RICHMOND CENTRAL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Public Review Draft
City of Richmond
April 2014
APRIL 2014 RICHMOND CENTRAL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................... 1
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ........................................................ 7
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ............................................................................................ 8
I. Aesthetics .......................................................................................................... 8
II. Agricultural and Forest Resources .................................................................... 11
III. Air Quality ........................................................................................................ 13
IV. Biological Resources ......................................................................................... 23
V. Cultural Resources ........................................................................................... 28
VI. Geology and Soils ............................................................................................. 34
VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................... 41
VIII. Hazards ........................................................................................................... 45
IX. Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................ 53
X. Land Use and Planning ..................................................................................... 60
XI. Mineral Resources ............................................................................................ 65
XII. Noise ............................................................................................................... 67
XIII. Population and Housing ................................................................................... 83
XIV. Public Services ................................................................................................. 86
XV. Recreation ........................................................................................................ 90
XVI. Transportation/Traffic ...................................................................................... 92
XVII. Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................... 101
XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................ 107
REPORT PREPARERS ...................................................................................................... 111
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 112
APPENDIX A: CalEEMod Report
RICHMOND CENTRAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST APRIL 2014
ii
List of Tables
Table I-1 Proposed Uses ...........................................................................................4 Table I-2 Applications ...............................................................................................6 Table III-1 Summary of Average Criteria Pollutant Emissions during Project
Construction ............................................................................................16 Table III-2 Summary of Average Criteria Pollutant Emissions during Project
Operation ................................................................................................18 Table III-3 Summary of Risks and Hazards from TAC Emissions ................................21 Table VII-1 Summary of Average GHG Emissions during Project Operation .................43 Table XII-1 Definition of Acoustical Terms .................................................................68 Table XII-2 Outdoor Noise Exposure Standards (Ldn or CNEL, dB) of the Cities
of Richmond and El Cerrito ......................................................................69 Table XII-3 Indoor Noise Exposure Standards of the Cities of Richmond and El
Cerrito .....................................................................................................70 Table XII-4 Construction Regulation Cities of Richmond and El Cerrito .......................71 Table XII-5 City of Richmond Maximum Noise Level Standards for Mobile
Construction Equipment (dBA) ..................................................................72 Table XII-6 City of Richmond Maximum Noise Level Standards for Stationary
Construction Equipment (dBA) ..................................................................72 Table XII-7 Estimated Noise Levels from Construction Activities (dBA) ........................73 Table XII-8 Typical Noise Levels at 50 Feet from Construction Equipment
(dBA) ........................................................................................................73 Table XII-9 Vibration Standards of the Cities of Richmond and El Cerrito ....................79 Table XII-10 Vibration Criteria to Prevent Disturbance of Residents – VdB RMS .............79 Table XII-11 Vibration Criteria to Prevent Damage to Structures ...................................80 Table XII-12 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment .................................81 Table XIV-1 Projected Population Growth and Capacity, by Schools Serving the
Project Site ...............................................................................................88 Table XVI-1 Peak Hour Intersection LOS and Delay Summary, Signalized
intersections ............................................................................................95 Table XVI-2 Peak Hour Intersection LOS and Delay Summary, Unsignalized
intersections ............................................................................................96
List of Figures
Figure VIII-1 Former Structures and Groundwater Sampling Locations ..........................48
APRIL 2014 RICHMOND CENTRAL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. Project Title: Richmond Central Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Richmond, Planning and Building Services Department 450 Civic Center Plaza Richmond, CA 94804
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jonelyn Whales, Senior Planner (510) 620-6785, [email protected]
4. Project Location: The project site is located at 5620 Central Avenue in the City of Richmond, Contra Costa County, California.
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: City of Richmond Richmond Planning Department 450 Civic Center Plaza Richmond, CA 94804
RICHMOND CENTRAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST APRIL 2014
2 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
6. General Plan Designation: Regional Commercial Mixed-Use (City of Richmond) and High Density Residential (City of El Cerrito)
7. Zoning: C-3, Regional Commercial (City of Richmond) and Multi-family Residential (City of El Cerrito)
8. Description of Project:
Project Background
The project site comprises approximately 2.58 acres of land, located at 5620 Central Avenue in the City of Richmond and the City of El Cerrito. The property consists of three contiguous parcels, two within the City of Richmond (APNs 510-053-032 and 510-053-033) and one within the City of El Cerrito (APN 510-053-025). The parcel located in the City of El Cerrito is adjacent to Central Avenue and San Mateo Street and comprises the site’s northwest corner while the parcels located in the City of Richmond comprise the remainder of the site.
