in	
  extensive	
  detail	
  in	
  each	
  
                             section	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR.	
   	
   The	
   commenter’s	
   request	
   is	
   noted,	
   however,	
   given	
   the	
  
                             extensive	
   analysis	
   of	
   buildout	
   to	
   the	
   city	
   limits	
   contained	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   no	
   changes	
  
                             are	
  warranted.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  K-­‐12:	
   The	
  commenter	
  states	
  that	
  in	
  Chapter	
  5.0	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR,	
  it	
  is	
  unclear	
  how	
  the	
  City	
  
                        Limits	
   Buildout	
   relates	
   to	
   the	
   Economic	
   Development	
   Alternative,	
   and	
   states	
   that	
  
                             many	
   of	
   the	
   proposed	
   mitigations	
   rely	
   on	
   a	
   clear	
   and	
   measurable	
   comparison	
  
                             between	
  alternatives.	
  	
  As	
  described	
  in	
  Chapter	
  5.0	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR,	
  the	
  alternatives	
  
                             analysis	
  provides	
  a	
  comparative	
  analysis	
  between	
  each	
  alternative	
  and	
  the	
  proposed	
  
                             project	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  the	
  range	
  of	
  potential	
  environmental	
  impacts.	
  	
  Table	
  5.0-­‐5	
  in	
  the	
  
                             Draft	
   EIR	
   includes	
   a	
   summary	
   of	
   the	
   comparative	
   analysis	
   between	
   the	
   project	
  
                             alternatives	
   and	
   the	
   proposed	
   project.	
   	
   The	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   does	
   not	
   include	
   a	
   City	
   Limits	
  
                             Buildout	
   Alternative.	
   	
   Rather,	
   buildout	
   of	
   the	
   proposed	
   General	
   Plan	
   was	
   analyzed	
  
                             under	
  two	
  development	
  scenarios,	
  one	
  of	
  which	
  was	
  buildout	
  of	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  to	
  
                             the	
  city	
  limits.	
  	
  The	
  commenter	
  is	
  referred	
  to	
  Response	
  K-­‐11.	
  	
  No	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  
                             EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  K-­‐13:	
   The	
  commenter	
  requests	
  that	
  Section	
  2.4	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  specify	
  that	
   the	
  analysis	
  of	
  
                        City	
   Limits	
   Buildout	
   does	
   not	
   include	
   SPAs	
   1	
   and	
   2.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   is	
   referred	
   to	
  
                             Response	
  K-­‐11.	
  	
  No	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  K-­‐14:	
   The	
   commenter	
   states	
   that	
   the	
   Final	
   EIR	
   must	
   provide	
   a	
   clear	
   indication	
   of	
   the	
  
                        alternatives	
   used	
   through	
   the	
   EIR.	
   	
   As	
   noted	
   in	
   Response	
   K-­‐11	
   above,	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR	
  
                        analyzes	
   two	
   buildout	
   scenarios	
   for	
   the	
   General	
   Plan.	
   	
   One	
   scenario	
   addresses	
  
                             buildout	
   of	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   to	
   the	
   city	
   limits,	
   while	
   the	
   other	
   scenario	
   addresses	
  
                             buildout	
   of	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   to	
   the	
   Planning	
   Area.	
   	
   Section	
   2.4	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR	
  
                             explains	
   these	
   two	
   development	
   scenarios	
   in	
   greater	
   detail.	
   	
   These	
   two	
   scenarios	
   are	
  
                             not	
   project	
   alternatives,	
   but	
   rather,	
   they	
   represent	
   an	
   analysis	
   of	
   the	
   proposed	
  
                             project.	
   	
   The	
   project	
   alternatives,	
   including	
   the	
   Economic	
   Development	
   Alternative,	
  
                             are	
  identified	
  in	
  Chapter	
  5.0	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  	
  The	
  commenter	
  is	
  referred	
  to	
  Response	
  
                             K-­‐12	
  for	
  additional	
  details.	
  	
  No	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  required.	
  	
  	
  


       2.0-­‐86	
         Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                                              COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                                                    2.0	
  
	
  
Response	
  K-­‐15:	
   The	
  commenter	
  states	
  that	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  will	
  induce	
  auto-­‐oriented	
  suburban-­‐style	
  
                        growth	
   outside	
   of	
   Brentwood’s	
   ULL,	
   and	
   that	
   the	
   Final	
   EIR	
   should	
   evaluate	
   the	
   full	
  
                        range	
   of	
   impacts	
   that	
   may	
   result	
   from	
   this	
   type	
   of	
   growth	
   inducement.	
   	
   The	
  
                        commenter	
   is	
   referred	
   to	
   Response	
   K-­‐11,	
   which	
   explains	
   that	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   includes	
   a	
  
                             full	
  and	
  detailed	
  analysis	
  of	
  buildout	
  of	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  to	
  the	
  Planning	
  Area,	
  which	
  
                             includes	
   lands	
   located	
   outside	
   of	
   the	
   ULL.	
   	
   The	
   potential	
   environmental	
   impacts	
  
                             associated	
   with	
   growth	
   that	
   may	
   occur	
   associated	
   with	
   General	
   Plan	
   buildout	
  
                             throughout	
  the	
  Planning	
  Area	
  has	
  been	
  thoroughly	
  addressed	
  in	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  	
  The	
  
                             commenter	
   also	
   states	
   that	
   the	
   Final	
   EIR	
   should	
   include	
   a	
   detailed	
   analysis	
   of	
   how	
  
                             future	
   growth	
   could	
   be	
   incorporated	
   with	
   infill	
   development	
   to	
   suit	
   the	
   region’s	
  
                             housing	
   needs	
   as	
   part	
   of	
   the	
   City	
   Limits	
   Buildout	
   analysis.	
   	
   This	
   comment	
   is	
   noted.	
  	
  
                             The	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  includes	
  a	
  detailed	
  analysis	
  of	
  buildout	
  of	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  within	
  the	
  
                             city	
   limits,	
   including	
   an	
   analysis	
   of	
   the	
   project’s	
   consistency	
   with	
   regional	
   housing	
  
                             needs	
   plans.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   is	
   referred	
   to	
   Impact	
   3.10-­‐3	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR.	
   	
   This	
   issue	
  
                             has	
  been	
  adequately	
  addressed	
  in	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  and	
  no	
  changes	
  are	
  warranted.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  K-­‐16:	
   The	
  commenter	
  states	
  that	
  while	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  specifies	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  direct	
  impacts	
  of	
  
                             land	
   conversion	
   under	
   the	
   Planning	
   Area	
   buildout	
   analysis,	
   there	
   are	
   additional	
  
                             impacts	
   not	
   considered	
   by	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   that	
   are	
   crucial	
   for	
   a	
   complete	
   analysis.	
  	
  
                             Detailed	
  responses	
  are	
  provided	
  in	
  the	
  following	
  responses.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  K-­‐17:	
   The	
   commenter	
   states	
   that	
   the	
   Final	
   EIR	
   must	
   include	
   an	
   analysis	
   of	
   the	
   fiscal	
  
                        investments	
   into	
   agricultural	
   resources	
   that	
   the	
   City	
   has	
   made.	
   	
   This	
   comment	
   is	
  
                             noted	
   and	
   has	
   been	
   forwarded	
   to	
   the	
   Planning	
   Commission	
   and	
   City	
   Council	
   for	
   their	
  
                             consideration.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   is	
   referred	
   to	
   Response	
   K-­‐2.	
   	
   No	
   changes	
   to	
   the	
   Draft	
  
                             EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  K-­‐18:	
   The	
   commenter	
   states	
   that	
   the	
   EIR	
   must	
   evaluate	
   the	
   cumulative	
   effects	
   on	
  
                        agricultural	
   resources	
   from	
   development	
   in	
   SPA	
   1.	
   	
   The	
   analysis	
   requested	
   by	
   the	
  
                             commenter	
   is	
   included	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   is	
   referred	
   to	
   Table	
   3.2-­‐2,	
  
                             which	
   specifically	
   identifies	
   the	
   acres	
   of	
   Important	
   Farmland	
   located	
   within	
   SPA	
   1.	
  	
  
                             The	
   commenter	
   is	
   also	
   referred	
   to	
   Impact	
   3.2-­‐1,	
   which	
   identifies	
   impacts	
   to	
   farmland	
  
                             and	
   agricultural	
   resources	
   associated	
   with	
   buildout	
   of	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   to	
   the	
  
                             Planning	
   Area.	
   	
   This	
   issue	
   has	
   been	
   adequately	
   addressed	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   and	
   no	
  
                             changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  K-­‐19:	
   The	
   commenter	
   states	
   that	
   Figures	
   3.2-­‐1	
   and	
   3.2-­‐2	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   should	
   include	
  
                        land	
   that	
   the	
   City	
   has	
   invested	
   in	
   through	
   the	
   Brentwood	
   Agricultural	
   Land	
   Trust	
  
                        (BALT),	
  and	
  should	
  include	
  other	
  City	
  investments	
  related	
  to	
  agricultural	
  preservation	
  
                        efforts.	
   	
   This	
   comment	
   is	
   noted.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   is	
   referred	
   to	
   Response	
   K-­‐2.	
   	
   The	
  
                        addition	
   of	
   the	
   information	
   suggested	
   by	
   the	
   commenter	
   would	
   not	
   alter	
   the	
  
                        conclusions	
   contained	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   nor	
   would	
   it	
   lead	
   to	
   additional	
   mitigation	
  

                          Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
                                              2.0-­‐87	
  
	
  
       2.0	
             COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  
                            measures	
   that	
   may	
   reduce	
   the	
   severity	
   of	
   this	
   impact.	
   	
   The	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   includes	
   a	
  
                            thorough	
   and	
   comprehensive	
   analysis	
   of	
   potential	
   impacts	
   to	
   farmlands	
   and	
  
                            agricultural	
  resources.	
  	
  No	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  K-­‐20:	
   The	
   commenter	
   states	
   that	
   the	
   Final	
   EIR	
   must	
   study	
   and	
   specify	
   mitigations	
   for	
   the	
  
                        fiscal	
   impacts	
   related	
   to	
   agricultural	
   resources.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   is	
   referred	
   to	
  
                        Response	
  K-­‐2.	
  	
  No	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  K-­‐21:	
   The	
   commenter	
   states	
   that	
   the	
   Final	
   EIR	
   must	
   study	
   and	
   specify	
   mitigations	
   for	
   the	
  
                            cumulative	
  impacts	
  of	
  SPA	
  1	
  development	
  on	
  agricultural	
  resources.	
  	
  The	
  commenter	
  
                            is	
  referred	
  to	
  Response	
  K-­‐18.	
  	
  This	
  issue	
  has	
  been	
  thoroughly	
  addressed	
  in	
  the	
  Draft	
  
                            EIR	
  and	
  no	
  changes	
  are	
  warranted.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  K-­‐22:	
   The	
   commenter	
   states	
   that	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   shows	
   significant	
   increases	
   in	
   levels	
   of	
   air	
  
                        pollution,	
   greenhouse	
   gases,	
   and	
   vehicle	
   miles	
   travelled	
   will	
   result	
   from	
   buildout	
   of	
  
                            the	
  General	
  Plan	
  to	
  the	
  Planning	
  Area.	
  	
  The	
  commenter	
  also	
  states	
  that	
  there	
  are	
  no	
  
                            mitigations	
   listed	
   for	
   the	
   increased	
   traffic	
   that	
   would	
   result	
   from	
   development	
  
                            associated	
   with	
   General	
   Plan	
   buildout.	
   	
   With	
   respect	
   to	
   cumulative	
   air	
   quality	
  
                            emissions	
  impacts,	
  the	
  commenter	
  is	
  referred	
  to	
  Tables	
  3.3-­‐7	
  and	
  3.3-­‐8	
  in	
  the	
  Draft	
  
                            EIR,	
   which	
   include	
   detailed	
   emissions	
   estimates	
   associated	
   with	
   buildout	
   of	
   the	
  
                            General	
   Plan	
   to	
   the	
   city	
   limits	
   and	
   the	
   Planning	
   Area.	
   	
   These	
   tables	
   include	
   emissions	
  
                            from	
  vehicle	
  miles	
  travelled	
  (mobile	
  source	
  emissions).	
  	
  The	
  analysis	
  of	
  cumulative	
  air	
  
                            quality	
   emissions	
   impacts	
   is	
   provided	
   under	
   Impact	
   3.3-­‐1,	
   and	
   the	
   extensive	
   list	
   of	
  
                            policies	
   and	
   actions	
   included	
   in	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   to	
   reduce	
   air	
   quality	
   emissions	
   to	
  
                            the	
  greatest	
  extent	
  feasible	
  is	
  provided.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

	
                          With	
   respect	
   to	
   greenhouse	
   gas	
   emissions	
   impacts,	
   the	
   commenter	
   is	
   referred	
   to	
  
                            Section	
   3.7	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   which	
   includes	
   a	
   detailed	
   and	
   quantified	
   analysis	
   of	
  
                            cumulative	
   GHG	
   emissions	
   impacts	
   associated	
   with	
   buildout	
   of	
   the	
   General	
   Plan,	
  
                            including	
   GHG	
   emissions	
   from	
   mobile	
   sources.	
   	
   With	
   respect	
   to	
   cumulative	
   traffic	
  
                            impacts,	
   the	
   commenter	
   is	
   referred	
   to	
   Section	
   3.13	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   which	
   includes	
   a	
  
                            detailed	
  analysis	
  of	
  cumulative	
  traffic	
  impacts	
  associated	
  with	
  buildout	
  of	
  the	
  General	
  
                            Plan.	
  	
  Table	
  3.13-­‐14	
  identifies	
  the	
  roadway	
  improvements	
  necessary	
  to	
  accommodate	
  
                            increased	
   traffic	
   associated	
   with	
   buildout	
   of	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   to	
   the	
   city	
   limits	
   and	
  
                            the	
  Planning	
  Area.	
  	
  	
  

	
                          All	
   of	
   the	
   environmental	
   concerns	
   raised	
   by	
   the	
   commenter	
   in	
   this	
   comment	
   have	
  
                            been	
   thoroughly	
   addressed	
   in	
   detail	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   and	
   no	
   changes	
   to	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR	
  
                            are	
  warranted.	
  	
  The	
  commenter’s	
  preference	
  to	
  restrict	
  future	
  urban	
  growth	
  to	
  areas	
  
                            within	
  the	
  current	
  ULL	
  is	
  noted,	
  and	
  has	
  been	
  forwarded	
  to	
  the	
  Planning	
  Commission	
  
                            and	
  City	
  Council	
  for	
  their	
  consideration.	
  	
  	
  



       2.0-­‐88	
        Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                                             COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                                            2.0	
  
	
  
Response	
  K-­‐23:	
   The	
   commenter	
   states	
   that	
   the	
   Final	
   EIR	
   should	
   investigate	
   how	
   the	
   project	
   will	
  
                        impact	
   attainment	
   of	
   the	
   goals	
   and	
   policies	
   outlined	
   in	
   Plan	
   Bay	
   Area.	
   	
   This	
   comment	
  
                        is	
   noted.	
   	
   The	
   Brentwood	
   General	
   Plan	
   is	
   supportive	
   of	
   the	
   primary	
   goals	
   and	
   policies	
  
                        contained	
   in	
   Plan	
   Bay	
   Area.	
   	
   The	
   proposed	
   General	
   Plan	
   promotes	
   and	
   encourages	
  
                              infill	
   development,	
   provides	
   for	
   a	
   range	
   of	
   housing	
   types	
   and	
   housing	
   densities,	
  
                              encourages	
  the	
  protection	
  and	
  preservation	
  of	
  agricultural	
  lands,	
  promotes	
  a	
  multi-­‐
                              modal	
  transportation	
  network,	
  and	
  includes	
  the	
  newly-­‐created	
  Mixed	
  Use	
  Pedestrian	
  
                              Transit	
   (MUPT)	
   land	
   use	
   designation	
   in	
   Priority	
   Area	
   1.	
   	
   The	
   City’s	
   proactive	
   approach	
  
                              to	
  these	
  issues	
  will	
  further	
  assist	
  with	
  implementation	
  of	
  Plan	
  Bay	
  Area.	
  	
  No	
  changes	
  
                              to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  required.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  K-­‐24:	
   The	
  commenter	
  states	
  that	
  the	
  Final	
  EIR	
  must	
  include	
  analysis	
  and	
  specify	
  mitigation	
  
                        for	
   the	
   additional	
   vehicle	
   trips	
   that	
   would	
   be	
   generated	
   by	
   buildout	
   of	
   the	
   General	
  
                        Plan	
   to	
   the	
   Planning	
   Area.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   is	
   referred	
   to	
   Section	
   3.13	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
  
                        EIR,	
   which	
   includes	
   a	
   detailed	
   and	
   quantified	
   analysis	
   of	
   transportation	
   and	
  
                        circulation	
  impacts	
  that	
  would	
  occur	
  associated	
  with	
  buildout	
  of	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  to	
  
                        the	
  Planning	
  Area.	
  	
  A	
  range	
  of	
  General	
  Plan	
  policies	
  and	
  actions	
  to	
  mitigate	
  potential	
  
                              circulation	
   impacts	
   associated	
   with	
   buildout	
   of	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   to	
   the	
   Planning	
   Area	
  
                              are	
  provided	
  under	
  Impact	
  3.13-­‐1,	
  including	
  Action	
  CIR	
  1b,	
  which	
  identifies	
  a	
  specific	
  
                              list	
   of	
   roadway	
   improvements	
   necessary	
   to	
   accommodate	
   buildout	
   of	
   the	
   General	
  
                              Plan	
  to	
  the	
  Planning	
  Area.	
  	
  This	
  issue	
  has	
  been	
  thoroughly	
  addressed	
  in	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  
                              and	
  no	
  changes	
  are	
  warranted.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  K-­‐25:	
   The	
  commenter	
  states	
  that	
  the	
  Final	
  EIR	
  must	
  include	
  an	
  analysis	
  that	
  links	
  land	
  use	
  
                        and	
   transportation	
   planning,	
   especially	
   as	
   it	
   relates	
   to	
   the	
   goals	
   of	
   Plan	
   Bay	
   Area.	
  	
  
                        This	
  comment	
  is	
  noted.	
  	
  The	
  circulation	
  analysis	
  contained	
  in	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  is	
  based	
  on	
  
                        the	
   proposed	
   Land	
   Use	
   Map	
   and	
   the	
   associated	
   buildout	
   projections	
   of	
   the	
   proposed	
  
                        General	
   Plan.	
   	
   Action	
   CIR	
   1b	
   identifies	
   the	
   roadway	
   improvements	
   necessary	
   to	
  
                        provide	
   adequate	
   levels	
   of	
   service	
   to	
   support	
   the	
   proposed	
   land	
   use	
   plan.	
   	
   With	
  
                        respect	
   to	
   consistency	
   with	
   Plan	
   Bay	
   Area,	
   as	
   noted	
   on	
   Page	
   3.13-­‐18	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
  
                              the	
  current	
  Regional	
  Transportation	
  Plan	
  (RTP)	
  produced	
  by	
  MTC,	
  Plan	
  Bay	
  Area,	
  was	
  
                              adopted	
  in	
  2013.	
  	
  Plan	
  Bay	
  Area	
  sets	
  forth	
  regional	
  transportation	
  policy	
  and	
  provides	
  
                              capital	
   program	
   planning	
   for	
   all	
   regional,	
   State,	
   and	
   Federally	
   funded	
   projects.	
   	
   In	
  
                              addition,	
  Plan	
  Bay	
  Area	
  provides	
  strategic	
  investment	
  recommendations	
  to	
  improve	
  
                              regional	
  transportation	
  system	
  performance	
  over	
  the	
  next	
  25	
  years.	
  	
  Investments	
  in	
  
                              regional	
   highway,	
   transit,	
   local	
   roadway,	
   bicycle,	
   and	
   pedestrian	
   projects	
   are	
   set	
  
                              forth.	
  	
  These	
  projects	
  have	
  been	
  identified	
  through	
  regional	
  and	
  local	
  transportation	
  
                              planning	
   processes,	
   and	
   in	
   Contra	
   Costa	
   County	
   include	
   those	
   projects	
   listed	
   in	
   the	
  
                              CCTA’s	
   Congestion	
   Management	
   Program.	
   	
   Project	
   recommendations	
   are	
   premised	
  
                              upon	
   factors	
   related	
   to	
   existing	
   infrastructure	
   maintenance,	
   increased	
   transportation	
  
                              system	
  efficiencies,	
  improved	
  traffic	
  and	
  transit	
  operations,	
  and	
  strategic	
  expansions	
  

                           Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
                                   2.0-­‐89	
  
	
  
       2.0	
           COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  
                           of	
   the	
   regional	
   transportation	
   system.	
   The	
   2011	
   Contra	
   Costa	
   Congestion	
  
                           Management	
   Program	
   (referred	
   to	
   herein	
   as	
   the	
   CMP)	
   contains	
   projects	
   that	
   are	
  
                           proposed	
  for	
  programming	
  through	
  the	
  State	
  and	
  Federal	
  funding	
  cycles.	
  	
  The	
  CMP	
  
                           “includes	
   projects	
   already	
   programmed;	
   those	
   proposed	
   for	
   programming	
   through	
  
                           MTC’s	
   Regional	
   Transportation	
   Improvement	
   Program	
   and	
   Federal	
   processes;	
  
                           Transportation	
   Fund	
   for	
   Clean	
   Air	
   bicycle	
   projects;	
   and	
   developer-­‐funded	
   projects	
  
                           where	
  funding	
  through	
  fee	
  programs	
  is	
  imminent”	
  (p.	
  iv).	
  	
  The	
  CMP	
  identifies	
  projects	
  
                           throughout	
   Contra	
   Costa	
   County,	
   including	
   several	
   within	
   Brentwood,	
   which	
   have	
  
                           been	
  deemed	
  critical	
  to	
  regional	
  circulation	
  needs.	
  

                           In	
   addition	
   to	
   future	
   improvements	
   included	
   in	
   the	
   regional	
   CMP,	
   Brentwood	
   has	
  
                           identified	
   circulation	
   projects	
   needed	
   to	
   support	
   growth	
   within	
   the	
   city.	
   	
   These	
  
                           projects	
   are	
   included	
   in	
   the	
   City	
   of	
   Brentwood	
   2014/15	
   -­‐	
   2018/19	
   Capital	
  
                           Improvement	
  Program	
  (referred	
  to	
  herein	
  as	
  the	
  CIP).	
  	
  The	
  CIP	
  provides	
  descriptions	
  
                           of	
  the	
  improvements,	
  estimated	
  costs,	
  and	
  sources	
  of	
  funding.	
  

                           For	
   the	
   transportation	
   analysis	
   conducted	
   for	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   Update,	
   it	
   was	
  
                           assumed	
   that	
   the	
   circulation	
   improvements	
   identified	
   in	
   the	
   regional	
   CMP	
   and	
  
                           Brentwood	
  CIP	
  will	
  be	
  in	
  place	
  at	
  buildout.	
  	
  A	
  summary	
  of	
  the	
  circulation	
  projects	
  in	
  
                           and	
  surrounding	
  Brentwood	
  that	
  are	
  contained	
  in	
  the	
  regional	
  CMP	
  and	
  Brentwood	
  
                           CIP	
   is	
   shown	
   in	
   Table	
   3.13-­‐7	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR.	
   	
   This	
   issue	
   has	
   been	
   adequately	
  
                           addressed	
  in	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR,	
  and	
  no	
  changes	
  are	
  warranted.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  K-­‐26:	
   The	
   commenter	
   states	
   that	
   California	
   is	
   currently	
   experiencing	
   significant	
   drought	
  
                        conditions	
  and	
  that	
  development	
  in	
  SPAs	
  1	
  and	
  2	
  will	
  increase	
  water	
  demand.	
  	
  The	
  
                        Brentwood	
   General	
   Plan	
   includes	
   an	
   extensive	
   set	
   of	
   policies	
   and	
   actions	
   aimed	
   at	
  
                        reducing	
  water	
  demand,	
  promoting	
  water	
  conservation,	
  and	
  ensuring	
  that	
  adequate	
  
                        water	
  supplies	
  are	
  available	
  to	
  serve	
  existing	
  and	
  future	
  growth	
  within	
  the	
  Planning	
  
                        Area.	
  Policy	
  IF	
  1-­‐3	
  requires	
  all	
  development	
  projects	
  to	
  mitigate	
  their	
  infrastructure	
  
                           service	
   impacts	
   or	
   demonstrate	
   that	
   the	
   City’s	
   infrastructure,	
   public	
   services,	
   and	
  
                           utilities	
  can	
  accommodate	
  the	
  increased	
  demand	
  for	
  services,	
  and	
  that	
  service	
  levels	
  
                           for	
  existing	
  users	
  will	
  not	
  be	
  degraded	
  or	
  impaired.	
  

                           Policy	
  IF	
  2-­‐1	
  requires	
  the	
  City	
  to	
  ensure	
  that	
  the	
  water	
  system	
  and	
  water	
  supplies	
  are	
  
                           adequate	
   to	
   meet	
   the	
   needs	
   of	
   existing	
   and	
   future	
   development.	
   	
   Action	
   IF	
   2a	
  
                           requires	
  the	
  City	
  to	
  routinely	
  assess	
  its	
  ability	
  to	
  meet	
  demand	
  for	
  potable	
  water	
  by	
  
                           periodically	
  updating	
  the	
  Water	
  Master	
  Plan.	
  	
  The	
  General	
  Plan	
  also	
  includes	
  a	
  range	
  
                           of	
   policies	
   and	
   actions	
   that	
   call	
   for	
   continued	
   and	
   ongoing	
   water	
   conservation	
  
                           measures,	
   and	
   measures	
   to	
   increase	
   the	
   availability	
   and	
   use	
   of	
   recycled	
   water	
   in	
  
                           order	
  to	
  decrease	
  water	
  supply	
  demands	
  from	
  existing	
  sources.	
  	
  The	
  following	
  list	
  of	
  
                           policies	
   and	
   actions	
   would	
   ensure	
   that	
   water	
   conservation	
   measures	
   are	
  
                           incorporated	
   into	
   new	
   development	
   projects,	
   and	
   that	
   new	
   development	
   does	
   not	
  

       2.0-­‐90	
       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                        COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                                           2.0	
  
	
  
         exceed	
  the	
  City’s	
  water	
  supply	
  availability.	
  	
  This	
  issue	
  has	
  been	
  adequately	
  addressed	
  
         in	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  and	
  General	
  Plan.	
  	
  	
  

         Policy	
  IF	
  1-­‐1:	
  	
  	
  Provide	
   adequate	
   public	
   infrastructure	
   (i.e.,	
   street,	
   sewer,	
   water,	
   and	
  
         storm	
  drain)	
  to	
  meet	
  the	
  needs	
  of	
  existing	
  and	
  future	
  development.	
  

         Policy	
  IF	
  1-­‐2:	
   Require	
   development,	
   infrastructure,	
   and	
   long-­‐term	
   planning	
   projects	
  
         to	
   be	
   consistent	
   with	
   all	
   applicable	
   City	
   infrastructure	
   plans,	
   including	
   the	
   Water	
  
         Master	
  Plan,	
  the	
  Wastewater	
  Master	
  Plan,	
  and	
  the	
  Capital	
  Improvement	
  Program.	
  	
  

         Policy	
  IF	
  1-­‐3:	
  	
   Require	
   all	
   development	
   projects	
   to	
   mitigate	
   their	
   infrastructure	
   service	
  
         impacts	
   or	
   demonstrate	
   that	
   the	
   City’s	
   infrastructure,	
   public	
   services,	
   and	
   utilities	
   can	
  
         accommodate	
  the	
  increased	
  demand	
  for	
  services,	
  and	
  that	
  service	
  levels	
  for	
  existing	
  
         users	
  will	
  not	
  be	
  degraded	
  or	
  impaired.	
  	
  	
  

         Policy	
  IF	
  1-­‐4:	
  	
  	
  Require	
   new	
   development	
   projects	
   to	
   develop	
   comprehensive	
  
         infrastructure	
  plans	
  for	
  City	
  review	
  and	
  approval	
  as	
  part	
  of	
  an	
  application	
  submittal.	
  

         Policy	
  IF	
  2-­‐1:	
  	
  	
  Ensure	
  the	
  water	
  system	
  and	
  supply	
  is	
  adequate	
  to	
  meet	
  the	
  needs	
  of	
  
         existing	
  and	
  future	
  development.	
  	
  

         Policy	
  IF	
  2-­‐2:	
  	
  	
  Ensure	
   safe	
   drinking	
   water	
   standards	
   are	
   met	
   throughout	
   the	
  
         community.	
  

         Policy	
  IF	
  2-­‐3:	
  	
  	
  Continue	
   to	
   implement	
   a	
   comprehensive	
   water	
   strategy	
   that	
   balances	
  
         the	
   need	
   to	
   supply	
   water	
   to	
   all	
   users	
   served	
   by	
   the	
   City	
   with	
   potable	
   water	
   use	
  
         reduction	
  measures.	
  	
  	
  

         Policy	
  IF	
  2-­‐4:	
  	
  	
  Pursue	
   additional	
   water	
   supply	
   agreements	
   to	
   supplement	
   the	
   City's	
  
         existing	
  system.	
  	
  

         Policy	
  IF	
  2-­‐5:	
  	
  	
  Continue	
   efforts	
   to	
   reduce	
   potable	
   water	
   use	
   and	
   increase	
   water	
  
         conservation.	
  

         Policy	
   IF	
   2-­‐6:	
   	
   Use	
   recycled	
   water	
   for	
   landscaping	
   irrigation	
   within	
   City	
   roadways,	
  
         parks,	
  and	
  facilities	
  to	
  the	
  greatest	
  extent	
  feasible.	
  	
  	
  

         Policy	
  COS	
  9-­‐5:	
  Promote	
  water	
  conservation	
  among	
  water	
  users.	
  

         Policy	
   COS	
   9-­‐6:	
   Continue	
   to	
   require	
   new	
   development	
   to	
   incorporate	
   water	
   efficient	
  
         fixtures	
  into	
  design	
  and	
  construction.	
  

         Policy	
   COS	
   9-­‐7:	
   Promote	
   the	
   use	
   of	
   reclaimed	
   water	
   and	
   other	
   non-­‐potable	
   water	
  
         sources.	
  

         Policy	
   COS	
   9-­‐8:	
   Encourage	
   large-­‐scale	
   developments	
   and	
   golf	
   course	
   developments	
   to	
  
         incorporate	
  dual	
  water	
  systems.	
  

       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
                                 2.0-­‐91	
  
	
  
       2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  
                        Policy	
   COS	
   9-­‐9:	
   Encourage	
   and	
   support	
   the	
   use	
   of	
   drought-­‐tolerant	
   and	
   regionally	
  
                        native	
  plants	
  in	
  landscaping.	
  

                        Action	
  IF	
  1a:	
  	
   Periodically	
   review	
   and	
   update	
   the	
   various	
   City	
   master	
   plans	
   for	
   the	
  
                        provision	
   and/or	
   extension	
   of	
   public	
   services	
   to	
   serve	
   existing	
   and	
   future	
  
                        development.	
   	
   These	
   plans	
   include,	
   but	
   are	
   not	
   limited	
   to,	
   the	
   Water	
   Master	
   Plan,	
   the	
  
                        Wastewater	
  Master	
  Plan,	
  and	
  the	
  Capital	
  Improvement	
  Program.	
  	
  

                        Action	
  IF	
  1b:	
  	
  	
  Develop	
   and	
   regularly	
   update	
   a	
   comprehensive	
   plan	
   which	
   establishes	
  
                        priorities	
  and	
  corrects	
  existing	
  inadequacies	
  in	
  the	
  City's	
  infrastructure	
  system.	
  

                        Action	
  IF	
  1c:	
  	
  	
   As	
   part	
   of	
   the	
   development	
   review	
   process,	
   determine	
   the	
   potential	
  
                        impacts	
   of	
   development	
   and	
   infrastructure	
   projects	
   on	
   public	
   infrastructure,	
   and	
  
                        ensure	
  that	
  new	
  development	
  contributes	
  its	
  fair	
  share	
  toward	
  necessary	
  on	
  and	
  off-­‐
                        site	
   infrastructure,	
   as	
   described	
   in	
   the	
   Growth	
   Management	
   Element	
   of	
   the	
   General	
  
                        Plan.	
  	
  

                        Action	
  IF	
  1d:	
  	
   Through	
   development	
   review,	
   ensure	
   that	
   infrastructure	
   is	
   adequately	
  
                        sized	
   to	
   accommodate	
   the	
   proposed	
   development	
   and,	
   if	
   applicable,	
   allow	
   for	
  
                        extensions	
  to	
  future	
  developments.	
  

                        Action	
  IF	
  1e:	
  	
  	
  	
  Identify	
   and	
   apply	
   for	
   Federal,	
   State,	
   and	
   regional	
   funding	
   sources	
   set	
  
                        aside	
  to	
  finance	
  infrastructure	
  costs.	
  

                        Action	
  IF	
  1f:	
  	
  	
   Develop	
   and	
   regularly	
   update	
   a	
   comprehensive	
   financing	
   plan	
   to	
  
                        accommodate	
  the	
  construction	
  of	
  master	
  planned	
  infrastructure.	
  

                        Action	
  IF	
  2a:	
  	
  	
  Routinely	
  assess	
  the	
  City’s	
  ability	
  to	
  meet	
  demand	
  for	
  potable	
  water	
  by	
  
                        periodically	
  updating	
  the	
  Water	
  Master	
  Plan.	
  	
  

                        Action	
  IF	
  2b:	
  	
   Explore	
   additional	
   permanent	
   water	
   sources	
   through,	
   and	
   contract	
  
                        with,	
   agencies	
   that	
   may	
   have	
   surplus	
   water	
   availability,	
   such	
   as	
   the	
   Contra	
   Costa	
  
                        Water	
   District,	
   the	
   East	
   Bay	
   Municipal	
   Utility	
   District,	
   the	
   East	
   Contra	
   Costa	
   Irrigation	
  
                        District,	
  and	
  other	
  potential	
  sources.	
  

                        Action	
  IF	
  2c:	
  	
  	
   Regularly	
   review	
   and	
   update	
   the	
   City’s	
   water	
   conservation	
   strategy	
   to	
  
                        be	
   consistent	
   with	
   current	
   best	
   management	
   practices	
   for	
   water	
   conservation,	
  
                        considering	
   measures	
   recommended	
   by	
   the	
   State	
   Department	
   of	
   Water	
   Resources,	
  
                        the	
   California	
   Urban	
   Water	
   Conservation	
   Council,	
   and	
   the	
   Contra	
   Costa	
   Water	
  
                        District.	
  	
  	
  

                        Action	
  COS	
  9d:	
  Develop	
  and	
  provide	
  incentives	
  to	
  developers	
  and	
  businesses	
  that	
  use	
  
                        reclaimed	
  water	
  and	
  other	
  non-­‐potable	
  water	
  for	
  landscaping.	
  




       2.0-­‐92	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                                         COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                                       2.0	
  
	
  
                           Action	
   COS	
   9e:	
   Continue	
   to	
   implement	
   Chapter	
   17.630	
   of	
   the	
   Brentwood	
   Municipal	
  
                           Code,	
  particularly	
  as	
  it	
  relates	
  to	
  water	
  conservation	
  efforts.	
  

                           Action	
  COS	
  9f:	
  Provide	
  a	
  conservation	
  page	
  (or	
  similar	
  page)	
  on	
  the	
  City’s	
  website	
  that	
  
                           provides	
   links	
   to	
   resource	
   agencies	
   and	
   provides	
   information	
   regarding	
   local	
   and	
  
                           regional	
   conservation	
   and	
   environmental	
   programs,	
   to	
   the	
   extent	
   that	
   the	
   City	
   has	
  
                           readily	
   available	
   information,	
   including	
   recycling	
   guidance	
   for	
   single	
   family	
  
                           residences,	
   businesses,	
   and	
   apartments,	
   opportunities	
   for	
   reuse	
   of	
   materials,	
   a	
  
                           description	
   of	
   how	
   to	
   compost,	
   and	
   a	
   description	
   of	
   methods	
   to	
   reduce	
   water	
   use,	
  
                           such	
  as	
  appropriate	
  reuse	
  and	
  recycling	
  of	
  water,	
  water	
  conservation	
  measures,	
  and	
  
                           xeriscaping.	
  

                           Action	
   COS	
   9g:	
   Develop	
   a	
   list	
   of	
   drought-­‐tolerant	
   and	
   native	
   plants	
   appropriate	
   for	
  
                           use	
  in	
  Brentwood	
  and	
  review	
  development	
  projects	
  for	
  adherence	
  to	
  this	
  list.	
  	
  

Response	
  K-­‐27:	
   The	
  commenter	
  states	
  that	
  the	
  Final	
  EIR	
  must	
  address	
  the	
  immediate	
  and	
  cumulative	
  
                        impacts	
  that	
  Planning	
  Area	
  buildout	
  will	
  have	
  on	
  water	
  supply	
  in	
  Brentwood,	
  Contra	
  
                        Costa	
   County,	
   and	
   California.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   is	
   referred	
   to	
   Impact	
   3.14-­‐1,	
   which	
  
                        includes	
   a	
   quantitative	
   analysis	
   of	
   water	
   supply	
   impacts	
   associated	
   with	
   buildout	
   of	
  
                        the	
   General	
   Plan.	
   	
   Impact	
   3.14-­‐2	
   addresses	
   potential	
   impacts	
   associated	
   with	
   the	
  
                        construction	
   or	
   expansion	
   of	
   new	
   water	
   treatment	
   facilities	
   to	
   meet	
   buildout	
  
                        demands.	
  	
  Impact	
  4.14	
  addresses	
  potential	
  cumulative	
  impacts	
  associated	
  with	
  water	
  
                           demands	
   associated	
   with	
   General	
   Plan	
   buildout.	
   	
   Pages	
   3.9-­‐8	
   through	
   3.9-­‐12	
   of	
   the	
  
                           Draft	
   EIR	
   include	
   a	
   detailed	
   description	
   of	
   the	
   water	
   supply	
   sources	
   currently	
  
                           available	
   to	
   the	
   City.	
   	
   Impact	
   3.9-­‐2	
   addresses	
   potential	
   impacts	
   to	
   groundwater	
  
                           supplies,	
  including	
  potential	
  groundwater	
  depletion	
  impacts.	
  	
  	
  

                           The	
   General	
   Plan	
   includes	
   a	
   range	
   of	
   policies	
   and	
   actions	
   designed	
   to	
   ensure	
   an	
  
                           adequate	
   water	
   supply	
   for	
   development	
   and	
   to	
   minimize	
   the	
   potential	
   adverse	
  
                           effects	
   of	
   increased	
   water	
   use.	
   Policy	
   IF	
   1-­‐3	
   requires	
   all	
   development	
   projects	
   to	
  
                           mitigate	
   their	
   infrastructure	
   service	
   impacts	
   or	
   demonstrate	
   that	
   the	
   City’s	
  
                           infrastructure,	
  public	
  services,	
  and	
  utilities	
  can	
  accommodate	
  the	
  increased	
  demand	
  
                           for	
   services,	
   and	
   that	
   service	
   levels	
   for	
   existing	
   users	
   will	
   not	
   be	
   degraded	
   or	
  
                           impaired.	
  

                           Policy	
  IF	
  2-­‐1	
  requires	
  the	
  City	
  to	
  ensure	
  that	
  the	
  water	
  system	
  and	
  water	
  supplies	
  are	
  
                           adequate	
   to	
   meet	
   the	
   needs	
   of	
   existing	
   and	
   future	
   development.	
   	
   Action	
   IF	
   2a	
  
                           requires	
  the	
  City	
  to	
  routinely	
  assess	
  its	
  ability	
  to	
  meet	
  demand	
  for	
  potable	
  water	
  by	
  
                           periodically	
  updating	
  the	
  Water	
  Master	
  Plan.	
  	
  The	
  General	
  Plan	
  also	
  includes	
  a	
  range	
  
                           of	
   policies	
   and	
   actions	
   that	
   call	
   for	
   continued	
   and	
   ongoing	
   water	
   conservation	
  
                           measures,	
   and	
   measures	
   to	
   increase	
   the	
   availability	
   and	
   use	
   of	
   recycled	
   water	
   in	
  



                        Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
                             2.0-­‐93	
  
	
  
       2.0	
              COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  
                              order	
   to	
   decrease	
   water	
   supply	
   demands	
   from	
   existing	
   sources.	
   	
   These	
   issues	
   have	
  
                              been	
  adequately	
  addressed	
  in	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR,	
  and	
  no	
  changes	
  are	
  warranted.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  K-­‐28:	
   The	
  commenter	
  states	
  that	
  the	
  Final	
  EIR	
  must	
  study	
  the	
  comparative	
  impacts	
  of	
  city	
  
                        limits	
   buildout	
   and	
   Planning	
   Area	
   buildout	
   in	
   terms	
   of	
   water	
   demands.	
   	
   The	
  
                        commenter	
   is	
   referred	
   to	
   the	
   additional	
   text	
   included	
   in	
   Chapter	
   3.0	
   of	
   this	
   Final	
   EIR.	
  	
  
                        As	
   described	
   in	
   Chapter	
   3.0,	
   Table	
   3.14-­‐6	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   summarizes	
   annual	
  
                        projections	
   of	
   demands	
   and	
   supplies	
   to	
   meet	
   those	
   demands	
   through	
   2035,	
   as	
  
                        documented	
  in	
  the	
  City’s	
  2010	
  Urban	
  Water	
  Management	
  Plan	
  (UWMP).	
  Table	
  3.14-­‐7	
  
                        summarizes	
   the	
   same	
   information	
   for	
   projected	
   maximum	
   day	
   demands	
   and	
  
                              supplies.	
  Table	
  3.14-­‐7	
  shows	
  a	
  range	
  in	
  demands	
  from	
  2010	
  through	
  2035	
  based	
  on	
  
                              two	
   different	
   growth	
   rate	
   projections:	
   a	
   high-­‐growth	
   curve,	
   developed	
   from	
   earlier	
  
                              studies	
  for	
  the	
  COBWTP,	
  and	
  a	
  straight-­‐line	
  growth	
  rate.	
  Actual	
  water	
  demands	
  are	
  
                              expected	
  to	
  fall	
  in	
  between	
  these	
  two	
  projections.	
  

                              As	
   shown	
   in	
   Table	
   2.0-­‐3	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   the	
   projected	
   buildout	
   population	
   of	
   the	
  
                              proposed	
   General	
   Plan	
   within	
   the	
   city	
   limits	
   is	
   lower	
   than	
   the	
   projected	
   buildout	
  
                              population	
   of	
   the	
   existing	
   General	
   Plan	
   by	
   approximately	
   nine	
   percent.	
   	
   Therefore,	
  
                              buildout	
   of	
   the	
   proposed	
   General	
   Plan	
   would	
   not	
   exceed	
   the	
   water	
   supply	
   demand	
  
                              projections	
   contained	
   in	
   the	
   City’s	
   2010	
   UWMP,	
   which	
   are	
   based	
   on	
   projected	
  
                              buildout	
  of	
  the	
  existing	
  General	
  Plan.	
  	
  	
  

                              The	
  City’s	
  2010	
  UWMP	
  estimates	
  that	
  water	
  supply	
  buildout	
  demand	
  in	
  2035	
  will	
  be	
  
                              approximately	
   4,556	
   million	
   gallons	
   per	
   year	
   (MGY).	
   	
   This	
   equates	
   to	
   .051	
   MGY	
   per	
  
                              person	
   within	
   the	
   service	
   area.	
   	
   As	
   shown	
   in	
   Table	
   2.0-­‐3,	
   the	
   buildout	
   population	
  
                              within	
   the	
   Planning	
   Area	
   is	
   estimated	
   to	
   be	
   92,336.	
   	
   Applying	
   the	
   per	
   capita	
   water	
  
                              use	
   rate	
   of	
   .051	
   MGY,	
   the	
   total	
   annual	
   water	
   demand	
   associated	
   with	
   full	
   buildout	
   of	
  
                              the	
   General	
   Plan	
   to	
   the	
   Planning	
   Area	
   would	
   be	
   4,715	
   MGY.	
   	
   This	
   water	
   demand	
   is	
  
                              within	
  the	
  projected	
  available	
  supplies	
  shown	
  in	
  Table	
  3.14-­‐6.	
  	
  	
  

                              The	
   General	
   Plan	
   includes	
   a	
   range	
   of	
   policies	
   and	
   actions	
   designed	
   to	
   ensure	
   an	
  
                              adequate	
   water	
   supply	
   for	
   development	
   and	
   to	
   minimize	
   the	
   potential	
   adverse	
  
                              effects	
   of	
   increased	
   water	
   use.	
   Policy	
   IF	
   1-­‐3	
   requires	
   all	
   development	
   projects	
   to	
  
                              mitigate	
   their	
   infrastructure	
   service	
   impacts	
   or	
   demonstrate	
   that	
   the	
   City’s	
  
                              infrastructure,	
  public	
  services,	
  and	
  utilities	
  can	
  accommodate	
  the	
  increased	
  demand	
  
                              for	
   services,	
   and	
   that	
   service	
   levels	
   for	
   existing	
   users	
   will	
   not	
   be	
   degraded	
   or	
  
                              impaired.	
  

                              Policy	
  IF	
  2-­‐1	
  requires	
  the	
  City	
  to	
  ensure	
  that	
  the	
  water	
  system	
  and	
  water	
  supplies	
  are	
  
                              adequate	
   to	
   meet	
   the	
   needs	
   of	
   existing	
   and	
   future	
   development.	
   	
   Action	
   IF	
   2a	
  
                              requires	
  the	
  City	
  to	
  routinely	
  assess	
  its	
  ability	
  to	
  meet	
  demand	
  for	
  potable	
  water	
  by	
  
                              periodically	
  updating	
  the	
  Water	
  Master	
  Plan.	
  	
  The	
  General	
  Plan	
  also	
  includes	
  a	
  range	
  


       2.0-­‐94	
          Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                                          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                                    2.0	
  
	
  
                            of	
   policies	
   and	
   actions	
   that	
   call	
   for	
   continued	
   and	
   ongoing	
   water	
   conservation	
  
                            measures,	
   and	
   measures	
   to	
   increase	
   the	
   availability	
   and	
   use	
   of	
   recycled	
   water	
   in	
  
                            order	
  to	
  decrease	
  water	
  supply	
  demands	
  from	
  existing	
  sources.	
  	
  	
  

                            Given	
   that	
   projected	
   water	
   demands	
   associated	
   with	
   General	
   Plan	
   buildout	
   would	
  
                            not	
  exceed	
  the	
  projected	
  water	
  supplies	
  described	
  in	
  Brentwood’s	
  2010	
  Urban	
  Water	
  
                            Management	
  Plan,	
  and	
  that	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  includes	
  a	
  comprehensive	
  set	
  of	
  goals,	
  
                            policies,	
   and	
   actions	
   to	
   ensure	
   an	
   adequate	
   and	
   reliable	
   source	
   of	
   clean	
   potable	
  
                            water,	
   impacts	
   associated	
   with	
   water	
   supplies	
   are	
   less	
   than	
   cumulatively	
  
                            considerable.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  K-­‐29:	
   The	
   commenter	
   states	
   that	
   the	
   Final	
   EIR	
   must	
   study	
   the	
   immediate	
   and	
   cumulative	
  
                        impacts	
   that	
   Planning	
   Area	
   buildout	
   would	
   have	
   on	
   water	
   supply	
   and	
   wastewater	
  
                        treatment	
   in	
   Brentwood,	
   Contra	
   Costa	
   County,	
   and	
   California.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   is	
  
                        referred	
   to	
   Responses	
   K-­‐26	
   through	
   K-­‐28	
   for	
   information	
   regarding	
   cumulative	
   water	
  
                        supplies.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   is	
   referred	
   to	
   Impacts	
   3.14-­‐3,	
   3.14-­‐4,	
   and	
   4.14	
   regarding	
  
                            the	
  analysis	
  of	
  potential	
  impacts	
  related	
  to	
  wastewater	
  treatment.	
  	
  These	
  topics	
  have	
  
                            been	
  adequately	
  addressed	
  and	
  no	
  additional	
  changes	
  are	
  required.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  K-­‐30:	
   The	
  commenter	
  provides	
  closing	
  remarks.	
  	
  No	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  required.	
  	
  	
  




                         Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
                          2.0-­‐95	
  
	
  
       2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐96	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                 2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐97	
  
	
  
       2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐98	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                 2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐99	
  
	
  
        2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐100	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                                          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                                        2.0	
  
	
  
	
  

Response	
  to	
  Letter	
  L	
  	
  	
          Dana	
   Eaton,	
   Ed.D,	
   Superintendent,	
   Brentwood	
   Union	
  
                                                 School	
  District	
  
	
  

Response	
  L-­‐1:	
       The	
   commenter	
   provides	
   introductory	
   remarks	
   and	
   notes	
   the	
   potential	
   population	
  
                           increase	
  that	
  may	
  occur	
  within	
  the	
  Planning	
  Area	
  upon	
  buildout	
  of	
  the	
  General	
  Plan.	
  	
  
                           The	
   commenter	
   states	
   that	
   school	
   enrollment	
   would	
   increase	
   and	
   that	
   growth	
   may	
  
                           have	
  dramatic	
  impacts	
  on	
  school	
  facility	
  needs.	
  	
  This	
  comment	
  has	
  been	
  forwarded	
  
                           to	
  the	
  Planning	
  Commission	
  and	
  City	
  Council	
  for	
  their	
  consideration.	
  	
  No	
  changes	
  to	
  
                           the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  L-­‐2:	
       The	
   commenter	
   notes	
   that	
   population	
   growth	
   in	
   the	
   city	
   may	
   require	
   the	
  
                           construction	
   of	
   new	
   elementary	
   and	
   middle	
   schools,	
   and	
   provides	
   information	
  
                           regarding	
   appropriate	
   site	
   parameters	
   for	
   new	
   school	
   locations.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
  
                           notes	
   the	
   benefits	
   of	
   collaboration	
   with	
   the	
   City	
   during	
   the	
   entitlement	
   process	
   for	
  
                           development	
   projects.	
   This	
   comment	
   has	
   been	
   forwarded	
   to	
   the	
   Planning	
  
                           Commission	
  and	
  City	
  Council	
  for	
  their	
  consideration.	
  	
  No	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  
                           warranted.	
  

Response	
  L-­‐3:	
       The	
  commenter	
  states	
  that	
  future	
  school	
  zone	
  sites	
  can	
  be	
  established	
  and	
  that	
  the	
  
                           City	
   should	
   coordinate	
   with	
   the	
   District	
   regarding	
   future	
   development	
   projects	
   and	
  
                           potential	
  future	
  school	
  zone	
  sites.	
  This	
  comment	
  has	
  been	
  forwarded	
  to	
  the	
  Planning	
  
                           Commission	
  and	
  City	
  Council	
  for	
  their	
  consideration.	
  	
  No	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  
                           warranted.	
  

Response	
  L-­‐4:	
       The	
  commenter	
  states	
  that	
  the	
  District	
  believes	
  the	
  City	
  agrees	
  with	
  the	
  commenter’s	
  
                           position	
   on	
   these	
   issues,	
   and	
   cites	
   policies	
   and	
   actions	
   from	
   the	
   General	
   Plan.	
   This	
  
                           comment	
  has	
  been	
  forwarded	
  to	
  the	
  Planning	
  Commission	
  and	
  City	
  Council	
  for	
  their	
  
                           consideration.	
  	
  No	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  

Response	
  L-­‐5:	
       The	
   commenter	
   notes	
   the	
   importance	
   of	
   appropriate	
   funding	
   for	
   the	
   acquisition	
   of	
  
                           school	
  sites	
  and	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  school	
  facilities.	
  	
  The	
  commenter	
  also	
  notes	
  the	
  
                           past	
   successes	
   in	
   collaboration	
   between	
   the	
   City	
   and	
   the	
   District,	
   and	
   that	
   future	
  
                           funding	
  may	
  require	
  requests	
  for	
  increases	
  in	
  property	
  taxes.	
  This	
  comment	
  has	
  been	
  
                           forwarded	
  to	
  the	
  Planning	
  Commission	
  and	
  City	
  Council	
  for	
  their	
  consideration.	
  	
  No	
  
                           changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  

Response	
  L-­‐6:	
       The	
   commenter	
   states	
   that	
   the	
   collection	
   of	
   fees	
   imposed	
   by	
   the	
   District	
   under	
  
                           Section	
   65995(h)	
   of	
   the	
   California	
   Government	
   Code	
   will	
   not	
   mitigate	
   the	
   impacts	
  
                           caused	
   by	
   future	
   development	
   under	
   the	
   General	
   Plan.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
  
                           acknowledges	
   that	
   Government	
   Code	
   Section	
   65995(h)	
   identifies	
   the	
   payment	
   of	
  

                         Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
                              2.0-­‐101	
  
	
  
        2.0	
            COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  
                           impact	
   fees	
   to	
   be	
   “full	
   and	
   complete”	
   mitigation	
   of	
   impacts	
   created	
   by	
   new	
  
                           development,	
   but	
   states	
   that	
   additional	
   funding	
   would	
   be	
   required.	
   	
   The	
   Draft	
   EIR	
  
                           includes	
   a	
   detailed	
   and	
   comprehensive	
   analysis	
   of	
   potential	
   impacts	
   to	
   school	
  
                           facilities	
  as	
  a	
  result	
  of	
  growth	
  that	
  may	
  be	
  accommodated	
  by	
  the	
  General	
  Plan.	
  	
  The	
  
                           commenter	
  is	
  correct	
  that	
  the	
  payment	
  of	
  development	
  impact	
  fees	
  consistent	
  with	
  
                           the	
  requirements	
  of	
  Government	
  Code	
  Section	
  65996(h)	
  provides	
  full	
  and	
  complete	
  
                           mitigation	
   of	
   this	
   impact,	
   which	
   is	
   described	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR.	
   This	
   comment	
   has	
   been	
  
                           forwarded	
  to	
  the	
  Planning	
  Commission	
  and	
  City	
  Council	
  for	
  their	
  consideration.	
  	
  No	
  
                           changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  

Response	
  L-­‐7:	
       The	
  commenter	
  states	
  that	
  overcrowding	
  at	
  school	
  facilities	
  may	
  result	
  in	
  additional	
  
                           buses	
   at	
   each	
   school	
   site,	
   which	
   may	
   lead	
   to	
   traffic	
   delays,	
   noise,	
   and	
   air	
   pollution.	
  
                           This	
  comment	
  has	
  been	
  forwarded	
  to	
  the	
  Planning	
  Commission	
  and	
  City	
  Council	
  for	
  
                           their	
  consideration.	
  	
  No	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  

Response	
  L-­‐8:	
       The	
   commenter	
   states	
   that	
   the	
   collection	
   of	
   developer	
   fees	
   is	
   not	
   sufficient	
   to	
   fully	
  
                           fund	
   new	
   school	
   facilities,	
   and	
   that	
   additional	
   revenue	
   sources	
   such	
   as	
   tax	
   increment	
  
                           increases	
   may	
   be	
   required.	
   This	
   comment	
   has	
   been	
   forwarded	
   to	
   the	
   Planning	
  
                           Commission	
  and	
  City	
  Council	
  for	
  their	
  consideration.	
  	
  No	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  
                           warranted.	
  

Response	
  L-­‐9:	
       The	
   commenter	
   states	
   that	
   the	
   funding	
   of	
   new	
   schools	
   should	
   be	
   viewed	
   as	
   critical	
  
                           infrastructure	
   associated	
   with	
   a	
   functioning	
   society.	
   This	
   comment	
   has	
   been	
  
                           forwarded	
  to	
  the	
  Planning	
  Commission	
  and	
  City	
  Council	
  for	
  their	
  consideration.	
  	
  No	
  
                           changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  

Response	
  L-­‐10:	
   The	
   commenter	
   cites	
  a	
  range	
  of	
  policies	
  and	
  actions	
  from	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  related	
  to	
  
                        the	
   provision	
   of	
   infrastructure	
   and	
   related	
   services.	
   This	
   comment	
   has	
   been	
  
                           forwarded	
  to	
  the	
  Planning	
  Commission	
  and	
  City	
  Council	
  for	
  their	
  consideration.	
  	
  No	
  
                           changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  

Response	
  L-­‐11:	
   The	
   commenter	
   provides	
   sample	
   language	
   for	
   inclusion	
   in	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   to	
  
                        strengthen	
   requirements	
   for	
   mitigation	
   for	
   school	
   sites.	
   This	
   comment	
   has	
   been	
  
                           forwarded	
  to	
  the	
  Planning	
  Commission	
  and	
  City	
  Council	
  for	
  their	
  consideration.	
  	
  No	
  
                           changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  

Response	
  L-­‐12:	
   The	
  commenter	
  states	
  that	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  would	
  be	
  strengthened	
  by	
  unambiguous	
  
                        policies	
  regarding	
  planning	
  for	
  future	
  school	
  sites	
  and	
  facilities,	
  and	
  provides	
  specific	
  
                        examples	
   in	
   the	
   following	
   comments.	
   The	
   commenter	
   requests	
   that	
   General	
   Plan	
  
                           Policy	
   CSF	
   5-­‐1	
   be	
   modified	
   to	
   provide	
   additional	
   details	
   regarding	
   future	
  
                           collaboration	
   between	
   the	
   District	
   and	
   the	
   City	
   regarding	
   the	
   planning	
   for	
   future	
  
                           school	
   sites.	
   This	
   comment	
   has	
   been	
   forwarded	
   to	
   the	
   Planning	
   Commission	
   and	
   City	
  
                           Council	
  for	
  their	
  consideration.	
  	
  No	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  

       2.0-­‐102	
       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                                           COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                                     2.0	
  
	
  
Response	
  L-­‐13:	
   The	
   commenter	
   requests	
   that	
   General	
   Plan	
   Policy	
   CSF	
   5-­‐1	
   be	
   modified	
   to	
   provide	
  
                        additional	
   details	
   regarding	
   future	
   collaboration	
   between	
   the	
   District	
   and	
   the	
   City	
  
                        regarding	
  the	
  planning	
  for	
  future	
  school	
  sites.	
  This	
  comment	
  has	
  been	
  forwarded	
  to	
  
                        the	
   Planning	
   Commission	
   and	
   City	
   Council	
   for	
   their	
   consideration.	
   	
   No	
   changes	
   to	
   the	
  
                            Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  

Response	
  L-­‐14:	
   The	
   commenter	
   requests	
   that	
   General	
   Plan	
   Action	
   CSF	
   5a	
   be	
   modified	
   to	
   provide	
  
                        additional	
   details	
   regarding	
   future	
   collaboration	
   between	
   the	
   District	
   and	
   the	
   City	
  
                        regarding	
  the	
  planning	
  for	
  future	
  school	
  sites.	
  This	
  comment	
  has	
  been	
  forwarded	
  to	
  
                        the	
   Planning	
   Commission	
   and	
   City	
   Council	
   for	
   their	
   consideration.	
   	
   No	
   changes	
   to	
   the	
  
                            Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  

Response	
  L-­‐15:	
   The	
   commenter	
   provides	
   closing	
   remarks	
   and	
   expresses	
   support	
   for	
   the	
   open	
   and	
  
                        collaborative	
   process	
   the	
   City	
   has	
   used	
   during	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   Update.	
   	
   The	
  
                        commenter	
   states	
   that	
   the	
   City	
   and	
   District	
   have	
   compatible	
   goals,	
   and	
   states	
  
                        support	
  for	
  ongoing	
  collaboration.	
  This	
  comment	
  has	
  been	
  forwarded	
  to	
  the	
  Planning	
  
                            Commission	
  and	
  City	
  Council	
  for	
  their	
  consideration.	
  	
  No	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  
                            warranted.	
  

	
  

	
  




                         Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
                           2.0-­‐103	
  
	
  
        2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐104	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                  2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐105	
  
	
  
        2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐106	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                  2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐107	
  
	
  
        2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐108	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                                           COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                                     2.0	
  
	
  
	
  

Response	
  to	
  Letter	
  M	
  	
  	
   Jeremy	
   S.	
   White,	
   President,	
   Grupe	
   Investment	
  
                                          Company,	
  Inc.	
  
	
  

Response	
  M-­‐1:	
   The	
  commenter	
  requests	
  a	
  land	
  use	
  designation	
  change	
  to	
  the	
  parcel	
  located	
  at	
  7303	
  
                       Brentwood	
   Boulevard.	
   	
   This	
   comment	
   is	
   noted	
   and	
   has	
   been	
   forwarded	
   to	
   the	
  
                       Planning	
   Commission	
   and	
   City	
   Council	
   for	
   their	
   review	
   and	
   consideration.	
   	
   The	
  
                       commenter	
   does	
   not	
   address	
   the	
   adequacy	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   and,	
   as	
   such,	
   no	
   changes	
  
                       to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  	
  	
  




                         Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
                           2.0-­‐109	
  
	
  
        2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐110	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                  2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐111	
  
	
  
        2.0	
            COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  
	
  

Response	
  to	
  Letter	
  N	
  	
  	
   Doug	
  Moore	
  and	
  Grant	
  Alvernaz,	
  Property	
  Owners	
  
	
  

Response	
  N-­‐1:	
       The	
  commenter	
  requests	
  a	
  land	
  use	
  designation	
  change	
  to	
  the	
  parcel	
  located	
  at	
  2700	
  
                           Empire	
   Avenue.	
   	
   This	
   comment	
   is	
   noted	
   and	
   has	
   been	
   forwarded	
   to	
   the	
   Planning	
  
                           Commission	
   and	
   City	
   Council	
   for	
   their	
   review	
   and	
   consideration.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
  
                           does	
  not	
  address	
  the	
  adequacy	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR,	
  and	
  no	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  
                           warranted.	
  	
  	
  




       2.0-­‐112	
       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                  2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐113	
  
	
  
        2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐114	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                  2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐115	
  
	
  
        2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐116	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                  2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐117	
  
	
  
        2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐118	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                  2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐119	
  
	
  
        2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐120	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                  2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐121	
  
	
  
        2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐122	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                  2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐123	
  
	
  
        2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐124	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                  2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐125	
  
	
  
        2.0	
            COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  
	
  

Response	
  to	
  Letter	
  O	
  	
  	
   Juan	
   Pablo	
   Galván,	
   Land	
   Use	
   Planner,	
   Save	
   Mount	
  
                                          Diablo	
  	
  	
  
	
  

Response	
  O-­‐1:	
       The	
   commenter	
   provides	
   background	
   information	
   regarding	
   the	
   Save	
   Mount	
   Diablo	
  
                           organization,	
  and	
  identifies	
  efforts	
  the	
  organization	
  has	
  undertaken	
  in	
  the	
  past	
  with	
  
                           respect	
  to	
  planning	
  issues	
  in	
  Brentwood.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  O-­‐2:	
       The	
  commenter	
  provides	
  information	
  regarding	
  open	
  space	
  resources	
  in	
  the	
  vicinity	
  
                           of	
  Brentwood	
  and	
  suggests	
  that	
  the	
  City	
  integrate	
  these	
  resources	
  into	
  the	
  planning	
  
                           process.	
   	
   This	
   comment	
   has	
   been	
   forwarded	
   to	
   the	
   Planning	
   Commission	
   and	
   City	
  
                           Council	
  for	
  their	
  consideration.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  O-­‐3:	
       The	
  commenter	
  states	
  that	
  the	
  proposed	
  General	
  Plan	
  should	
  focus	
  on	
  Brentwood’s	
  
                           location	
  relative	
  to	
  open	
  space	
  resources,	
  recreational	
  opportunities,	
  and	
  agricultural	
  
                           preservation.	
   This	
   comment	
   has	
   been	
   forwarded	
   to	
   the	
   Planning	
   Commission	
   and	
  
                           City	
  Council	
  for	
  their	
  consideration.	
  

Response	
  O-­‐4:	
       The	
  commenter	
  states	
  that	
  the	
  proposed	
  General	
  Plan	
  Land	
  Use	
  Map	
  does	
  not	
  reflect	
  
                           voters’	
   repeated	
   direction	
   to	
   tighten	
   growth	
   management	
   and	
   live	
   within	
   the	
   city’s	
  
                           boundaries.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   provides	
   suggested	
   language	
   and	
   general	
   map	
   revisions	
  
                           related	
   to	
   the	
   Sphere	
   of	
   Influence	
   and	
   Planning	
   Area.	
   	
   The	
   input	
   and	
   suggestions	
  
                           provided	
   by	
   the	
   commenter	
   with	
   respect	
   to	
   the	
   content	
   of	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   have	
  
                           been	
  forwarded	
  to	
  the	
  Planning	
  Commission	
  and	
  City	
  Council	
  for	
  their	
  consideration	
  
                           during	
  review	
  of	
  the	
  project.	
  	
  The	
  commenter	
  has	
  not	
  addressed	
  the	
  adequacy	
  of	
  the	
  
                           Draft	
   EIR,	
   nor	
   has	
   the	
   commenter	
   provided	
   supporting	
   information	
   explaining	
   how	
  
                           the	
   proposed	
   revisions	
   to	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   would	
   avoid	
   or	
   reduce	
   the	
   severity	
   of	
   any	
  
                           environmental	
   impacts	
   addressed	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   or	
   how	
   the	
   suggested	
   revisions	
  
                           would	
   bolster	
   or	
   improve	
   the	
   analysis	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR.	
   	
   As	
   such,	
   no	
   changes	
   to	
   the	
  
                           Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  O-­‐5:	
       The	
   commenter	
   states	
   that	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR’s	
   analysis	
   of	
   project	
   effects	
   and	
   alternatives	
  
                           analysis	
  is	
  thorough,	
  and	
  that	
  the	
  City	
  has	
  done	
  a	
  good	
  job	
  of	
  developing	
  the	
  General	
  
                           Plan	
   using	
   the	
   principles	
   of	
   smart	
   growth	
   and	
   sustainable	
   development.	
   	
   The	
  
                           commenter	
   states	
   that	
   the	
   letter	
   includes	
   a	
   range	
   of	
   suggested	
   edits	
   and	
   revisions	
   to	
  
                           the	
  General	
  Plan	
  goals,	
  policies,	
  and	
  actions,	
  and	
  states	
  that	
  these	
  suggestions	
  should	
  
                           be	
  regarded	
  as	
  comments	
  on	
  the	
  adequacy	
  of	
  mitigation	
  measures	
  described	
  in	
  the	
  
                           EIR.	
   	
   Responses	
   to	
   specific	
   items	
   and	
   issues	
   raised	
   by	
   the	
   commenter	
   are	
   provided	
   in	
  
                           the	
  following	
  responses.	
  	
  In	
  many	
  cases,	
  the	
  commenter	
  provides	
  suggested	
  language	
  
                           revisions	
   for	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   document,	
   but	
   does	
   not	
   provide	
   any	
   supporting	
  



       2.0-­‐126	
       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                                           COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                                                 2.0	
  
	
  
                           information	
  or	
  justification	
  as	
  to	
  how	
  this	
  suggested	
  language	
  would	
  improve,	
  alter,	
  
                           or	
  augment	
  the	
  analysis	
  and	
  conclusions	
  contained	
  in	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  	
  

                           CEQA	
  Guidelines	
  Section	
  15088	
  requires	
  that	
  lead	
  agencies	
  evaluate	
  and	
  respond	
  to	
  
                           all	
   comments	
   on	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   that	
   regard	
   an	
   environmental	
   issue.	
   	
   The	
   written	
  
                           response	
   must	
   address	
   the	
   significant	
   environmental	
   issue	
   raised	
   and	
   provide	
   a	
  
                           detailed	
   response,	
   especially	
   when	
   specific	
   comments	
   or	
   suggestions	
   (e.g.,	
   additional	
  
                           mitigation	
  measures)	
  are	
  not	
  accepted.	
  	
  In	
  addition,	
  the	
  written	
  response	
  must	
  be	
  a	
  
                           good	
   faith	
   and	
   reasoned	
   analysis.	
   	
   However,	
   lead	
   agencies	
  only	
   need	
   to	
   respond	
   to	
  
                           significant	
   environmental	
   issues	
   associated	
   with	
   the	
   project	
   and	
   do	
   not	
   need	
   to	
  
                           provide	
  all	
  of	
  the	
  information	
  requested	
  by	
  the	
  commenter,	
  as	
  long	
  as	
  a	
  good	
  faith	
  
                           effort	
  at	
  full	
  disclosure	
  is	
  made	
  in	
  the	
  EIR	
  (CEQA	
  Guidelines	
  Section	
  15204(a)).	
  

                           CEQA	
   Guidelines	
   Section	
   15204	
   recommends	
   that	
   commenters	
   provide	
   detailed	
  
                           comments	
  that	
  focus	
  on	
  the	
  sufficiency	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  in	
  identifying	
  and	
  analyzing	
  
                           the	
  possible	
  environmental	
  impacts	
  of	
  the	
  project	
  and	
  ways	
  to	
  avoid	
  or	
  mitigate	
  the	
  
                           significant	
  effects	
  of	
  the	
  project,	
  and	
  that	
  commenters	
  provide	
  evidence	
  supporting	
  
                           their	
  comments.	
  	
  Pursuant	
  to	
  CEQA	
  Guidelines	
  Section	
  15064,	
  an	
  effect	
  shall	
  not	
  be	
  
                           considered	
  significant	
  in	
  the	
  absence	
  of	
  substantial	
  evidence.	
  	
  

Response	
  O-­‐6:	
       The	
   commenter	
   states	
   that	
   the	
   addition	
   of	
   new	
   content	
   in	
   certain	
   sections	
   of	
   the	
  
                           General	
  Plan	
  would	
  facilitate	
  future	
  development	
  and	
  planning	
  efforts,	
  and	
  revisions	
  
                           to	
  figures	
  would	
  improve	
  perspective	
  on	
  the	
  city	
  and	
  the	
  surrounding	
  environment.	
  	
  
                           Detailed	
  responses	
  to	
  issues	
  raised	
  by	
  the	
  commenter	
  are	
  provided	
  in	
  the	
  responses	
  
                           below.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  O-­‐7:	
       The	
   commenter	
   provides	
   suggested	
   General	
   Plan	
   text	
   revisions	
   related	
   to	
   smart	
  
                           street	
   standards	
   and	
   regional	
   trails.	
   The	
   input	
   and	
   suggestions	
   provided	
   by	
   the	
  
                           commenter	
  with	
  respect	
  to	
  the	
  content	
  of	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  have	
  been	
  forwarded	
  to	
  
                           the	
  Planning	
  Commission	
  and	
  City	
  Council	
  for	
  their	
  consideration	
  during	
  review	
  of	
  the	
  
                           project.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   has	
   not	
   addressed	
   the	
   adequacy	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   nor	
   has	
  
                           the	
   commenter	
   provided	
   supporting	
   information	
   explaining	
   how	
   the	
   proposed	
  
                           revisions	
   to	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   would	
   avoid	
   or	
   reduce	
   the	
   severity	
   of	
   any	
  
                           environmental	
   impacts	
   addressed	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   or	
   how	
   the	
   suggested	
   revisions	
  
                           would	
   bolster	
   or	
   improve	
   the	
   analysis	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR.	
   	
   As	
   such,	
   no	
   changes	
   to	
   the	
  
                           Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  

Response	
  O-­‐8:	
       The	
   commenter	
   states	
   that	
   the	
   Community	
   Services	
   and	
   Facilities	
   Element	
   should	
  
                           include	
  a	
  map	
  of	
  community	
  parks	
  in	
  the	
  city.	
  	
  The	
  commenter	
  is	
  referred	
  to	
  Figure	
  
                           3.3-­‐2	
   of	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   Update	
   Existing	
   Conditions	
   Report,	
   which	
   includes	
   a	
  
                           citywide	
   map	
   of	
   existing	
   park	
   facilities.	
   	
   The	
   Existing	
   Conditions	
   Report	
   is	
   a	
  
                           supplemental	
   supporting	
   document	
   to	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   policy	
   document,	
   and	
  
                           contains	
   extensive	
   background	
   data	
   in	
   support	
   of	
   it.	
   The	
   input	
   and	
   suggestions	
  


                         Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
                                       2.0-­‐127	
  
	
  
        2.0	
            COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  
                            provided	
   by	
   the	
   commenter	
   with	
   respect	
   to	
   the	
   content	
   of	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   have	
  
                            been	
  forwarded	
  to	
  the	
  Planning	
  Commission	
  and	
  City	
  Council	
  for	
  their	
  consideration	
  
                            during	
  review	
  of	
  the	
  project.	
  	
  The	
  commenter	
  has	
  not	
  addressed	
  the	
  adequacy	
  of	
  the	
  
                            Draft	
   EIR,	
   nor	
   has	
   the	
   commenter	
   provided	
   supporting	
   information	
   explaining	
   how	
  
                            the	
   proposed	
   revisions	
   to	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   would	
   avoid	
   or	
   reduce	
   the	
   severity	
   of	
   any	
  
                            environmental	
   impacts	
   addressed	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   or	
   how	
   the	
   suggested	
   revisions	
  
                            would	
   bolster	
   or	
   improve	
   the	
   analysis	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR.	
   	
   As	
   such,	
   no	
   changes	
   to	
   the	
  
                            Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  

Response	
  O-­‐9:	
        The	
   commenter	
   provides	
   a	
   range	
   of	
   suggested	
   input	
   to	
   the	
   Conservation	
   and	
   Open	
  
                            Space	
   Element	
   of	
   the	
   General	
   Plan.	
   The	
   input	
   and	
   suggestions	
   provided	
   by	
   the	
  
                            commenter	
  with	
  respect	
  to	
  the	
  content	
  of	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  have	
  been	
  forwarded	
  to	
  
                            the	
  Planning	
  Commission	
  and	
  City	
  Council	
  for	
  their	
  consideration	
  during	
  review	
  of	
  the	
  
                            project.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   has	
   not	
   addressed	
   the	
   adequacy	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   nor	
   has	
  
                            the	
   commenter	
   provided	
   supporting	
   information	
   explaining	
   how	
   the	
   proposed	
  
                            revisions	
   to	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   would	
   avoid	
   or	
   reduce	
   the	
   severity	
   of	
   any	
  
                            environmental	
   impacts	
   addressed	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   or	
   how	
   the	
   suggested	
   revisions	
  
                            would	
   bolster	
   or	
   improve	
   the	
   analysis	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR.	
   	
   As	
   such,	
   no	
   changes	
   to	
   the	
  
                            Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  

Response	
  O-­‐10:	
   The	
   commenter	
   provides	
   a	
   range	
   of	
   input	
   related	
   to	
   the	
   Economic	
   Development	
  
                        Element	
   and	
   ties	
   economic	
   development	
   benefits	
   to	
   open	
   space	
   preservation.	
   The	
  
                        input	
   and	
   suggestions	
   provided	
   by	
   the	
   commenter	
   with	
   respect	
   to	
   the	
   content	
   of	
   the	
  
                            General	
  Plan	
  have	
  been	
  forwarded	
  to	
  the	
  Planning	
  Commission	
  and	
  City	
  Council	
  for	
  
                            their	
  consideration	
  during	
  review	
  of	
  the	
  project.	
  	
  The	
  commenter	
  has	
  not	
  addressed	
  
                            the	
   adequacy	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   nor	
   has	
   the	
   commenter	
   provided	
   supporting	
  
                            information	
  explaining	
  how	
  the	
  proposed	
  revisions	
  to	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  would	
  avoid	
  
                            or	
   reduce	
   the	
   severity	
   of	
   any	
   environmental	
   impacts	
   addressed	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   or	
  
                            how	
  the	
  suggested	
  revisions	
  would	
  bolster	
  or	
  improve	
  the	
  analysis	
  in	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  	
  
                            As	
  such,	
  no	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  

Response	
  O-­‐11:	
   The	
   commenter	
   suggests	
   adding	
   language	
   to	
   the	
   Growth	
   Management	
   Element	
  
                        noting	
   that	
   changes	
   to	
   the	
   Urban	
   Limit	
   Line	
   require	
   voter	
   approval.	
   The	
   input	
   and	
  
                        suggestions	
  provided	
  by	
  the	
  commenter	
  with	
  respect	
  to	
  the	
  content	
  of	
  the	
  General	
  
                        Plan	
   have	
   been	
   forwarded	
   to	
   the	
   Planning	
   Commission	
   and	
   City	
   Council	
   for	
   their	
  
                        consideration	
   during	
   review	
   of	
   the	
   project.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   has	
   not	
   addressed	
   the	
  
                            adequacy	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR,	
  nor	
  has	
  the	
  commenter	
  provided	
  supporting	
  information	
  
                            explaining	
  how	
  the	
  proposed	
  revisions	
  to	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  would	
  avoid	
  or	
  reduce	
  the	
  
                            severity	
   of	
   any	
   environmental	
   impacts	
   addressed	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   or	
   how	
   the	
  
                            suggested	
  revisions	
  would	
  bolster	
  or	
  improve	
  the	
  analysis	
  in	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  	
  As	
  such,	
  
                            no	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  


       2.0-­‐128	
       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                                              COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                                                 2.0	
  
	
  
Response	
  O-­‐12:	
   The	
  commenter	
  suggests	
  that	
  the	
  Urban	
  Limit	
  Line	
  be	
  added	
  to	
  General	
  Plan	
  Figure	
  
                        LU-­‐1.	
   	
   The	
   General	
   Plan	
   includes	
   Figure	
   LU-­‐3,	
   which	
   depicts	
   the	
   Urban	
   Limit	
   Line,	
   city	
  
                        limits,	
  Planning	
  Area,	
  and	
  Sphere	
  of	
  Influence	
  boundaries.	
  The	
  input	
  and	
  suggestions	
  
                        provided	
   by	
   the	
   commenter	
   with	
   respect	
   to	
   the	
   content	
   of	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   have	
  
                              been	
  forwarded	
  to	
  the	
  Planning	
  Commission	
  and	
  City	
  Council	
  for	
  their	
  consideration	
  
                              during	
  review	
  of	
  the	
  project.	
  	
  The	
  commenter	
  has	
  not	
  addressed	
  the	
  adequacy	
  of	
  the	
  
                              Draft	
   EIR,	
   nor	
   has	
   the	
   commenter	
   provided	
   supporting	
   information	
   explaining	
   how	
  
                              the	
   proposed	
   revisions	
   to	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   would	
   avoid	
   or	
   reduce	
   the	
   severity	
   of	
   any	
  
                              environmental	
   impacts	
   addressed	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   or	
   how	
   the	
   suggested	
   revisions	
  
                              would	
   bolster	
   or	
   improve	
   the	
   analysis	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR.	
   	
   As	
   such,	
   no	
   changes	
   to	
   the	
  
                              Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  

Response	
  O-­‐13:	
   The	
   commenter	
   suggests	
   that	
   the	
   Land	
   Use	
   Map	
   depict	
   more	
   areas	
   of	
   public	
   open	
  
                        space.	
   The	
   input	
   and	
   suggestions	
   provided	
   by	
   the	
   commenter	
   with	
   respect	
   to	
   the	
  
                        content	
   of	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   have	
   been	
   forwarded	
   to	
   the	
   Planning	
   Commission	
   and	
  
                        City	
   Council	
   for	
   their	
   consideration	
   during	
   review	
   of	
   the	
   project.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   has	
  
                        not	
   addressed	
   the	
   adequacy	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   nor	
   has	
   the	
   commenter	
   provided	
  
                              supporting	
   information	
   explaining	
   how	
   the	
   proposed	
   revisions	
   to	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
  
                              would	
   avoid	
   or	
   reduce	
   the	
   severity	
   of	
   any	
   environmental	
   impacts	
   addressed	
   in	
   the	
  
                              Draft	
  EIR,	
  or	
  how	
  the	
  suggested	
  revisions	
  would	
  bolster	
  or	
  improve	
  the	
  analysis	
  in	
  the	
  
                              Draft	
  EIR.	
  	
  As	
  such,	
  no	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  

Response	
  O-­‐14:	
   The	
  commenter	
  suggests	
  that	
  the	
  Sphere	
  of	
  Influence	
  be	
  tightened	
  to	
  protect	
  open	
  
                              space	
  resources.	
  	
  The	
  City	
  does	
  not	
  have	
  the	
  authority	
  to	
  unilaterally	
  alter	
  or	
  revise	
  
                              the	
   established	
   Sphere	
   of	
   Influence.	
   	
   Changes	
   to	
   the	
   Sphere	
   of	
   Influence	
   require	
  
                              approval	
   from	
   the	
   Contra	
   Costa	
   Local	
   Agency	
   Formation	
   Commission	
   (LAFCO).	
   The	
  
                              input	
   and	
   suggestions	
   provided	
   by	
   the	
   commenter	
   with	
   respect	
   to	
   the	
   content	
   of	
   the	
  
                              General	
  Plan	
  have	
  been	
  forwarded	
  to	
  the	
  Planning	
  Commission	
  and	
  City	
  Council	
  for	
  
                              their	
  consideration	
  during	
  review	
  of	
  the	
  project.	
  	
  The	
  commenter	
  has	
  not	
  addressed	
  
                              the	
   adequacy	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   nor	
   has	
   the	
   commenter	
   provided	
   supporting	
  
                              information	
  explaining	
  how	
  the	
  proposed	
  revisions	
  to	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  would	
  avoid	
  
                              or	
   reduce	
   the	
   severity	
   of	
   any	
   environmental	
   impacts	
   addressed	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   or	
  
                              how	
  the	
  suggested	
  revisions	
  would	
  bolster	
  or	
  improve	
  the	
  analysis	
  in	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  	
  
                              As	
  such,	
  no	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  

Response	
  O-­‐15:	
   The	
   commenter	
   states	
   that	
   land	
   use	
   designations	
   on	
   the	
   parcels	
   at	
   the	
   northeast	
  
                              corner	
   of	
   Marsh	
   Creek	
   State	
   Park	
   should	
   be	
   removed.	
   The	
   input	
   and	
   suggestions	
  
                              provided	
   by	
   the	
   commenter	
   with	
   respect	
   to	
   the	
   content	
   of	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   have	
  
                              been	
  forwarded	
  to	
  the	
  Planning	
  Commission	
  and	
  City	
  Council	
  for	
  their	
  consideration	
  
                              during	
  review	
  of	
  the	
  project.	
  	
  The	
  commenter	
  has	
  not	
  addressed	
  the	
  adequacy	
  of	
  the	
  
                              Draft	
   EIR,	
   nor	
   has	
   the	
   commenter	
   provided	
   supporting	
   information	
   explaining	
   how	
  


                           Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
                                        2.0-­‐129	
  
	
  
        2.0	
            COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  
                            the	
   proposed	
   revisions	
   to	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   would	
   avoid	
   or	
   reduce	
   the	
   severity	
   of	
   any	
  
                            environmental	
   impacts	
   addressed	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   or	
   how	
   the	
   suggested	
   revisions	
  
                            would	
   bolster	
   or	
   improve	
   the	
   analysis	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR.	
   	
   As	
   such,	
   no	
   changes	
   to	
   the	
  
                            Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  

Response	
  O-­‐16:	
   The	
  commenter	
  provides	
  suggested	
  language	
  for	
  the	
  Noise	
  Element	
  related	
  to	
  noise	
  
                        sources	
   adjacent	
   to	
   open	
   space.	
   The	
   input	
   and	
   suggestions	
   provided	
   by	
   the	
  
                        commenter	
  with	
  respect	
  to	
  the	
  content	
  of	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  have	
  been	
  forwarded	
  to	
  
                        the	
  Planning	
  Commission	
  and	
  City	
  Council	
  for	
  their	
  consideration	
  during	
  review	
  of	
  the	
  
                        project.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   has	
   not	
   addressed	
   the	
   adequacy	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   nor	
   has	
  
                            the	
   commenter	
   provided	
   supporting	
   information	
   explaining	
   how	
   the	
   proposed	
  
                            revisions	
   to	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   would	
   avoid	
   or	
   reduce	
   the	
   severity	
   of	
   any	
  
                            environmental	
   impacts	
   addressed	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   or	
   how	
   the	
   suggested	
   revisions	
  
                            would	
   bolster	
   or	
   improve	
   the	
   analysis	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR.	
   	
   As	
   such,	
   no	
   changes	
   to	
   the	
  
                            Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  

Response	
  O-­‐17:	
   The	
   commenter	
   provides	
   introductory	
   remarks	
   for	
   specific	
   suggested	
   modifications	
  
                        to	
   General	
   Plan	
   goals,	
   policies,	
   and	
   actions	
   in	
   the	
   following	
   comments.	
   	
   Responses	
  
                        are	
  provided	
  below.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  O-­‐18:	
   The	
   commenter	
   provides	
   a	
   range	
   of	
   language	
   modification	
   suggestions	
   for	
   policies	
  
                        contained	
   in	
   the	
   Circulation	
   Element.	
   The	
   input	
   and	
   suggestions	
   provided	
   by	
   the	
  
                            commenter	
  with	
  respect	
  to	
  the	
  content	
  of	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  have	
  been	
  forwarded	
  to	
  
                            the	
  Planning	
  Commission	
  and	
  City	
  Council	
  for	
  their	
  consideration	
  during	
  review	
  of	
  the	
  
                            project.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   has	
   not	
   addressed	
   the	
   adequacy	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   nor	
   has	
  
                            the	
   commenter	
   provided	
   supporting	
   information	
   explaining	
   how	
   the	
   proposed	
  
                            revisions	
   to	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   would	
   avoid	
   or	
   reduce	
   the	
   severity	
   of	
   any	
  
                            environmental	
   impacts	
   addressed	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   or	
   how	
   the	
   suggested	
   revisions	
  
                            would	
   bolster	
   or	
   improve	
   the	
   analysis	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR.	
   	
   As	
   such,	
   no	
   changes	
   to	
   the	
  
                            Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  

Response	
  O-­‐19:	
   The	
   commenter	
   provides	
   a	
   range	
   of	
   language	
   modification	
   suggestions	
   for	
   policies	
  
                        contained	
   in	
   the	
   Community	
   Services	
   and	
   Facilities	
   Element.	
   The	
   input	
   and	
  
                        suggestions	
  provided	
  by	
  the	
  commenter	
  with	
  respect	
  to	
  the	
  content	
  of	
  the	
  General	
  
                        Plan	
   have	
   been	
   forwarded	
   to	
   the	
   Planning	
   Commission	
   and	
   City	
   Council	
   for	
   their	
  
                            consideration	
   during	
   review	
   of	
   the	
   project.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   has	
   not	
   addressed	
   the	
  
                            adequacy	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR,	
  nor	
  has	
  the	
  commenter	
  provided	
  supporting	
  information	
  
                            explaining	
  how	
  the	
  proposed	
  revisions	
  to	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  would	
  avoid	
  or	
  reduce	
  the	
  
                            severity	
   of	
   any	
   environmental	
   impacts	
   addressed	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   or	
   how	
   the	
  
                            suggested	
  revisions	
  would	
  bolster	
  or	
  improve	
  the	
  analysis	
  in	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  	
  As	
  such,	
  
                            no	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  



       2.0-­‐130	
       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                                           COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                                                 2.0	
  
	
  
Response	
  O-­‐20:	
   The	
   commenter	
   provides	
   a	
   range	
   of	
   language	
   modification	
   suggestions	
   for	
   policies	
  
                        contained	
   in	
   the	
   Conservation	
   and	
   Open	
   Space	
   Element.	
   The	
   input	
   and	
   suggestions	
  
                        provided	
   by	
   the	
   commenter	
   with	
   respect	
   to	
   the	
   content	
   of	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   have	
  
                        been	
  forwarded	
  to	
  the	
  Planning	
  Commission	
  and	
  City	
  Council	
  for	
  their	
  consideration	
  
                           during	
  review	
  of	
  the	
  project.	
  	
  The	
  commenter	
  has	
  not	
  addressed	
  the	
  adequacy	
  of	
  the	
  
                           Draft	
   EIR,	
   nor	
   has	
   the	
   commenter	
   provided	
   supporting	
   information	
   explaining	
   how	
  
                           the	
   proposed	
   revisions	
   to	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   would	
   avoid	
   or	
   reduce	
   the	
   severity	
   of	
   any	
  
                           environmental	
   impacts	
   addressed	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   or	
   how	
   the	
   suggested	
   revisions	
  
                           would	
   bolster	
   or	
   improve	
   the	
   analysis	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR.	
   	