While a small portion of the project site lies within the City of El Cerrito, the majority of the site is in the City of Richmond, and as such, the City of Richmond will serve as the lead agency for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process. The City of Richmond is located in the western portion of Contra Costa County and is generally bordered by San Pablo Bay to the north, San Francisco Bay to the west, Richmond Inner Harbor to the south, and the City of El Cerrito and unincorporated Contra Costa County land to the east.
The project site is bounded by Central Avenue to the north, Belmont Avenue to the east, San Mateo Street to the west, and commercial uses to the south. The site is within a ½ mile of the El Cerrito Plaza Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station and is within close proximity of numerous Alameda-Contra Costa (AC) Transit bus lines.
The project site is currently vacant with no structural improvements and is located on the south side of Central Avenue between Belmont Avenue and San Mateo Street. It is surrounded by a chain-linked fence and is generally level and includes sparse vegetation, including some grass and weeds. A drainage channel runs along the eastern border of the site, parallel to Belmont Avenue, then redirects and runs along the property’s southern border. In connection with the project, a pedestrian bridge facilitating movement from the project site to Belmont Avenue is proposed.
According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, the site was previously developed in 1946 with one building and multiple areas of surface parking. In 1959,
APRIL 2014 RICHMOND CENTRAL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 3
approximately six additional buildings were constructed and the remainder of the site was used to store lumber and other supply materials. These building were demolished in 2012.
Project
The project includes the following elements:
Multi-Family Units – A total of 172 apartments are proposed in a podium building with one level of above-ground parking and four levels of apartments, totaling five stories with an average building height of 61 feet and a maximum height (at the uppermost roof projection) of approximately 66 feet. The unit mix includes 127 2-bedroom, 35 3-bedroom, and 10 4-bedroom family-oriented apartments. Units would range in size from approximately 850 to 1,200 square feet. The first through the third story of the building would occupy the building’s entire floor plate while floors four and five would be stepped back from the intersection of Central Avenue and San Mateo Street. The fifth story would be stepped back incrementally further than the fourth story (approximately 83 feet), reducing the building’s mass on the upper floors. Thus, the building’s northwest corner would only be three stories tall while the other three corners would be five stories in height. According to the applicant, 90 percent of the total unit count, or 155 units, would be restricted to households that earn less than 60 percent of the area median income (AMI) in the County; the remaining 10 percent of the project (17 units) would be restricted to “very low income” households that earn less than 50 percent of AMI. Affordable rental units would be reserved at this affordability level for a period of 30 years.
Open Spaces and Community Amenities – Common open spaces include a community space and office; public plazas and open spaces; and laundry and exercise facilities. In addition to common open spaces, private balconies would be provided in individual units. In addition to the landscaped and open space areas in the building, landscaped treatments would create green edges at the perimeters of the project site. Landscaping around the perimeter of the building is proposed to be a combination of trees, shrubbery, hardscape and other improvements.
Circulation and Parking – Vehicle access to and from the site would be provided via an entry and exit onto San Mateo Street and an additional exit driveway onto Belmont Avenue via a new bridge that would cross the drainage channel from Belmont Avenue to the project site. No direct access to the project site would be provided from Central Avenue. All of the project’s parking would be provided in the ground-level garage. The project would include a variety of parking options including: individual standard-sized spaces, individual compact spaces, tandem spaces, and bicycle parking. The project’s parking supply would include 254 standard spaces, 48 compact spaces, and 7 ADA-compliant spaces, for a total of 309 total spaces.
RICHMOND CENTRAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST APRIL 2014
4 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
The project uses are detailed in Table I-1. The building is proposed as a Mediterranean/Spanish style.
TABLE I-1 PROPOSED USES
Land Use Amount
Residential Units
Two-Bedroom Apartments 127
Three-Bedroom Apartments 35
Four-Bedroom Apartments 10
Total 172
Common Open Spaces/Community Amenities Square Feet
Community Space/Office 1,890
Laundry/Exercise Area 1,290
Public Plazas and Open Areas 18,150
Total 21,330
Parking Spaces
Standard 254
Compact 48
ADA 7
Total 309 Source: AMG & Associates, LLC, Plan Set, dated February 14, 2014.