   As	
   such,	
   no	
   changes	
   to	
   the	
  
                           Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  

Response	
  O-­‐21:	
   The	
   commenter	
   provides	
   a	
   range	
   of	
   language	
   modification	
   suggestions	
   for	
   policies	
  
                        contained	
   in	
   the	
   Economic	
   Development	
   Element.	
   The	
   input	
   and	
   suggestions	
  
                        provided	
   by	
   the	
   commenter	
   with	
   respect	
   to	
   the	
   content	
   of	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   have	
  
                        been	
  forwarded	
  to	
  the	
  Planning	
  Commission	
  and	
  City	
  Council	
  for	
  their	
  consideration	
  
                        during	
  review	
  of	
  the	
  project.	
  	
  The	
  commenter	
  has	
  not	
  addressed	
  the	
  adequacy	
  of	
  the	
  
                        Draft	
   EIR,	
   nor	
   has	
   the	
   commenter	
   provided	
   supporting	
   information	
   explaining	
   how	
  
                           the	
   proposed	
   revisions	
   to	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   would	
   avoid	
   or	
   reduce	
   the	
   severity	
   of	
   any	
  
                           environmental	
   impacts	
   addressed	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   or	
   how	
   the	
   suggested	
   revisions	
  
                           would	
   bolster	
   or	
   improve	
   the	
   analysis	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR.	
   	
   As	
   such,	
   no	
   changes	
   to	
   the	
  
                           Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  

Response	
  O-­‐22:	
   The	
   commenter	
   provides	
   a	
   range	
   of	
   language	
   modification	
   suggestions	
   for	
   policies	
  
                           contained	
   in	
   the	
   Fiscal	
   Sustainability	
   Element.	
   The	
   input	
   and	
   suggestions	
   provided	
   by	
  
                           the	
  commenter	
  with	
  respect	
  to	
  the	
  content	
  of	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  have	
  been	
  forwarded	
  
                           to	
  the	
  Planning	
  Commission	
  and	
  City	
  Council	
  for	
  their	
  consideration	
  during	
  review	
  of	
  
                           the	
   project.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   has	
   not	
   addressed	
   the	
   adequacy	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   nor	
  
                           has	
   the	
   commenter	
   provided	
   supporting	
   information	
   explaining	
   how	
   the	
   proposed	
  
                           revisions	
   to	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   would	
   avoid	
   or	
   reduce	
   the	
   severity	
   of	
   any	
  
                           environmental	
   impacts	
   addressed	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   or	
   how	
   the	
   suggested	
   revisions	
  
                           would	
   bolster	
   or	
   improve	
   the	
   analysis	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR.	
   	
   As	
   such,	
   no	
   changes	
   to	
   the	
  
                           Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  

Response	
  O-­‐23:	
   The	
   commenter	
   provides	
   a	
   range	
   of	
   language	
   modification	
   suggestions	
   for	
   policies	
  
                        contained	
   in	
   the	
   Land	
   Use	
   Element.	
   The	
   input	
   and	
   suggestions	
   provided	
   by	
   the	
  
                        commenter	
  with	
  respect	
  to	
  the	
  content	
  of	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  have	
  been	
  forwarded	
  to	
  
                           the	
  Planning	
  Commission	
  and	
  City	
  Council	
  for	
  their	
  consideration	
  during	
  review	
  of	
  the	
  
                           project.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   has	
   not	
   addressed	
   the	
   adequacy	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   nor	
   has	
  
                           the	
   commenter	
   provided	
   supporting	
   information	
   explaining	
   how	
   the	
   proposed	
  
                           revisions	
   to	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   would	
   avoid	
   or	
   reduce	
   the	
   severity	
   of	
   any	
  
                           environmental	
   impacts	
   addressed	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   or	
   how	
   the	
   suggested	
   revisions	
  


                        Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
                                        2.0-­‐131	
  
	
  
        2.0	
            COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  
                            would	
   bolster	
   or	
   improve	
   the	
   analysis	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR.	
   	
   As	
   such,	
   no	
   changes	
   to	
   the	
  
                            Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  

Response	
  O-­‐24:	
   The	
   commenter	
   provides	
   a	
   range	
   of	
   language	
   modification	
   suggestions	
   for	
   policies	
  
                        contained	
   in	
   the	
   Safety	
   Element.	
   The	
   input	
   and	
   suggestions	
   provided	
   by	
   the	
  
                        commenter	
  with	
  respect	
  to	
  the	
  content	
  of	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  have	
  been	
  forwarded	
  to	
  
                        the	
  Planning	
  Commission	
  and	
  City	
  Council	
  for	
  their	
  consideration	
  during	
  review	
  of	
  the	
  
                        project.	
   	
   The	
   commenter	
   has	
   not	
   addressed	
   the	
   adequacy	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   nor	
   has	
  
                        the	
   commenter	
   provided	
   supporting	
   information	
   explaining	
   how	
   the	
   proposed	
  
                        revisions	
   to	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   would	
   avoid	
   or	
   reduce	
   the	
   severity	
   of	
   any	
  
                            environmental	
   impacts	
   addressed	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   or	
   how	
   the	
   suggested	
   revisions	
  
                            would	
   bolster	
   or	
   improve	
   the	
   analysis	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR.	
   	
   As	
   such,	
   no	
   changes	
   to	
   the	
  
                            Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  

Response	
  O-­‐25:	
   The	
   commenter	
   states	
   that	
   the	
   comments	
   on	
   the	
   content	
   of	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   can	
   be	
  
                        understood	
   as	
   comments	
   on	
   the	
   mitigation	
   described	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   and	
   that	
   aside	
  
                            from	
   the	
   comments	
   above,	
   there	
   are	
   very	
   few	
   comments	
   on	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR.	
   	
   The	
  
                            commenter	
   is	
   referred	
   to	
   Response	
   O-­‐5.	
   While	
   the	
   commenter	
   has	
   provided	
  
                            suggested	
  language	
  revisions	
  for	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  document,	
  the	
  commenter	
  has	
  not	
  
                            provided	
   any	
   supporting	
   information	
   or	
   justification	
   as	
   to	
   how	
   this	
   suggested	
  
                            language	
   would	
   improve,	
   alter,	
   or	
   augment	
   the	
   analysis	
   and	
   conclusions	
   contained	
   in	
  
                            the	
   Draft	
   EIR.	
   	
   The	
   commenter’s	
   suggested	
   language	
   revisions	
   do	
   not	
   address	
   the	
  
                            content	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR,	
  nor	
  do	
  they	
  address	
  the	
  adequacy	
  of	
  the	
  analysis	
  contained	
  
                            in	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  	
  No	
  changes	
  are	
  warranted.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  O-­‐26:	
   The	
   commenter	
   states	
   that	
   the	
   use	
   of	
   the	
   terms	
   “passage	
   species”	
   and	
   “corridor	
  
                        dwellers”	
  on	
  Page	
  3.4-­‐38	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  is	
  confusing,	
  and	
  notes	
  that	
  this	
  particular	
  
                        section	
   could	
   be	
   revised	
   to	
   provide	
   additional	
   clarity	
   to	
   the	
   reader.	
   	
   As	
   shown	
   in	
  
                        Chapter	
  3.0	
  of	
  this	
  Final	
  EIR,	
  the	
  following	
  text	
  changes	
  are	
  made	
  to	
  Page	
  3.4-­‐38	
  to	
  
                            eliminate	
  the	
  confusing	
  use	
  of	
  these	
  terms:	
  

                            Species	
   utilize	
   movement	
   corridors	
   in	
   several	
   ways.	
   “Passage	
   species”	
   are	
   those	
  
                            Some	
  species	
  that	
  use	
  corridors	
  as	
  thru-­‐ways	
  between	
  outlying	
  habitats.	
  The	
  habitat	
  
                            requirements	
  for	
  passage	
  species	
  are	
  generally	
  less	
  than	
  those	
  for	
  corridor	
  dwellers.	
  
                            Passage	
  species	
  use	
  corridors	
  for	
  brief	
  durations,	
  such	
  as	
  for	
  seasonal	
  migrations	
  or	
  
                            movement	
   within	
   a	
   home	
   range.	
   As	
   such,	
   movement	
   corridors	
   do	
   not	
   necessarily	
  
                            have	
  to	
  meet	
  any	
  of	
  the	
  habitat	
  requirements	
  necessary	
  for	
  a	
  passage	
  some	
  species’	
  
                            everyday	
   survival.	
   “Corridor	
   dwellers”	
   are	
   those	
   Other	
   species	
   that	
   have	
   limited	
  
                            dispersal	
   capabilities	
   –	
   a	
   category	
   that	
   includes	
   most	
   plants,	
   insects,	
   and	
   some	
  
                            reptiles,	
   amphibians,	
   and	
   small	
   mammals,	
   and	
   birds	
   –	
   and	
   use	
   corridors	
   for	
   a	
   greater	
  
                            length	
  of	
  time.	
  	
  




       2.0-­‐132	
        Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                       COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                                   2.0	
  
	
  
         The	
  changes	
  shown	
  above	
  to	
  not	
  alter	
  the	
  conclusions	
  contained	
  in	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  	
  No	
  
         additional	
  changes	
  are	
  warranted.	
  	
  	
  

	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
                        2.0-­‐133	
  
	
  
        2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




                                                                                                                         	
  




       2.0-­‐134	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                  2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐135	
  
	
  
        2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐136	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                                          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                                          2.0	
  
	
  
	
  

Response	
  to	
  Letter	
  P	
  	
  	
   Richard	
   D.	
   Sestero,	
   Project	
   Manager,	
   West	
   Coast	
  
                                          Home	
  Builders,	
  Inc.	
  	
  	
  
	
  

Response	
  P-­‐1:	
       The	
  commenter	
  requests	
  a	
  land	
  use	
  designation	
  change	
  to	
  property	
  shown	
  as	
  SPA	
  E	
  
                           on	
   the	
   existing	
   General	
   Plan	
   Land	
   Use	
   Map.	
   	
   This	
   comment	
   is	
   noted	
   and	
   has	
   been	
  
                           forwarded	
   to	
   the	
   Planning	
   Commission	
   and	
   City	
   Council	
   for	
   their	
   review	
   and	
  
                           consideration.	
  	
  The	
  commenter	
  does	
  not	
  address	
  the	
  adequacy	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR,	
  and	
  
                           no	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  warranted.	
  	
  	
  




                         Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
                               2.0-­‐137	
  
	
  
        2.0	
          COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  




       2.0-­‐138	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                     COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
                                  2.0	
  
	
  




       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
     2.0-­‐139	
  
	
  
        2.0	
            COMMENTS	
  ON	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  AND	
  RESPONSES	
  
	
  
	
  

Response	
  to	
  Letter	
  Q	
  	
  	
   Kathleen	
   A.	
   Dadey,	
   Ph.D,	
   Chief,	
   California	
   South	
  
                                          Branch,	
  U.S.	
  Army	
  Corps	
  of	
  Engineers	
  
	
  

Response	
  Q-­‐1:	
       The	
   commenter	
   provides	
   background	
   information	
   regarding	
   the	
   Army	
   Corps	
   of	
  
                           Engineers’	
   jurisdiction	
   over	
   waters	
   of	
   the	
   United	
   States,	
   and	
   recommends	
   that	
   a	
  
                           wetland	
  delineation	
  be	
  prepared	
  for	
  the	
  project	
  site.	
  	
  The	
  proposed	
  project	
  consists	
  
                           of	
   a	
   comprehensive	
   update	
   to	
   the	
   Brentwood	
   General	
   Plan,	
   which	
   applies	
   to	
   the	
  
                           entire	
   city	
   and	
   Planning	
   Area.	
   	
   The	
   preparation	
   of	
   a	
   wetland	
   delineation	
   is	
   not	
  
                           appropriate	
   for	
   this	
   project,	
   given	
   that	
   no	
   specific	
   development	
   is	
   currently	
  
                           proposed,	
  and	
  there	
  is	
  not	
  a	
  specific	
  project	
  site	
  analyzed	
  in	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  	
  Potential	
  
                           impacts	
  to	
  wetlands	
  protected	
  by	
  Section	
  404	
  of	
  the	
  Clean	
  Water	
  Act	
  are	
  addressed	
  
                           under	
   Impact	
   3.4-­‐3.	
   	
   This	
   issue	
   has	
   been	
   adequately	
   addressed,	
   and	
   no	
   changes	
   to	
  
                           the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  are	
  required.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  Q-­‐2:	
       The	
   commenter	
   states	
   that	
   the	
   range	
   of	
   alternatives	
   considered	
   should	
   include	
  
                           alternatives	
  that	
  avoid	
  impacts	
  to	
  wetlands	
  or	
  other	
  waters	
  of	
  the	
  United	
  States.	
  	
  The	
  
                           commenter	
   is	
   referred	
   to	
   Response	
   Q-­‐1.	
   	
   There	
   is	
   no	
   single	
   project	
   site	
   or	
   specific	
  
                           development	
   project	
   analyzed	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   given	
   the	
   programmatic	
   nature	
   of	
   the	
  
                           project.	
   	
   Wetlands	
   and	
   waters	
   of	
   the	
   United	
   States	
   occur	
   throughout	
   the	
   Planning	
  
                           Area.	
   	
   The	
   General	
   Plan	
   includes	
   a	
   wide	
   range	
   of	
   policies	
   and	
   actions	
   that	
   seek	
   to	
  
                           protect	
   wetlands	
   and	
   waters	
   of	
   the	
   United	
   States,	
   including	
   Policy	
   COS	
   4-­‐7,	
   which	
  
                           requires	
  consultation	
  with	
  State	
  and	
  Federal	
  agencies	
  during	
  the	
  development	
  review	
  
                           process	
   to	
   help	
   identify	
   wetland	
   and	
   riparian	
   habitat	
   that	
   has	
   candidacy	
   for	
  
                           restoration,	
   conservation,	
   and/or	
   mitigation,	
   and	
   focusing	
   restoration	
   and/or	
  
                           conservation	
  efforts	
  on	
  areas	
  that	
  would	
  maximize	
  multiple	
  beneficial	
  uses	
  for	
  such	
  
                           habitat.	
   Policy	
   COS	
   4-­‐8	
   requires	
   conservation	
   of	
   riparian	
   habitat	
   along	
   local	
   creeks,	
  
                           including	
  but	
  not	
  limited	
  to	
  Marsh	
  Creek,	
  Deer	
  Creek,	
  Dry	
  Creek,	
  and	
  Sand	
  Creek,	
  in	
  
                           order	
  to	
  maintain	
  water	
  quality	
  and	
  provide	
  suitable	
  habitat	
  for	
  native	
  fish	
  and	
  plant	
  
                           species.	
  	
  This	
  issue	
  has	
  been	
  adequately	
  addressed	
  in	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  and	
  no	
  changes	
  
                           are	
  warranted.	
  	
  	
  

Response	
  Q-­‐3:	
   The	
  commenter	
  provides	
  closing	
  remarks	
  and	
  contact	
  information.	
  	
  	
  




       2.0-­‐140	
       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
	
  
                                                                                                                    ERRATA	
                        3.0	
  
	
  
This	
   chapter	
   includes	
   minor	
   edits	
   to	
   the	
   EIR.	
   	
   These	
   modifications	
   resulted	
   from	
   responses	
   to	
  
comments	
  received	
  during	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  public	
  review	
  period.	
  

Revisions	
   herein	
   do	
   not	
   result	
   in	
   new	
   significant	
   environmental	
   impacts,	
   do	
   not	
   constitute	
  
significant	
   new	
   information,	
   and	
   do	
   not	
   alter	
   the	
   conclusions	
   of	
   the	
   environmental	
   analysis	
   that	
  
would	
  warrant	
  recirculation	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  pursuant	
  to	
  State	
  CEQA	
  Guidelines	
  Section	
  15088.5.	
  	
  
Changes	
  are	
  provided	
  in	
  revision	
  marks	
  with	
  underline	
  for	
  new	
  text	
  and	
  strike	
  out	
  for	
  deleted	
  text.	
  	
  	
  

3.1	
  REVISIONS	
  TO	
  THE	
  DRAFT	
  EIR	
  
TABLE	
  OF	
  CONTENTS	
  

The	
  following	
  table-­‐numbering	
  corrections	
  were	
  made	
  to	
  the	
  Table	
  of	
  Contents	
  in	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  

            Table	
  3.13-­‐1:	
  	
   Intersection	
  LOS	
  Criteria ................................................................3.13-­‐10	
  
            Table	
  3.13-­‐2:	
  	
   Rural	
  Road	
  Level	
  of	
  Service	
  Criteria ...............................................3.13-­‐11	
  
            Table	
  3.13-­‐3:	
  	
   Multilane	
  Highway	
  Level	
  of	
  Service	
  Criteria...................................3.13-­‐12	
  
            Table	
  3.13-­‐4:	
  	
   Summary	
  of	
  Existing	
  Peak	
  Hour	
  Intersection	
  Levels	
  of	
  Service......3.13-­‐14	
  
            Table	
  3.13-­‐5:	
  	
   Peak	
  Hour	
  Rural	
  Roadway	
  LOS .......................................................3.13-­‐16	
  
            Table	
  3.13-­‐6	
  7:	
  	
   Peak	
  Hour	
  Delay	
  Index	
  on	
  SR	
  4	
  –	
  SR	
  160	
  to	
  Lone	
  Tree	
  Way...........3.13-­‐17	
  
            Table	
  3.13-­‐7	
  8:	
  	
   Planned	
  Brentwood	
  Area	
  Major	
  Transportation	
  Improvements ...3.13-­‐22	
  
            Table	
  3.13-­‐8	
  9:	
  	
   Net	
   Increase	
   in	
   Development	
   by	
   General	
   Plan	
   Buildout	
  
                                            Scenario..........................................................................................3.13-­‐25	
  
                                    Applied	
  ITE	
  Trip	
  Generation	
  Rates .................................................3.13-­‐26	
  
            Table	
  3.13-­‐910:	
  	
  
            Table	
   3.13-­‐10	
   12:	
   Net	
   Additional	
   Vehicle	
   Trips	
   by	
   General	
   Plan	
   Buildout	
  
                                    Scenario..........................................................................................3.13-­‐26	
  
            Table	
  3.13-­‐11	
  14:	
  General	
  Plan	
  Roadway	
  Improvements ........................................3.13-­‐27	
  
            Table	
  3.13-­‐12	
  15:	
  Summary	
  of	
  Peak	
  Hour	
  Intersection	
  Levels	
  of	
  Service	
  With	
  	
  	
  
            	
                         General	
  Plan	
  Buildout	
  to	
  City	
  Limits...............................................3.13-­‐30	
  
            Table	
  3.13-­‐13	
  16:	
  Summary	
  of	
  Peak	
  Hour	
  Intersection	
  Levels	
  of	
  Service	
  With	
  	
  
            	
                         General	
  Plan	
  Buildout	
  to	
  Planning	
  Area .........................................3.13-­‐32	
  
            Table	
  3.13-­‐14	
  17:	
  Summary	
  of	
  Roadway	
  Segment	
  Levels	
  of	
  Service	
  With	
  	
  
            	
                         General	
  Plan	
  Buildout	
  to	
  City	
  Limits...............................................3.13-­‐34	
  
            Table	
  3.13-­‐15	
  18:	
  Summary	
  of	
  Roadway	
  Segment	
  Levels	
  of	
  Service	
  With	
  	
  
            	
                         General	
  Plan	
  Buildout	
  to	
  Planning	
  Area .........................................3.13-­‐35	
  
            Table	
  3.13-­‐16	
  19:	
  Summary	
  of	
  PM	
  Peak	
  Hour	
  Delay	
  Index	
  on	
  SR	
  4	
  –	
  SR	
  160	
  to	
  	
  
            	
                         Lone	
  Tree	
  Way	
  with	
  General	
  Plan	
  Buildout	
  to	
  City	
  Limits..............3.13-­‐36	
  
            Table	
  3.13-­‐17	
  20:	
  Summary	
  of	
  PM	
  Peak	
  Hour	
  Delay	
  Index	
  on	
  SR	
  4	
  –	
  SR	
  160	
  to	
  	
  



                   Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
                                         3.0-­‐1	
  
	
  
       3.0	
             ERRATA	
  
	
  
              	
                       Lone	
  Tree	
  Way	
  with	
  General	
  Plan	
  Buildout	
  to	
  Planning	
  Area ........3.13-­‐36	
  
              Table	
   3.13-­‐18	
   21:	
   Summary	
   of	
   Vehicle	
   Miles	
   Traveled	
   with	
   General	
   Plan	
  
                                      Buildout	
  to	
  City	
  Limits ....................................................................3.13-­‐37	
  
              Table	
  3.13-­‐19	
  22:	
  Summary	
  of	
  Vehicle	
  Miles	
  Traveled	
  with	
  General	
  Plan	
  	
  
              	
                       Buildout	
  to	
  Planning	
  Area...............................................................3.13-­‐37	
  
EXECUTIVE	
  SUMMARY	
  

No	
  changes	
  were	
  made	
  to	
  the	
  Executive	
  Summary	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  (DEIR).	
  	
  	
  

1.0	
         INTRODUCTION	
  

No	
  changes	
  were	
  made	
  to	
  Chapter	
  1.0	
  of	
  the	
  DEIR.	
  

2.0	
         PROJECT	
  DESCRIPTION	
  

No	
  changes	
  were	
  made	
  to	
  Chapter	
  2.0	
  of	
  the	
  DEIR	
  

3.1	
         AESTHETICS	
  AND	
  VISUAL	
  RESOURCES	
  

No	
  changes	
  were	
  made	
  to	
  Section	
  3.1	
  of	
  the	
  DEIR.	
  

3.2	
         AGRICULTURAL	
  AND	
  FOREST	
  RESOURCES	
  

No	
  changes	
  were	
  made	
  to	
  Section	
  3.2	
  of	
  the	
  DEIR.	
  

3.3	
         AIR	
  QUALITY	
  

No	
  changes	
  were	
  made	
  to	
  Section	
  3.3	
  of	
  the	
  DEIR.	
  

3.4	
         BIOLOGICAL	
  AND	
  NATURAL	
  RESOURCES	
  	
  

The	
  following	
  text	
  was	
  added	
  to	
  page	
  3.4-­‐23	
  of	
  the	
  DEIR:	
  

              The	
  Delta	
  Plan	
  
              The	
  Delta	
  Plan	
  is	
  a	
  comprehensive,	
  long-­‐term	
  management	
  plan	
  for	
  the	
  Delta.	
  Required	
  by	
  
              the	
   2009	
   Delta	
   Reform	
   Act,	
   it	
   creates	
   new	
   rules	
   and	
   recommendations	
   to	
   further	
   the	
  
              State’s	
  coequal	
  goals	
  for	
  the	
  Delta:	
  Improve	
  statewide	
  water	
  supply	
  reliability,	
  and	
  protect	
  
              and	
   restore	
   a	
   vibrant	
   and	
   healthy	
   Delta	
   ecosystem,	
   all	
   in	
   a	
   manner	
   that	
   preserves,	
  
              protects,	
  and	
  enhances	
  the	
  unique	
  agricultural,	
  cultural,	
  and	
  recreational	
  characteristics	
  of	
  
              the	
  Delta.	
  

              Developed	
  through	
  eight	
  drafts,	
  hundreds	
  of	
  hours	
  of	
  public	
  meetings,	
  and	
  thousands	
  of	
  
              public	
   comments	
   over	
   two	
   years,	
   the	
   Delta	
   Plan	
   is	
   guided	
   by	
   the	
   best	
   available	
   science.	
  
              The	
  Delta	
  Plan	
  is	
  founded	
  on	
  cooperation	
  and	
  coordination	
  among	
  affected	
  agencies.	
  The	
  
              Delta	
   Plan	
   is	
   also	
   enforceable	
   through	
   regulatory	
   authority,	
   as	
   spelled	
   out	
   in	
   the	
   Delta	
  
              Reform	
  Act,	
  that	
  requires	
  State	
  and	
  local	
  agencies	
  to	
  be	
  consistent	
  with	
  the	
  Delta	
  Plan.	
  


       3.0-­‐2	
          Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  
	
  
                                                                                                                      ERRATA	
                     3.0	
  
	
  
            The	
   Delta	
   Plan	
   was	
   unanimously	
   adopted	
   by	
   the	
   Delta	
   Stewardship	
   Council	
   on	
   May	
   16,	
  
            2013.	
  	
   Subsequently	
   its	
   14	
   regulatory	
   policies	
   were	
   approved	
   by	
   the	
   Office	
   of	
  
            Administrative	
   Law,	
   a	
   State	
   agency	
   that	
   ensures	
   the	
   regulations	
   are	
   clear,	
   necessary,	
  
            legally	
   valid,	
   and	
   available	
   to	
   the	
   public.	
   	
  The	
   Delta	
   Plan	
   became	
   effective	
   with	
   legally-­‐
            enforceable	
  regulations	
  on	
  September	
  1,	
  2013.	
  

The	
  following	
  text	
  was	
  added	
  to	
  page	
  3.4-­‐43	
  of	
  the	
  DEIR:	
  

            Impact	
  3.4-­6:	
  General	
  Plan	
  implementation	
  would	
  not	
  conflict	
  with	
  
            the	
   provisions	
   of	
   an	
   adopted	
   Habitat	
   Conservation	
   Plan,	
   Natural	
  
            Community	
   Conservation	
   Plan,	
   or	
   other	
   approved	
   local,	
   regional,	
   or	
  
            State	
  habitat	
  conservation	
  plan	
  (Less	
  than	
  Significant)	
  
            The	
   East	
   Contra	
   Costa	
   County	
   Habitat	
   Conservation	
   Plan	
   /	
   Natural	
   Community	
  
            Conservation	
   Plan	
   (HCP/NCCP	
   or	
   Plan)	
   is	
   intended	
   to	
   provide	
   regional	
   conservation	
   and	
  
            development	
  guidelines	
  to	
  protect	
  natural	
  resources	
  while	
  improving	
  and	
  streamlining	
  the	
  
            permit	
  process	
  for	
  endangered	
  species	
  and	
  wetland	
  regulations.	
  The	
  Plan	
  was	
  developed	
  
            by	
   a	
   team	
   of	
   scientists	
   and	
   planners	
   with	
   input	
   from	
   independent	
   panels	
   of	
   science	
  
            reviewers	
  and	
  stakeholders.	
  Within	
  the	
  174,018	
  acre	
  inventory	
  area,	
  the	
  Plan	
  will	
  provide	
  
            permits	
  for	
  between	
  8,670	
  and	
  11,853	
  acres	
  of	
  development	
  and	
  will	
  permit	
  impacts	
  on	
  an	
  
            additional	
   1,126	
   acres	
   from	
   rural	
   infrastructure	
   projects.	
   The	
   Preserve	
   System	
   to	
   be	
  
            acquired	
   under	
   the	
   Plan	
   will	
   encompass	
   23,800	
   to	
   30,300	
   acres	
   of	
   land	
   that	
   will	
   be	
  
            managed	
  for	
  the	
  benefit	
  of	
  28	
  species	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  the	
  natural	
  communities	
  that	
  they,	
  and	
  
            hundreds	
   of	
   other	
   species,	
   depend	
   upon.	
   By	
   proactively	
   addressing	
   the	
   long-­‐term	
  
            conservation	
  needs,	
  the	
  Plan	
  strengthens	
  local	
  control	
  over	
  land	
  use	
  and	
  provides	
  greater	
  
            flexibility	
  in	
  meeting	
  other	
  needs	
  such	
  as	
  housing,	
  transportation,	
  and	
  economic	
  growth	
  in	
  
            the	
   area.	
   The	
   City	
   of	
   Brentwood	
   approved	
   an	
   ordinance	
   in	
   2007	
   that	
   requires	
   future	
  
            development	
   projects	
   to	
   comply	
   with	
   the	
   HCP/NCCP.	
   Additionally,	
   Action	
   COS	
   3a	
   from	
   the	
  
            Conservation	
  and	
  Open	
  Space	
  Element	
  of	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  requires	
  new	
  development,	
  as	
  
            well	
  as	
  infrastructure	
  projects,	
  long-­‐range	
  planning	
  projects,	
  and	
  other	
  projects,	
  to	
  comply	
  
            with	
  the	
  requirements	
  of	
  the	
  Plan	
  to	
  ensure	
  that	
  potentially	
  significant	
  impacts	
  to	
  special	
  
            status	
   species	
   and	
   sensitive	
   resources	
   are	
   adequately	
   addressed.	
   Implementation	
   of	
   the	
  
            General	
   Plan	
   would	
   not	
   conflict	
   with	
   the	
   provisions	
   of	
   an	
   adopted	
   HCP/NCCP,	
   or	
   other	
  
            approved	
  local,	
  regional,	
  or	
  State	
  habitat	
  conservation	
  plan.	
  The	
  General	
  Plan	
  would	
  have	
  
            a	
  less	
  than	
  significant	
  impact	
  relative	
  to	
  this	
  topic.	
  	
  	
  

            The	
  Delta	
  Plan	
  is	
  a	
  comprehensive,	
  long-­‐term	
  management	
  plan	
  for	
  the	
  Delta.	
  Required	
  by	
  
            the	
   2009	
   Delta	
   Reform	
   Act,	
   it	
   creates	
   new	
   rules	
   and	
   recommendations	
   to	
   further	
   the	
  
            State’s	
  coequal	
  goals	
  for	
  the	
  Delta:	
  Improve	
  statewide	
  water	
  supply	
  reliability,	
  and	
  protect	
  
            and	
   restore	
   a	
   vibrant	
   and	
   healthy	
   Delta	
   ecosystem,	
   all	
   in	
   a	
   manner	
   that	
   preserves,	
  
            protects,	
  and	
  enhances	
  the	
  unique	
  agricultural,	
  cultural,	
  and	
  recreational	
  characteristics	
  of	
  
            the	
  Delta.	
  

            The	
   Delta	
   Plan	
   contains	
   a	
   set	
   of	
   regulatory	
   policies	
   that	
   will	
   be	
   enforced	
   by	
   the	
   Delta	
  
            Stewardship	
   Council’s	
   appellate	
   authority	
   and	
   oversight.	
   The	
   Delta	
   Plan	
   also	
   contains	
  

                   Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
                                      3.0-­‐3	
  
	
  
       3.0	
              ERRATA	
  
	
  
              priority	
   recommendations,	
   which	
   are	
   non-­‐regulatory	
   but	
   call	
   out	
   actions	
   essential	
   to	
  
              achieving	
  the	
  coequal	
  goals.	
  

              The	
  majority	
  of	
  the	
  regulatory	
  policies	
  contained	
  in	
  the	
  Delta	
  Plan	
  are	
  not	
  applicable	
  to	
  the	
  
              Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan.	
  	
  For	
  example,	
  the	
  Delta	
  Plan	
  includes	
  Policy	
  G	
  R1,	
  which	
  calls	
  on	
  
              the	
   Delta	
   Stewardship	
   Council	
   to	
   develop	
   a	
   Delta	
   Science	
   Plan,	
   which	
   is	
   not	
   relevant	
   or	
  
              applicable	
   to	
   the	
   Brentwood	
   General	
   Plan	
   Update.	
   	
   Many	
   of	
   the	
   other	
   policies	
   in	
   the	
   Delta	
  
              Plan	
  apply	
  to	
  State-­‐level	
  regulatory	
  agencies,	
  such	
  as	
  the	
  California	
  Department	
  of	
  Water	
  
              Resources,	
  which	
  are	
  also	
  not	
  applicable	
  to	
  the	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  Update.	
  	
  	
  

              The	
  proposed	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  strongly	
  and	
  specifically	
  supports	
  and	
  furthers	
  the	
  
              primary	
   goals	
   of	
   the	
   Delta	
   Plan.	
   	
   For	
   example,	
   the	
   Brentwood	
   General	
   Plan	
   includes	
   a	
  
              robust	
   set	
   of	
   policies	
   and	
   actions	
   aimed	
   at	
   protecting,	
   preserving,	
   and	
   strengthening	
   the	
  
              agricultural	
   lands	
   and	
   resources	
   surrounding	
   the	
   city,	
   and	
   throughout	
   the	
   Planning	
   Area.	
  	
  
              Policies	
  and	
  actions	
  in	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  that	
  provide	
  for	
  extensive	
  agricultural	
  protection	
  
              include:	
  

                           Policy	
  COS	
  2-­‐1:	
  	
   Support	
   and	
   encourage	
   the	
   preservation	
   of	
   agricultural	
   lands	
  
                           throughout	
  Brentwood’s	
  Planning	
  Area,	
  particularly	
  in	
  areas	
  to	
  the	
  south	
  and	
  east	
  
                           of	
  the	
  city	
  limits.	
  	
  	
  

                           Policy	
  COS	
  2-­‐2:	
  	
  	
  Maintain	
   permanent	
   agricultural	
   lands	
   surrounding	
   the	
   city	
   limits	
  
                           to	
   serve	
   as	
   community	
   separators	
   and	
   continue	
   the	
   agricultural	
   heritage	
   of	
  
                           Brentwood.	
  	
  	
  

                           Policy	
  COS	
  2-­‐3:	
  	
  	
  Encourage	
   and	
   support	
   programs	
   that	
   create	
   or	
   establish	
  
                           permanent	
  agricultural	
  areas	
  in	
  Brentwood’s	
  Planning	
  Area.	
  	
  	
  

                           Policy	
  COS	
  2-­‐4:	
  	
  	
  Participate	
   in	
   regional	
   planning	
   efforts	
   with	
   agencies	
   such	
   as	
  
                           Contra	
   Costa	
   County,	
   the	
   cities	
   of	
   Antioch	
   and	
   Oakley,	
   land	
   trusts,	
   and	
   other	
  
                           regional	
   partners	
   to	
   establish	
   and	
   maintain	
   permanent	
   agricultural	
   areas	
  
                           surrounding	
  Brentwood.	
  	
  	
  

                           Policy	
  COS	
  2-­‐5:	
  	
  	
  Work	
   with	
   the	
   Local	
   Agency	
   Formation	
   Commission	
   (LAFCO)	
   on	
  
                           issues	
   of	
   mutual	
   concern	
   including	
   the	
   conservation	
   of	
   agricultural	
   land	
   through	
  
                           consistent	
   use	
   of	
   LAFCO	
   policies,	
   particularly	
   those	
   related	
   to	
   conversion	
   of	
  
                           agricultural	
   lands	
   and	
   establishment	
   of	
   adequate	
   buffers	
   between	
   agricultural	
   and	
  
                           non-­‐agricultural	
   uses,	
   and	
   the	
   designation	
   of	
   a	
   reasonable	
   and	
   logical	
   Sphere	
   of	
  
                           Influence	
  (SOI)	
  boundary	
  for	
  the	
  City.	
  	
  	
  

                           Policy	
  COS	
  2-­‐6:	
  	
  	
  Minimize	
  conflicts	
  between	
  agricultural	
  and	
  urban	
  land	
  uses.	
  

                           Policy	
  COS	
  2-­‐7:	
  	
  	
  Require	
   the	
   use	
   of	
   buffers	
   such	
   as	
   greenbelts,	
   drainage	
   features,	
  
                           parks,	
  or	
  other	
  improved	
  and	
  maintained	
  features	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  separate	
  residential	
  
                           and	
  other	
  sensitive	
  land	
  uses,	
  such	
  as	
  schools	
  and	
  hospitals,	
  from	
  agricultural	
  lands	
  
                           and	
  agricultural	
  operations.	
  	
  

                           Policy	
  COS	
  2-­‐8:	
  	
  	
  Require	
  new	
  development	
  to	
  have	
  structural	
  setbacks	
  that	
  respect	
  
                           agricultural	
  operations.	
  

       3.0-­‐4	
          Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  
	
  
                                                                                                    ERRATA	
                   3.0	
  
	
  
           Policy	
  COS	
  2-­‐9:	
  	
  	
  Developers	
   shall	
   be	
   responsible	
   for	
   mitigating	
   impacts	
   upon	
  
           nearby	
   agriculture.	
   	
   Setbacks	
   and	
   buffers	
   shall	
   be	
   provided	
   by	
   the	
   developer	
   and	
  
           not	
  encroach	
  upon	
  productive	
  agricultural	
  areas.	
  

           Policy	
  COS	
  2-­‐10:	
  	
  	
  Limit	
  incompatible	
  uses	
  (i.e.,	
  schools,	
  hospitals,	
  and	
  high	
  density	
  
           residential)	
  near	
  agriculture.	
  

           Policy	
  COS	
  2-­‐11:	
  	
  Work	
  with	
  agricultural	
  landowners	
  to	
  improve	
  practices	
  that	
  have	
  
           resulted	
   in	
   adverse	
   impacts	
   to	
   adjacent	
   properties.	
   	
   Such	
   practices	
   include	
   site	
  
           drainage	
  and	
  flood	
  control	
  measures.	
  

           Policy	
  COS	
  2-­‐12:	
  	
  Promote	
  best	
  management	
  practices	
  in	
  agricultural	
  operations	
  to	
  
           reduce	
   emissions,	
   conserve	
   energy	
   and	
   water,	
   and	
   utilize	
   alternative	
   energy	
  
           sources.	
  

           Policy	
   COS	
   2-­‐13:	
   	
   Assist	
   agricultural	
   landowners	
   and	
   farmers	
   with	
   a	
   variety	
   of	
  
           programs	
  aimed	
  at	
  preserving	
  agricultural	
  lands,	
  increasing	
  opportunities	
  for	
  local	
  
           sales	
  of	
  agricultural	
  products,	
  and	
  increasing	
  access	
  to	
  local	
  commodities	
  markets.	
  	
  	
  

           Policy	
   COS	
   2-­‐14:	
   	
   Encourage	
   agricultural	
   landowners	
   in	
   Brentwood’s	
   Planning	
   Area	
  
           to	
   participate	
   in	
   Williamson	
   Act	
   contracts	
   and	
   other	
   programs	
   that	
   provide	
   long-­‐
           term	
  protection	
  of	
  agricultural	
  lands.	
  	
  	
  

           Policy	
  COS	
  2-­‐15:	
  	
  Support	
  the	
  procurement	
  of	
  expanded	
  and	
  additional	
  water	
  rights	
  
           which	
  provide	
  for	
  contractual	
  supply	
  reliability	
  for	
  agricultural	
  use.	
  

           Policy	
   COS	
   2-­‐16:	
   	
   Encourage	
   small-­‐scale	
   food	
   production,	
   such	
   as	
   community	
  
           gardens	
  and	
  cooperative	
  neighborhood	
  growing	
  efforts,	
  on	
  parcels	
  within	
  the	
  city	
  
           limits,	
   provided	
   that	
   the	
   operations	
   do	
   not	
   conflict	
   with	
   existing	
   adjacent	
   urban	
  
           uses.	
  

           Policy	
   COS	
   2-­‐17:	
   	
   Encourage	
   and	
   support	
   the	
   development	
   of	
   new	
   agricultural	
  
           related	
   industries	
   featuring	
   alternative	
   energy,	
   utilization	
   of	
   agricultural	
   waste,	
  
           biofuels,	
  and	
  solar	
  or	
  wind	
  farms.	
  

           Policy	
  LU	
  1-­‐4:	
  	
   Require	
  new	
  development	
  to	
  occur	
  in	
  a	
  logical	
  and	
  orderly	
  manner,	
  
           focusing	
   growth	
   on	
   infill	
   locations	
   and	
   areas	
   designated	
   for	
   urbanization	
   on	
   the	
  
           Land	
  Use	
  Map	
  (Figure	
  LU-­‐1),	
  and	
  be	
  subject	
  to	
  the	
  ability	
  to	
  provide	
  urban	
  services,	
  
           including	
  paying	
  for	
  any	
  needed	
  extension	
  of	
  services.	
  	
  	
  

           Policy	
  LU	
  1-­‐5:	
  	
   Encourage	
   new	
   development	
   to	
   be	
   contiguous	
   to	
   existing	
  
           development,	
  whenever	
  possible.	
  

           Policy	
  LU	
  2-­‐7:	
  	
   Strongly	
   encourage	
   residential	
   development	
   in	
   the	
   city	
   in	
   a	
  
           balanced	
   and	
   efficient	
   pattern	
   that	
   reduces	
   sprawl,	
   preserves	
   open	
   space,	
   and	
  
           creates	
  convenient	
  connections	
  to	
  other	
  land	
  uses.	
  

           Policy	
  LU	
  5-­‐1:	
  	
  	
   Maintain	
   significant	
   areas	
   of	
   permanent	
   agricultural	
   lands	
   and	
  
           open	
  space	
  surrounding	
  the	
  city	
  limits.	
  	
  	
  



       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
                               3.0-­‐5	
  
	
  
       3.0	
         ERRATA	
  
	
  
                     Policy	
  LU	
  5-­‐2:	
  	
   Protect	
   agricultural	
   land	
   from	
   urban	
   development	
   except	
   where	
  
                     the	
  General	
  Plan	
  Land	
  Use	
  Map	
  has	
  designated	
  the	
  land	
  for	
  urban	
  uses.	
  

                     Action	
  COS	
  2a:	
   Continue	
   to	
   implement	
   Chapter	
   8.01	
   (Right	
   to	
   Farm)	
   of	
   the	
  
                     Brentwood	
   Municipal	
   Code	
   in	
   order	
   to	
   protect	
   farming	
   uses	
   from	
   encroaching	
  
                     urban	
  uses	
  and	
  to	
  notify	
  potential	
  homebuyers	
  of	
  nearby	
  agricultural	
  operations.	
  

                     Action	
  COS	
  2b:	
   Consider	
  impacts	
  to	
  agricultural	
  lands	
  and	
  agricultural	
  productivity	
  
                     when	
  reviewing	
  new	
  development	
  projects,	
  amendments	
  to	
  the	
  General	
  Plan,	
  and	
  
                     rezoning	
  applications.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  

                     Action	
  COS	
  2c:	
   Amend	
   Title	
   17	
   (Zoning)	
   of	
   the	
   Brentwood	
   Municipal	
   Code	
   to	
  
                     include	
   specific	
   agricultural	
   buffer	
   requirements	
   for	
   residential	
   and	
   sensitive	
   land	
  
                     uses	
   (i.e.,	
   schools,	
   day	
   care	
   facilities,	
   and	
   medical	
   facilities)	
   that	
   are	
   proposed	
   near	
  
                     existing	
  agricultural	
  lands	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  protect	
  the	
  associated	
  agricultural	
  operations	
  
                     from	
  encroachment	
  by	
  incompatible	
  uses.	
  	
  	
  Buffers	
  shall	
  generally	
  be	
  defined	
  as	
  a	
  
                     physical	
   separation,	
   depending	
   on	
   the	
   land	
   use,	
   and	
   may	
   consist	
   of	
   topographic	
  
                     features,	
   roadways,	
   bike/pedestrian	
   paths,	
   greenbelts,	
   water	
   courses,	
   or	
   similar	
  
                     features.	
  The	
  buffer	
  shall	
  occur	
  on	
  the	
  parcel	
  for	
  which	
  a	
  permit	
  is	
  sought	
  and	
  shall	
  
                     favor	
  protection	
  of	
  the	
  maximum	
  amount	
  of	
  agricultural	
  land.	
  

                     Action	
  COS	
  2d:	
   Collaborate	
  with	
  water	
  suppliers	
  and	
  wastewater	
  treatment	
  plant	
  
                     operators	
   to	
   increase	
   the	
   availability	
   of	
   treated	
   or	
   recycled	
   water	
   for	
   agricultural	
  
                     purposes.	
  

                     Action	
  COS	
  2e:	
  	
  	
  Work	
   with	
   Contra	
   Costa	
   County	
   to	
   establish	
   and	
   implement	
  
                     consistent	
   policies	
   for	
   agricultural	
   lands	
   in	
   Brentwood's	
   Planning	
   Area	
   that	
  
                     prioritize	
   the	
   preservation	
   of	
   agricultural	
   lands	
   and	
   support	
   ongoing	
   agricultural	
  
                     activities.	
  

                     Action	
  COS	
  2f:	
  	
  	
   Continue	
   to	
   implement,	
   and	
   periodically	
   review/update	
   as	
  
                     necessary,	
   Chapter	
   17.730	
   (Agricultural	
   Preservation	
   Program)	
   of	
   the	
   Brentwood	
  
                     Municipal	
  Code.	
  

                     Action	
  COS	
  2g:	
   Continue	
  to	
  implement	
  the	
  Agricultural	
  Enterprise	
  Implementation	
  
                     Plan	
   to	
   assist	
   local	
   farmers	
   with	
   a	
   variety	
   of	
   programs	
   that	
   facilitate	
   infrastructure	
  
                     improvements,	
   business	
   ventures,	
   and	
   other	
   initiatives	
   to	
   grow	
   the	
   agricultural	
  
                     industry	
  in	
  and	
  around	
  Brentwood.	
  	
  	
  

                     Action	
  COS	
  2h:	
   Coordinate	
   with	
   groups	
   such	
   as	
   the	
   Agricultural-­‐Natural	
   Resources	
  
                     Trust	
   of	
   Contra	
   Costa	
   County	
   (ANRT),	
   the	
   Brentwood	
   Agricultural	
   Land	
   Trust	
  
                     (BALT),	
   and	
   Harvest	
   Time	
   in	
   Brentwood	
   in	
   order	
   to	
   fund	
   agricultural	
   easements,	
  
                     programs	
   that	
   protect	
   agricultural	
   lands,	
   and	
   programs	
   that	
   provide	
   marketing	
  
                     assistance	
  and	
  economic	
  support	
  to	
  local	
  farmers.	
  	
  	
  

                     Action	
  COS	
  2i:	
   Develop	
   a	
   program	
   to	
   provide	
   additional	
   support	
   for	
   agricultural	
  
                     tourism,	
   u-­‐pick	
   farms,	
   and	
   other	
   agricultural	
   activities	
   that	
   serve	
   as	
   a	
   regional	
  
                     draw	
  to	
  Brentwood	
  and	
  enhance	
  its	
  agricultural	
  heritage.	
  	
  	
  




       3.0-­‐6	
     Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  
	
  
                                                                                                               ERRATA	
                     3.0	
  
	
  
                   Action	
  LU	
  1c:	
  	
  	
   Prioritize	
   the	
   processing	
   of	
   development	
   applications	
   for	
   infill,	
  
                   underutilized,	
   or	
   vacant	
   parcels	
   designated	
   for	
   urban	
   uses	
   over	
   those	
   projects	
  
                   requiring	
  annexation.	
  	
  	
  

                   Action	
  LU	
  5a:	
  	
   Continue	
   to	
   designate	
   agricultural	
   lands	
   to	
   the	
   south	
   and	
   east	
   of	
  
                   the	
  city	
  limits	
  as	
  Agricultural	
  Conservation	
  on	
  the	
  Land	
  Use	
  Map.	
  	
  	
  

                   Action	
  LU	
  5b:	
  	
  	
   Coordinate	
  with	
  Contra	
  Costa	
  County	
  to	
  encourage	
  and	
  facilitate	
  a	
  
                   variety	
  of	
  agricultural	
  enterprises	
  on	
  lands	
  identified	
  as	
  the	
  Agricultural	
  Enterprise	
  
                   Area	
   in	
   the	
   Brentwood	
   General	
   Plan.	
   Agricultural	
   uses	
   within	
   this	
   area	
   should	
   be	
  
                   flexible	
   in	
   order	
   to	
   maximize	
   the	
   economic	
   vitality	
   of	
   smaller	
   agricultural	
   parcels	
  
                   that	
   may	
   not	
   be	
   suitable	
   for	
   large-­‐scale	
   commercial	
   agricultural	
   operations.	
  	
  
                   Allowed	
  uses	
  should	
  be	
  agricultural	
  in	
  nature	
  and	
  may	
  include,	
  but	
  are	
  not	
  limited	
  
                   to,	
  the	
  following:	
  

                        1. Visitor-­‐serving	
   uses	
   that	
   support	
   and	
   are	
   incidental	
   to	
   agricultural	
  
                           production,	
   such	
   as	
   tasting	
   rooms,	
   including	
   sales	
   and	
   promotion	
   of	
  
                           products	
   grown	
   or	
   processed	
   in	
   the	
   region,	
   educational	
   activities	
   and	
   tours,	
  
                           incidental	
   sales	
   of	
   items	
   related	
   to	
   local	
   area	
   agricultural	
   products,	
  
                           promotional	
   events,	
   and	
   farm	
   homestays,	
   which	
   allow	
   visitors	
   to	
   visit	
   a	
  
                           farm	
   in	
   the	
   form	
   of	
   a	
   vacation,	
   that	
   support	
   and	
   are	
   secondary	
   and	
  
                           incidental	
  to	
  local	
  agricultural	
  production.	
  	
  

                        2. Commercial	
   uses	
   that	
   directly	
   support	
   agricultural	
   operations,	
   including	
  
                           roadside	
  stands,	
  wholesale	
  and	
  retail	
  agricultural	
  sales,	
  and	
  wineries.	
  

                        3. Agricultural-­‐based	
   tourism	
   uses,	
   including	
   u-­‐pick	
   farms,	
   dude	
   ranches,	
  
                           lodging,	
   horseshows,	
   rodeos,	
   crop-­‐based	
   seasonal	
   events,	
   and	
   ancillary	
  
                           restaurants	
  and/or	
  stores.	
  

                        4. Equestrian	
  centers	
  and	
  facilities,	
  including	
  boarding	
  facilities.	
  

       Additionally,	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   includes	
   extensive	
   policies	
   aimed	
   at	
   protecting	
   surface	
  
       water	
  resources	
  and	
  water	
  conservation.	
  	
  	
  

       The	
   policies	
   in	
   the	
   Delta	
   Plan	
   specifically	
   applicable	
   to	
   the	
   Brentwood	
   General	
   Plan	
   are	
  
       summarized	
   below,	
   along	
   with	
   a	
   discussion	
   of	
   the	
   General	
   Plan’s	
   consistency	
   with	
   these	
  
       applicable	
  policies.	
  	
  	
  

       Delta	
  Plan	
  Policy	
  WR	
  R1:	
  Implement	
  Water	
  Efficiency	
  and	
  Water	
  Management	
  Planning	
  
       Laws.	
   	
   The	
   proposed	
   General	
   Plan	
   is	
   consistent	
   with	
   this	
   policy.	
   	
   The	
   following	
   General	
  
       Plan	
  policies	
  and	
  actions	
  support	
  water	
  conservation	
  and	
  water	
  efficiency,	
  as	
  required	
  by	
  
       this	
  policy:	
  

                   Policy	
  COS	
  9-­‐5:	
  	
  	
   Promote	
  water	
  conservation	
  among	
  water	
  users.	
  

                   Policy	
  COS	
  9-­‐6:	
  	
  	
   Continue	
   to	
   require	
   new	
   development	
   to	
   incorporate	
   water	
  
                   efficient	
  fixtures	
  into	
  design	
  and	
  construction.	
  



             Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
                                     3.0-­‐7	
  
	
  
       3.0	
              ERRATA	
  
	
  
                           Policy	
  COS	
  9-­‐7:	
  	
  	
   Promote	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  reclaimed	
  water	
  and	
  other	
  non-­‐potable	
  water	
  
                           sources.	
  

                           Policy	
  COS	
  9-­‐8:	
  	
  	
   Encourage	
   large-­‐scale	
   developments	
                         and	
        golf	
      course	
  
                           developments	
  to	
  incorporate	
  dual	
  water	
  systems.	
  

                           Policy	
  COS	
  9-­‐9:	
  	
  	
   Encourage	
  and	
  support	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  drought-­‐tolerant	
  and	
  regionally	
  
                           native	
  plants	
  in	
  landscaping.	
  

                           Policy	
  IF	
  2-­‐3:	
  	
  	
   Continue	
   to	
   implement	
   a	
   comprehensive	
   water	
   strategy	
   that	
  
                           balances	
   the	
   need	
   to	
   supply	
   water	
   to	
   all	
   users	
   served	
   by	
   the	
   City	
   with	
   potable	
  
                           water	
  use	
  reduction	
  measures.	
  	
  	
  

                           Policy	
  IF	
  2-­‐5:	
  	
  	
   Continue	
   efforts	
   to	
   reduce	
   potable	
   water	
   use	
   and	
   increase	
   water	
  
                           conservation.	
  

                           Policy	
  IF	
  2-­‐6:	
  	
  	
  	
   Use	
  recycled	
  water	
  for	
  landscaping	
  irrigation	
  within	
  City	
  roadways,	
  
                           parks,	
  and	
  facilities	
  to	
  the	
  greatest	
  extent	
  feasible.	
  	
  	
  

                           Action	
  COS	
  9d:	
   Develop	
  and	
  provide	
  incentives	
  to	
  developers	
  and	
  businesses	
  that	
  
                           use	
  reclaimed	
  water	
  and	
  other	
  non-­‐potable	
  water	
  for	
  landscaping.	
  

                           Action	
  COS	
  9e:	
   Continue	
   to	
   implement	
   Chapter	
   17.630	
   of	
   the	
   Brentwood	
  
                           Municipal	
  Code,	
  particularly	
  as	
  it	
  relates	
  to	
  water	
  conservation	
  efforts.	
  

                           Action	
  COS	
  9g:	
   Develop	
   a	
   list	
   of	
   drought-­‐tolerant	
   and	
   native	
   plants	
   appropriate	
  
                           for	
  use	
  in	
  Brentwood	
  and	
  review	
  development	
  projects	
  for	
  adherence	
  to	
  this	
  list.	
  	
  

                           Action	
  IF	
  2a:	
  	
  	
   Routinely	
   assess	
   the	
   City’s	
   ability	
   to	
   meet	
   demand	
   for	
   potable	
  
                           water	
  by	
  periodically	
  updating	
  the	
  Water	
  Master	
  Plan.	
  	
  

                           Action	
  IF	
  2b:	
  	
   Explore	
  additional	
  permanent	
  water	
  sources	
  through,	
  and	
  contract	
  
                           with,	
  agencies	
  that	
  may	
  have	
  surplus	
  water	
  availability,	
  such	
  as	
  the	
  Contra	
  Costa	
  
                           Water	
   District,	
   the	
   East	
   Bay	
   Municipal	
   Utility	
   District,	
   the	
   East	
   Contra	
   Costa	
  
                           Irrigation	
  District,	
  and	
  other	
  potential	
  sources.	
  

                           Action	
  IF	
  2c:	
  	
  	
   Regularly	
  review	
  and	
  update	
  the	
  City’s	
  water	
  conservation	
  strategy	
  
                           to	
   be	
   consistent	
   with	
   current	
   best	
   management	
   practices	
   for	
   water	
   conservation,	
  
                           considering	
   measures	
   recommended	
   by	
   the	
   State	
   Department	
   of	
   Water	
   Resources,	
  
                           the	
   California	
   Urban	
   Water	
   Conservation	
   Council,	
   and	
   the	
   Contra	
   Costa	
   Water	
  
                           District.	
  	
  	
  

              Delta	
  Plan	
  Policy	
  DP	
  P1:	
  Locate	
  New	
  Urban	
  Development	
  Wisely:	
  	
  This	
  policy	
  limits	
  new	
  
              residential,	
   commercial,	
   and	
   industrial	
   development	
   to	
   areas	
   designated	
   for	
   such	
   uses	
   in	
  
              the	
   general	
   plans	
   of	
   cities	
   and	
   counties	
   as	
   of	
   May	
   16,	
   2013,	
   and	
   areas	
   within	
   Contra	
   Costa	
  
              County’s	
   2006	
   voter-­‐approved	
   Urban	
   Limit	
   Line.	
   	
   The	
   proposed	
   General	
   Plan	
   Land	
   Use	
  
              Map	
  identifies	
  land	
  use	
  designations	
  outside	
  of	
  the	
  Brentwood	
  city	
  limits,	
  and	
  outside	
  of	
  
              the	
  ULL,	
  that	
  have	
  been	
  determined	
  to	
  be	
  appropriate	
  for	
  future	
  residential,	
  commercial,	
  
              and	
  industrial	
  land	
  uses.	
  	
  These	
  areas	
  are	
  generally	
  located	
  east	
  of	
  the	
  city	
  limits	
  (to	
  the	
  


       3.0-­‐8	
           Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  
	
  
                                                                                                                        ERRATA	
                      3.0	
  
	
  
       west	
   of	
   Sellers	
   Avenue	
   and	
   north	
   of	
   Chestnut	
   Street)	
   and	
   south	
   of	
   Marsh	
   Creek	
   Road,	
   east	
  
       of	
  the	
  city	
  limits,	
  near	
  the	
  southern	
  tip	
  of	
  Brentwood.	
  	
  	
  

       While	
   the	
   Draft	
   Land	
   Use	
   Map	
   identifies	
   land	
   uses	
   outside	
   of	
   the	
   city	
   limits,	
   it	
   is	
   important	
  
       to	
  note	
  that	
  all	
  lands	
  outside	
  of	
  the	
  city	
  limits	
  remain	
  under	
  the	
  jurisdiction	
  and	
  land	
  use	
  
       planning	
  authority	
  of	
  Contra	
  Costa	
  County.	
  	
  Adoption	
  and	
  implementation	
  of	
  the	
  proposed	
  
       Brentwood	
   General	
   Plan	
   would	
   not	
   directly	
   result	
   in	
   the	
   construction	
   of	
   any	
   residential,	
  
       commercial,	
  or	
  industrial	
  land	
  uses	
  on	
  lands	
  within	
  the	
  Delta	
  Plan	
  boundaries,	
  nor	
  would	
  it	
  
       entitle	
  or	
  result	
  in	
  the	
  direct	
  approval	
  of	
  any	
  development	
  projects.	
  	
  	
  

       The	
  designation	
  of	
  lands	
  on	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  Land	
  Use	
  Map	
  is	
  meant	
  to	
  reflect	
  the	
  City’s	
  
       vision	
   for	
   future	
   land	
   use	
   patterns	
   in	
   the	
   Planning	
   Area.	
   	
   As	
   stated	
   above,	
   land	
   use	
  
       planning	
   authority	
   outside	
   of	
   the	
   city	
   limits	
   in	
   the	
   unincorporated	
   areas	
   of	
   Contra	
   Costa	
  
       County	
  rests	
  with	
  the	
  County.	
  	
  The	
  County’s	
  General	
  Plan	
  Land	
  Use	
  designations	
  for	
  lands	
  
       within	
   the	
   Planning	
   Area,	
   outside	
   of	
   the	
   Brentwood	
   city	
   limits,	
   are	
   shown	
   on	
   Figure	
   3.10-­‐4	
  
       of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  	
  These	
  land	
  use	
  designations	
  currently	
  (and	
  will	
  continue	
  to)	
  regulate	
  land	
  
       use	
   decisions	
   within	
   the	
   Planning	
   Area,	
   until	
   such	
   time	
   as	
   these	
   lands	
   may	
   be	
   annexed.	
  	
  
       Annexation	
  of	
  lands	
  would	
  require	
  approval	
  by	
  the	
  Contra	
  Costa	
  Local	
  Agency	
  Formation	
  
       Commission	
   (LAFCO)	
   and	
   would	
   require	
   a	
   voter-­‐approved	
   change	
   to	
   the	
   existing	
   Urban	
  
       Limit	
  Line.	
  	
  	
  

       The	
   proposed	
   project	
   would	
   not	
   result	
   in	
   a	
   conflict	
   with	
   Delta	
   Plan	
   Policy	
   DP	
   P1,	
   since	
  
       adoption	
  of	
  the	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  would	
  not	
  result	
  in	
  the	
  formal	
  re-­‐designation	
  of	
  
       any	
   lands	
   outside	
   of	
   the	
   city	
   limits	
   to	
   residential,	
   commercial,	
   or	
   industrial,	
   nor	
   would	
  
       adoption	
  of	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  entitle	
  or	
  otherwise	
  approve	
  any	
  residential,	
  commercial,	
  or	
  
       industrial	
  lands	
  or	
  projects	
  outside	
  of	
  the	
  city	
  limits.	
  	
  As	
  such,	
  the	
  proposed	
  project	
  does	
  
       not	
  conflict	
  with	
  Delta	
  Plan	
  Policy	
  DP	
  P1.	
  	
  The	
  potential	
  for	
  the	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  to	
  
       conflict	
  with	
  the	
  Delta	
  Plan	
  is	
  considered	
  a	
  less	
  than	
  significant	
  impact,	
  and	
  no	
  additional	
  
       mitigation	
  is	
  required.	
  	
  	
  




              Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
                                               3.0-­‐9	
  
	
  
       3.0	
            ERRATA	
  
	
  
The	
  following	
  revisions	
  were	
  made	
  to	
  page	
  3.4-­‐38	
  of	
  the	
  DEIR:	
  

Impact	
   3.4-­4:	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   would	
   not	
   interfere	
  
substantially	
  with	
  the	
  movement	
  of	
  any	
  native	
  resident	
  or	
  migratory	
  fish	
  
or	
   wildlife	
   species	
   or	
   with	
   established	
   native	
   resident	
   or	
   migratory	
  
wildlife	
  corridors,	
  or	
  impede	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  native	
  wildlife	
  nursery	
  sites	
  (Less	
  
than	
  Significant)	
  
Habitat	
   loss,	
   fragmentation,	
   and	
   degradation	
   resulting	
   from	
   land	
   use	
   changes	
   or	
   habitat	
  
conversion	
  can	
  alter	
  the	
  use	
  and	
  viability	
  of	
  wildlife	
  movement	
  corridors	
  (i.e.,	
  linear	
  habitats	
  that	
  
naturally	
  connect	
  and	
  provide	
  passage	
  between	
  two	
  or	
  more	
  otherwise	
  disjunct	
  larger	
  habitats	
  or	
  
habitat	
   fragments).	
   Wildlife	
   habitat	
   corridors	
   maintain	
   connectivity	
   for	
   daily	
   movement,	
   travel,	
  
mate-­‐seeking,	
   and	
   migration;	
   plant	
   propagation;	
   genetic	
   interchange;	
   population	
   movement	
   in	
  
response	
   to	
   environmental	
   change	
   or	
   natural	
   disaster;	
   and	
   recolonization	
   of	
   habitats	
   subject	
   to	
  
local	
  extirpation	
  or	
  removal.	
  The	
  suitability	
  of	
  a	
  habitat	
  as	
  a	
  wildlife	
  movement	
  corridor	
  is	
  related	
  
to,	
   among	
   other	
   factors,	
   the	
   habitat	
   corridor’s	
   dimensions	
   (length	
   and	
   width),	
   topography,	
  
vegetation,	
  exposure	
  to	
  human	
  influence,	
  and	
  the	
  species	
  in	
  question.	
  

Species	
  utilize	
  movement	
  corridors	
  in	
  several	
  ways.	
  “Passage	
  species”	
  are	
  those	
  Some	
  species	
  that	
  
use	
   corridors	
   as	
   thru-­‐ways	
   between	
   outlying	
   habitats.	
   The	
   habitat	
   requirements	
   for	
   passage	
  
species	
  are	
  generally	
  less	
  than	
  those	
  for	
  corridor	
  dwellers.	
  Passage	
  species	
  use	
  corridors	
  for	
  brief	
  
durations,	
   such	
   as	
   for	
   seasonal	
   migrations	
   or	
   movement	
   within	
   a	
   home	
   range.	
   As	
   such,	
   movement	
  
corridors	
  do	
  not	
  necessarily	
   have	
  to	
  meet	
  any	
  of	
  the	
  habitat	
  requirements	
  necessary	
  for	
  a	
  passage	
  
some	
   species’	
   everyday	
   survival.	
   “Corridor	
   dwellers”	
   are	
   those	
   Other	
   species	
   that	
   have	
   limited	
  
dispersal	
   capabilities	
   –	
   a	
   category	
   that	
   includes	
   most	
   plants,	
   insects,	
   and	
   some	
   reptiles,	
  
amphibians,	
  and	
  small	
  mammals,	
  and	
  birds	
  –	
  and	
  use	
  corridors	
  for	
  a	
  greater	
  length	
  of	
  time.	
  	
  

3.5	
         CULTURAL	
  RESOURCES	
  

No	
  changes	
  were	
  made	
  to	
  Section	
  3.5	
  of	
  the	
  DEIR.	
  

3.6	
         GEOLOGY,	
  SOILS,	
  AND	
  MINERALS	
  

No	
  changes	
  were	
  made	
  to	
  Section	
  3.6	
  of	
  the	
  DEIR.	
  

3.7	
         GREENHOUSE	
  GASES	
  AND	
  CLIMATE	
  CHANGE	
  

No	
  changes	
  were	
  made	
  to	
  Section	
  3.7	
  of	
  the	
  DEIR.	
  

3.8	
         HAZARDS	
  	
  

No	
  changes	
  were	
  made	
  to	
  Section	
  3.8	
  of	
  the	
  DEIR.	
  

3.9	
         HYDROLOGY	
  AND	
  WATER	
  QUALITY	
  

No	
  changes	
  were	
  made	
  to	
  Section	
  3.9	
  of	
  the	
  DEIR.	
  



       3.0-­‐10	
       Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  
	
  
                                                                                                                 ERRATA	
                   3.0	
  
	
  
3.10	
   LAND	
  USE	
  AND	
  POPULATION	
  

No	
  changes	
  were	
  made	
  to	
  Section	
  3.10	
  of	
  the	
  DEIR.	
  

3.11	
   NOISE	
  

No	
  changes	
  were	
  made	
  to	
  Section	
  3.11	
  of	
  the	
  DEIR.	
  

3.12	
   PUBLIC	
  SERVICES	
  AND	
  RECREATION	
  

No	
  changes	
  were	
  made	
  to	
  Section	
  3.12	
  of	
  the	
  DEIR.	
  

3.13	
   TRANSPORTATION	
  AND	
  CIRCULATION	
  

No	
  changes	
  were	
  made	
  to	
  Section	
  3.13	
  of	
  the	
  DEIR.	
  

3.14	
   UTILITIES	
  

The	
  following	
  changes	
  were	
  made	
  to	
  page	
  3.14-­‐13	
  of	
  the	
  DEIR.	
  

            Impact	
   3.14-­1:	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   would	
   result	
   in	
   an	
  
            increased	
  demand	
  for	
  water	
  supplies	
  (Less	
  than	
  Significant)	
  
            Implementation	
  of	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  would	
  result	
  in	
  increased	
  population	
  and	
  employment	
  
            growth	
   within	
   the	
   Planning	
   Area,	
   and	
   a	
   corresponding	
   increase	
   in	
   the	
   demand	
   for	
  
            additional	
  water	
  supplies.	
  	
  

            As	
   described	
   in	
   Chapter	
   2.0,	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   is	
   expected	
   to	
   accommodate	
   up	
   to	
   9,972	
  
            new	
  residential	
  dwelling	
  units	
  and	
  up	
  to	
  9,896,951	
  square	
  feet	
  of	
  non-­‐residential	
  building	
  
            space	
  within	
  the	
  city	
  limits	
  at	
  full	
  buildout.	
  	
  This	
  new	
  growth	
  within	
  the	
  city	
  limits	
  would	
  
            increase	
  the	
  city’s	
  population	
  by	
  approximately	
  27,639	
  residents.	
  The	
  full	
  development	
  of	
  
            the	
   new	
   non-­‐residential	
   uses	
   shown	
   in	
   Table	
   2.0-­‐2	
   would	
   increase	
   the	
   employment	
   in	
  
            Brentwood	
  by	
  approximately	
  21,232	
  jobs.	
  	
  

            As	
  shown	
  in	
  Table	
  2.0-­‐2,	
  buildout	
  of	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  could	
  yield	
  an	
  additional	
  3,642	
  new	
  
            residential	
   units	
   and	
   2,994,116	
   square	
   feet	
   of	
   new	
   non-­‐residential	
   building	
   space	
   within	
  
            the	
   Planning	
   Area.	
   	
   This	
   new	
   growth	
   would	
   increase	
   the	
   Planning	
   Area’s	
   population	
   by	
  
            approximately	
   11,419	
   residents.	
   The	
   full	
   development	
   of	
   the	
   new	
   non-­‐residential	
   uses	
  
            shown	
   in	
   Table	
   2.0-­‐2	
   would	
   increase	
   the	
   employment	
   in	
   the	
   Planning	
   Area	
   by	
  
            approximately	
  6,276	
  jobs.	
  

            Water	
   users	
   within	
   the	
   Brentwood	
   service	
   area	
   include	
   single-­‐family	
   residences,	
  
            apartments,	
   condominiums,	
   commercial	
   uses,	
   industrial	
   uses,	
   business	
   park	
   uses,	
  
            government	
   uses,	
   miscellaneous	
   uses,	
   landscape	
   irrigation,	
   pools,	
   and	
   mobile	
   home	
  
            customers.	
  	
  	
  

            The	
   City	
   currently	
   has	
   approximately	
   17,000	
   water	
   service	
   accounts.	
   Total	
   water	
  
            production	
   in	
   2008,	
   the	
   City’s	
   highest	
   use	
   year,	
   was	
   4,537	
   million	
   gallons.	
   The	
  

                  Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
                                3.0-­‐11	
  
	
  
       3.0	
              ERRATA	
  
	
  
              predominant	
  use	
  was	
  potable	
  use,	
  with	
  some	
  untreated	
  water	
  and	
  recycled	
  water	
  served	
  
              for	
   landscape	
   irrigation.	
   Statistics	
   are	
   not	
   available	
   for	
   2008,	
   however	
   in	
   2010,	
   88%	
   of	
  
              water	
   was	
   potable	
   use,	
   and	
   12%	
   was	
   non-­‐potable	
   use.	
   Total	
   production	
   equates	
   to	
   an	
  
              average	
  production	
  of	
  12.4	
  million	
  gallons	
  per	
  day	
  (mgd).	
  	
  

              The	
   city	
   has	
   experienced	
   significant	
   growth	
   in	
   population	
   in	
   the	
   last	
   10	
   years,	
   with	
  
              corresponding	
   growth	
   in	
   water	
   use.	
   In	
   2001,	
   the	
   city’s	
   population	
   was	
   26,200	
   and	
   the	
  
              city’s	
   water	
   use	
   was	
   about	
   2,200	
   million	
   gallons	
   per	
   year	
   (5.9	
   mgd	
   average	
   daily	
   water	
  
              use).	
   By	
   2010,	
   the	
   city’s	
   population	
   had	
   grown	
   to	
   51,400,	
   with	
   an	
   annual	
   water	
   use	
   of	
  
              about	
  3,900	
  million	
  gallons	
  per	
  year	
  (10.7	
  mgd	
  average	
  daily	
  water	
  use).	
  The	
  city,	
  like	
  most	
  
              communities	
  in	
  California,	
  has	
  experienced	
  lower	
  water	
  use	
  in	
  recent	
  years	
  due	
  to	
  drought	
  
              and	
  the	
  downturn	
  in	
  the	
  economy.	
  	
  

              The	
   city’s	
   water	
   use	
   is	
   predominantly	
   by	
   residential	
   customers.	
   Of	
   the	
   17,000	
   water	
  
              service	
   accounts,	
   14,900	
   are	
   single-­‐family	
   residential	
   accounts.	
   Single-­‐family	
   residential	
  
              use	
  accounts	
  for	
  65%	
  of	
  total	
  water	
  consumption.	
  Landscape	
  irrigation	
  accounts	
  for	
  27%	
  of	
  
              total	
  water	
  use,	
  commercial/institutional	
  for	
  5%	
  of	
  use,	
  multi-­‐family	
  residential	
  for	
  3%	
  of	
  
              total	
  use,	
  and	
  other	
  for	
  0.5%	
  of	
  total	
  use	
  (City	
  of	
  Brentwood	
  UWMP,	
  2010,	
  completed	
  May	
  
              24,	
  2011).	
  	
  

              The	
  City’s	
  2010	
  Urban	
  Water	
  Management	
  Plan	
  includes	
  a	
  projection	
  of	
  annual	
  water	
  use	
  
              at	
  full	
  buildout.	
  The	
  city’s	
  projected	
  average	
  annual	
  use	
  at	
  buildout	
  is	
  about	
  7,100	
  million	
  
              gallons/year	
  (19.5	
  mgd	
  average	
  daily	
  demand).	
  	
  

              As	
   described	
   in	
   the	
   2010	
   UWMP,	
   according	
   to	
   the	
   Water	
   Conservation	
   Act	
   of	
   2009,	
   the	
  
              2020	
   water	
   use	
   target	
   will	
   be	
   calculated	
   by	
   using	
   one	
   of	
   four	
   methods.	
   As	
   an	
   individual	
  
              urban	
   water	
   retailer,	
   the	
   City	
   has	
   chosen	
   Method	
   1	
   for	
   its	
   water	
   use	
   target,	
   which	
   aims	
   to	
  
              reduce	
   consumption	
   to	
   80%	
   of	
   the	
   city’s	
   baseline	
   per	
   capita	
   water	
   use	
   by	
   2020.	
   To	
  
              calculate	
   this	
   water	
   use	
   target,	
   the	
   City	
   used	
   gross	
   water	
   use	
   data	
   for	
   the	
   10-­‐year	
   baseline	
  
              period	
   of	
   2001	
   to	
   2010.	
   The	
   city’s	
   annual	
   baseline	
   water	
   use	
   for	
   this	
   10-­‐year	
   period	
   was	
  
              calculated	
   as	
   238	
   gallons	
   per	
   capita	
   per	
   day	
   (GPCD).	
   The	
   10-­‐year	
   baseline	
   water	
   use	
  
              targets	
   were	
   calculated	
   as	
   214	
   GPCD	
   by	
   2015	
   and	
   191	
   GPCD	
   by	
   2020.	
   Water	
   use	
  
              projections	
   were	
   estimated	
   by	
   using	
   service	
   area	
   population	
   projections	
   provided	
   by	
   the	
  
              City’s	
   Finance	
   Department,	
   which	
   relied	
   on	
   estimates	
   from	
   the	
   California	
   Department	
   of	
  
              Finance.	
  

              One	
  of	
  the	
  primary	
  methods	
  that	
  the	
  City	
  plans	
  to	
  reduce	
  water	
  use	
  is	
  through	
  an	
  increase	
  
              in	
   recycled	
   water	
   use.	
   The	
   City	
   started	
   to	
   develop	
   and	
   deliver	
   recycled	
   water	
   supplies	
   in	
  
              2005.	
   Recycled	
   water	
   use	
   was	
   subtracted	
   from	
   water	
   use	
   sector	
   data	
   (landscape	
   and	
  
              industrial)	
   to	
   reflect	
   gross	
   water	
   use	
   calculations	
   adequately.	
   Data	
   reveal	
   a	
   decrease	
   in	
  
              recycled	
   water	
   deliveries	
   between	
   2005	
   and	
   2010	
   because	
   one	
   of	
   the	
   largest	
   recycled	
  
              water	
  users,	
  Sunset	
  Park,	
  requested	
  potable	
  water	
  for	
  landscape	
  irrigation.	
  However,	
  the	
  
              City	
   has	
   also	
   increased	
   its	
   recycled	
   water	
   deliveries	
   since	
   2005,	
   growing	
   from	
   one	
  
              customer	
  to	
  six	
  customers,	
  and	
  the	
  numbers	
  appear	
  to	
  be	
  increasing.	
  The	
  plan	
  concludes	
  
              that	
  the	
  City	
  will	
  meet	
  the	
  2015	
  and	
  2020	
  water	
  use	
  targets	
  while	
  delivering	
  an	
  adequate	
  

       3.0-­‐12	
          Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  
	
  
                                                                                                                         ERRATA	
                     3.0	
  
	
  
            supply	
  of	
  water	
  to	
  its	
  customers	
  over	
  the	
  next	
  20-­‐	
  to	
  25-­‐year	
  planning	
  period.	
  The	
  City’s	
  
            water	
   use	
   in	
   2010	
   was	
   significantly	
   lower	
   than	
   previous	
   years.	
   Thus,	
   no	
   reduction	
   in	
   use	
   is	
  
            needed	
   to	
   meet	
   the	
   2015	
   or	
   2020	
   water	
   use	
   targets.	
   However,	
   reductions	
   will	
   be	
   made	
   by	
  
            the	
   City	
   to	
   maintain	
   the	
   2020	
   water	
   use	
   target	
   in	
   future	
   years.	
   These	
   reductions	
   can	
   be	
  
            made	
   primarily	
   with	
   increased	
   use	
   of	
   recycled	
   water	
   in	
   the	
   landscape	
   sector,	
   such	
   as	
  
            existing	
   and	
   future	
   parkways	
   and	
   golf	
   courses,	
   as	
   well	
   as	
   through	
   City	
   fire	
   hydrant	
   use,	
  
            which	
  is	
  included	
  in	
  the	
  “other”	
  water	
  use	
  sector.	
  Water	
  reductions	
  will	
  also	
  continue	
  to	
  
            be	
  made,	
  due	
  in	
  large	
  part	
  to	
  the	
  City’s	
  successful	
  water	
  conservation	
  program	
  and	
  further	
  
            implementation	
   of	
   water-­‐efficient	
   technologies	
   and	
   practices.	
   In	
   addition,	
   the	
   City	
   will	
  
            continue	
   its	
   outreach	
   and	
   education	
   efforts	
   for	
   residents,	
   such	
   as	
   water	
   audits	
   and	
   leak	
  
            detection	
   and	
   prevention,	
   and	
   the	
   City	
   plans	
   to	
   upgrade	
   its	
   automatic	
   meter	
   reading	
  
            system	
  with	
  a	
  radio	
  frequency	
  wireless	
  fixed	
  base	
  system	
  that	
  transmits	
  information	
  four	
  
            times	
  a	
  day.	
  

            Water	
   use	
   varies	
   seasonally,	
   with	
   maximum	
   water	
   use	
   typically	
   occurring	
   during	
   the	
  
            months	
   of	
   June,	
   July,	
   August,	
   and	
   September,	
   due	
   to	
   increased	
   landscape	
   irrigation.	
   The	
  
            City	
  must	
  be	
  able	
  to	
  meet	
  demand	
  from	
  all	
  supply	
  sources	
  on	
  the	
  maximum	
  demand	
  day	
  
            of	
   the	
   year,	
   and	
   also	
   provide	
   adequate	
   water	
   distribution	
   system	
   facilities	
   to	
   supply	
  
            customers	
   and	
   maintain	
   adequate	
   pressure	
   on	
   the	
   maximum	
   demand	
   day.	
   The	
   City	
  
            projects	
  a	
  maximum	
  demand	
  of	
  41	
  mgd	
  at	
  buildout	
  (City	
  of	
  Brentwood	
  UWMP,	
  2010).	
  

4.0	
       OTHER	
  CEQA-­‐REQUIRED	
  TOPICS	
  

The	
  following	
  changes	
  were	
  made	
  to	
  page	
  4.0-­‐17	
  of	
  the	
  DEIR.	
  

            Impact	
  4 .14:	
  C umulative	
  Impact	
  o n	
  U tilities	
  	
  
            (Less	
  t han	
  C umulatively	
  C onsiderable)	
  
            Cumulative	
   growth	
   that	
   would	
   occur	
   within	
   the	
   cumulative	
   analysis	
   area	
   over	
   the	
   life	
   of	
  
            the	
   proposed	
   General	
   Plan	
   will	
   result	
   in	
   increased	
   demand	
   for	
   water	
   service,	
   sewer	
  
            service,	
  and	
  solid	
  waste	
  disposal	
  services.	
  	
  

            Water:	
   Table	
   3.14-­‐6	
   summarizes	
   annual	
   projections	
   of	
   demands	
   and	
   supplies	
   to	
   meet	
  
            those	
   demands	
   through	
   2035,	
   as	
   documented	
   in	
   the	
   City’s	
   2010	
   Urban	
   Water	
  
            Management	
  Plan.	
  Table	
  3.14-­‐7	
  summarizes	
  the	
  same	
  information	
  for	
  projected	
  maximum	
  
            day	
   demands	
   and	
   supplies.	
   Table	
   3.14-­‐7	
   shows	
   a	
   range	
   in	
   demands	
   from	
   2010	
   through	
  
            2035	
   based	
   on	
   two	
   different	
   growth	
   rate	
   projections:	
   a	
   high-­‐growth	
   curve,	
   developed	
  
            from	
   earlier	
   studies	
   for	
   the	
   COBWTP,	
   and	
   a	
   straight-­‐line	
   growth	
   rate.	
   Actual	
   water	
  
            demands	
  are	
  expected	
  to	
  fall	
  in	
  between	
  these	
  two	
  projections.	
  

            As	
  shown	
  in	
  Table	
  2.0-­‐3,	
  the	
  projected	
  buildout	
  population	
  of	
  the	
  proposed	
  General	
  Plan	
  
            within	
   the	
   city	
   limits	
   is	
   lower	
   than	
   the	
   projected	
   buildout	
   population	
   of	
   the	
   existing	
  
            General	
   Plan	
   by	
   approximately	
   nine	
   percent.	
   	
   Therefore,	
   buildout	
   of	
   the	
   proposed	
   General	
  
            Plan	
  would	
  not	
  exceed	
  the	
  water	
  supply	
  demand	
  projections	
  contained	
  in	
  the	
  City’s	
  2010	
  
            UWMP,	
  which	
  are	
  based	
  on	
  projected	
  buildout	
  of	
  the	
  existing	
  General	
  Plan.	
  	
  	
  



                  Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
                                          3.0-­‐13	
  
	
  
       3.0	
              ERRATA	
  
	
  
              The	
   City’s	
   2010	
   UWMP	
   estimates	
   that	
   water	
   supply	
   buildout	
   demand	
   in	
   2035	
   will	
   be	
  
              approximately	
   4,556	
   million	
   gallons	
   per	
   year	
   (MGY).	
   	
   This	
   equates	
   to	
   .051	
   MGY	
   per	
   person	
  
              within	
   the	
   service	
   area.	
   	
   As	
   shown	
   in	
   Table	
   2.0-­‐3,	
   the	
   buildout	
   population	
   within	
   the	
  
              Planning	
   Area	
   is	
   estimated	
   to	
   be	
   92,336.	
   	
   Applying	
   the	
   per	
   capita	
   water	
   use	
   rate	
   of	
   .051	
  
              MGY,	
  the	
  total	
  annual	
  water	
  demand	
  associated	
  with	
  full	
  buildout	
  of	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  to	
  
              the	
   Planning	
   Area	
   would	
   be	
   4,715	
   MGY.	
   	
   This	
   water	
   demand	
   is	
   within	
   the	
   projected	
  
              available	
  supplies	
  shown	
  in	
  Table	
  3.14-­‐6.	
  	
  	
  

              The	
  proposed	
  General	
  Plan	
  includes	
  a	
  range	
  of	
  policies	
  and	
  actions	
  designed	
  to	
  ensure	
  an	
  
              adequate	
  water	
  supply	
  for	
  development	
  and	
  to	
  minimize	
  the	
  potential	
  adverse	
  effects	
  of	
  
              increased	
   water	
   use.	
   Policy	
   IF	
   1-­‐3	
   requires	
   all	
   development	
   projects	
   to	
   mitigate	
   their	
  
              infrastructure	
   service	
   impacts	
   or	
   demonstrate	
   that	
   the	
   City’s	
   infrastructure,	
   public	
  
              services,	
   and	
   utilities	
   can	
   accommodate	
   the	
   increased	
   demand	
   for	
   services,	
   and	
   that	
  
              service	
  levels	
  for	
  existing	
  users	
  will	
  not	
  be	
  degraded	
  or	
  impaired.	
  

              Policy	
   IF	
   2-­‐1	
   requires	
   the	
   City	
   to	
   ensure	
   that	
   the	
   water	
   system	
   and	
   water	
   supplies	
   are	
  
              adequate	
  to	
  meet	
  the	
  needs	
  of	
  existing	
  and	
  future	
  development.	
  	
  Action	
  IF	
  2a	
  requires	
  the	
  
              City	
   to	
   routinely	
   assess	
   its	
   ability	
   to	
   meet	
   demand	
   for	
   potable	
   water	
   by	
   periodically	
  
              updating	
   the	
   Water	
   Master	
   Plan.	
   	
   The	
   proposed	
   General	
   Plan	
   also	
   includes	
   a	
   range	
   of	
  
              policies	
  and	
  actions	
  that	
  call	
  for	
  continued	
  and	
  ongoing	
  water	
  conservation	
  measures,	
  and	
  
              measures	
   to	
   increase	
   the	
   availability	
   and	
   use	
   of	
   recycled	
   water	
   in	
   order	
   to	
   decrease	
   water	
  
              supply	
  demands	
  from	
  existing	
  sources.	
  	
  	
  

              Given	
   that	
   projected	
   water	
   demands	
   associated	
   with	
   General	
   Plan	
   buildout	
   would	
   not	
  
              exceed	
   the	
   projected	
   water	
   supplies	
   described	
   in	
   the	
   2010	
   Brentwood	
   Urban	
   Water	
  
              Management	
   Plan,	
   and	
   that	
   the	
   proposed	
   General	
   Plan	
   includes	
   a	
   comprehensive	
   set	
   of	
  
              goals,	
   policies,	
   and	
   actions	
   to	
   ensure	
   an	
   adequate	
   and	
   reliable	
   source	
   of	
   clean	
   potable	
  
              water,	
  impacts	
  associated	
  with	
  water	
  supplies	
  are	
  less	
  than	
  cumulatively	
  considerable.	
  	
  	
  

5.0	
         ALTERNATIVES	
  

No	
  changes	
  were	
  made	
  to	
  Chapter	
  5.0	
  of	
  the	
  DEIR.	
  	
  	
  

6.0	
         REPORT	
  PREPARERS	
  

No	
  changes	
  were	
  made	
  to	
  Chapter	
  6.0	
  of	
  the	
  DEIR.	
  

	
  




       3.0-­‐14	
         Final	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  –	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  




       FINDINGS	
  OF	
  FACT	
  AND	
  STATEMENT	
  OF	
  
       OVERRIDING	
  CONSIDERATIONS	
  
       	
  
       FOR	
  THE	
  
       	
  
       2014	
  BRENTWOOD	
  GENERAL	
  PLAN	
  UPDATE	
  
       	
  
       	
  

       JUNE	
  2014	
  
       	
  
       	
  
       	
  
       	
  
       	
  
       Prepared	
  for:	
  

       	
  
       City	
  of	
  Brentwood	
  
       Community	
  Development	
  Department	
  
       150	
  City	
  Park	
  Way	
  
       Brentwood,	
  CA	
  94513	
  
       	
  
       	
  
       	
  
       	
  
       	
  
       Prepared	
  by:	
  

       	
  
       De	
  Novo	
  Planning	
  Group	
  
       1020	
  Suncast	
  Lane,	
  Suite	
  106	
  
       El	
  Dorado	
  Hills,	
  CA	
  95762	
  
       www.denovoplanning.com	
  




              D e 	
   N o v o 	
   P l a n n i n g 	
   G r o u p 	
  

              A 	
   L a n d 	
   U s e 	
   P l a n n i n g , 	
   D e s i g n , 	
   a n d 	
   E n v i r o n m e n t a l 	
   F i r m 	
  
	
  
	
  
                                         	
  
           FINDINGS	
  OF	
  FACT	
  AND	
  STATEMENT	
  	
  
            OF	
  OVERRIDING	
  CONSIDERATIONS	
  
                                         	
  

                                  FOR	
  THE	
  
                                         	
  
       2014	
  BRENTWOOD	
  GENERAL	
  PLAN	
  UPDATE	
  
                                         	
  

                                         	
  
                                         	
  
                                         	
  

                                JUNE	
  2014	
  
                                         	
  
                                         	
  
                                         	
  
                                         	
  
                                         	
  
                                Prepared	
  for:	
  

                                         	
  
                            City	
  of	
  Brentwood	
  
                 Community	
  Development	
  Department	
  
                            150	
  City	
  Park	
  Way	
  
                       Brentwood,	
  CA	
  94513	
  
                                            	
  
                                            	
  
                                            	
  
                                            	
  
                                            	
  
                               Prepared	
  by:	
  
                                            	
  
                      De	
  Novo	
  Planning	
  Group	
  
                    1020	
  Suncast	
  Lane,	
  Suite	
  106	
  
                     El	
  Dorado	
  Hills,	
  CA	
  95762	
  
                     www.denovoplanning.com	
  
	
  
       	
  
                                                                                 TABLE	
  OF	
  CONTENTS	
                                    TOC	
  
	
  

	
  
FINDINGS	
  OF	
  FACT	
  AND	
  STATEMENT	
  OF	
  OVERRIDING	
  CONSIDERATIONS	
  
	
  

Section	
                                                                                                                        Page	
  Number	
  

I.	
  	
  Introduction................................................................................................................................. 1	
  

II.	
  General	
  Findings	
  and	
  Overview................................................................................................... 2	
  

III.	
  Findings	
  and	
  Recommendations	
  Regarding	
  Significant	
  and	
  Unavoidable	
  Impacts.................... 4	
  

IV.	
  Findings	
  and	
  Recommendations	
  Regarding	
  Less	
  than	
  Significant	
  Impacts.............................. 12	
  
V.	
  Project	
  Alternatives................................................................................................................... 20	
  
VI.	
  Statements	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Consideration ................................................................................. 25	
  
VII.	
  Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 30	
  
	
  




        2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  Update	
  CEQA	
  Findings	
  of	
  Fact/Statement	
  of	
  
                                                                                                                                               TOC-­‐1	
  
                                                                     Overriding	
  Considerations	
  
	
  
       TOC	
         TABLE	
  OF	
  CONTENTS	
  
	
  
                               	
  

                                                                    	
  

                                                                    	
  

                                                                    	
  

                                                                    	
  

                                                                    	
  

                                                                    	
  

                                                                    	
  

                                                                    	
  

                                                                    	
  

                                           This	
  page	
  left	
  intentionally	
  blank.	
  




                     2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  Update	
  CEQA	
  Findings	
  of	
  Fact/Statement	
  of	
  
       TOC-­‐2	
  
                     Overriding	
  Considerations	
  
	
  
             FINDINGS	
  OF	
  FACT	
  AND	
  STATEMENT	
  OF	
  OVERRIDING	
  CONSIDERATIONS	
  	
  
                                                                           FOR	
  THE	
  	
  

                                       2014	
  BRENTWOOD	
  GENERAL	
  PLAN	
  UPDATE	
  
                       REQUIRED	
  UNDER	
  THE	
  CALIFORNIA	
  ENVIRONMENTAL	
  QUALITY	
  ACT	
  	
  
                              (Public	
  Resources	
  Code,	
  Section	
  21000	
  et	
  seq)	
  
                                                                              	
  

I.	
        INTRODUCTION	
  
             	
  
             The	
  California	
  Environmental	
  Quality	
  Act	
  (CEQA)	
  requires	
  the	
  City	
  of	
  Brentwood	
  (City),	
  
as	
  the	
  CEQA	
  lead	
  agency	
  to:	
  1)	
  make	
  written	
  findings	
  when	
  it	
  approves	
  a	
  project	
  for	
  which	
  an	
  
environmental	
   impact	
   report	
   (EIR)	
   was	
   certified,	
   and	
   2)	
   identify	
   overriding	
   considerations	
   for	
  
significant	
  and	
  unavoidable	
  impacts	
  identified	
  in	
  the	
  EIR.	
  	
  	
  
             	
  
             These	
  findings	
  explain	
  how	
  the	
  City,	
  as	
  the	
  lead	
  agency,	
  approached	
  the	
  significant	
  and	
  
potentially	
  significant	
  impacts	
  identified	
  in	
  the	
  environmental	
  impact	
  report	
  (EIR)	
  prepared	
  for	
  
the	
  2014	
  General	
  Plan	
  Update	
  (2014	
  General	
  Plan,	
  General	
  Plan,	
  or	
  Project).	
  The	
  statement	
  of	
  
overriding	
   considerations	
   identifies	
   economic,	
   social,	
   technological,	
   and	
   other	
   benefits	
   of	
   the	
  
Project	
  that	
  override	
  any	
  significant	
  environmental	
  impacts	
  that	
  would	
  result	
  from	
  the	
  Project.	
  
             	
  
             As	
   required	
   under	
   CEQA,	
   the	
   Final	
   EIR	
   describes	
   the	
   Project,	
   adverse	
   environmental	
  
impacts	
   of	
   the	
   project,	
   and	
   mitigation	
   measures	
   and	
   alternatives	
   that	
   would	
   substantially	
  
reduce	
  or	
  avoid	
  those	
  impacts.	
  The	
  information	
  and	
  conclusions	
  contained	
  in	
  the	
  EIR	
  reflect	
  the	
  
City’s	
   independent	
   judgment	
   regarding	
   the	
   potential	
   adverse	
   environmental	
   impacts	
   of	
   the	
  
Project.	
  
             	
  
             The	
   Final	
   EIR	
   (which	
   includes	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   comments	
   on	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   responses	
   to	
  
comments	
   on	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   and	
   revisions	
   to	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR)	
   for	
   the	
   Project,	
   examined	
   several	
  
alternatives	
  to	
  the	
  Project	
  that	
  were	
  not	
  chosen	
  as	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  approved	
  project	
  (the	
  No	
  Project	
  
Alternative,	
  the	
  Economic	
  Development	
  Alternative,	
  and	
  the	
  Residential	
  Growth	
  Alternative).	
  	
  
             	
  
             The	
   Findings	
   of	
   Fact	
   and	
   Statement	
   of	
   Overriding	
   Considerations	
   set	
   forth	
   below	
  
(“Findings”)	
  are	
  presented	
  for	
  adoption	
  by	
  the	
  City	
  Council	
  (Council)	
  as	
  the	
  City’s	
  findings	
  under	
  
the	
   California	
   Environmental	
   Quality	
   Act	
   (“CEQA”)	
   (Public	
   Resources	
   Code,	
   §21000	
   et	
   seq.)	
   and	
  
the	
  CEQA	
  Guidelines	
  (California	
  Code	
  of	
  Regulations,	
  Title	
  14,	
  §	
  15000	
  et	
  seq.)	
  relating	
  to	
  the	
  
Project.	
  	
  The	
  Findings	
  provide	
  the	
  written	
  analysis	
  and	
  conclusions	
  of	
  this	
  Council	
  regarding	
  the	
  
Project’s	
   environmental	
   impacts,	
   mitigation	
   measures,	
   alternatives	
   to	
   the	
   Project,	
   and	
   the	
  
overriding	
   considerations,	
   which	
   in	
   this	
   Council’s	
   view,	
   justify	
   approval	
   of	
   the	
   2014	
   General	
  
Plan,	
  despite	
  its	
  environmental	
  effects.	
  

2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  Update	
  CEQA	
  Findings	
  of	
  Fact/Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  
          Page	
  1	
  of	
  30	
  
	
  

II.	
            GENERAL	
  FINDINGS	
  AND	
  OVERVIEW 	
  
	
  
                 A. Project	
  Background	
  
          	
  
              In	
  late	
  2012,	
  Brentwood	
  began	
  a	
  multi-­‐year	
  process	
  to	
  update	
  the	
  City’s	
  General	
  Plan.	
  
State	
   law	
   requires	
   every	
   city	
   and	
   county	
   in	
   California	
   to	
   prepare	
   and	
   maintain	
   a	
   planning	
  
document	
  called	
  a	
  general	
  plan.	
  A	
  general	
  plan	
  is	
  a	
  “constitution”	
  or	
  “blueprint”	
  for	
  the	
  future	
  
physical	
   development	
   of	
   a	
   county	
   or	
   city.	
   As	
   part	
   of	
   the	
   Brentwood	
   General	
   Plan	
   Update	
  
process,	
   a	
   General	
   Plan	
   Existing	
   Conditions	
   Report	
   was	
   prepared	
   to	
   establish	
   a	
   baseline	
   of	
  
existing	
  conditions	
  in	
  the	
  city.	
  Additionally,	
  an	
  Opportunities	
  and	
  Constraints	
  Report	
  and	
  a	
  Land	
  
Use	
   Alternatives	
   Report	
   were	
   prepared	
   to	
   identify	
   the	
   challenges	
   facing	
   the	
   community,	
   to	
  
provide	
   an	
   opportunity	
   for	
   citizens	
   and	
   policymakers	
   to	
   come	
   together	
   in	
   a	
   process	
   of	
  
developing	
  a	
  common	
  vision	
  for	
  the	
  future,	
  and	
  to	
  identify	
  a	
  range	
  of	
  options	
  available	
  to	
  the	
  
City	
  as	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  Land	
  Use	
  Map	
  was	
  modified	
  and	
  updated.	
  	
  
              	
  
              The	
   updated	
   Brentwood	
   General	
   Plan	
   includes	
   a	
   framework	
   of	
   goals,	
   policies,	
   and	
  
actions	
  that	
  will	
  guide	
  the	
  community	
  toward	
  its	
  common	
  vision.	
  The	
  General	
  Plan	
  is	
  supported	
  
with	
  a	
  variety	
  of	
  maps,	
  including	
  a	
  Land	
  Use	
  Map	
  and	
  Circulation	
  Diagram.	
  
              	
  
              B. Procedural	
  Background	
  
              	
  
              The	
  City	
  of	
  Brentwood	
  circulated	
  a	
  Notice	
  of	
  Preparation	
  (NOP)	
  of	
  an	
  EIR	
  for	
  the	
  Project	
  
on	
   February	
   26,	
   2014	
   to	
   trustee	
   and	
   responsible	
   agencies,	
   the	
   State	
   Clearinghouse,	
   and	
   the	
  
public.	
   A	
   scoping	
   meeting	
   was	
   held	
   on	
   March	
   18,	
   2014	
   with	
   the	
   Brentwood	
   Planning	
  
Commission.	
   No	
   public	
   or	
   agency	
   comments	
   on	
   the	
   NOP	
   related	
   to	
   the	
   EIR	
   analysis	
   were	
  
presented	
  or	
  submitted	
  during	
  the	
  scoping	
  meeting.	
  	
  However,	
  during	
  the	
  30-­‐day	
  public	
  review	
  
period	
  for	
  the	
  NOP,	
  which	
  ended	
  on	
  March	
  28,	
  2014,	
  six	
  written	
  comment	
  letters	
  were	
  received	
  
on	
   the	
   NOP.	
   	
   Concerns	
   raised	
   in	
   response	
   to	
   the	
   NOP	
   were	
   considered	
   during	
   preparation	
   of	
  
the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  	
  	
  
              	
  
              The	
  City	
  published	
  a	
  public	
  Notice	
  of	
  Availability	
  (NOA)	
  for	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  on	
  April	
  8,	
  2014,	
  
inviting	
  comment	
  from	
  the	
  general	
  public,	
  agencies,	
  organizations,	
  and	
  other	
  interested	
  parties.	
  	
  
The	
  NOA	
  was	
  filed	
  with	
  the	
  State	
  Clearinghouse	
  (SCH	
  #	
  2014022058)	
  and	
  the	
  County	
  Clerk,	
  and	
  
was	
  published	
  in	
  the	
  Contra	
  Costa	
  Times	
  pursuant	
  to	
  the	
  public	
  noticing	
  requirements	
  of	
  CEQA.	
  	
  
The	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   was	
   available	
   for	
   public	
   review	
   from	
   April	
   8,	
   2014	
   through	
   May	
   23,	
   2014.	
   	
   The	
  
Public	
   Draft	
   2014	
   General	
   Plan	
   was	
   also	
   available	
   for	
   public	
   review	
   and	
   comment	
   during	
   this	
  
time	
  period.	
  	
  	
  
              	
  
              The	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   contains	
   a	
   description	
   of	
   the	
   project,	
   description	
   of	
   the	
   environmental	
  
setting,	
   identification	
   of	
   project	
   impacts,	
   and	
   mitigation	
   measures	
   for	
   impacts	
   found	
   to	
   be	
  

2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  Update	
  CEQA	
  Findings	
  of	
  Fact/Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  
          Page	
  2	
  of	
  30	
  
significant,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  an	
  analysis	
  of	
  project	
  alternatives,	
  identification	
  of	
  significant	
  irreversible	
  
environmental	
   changes,	
   growth-­‐inducing	
   impacts,	
   and	
   cumulative	
   impacts.	
   	
   The	
   Draft	
   EIR	
  
identifies	
  issues	
  determined	
  to	
  have	
  no	
  impact	
  or	
  a	
  less	
  than	
  significant	
  impact,	
  and	
  provides	
  
detailed	
   analysis	
   of	
   potentially	
   significant	
   and	
   significant	
   impacts.	
   	
   Comments	
   received	
   in	
  
response	
  to	
  the	
  NOP	
  were	
  considered	
  in	
  preparing	
  the	
  analysis	
  in	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  	
  	
  
              	
  
              The	
   City	
   received	
   17	
   comment	
   letters	
   regarding	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   and	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   from	
  
public	
  agencies,	
  organizations	
  and	
  members	
  of	
  the	
  public	
  during	
  the	
  public	
  comment	
  period.	
  	
  In	
  
accordance	
   with	
   CEQA	
   Guidelines	
   Section	
   15088,	
   a	
   Final	
   EIR	
   was	
   prepared	
   that	
   responded	
   to	
  
the	
   written	
   comments	
   received,	
   as	
   required	
   by	
   CEQA.	
   	
   The	
   Final	
   EIR	
   document	
   and	
   the	
   Draft	
  
EIR,	
  as	
  amended	
  by	
  the	
  Final	
  EIR,	
  constitute	
  the	
  Final	
  EIR.	
  
              	
  
              C. Record	
  of	
  Proceedings	
  and	
  Custodian	
  of	
  Record	
  
              	
  
              For	
   purposes	
   of	
   CEQA	
   and	
   the	
   findings	
   set	
   forth	
   herein,	
   the	
   record	
   of	
   proceedings	
   for	
  
the	
  City’s	
  findings	
  and	
  determinations	
  consists	
  of	
  the	
  following	
  documents	
  and	
  testimony,	
  at	
  a	
  
minimum:	
  	
  	
  
              	
  
      • The	
   NOP,	
   comments	
   received	
   on	
   the	
   NOP,	
   Notice	
   of	
   Availability,	
   and	
   all	
   other	
   public	
  
              notices	
  issued	
  by	
  the	
  City	
  in	
  relation	
  to	
  the	
  2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  Update	
  EIR.	
  
       •    The	
   2014	
   Brentwood	
   General	
   Plan	
   Update	
   Final	
   EIR,	
   including	
   comment	
   letters	
   and	
  
            technical	
  materials	
  cited	
  in	
  the	
  document.	
  
       •    All	
   non-­‐draft	
   and/or	
   non-­‐confidential	
   reports	
   and	
   memoranda	
   prepared	
   by	
   the	
   City	
   of	
  
            Brentwood	
  and	
  consultants	
  in	
  relation	
  to	
  the	
  EIR.	
  
       •    Minutes	
   of	
   the	
   discussions	
   regarding	
   the	
   Project	
   and/or	
   Project	
   components	
   at	
   public	
  
            hearings	
  held	
  by	
  the	
  City.	
  
       •    Staff	
  reports	
  associated	
  with	
  Planning	
  Commission	
  and	
  City	
  Council	
  meetings	
  on	
  the	
  
            Project.	
  
       •    Those	
  categories	
  of	
  materials	
  identified	
  in	
  Public	
  Resources	
  Code	
  Section	
  21167.6.	
  
	
  
          The	
   City	
   Clerk	
   is	
   the	
   custodian	
   of	
   the	
   administrative	
   record.	
   	
   The	
   documents	
   and	
  
materials	
   that	
   constitute	
   the	
   administrative	
   record	
   are	
   available	
   for	
   review	
   at	
   the	
   City	
   of	
  
Brentwood	
  Office	
  of	
  the	
  City	
  Clerk	
  at	
  150	
  City	
  Park	
  Way,	
  Brentwood,	
  CA	
  94513.	
  
          	
  
          D.	
  	
  Consideration	
  of	
  the	
  Environmental	
  Impact	
  Report	
  
          	
  
          In	
   adopting	
   these	
   Findings,	
   this	
   Council	
   finds	
   that	
   the	
   Final	
   EIR	
   was	
   presented	
   to	
   this	
  
Council,	
   the	
   decision-­‐making	
   body	
   of	
   the	
   lead	
   agency,	
   which	
   reviewed	
   and	
   considered	
   the	
  
information	
  in	
  the	
  Final	
  EIR	
  prior	
  to	
  approving	
  the	
  2014	
  General	
  Plan.	
  	
  By	
  these	
  findings,	
  this	
  
City	
  Council	
  ratifies,	
  adopts,	
  and	
  incorporates	
  the	
  analysis,	
  explanation,	
  findings,	
  responses	
  to	
  

2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  Update	
  CEQA	
  Findings	
  of	
  Fact/Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  
          Page	
  3	
  of	
  30	
  
comments,	
   and	
   conclusions	
   of	
   the	
   Final	
   EIR.	
   	
   The	
   City	
   Council	
   finds	
   that	
   the	
   Final	
   EIR	
   was	
  
completed	
   in	
   compliance	
   with	
   the	
   California	
   Environmental	
   Quality	
   Act.	
   The	
   Final	
   EIR	
  
represents	
  the	
  independent	
  judgment	
  and	
  analysis	
  of	
  the	
  City.	
  
             	
  
             E.	
  	
  Severability	
  
             	
  
             If	
  any	
  term,	
  provision,	
  or	
  portion	
  of	
  these	
  Findings	
  or	
  the	
  application	
  of	
  these	
  Findings	
  
to	
  a	
  particular	
  situation	
  is	
  held	
  by	
  a	
  court	
  to	
  be	
  invalid,	
  void,	
  or	
  unenforceable,	
  the	
  remaining	
  
provisions	
   of	
   these	
   Findings,	
   or	
   their	
   application	
   to	
   other	
   actions	
   related	
   to	
   the	
   2014	
  
Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan,	
  shall	
  continue	
  in	
  full	
  force	
  and	
  effect	
  unless	
  amended	
  or	
  modified	
  by	
  
the	
  City.	
  
             	
  

III.	
      FINDINGS	
   AND	
   RECOMMENDATIONS	
   REGARDING	
   SIGNIFICANT	
   AND	
   UNAVOIDABLE	
  
            IMPACTS	
  
            	
  
            A.	
          Aesthetics	
  and	
  Visual	
  Resources	
  
	
  
                     1.	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   could	
   result	
   in	
   substantial	
   adverse	
   effects	
   on	
  
                            visual	
   character,	
   including	
   impacts	
   to	
   scenic	
   vistas	
   or	
   scenic	
   resources (EIR	
  
                            Impact	
  3.1-­‐1)	
  
                          (a)	
  	
     Potential	
   Impact.	
   	
   The	
   potential	
   for	
   the	
   Project	
   to	
   result	
   in	
   substantial	
  
                                        adverse	
  effect	
  on	
  visual	
  character,	
  including	
  scenic	
  vistas	
  and	
  resources,	
  
                                        as	
  discussed	
  at	
  pages	
  3.1-­‐8	
  through	
  3.1-­‐15	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  
                          (b)	
  	
     Mitigation	
  Measures.	
  	
  	
  No	
  feasible	
  mitigation	
  is	
  available.	
  
                          (c)	
         Findings.	
  	
  Based	
  upon	
  the	
  EIR	
  and	
  the	
  entire	
  record	
  before	
  this	
  Council,	
  
                                        this	
  Council	
  finds	
  that:	
  
                                        (1)	
  	
     Effects	
   of	
   Mitigation	
   and	
   Remaining	
   Impacts.	
   As	
   described	
   on	
  
                                                      pages	
  3.1-­‐11	
  through	
  3.1-­‐15	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR,	
  the	
  Project	
  includes	
  
                                                      numerous	
   policies	
   and	
   actions	
   that	
   would	
   reduce	
   the	
   severity	
   of	
  
                                                      this	
   impact	
   to	
   the	
   extent	
   feasible.	
   	
   However,	
   even	
   with	
   the	
  
                                                      implementation	
  of	
  policies	
  and	
  actions	
  that	
  would	
  reduce	
  impacts	
  
                                                      to	
  visual	
  character,	
  the	
  potential	
  remains	
  for	
  new	
  development	
  to	
  
                                                      interrupt,	
   diminish,	
   or	
   obscure	
   scenic	
   views.	
   While	
   the	
   2014	
  
                                                      General	
   Plan	
   policies	
   and	
   actions	
   would	
   ensure	
   that	
   impacts	
   are	
  
                                                      reduced,	
   the	
   only	
   method	
   to	
   completely	
   avoid	
   impacts	
   to	
   scenic	
  
                                                      resources	
   on	
   a	
   Citywide	
   basis	
   would	
   be	
   to	
   severely	
   limit	
   the	
  
                                                      development	
   potential	
   of	
   undeveloped	
   lands,	
   including	
  
                                                      development	
   such	
   as	
   housing	
   units,	
   business	
   parks,	
   commercial	
  
                                                      uses,	
   and	
   other	
   structures	
   that	
   support	
   job	
   growth	
   and	
   the	
  

2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  Update	
  CEQA	
  Findings	
  of	
  Fact/Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  
          Page	
  4	
  of	
  30	
  
                                                    provision	
   of	
   a	
   range	
   of	
   housing	
   options.	
   	
   This	
   type	
   of	
   mitigation	
   is	
  
                                                    not	
   consistent	
   with	
   the	
   objectives	
   of	
   the	
   2014	
   General	
   Plan	
   to	
  
                                                    support	
   a	
   range	
   of	
   high-­‐quality	
   housing	
   options	
   and	
   expand	
  
                                                    economic	
   development	
   and	
   jobs-­‐generating	
   uses	
   in	
   the	
   city.	
  	
  
                                                    Therefore,	
   this	
   would	
   represent	
   a	
   significant	
   and	
   unavoidable	
  
                                                    impact	
  of	
  the	
  Project.	
  
                                      (2)	
         Overriding	
  Considerations.	
  	
  The	
  environmental,	
  economic,	
  social	
  
                                                    and	
   other	
   benefits	
   of	
   the	
   Project,	
   as	
   stated	
   more	
   fully	
   in	
   the	
  
                                                    Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  in	
  Section	
  VI,	
  override	
  any	
  
                                                    remaining	
   significant	
   adverse	
   impact	
   of	
   the	
   Project	
   associated	
  
                                                    with	
  impacts	
  to	
  scenic	
  resources	
  and	
  visual	
  character.	
  
                              	
  
                              	
  
          B.	
          Agricultural	
  and	
  Forest	
  Resources	
  
	
  
                   1.	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   would	
   result	
   in	
   the	
   conversion	
   of	
   farmlands,	
  
                          including	
   Prime	
   Farmland,	
   Unique	
   Farmland,	
   and	
   Farmland	
   of	
   Statewide	
  
                          Importance (EIR	
  Impact	
  3.2-­‐1)	
  
                        (a)	
  	
     Potential	
  Impact.	
  	
  The	
  potential	
  for	
  the	
  Project	
  to	
  result	
  in	
  the	
  conversion	
  
                                      of	
   farmlands,	
   including	
   important	
   farmlands,	
   to	
   non-­‐agricultural	
   uses	
   is	
  
                                      discussed	
  at	
  pages	
  3.2-­‐8	
  through	
  3.2-­‐15	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  
                        (b)	
  	
     Mitigation	
  Measures.	
  No	
  feasible	
  mitigation	
  is	
  available.	
  
                        (c)	
         Findings.	
  	
  Based	
  upon	
  the	
  EIR	
  and	
  the	
  entire	
  record	
  before	
  this	
  Council,	
  
                                      this	
  Council	
  finds	
  that:	
  
                                      (1)	
  	
     Effects	
   of	
   Mitigation	
   and	
   Remaining	
   Impacts.	
   As	
   described	
   on	
  
                                                    pages	
  3.2-­‐12	
  through	
  3.2-­‐15	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR,	
  the	
  Project	
  includes	
  
                                                    numerous	
   policies	
   and	
   actions	
   that	
   would	
   reduce	
   the	
   severity	
   of	
  
                                                    this	
   impact	
   to	
   the	
   extent	
   feasible.	
   The	
   2014	
   General	
   Plan	
   includes	
  
                                                    policies	
  and	
  actions	
  to	
  protect	
  and	
  preserve	
  farmland,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  
                                                    to	
  reduce	
  potential	
  impacts	
  to	
  agricultural	
  lands.	
  Implementation	
  
                                                    of	
  the	
  2014	
  General	
  Plan	
  policies	
  and	
  action	
  items	
  reduce	
  impacts	
  
                                                    to	
   agricultural	
   resources	
   by	
   managing	
   the	
   pace	
   and	
   location	
   of	
  
                                                    growth,	
   protecting	
   agricultural	
   lands,	
   buffering	
   agricultural	
   uses	
  
                                                    from	
   urban	
   uses,	
   requiring	
   that	
   impacts	
   to	
   agricultural	
   lands	
   are	
  
                                                    minimized,	
   and	
   supporting	
   a	
   broad	
   range	
   of	
   agricultural	
   uses	
   to	
  
                                                    ensure	
   an	
   on-­‐going	
   demand	
   for	
   farmed	
   and	
   agricultural	
   lands.	
  	
  
                                                    However,	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   does	
   allow	
   for	
   urbanization	
   of	
  
                                                    agricultural	
   lands,	
   particularly	
   those	
   lands	
   that	
   are	
   within	
   or	
  
                                                    immediately	
   adjacent	
   to	
   the	
   city	
   limits,	
   and	
   does	
   allow	
   for	
  
                                                    development	
   of	
   agricultural-­‐supporting	
   uses	
   on	
   agricultural	
   lands.	
  	
  

2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  Update	
  CEQA	
  Findings	
  of	
  Fact/Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  
          Page	
  5	
  of	
  30	
  
                                                 The	
  only	
  mitigation	
  available	
  to	
  fully	
  avoid	
  this	
  impact	
  would	
  be	
  to	
  
                                                 restrict	
  growth	
  to	
  occur	
  only	
  on	
  non-­‐agricultural	
  lands	
  and	
  to	
  not	
  
                                                 allow	
   agricultural-­‐support	
   operations	
   on	
   agricultural	
   lands;	
   this	
  
                                                 limitation	
   of	
   growth	
   would	
   not	
   be	
   consistent	
   with	
   the	
   Project	
  
                                                 goals	
  and	
  objectives	
  as	
  identified	
  in	
  the	
  EIR	
  and	
  stated	
  throughout	
  
                                                 the	
   Project.	
   	
   Therefore,	
   this	
   would	
   represent	
   a	
   significant	
   and	
  
                                                 unavoidable	
  impact	
  of	
  the	
  Project.	
  
                                   (2)	
         Overriding	
  Considerations.	
  	
  The	
  environmental,	
  economic,	
  social	
  
                                                 and	
   other	
   benefits	
   of	
   the	
   Project,	
   as	
   stated	
   more	
   fully	
   in	
   the	
  
                                                 Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  in	
  Section	
  VI,	
  override	
  any	
  
                                                 remaining	
   significant	
   adverse	
   impact	
   of	
   the	
   Project	
   associated	
  
                                                 with	
  conversion	
  of	
  farmlands.	
  
                                 	
  
                2.	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   may	
   result	
   in	
   conflicts	
   with	
   existing	
   Williamson	
  
                       Act	
  Contracts (EIR	
  Impact	
  3.2-­‐2)	
  
                     (a)	
  	
     Potential	
  Impact.	
  	
  The	
  potential	
  for	
  the	
  Project	
  to	
  result	
  in	
  conflicts	
  with	
  
                                   Williamson	
   Act	
   Contracts	
   is	
   discussed	
   at	
   pages	
   3.2-­‐15	
   through	
   3.2-­‐16	
   of	
  
                                   the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  
                     (b)	
  	
     Mitigation	
  Measures.	
  No	
  feasible	
  mitigation	
  is	
  available.	
  
                     (c)	
         Findings.	
  	
  Based	
  upon	
  the	
  EIR	
  and	
  the	
  entire	
  record	
  before	
  this	
  Council,	
  
                                   this	
  Council	
  finds	
  that:	
  
                                   (1)	
  	
     Effects	
   of	
   Mitigation	
   and	
   Remaining	
   Impacts.	
   As	
   described	
   on	
  
                                                 pages	
  3.2-­‐15	
  through	
  3.2-­‐16	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR,	
  the	
  Project	
  includes	
  
                                                 numerous	
   policies	
   and	
   actions	
   that	
   would	
   reduce	
   the	
   severity	
   of	
  
                                                 this	
   impact	
   to	
   the	
   extent	
   feasible.	
   The	
   2014	
   General	
   Plan	
   includes	
  
                                                 policies	
  and	
  actions	
  to	
  protect	
  and	
  preserve	
  farmland,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  
                                                 to	
   reduce	
   potential	
   conflicts	
   with	
   Williamson	
   Act	
   Contracts.	
  
                                                 Implementation	
   of	
   the	
   2014	
   General	
   Plan	
   policies	
   and	
   action	
  
                                                 items	
   reduce	
   impacts	
   to	
   agricultural	
   resources	
   by	
   managing	
   the	
  
                                                 pace	
  and	
  location	
  of	
  growth,	
  emphasizing	
  urban	
  development	
  at	
  
                                                 infill	
  locations	
  within	
  the	
  city	
  limits,	
  protecting	
  agricultural	
  lands,	
  
                                                 buffering	
  agricultural	
  uses	
  from	
  urban	
  uses,	
  requiring	
  that	
  impacts	
  
                                                 to	
   agricultural	
   lands	
   are	
   minimized,	
   and	
   supporting	
   a	
   broad	
   range	
  
                                                 of	
  agricultural	
  uses	
  to	
  ensure	
  an	
  on-­‐going	
  demand	
  for	
  farmed	
  and	
  
                                                 agricultural	
   lands.	
   	
   However,	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   does	
   allow	
   for	
  
                                                 urbanization	
  of	
  agricultural	
  lands	
  under	
  Williamson	
  Act	
  Contract,	
  
                                                 particularly	
  those	
  lands	
  that	
  are	
  within	
  or	
  immediately	
  adjacent	
  to	
  
                                                 the	
   city	
   limits.	
   	
   The	
   only	
   mitigation	
   available	
   to	
   fully	
   avoid	
   this	
  
                                                 impact	
   would	
   be	
   to	
   restrict	
   growth	
   to	
   occur	
   only	
   on	
   non-­‐
                                                 agricultural	
  lands	
  and	
  to	
  not	
  allow	
  agricultural-­‐support	
  operations	
  

2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  Update	
  CEQA	
  Findings	
  of	
  Fact/Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  
          Page	
  6	
  of	
  30	
  
                                                    on	
   agricultural	
   lands;	
   this	
   limitation	
   of	
   growth	
   would	
   not	
   be	
  
                                                    consistent	
   with	
   the	
   Project	
   goals	
   and	
   objectives	
   as	
   identified	
   in	
  
                                                    the	
  EIR	
  and	
  stated	
  throughout	
  the	
  Project.	
  	
  Therefore,	
  this	
  would	
  
                                                    represent	
  a	
  significant	
  and	
  unavoidable	
  impact	
  of	
  the	
  Project.	
  
                                      (2)	
         Overriding	
  Considerations.	
  	
  The	
  environmental,	
  economic,	
  social	
  
                                                    and	
   other	
   benefits	
   of	
   the	
   Project,	
   as	
   stated	
   more	
   fully	
   in	
   the	
  
                                                    Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  in	
  Section	
  VI,	
  override	
  any	
  
                                                    remaining	
   significant	
   adverse	
   impact	
   of	
   the	
   Project	
   associated	
  
                                                    with	
  Williamson	
  Act	
  Contract	
  conflicts.	
  
                                      	
  
                                      	
  
          C.	
          Noise	
  
	
  
                   1.	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   may	
   result	
   in	
   exposure	
   to	
   significant	
   traffic	
   noise	
  
                          sources	
  (EIR	
  Impact	
  3.11-­‐1)	
  
                        (a)	
  	
     Potential	
   Impact.	
  	
  The	
  potential	
  for	
  the	
  Project	
  to	
  result	
  in	
  exposure	
  to	
  
                                      significant	
   traffic	
   noise	
   sources	
   is	
   discussed	
   at	
   pages	
   3.11-­‐24	
   through	
  
                                      3.11-­‐38	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  
                        (b)	
  	
     Mitigation	
  Measures.	
  	
  No	
  feasible	
  mitigation	
  is	
  available.	
  
                        (c)	
         Findings.	
  	
  Based	
  upon	
  the	
  EIR	
  and	
  the	
  entire	
  record	
  before	
  this	
  Council,	
  
                                      this	
  Council	
  finds	
  that:	
  
                                      (1)	
  	
     Effects	
   of	
   Mitigation	
   and	
   Remaining	
   Impacts	
   As	
   described	
   on	
  
                                                    pages	
   3.11-­‐36	
   through	
   3.11-­‐38	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   the	
   Project	
  
                                                    includes	
  policies	
  and	
  actions	
  that	
  would	
  reduce	
  the	
  severity	
  of	
  this	
  
                                                    impact	
  to	
  the	
  extent	
  feasible,	
  including	
  use	
  of	
  best	
  management	
  
                                                    practices	
   related	
   to	
   site	
   design	
   and	
   building	
   orientation,	
  
                                                    consistency	
   with	
   the	
   City’s	
   Community	
   Noise	
   Environments	
  
                                                    Standards,	
   and	
   appropriate	
   siting	
   of	
   noise-­‐sensitive	
   land	
   uses.	
  
                                                    However,	
   there	
   are	
   no	
   mitigation	
   measures	
   that	
   can	
   eliminate	
  
                                                    significant	
   traffic	
   noise	
   exposure	
   while	
   still	
   allowing	
   the	
   City’s	
  
                                                    economy	
   to	
   grow	
   through	
   new	
   development,	
   particularly	
  
                                                    residential,	
   business	
   park,	
   and	
   commercial	
   uses.	
   This	
   would	
  
                                                    represent	
  a	
  significant	
  and	
  unavoidable	
  impact	
  of	
  the	
  Project.	
  
                                      (2)	
         Overriding	
  Considerations.	
  	
  The	
  environmental,	
  economic,	
  social	
  
                                                    and	
   other	
   benefits	
   of	
   the	
   Project,	
   as	
   stated	
   more	
   fully	
   in	
   the	
  
                                                    Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  in	
  Section	
  VI,	
  override	
  any	
  
                                                    remaining	
   significant	
   adverse	
   impact	
   of	
   the	
   Project	
   associated	
  
                                                    with	
  transportation	
  noise	
  sources.	
  


2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  Update	
  CEQA	
  Findings	
  of	
  Fact/Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  
          Page	
  7	
  of	
  30	
  
                   2.	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   may	
   result	
   in	
   cumulative	
   noise	
   impacts	
   (EIR	
  
                          Impact	
  3.11-­‐7)	
  
                        (a)	
  	
     Potential	
   Impact.	
   	
   The	
   potential	
   for	
   the	
   Project	
   to	
   result	
   in	
   cumulative	
  
                                      noise	
  impacts	
  is	
  discussed	
  at	
  page	
  3.11-­‐46	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  
                        (b)	
  	
     Mitigation	
  Measures.	
  	
  No	
  feasible	
  mitigation	
  is	
  available.	
  
                        (c)	
         Findings.	
  	
  Based	
  upon	
  the	
  EIR	
  and	
  the	
  entire	
  record	
  before	
  this	
  Council,	
  
                                      this	
  Council	
  finds	
  that:	
  
                                      (1)	
  	
     Effects	
   of	
   Mitigation	
   and	
   Remaining	
   Impacts	
   As	
   described	
   on	
  
                                                    page	
   3.11-­‐46	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   the	
   Project	
   includes	
   policies	
   and	
  
                                                    actions	
  that	
  would	
  reduce	
  the	
  severity	
  of	
  this	
  impact	
  to	
  the	
  extent	
  
                                                    feasible,	
   including	
   use	
   of	
   best	
   management	
   practices	
   related	
   to	
  
                                                    site	
   design	
   and	
   building	
   orientation,	
   consistency	
   with	
   the	
   City’s	
  
                                                    Community	
  Noise	
  Environments	
  Standards,	
  and	
  appropriate	
  siting	
  
                                                    of	
   noise-­‐sensitive	
   land	
   uses.	
   However,	
   there	
   are	
   no	
   mitigation	
  
                                                    measures	
  that	
  can	
  eliminate	
  significant	
  cumulative	
  noise	
  exposure	
  
                                                    while	
   still	
   allowing	
   the	
   City’s	
   economy	
   to	
   grow	
   through	
   new	
  
                                                    development,	
   particularly	
   residential,	
   business	
   park,	
   and	
  
                                                    commercial	
   uses.	
   This	
   would	
   represent	
   a	
   significant	
   and	
  
                                                    unavoidable	
  impact	
  of	
  the	
  Project.	
  
                                      (2)	
         Overriding	
  Considerations.	
  	
  The	
  environmental,	
  economic,	
  social	
  
                                                    and	
   other	
   benefits	
   of	
   the	
   Project,	
   as	
   stated	
   more	
   fully	
   in	
   the	
  
                                                    Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  in	
  Section	
  VI,	
  override	
  any	
  
                                                    remaining	
   significant	
   adverse	
   impact	
   of	
   the	
   Project	
   associated	
  
                                                    with	
  cumulative	
  noise	
  sources.	
  
	
  
                                	
  
          D.	
          Cumulative	
  Impacts	
  
                                	
  
          1.	
          Aesthetics	
   -­‐	
   Cumulative	
   Degradation	
   of	
   the	
   Existing	
   Visual	
   Character	
   of	
   the	
  
                        Region	
  (EIR	
  Impact	
  4.1)	
  
                        (a)	
  	
     Potential	
  Impact.	
  	
  The	
  potential	
  for	
  the	
  Project	
  to	
  result	
  in	
  a	
  considerable	
  
                                      contribution	
   to	
   the	
   cumulative	
   degradation	
   of	
   visual	
   character	
   is	
  
                                      discussed	
  at	
  pages	
  4.0-­‐5	
  and	
  4.0-­‐6	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  
                        (b)	
  	
     Mitigation	
  Measures.	
  	
  No	
  feasible	
  mitigation	
  measures	
  are	
  available.	
  
                        (c)	
         Findings.	
  	
  Based	
  upon	
  the	
  EIR	
  and	
  the	
  entire	
  record	
  before	
  this	
  Council,	
  
                                      this	
  Council	
  finds	
  that:	
  
                                      (1)	
  	
     Mitigation	
  and	
  Remaining	
  Impacts.	
  	
  As	
  described	
  on	
  pages	
  4.0-­‐5	
  
                                                    and	
  4.0-­‐6	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR,	
  the	
  Project	
  includes	
  policies	
  and	
  actions	
  
2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  Update	
  CEQA	
  Findings	
  of	
  Fact/Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  
          Page	
  8	
  of	
  30	
  
                                                 that	
   would	
   reduce	
   the	
   severity	
   of	
   this	
   impact	
   to	
   the	
   extent	
  
                                                 feasible.	
  However,	
  even	
  with	
  implementation	
  of	
  adopted	
  policies	
  
                                                 and	
   regulations,	
   the	
   2014	
   General	
   Plan	
   has	
   the	
   potential	
   to	
  
                                                 considerably	
  contribute	
  to	
  permanent	
  changes	
  in	
  visual	
  character,	
  
                                                 such	
   as	
   obstruction	
   of	
   scenic	
   views,	
   conversion	
   of	
   existing	
   visual	
  
                                                 character,	
   and	
   increased	
   lighting.	
   No	
   feasible	
   mitigation	
   is	
  
                                                 available	
  to	
  fully	
  reduce	
  the	
  cumulative	
  effect	
  on	
  visual	
  character,	
  
                                                 or	
  to	
  mitigate	
  the	
  proposed	
  project's	
  contribution	
  to	
  a	
  less-­‐than-­‐
                                                 significant	
   level.	
   	
   This	
   would	
   represent	
   a	
   cumulatively	
  
                                                 considerable	
   contribution	
   by	
   the	
   Project	
   to	
   the	
   significant	
   and	
  
                                                 unavoidable	
  cumulative	
  impact.	
  
                                   (2)	
         Overriding	
   Considerations.	
   The	
   environmental,	
   economic,	
   social	
  
                                                 and	
   other	
   benefits	
   of	
   the	
   Project,	
   as	
   stated	
   more	
   fully	
   in	
   the	
  
                                                 Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  in	
  Section	
  VI,	
  override	
  any	
  
                                                 remaining	
   significant	
   adverse	
   impact	
   of	
   the	
   Project	
   associated	
  
                                                 with	
  cumulative	
  degradation	
  of	
  visual	
  character.	
  
                                	
  
                2.	
   Agricultural	
   and	
   Forest	
   Resources	
   -­‐	
   Cumulative	
   Impact	
   to	
   Agricultural	
   Lands	
  
                       and	
  Resources	
  (EIR	
  Impact	
  4.2)	
  
                     (a)	
  	
     Potential	
  Impact.	
  	
  The	
  potential	
  for	
  the	
  Project	
  to	
  result	
  in	
  a	
  considerable	
  
                                   contribution	
   to	
   the	
   cumulative	
   loss	
   of	
   agricultural	
   land	
   and	
   resources,	
  
                                   including	
   important	
   farmlands,	
   significant	
   farmlands,	
   land	
   under	
   the	
  
                                   Williamson	
   Act,	
   and	
   other	
   farmlands,	
   is	
   discussed	
   at	
   page	
   4.0-­‐7	
   of	
   the	
  
                                   Draft	
  EIR.	
  
                     (b)	
  	
     Mitigation	
  Measures.	
  	
  No	
  feasible	
  mitigation	
  measures	
  are	
  available.	
  
                     (c)	
         Findings.	
  	
  Based	
  upon	
  the	
  EIR	
  and	
  the	
  entire	
  record	
  before	
  this	
  Council,	
  
                                   this	
  Council	
  finds	
  that:	
  
                                   (1)	
  	
     Mitigation	
  and	
  Remaining	
  Impacts.	
  	
  As	
  described	
  on	
  page	
  4.0-­‐7	
  of	
  
                                                 the	
  Draft	
  EIR,	
  the	
  Project	
  includes	
  policies	
  and	
  actions	
  that	
  would	
  
                                                 reduce	
  the	
  severity	
  of	
  this	
  impact	
  to	
  the	
  extent	
  feasible.	
  However,	
  
                                                 even	
   with	
   implementation	
   of	
   adopted	
   policies	
   and	
   actions,	
   the	
  
                                                 2014	
  General	
   Plan	
   has	
  the	
   potential	
   to	
   considerably	
   contribute	
  to	
  
                                                 permanent	
   conversion	
   of	
   agricultural	
   land	
   and	
   resources.	
   No	
  
                                                 feasible	
   mitigation	
   is	
   available	
   to	
   fully	
   reduce	
   the	
   cumulative	
  
                                                 effect	
   on	
   these	
   resources,	
   or	
   to	
   mitigate	
   the	
   contribution	
   to	
   a	
  
                                                 less-­‐than-­‐significant	
   level.	
   This	
   would	
   represent	
   a	
   cumulatively	
  
                                                 considerable	
   contribution	
   by	
   the	
   Project	
   to	
   the	
   significant	
   and	
  
                                                 unavoidable	
  cumulative	
  impact.	
  



2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  Update	
  CEQA	
  Findings	
  of	
  Fact/Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  
          Page	
  9	
  of	
  30	
  
                                   (2)	
         Overriding	
   Considerations.	
   The	
   environmental,	
   economic,	
   social	
  
                                                 and	
   other	
   benefits	
   of	
   the	
   Project,	
   as	
   stated	
   more	
   fully	
   in	
   the	
  
                                                 Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  in	
  Section	
  VI,	
  override	
  any	
  
                                                 remaining	
   significant	
   adverse	
   impact	
   of	
   the	
   Project	
   associated	
  
                                                 with	
  cumulative	
  impacts	
  to	
  agricultural	
  lands	
  and	
  resources.	
  
                            	
  
          3.	
       Biological	
   Resources	
   -­‐	
   Cumulative	
   Loss	
   of	
   Biological	
   Resources	
   Including	
  
                     Habitats	
  and	
  Special	
  Status	
  Species	
  (EIR	
  Impact	
  4.4)	
  
                     (a)	
  	
     Potential	
  Impact.	
  	
  The	
  potential	
  for	
  the	
  Project	
  to	
  result	
  in	
  a	
  considerable	
  
                                   contribution	
  to	
  the	
  cumulative	
  loss	
  of	
  biological	
  resources	
  is	
  discussed	
  at	
  
                                   page	
  4.0-­‐9	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  
                     (b)	
  	
     Mitigation	
  Measures.	
  	
  No	
  feasible	
  mitigation	
  measures	
  are	
  available.	
  
                     (c)	
         Findings.	
  	
  Based	
  upon	
  the	
  EIR	
  and	
  the	
  entire	
  record	
  before	
  this	
  Council,	
  
                                   this	
  Council	
  finds	
  that:	
  
                                   (1)	
  	
     Mitigation	
  and	
  Remaining	
  Impacts.	
  	
  As	
  described	
  on	
  page	
  4.0-­‐9	
  of	
  
                                                 the	
  Draft	
  EIR,	
  the	
  Project	
  includes	
  policies	
  and	
  actions	
  that	
  would	
  
                                                 reduce	
  the	
  severity	
  of	
  this	
  impact	
  to	
  the	
  extent	
  feasible.	
  However,	
  
                                                 even	
   with	
   implementation	
   of	
   adopted	
   policies	
   and	
   actions,	
   the	
  
                                                 2014	
  General	
   Plan	
   has	
  the	
   potential	
   to	
   considerably	
   contribute	
  to	
  
                                                 a	
   net	
   reduction	
   in	
   habitat,	
   and	
   increased	
   vehicle	
   and	
   human	
  
                                                 presence	
   in	
   the	
   vicinity	
   of	
   special-­‐status	
   species	
   and	
   sensitive	
  
                                                 habitat.	
   No	
   feasible	
   mitigation	
   is	
   available	
   to	
   fully	
   reduce	
   the	
  
                                                 cumulative	
   effect	
   on	
   these	
   resources,	
   or	
   to	
   mitigate	
   the	
  
                                                 contribution	
  to	
  a	
  less-­‐than-­‐significant	
  level.	
  This	
  would	
  represent	
  
                                                 a	
   	
   cumulatively	
   considerable	
   contribution	
   by	
   the	
   Project	
   to	
   the	
  
                                                 significant	
  and	
  unavoidable	
  cumulative	
  impact.	
  
                                   (2)	
         Overriding	
   Considerations.	
   The	
   environmental,	
   economic,	
   social	
  
                                                 and	
   other	
   benefits	
   of	
   the	
   Project,	
   as	
   stated	
   more	
   fully	
   in	
   the	
  
                                                 Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  in	
  Section	
  VI,	
  override	
  any	
  
                                                 remaining	
   significant	
   adverse	
   impact	
   of	
   the	
   Project	
   associated	
  
                                                 with	
  cumulative	
  loss	
  of	
  biological	
  resources.	
  
                                    	
  
          4.	
       Noise	
   -­‐	
   Cumulative	
   Exposure	
   of	
   Noise-­‐Sensitive	
   Land	
   Uses	
   to	
   Noise	
   in	
   Excess	
   of	
  
                     Normally	
   Acceptable	
   Noise	
   Levels	
   or	
   to	
   Substantial	
   Increases	
   in	
   Noise	
   (EIR	
  
                     Impact	
  4.11)	
  
                     (a)	
  	
     Potential	
  Impact.	
  	
  The	
  potential	
  for	
  the	
  Project	
  to	
  result	
  in	
  a	
  considerable	
  
                                   contribution	
   to	
   the	
   cumulative	
   noise	
   impacts	
   is	
   discussed	
   at	
   pages	
   4.0-­‐14	
  
                                   and	
  4.0-­‐15	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  
                     (b)	
  	
     Mitigation	
  Measures.	
  	
  No	
  feasible	
  mitigation	
  measures	
  are	
  available.	
  
2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  Update	
  CEQA	
  Findings	
  of	
  Fact/Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  
          Page	
  10	
  of	
  30	
  
                          (c)	
         Findings.	
  	
  Based	
  upon	
  the	
  EIR	
  and	
  the	
  entire	
  record	
  before	
  this	
  Council,	
  
                                        this	
  Council	
  finds	
  that:	
  
                                        (1)	
  	
     Mitigation	
  and	
  Remaining	
  Impacts.	
  	
  As	
  described	
  on	
  pages	
  4.0-­‐14	
  
                                                      and	
   4.0-­‐15	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   the	
   Project	
   includes	
   policies	
   and	
  
                                                      actions	
  that	
  would	
  reduce	
  the	
  severity	
  of	
  this	
  impact	
  to	
  the	
  extent	
  
                                                      feasible.	
   However,	
   it	
   may	
   not	
   be	
   feasible	
   to	
   mitigate	
   this	
   impact	
  
                                                      to	
   a	
   less-­‐than-­‐significant	
   level	
   in	
   all	
   instances,	
   particularly	
   in	
   areas	
  
                                                      where	
   existing	
   development	
   is	
   located	
   near	
   proposed	
  
                                                      development.	
   Although	
   the	
   policy	
   and	
   regulatory	
   controls	
   for	
  
                                                      noise	
   related	
   impacts	
   are	
   in	
   place	
   in	
   the	
   cumulative	
   analysis	
   area,	
  
                                                      subsequent	
   development	
   projects	
   may	
   result	
   in	
   an	
   increase	
   in	
  
                                                      ambient	
   noise	
   levels	
   at	
   specific	
   project	
   locations,	
   which	
   may	
  
                                                      subject	
  surrounding	
  land	
  uses	
  to	
  increases	
  in	
  ambient	
  noise	
  levels.	
  
                                                      No	
   feasible	
   mitigation	
   is	
   available	
   to	
   fully	
   reduce	
   the	
   cumulative	
  
                                                      effect	
  on	
  noise,	
  or	
  to	
  mitigate	
  the	
  proposed	
  project's	
  contribution	
  
                                                      to	
   a	
   less-­‐than-­‐significant	
   level.	
   	
   This	
   would	
   represent	
   a	
  
                                                      cumulatively	
   considerable	
   contribution	
   by	
   the	
   Project	
   to	
   the	
  
                                                      significant	
  and	
  unavoidable	
  cumulative	
  impact.	
  
                                        (2)	
         Overriding	
   Considerations.	
   The	
   environmental,	
   economic,	
   social	
  
                                                      and	
   other	
   benefits	
   of	
   the	
   Project,	
   as	
   stated	
   more	
   fully	
   in	
   the	
  
                                                      Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  in	
  Section	
  VI,	
  override	
  any	
  
                                                      remaining	
   significant	
   adverse	
   impact	
   of	
   the	
   Project	
   associated	
  
                                                      with	
  cumulative	
  increases	
  in	
  noise	
  levels.	
  
                                 	
  
          K.	
            Significant	
  Irreversible	
  Effects	
  
                   	
  
          1.	
            Irreversible	
  Effects	
  (EIR	
  Impact	
  4.15)	
  
                          (a)	
  	
     Potential	
  Impact.	
  	
  The	
  potential	
  for	
  the	
  Project	
  to	
  result	
  in	
  a	
  significant	
  
                                        irreversible	
   effect	
   associated	
   with	
   the	
   consumption	
   of	
   nonrenewable	
  
                                        resources	
  and	
  irretrievable	
  commitments/irreversible	
  physical	
  changes	
  is	
  
                                        discussed	
  at	
  pages	
  4.0-­‐22	
  and	
  4.0-­‐23	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  
                          (b)	
  	
     Mitigation	
  Measures.	
  	
  No	
  feasible	
  mitigation	
  measures	
  are	
  available.	
  
                          (c)	
         Findings.	
  	
  Based	
  upon	
  the	
  EIR	
  and	
  the	
  entire	
  record	
  before	
  this	
  Council,	
  
                                        this	
  Council	
  finds	
  that:	
  
                                        (1)	
  	
     Mitigation	
  and	
  Remaining	
  Impacts.	
  	
  As	
  described	
  on	
  pages	
  4.0-­‐22	
  
                                                      and	
   4.0-­‐23	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   the	
   Project	
   includes	
   policies	
   and	
  
                                                      actions	
  that	
  would	
  reduce	
  the	
  severity	
  of	
  this	
  impact	
  to	
  the	
  extent	
  
                                                      feasible.	
  One	
  of	
  the	
  primary	
  objectives	
  of	
  the	
  2014	
  General	
  Plan	
  is	
  
                                                      to	
   preserve	
   surrounding	
   agricultural	
   lands	
   and	
   protect	
   the	
   city’s	
  

2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  Update	
  CEQA	
  Findings	
  of	
  Fact/Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  
          Page	
  11	
  of	
  30	
  
                                              agricultural	
  heritage.	
  As	
  such,	
  the	
  2014	
  General	
  Plan	
  focuses	
  new	
  
                                              development	
   to	
   infill	
   areas,	
   and	
   areas	
   immediately	
   adjacent	
   to	
  
                                              the	
   city	
   limits.	
   	
   As	
   a	
   result	
   of	
   this	
   land	
   use	
   pattern,	
   the	
   2014	
  
                                              General	
   Plan	
   will	
   minimize	
   the	
   potential	
   for	
   impacts	
   to	
   the	
  
                                              nonrenewable	
   resources	
   in	
   the	
   Planning	
   Area,	
   including	
  
                                              agricultural	
   resources,	
   biological	
   resources,	
   mineral	
   resources,	
  
                                              and	
   energy	
   resources,	
   and	
   the	
   irretrievable	
   commitment	
   of	
  
                                              resources	
   and	
   irreversible	
   physical	
   changes.	
   	
   However,	
   the	
   2014	
  
                                              General	
   Plan	
   establishes	
   a	
   Land	
   Use	
   Map	
   for	
   the	
   entire	
  
                                              Brentwood	
   Planning	
   Area	
   that	
   anticipates	
   urbanization	
   and	
  
                                              development	
   over	
   a	
   20-­‐year	
   period.	
   	
   This	
   development	
   is	
  
                                              necessary	
  to	
  achieve	
  the	
  economic	
  development	
  goals	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  
                                              other	
   goals	
   and	
   objectives	
   of	
   the	
   Project.	
   In	
   summary,	
   the	
   2014	
  
                                              General	
   Plan	
   includes	
   an	
   extensive	
   policy	
   framework	
   that	
   is	
  
                                              designed	
   to	
   address	
   land	
   use	
   and	
   environmental	
   issues	
   to	
   the	
  
                                              greatest	
   extent	
   feasible	
   while	
   allowing	
   growth	
   and	
   economic	
  
                                              prosperity	
   for	
   the	
   City.	
   However,	
   even	
   with	
   the	
   policies	
   and	
  
                                              actions	
  that	
  will	
  serve	
  to	
  reduce	
  potential	
  significant	
  impacts,	
  the	
  
                                              2014	
   General	
   Plan	
   will	
   result	
   in	
   significant	
   irreversible	
   changes.	
  	
  
                                              This	
  would	
  represent	
  a	
  cumulatively	
  considerable	
  contribution	
  by	
  
                                              the	
  Project	
  to	
  the	
  significant	
  and	
  unavoidable	
  cumulative	
  impact.	
  
                                  (2)	
       Overriding	
   Considerations.	
   The	
   environmental,	
   economic,	
   social	
  
                                              and	
   other	
   benefits	
   of	
   the	
   Project,	
   as	
   stated	
   more	
   fully	
   in	
   the	
  
                                              Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  in	
  Section	
  VI,	
  override	
  any	
  
                                              remaining	
   significant	
   adverse	
   impact	
   of	
   the	
   Project	
   associated	
  
                                              with	
  irreversible	
  effects.	
  
                                  	
  

IV.	
  	
   FINDINGS	
   AND	
   RECOMMENDATIONS	
   REGARDING	
   THOSE	
   IMPACTS	
   WHICH	
   ARE	
  
            LESS	
   THAN	
   SIGNIFICANT,	
   LESS	
   THAN	
   CUMULATIVELY	
   CONSIDERABLE,	
   OR	
   HAVE	
  
            NO	
  IMPACT	
  
	
  
          A.       Specific	
   impacts	
   within	
   the	
   following	
   categories	
   of	
   environmental	
   effects	
   were	
  
                     found	
  to	
  be	
  less	
  than	
  significant	
  as	
  set	
  forth	
  in	
  more	
  detail	
  in	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  	
  	
  
          	
                   	
  
                     1.             Aesthetics	
   and	
   Visual	
   Resources:	
   	
   The	
   following	
   specific	
   impact	
   was	
  
                                    found	
  to	
  be	
  less	
  than	
  significant:	
  	
  
                                  a.        Impact	
   3.1-­‐2:	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   could	
   result	
   in	
   the	
  
                                            creation	
  of	
  new	
  sources	
  of	
  nighttime	
  lighting	
  and	
  daytime	
  glare	
  



2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  Update	
  CEQA	
  Findings	
  of	
  Fact/Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  
          Page	
  12	
  of	
  30	
  
                     2.         Air	
   Quality:	
   	
   The	
   following	
   specific	
   impacts	
   were	
   found	
   to	
   be	
   less	
   than	
  
                                significant:	
  
                                a.       Impact	
  3.3-­‐1:	
  The	
  General	
  Plan	
  would	
  not	
  conflict	
  with	
  or	
  obstruct	
  
                                         implementation	
  of	
  the	
  applicable	
  air	
  quality	
  plan	
  
                                b.       Impact	
  3.3-­‐2:	
  General	
  Plan	
  implementation	
  would	
  not	
  cause	
  health	
  
                                         risks	
  associated	
  with	
  toxic	
  air	
  contaminants	
  
                                c.       Impact	
   3.3-­‐3:	
   The	
   General	
   Plan	
   would	
   not	
   create	
   objectionable	
  
                                         odors	
  
                                d.       Impact	
   3.3-­‐4:	
   The	
   General	
   Plan	
   would	
   not	
   conflict	
   with	
   Regional	
  
                                         Plans	
  

                     3.         Biological	
   Resources:	
   	
   The	
   following	
   specific	
   impacts	
   were	
   found	
   to	
   be	
  
                                less	
  than	
  significant:	
  
                                a.       Impact	
  3.4-­‐1:	
  General	
  Plan	
  implementation	
  could	
  have	
  a	
  substantial	
  
                                         adverse	
  effect,	
  either	
  directly	
  or	
  through	
  habitat	
  modifications,	
  on	
  
                                         any	
   species	
   identified	
   as	
   a	
   candidate,	
   sensitive,	
   or	
   special-­‐status	
  
                                         species	
  in	
  local	
  or	
  regional	
  plans,	
  policies,	
  or	
  regulations,	
  or	
  by	
  the	
  
                                         California	
  Department	
  of	
  Fish	
  and	
  Wildlife	
  or	
  U.S.	
  Fish	
  and	
  Wildlife	
  
                                         Service	
  
                                b.       Impact	
  3.4-­‐2:	
  General	
  Plan	
  implementation	
  could	
  have	
  a	
  substantial	
  
                                         adverse	
   effect	
   on	
   any	
   riparian	
   habitat	
   or	
   other	
   sensitive	
   natural	
  
                                         community	
  identified	
  in	
  local	
  or	
  regional	
  plans,	
  policies,	
  regulations,	
  
                                         or	
  by	
  the	
  California	
  Department	
  of	
  Fish	
  and	
  Wildlife	
  or	
  U.S.	
  Fish	
  and	
  
                                         Wildlife	
  Service	
  
                                c.       Impact	
  3.4-­‐3:	
  General	
  Plan	
  implementation	
  could	
  have	
  a	
  substantial	
  
                                         adverse	
   effect	
   on	
   federally	
   protected	
   wetlands	
   as	
   defined	
   by	
  
                                         Section	
   404	
   of	
   the	
   Clean	
   Water	
   Act	
   (including,	
   but	
   not	
   limited	
   to,	
  
                                         marsh,	
   vernal	
   pool,	
   coastal,	
   etc.)	
   through	
   direct	
   removal,	
   filling,	
  
                                         hydrological	
  interruption,	
  or	
  other	
  means	
  
                                d.       Impact	
   3.4-­‐4:	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   would	
   not	
   interfere	
  
                                         substantially	
   with	
   the	
   movement	
   of	
   any	
   native	
   resident	
   or	
  
                                         migratory	
   fish	
   or	
   wildlife	
   species	
   or	
   with	
   established	
   native	
   resident	
  
                                         or	
  migratory	
  wildlife	
  corridors,	
  or	
  impede	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  native	
  wildlife	
  
                                         nursery	
  sites	
  
                                e.       Impact	
   3.4-­‐5:	
   The	
   General	
   Plan	
   would	
   not	
   conflict	
   with	
   any	
   local	
  
                                         policies	
  or	
  ordinances	
  protecting	
  biological	
  resources,	
  such	
  as	
  a	
  tree	
  
                                         preservation	
  policy	
  or	
  ordinance	
  
                                f.       Impact	
  3.4-­‐6:	
  General	
  Plan	
  implementation	
  would	
  not	
  conflict	
  with	
  
                                         the	
   provisions	
   of	
   an	
   adopted	
   Habitat	
   Conservation	
   Plan,	
   Natural	
  
                                         Community	
   Conservation	
   Plan,	
   or	
   other	
   approved	
   local,	
   regional,	
   or	
  
                                         State	
  habitat	
  conservation	
  plan	
  


2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  Update	
  CEQA	
  Findings	
  of	
  Fact/Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  
          Page	
  13	
  of	
  30	
  
                     4.         Cultural	
   Resources:	
   	
   The	
   following	
   specific	
   impacts	
   were	
   found	
   to	
   be	
   less	
  
                                than	
  significant:	
  
                                a.       Impact	
   3.5-­‐1:	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   could	
   result	
   in	
   a	
  
                                         substantial	
   adverse	
   change	
   in	
   the	
   significance	
   of	
   a	
   historical	
   or	
  
                                         archaeological	
  resource	
  	
  
                                b.       Impact	
  3.5-­‐2:	
  Implementation	
  of	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  could	
  lead	
  to	
  the	
  
                                         disturbance	
  of	
  human	
  remains	
  	
  
                                c.       Impact	
  3.5-­‐3:	
  General	
  Plan	
  implementation	
  may	
  result	
  in	
  damage	
  to	
  
                                         or	
  the	
  destruction	
  of	
  paleontological	
  resources	
  

                     5.         Geology,	
  Soils,	
  and	
  Minerals:	
  The	
  following	
  specific	
  impacts	
  were	
  found	
  
                                to	
  be	
  less	
  than	
  significant:	
  
                                a.       Impact	
   3.6-­‐1:	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   has	
   the	
   potential	
   to	
  
                                         expose	
  people	
  or	
  structures	
  to	
  potential	
  substantial	
  adverse	
  effects,	
  
                                         including	
   the	
   risk	
   of	
   loss,	
   injury,	
   or	
   death	
   involving	
   rupture	
   of	
   a	
  
                                         known	
   earthquake	
   fault,	
   strong	
   seismic	
   ground	
   shaking,	
   seismic-­‐
                                         related	
  ground	
  failure,	
  including	
  liquefaction	
  
                                b.       Impact	
   3.6-­‐2:	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   has	
   the	
   potential	
   to	
  
                                         result	
  in	
  substantial	
  soil	
  erosion	
  or	
  the	
  loss	
  of	
  topsoil	
  
                                c.       Impact	
   3.6-­‐3:	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   has	
   the	
   potential	
   to	
  
                                         result	
   in	
   development	
   located	
   on	
   a	
   geologic	
   unit	
   or	
   soil	
   that	
   is	
  
                                         unstable,	
  or	
  that	
  would	
  become	
  unstable	
  as	
  a	
  result	
  of	
  the	
  project,	
  
                                         and	
  potentially	
  result	
  in	
  on-­‐	
  or	
  off-­‐site	
  landslide,	
  lateral	
  spreading,	
  
                                         subsidence,	
  liquefaction	
  or	
  collapse	
  
                                d.       Impact	
   3.6-­‐4:	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   has	
   the	
   potential	
   to	
  
                                         result	
  in	
  development	
  on	
  expansive	
  soil,	
  as	
  defined	
  in	
  Table	
  18-­‐1-­‐B	
  
                                         of	
   the	
   Uniform	
   Building	
   Code	
   (1994),	
   creating	
   substantial	
   risks	
   to	
  
                                         life	
  or	
  property	
  
                                e.       Impact	
   3.6-­‐5:	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   does	
   not	
   have	
   the	
  
                                         potential	
   to	
   have	
   soils	
   incapable	
   of	
   adequately	
   supporting	
   the	
   use	
  
                                         of	
   septic	
   tanks	
   or	
   alternative	
   waste	
   water	
   disposal	
   systems	
   where	
  
                                         sewers	
  are	
  not	
  available	
  for	
  the	
  disposal	
  of	
  waste	
  water	
  
                                f.       Impact	
  3.6-­‐6:	
  General	
  Plan	
  implementation	
  could	
  result	
  in	
  the	
  loss	
  
                                         of	
  availability	
  of	
  a	
  locally	
  important	
  mineral	
  resource	
  recovery	
  site	
  
                                         delineated	
   on	
   a	
   local	
   general	
   plan,	
   specific	
   plan	
   or	
   other	
   land	
   use	
  
                                         plan	
   or	
   known	
   mineral	
   resource	
   that	
   would	
   be	
   of	
   value	
   to	
   the	
  
                                         region	
  and	
  the	
  residents	
  of	
  the	
  state	
  




2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  Update	
  CEQA	
  Findings	
  of	
  Fact/Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  
          Page	
  14	
  of	
  30	
  
                     6.         Greenhouse	
   Gases	
   and	
   Climate	
   Change:	
   The	
   following	
   specific	
   impacts	
  
                                were	
  found	
  to	
  be	
  less	
  than	
  significant:	
  
                                a.       Impact	
   3.7-­‐1:	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   could	
   generate	
   GHGs,	
  
                                         either	
  directly	
  or	
  indirectly,	
  that	
  may	
  have	
  a	
  significant	
  effect	
  on	
  the	
  
                                         environment	
  
                                b.       Impact	
  3.7-­‐2:	
  General	
  Plan	
  implementation	
  would	
  not	
  conflict	
  with	
  
                                         an	
  applicable	
  plan,	
  policy,	
  or	
  regulation	
  adopted	
  for	
  the	
  purpose	
  of	
  
                                         reducing	
  the	
  emissions	
  of	
  greenhouse	
  gases	
  

                     7.         Hazards:	
   The	
   following	
   specific	
   impacts	
   were	
   found	
   to	
   be	
   less	
   than	
  
                                significant:	
  
                                a.       Impact	
   3.8-­‐1:	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   has	
   the	
   potential	
   to	
  
                                         create	
  a	
  significant	
  hazard	
  to	
  the	
  public	
  or	
  the	
  environment	
  through	
  
                                         the	
   routine	
   transport,	
   use,	
   or	
   disposal	
   of	
   hazardous	
   materials,	
   or	
  
                                         through	
   reasonably	
   foreseeable	
   upset	
   and	
   accident	
   conditions	
  
                                         involving	
  the	
  release	
  of	
  hazardous	
  materials	
  into	
  the	
  environment	
  
                                b.       Impact	
   3.8-­‐2:	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   has	
   the	
   potential	
   to	
  
                                         emit	
  hazardous	
  emissions	
  or	
  handle	
  hazardous	
  or	
  acutely	
  hazardous	
  
                                         materials,	
   substances,	
   or	
   waste	
   within	
   one-­‐quarter	
   mile	
   of	
   an	
  
                                         existing	
  or	
  proposed	
  school	
  
                                c.       Impact	
   3.8-­‐3:	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   has	
   the	
   potential	
   to	
  
                                         have	
   projects	
   located	
   on	
   a	
   site	
   which	
   is	
   included	
   on	
   a	
   list	
   of	
  
                                         hazardous	
   materials	
   sites	
   compiled	
   pursuant	
   to	
   Government	
   Code	
  
                                         Section	
  65962.5	
  
                                d.       Impact	
  3.8-­‐4:	
  General	
  Plan	
  implementation	
  is	
  not	
  located	
  within	
  an	
  
                                         airport	
   land	
   use	
   plan,	
   two	
   miles	
   of	
   a	
   public	
   airport	
   or	
   public	
   use	
  
                                         airport,	
   or	
   within	
   the	
   vicinity	
   of	
   a	
   private	
   airstrip,	
   and	
   would	
   not	
  
                                         result	
   in	
   a	
   safety	
   hazard	
   for	
   people	
   residing	
   or	
   working	
   in	
   the	
  
                                         project	
  area	
  
                                e.       Impact	
   3.8-­‐5:	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   does	
   not	
   have	
   the	
  
                                         potential	
   to	
   impair	
   implementation	
   of	
   or	
   physically	
   interfere	
   with	
  
                                         an	
   adopted	
   emergency	
   response	
   plan	
   or	
   emergency	
   evacuation	
  
                                         plan	
  
                                f.       Impact	
   3.8-­‐6:	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   does	
   not	
   have	
   the	
  
                                         potential	
  to	
  expose	
  people	
  or	
  structures	
  to	
  a	
  significant	
  risk	
  of	
  loss,	
  
                                         injury	
   or	
   death	
   involving	
   wildland	
   fires,	
   including	
   where	
   wildlands	
  
                                         are	
  adjacent	
  to	
  urbanized	
  areas	
  or	
  where	
  residences	
  are	
  intermixed	
  
                                         with	
  wildlands	
  




2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  Update	
  CEQA	
  Findings	
  of	
  Fact/Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  
          Page	
  15	
  of	
  30	
  
                     8.         Hydrology	
  and	
  Water	
  Quality:	
  	
  The	
  following	
  specific	
  impacts	
  were	
  found	
  
                                to	
  be	
  less	
  than	
  significant:	
  
                                a.       Impact	
   3.9-­‐1:	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   could	
   result	
   in	
   a	
  
                                         violation	
   of	
   water	
   quality	
   standards	
   or	
   waste	
   discharge	
  
                                         requirements	
  
                                b.       Impact	
   3.9-­‐2:	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   could	
   result	
   in	
   the	
  
                                         depletion	
   of	
   groundwater	
   supplies	
   or	
   interfere	
   substantially	
   with	
  
                                         groundwater	
  recharge	
  
                                c.       Impact	
  3.9-­‐3:	
  General	
  Plan	
  implementation	
  could	
  alter	
  the	
  existing	
  
                                         drainage	
   pattern	
   in	
   a	
   manner	
   which	
   would	
   result	
   in	
   substantial	
  
                                         erosion,	
  siltation,	
  flooding,	
  or	
  polluted	
  runoff	
  	
  
                                d.       Impact	
   3.9-­‐4:	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   could	
   otherwise	
  
                                         substantially	
  degrade	
  water	
  quality	
  
                                e.       Impact	
  3.9-­‐5	
  General	
  Plan	
  implementation	
  could	
  place	
  housing	
  and	
  
                                         structures	
   within	
   a	
   100-­‐year	
   flood	
   hazard	
   area	
   as	
   mapped	
   on	
   a	
  
                                         Federal	
   Flood	
   Hazard	
   Boundary	
   or	
   Flood	
   Insurance	
   Rate	
   Map	
   or	
  
                                         other	
  flood	
  hazard	
  delineation	
  map	
  
                                f.       Impact	
   3.9-­‐6:	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   would	
   not	
   expose	
  
                                         people	
   or	
   structures	
   to	
   a	
   significant	
   risk	
   of	
   loss,	
   injury,	
   or	
   death	
  
                                         involving	
   flooding	
   as	
   a	
   result	
   of	
   failure	
   of	
   a	
   levee	
   or	
   dam,	
   seiche,	
  
                                         tsunami,	
  or	
  mudflow	
  

                     9.         Land	
  Use	
  and	
  Population:	
  The	
  following	
  specific	
  impacts	
  were	
  found	
  to	
  
                                be	
  less	
  than	
  significant	
  or	
  to	
  have	
  no	
  impact:	
  
                                a.       Impact	
   3.10-­‐1:	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   has	
   the	
   potential	
   to	
  
                                         physically	
  divide	
  an	
  established	
  community	
  
                                b.       Impact	
   3.10-­‐2:	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   has	
   the	
   potential	
   to	
  
                                         conflict	
  with	
  an	
  applicable	
  land	
  use	
  plan,	
  policy,	
  or	
  regulation	
  of	
  an	
  
                                         agency	
   with	
   jurisdiction	
   over	
   the	
   project	
   adopted	
   to	
   avoid	
   or	
  
                                         mitigate	
  an	
  environmental	
  effect	
  
                                c.       Impact	
   3.10-­‐3:	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   has	
   the	
   potential	
   to	
  
                                         induce	
  substantial	
  population	
  growth	
  
                                d.       Impact	
   3.10-­‐4:	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   does	
   not	
   have	
   the	
  
                                         potential	
   to	
   displace	
   substantial	
   numbers	
   of	
   people	
   or	
   existing	
  
                                         housing	
  

                     10.        Noise:	
   	
   The	
   following	
   specific	
   impacts	
   were	
   found	
   to	
   be	
   less	
   than	
  
                                significant:	
  
                                a.       Impact	
  3.11-­‐2:	
  General	
  Plan	
  implementation	
  may	
  result	
  in	
  exposure	
  
                                         to	
  excessive	
  railroad	
  noise	
  sources	
  
                                b.       Impact	
   3.11-­‐3:	
   Implementation	
   of	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   could	
   result	
   in	
  
                                         the	
  generation	
  of	
  excessive	
  stationary	
  noise	
  sources	
  

2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  Update	
  CEQA	
  Findings	
  of	
  Fact/Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  
          Page	
  16	
  of	
  30	
  
                                c.       Impact	
   3.11-­‐4:	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   may	
   result	
   in	
   an	
  
                                         increase	
  in	
  construction	
  noise	
  sources	
  
                                d.       Impact	
   3.11-­‐5:	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   may	
   result	
   in	
  
                                         construction	
  vibration	
  
                                e.       Impact	
  3.11-­‐6:	
  General	
  Plan	
  implementation	
  may	
  result	
  in	
  exposure	
  
                                         to	
  groundborne	
  vibration	
  

                     11.        Public	
   Services	
   and	
   Recreation:	
   	
   The	
   following	
   specific	
   impacts	
   were	
  
                                found	
  to	
  be	
  less	
  than	
  significant:	
  
                                a.       Impact	
   3.12-­‐1:	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   could	
   result	
   in	
   adverse	
  
                                         physical	
   impacts	
   on	
   the	
   environment	
   associated	
   with	
   governmental	
  
                                         facilities	
  and	
  the	
  provision	
  of	
  public	
  services	
  
                                b.       Impact	
  3.12-­‐2:	
  General	
  Plan	
  implementation	
  may	
  result	
  in	
  adverse	
  
                                         physical	
  impacts	
  associated	
  with	
  the	
  deterioration	
  of	
  existing	
  parks	
  
                                         and	
   recreation	
   facilities	
   or	
   the	
   construction	
   of	
   new	
   parks	
   and	
  
                                         recreation	
  facilities	
  
                                c.       Impact	
  3.12-­‐3:	
  General	
  Plan	
  implementation	
  may	
  increase	
  demand	
  
                                         for	
  schools	
  and	
  result	
  in	
  the	
  need	
  to	
  construct	
  new	
  schools	
  

                     12.        Transportation	
   and	
   Circulation:	
   	
   The	
   following	
   specific	
   impacts	
   were	
  
                                found	
  to	
  be	
  less	
  than	
  significant:	
  
                                a.       Impact	
  3.13-­‐1:	
  Implementation	
  of	
  the	
  proposed	
  General	
  Plan	
  would	
  
                                         result	
   in	
   acceptable	
   traffic	
   operation	
   at	
   the	
   study	
   intersections	
  
                                         controlled	
  by	
  the	
  City	
  of	
  Brentwood	
  
                                b.       Impact	
  3.13-­‐2:	
  Implementation	
  of	
  the	
  proposed	
  General	
  Plan	
  would	
  
                                         result	
   in	
   acceptable	
   traffic	
   operation	
   on	
   facilities	
   designated	
   by	
  
                                         CCTA	
  to	
  be	
  Routes	
  of	
  Regional	
  Significance	
  
                                c.       Impact	
   3.13-­‐3:	
   The	
   proposed	
   General	
   Plan	
   would	
   result	
   in	
   no	
  
                                         changes	
  to	
  air	
  traffic	
  patterns	
  
                                d.       Impact	
  3.13-­‐4:	
  Implementation	
  of	
  the	
  proposed	
  General	
  Plan	
  would	
  
                                         not	
  substantially	
  increase	
  hazards	
  due	
  to	
  a	
  design	
  feature	
  	
  
                                e.       Impact	
   3.13-­‐5:	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   would	
   not	
   result	
   in	
  
                                         impacts	
  related	
  to	
  emergency	
  access	
  
                                f.       Impact	
   3.13-­‐6:	
   The	
   proposed	
   General	
   Plan	
   would	
   accommodate	
  
                                         increased	
   demand	
   for	
   public	
   transit	
   and	
   supports	
   a	
   shift	
   in	
   trips	
  
                                         from	
  automobile	
  to	
  transit	
  modes	
  
                                g.       Impact	
   3.13-­‐7:	
   The	
   proposed	
   General	
   Plan	
   is	
   consistent	
   with	
  
                                         adopted	
  bicycle	
  and	
  pedestrian	
  plans,	
  and	
  supports	
  enhancements	
  
                                         that	
  emphasize	
  bicycle	
  and	
  pedestrian	
  circulation	
  




2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  Update	
  CEQA	
  Findings	
  of	
  Fact/Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  
          Page	
  17	
  of	
  30	
  
                     13.         Utilities:	
   	
   The	
   following	
   specific	
   impact	
   was	
   found	
   to	
   be	
   less	
   than	
  
                                 significant:	
  	
  	
  
                                 a.       Impact	
   3.14-­‐1:	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   would	
   result	
   in	
   an	
  
                                          increased	
  demand	
  for	
  water	
  supplies	
  
                                 b.       Impact	
   3.14-­‐2:	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   may	
   require	
   or	
   result	
  
                                          in	
   the	
   construction	
   of	
   new	
   water	
   treatment	
   facilities	
   or	
   expansion	
  
                                          of	
   existing	
   facilities,	
   the	
   construction	
   of	
   which	
   could	
   cause	
  
                                          significant	
  environmental	
  effects	
  
                                 c.       Impact	
   3.14-­‐3:	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   has	
   the	
   potential	
   to	
  
                                          exceed	
   wastewater	
   treatment	
   capacity	
   or	
   the	
   requirements	
   of	
   the	
  
                                          RWQCB	
  
                                 d.       Impact	
   3.14-­‐4:	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   may	
   require	
   or	
   result	
  
                                          in	
   the	
   construction	
   of	
   new	
   wastewater	
   treatment	
   facilities	
   or	
  
                                          expansion	
   of	
   existing	
   facilities,	
   the	
   construction	
   of	
   which	
   could	
  
                                          cause	
  significant	
  environmental	
  effects	
  
                                 e.       Impact	
   3.14-­‐5:	
   Implementation	
   of	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   may	
   result	
   in	
  
                                          new	
  or	
  expanded	
  stormwater	
  drainage	
  facilities	
  
                                 f.       Impact	
   3.14-­‐6:	
   The	
   project	
   would	
   be	
   served	
   by	
   a	
   landfill	
   for	
   solid	
  
                                          waste	
  disposal	
  needs	
  and	
  will	
  require	
  compliance	
  with	
  various	
  laws	
  
                                          and	
  regulations	
  

                     14.         Growth-­‐Inducing:	
   	
   The	
   2014	
   General	
   Plan	
   was	
   found	
   to	
   result	
   in	
   a	
   less	
  
                                 than	
   significant	
   impact	
   related	
   to	
   growth	
   inducement	
   (pages	
   4.0-­‐19	
  
                                 through	
  4.0-­‐22	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR).	
  
          B.       	
  	
  The	
  project	
  was	
  found	
  to	
  have	
  a	
  less	
  than	
  cumulatively	
  considerable	
  contribution	
  
                            to	
   specific	
   impacts	
   within	
   the	
   following	
   categories	
   of	
   environmental	
   effects	
   as	
  
                            set	
  forth	
  in	
  more	
  detail	
  in	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  	
  	
  
          	
                          	
  
                            1.             Air	
  Quality:	
  The	
  project	
  would	
  have	
  a	
  less	
  than	
  cumulatively	
  considerable	
  
                                           contribution	
   to	
   cumulative	
   impacts	
   on	
   the	
   region’s	
   air	
   quality	
   (Impact	
  
                                           4.3).	
  	
  	
  

                     2.          Cultural	
   Resources:	
   The	
   project	
   would	
   have	
   a	
   less	
   than	
   cumulatively	
  
                                 considerable	
   contribution	
   to	
   cumulative	
   impacts	
   on	
   known	
   and	
  
                                 undiscovered	
  cultural	
  resources	
  (Impact	
  4.5).	
  	
  	
  
          	
  
                     3.          Geology,	
   Soils,	
   and	
   Minerals:	
   	
   The	
   project	
   would	
   have	
   a	
   less	
   than	
  
                                 cumulatively	
  considerable	
  contribution	
  to	
  cumulative	
  impacts	
  related	
  to	
  
                                 geology	
  and	
  soils	
  (Impact	
  4.6).	
  
          	
  


2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  Update	
  CEQA	
  Findings	
  of	
  Fact/Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  
          Page	
  18	
  of	
  30	
  
                     4.         Greenhouse	
   Gases	
   and	
   Climate	
   Change:	
   The	
   project	
   would	
   have	
   a	
   less	
  
                                than	
   cumulatively	
   considerable	
   contribution	
   to	
   cumulative	
   impacts	
  
                                related	
   to	
   increased	
   greenhouse	
   gas	
   emissions	
   that	
   may	
   contribute	
   to	
  
                                climate	
  change	
  (Impact	
  4.7).	
  
          	
  
                     5.         Hazards:	
   The	
   project	
   would	
   have	
   a	
   less	
   than	
   cumulatively	
   considerable	
  
                                contribution	
   to	
   cumulative	
   impacts	
   from	
   hazardous	
   materials	
   and	
   risks	
  
                                associated	
  with	
  human	
  health	
  (Impact	
  4.8).	
  

                     6.         Hydrology	
   and	
   Water	
   Quality:	
   The	
   project	
   would	
   have	
   a	
   less	
   than	
  
                                cumulatively	
   considerable	
   contribution	
   to	
   cumulative	
   impacts	
   to	
  
                                hydrology	
  and	
  water	
  quality	
  (Impact	
  4.9).	
  

                     7.         Land	
   Use	
   and	
   Population:	
   The	
   project	
   would	
   have	
   a	
   less	
   than	
  
                                cumulatively	
  considerable	
  contribution	
  to	
  cumulative	
  impacts	
  associated	
  
                                with	
  communities	
  and	
  local	
  land	
  uses	
  (Impact	
  4.10).	
  

                     8.         Public	
   Services	
   and	
   Recreation:	
   The	
   project	
   would	
   have	
   a	
   less	
   than	
  
                                cumulatively	
   considerable	
   contribution	
   to	
   cumulative	
   impacts	
   on	
   public	
  
                                services	
  and	
  recreation	
  (Impact	
  4.12).	
  

                     9.         Transportation	
   and	
   Circulation:	
   The	
   project	
   would	
   have	
   a	
   less	
   than	
  
                                cumulatively	
   considerable	
   contribution	
   to	
   cumulative	
   impacts	
   on	
   the	
  
                                transportation	
  network	
  (Impact	
  4.13).	
  

                     10.        Utilities	
   and	
   Service	
   Systems:	
   The	
   project	
   would	
   have	
   a	
   less	
   than	
  
                                cumulatively	
  considerable	
  contribution	
  to	
  cumulative	
  impacts	
  on	
  utilities	
  
                                (Impact	
  4.14).	
  
          	
  
          C.       The	
  above	
  impacts	
  are	
  less	
  than	
  significant	
  or	
  less	
  than	
  cumulatively	
  considerable	
  
                     for	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  following	
  reasons:	
  
          	
  
                     1.         The	
  EIR	
  determined	
  that	
  the	
  impact	
  is	
  less	
  than	
  significant	
  for	
  the	
  Project.	
  
                                	
  
                     2.         The	
  EIR	
  determined	
  that	
  the	
  Project	
  would	
  have	
  a	
  less	
  than	
  cumulatively	
  
                                considerable	
  contribution	
  to	
  the	
  cumulative	
  impact.	
  




2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  Update	
  CEQA	
  Findings	
  of	
  Fact/Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  
          Page	
  19	
  of	
  30	
  
                         	
  

V.	
  	
     PROJECT	
  ALTERNATIVES	
  
	
  
             A.	
          Identification	
  of	
  Project	
  Objectives	
  
             	
  
             An	
   EIR	
   is	
   required	
   to	
   identify	
   a	
   “range	
   of	
   potential	
   alternatives	
   to	
   the	
   project	
   [which]	
  
             shall	
   include	
   those	
   that	
   could	
   feasibly	
   accomplish	
   most	
   of	
   the	
   basic	
   purposes	
   of	
   the	
  
             project	
   and	
   could	
   avoid	
   or	
   substantially	
   lessen	
   one	
   of	
   more	
   of	
   the	
   significant	
   effects.”	
  	
  
             Chapter	
   2.0	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   identifies	
   the	
   Project’s	
   goals	
   and	
   objectives.	
   	
   The	
   Project	
  
             objectives	
  include:	
  
             	
  
                                •    Reflect	
   the	
   current	
   goals	
   and	
   vision	
   expressed	
   by	
   city	
   residents,	
  
                                     businesses,	
  decision-­‐makers,	
  and	
  other	
  stakeholders;	
  
                                •    Address	
   issues	
   and	
   concerns	
   identified	
   by	
   city	
   residents,	
   businesses,	
  
                                     decision-­‐makers,	
  and	
  other	
  stakeholders;	
  
                                •    Protect	
   Brentwood's	
   family-­‐oriented	
   environment,	
   character,	
   and	
   sense	
  
                                     of	
  community;	
  
                                •    Provide	
  a	
  range	
  of	
  high-­‐quality	
  housing	
  options;	
  
                                •    Attract	
  and	
  retain	
  businesses	
  and	
  industries	
  that	
  provide	
  high-­‐quality	
  and	
  
                                     high-­‐paying	
  jobs	
  so	
  that	
  residents	
  can	
  live	
  and	
  work	
  in	
  Brentwood;	
  
                                •    Preserve	
   surrounding	
   agricultural	
   lands	
   and	
   the	
   city's	
   agricultural	
  
                                     heritage;	
  
                                •    Expand	
  retail	
  shopping	
  opportunities	
  to	
  provide	
  better	
  local	
  services	
  and	
  
                                     increased	
  sales	
  tax	
  revenues;	
  
                                •    Continue	
   to	
   maintain	
   and	
   improve	
   the	
   road	
   network	
   and	
   provide	
  
                                     increased	
  transit	
  opportunities;	
  
                                •    Maintain	
  strong	
  fiscal	
  sustainability	
  and	
  continue	
  to	
  provide	
  high-­‐quality	
  
                                     services;	
  and	
  
                                •    Address	
  new	
  requirements	
  of	
  State	
  law.	
  
             	
  
             B.	
        Alternatives	
  Analysis	
  in	
  EIR	
  
             	
  
             1.	
        Alternative	
  1:	
  No	
  Project	
  Alternative	
  
	
  
             The	
   No	
   Project	
   Alternative	
   is	
   discussed	
   on	
   pages	
   5.0-­‐2	
   through	
   5.0-­‐4	
   and	
   pages	
   5.0-­‐6	
  
             through	
   5.0-­‐9	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR.	
   Under	
   Alternative	
   1,	
   the	
   City	
   would	
   continue	
   to	
  
             implement	
   the	
   adopted	
   General	
   Plan	
   and	
   no	
   changes	
   would	
   be	
   made	
   to	
   address	
   the	
  
             requirements	
  of	
  State	
  law.	
  	
  Since	
  adoption	
  of	
  the	
  existing	
  General	
  Plan,	
  State	
  legislation	
  

2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  Update	
  CEQA	
  Findings	
  of	
  Fact/Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  
          Page	
  20	
  of	
  30	
  
          has	
  been	
  passed	
  requiring	
  the	
  City	
  to	
  address	
  new	
  safety	
  and	
  circulation	
  requirements	
  
          in	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  and	
  to	
  address	
  greenhouse	
  gas	
  emissions.	
  	
  The	
  General	
  Plan	
  goals,	
  
          policies,	
  and	
  actions,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  the	
  Land	
  Use	
  Map,	
  would	
  not	
  be	
  updated	
  to	
  address	
  the	
  
          vision	
  and	
  concerns	
  of	
  the	
  city’s	
  residents,	
  property	
  owners,	
  decision-­‐makers,	
  and	
  other	
  
          stakeholders	
   that	
   actively	
   participated	
   in	
   the	
   visioning	
   and	
   goal	
   and	
   policy	
   development	
  
          process.	
  	
  	
  
          	
  
          Alternative	
   1	
   would	
   result	
   in	
   the	
   continuation	
   of	
   existing	
   conditions	
   and	
   development	
  
          levels,	
   as	
   described	
   in	
   Chapter	
   3.10	
   (Land	
   Use	
   and	
   Population)	
   and	
   as	
   shown	
   in	
   Table	
  
          2.0-­‐3	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  	
  New	
  growth	
  would	
  be	
  allowed	
  as	
  envisioned	
  under	
  the	
  existing	
  
          General	
   Plan,	
   with	
   land	
   uses	
   required	
   to	
   be	
   consistent	
   with	
   the	
   existing	
   General	
   Plan	
  
          Land	
  Use	
  Map	
  as	
  shown	
  on	
  Figure	
  3.10-­‐3	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  As	
  shown	
  in	
  Table	
  5.0-­‐1	
  of	
  the	
  
          Draft	
   EIR,	
   Alternative	
   1	
   would	
   result	
   in	
   approximately	
   4,000	
   more	
   housing	
   units	
   and	
  
          1,600	
   fewer	
   jobs	
   within	
   the	
   Brentwood	
   city	
   limits	
   when	
   compared	
   to	
   the	
   proposed	
  
          General	
  Plan	
  Land	
  Use	
  Map.	
  	
  As	
  shown	
  in	
  Table	
  5.0-­‐2,	
  Alternative	
  1	
  would	
  provide	
  for	
  
          approximately	
  250	
  additional	
  acres	
  of	
  residential	
  development	
  within	
  the	
  Planning	
  Area,	
  
          and	
   nearly	
   500	
   additional	
   acres	
   of	
   Mixed	
   Use	
   Business	
   Park	
   development	
   within	
   the	
  
          Planning	
   Area,	
   when	
   compared	
   to	
   the	
   proposed	
   Land	
   Use	
   Map.	
   	
   Alternative	
   1	
   offers	
  
          fewer	
   acres	
   of	
   Medium	
   Density	
   Residential	
   land	
   within	
   the	
   city	
   limits,	
   and	
   does	
   not	
  
          provide	
   opportunities	
   to	
   develop	
   Mixed	
   Use	
   Pedestrian	
   Transit	
   land	
   uses	
   within	
   the	
   city	
  
          limits.	
   	
   Additionally,	
   the	
   existing	
   Land	
   Use	
   Map	
   provides	
   for	
   approximately	
   158	
   fewer	
  
          acres	
   of	
   parkland	
   within	
   the	
   city	
   limits,	
   and	
   158	
   fewer	
   acres	
   of	
   land	
   designated	
   for	
  
          schools	
  within	
  the	
  city	
  limits,	
  when	
  compared	
  to	
  the	
  proposed	
  Land	
  Use	
  Map.	
  	
  	
  
          	
  
          Under	
   Alternative	
   1,	
   there	
   would	
   be	
   an	
   increase	
   in	
   residential	
   growth	
   (approximately	
  
          8,300	
  residents)	
  and	
  a	
  decrease	
  in	
  jobs	
  (approximately	
  1,600	
  jobs)	
  within	
  the	
  city	
  limits.	
  	
  
          Under	
   cumulative	
   conditions,	
   development	
   in	
   the	
   city	
   limits	
   and	
   Planning	
   Area	
  
          combined	
  under	
  Alternative	
  1	
  would	
  result	
  in	
  a	
  significant	
  increase	
  in	
  residential	
  units	
  
          (11,000	
  units)	
  and	
  a	
  population	
  increase	
  of	
  approximately	
  25,000	
  more	
  residents	
  than	
  
          the	
  population	
  growth	
  that	
  may	
  occur	
  under	
  the	
  proposed	
  General	
  Plan.	
  	
  	
  
          	
  
                         a.           Findings:	
  	
  The	
  No	
  Project	
  Alternative	
  is	
  rejected	
  as	
  an	
  alternative	
  because	
  
                                      it	
  would	
  not	
  achieve	
  the	
  Project’s	
  objectives.	
  	
  
                         	
  	
  	
  
                         b.           Explanation:	
   	
   This	
   alternative	
   would	
   not	
   realize	
   the	
   benefits	
   of	
   the	
  
                                      Project	
   and	
   fails	
   to	
   achieve	
   some	
   of	
   the	
   Project	
   objectives.	
   	
   This	
  
                                      alternative	
   would	
   not	
   reflect	
   the	
   current	
   goals	
   and	
   vision	
   expressed	
   by	
  
                                      city	
   residents,	
   businesses,	
   decision-­‐makers,	
   and	
   other	
   stakeholders	
  
                                      associated	
   with	
   increased	
   opportunities	
   for	
   economic	
   development	
   and	
  
                                      job-­‐creating	
   land	
   uses.	
   This	
   alternative	
   would	
   also	
   not	
   be	
   consistent	
   with	
  
                                      the	
   land	
   use	
   vision	
   identified	
   by	
   city	
   residents,	
   businesses,	
   decision-­‐
                                      makers,	
   and	
   other	
   stakeholders	
   during	
   the	
   Visioning	
   and	
   General	
   Plan	
  

2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  Update	
  CEQA	
  Findings	
  of	
  Fact/Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  
          Page	
  21	
  of	
  30	
  
                                      Working	
   Group	
   processes.	
   	
   Additionally,	
   this	
   alternative	
   would	
   not	
   fully	
  
                                      avoid	
  or	
  mitigate	
  any	
  of	
  the	
  impacts	
  associated	
  with	
  the	
  Project.	
  
	
  
          2.	
  Alternative	
  2:	
  Economic	
  Development	
  Alternative	
  	
  
          	
  
          The	
   Economic	
   Development	
   Alternative	
   is	
   discussed	
   on	
   pages	
   5.0-­‐3	
   and	
   5.0-­‐9	
   through	
  
          5.0-­‐14	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR.	
   Alternative	
   2	
   would	
   revise	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   Land	
   Use	
   Map	
   to	
  
          place	
  more	
  emphasis	
  on	
  identifying	
  areas	
  for	
  commercial	
  and	
  industrial	
  growth	
  and	
  less	
  
          emphasis	
   on	
   future	
   residential	
   development.	
   	
   This	
   alternative	
   emphasizes	
   providing	
  
          adequate	
   land	
   for	
   a	
   range	
   of	
   commercial,	
   office,	
   and	
   industrial	
   uses,	
   and	
   would	
   convert	
  
          more	
   of	
   the	
   Planning	
   Area	
   to	
   urban	
   uses.	
   	
   Figure	
   5.0-­‐1	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   depicts	
   the	
   Land	
  
          Use	
  Map	
  proposed	
  for	
  Alternative	
  2.	
  	
  This	
  alternative	
  was	
  developed	
  to	
  reduce	
  exposure	
  
          of	
  sensitive	
  receptors	
  to	
  traffic	
  noise.	
  	
  
          	
  
          Land	
  use	
  designations	
  under	
  Alternative	
  2	
  would	
  be	
  modified	
  as	
  shown	
  on	
  Figure	
  5.0-­‐1	
  
          and	
  summarized	
  in	
  Table	
  5.0-­‐3	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  The	
  goals,	
  policies,	
  and	
  actions	
  of	
  the	
  
          General	
   Plan	
   Update	
   would	
   apply	
   to	
   subsequent	
   development,	
   planning,	
   and	
  
          infrastructure	
  projects	
  under	
  this	
  alternative.	
  	
  
          	
  
          As	
  shown	
  in	
  Table	
  5.0-­‐1	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR,	
  Alternative	
  2	
  would	
  result	
  in	
  approximately	
  940	
  
          fewer	
   housing	
   units	
   and	
   3,400	
   fewer	
   residents	
   within	
   the	
   Brentwood	
   city	
   limits	
   when	
  
          compared	
   to	
   the	
   proposed	
   General	
   Plan	
   Land	
   Use	
   Map.	
   	
   Employment	
   opportunities	
  
          would	
  be	
  increased	
  under	
  this	
  alternative,	
  with	
  approximately	
  7,300	
  more	
  jobs	
  created	
  
          within	
  the	
  city	
  limits	
  when	
  compared	
  to	
  the	
  proposed	
  General	
  Plan.	
  	
  	
  
          	
  
          As	
  shown	
  in	
  Table	
  5.0-­‐3	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR,	
  Alternative	
  2	
  would	
  provide	
  for	
  approximately	
  
          29	
   fewer	
   acres	
   of	
   very	
   low	
   density	
   residential	
   development	
   within	
   the	
   city	
   limits,	
   and	
  
          approximately	
   35	
   fewer	
   acres	
   of	
   medium	
   density	
   residential	
   development	
   within	
   the	
  
          city	
   limits,	
   when	
   compared	
   to	
   the	
   proposed	
   Land	
   Use	
   Map.	
   	
   Alternative	
   2	
   offers	
  
          approximately	
   188	
   more	
   acres	
   of	
   business	
   park	
   land	
   within	
   the	
   city	
   limits,	
   and	
  
          approximately	
  70	
  more	
  acres	
  of	
  general	
  commercial	
  land	
  within	
  the	
  city	
  limits.	
  	
  
          	
  

                       a.             Findings:	
   	
   The	
   Economic	
   Development	
   Alternative	
   is	
   rejected	
   as	
   an	
  
                                      alternative	
  because	
  it	
  would	
  not	
  achieve	
  the	
  Project’s	
  objectives.	
  	
  
                       	
  	
  	
  
                       b.             Explanation:	
   	
   This	
   alternative	
   would	
   not	
   achieve	
   some	
   of	
   the	
   Project	
  
                                      objectives.	
   This	
   alternative	
   would	
   not	
   be	
   consistent	
   with	
   the	
   land	
   use	
  
                                      vision	
  identified	
  by	
  City	
  residents,	
  businesses,	
  decision-­‐makers,	
  and	
  other	
  
                                      stakeholders	
   during	
   the	
   Visioning	
   and	
   General	
   Plan	
   Working	
   Group	
  
                                      processes	
  for	
  the	
  areas	
  outside	
  of	
  the	
  city	
  limits.	
  	
  Further,	
  this	
  alternative	
  
                                      would	
   only	
   result	
   in	
   an	
   improvement	
   related	
   to	
   environmental	
   impacts	
  


2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  Update	
  CEQA	
  Findings	
  of	
  Fact/Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  
          Page	
  22	
  of	
  30	
  
                                  associated	
   with	
   noise	
   exposure,	
   but	
   all	
   other	
   environmental	
   impacts	
  
                                  associated	
  with	
  this	
  alternative	
  would	
  be	
  comparable	
  to	
  the	
  Project.	
  
          	
  
          3.	
        Alternative	
  3:	
  Residential	
  Growth	
  Alternative	
  
          	
  
          The	
  Residential	
  Growth	
  Alternative	
  is	
  discussed	
  on	
  pages	
  5.0-­‐3	
  and	
  5.0-­‐14	
  through	
  5.0-­‐
          20	
  through	
  5.0-­‐16	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  Alternative	
  3	
  provides	
  for	
  a	
  balance	
  of	
  job-­‐creating	
  
          and	
   residential	
   development	
   land	
   uses	
   within	
   the	
   city	
   limits,	
   and	
   has	
   a	
   reduced	
   amount	
  
          of	
   growth	
   within	
   the	
   Planning	
   Area	
   when	
   compared	
   to	
   Alternative	
   2	
   and	
   the	
   existing	
  
          General	
   Plan	
   (Alternative	
   1).	
   	
   This	
   alternative	
   reflects	
   areas	
   identified	
   for	
   growth	
  
          through	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   Update	
   public	
   input	
   process	
   and	
   provides	
   for	
   more	
   significant	
  
          residential	
   development	
   than	
   any	
   of	
   the	
   alternatives	
   or	
   the	
   proposed	
   project.	
   	
   While	
  
          this	
  alternative	
  would	
  result	
  in	
  more	
  residential	
  growth	
  than	
  the	
  proposed	
  General	
  Plan,	
  
          existing	
   General	
   Plan,	
   or	
   Alternative	
   2,	
   this	
   alternative	
   would	
   convert	
   less	
   agricultural	
  
          and	
  undeveloped	
  land	
  in	
  the	
  Planning	
  Area	
  to	
  urban	
  uses	
  than	
  the	
  existing	
  General	
  Plan	
  
          or	
  Alternative	
  2.	
  	
  Figure	
  5.0-­‐2	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  depicts	
  the	
  Land	
  Use	
  Map	
  proposed	
  for	
  
          Alternative	
   3.	
   	
   	
   This	
   alternative	
   was	
   developed	
   to	
   reduce	
   impacts	
   associated	
   with	
   scenic	
  
          resources	
  and	
  agricultural	
  resources.	
  	
  	
  
          	
  
          Land	
  use	
  designations	
  under	
  Alternative	
  3	
  would	
  be	
  modified	
  as	
  shown	
  on	
  Figure	
  5.0-­‐2	
  
          and	
  summarized	
  in	
  Table	
  5.0-­‐4	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  The	
  goals,	
  policies,	
  and	
  actions	
  of	
  the	
  
          General	
   Plan	
   Update	
   would	
   apply	
   to	
   subsequent	
   development,	
   planning	
   and	
  
          infrastructure	
  projects	
  under	
  this	
  alternative.	
  	
  
          	
  
          As	
   shown	
   in	
   Table	
   5.0-­‐1	
   of	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
   Alternative	
   3	
   would	
   result	
   in	
   approximately	
  
          2,544	
   more	
   housing	
   units	
   and	
   5,233	
   more	
   residents	
   within	
   the	
   Brentwood	
   city	
   limits	
  
          when	
   compared	
   to	
   the	
   proposed	
   General	
   Plan	
   Land	
   Use	
   Map.	
   	
   Employment	
  
          opportunities	
  would	
  be	
  increased	
  under	
  this	
  alternative,	
  with	
  approximately	
  1,850	
  more	
  
          jobs	
  created	
  within	
  the	
  city	
  limits	
  when	
  compared	
  to	
  the	
  proposed	
  General	
  Plan.	
  	
  	
  
          	
  
          Under	
  full	
  buildout	
  conditions,	
  this	
  alternative	
  would	
  result	
  in	
  a	
  total	
  population	
  within	
  
          the	
  Planning	
  Area	
  of	
  approximately	
  109,437,	
  which	
  is	
  18.5	
  percent	
  higher	
  than	
  the	
  total	
  
          population	
  projection	
  under	
  the	
  proposed	
  General	
  Plan.	
  	
  	
  
          	
  
          As	
  shown	
  in	
  Table	
  5.0-­‐4	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR,	
  Alternative	
  3	
  would	
  provide	
  for	
  approximately	
  
          52	
  more	
  acres	
  of	
  Ranchette	
  Estate	
  land,	
  105	
  more	
  acres	
  of	
  Low	
  Density	
  Residential	
  land,	
  
          and	
  10.3	
  more	
  acres	
  of	
  Very	
  High	
  Density	
  Residential	
  land	
  within	
  the	
  city	
  limits,	
  when	
  
          compared	
  to	
  the	
  proposed	
  Land	
  Use	
  Map.	
  Alternative	
  3	
  offers	
  approximately	
  114	
  more	
  
          acres	
  of	
  Business	
  Park	
  land	
  within	
  the	
  city	
  limits,	
  308	
  more	
  acres	
  of	
  Business	
  Park	
  land	
  
          within	
   the	
   Planning	
   Area,	
   and	
   approximately	
   66	
   more	
   acres	
   of	
   Industrial	
   land	
   within	
   the	
  
          Planning	
  Area.	
  	
  	
  	
  



2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  Update	
  CEQA	
  Findings	
  of	
  Fact/Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  
          Page	
  23	
  of	
  30	
  
          Alternative	
  3	
  would	
  convert	
  approximately	
  642	
  more	
  acres	
  of	
  Agricultural	
  Conservation	
  
          land	
   within	
   the	
   Planning	
   Area	
   to	
   urban	
   uses	
   than	
   the	
   proposed	
   Land	
   Use	
   Map.	
   	
   The	
  
          majority	
   of	
   this	
   converted	
   land	
   would	
   be	
   Business	
   Park,	
   Low	
   Density	
   Residential,	
   and	
  
          Very	
  Low	
  Density	
  Residential.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
          	
  
          	
  
                         a.	
         Findings:	
   	
   	
   The	
   No	
   Project	
   Alternative	
   is	
   rejected	
   as	
   an	
   alternative	
  
                                      because	
  it	
  would	
  not	
  achieve	
  the	
  Project’s	
  objectives.	
  	
  
                         	
  	
  	
  
                         b.	
         Explanation:	
  This	
  alternative	
  would	
  not	
  achieve	
  the	
  Project	
  objective	
  to	
  
                                      reflect	
  the	
  current	
  goals	
  and	
  visions	
  for	
  the	
  City	
  based	
  on	
  input	
  received	
  
                                      during	
   the	
   public	
   participation	
   process,	
   particularly	
   with	
   respect	
   to	
  
                                      residential	
   growth	
   rates	
   and	
   land	
   use	
   patterns	
   in	
   the	
   city	
   and	
   Planning	
  
                                      Area.	
   This	
   alternative	
   would	
   also	
   result	
   in	
   worse	
   environmental	
   impacts	
  
                                      than	
  the	
  Project	
  in	
  five	
  of	
  the	
  impact	
  areas	
  analyzed.	
  	
  	
  
                         	
  
          CEQA	
   requires	
   that	
   an	
   environmentally	
   superior	
   alternative	
   be	
   identified	
   among	
   the	
  
          alternatives	
   that	
   are	
   analyzed	
   in	
   the	
   EIR.	
   If	
   the	
   No	
   Project	
   Alternative	
   is	
   the	
  
          environmentally	
   superior	
   alternative,	
   an	
   EIR	
   must	
   also	
   identify	
   an	
   environmentally	
  
          superior	
   alternative	
   among	
   the	
   other	
   alternatives	
   (CEQA	
   Guidelines	
   Section	
  
          15126.6(e)(2)).	
   The	
   environmentally	
   superior	
   alternative	
   is	
   that	
   alternative	
   with	
   the	
  
          least	
  adverse	
  environmental	
  impacts	
  when	
  compared	
  to	
  the	
  proposed	
  project.	
  	
  	
  
          	
  
          As	
  discussed	
  in	
  Chapter	
  5.0	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR	
  and	
  summarized	
  in	
  Table	
  5.0-­‐7	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  
          EIR,	
  Alternative	
  2	
  (Economic	
  Development	
  Alternative)	
  is	
  the	
  environmentally	
  superior	
  
          alternative	
   because	
   Alternative	
   2	
   would	
   reduce	
   the	
   severity	
   of	
   noise	
   impacts	
   associated	
  
          with	
  sensitive	
  receptor	
  exposure	
  to	
  traffic	
  noise	
  sources.	
  	
  	
  Overall,	
  the	
  proposed	
  General	
  
          Plan	
   is	
   the	
   environmentally	
   superior	
   alternative.	
   	
   However,	
   Alternative	
   2	
   is	
   the	
   most	
  
          effective	
   in	
   terms	
   of	
   reducing	
   one	
   or	
   more	
   of	
   the	
   significant	
   impacts	
   of	
   the	
   proposed	
  
          project.	
   	
   As	
   such,	
   Alternative	
   2	
   is	
   the	
   environmentally	
   superior	
   alternative	
   for	
   the	
  
          purposes	
  of	
  the	
  EIR	
  analysis.	
  
          	
  
          As	
  previously	
  discussed,	
  Alternative	
  2	
  would	
  not	
  achieve	
  the	
  Project	
  Objectives,	
  and	
  it	
  
          would	
  not	
  be	
  consistent	
  with	
  the	
  land	
  use	
  vision	
  identified	
  by	
  City	
  residents,	
  businesses,	
  
          decision-­‐makers,	
  and	
  other	
  stakeholders	
  during	
  the	
  Visioning	
  and	
  General	
  Plan	
  Working	
  
          Group	
  processes	
  for	
  the	
  areas	
  outside	
  of	
  the	
  city	
  limits.	
  Throughout	
  the	
  preparation	
  of	
  
          the	
   General	
   Plan	
   Update,	
   the	
   City	
   Council,	
   Planning	
   Commission,	
   and	
   Working	
   Group	
   all	
  
          expressed	
  a	
  desire	
  and	
  commitment	
  to	
  ensuring	
  that	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  not	
  only	
  reflect	
  
          the	
  community’s	
  values	
  and	
  priorities,	
  but	
  also	
  serve	
  as	
  a	
  self-­‐mitigating	
  document	
  and	
  
          avoid	
  significant	
  environmental	
  impacts	
  to	
  the	
  greatest	
  extent	
  feasible.	
  The	
  result	
  of	
  this	
  
          approach	
   and	
   this	
   process	
   is	
   a	
   proposed	
   General	
   Plan	
   and	
   Land	
   Use	
   Map	
   that	
   has	
  
          reduced	
   potentially	
   significant	
   impacts	
   to	
   the	
   environment	
   to	
   the	
   greatest	
   extent	
  

2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  Update	
  CEQA	
  Findings	
  of	
  Fact/Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  
          Page	
  24	
  of	
  30	
  
           feasible,	
   while	
   still	
   meeting	
   the	
   basic	
   project	
   objectives	
   identified	
   by	
   the	
   City	
   of	
  
           Brentwood.	
   	
   For	
   these	
   economic,	
   social,	
   and	
   other	
   reasons,	
   the	
   Project	
   is	
   deemed	
  
           superior	
  to	
  Alternative	
  2,	
  the	
  Economic	
  Development	
  Alternative.	
  
	
  

VI.	
      STATEMENTS	
  OF	
  OVERRIDING	
  CONSIDERATIONS	
  	
  
           	
  
           Pursuant	
  to	
  CEQA	
  Section	
  21081(b)	
  and	
  the	
  CEQA	
  Guidelines	
  Section	
  15093,	
  the	
  City	
  of	
  
Brentwood	
   has	
   balanced	
   the	
   benefits	
   of	
   the	
   proposed	
   General	
   Plan	
   against	
   the	
   following	
  
unavoidable	
   adverse	
   impacts	
   associated	
   with	
   the	
   proposed	
   General	
   Plan	
   and	
   has	
   included	
   all	
  
feasible	
  mitigation	
  measures	
  as	
  policies	
  and	
  action	
  items	
  within	
  the	
  General	
  Plan.	
  Brentwood	
  
has	
   also	
   examined	
   alternatives	
   to	
   the	
   proposed	
   project,	
   and	
   has	
   determined	
   that	
   adoption	
   and	
  
implementation	
  of	
  the	
  proposed	
  General	
  Plan	
  is	
  the	
  most	
  desirable,	
  feasible,	
  and	
  appropriate	
  
action.	
  The	
  other	
  alternatives	
  are	
  rejected	
  as	
  infeasible	
  based	
  on	
  consideration	
  of	
  the	
  relevant	
  
factors	
  discussed	
  in	
  Chapter	
  5.0	
  of	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  
           	
  
           A. Significant	
  Unavoidable	
  Impacts	
  
                   	
  
           Based	
  on	
  the	
  information	
  and	
  analysis	
  set	
  forth	
  in	
  the	
  EIR	
  and	
  reiterated	
  in	
  Section	
  III	
  of	
  
these	
   Findings,	
   implementation	
   of	
   the	
   proposed	
   General	
   Plan	
   would	
   result	
   in	
   the	
   following	
  
project-­‐specific	
   significant	
   impacts	
   related	
   to:	
   aesthetics	
   and	
   visual	
   resources,	
   agricultural	
  
resources,	
  noise,	
  cumulative	
  degradation	
  of	
  visual	
  character,	
  cumulative	
  impacts	
  to	
  agricultural	
  
lands	
  and	
  resources,	
  cumulative	
  loss	
  of	
  biological	
  resources,	
  cumulative	
  exposure	
  of	
  sensitive	
  
land	
  uses	
  to	
  noise,	
  and	
  irreversible	
  effects.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
           	
  
     • Impact	
  3.1-­‐1:	
  General	
  Plan	
  implementation	
  could	
  result	
  in	
  substantial	
  adverse	
  effects	
  on	
  
           visual	
   character,	
   including	
   impacts	
   to	
   scenic	
   vistas	
   or	
   scenic	
   resources	
   (Significant	
   and	
  
           Unavoidable)	
  
       •   Impact	
  3.2-­‐1:	
  General	
  Plan	
  implementation	
  would	
  result	
  in	
  the	
  conversion	
  of	
  farmlands,	
  
           including	
   Prime	
   Farmland,	
   Unique	
   Farmland,	
   and	
   Farmland	
   of	
   Statewide	
   Importance	
  
           (Significant	
  and	
  Unavoidable)	
  
       •   Impact	
   3.2-­‐2:	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   may	
   result	
   in	
   conflicts	
   with	
   existing	
  
           Williamson	
  Act	
  Contracts	
  (Significant	
  and	
  Unavoidable)	
  
       •   Impact	
   3.11-­‐1:	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   may	
   result	
   in	
   exposure	
   to	
   significant	
   traffic	
  
           noise	
  sources	
  (Significant	
  and	
  Unavoidable)	
  
       •   Impact	
   3.11-­‐7:	
   General	
   Plan	
   implementation	
   may	
   result	
   in	
   cumulative	
   noise	
   impacts	
  
           (Significant	
  and	
  Unavoidable)	
  
       •   Impact	
   4.1:	
   Cumulative	
   Degradation	
   of	
   the	
   Existing	
   Visual	
   Character	
   of	
   the	
   Region	
  
           (Considerable	
  Contribution	
  and	
  Significant	
  and	
  Unavoidable)	
  	
  



2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  Update	
  CEQA	
  Findings	
  of	
  Fact/Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  
          Page	
  25	
  of	
  30	
  
      •     Impact	
   4.2:	
   Cumulative	
   Impact	
   to	
   Agricultural	
   Lands	
   and	
   Resources	
   (Considerable	
  
            Contribution	
  and	
  Significant	
  and	
  Unavoidable)	
  	
  
      •     Impact	
   4.4:	
   Cumulative	
   Loss	
   of	
   Biological	
   Resources	
   Including	
   Habitats	
   and	
   Special	
  
            Status	
  Species	
  (Considerable	
  Contribution	
  and	
  Significant	
  and	
  Unavoidable)	
  	
  
      •     Impact	
   4.11:	
   Cumulative	
   Exposure	
   of	
   Noise-­‐Sensitive	
   Land	
   Uses	
   to	
   Noise	
   in	
   Excess	
   of	
  
            Normally	
   Acceptable	
   Noise	
   Levels	
   or	
   to	
   Substantial	
   Increases	
   in	
   Noise	
   (Considerable	
  
            Contribution	
  and	
  Significant	
  and	
  Unavoidable)	
  
      •     Impact	
  4.15:	
  Irreversible	
  Effects	
  (Significant	
  and	
  Unavoidable)	
  
            	
  
            Aesthetics and Visual Resources
              Buildout	
   of	
   the	
   proposed	
   General	
   Plan	
   would	
   allow	
   for	
   new	
   development	
   to	
   occur	
   in	
  
areas	
   that	
   have	
   historically	
   been	
   used	
   for	
   agricultural	
   operations	
   and	
   areas	
   that	
   have	
   been	
  
previously	
   undeveloped,	
   which	
   remain	
   in	
   a	
   naturalized	
   condition.	
   	
   The	
   introduction	
   of	
   new	
  
development	
   into	
   previously	
   undisturbed	
   areas	
   or	
   areas	
   that	
   have	
   been	
   historically	
   used	
   for	
  
agricultural	
  operations	
  may	
  result	
  in	
  potentially	
  significant	
  impacts	
  to	
  scenic	
  resources	
  or	
  result	
  
in	
  the	
  degradation	
  of	
  the	
  Planning	
  Area’s	
  visual	
  character.	
  	
  Additionally,	
  new	
  development	
  may	
  
result	
  in	
  changes	
  to	
  the	
  skyline	
  throughout	
  the	
  Planning	
  Area,	
  which	
  may	
  obstruct	
  or	
  interfere	
  
with	
  views	
  of	
  the	
  surrounding	
  hillsides,	
  Mount	
  Diablo,	
  the	
  Diablo	
  Range,	
  and	
  the	
  surrounding	
  
foothill	
  areas.	
  	
  	
  
              	
  
              While	
   growth	
   is	
   anticipated	
   to	
   occur	
   in	
   the	
   cumulative	
   analysis	
   area,	
   the	
   majority	
   of	
  
growth	
  is	
  anticipated	
  to	
  occur	
  in	
  and	
  around	
  existing	
  urban	
  development	
  within	
  the	
  Brentwood	
  
city	
   limits.	
   Development	
   of	
   land	
   uses	
   and	
   associated	
   infrastructure	
   is	
   planned	
   to	
   occur	
   in	
   the	
  
future	
   to	
   accommodate	
   growth	
   envisioned	
   in	
   the	
   general	
   plans	
   that	
   are	
   effective	
   within	
   the	
  
cumulative	
  analysis	
  area,	
  including	
  Contra	
  Costa	
  County	
  and	
  the	
  cities	
  of	
  Antioch	
  and	
  Oakley.	
  	
  
              	
  	
  	
  
              The	
   proposed	
   General	
   Plan	
   is	
   representative	
   of	
   this	
   planned	
   development	
   within	
   the	
  
city	
   limits	
   of	
   Brentwood	
   and	
   the	
   unincorporated	
   portions	
   of	
   Contra	
   Costa	
   County	
   within	
   the	
  
cumulative	
   analysis	
   area.	
   Regional	
   growth	
   has	
   and	
   will	
   continue	
   to	
   result	
   in	
   a	
   cumulative	
  
aesthetic	
   effect	
   by	
   converting	
   undeveloped	
   land	
   into	
   developed	
   and	
   occupied	
   areas	
   and	
  
increasing	
   overall	
   levels	
   of	
   nighttime	
   lighting.	
   Cumulative	
   development	
   entails	
  
grading/landform	
   alteration,	
   the	
   development	
   of	
   structures,	
   and	
   the	
   installation	
   of	
   roadways	
  
and	
   other	
   infrastructure	
   that	
   has	
   altered	
   and	
   will	
   continue	
   to	
   permanently	
   alter	
   the	
   region's	
  
existing	
   visual	
   character.	
   Subsequent	
   projects	
   implemented	
   under	
   the	
   proposed	
   General	
   Plan	
  
would	
  be	
  required	
  to	
  be	
  consistent	
  with	
  the	
  policies	
  and	
  actions	
  of	
  the	
  proposed	
  General	
  Plan	
  
and	
   adopted	
   regulations	
   pertaining	
   to	
   aesthetics	
   and	
   lighting	
   in	
   Brentwood.	
   However,	
   even	
  
with	
   implementation	
   of	
   adopted	
   policies	
   and	
   regulations,	
   the	
   proposed	
   General	
   Plan	
   has	
   the	
  
potential	
   to	
   considerably	
   contribute	
   to	
   permanent	
   changes	
   in	
   visual	
   character,	
   such	
   as	
  
obstruction	
  of	
  scenic	
  views,	
  conversion	
  of	
  existing	
  visual	
  character,	
  and	
  increased	
  lighting.	
  No	
  
feasible	
   mitigation	
   is	
   available	
   to	
   fully	
   reduce	
   the	
   cumulative	
   effect	
   on	
   visual	
   character,	
   or	
   to	
  

2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  Update	
  CEQA	
  Findings	
  of	
  Fact/Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  
          Page	
  26	
  of	
  30	
  
mitigate	
   the	
   proposed	
   project's	
   contribution	
   to	
   a	
   less-­‐than-­‐significant	
   level.	
   Therefore,	
   the	
  
proposed	
  General	
  Plan's	
  contribution	
  to	
  this	
  impact	
  is	
  considerable	
  and	
  the	
  impact	
  is	
  significant	
  
and	
  unavoidable.	
  	
  
         	
  
         Agricultural Resources
           The	
   Brentwood	
   General	
   Plan	
   has	
   taken	
   a	
   proactive	
   approach	
   towards	
   focusing	
   new	
  
growth	
   and	
   development	
   towards	
   infill	
   locations,	
   and	
   protecting	
   open	
   space	
   areas	
   and	
  
agricultural	
  lands	
  throughout	
  the	
  Planning	
  Area	
  to	
  the	
  greatest	
  extent	
  feasible.	
  	
  	
  	
  The	
  applicable	
  
policies	
  and	
  actions	
  that	
  provide	
  protection	
  and	
  preservation	
  of	
  agricultural	
  lands	
  are	
  identified	
  
under	
  Impact	
  3.2-­‐1	
  in	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  
           	
  	
  	
  
           However,	
   as	
   described	
   in	
   greater	
   detail	
   under	
   Impact	
   3.2-­‐1	
   in	
   the	
   Draft	
   EIR,	
  
implementation	
  of	
  the	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  may	
  lead	
  to	
  the	
  urbanization	
  of	
  approximately	
  
1,700	
   acres	
   of	
   Important	
   Farmlands	
   located	
   within	
   the	
   city	
   limits,	
   and	
   2,223	
   acres	
   of	
   Important	
  
Farmland	
   within	
   the	
   Planning	
   Area.	
   	
   The	
   policies	
   and	
   actions	
   identified	
   under	
   Impact	
   3.2-­‐1	
   in	
  
the	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   would	
   mitigate	
   this	
   impact	
   to	
   the	
   greatest	
   extent	
   feasible.	
   	
   However,	
   this	
   is	
  
considered	
  a	
  cumulatively	
  considerable	
  and	
  significant	
  and	
  unavoidable	
  impact.	
  	
  	
  

            Biological Resources
               Growth	
   associated	
   with	
   buildout	
   of	
   the	
   2014	
   General	
   Plan	
   would	
   result	
   in	
   impacts	
   to	
  
biological	
   resources,	
   including	
   the	
   permanent	
   loss	
   of	
   habitat	
   for	
   special	
   status	
   species,	
   corridor	
  
fragmentation,	
   direct	
   and	
   indirect	
   impacts	
   to	
   special	
   status	
   species,	
   and	
   reduction	
   and	
  
degradation	
   of	
   sensitive	
   habitat.	
   Biological	
   resources	
   are	
   a	
   limited	
   resource	
   and	
   the	
   cumulative	
  
loss	
  is	
  considered	
  significant.	
  	
  
               	
  
               Subsequent	
  projects	
  implemented	
  under	
  the	
  proposed	
  General	
  Plan	
  would	
  be	
  required	
  
to	
   be	
   consistent	
   with	
   the	
   policies	
   and	
   actions	
   of	
   the	
   proposed	
   General	
   Plan.	
   However,	
   even	
  
with	
   implementation	
   of	
   adopted	
   policies	
   and	
   actions,	
   the	
   proposed	
   General	
   Plan	
   has	
   the	
  
potential	
  to	
  considerably	
  contribute	
  to	
  a	
  net	
  reduction	
  in	
  habitat,	
  and	
  increase	
  human	
  presence	
  
in	
  the	
  vicinity	
  of	
  special	
  status	
  species	
  and	
  sensitive	
  habitat.	
  No	
  feasible	
  mitigation	
  is	
  available	
  
to	
   fully	
   reduce	
   the	
   cumulative	
   effect	
   on	
   these	
   resources,	
   or	
   to	
   mitigate	
   the	
   contribution	
   to	
   a	
  
less-­‐than-­‐significant	
   level.	
   Therefore,	
   the	
   proposed	
   General	
   Plan's	
   contribution	
   to	
   this	
  
cumulative	
  impact	
  is	
  considerable	
  and	
  the	
  impact	
  is	
  significant	
  and	
  unavoidable.	
  	
  
               	
  
               Noise
           Growth	
  associated	
  with	
  buildout	
  of	
  the	
  2014	
  General	
  Plan	
  would	
  cause	
  some	
  areas	
  to	
  
experience	
   greater	
   construction	
   and	
   operational	
   noise	
   disturbances	
   relative	
   to	
   others.	
   This	
  
would	
   result	
   as	
   noise	
   sensitive	
   development	
   becomes	
   more	
   clustered	
   near	
   noise	
   producing	
  
land	
   uses,	
   including	
   roadways.	
   The	
   proposed	
   General	
   Plan	
   indirectly	
   increases	
   noise	
   levels	
   by	
  
accommodating	
  additional	
  growth	
  and	
  ultimately	
  allowing	
  more	
  traffic	
  on	
  roadways.	
  	
  
           	
  

2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  Update	
  CEQA	
  Findings	
  of	
  Fact/Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  
          Page	
  27	
  of	
  30	
  
              The	
  proposed	
  General	
  Plan	
  establishes	
  noise-­‐related	
  policies	
  that,	
  when	
  implemented,	
  
protect	
  sensitive	
  receptors	
  from	
  significant	
  noise.	
  The	
  policies	
  that	
  are	
  identified	
  in	
  the	
  Noise	
  
Element	
   of	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   are	
   consistent	
   with	
   Federal	
   and	
   State	
   regulations	
   designed	
   to	
  
protect	
  noise	
  sensitive	
  receptors.	
  Although	
  the	
  policy	
  and	
  regulatory	
  controls	
  for	
  noise-­‐related	
  
impacts	
   are	
   in	
   place	
   in	
   the	
   cumulative	
   analysis	
   area,	
   subsequent	
   development	
   allowed	
   under	
  
the	
  General	
  Plan	
  would	
  result	
  in	
  an	
  increase	
  in	
  noise.	
  For	
  most	
  projects,	
  consistency	
  with	
  the	
  
adopted	
   policies	
   and	
   actions	
   would	
   help	
   to	
   reduce	
   exposure	
   of	
   sensitive	
   receptors	
   to	
   noise	
  
levels.	
   However,	
   it	
   may	
   not	
   be	
   feasible	
   to	
   mitigate	
   this	
   impact	
   to	
   a	
   less-­‐than-­‐significant	
   level	
   in	
  
all	
   instances,	
   particularly	
   in	
   areas	
   where	
   existing	
   development	
   is	
   located	
   near	
   proposed	
  
development.	
  Although	
  the	
  policy	
  and	
  regulatory	
  controls	
  for	
  noise	
  related	
  impacts	
  are	
  in	
  place	
  
in	
  the	
  cumulative	
  analysis	
  area,	
  subsequent	
  development	
  projects	
  may	
  result	
  in	
  an	
  increase	
  in	
  
ambient	
  noise	
  levels	
  at	
  specific	
  project	
  locations,	
  which	
  may	
  subject	
  surrounding	
  land	
  uses	
  to	
  
increases	
  in	
  ambient	
  noise	
  levels.	
  	
  
              	
  
              Tables	
   3.11-­‐14	
   and	
   3.11-­‐15	
   in	
   Draft	
   EIR	
   Section	
   3.11	
   (Noise)	
   show	
   the	
   existing	
   and	
  
cumulative	
   noise	
   levels	
   associated	
   with	
   traffic	
   on	
   the	
   local	
   roadway	
   network,	
   including	
   projects	
  
within	
   the	
   city	
   and	
   within	
   the	
   Planning	
   Area.	
   Cumulative	
   conditions	
   include	
   traffic	
   due	
   to	
  
buildout	
   of	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   in	
   addition	
   to	
   pass	
   through	
   traffic	
   from	
   other	
   jurisdictions.	
   	
   The	
  
tables	
   also	
   show	
   the	
   estimated	
   noise	
   level	
   increases	
   which	
   may	
   occur	
   under	
   cumulative	
  
conditions.	
  
              	
  
              Cumulative	
   conditions	
   would	
   contribute	
   to	
   an	
   exceedance	
   of	
   the	
   City’s	
   transportation	
  
noise	
   standards	
   and	
   result	
   in	
   significant	
   increases	
   in	
   traffic	
   noise	
   levels	
   at	
   existing	
   sensitive	
  
receptors.	
   The	
   General	
   Plan	
   includes	
   policies	
   and	
   actions	
   that	
   are	
   intended	
   to	
   reduce	
   noise	
  
increases	
  associated	
  with	
  traffic.	
  	
  Specifically,	
  policies	
  N	
  1-­‐1	
  through	
  N	
  1-­‐4,	
  N	
  1-­‐6	
  through	
  N	
  1-­‐
10,	
  N	
  2-­‐1,	
  and	
  Actions	
  N	
  1a	
  through	
  N	
  1d	
  would	
  reduce	
  noise	
  increases	
  associated	
  with	
  traffic,	
  
as	
  described	
  in	
  Impact	
  3.11-­‐1	
  in	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR.	
  	
  As	
  described	
  in	
  Impact	
  3.11-­‐1	
  in	
  the	
  Draft	
  EIR,	
  
some	
   traffic	
   noise	
   impacts	
   cannot	
   be	
   mitigated	
   to	
   a	
   less-­‐than-­‐significant	
   level	
   due	
   to	
   the	
  
proximity	
  of	
  sensitive	
  receivers	
  to	
  major	
  roadways,	
  and	
  because	
  noise	
  attenuation	
  may	
  not	
  be	
  
feasible	
  in	
  all	
  circumstances.	
  As	
  a	
  result,	
  this	
  is	
  a	
  significant	
  and	
  unavoidable	
  cumulative	
  impact.	
  	
  
              	
  
              	
  
              B. Benefits	
  of	
  the	
  Proposed	
  General	
  Plan/Overriding	
  Considerations	
  
                      	
  
              The	
  City	
  of	
  Brentwood	
  has	
  (i)	
  independently	
  reviewed	
  the	
  information	
  in	
  the	
  EIR	
  and	
  the	
  
record	
  of	
  proceedings;	
  (ii)	
  made	
  a	
  reasonable	
  and	
  good	
  faith	
  effort	
  to	
  eliminate	
  or	
  substantially	
  
lessen	
   the	
   impacts	
   resulting	
   from	
   the	
   proposed	
   2014	
   General	
   Plan	
   to	
   the	
   extent	
   feasible	
   by	
  
including	
   policies	
   and	
   actions	
   in	
   the	
   General	
   Plan	
   that	
   effectively	
   mitigate	
   potential	
  
environmental	
  impacts	
  to	
  the	
  greatest	
  extent	
  feasible;	
  and	
  (iii)	
  balanced	
  the	
  project’s	
  benefits	
  
against	
  the	
  project’s	
  significant	
  unavoidable	
  impacts.	
  	
  
              	
  



2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  Update	
  CEQA	
  Findings	
  of	
  Fact/Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  
          Page	
  28	
  of	
  30	
  
      Adoption	
   and	
   implementation	
   of	
   the	
   2014	
   General	
   Plan	
   would	
   provide	
   the	
   following	
  
economic,	
  social,	
  legal,	
  and	
  other	
  considerable	
  benefits:	
  
      	
  
      1. The	
   2014	
   General	
   Plan	
   promotes	
   compact	
   and	
   environmentally-­‐sustainable	
  
             development	
   through	
   goals	
   and	
   policies	
   that	
   balance	
   the	
   need	
   for	
   adequate	
  
             infrastructure,	
   housing,	
   and	
   economic	
   vitality	
   with	
   the	
   need	
   for	
   resource	
  
             management,	
  agricultural	
  preservation,	
  environmental	
  protection,	
  and	
  preservation	
  
             of	
  quality	
  of	
  life	
  for	
  Brentwood	
  residents.	
  
             	
  
      2. The	
  2014	
  General	
  Plan	
  implements	
  principles	
  of	
  sustainable	
  growth	
  by	
  concentrating	
  
             new	
   urban	
   development	
   around	
   existing	
   urban	
   development,	
   around	
   nodes	
   of	
  
             transportation,	
   and	
   along	
   key	
   commercial	
   and	
   transportation	
   corridors;	
   thereby	
  
             minimizing	
  land	
  consumption	
  while	
  maintaining	
  open	
  space,	
  habitat,	
  recreation,	
  and	
  
             agricultural	
  uses	
  throughout	
  the	
  Planning	
  Area.	
  	
  

          3. The	
   2014	
   General	
   Plan	
   provides	
   a	
   land	
   use	
   map	
   that	
   accounts	
   for	
   existing	
  
             development,	
   physical	
   constraints,	
   agricultural	
   preservation,	
   economic	
  
             development,	
   hazards,	
   and	
   incompatible	
   uses	
   and	
   assigns	
   densities	
   and	
   use	
   types	
  
             accordingly	
  to	
  enhance	
  the	
  safety,	
  livability,	
  and	
  economic	
  vitality	
  of	
  Brentwood.	
  

          4. The	
   2014	
   General	
   Plan	
   improves	
   mobility	
   options	
   through	
   the	
   development	
   of	
   a	
  
             multi-­‐modal	
   transportation	
   network	
   that	
   enhances	
   connectivity,	
   supports	
  
             community	
   development	
   patterns,	
   limits	
   traffic	
   congestion,	
   promotes	
   public	
   and	
  
             alternative	
   transportation	
   methods,	
   and	
   supports	
   the	
   goals	
   of	
   adopted	
   regional	
  
             transportation	
  plans.	
  

          5. The	
   2014	
   General	
   Plan	
   directs	
   the	
   preservation	
   and	
   environmental	
   stewardship	
   of	
  
             the	
  	
  vast	
  array	
  of	
  agricultural,	
  natural,	
  cultural	
  and	
  historic	
  resources	
  that	
  uniquely	
  
             define	
  the	
  character	
  and	
  ecological	
  importance	
  of	
  the	
  City	
  and	
  greater	
  region.	
  

          6. The	
   2014	
   General	
   Plan	
   addresses	
   adverse	
   environmental	
   effects	
   associated	
   with	
  
             global	
   climate	
   change	
   by	
   facilitating	
   sustainable	
   development,	
   promoting	
   energy	
  
             efficiency,	
  and	
  promoting	
  development	
  that	
  reduces	
  greenhouse	
  gas	
  emissions.	
  

          7. The	
  2014	
  General	
  Plan	
  enhances	
  the	
  local	
  economy	
  and	
  provides	
  opportunities	
  for	
  
             future	
   jobs	
   and	
   business	
   development	
   commensurate	
   with	
   forecasted	
   growth	
   by	
  
             planning	
   for	
   commercial	
   and	
   industrial	
   development	
   near	
   existing	
   urbanized	
   areas	
  
             and	
  transportation	
  corridors.	
  

          8. The	
   2014	
   General	
   Plan	
   is	
   the	
   product	
   of	
   a	
   comprehensive	
   public	
   planning	
   effort	
  
             driven	
  by	
  members	
  of	
  the	
  public,	
  the	
  General	
  Plan	
  Working	
  Group,	
  city	
  stakeholders,	
  
             the	
  Planning	
  Commission	
  and	
  the	
  City	
  Council	
  through	
  a	
  series	
  of	
  public	
  meetings,	
  


2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  Update	
  CEQA	
  Findings	
  of	
  Fact/Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  
          Page	
  29	
  of	
  30	
  
                 hearings	
   and	
   workshops	
   that	
   resulted	
   in	
   a	
   thoughtful	
   balance	
   of	
   community,	
  
                 economic,	
  agricultural,	
  and	
  environmental	
  interests.	
  	
  	
  


VII.	
  	
   CONCLUSION	
  
                   	
  
             After	
  balancing	
  the	
  specific	
  economic,	
  legal,	
  social,	
  technological,	
  and	
  other	
  benefits	
  of	
  
the	
   proposed	
   project,	
   the	
   Council	
   finds	
   that	
   the	
   unavoidable	
   adverse	
   environmental	
   impacts	
  
identified	
  may	
  be	
  considered	
  “acceptable”	
  due	
  to	
  the	
  specific	
  considerations	
  listed	
  above	
  which	
  
outweigh	
  the	
  unavoidable,	
  adverse	
  environmental	
  impacts	
  of	
  the	
  proposed	
  project.	
  
             	
  
             The	
  Brentwood	
  City	
  Council	
  has	
  considered	
  information	
  contained	
  in	
  the	
  EIR	
  prepared	
  
for	
   the	
   proposed	
   General	
   Plan	
   as	
   well	
   as	
   the	
   public	
   testimony	
   and	
   record	
   of	
   proceedings	
   in	
  
which	
   the	
   project	
   was	
   considered.	
   Recognizing	
   that	
   significant	
   unavoidable	
   aesthetics	
   and	
  
visual	
  resources,	
  agricultural	
  resources,	
  biological	
  resources,	
  and	
  noise	
  impacts	
  may	
  result	
  from	
  
implementation	
   of	
   the	
   proposed	
   General	
   Plan,	
   the	
   Council	
   finds	
   that	
   the	
   benefits	
   of	
   the	
  
General	
   Plan	
   and	
   overriding	
   considerations	
   outweigh	
   the	
   adverse	
   effects	
   of	
   the	
   Project.	
   Having	
  
included	
   all	
   feasible	
   mitigation	
   measures	
   as	
   policies	
   and	
   actions	
   in	
   the	
   General	
   Plan,	
   and	
  
recognized	
   all	
   unavoidable	
   significant	
   impacts,	
   the	
   Council	
   hereby	
   finds	
   that	
   each	
   of	
   the	
  
separate	
   benefits	
   of	
   the	
   proposed	
   General	
   Plan,	
   as	
   stated	
   herein,	
   is	
   determined	
   to	
   be	
   unto	
  
itself	
  an	
  overriding	
  consideration,	
  independent	
  of	
  other	
  benefits,	
  that	
  warrants	
  adoption	
  of	
  the	
  
proposed	
   General	
   Plan	
   and	
   outweighs	
   and	
   overrides	
   its	
   unavoidable	
   significant	
   effects,	
   and	
  
thereby	
  justifies	
  the	
  adoption	
  of	
  the	
  proposed	
  General	
  Plan.	
  
             	
  
             Based	
   on	
   the	
   foregoing	
   findings	
   and	
   the	
   information	
   contained	
   in	
   the	
   record,	
   the	
  
Council	
  hereby	
  determines	
  that:	
  
             	
  
                   1. All	
   significant	
   effects	
   on	
   the	
   environment	
   due	
   to	
   implementation	
   of	
   the	
  
                        proposed	
   General	
   Plan	
   have	
   been	
   eliminated	
   or	
   substantially	
   lessened	
   where	
  
                        feasible;	
  
                        	
  
                   2. There	
   are	
   no	
   feasible	
   alternatives	
   to	
   the	
   proposed	
   2014	
   General	
   Plan	
   which	
  
                        would	
  mitigate	
  or	
  substantially	
  lessen	
  the	
  impacts;	
  and	
  
                        	
  
                   3. Any	
   remaining	
   significant	
   effects	
   on	
   the	
   environment	
   found	
   to	
   be	
   unavoidable	
  
                        are	
   acceptable	
   due	
   to	
   the	
   factors	
   described	
   in	
   the	
   Statement	
   of	
   Overriding	
  
                        Considerations	
  above.	
  




2014	
  Brentwood	
  General	
  Plan	
  Update	
  CEQA	
  Findings	
  of	
  Fact/Statement	
  of	
  Overriding	
  Considerations	
  
          Page	
  30	
  of	
  30	
  
                    City     of   Brentwood
                    general plan
                    June 2014




Prepared by:
       De Novo Planning Group
   A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental Firm
               www.denovoplanning.com
                    City     of   Brentwood
                    general plan
                    June 2014




Prepared for:




Prepared by:
       De Novo Planning Group
   A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental Firm
               www.denovoplanning.com
                                                                                 T ABLE OF C ONTENTS


BRENTWOOD	
  GENERAL	
  PLAN	
  	
  
     Chapter	
                                                                                                                                                               Page	
  Number	
  

1.       Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................................1-1
2.       Circulation....................................................................................................................................................................................2-1
3.       Community Services and Facilities.................................................................................................................................3-1
4.       Conservation and Open Space .......................................................................................................................................4-1
5.       Economic Development......................................................................................................................................................5-1
6.       Fiscal Sustainability...................................................................................................................................................................6-1
7.       Growth Management ..........................................................................................................................................................7-1
8.       Infrastructure ..............................................................................................................................................................................8-1
9.       Land Use .....................................................................................................................................................................................9-1
10. Noise ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 10-1
11. Safety ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 11-1
12. Implementation ...................................................................................................................................................................... 12-1

     Table	
                                                                                                                                                                 Page	
  Number	
  

Table LU-1: General Plan Land Use Designation and Zoning Districts/Combining
            Zones Compatibility ........................................................................................................................................ 9-14
Table N-1: Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment.................................................. 10-6
Table N-2: Stationary (Non-Transportation) Noise Source Standards ....................................................... 10-7
Table N-3: Typical Noise Levels......................................................................................................................................... 10-8
Table 12-1: General Plan Implementation...................................................................................................................... 12-3

     Figure	
                                                                                                                                                                Page	
  Number	
  

Figure CIR-1: Circulation Diagram..........................................................................................................................................2-2
Figure CIR-2: CCTA Routes of Regional Significance .................................................................................................2-3
Figure LU-1: General Plan Land Use Map........................................................................................................................9-3
Figure LU-2: Priority Area 1 .................................................................................................................................................. 9-13
Figure LU-3: City Limits, Sphere of Influence, Urban Limit Line, and Planning Area............................ 9-19
Figure LU-4: Agricultural Enterprise Area...................................................................................................................... 9-27




   Brentwood General Plan                                                                                                                                                                                      TOC-1
T ABLE OF C ONTENTS




                      This page left intentionally blank




TOC-2                                                      Brentwood General Plan
                                         1. I NTRODUCTION


Overview
The City of Brentwood General Plan (General Plan) identifies the community’s vision for
the future and provides a framework that will guide decisions on growth, development,
and conservation of open space and resources in a manner that is consistent with the
quality of life desired by the city's residents and businesses. The General Plan supersedes
and replaces the 2001 General Plan. The General Plan carries forward some of the major
goal and policy framework of the 2001 General Plan, but has been substantially updated to
address current local conditions, community priorities, and goals, and has been reorganized
to make the document more user-friendly and straightforward.

Scope and Content of the General Plan
State law requires the City to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the
physical development of its planning area. The general plan must include land use,
circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety elements, as specified in
Government Code Section 65302, to the extent that the issues identified by State law
exist in the City’s planning area. Additional elements that relate to the physical
development of the city may also be addressed in the general plan. The degree of
specificity and level of detail of the discussion of each general plan element need only
reflect local conditions and circumstances. The General Plan has been prepared consistent
with the requirements of State law and addresses the relevant items addressed in
Government Code Section 65300 et seq.

The General Plan includes the following elements:                                                   Two important
                                                                                               documents support the
    •   Circulation                                                                           General Plan. The Existing
    •   Community Services and Facilities                                                      Conditions Report and
    •   Conservation and Open Space                                                                the General Plan
                                                                                                Environmental Impact
    •   Economic Development                                                                    Report (EIR) are both
    •   Fiscal Sustainability                                                                  intended to be used in
    •   Growth Management                                                                       conjunction with this
    •   Infrastructure                                                                        General Plan and to serve
                                                                                                as companions to this
    •   Land Use                                                                                  policy document.
    •   Noise
    •   Safety
    •   Note: The adopted Housing Element (November 2012) will be included in the
        Final General Plan.

The General Plan also includes an Implementation chapter that prioritizes the timing for
each separate action that is identified in the various elements.

Public Participation
The General Plan was developed with extensive opportunities for participation from
residents, businesses, local agencies, and other stakeholders. A series of four public
Visioning Workshops were held in November and December 2012 in order to identify
the community’s vision for the future, and to develop principles to guide the General Plan
Update. Additionally, City staff and the consultant team developed two online surveys to
gather additional information from the public related to the General Plan Update. The
online surveys were available through the General Plan Update website, and were
 Brentwood General Plan                                                                                      1-1
1. I NTRODUCTION


                   developed to pose similar questions to those posed at the visioning workshops, and to
                   gather additional details regarding City service levels, residential homeownership,
                   employment locations, and economic development priorities.

                   The 12-member General Plan Update Working Group, which consisted of members from
                   the City Council, Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and the
                   community at-large, collaborated with City staff and the General Plan Update consultant
                   team throughout the development of the General Plan. The Working Group met
                   approximately 15 times between March 2013 and February 2014, to identify key issues
                   and challenges that Brentwood faces over the next 20-30 years, and to develop the
                   comprehensive set of goals, policies, and actions contained in the General Plan. Each
                   Working Group meeting was open to the public, and numerous members of the public
                   and other local interested agencies attended the meetings and provided detailed input to
                   the Working Group.

                   The City Council and Planning Commission held approximately 10 public workshops and
                   hearings to consider the goals and policies of the 2001 General Plan, review input from
                   the Visioning Workshops, receive information relevant to the specific topics addressed at
                   the Working Group meetings, and provide specific direction and guidance to staff and the
                   consultant team regarding how goals should be achieved and how to address current
                   issues.

                   	
  

                                                      Guiding Principles
                          Through the General Plan Update process, the following set of distinct guiding
                          principles was identified:
                             •   Protect Brentwood's family-oriented environment, character, and sense
                                 of community
                             •   Provide a range of high-quality housing options
                             •   Attract and retain businesses and industries that provide high-quality
                                 and high-paying jobs so that residents can live and work in Brentwood
                             •   Preserve surrounding agricultural lands and the city's agricultural heritage
                             •   Expand retail shopping opportunities to provide better local services
                                 and increased sales tax revenues
                             •   Continue to maintain and improve the road network and provide
                                 increased transit opportunities
                             •   Maintain strong fiscal sustainability and continue to provide high-quality
                                 services




 1-2                                                                               Brentwood General Plan
                                                                                                  1. I NTRODUCTION


Applying the General Plan
The General Plan is intended for use by a broad range of persons, including:

    •   The City Council, Planning Commission, and Parks and Recreation Commission in
        decision-making activities;

    •   City staff in developing and implementing programs and projects;

    •   The development community in preparing development proposals; and

    •   Residents and businesses interested in the future development of Brentwood and
        understanding the community’s vision, goals, and priorities.

The General Plan applies to lands in the incorporated area of the City, to the extent
allowed by Federal and State law. Under State law, many actions, such as development
projects, specific plans, master plans, community plans, zoning, subdivisions, public agency
projects, and other decisions must be consistent with the General Plan. State law requires
that the City's ordinances regulating land use be consistent with the General Plan. The
Zoning Ordinance, individual project proposals, and other related plans and ordinances
must be consistent with the goals and policies in the General Plan.

Interpreting the General Plan
In reading the General Plan, one should infer that the goals, policies, and actions are limited
to the extent that it is financially feasible and appropriate for the City to carry them out
and to the extent legally permitted by Federal and State law. For example, policies and
actions which indicate that the City will “provide,” “support,” “ensure,” or otherwise
require or carry them out do not indicate an irreversible commitment of City funds or staff
resources to those activities, but rather, that the City will support them when the City
deems that it is financially feasible and appropriate to do so. In some cases, the City will
carry out various policies and actions by requiring development, infrastructure, and other
projects to be consistent with the policies and actions of the General Plan. In other cases,
the City may include General Plan items in the Capital Improvement Program, annual
budget, or other implementation mechanisms, as the City deems appropriate.

Organization of the General Plan Elements
Each element (i.e., chapter) of the General Plan is organized into a set of goals, policies,
and actions. Each goal is supported by a particular set of policies and actions to implement
and achieve that goal. Chapter 12 of the General Plan (Implementation) includes a
complete summary of each action that is identified in the various elements, accompanied
by the City department responsible for implementing the action and the timing of
implementation.

Amending the General Plan
Since goals and policies in the General Plan reflect a range of competing interests, the
decision-makers have broad discretion in interpreting the General Plan and its purposes,
and are allowed to weigh and balance the various goals and policies when applying them.
Recognizing the need for the General Plan to remain current and reflective of local issues
and policies, State law allows the City to periodically amend the General Plan to ensure
that it is consistent with the conditions, values, expectations, and needs of its residents,
businesses, and other stakeholders. The General Plan may be amended in accordance with
State law and only by action of the City Council, upon recommendation by the Planning
Commission, or by voter-approved initiative. While specific findings may be applied on a

   Brentwood General Plan                                                                                        1-3
1. I NTRODUCTION


                   project-by-project basis, at a minimum the following standard findings shall be made for each
                   proposed General Plan amendment:

                       1. The amendment is deemed to be in the public interest;

                       2. The amendment is consistent and/or compatible with the rest of the General Plan;

                       3. The potential impacts of the amendment have been assessed and have been
                          determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare; and

                       4. The amendment has been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions
                          of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act
                          (CEQA).

                   City-initiated amendments, as well as amendments requested by other public agencies, are
                   subject to the same basic process described above to ensure consistency and compatibility
                   with the General Plan. This includes appropriate environmental review, public notice, and
                   public hearings, leading to an official action by the City Council.

                   Annual Reporting
                   Given the long-term nature of the General Plan, it is critical to periodically evaluate its
                   effectiveness and to document the implementation status of the various policies and
                   actions that it contains. State law provides direction on how cities and counties can maintain
                   the General Plan as a useful policy guide. State law also requires the City to annually report
                   "the status of the plan and progress in its implementation" (California Government Code
                   Section 65400(b)) to the City Council.



                                                          Key Terms
                   Goal:          A description of the general desired result that the community
                                  seeks to create.

                   Policy:        A specific statement that guides decision-making as the City works
                                  to achieve the various goals and objectives. Once adopted, policies
                                  represent statements of City regulations.

                   Action:        An implementation measure, procedure, technique, or specific
                                  program to be undertaken by the City to help achieve a specified
                                  goal or implement an adopted policy. The City must take additional
                                  steps to implement each action in the General Plan. An action is
                                  something that can and will be completed.




 1-4                                                                               Brentwood General Plan
                                            2. C IRCULATION


Overview

The Circulation Element provides the framework for decisions concerning the city’s multi-
modal transportation system, which includes roadway, transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and rail
modes of travel. The Circulation Element provides for coordination with the Contra
Costa Transportation Authority, which serves as the coordinating agency for
transportation funding for Contra Costa County.

State law (California Government Code Section 65302(b)) mandates that the Circulation
Element contain the general location and extent of existing and proposed major
thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, military airports and ports, and other public
utilities and facilities, to the extent these items exist in the planning area. As required by
California Government Code Section 65302(b), the Circulation Element is correlated
closely with the Land Use Element and is related to the Housing, Conservation & Open
Space, Noise, and Safety elements.

The Circulation Element reflects the City’s desire to provide for complete street, bicycle,
and pedestrian facilities. This element considers overall mobility, existing and desired land
uses, future street conditions, and mobility for non-automobile users, including safe routes
to schools.      This element establishes standards that guide development of the
transportation system through goals, policies, and actions.

Background information regarding circulation conditions in Brentwood is presented in
Chapter 2 of the General Plan Update Existing Conditions Report.




 Brentwood General Plan                                                                          2-1
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
       This page left intentionally blank
                                                                                                                                                                                                       #
                                                                                                                                                                    þ
                                                                                                                                                                    }
                                                                                                                                                                    |
                                                                                                                                                                    ·                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Figure CIR-1




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        #


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              #


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      #
                                                                                                                                                                           4

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Circulation Diagram




                                                                                                                                                                                                     Empire Ave
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           #
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             ! ! ! ! ! !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Anderson Ln
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Neroly Rd                                                                                                               Delta Rd




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
                                                                                      #
                                                                   #




                                                                                                                                                                               #




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Sellers Ave
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Lone Tree Way




                                                                                                                                                                                S hady W illow Ln




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Brentwood Blvd
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Ln
                                                                                                                                       Heidorn Ranch Rd



                                                                                                                                                                 Jeffrey
                                                                                  Hillcrest Ave




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          s
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Adam
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Grant St                                                                                                                            Sunset Rd                                                                                                              Sunset Rd
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      y
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       !
                                                                                                                                                           Empire Ave




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         w
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 O'H




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Garin Pk
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Apri
                                                                                                                                                                                                                co                                                                                                              a
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              t Wa




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ra
                                                                                                                          Bridle Gate Dr
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      y
                          #




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    A ve
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Sand Creek Road




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Byron Hwy
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Minnesota Ave
                                                                                                                                                                           Sand Creek Rd




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Fairview Ave
                                                                                                                                                                                      San Jose Ave
                                  !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Sycamore Ave
                              !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
                          !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              t r al B l v d                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Freeway
                                                                                                                                                                           þ
                                                                                                                                                                           }
                                                                                                                                                                           |
                                                                                                                                                                           ·                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Oa k
                      !
                   !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           en




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   2n
                                                                                 ve




                                                                                                                                  t r y C lu                                   4                                                                                                               C                                                                                                                                     St
            ! !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      d
                                                                                                                          un
                                                                     tA




                                                                                                                                             b                                                                                                                                                                             Dainty Ln




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              St
                                                               re s                                                                                         Dr
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Major Arterial (4 or 6 Lanes)
                                                                                                                     Co




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
                   !




                                                          lc                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Chestnut St
                   !




                                                  l
                                              Hi
                  !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Minor Arterial (2 or 4 Lanes)
          !! ! !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           #
                                                                                                               a n Ave




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              t hrie Ln
                                                                   Balfour Rd                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Balfour Rd                                                                                                                                                                     Collector


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Griffith Ln
              !
      ! ! ! !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Continente Ave
                                                                                                          ric




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             u
                                                                                                          me                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 G                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             ! ! ! ! !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Rural Byway
                                                                                                                                                                                                    J oh n
                                                                                                                                                                    Fo




                                                                                                      A                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Armstrong Way
                                                                                                                                                                       o   t hi l




            !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
                      !
                          De                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ECCID
                                                                                                                                                                                                        Mu




                          !
                               er V
                                                                                                                                                                               lD




                                  !
                                          al
                                          ! !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Eureka Ave
                                      ! !
                                               le
                                                                                                                                                                                  r

                                                                                                                                                                                                             ir P




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ! ! ! !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
                                                 y
                                                               !




                                                      Ro
                                                                     !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                  kw




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Brentwood Blvd
                                                               ! ! !
                                                           ad




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Walnut Blvd
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     y




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Payne Ave




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Sellers Ave
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    !
                                                                           !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Co
                                                                             !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    co
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              n
                                                                   ! ! ! ! !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             r d Av
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      e
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Concord Ave
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Vin
                                                                  !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ey




                                                              !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Marsh Creek Rd
                                                      ! !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ar




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  sP
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           #
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               d




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               kw
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                y                 ! !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Walnut Blvd
                                                          !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              !
                                                      !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         !
                                                  !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    !
                                              !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ! !
                                          !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   #
                                      !




                                      !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
                              !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            !




  #                       !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      !
                   ! !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
                  !




             !
          !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Byron Hwy
                      !
                          !
                                  !   Ma
                                      !
                                          !
                                              rsh
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ! !




                                                  !   C
                                                           ee
                                                      !
                                                          r




                                                           !
                                                                    k                                                                                                                                                                                                              ! ! ! ! !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        ! !




                                                                  !          Rd
                                                                           ! !                                                                                                                                                                                           ! ! !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               ! !           ! !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               !                                 !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   !                                                                                                ! ! ! ! !
                                                                                      !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ! !




                                                                                              !                                                                                                                                   !
                                                                                                  !                                                                                                                           !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                          !
                                                                                                      !                                                                                                               !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         !




                                                                                                          !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        !




                                                                                                               ! !                                                                                                !
                                                                                                                                                            ! ! ! ! !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             !




                                                                                                                   ! !                                    !                                 !         !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ! !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 !




                                                                                                                       !                             !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               #
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ! !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        !           Camino Diablo Rd
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ! !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              #




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              !                                                                       !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    !                                                             !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   !
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           #
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 !        !




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  þ
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  }
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  ·
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  239




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          De Novo Planning Group
Sources: ESRI, CCTA, City of Brentwood                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental Firm
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
       This page left intentionally blank
                                                                                                 2. C IRCULATION


Goals, Policies, and Actions

Goal CIR 1        Provide a transportation system that facilitates the efficient
                  movement of people and goods within and through the city of
                  Brentwood and promotes the use of alternatives to the single-
                  occupant vehicle


Policy CIR 1-1:     Ensure that the City’s circulation network is maintained and improved
                    over time to support buildout of the General Plan in a manner that is
                    consistent with the General Plan Roadways Map.

Policy CIR 1-2:     Ensure that the City’s circulation network is a well-connected system of
                    streets, roads, highways, sidewalks, and paths that effectively
                    accommodates vehicular and non-vehicular traffic in a manner that
                    considers the context of surrounding land uses and the needs of all
                    roadway users.

Policy CIR 1-3:     When analyzing impacts to the circulation network created by new
                    development or roadway improvements, consider the needs of all
                    users, including those with disabilities, ensuring that pedestrians,
                    bicyclists, and transit riders are considered at an equal level to
                    automobile drivers.

Policy CIR 1-4:     Maintain the Multimodal Transportation Service Objective (MTSO)
                    standards set forth for designated regional transportation facilities that
                    pass through Brentwood, as identified in the East County Action Plan for
                    Routes of Regional Significance, produced by the TRANSPLAN
                    Committee and Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA).

                    1. Following are the Routes of Regional Significance identified within
                       and surrounding Brentwood by the East County Action Plan for
                       Routes of Regional Significance.
                        a.   State Route (SR) 4 Bypass
                        b.   Balfour Road
                        c.   Brentwood Boulevard
                        d.   Deer Valley Road
                        e.   Fairview Avenue
                        f.   Sand Creek Road
                        g.   Lone Tree Way
                        h.   Oak Street-Walnut Boulevard
                        i.   Marsh Creek Road
                        j.   Vasco Road

                    2. Freeway MTSO – The Delay Index should not exceed 2.5 during
                       the peak hour. This applies to SR 4 Bypass freeway segments.
                    3. Signalized Suburban Arterial Routes – Intersection levels of service
                       should be maintained at LOS D or better.
                    4. Non-Signalized Rural Roads – Roadway levels of service should be
                       maintained at LOS D or better.


  Brentwood General Plan                                                                                       2-3
                                                                                               Figure
                                                                                         CCTA Routes of Regional
                                                                                              Significance




Source: East County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance, CCTA, 2009

                                                                                     De Novo Planning Group
                                                                                  A Land Use Planning, Design, and Environmental Firm
                                                                                                2. C IRCULATION



Policy CIR 1-5:    Maintain LOS D or better operation at intersections within Brentwood
                   that are not on designated Routes of Regional Significance, and LOS E
                   or better operation at intersections in the Downtown Specific Plan
                   area. At unsignalized intersections, levels of service shall be determined
                   for both controlled movements and for the overall intersection.
                   Controlled movements operating at LOS E or LOS F are allowable if                  Level	
  of	
  Service	
  
                   the intersection is projected to operate at LOS C or better overall,                   (LOS)	
  
                   and/or if the “Peak Hour” signal warrant outlined in the California
                   Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices remains unmet.                         Level of Service (LOS)
                                                                                                     is used to rank traffic
Policy CIR 1-6:    Intersections may be exempted from the LOS standards established in               operation on various
                   Policy CIR 1-5 in cases where the City Council finds that the                    types of facilities based
                   infrastructure improvements needed to maintain vehicle LOS (such as              on traffic volumes and
                   roadway or intersection widening) would be in conflict with goals of             roadway capacity using
                   improving multimodal circulation, or would lead to other potentially                 a series of letter
                   adverse environmental impacts. For those locations where the City                  designations ranging
                   allows a reduced motor vehicle LOS or queuing standard, additional              from A to F. Generally,
                   multimodal improvements may be required in order to reduce impacts                  Level of Service A
                   to mobility.                                                                       represents free flow
                                                                                                   conditions and Level of
Policy CIR 1-7:    Improve circulation in locations with high levels of congestion, but avoid         Service F represents
                   major increases in street capacities unless necessary to remedy severe                forced flow or
                   traffic congestion on major arterial corridors.                                  breakdown conditions.
Policy CIR 1-8:    Consider all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve
                   safety, access, and mobility for all roadway users.

Policy CIR 1-9:    Provide high quality regular maintenance for existing and future
                   transportation facilities including streets, sidewalks, and paths.

Policy CIR 1-10:   Maximize the use of matching funding grant sources to provide ongoing
                   maintenance, operation, and management of the City’s circulation
                   network.

Policy CIR 1-11:   Consider roundabouts in lieu of traffic signals where appropriate
                   conditions exist to maximize intersection efficiency, maintain
                   continuous but moderate traffic flow, reduce accident severity, and
                   enhance pedestrian and cyclist circulation.

Policy CIR 1-12:   Maintain and improve critical transportation facilities for emergency
                   vehicle access and emergency evacuation needs.

Policy CIR 1-13:   Maintain a transportation system, consistent with the City Truck Routes
                   Map, which provides truck mobility to serve Brentwood commerce,
                   and supports infrastructure improvements to separate regional goods
                   movement from local circulation.

Policy CIR 1-14:   Work with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in
                   evaluating the potential to create additional grade separated roadway
                   crossings on the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line through
                   Brentwood.


  Brentwood General Plan                                                                                                2-5
    2. C IRCULATION


                           Policy CIR 1-15:   Support the development of rail spurs along the UPRR corridor in
                                              appropriate areas with supporting industrial or business park uses.

                           Policy CIR 1-16:   Work with major employers and higher-education institutions to
 Transportation	
  
                                              implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs.
    Demand	
  
Management	
  (TDM)	
      Policy CIR 1-17:   Coordinate with local school districts and colleges to minimize traffic
                                              impacts through strategic scheduling of class schedules and major
Examples of TDM
                                              events, implementation of TDM measures, and on-campus parking
programs may include
                                              management.
(but are not limited to)
subsidized transit
                           Policy CIR 1-18:   Consider the impacts of growth in surrounding jurisdictions when
passes, guaranteed ride
                                              designing Brentwood’s circulation network, and in particular, the
home, carpool
                                              impacts created on the Sellers Avenue corridor by growth in Oakley.
matching,
telecommuting,
                           Policy CIR 1-19:   Participate in regional planning efforts for the future SR 239 highway
alternative work
                                              corridor between Brentwood and Interstates 580/205 in Tracy,
schedules, car sharing,
                                              recognizing that the importance of the route may increase over time as
employer-sponsored
                                              patterns in regional employment and commerce change.
vanpools, and
preferential parking for   Actions in Support of Goal CIR 1
carpools and/or low-
emission vehicles.         Action CIR 1a:     The City shall cooperate with other jurisdictions in Contra Costa County to
                                              reduce transportation congestion through the following actions:

                                              1. Participate in the Contra Costa Transportation Authority's Growth
                                                 Management and Congestion Management Programs;

                                              2. Continue to serve on the TRANSPLAN Committee;

                                              3. Encourage public input into the congestion management planning
                                                 process;

                                              4. Participate in future updates to the East County Action Plan for
                                                 Routes of Regional Significance;

                                              5. Cooperate with CCTA and other jurisdictions in planning for
                                                 intersections subject to Findings of Special Circumstance; and

                                              6. Coordinate with neighboring agencies in efforts to expand regional
                                                 bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian networks to meet anticipated
                                                 demands.

                           Action CIR 1b:     Complete the following roadway improvements to maintain the safety
                                              and efficiency of the current circulation system, and to support buildout of
                                              the General Plan.

                                                  1. BUILDOUT TO CITY LIMITS

                                                           a) Lone Tree Way/SR 4 S. Ramps – Reallocate eastbound
                                                              lanes to two through lanes and two right-turn lanes.

                                                           b) Lone Tree Way/O’Hara Boulevard – Widen the
                                                              westbound approach to include a shared through/right-
                                                              turn lane. Modify the signal to include a right-turn
                                                              overlap phase on the eastbound approach.
       2-6                                                                                Brentwood General Plan
                                                                                         2. C IRCULATION


                         c) Lone Tree Way/Brentwood Boulevard – Modify signal to
                            provide protected left-turns on the east and west legs.
                            Eastbound: modify to provide left-turn, through, and
                            right-turn lanes, and implement right-turn overlap signal
                            phasing. Westbound: modify to provide a left-turn lane,
                            through lane, and shared through/right-turn lane.
                            Northbound: modify to provide dual left-turn, single
                            through, and single through/right-turn lanes.

                         d) Brentwood Boulevard/Grant Street – Modify signal to
                            protected left-turn movements on the east and west
                            legs. Eastbound: modify to provide one left-turn lane
                            and one shared through/right-turn lane. Westbound:
                            widen to provide single left-turn, through, and right-turn
                            lanes.

                         e) Sand Creek Road/Fairview Avenue – Widen the
                            northbound approach to add a left-turn lane.
                            Reconfigure the southbound approach to include left-
                            turn, through, and shared through/right-turn lanes.

                         f)   Fairview Avenue/San Jose Avenue – Reconfigure east
                              and west approaches to include single left-turn and
                              single through/right-turn lanes.      Modify signal to
                              protected left-turn phasing on the east and west legs.

                         g) Balfour Road/Brentwood Boulevard – Widen to provide
                            an additional northbound left-turn lane and westbound
                            right-turn lane.

                         h) Walnut Boulevard between Armstrong Road and Vasco
                            Road – Widen to two lanes in each direction.

                   2. BUILDOUT TO THE PLANNING AREA (improvements in
                      addition to those listed above)

                         a) Lone Tree Way/Fairview Avenue – Modify signal to
                            provide protected left-turn phasing on the north and
                            south legs.

                         b) Lone Tree Way/Brentwood Boulevard – Same
                            improvements as identified above, plus widen the
                            eastbound approach to include a second right-turn lane.

                         c) Brentwood       Boulevard/Grant   Street   –    same
                            improvements as identified above, plus widen the
                            westbound and southbound approaches to include dual
                            left-turn lanes. Widen the northbound approach to add
                            a right-turn lane. Widen Sunset Road east of the
                            intersection to provide two eastbound lanes,
                            approximately to McHenry Lane.

                         d) Sand Creek Road/SR 4 North – Add a second
                            northbound right-turn lane.


Brentwood General Plan                                                                                 2-7
2. C IRCULATION


                                               e) Sand Creek Road/O'Hara Avenue – Modify signal to
                                                  provide right-turn overlap phases on the eastbound and
                                                  westbound approaches.

                                               f)   Balfour Road/Deer Valley Road – Signalize intersection
                                                    and widen to provide a southbound left-turn pocket.

                                               g) Balfour Road/American Avenue – Widen to provide a
                                                  westbound right-turn lane.

                                               h) Balfour Road/Fairview Avenue – Reconfigure northbound
                                                  approach to include dual left-turn, single through, and
                                                  shared through/right-turn lanes.

                                               i)   Balfour Road/Walnut Boulevard – Modify signal to
                                                    provide an eastbound right-turn overlap phase.

                                               j)   Balfour    Road/Brentwood       Boulevard –    Same
                                                    improvements as identified above, plus widen the
                                                    eastbound approach to provide two left-turn lanes, a
                                                    through lane and a right-turn lane.

                                   The City Traffic Engineer may substitute one or more of the
                                   improvements listed above with other improvements deemed to achieve
                                   acceptable operation.

                  Action CIR 1c:   The Public Works Department shall maintain a systematic pavement
                                   management program and identify and prioritize maintenance projects in
                                   the City’s CIP.

                                   1. Street maintenance should include upkeep and regular cleaning of
                                      bicycle routes to remove debris and repair poor pavement conditions
                                      that discourage bicycle riding; and

                                   2. The Pavement Management Program data system should address
                                      signage and pavement quality throughout the city.

                  Action CIR 1d:   As part of the development review process, the Community Development
                                   Department and the Public Works Department shall review development
                                   projects to ensure that developers:

                                   1. Construct transportation improvements along property frontages
                                      when appropriate;

                                   2. Address the project’s proportional share of impacts to the City’s
                                      circulation network through payment of traffic mitigation and other
                                      fees;

                                   3. For local project-related circulation impacts requiring improvements
                                      that are not included in an adopted impact fee program, either
                                      complete the necessary improvements or pay a proportional-share of
                                      the cost;

                                   4. Provide for complete streets to the extent feasible, facilitating
                                      walking, biking, and transit modes;

 2-8                                                                         Brentwood General Plan
                                                                                                   2. C IRCULATION


                    5. Fund traffic impact studies that identify on-site and off-site project
                       effects and mitigation measures; and

                    6. Provide adequate emergency vehicle access.

Action CIR 1e:      Update the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to include, as
                    appropriate, the roadway improvements necessary to support buildout of
                    the General Plan.

Action CIR 1f:      Routinely monitor the performance of the circulation network, optimizing
                    traffic signals and utilizing Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
                    measures where beneficial to maximize efficiency of the existing network
                    on a regular basis.                                                                Complete	
  Street	
  
Action CIR 1g:      Provide staff support to regional agencies such as CCTA and Caltrans in         A transportation facility
                    the implementation of ITS measures that improve the efficiency of               that is planned,
                    roadway and transit networks in east Contra Costa County.                       designed, operated,
                                                                                                    and maintained to
Action CIR 1h:      Ensure regular monitoring of traffic accidents, traffic levels, and
                                                                                                    provide safe mobility
                    intersection capacity to update base data and respond to safety
                                                                                                    for all users, including
                    problems and changing conditions. Prioritize locations with high collision
                                                                                                    bicyclists, pedestrians,
                    rates for safety improvements.
                                                                                                    transit vehicles,
Action CIR 1i:      Continually seek opportunities to fund maintenance of and improvements          truckers, and motorists,
                    to the circulation network, including the active pursuit by the Public Works    appropriate to the
                    Department of a wide range of grant sources overseen by MTC and other           function and context of
                    agencies.                                                                       the facility.

Action CIR 1j:      Establish specific TDM requirements for new development projects and
                    consider making requirements sector-based (e.g., residential, commercial,
                    industrial).



Goal CIR 2        Proactively support and encourage travel by non-automobile
                  modes by maintaining and expanding safe and efficient
                  pedestrian, bicycle, equestrian, and transit networks


Policy CIR 2-1:     Establish and maintain a system of interconnected bicycle, pedestrian,
                    and equestrian facilities that facilitate commuter and recreational travel,
                    and that are consistent with the City’s parks, trails, and recreation goals
                    and policies in this General Plan and the Contra Costa County
                    Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.

Policy CIR 2-2:     Routinely incorporate sidewalks and enhanced pedestrian crossing
                    facilities as part of new street construction, and incorporate bicycle
                    facilities on new collector and arterial streets (including bicycle lanes
                    where appropriate, bicycle route and destination signs, and bicycle
                    detection at signals).

Policy CIR 2-3:     Require development projects to construct on-site sidewalks, paths,
                    and trails in a manner that is consistent with the City’s parks, trails, and
                    recreation goals and policies in this General Plan and the Contra Costa

   Brentwood General Plan                                                                                                2-9
    2. C IRCULATION


                                              County Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, and as dictated by the
                                              location of transit stops and common pedestrian destinations.

                           Policy CIR 2-4:    Create an accessible circulation network that is consistent with
                                              guidelines established by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
                                              allowing mobility-impaired users such as the disabled and elderly to
                                              safely and effectively travel within and beyond the city.

                           Policy CIR 2-5:    Recognize that the use of Personal               Mobility Devices and
                                              Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs) is       likely to increase as the
                                              nation’s population ages, and design the        City’s on and off-street
                                              circulation network to safely accommodate      users of such devices and
                                              vehicles.

                           Policy CIR 2-6:    Prioritize bicycle and pedestrian safety for students traveling to and
                                              from school.

                           Policy CIR 2-7:    Support regional efforts to develop Safe Routes to School Programs
                                              for schools that serve Brentwood’s population.

                           Policy CIR 2-8:    Provide secure bicycle racks in places such as the Downtown, at
                                              commercial areas, park and ride transit facilities, schools, multiple unit
                                              residential developments, and other locations where there is a
                                              concentration of residents, visitors, students, or employees.

                           Policy CIR 2-9:    Where possible, integrate multi-use path facilities into utility corridor
                                              rights-of-way.

                           Policy CIR 2-10:   Work with utility providers to reduce or eliminate barriers to
        eBART	
                               pedestrian and bicyclist mobility created by utility infrastructure (such as
                                              utility poles that obstruct accessibility).
The eBART Project
represents the first       Policy CIR 2-11:   Design safe crossings where trails and roads meet.
phase of a plan to
extend rail service into   Policy CIR 2-12:   Seek opportunities to fund and construct improvements that improve
East Contra Costa                             multimodal access to any future mass transit facility (i.e., eBART).
County. eBART will
not be an extension of     Policy CIR 2-13:   Coordinate with Tri Delta Transit to increase the coverage areas and
the BART trains, but                          frequencies of bus service in Brentwood.
will be a supplementary
rail service to            Policy CIR 2-14:   Ensure that effective linkages are in place between any future mass
coordinate with the                           transit facility (i.e., eBART) and the city’s primary activity and
arrival/departure of                          employment centers.
BART trains at the
Pittsburg/Bay Point        Policy CIR 2-15:   Coordinate with Tri Delta Transit to maintain existing and, where
Station.                                      feasible, build new lighted and sheltered seating facilities at bus stops.

                           Policy CIR 2-16:   Ensure that adequate lighting and trash disposal is provided at all bus
                                              stops.

                           Policy CIR 2-17:   Encourage the use of park-and-ride lots and other transit incentives for
                                              Brentwood commuters.


      2-10                                                                                Brentwood General Plan
                                                                                                   2. C IRCULATION


Policy CIR 2-18:   Work with Tri Delta Transit to identify the need for and locations of
                   additional park-and-ride lots in Brentwood in order to increase the
                   number and length of trips made by transit and carpooling.

Policy CIR 2-19:   Provide safe and continuous pedestrian, vehicular, and bicycle access at
                   all transit park-and-ride facilities.

Actions in Support of Goal CIR 2
Action CIR 2a:     Review development applications to ensure compliance with the parks,
                   trails, and recreation goals and policies in this General Plan and the
                   Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.

Action CIR 2b:     Review traffic signal timing plans to ensure adequate crossing times for all
                   users at signalized intersections.

Action CIR 2c:     Review all transportation improvements to ensure installation in
                   accordance with current accessibility standards.

Action CIR 2d:     Regularly review transportation corridors to identify barriers encountered
                   by persons with disabilities, including locations with damaged sidewalk
                   surfaces and non ADA-compliant curb cuts and ramps, and address such
                   obstacles in the Capital Improvement Program.

Action CIR 2e:     Continue to include construction of bicycle and pathway facilities in the
                   City’s Capital Improvement Program, prioritizing areas where gaps in the
                   current network need to be filled.

Action CIR 2f:     Ensure that bicycle loop detectors are present at traffic signals and clearly
                   identified with stencils.

Action CIR 2g:     Assist and coordinate with Tri Delta Transit in seeking funding to increase
                   transit frequencies on key corridors, increase the hours of transit
                   operation, and expand regular transit service in portions of Brentwood
                   that have no public transit service.

                   1. New or modified routes that connect the Downtown area with major
                      employment centers and Los Medanos College should be prioritized;
                      and

                   2. New or modified routes connecting residential and employment-
                      based uses to any future mass transit facility (i.e., eBART) should be
                      coordinated to initiate with implementation of rail service.

Action CIR 2h:     Coordinate with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, Contra Costa
                   Health Services, Brentwood Union School District, and Liberty Union High
                   School District to initiate development of Safe Routes to School Programs
                   in Brentwood.

Action CIR 2i:     Monitor national efforts to establish effective multimodal level of service
                   standards for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes.

Action CIR 2j:     Issue guidelines and incorporate assessment of multimodal LOS as a
                   routine component of transportation impact analyses once the Public
                   Works Department determines a multimodal LOS methodology that is
                   deemed suitable for application in Brentwood.
   Brentwood General Plan                                                                                       2-11
2. C IRCULATION




                  Goal CIR 3         Coordinate circulation facilities with land use                         and
                                     development patterns to create an environment                           that
                                     encourages walking, bicycling, and transit use


                  Policy CIR 3-1:      Recognize the role of streets not only as vehicle routes but also as
                                       parts of a system of public spaces, with quality landscaping, street trees,
                                       and bicycle and pedestrian paths.

                  Policy CIR 3-2:      Prioritize high-density and mixed land use patterns that promote transit
                                       and pedestrian travel along transit corridors.

                  Policy CIR 3-3:      Design developments to include features that encourage walking,
                                       bicycling, and transit use. Design features shall include bus turnouts,
                                       transit shelters and benches, and pedestrian access points between
                                       subdivisions and between adjacent related land uses.

                  Policy CIR 3-4:      Provide an interconnected street network that provides multiple points
                                       of access, discouraging cut-through traffic while maintaining
                                       neighborhood connectivity.

                  Policy CIR 3-5:      Encourage local access connections between neighborhood parks and
                                       commercial areas by walking as an alternative to short-distance driving.

                  Policy CIR 3-6:      Ensure that the City’s adopted street standards reflect a multi-modal
                                       focus, including vehicular lane widths that are no wider than necessary
                                       to serve the surrounding land use context and accommodate
                                       emergency vehicles.

                  Policy CIR 3-7:      Apply the streetscape standards outlined in Brentwood’s adopted
                                       Specific Plan areas, including those identified in the Downtown Specific
                                       Plan and Brentwood Boulevard Specific Plan.

                  Policy CIR 3-8:      Where necessary, emphasize traffic management and calming
                                       techniques to control vehicle speeds on residential streets, as well as
                                       collector streets within residential developments.

                  Policy CIR 3-9:      Design intersections to provide adequate and safe access for all users
                                       including pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists of all ages and abilities.

                  Policy CIR 3-10:     Require new development to include effective linkages to the
                                       surrounding circulation system for all modes of travel, to the extent
                                       feasible.

                  Actions in Support of Goal CIR 3
                  Action CIR 3a:       During the development review process, the Community Development
                                       Department shall review plans to ensure that projects include an
                                       interconnected network of streets and paths that facilitate non-auto
                                       modes for shorter trips, and disperse rather than concentrate traffic in
                                       residential neighborhoods.

 2-12                                                                              Brentwood General Pl