General Plan and Zoning Designations
The City of Richmond General Plan land use classification for the parcels located in Richmond, as established by the Land Use and Urban Design Element of the City of Richmond’s General Plan,1 is Regional Commercial Mixed-Use. Properties designated as Regional Commercial Mixed-Use typically are improved with mid-rise, mixed-use development characterized by compact and pedestrian-friendly environments. In addition to medium-density residential uses at densities up to 50 units/acre, the Regional Commercial Mixed-Use category permits office and retail uses at intensities up to 2.0 floor area ratio (FAR). This designation has a height limit of 55 feet.
1 City of Richmond, 2012. General Plan, Land Use and Urban Design Element.
APRIL 2014 RICHMOND CENTRAL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 5
The City of Richmond’s zoning designation for the parcels is Regional Commercial (C-3) District. The C-3 District is intended to create, preserve, and enhance areas by encouraging retail and other pedestrian-oriented uses. The C-3 District is established to allow flexibility in use and permits a wide variety of commercial, retail, residential, and civic uses and certain agricultural, open space, and industrial uses. However, residential uses must be developed as part of a mixed-use development. The C-3 District permits building heights up to 65 feet and an FAR of up to 2.0 when residential uses are a component of a mixed-use development.2
The project is generally within the height limit of the C-3 District, although at the uppermost roof projection extends to just above 66 feet. However, the project exceeds the General Plan height limit of for the Regional Commercial Mixed-Use, and, at residential density of 67 units per acre, also exceeds the density regulations. Additionally, the development does not include a mix of uses as required by the C-3 District. These inconsistencies are analyzed fully in Section X: Land Use and Planning.
For this project, the City of Richmond is the lead permitting agency and its designations will preside. For informational purposes, a description of El Cerrito’s General Plan and Zoning classifications are provided below.
The City of El Cerrito General Plan land use classification for the parcel, as established by the Community Development and Design Element of the City of El Cerrito’s General Plan,3 is High Density Residential. The High Density Residential land use classification permits the development of residential uses with densities up to 35 dwelling units per acre. The City of El Cerrito’s zoning designation for the parcel is RM, or Multi-family Residential. The RM zone contemplates the development of multi-family uses in well-designed environments at a density of 21 to 35 dwelling units per net acre.4
The project, proposing 309 spaces, provides slightly less parking than what is required by the City’s Zoning Code. Section 15.04.850.060 of the Municipal Code requires 1.5 spaces per 2-bedroom unit, 2 spaces per 3- or more bedroom units, and 1 guest space per 5 units, resulting in a requirement of 315 parking spaces.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is located in the southern area of the City and is surrounded by a variety of land uses. Residential uses occupy most of the land to the east of the project site across Belmont Avenue and include a mix of apartments and townhouses. Further east approaching Carlson Boulevard, residential development mixes with commercial and civic uses. Various commercial uses, including a climbing gym, roofing company, and self-
2 City of Richmond, 2011. Zoning Ordinance. Section 15.04.230. 3 City of El Cerrito, 1999. General Plan, Community Development and Design Element. 4 City of El Cerrito, 2008. Zoning Ordinance. Section 19.06.10.
RICHMOND CENTRAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST APRIL 2014
6 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
storage business are located south of the project site. Residential and commercial uses including single-family homes, apartment buildings, and gas stations are located west of the project site just across San Mateo Street.
The site is well served by public transit. AC Transit currently has six bus routes that provide transit access within the vicinity of the project site, including Route 25 which stops directly in front of the project site at Central and Belmont Avenues. Existing routes provide access to El Cerrito Plaza BART and destinations outside Richmond such as San Francisco, Berkeley and Oakland. The project site is approximately a ½ mile from the El Cerrito Plaza BART station.
The closest freeway to the project site is Interstate 80 (I-80) located about 800 feet to the west. Across Central Avenue northeast of the site is Central Park, an approximately 2.6-acre facility primarily comprised of a baseball diamond, playground, and lawn area. Across Central Avenue to the northwest residential uses dominate the area, including multi-family and single-family housing.
10. Requested Applications:
TABLE I-2 APPLICATIONS
Lead Agency Permit/Approval
City of Richmond
Design Review Tentative Parcel Map Conditional Use Permit (If development does not propose rezoning to a Planned Area) Planned Area Rezoning (This requires discretionary planning review and a Planning Commission hearing.) Environmental Review (IS/MND) Variance for parking reduction (unless taken as a SB1818 concession) Building Permits
Responsible Agencies
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for storm water discharge
11. Other public agencies whose approval may be required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):
Siege Sanitary District, East Bay Municipal Water District
RICHM
8
ENV
I. Would
a) Hvi
b) Subh
c) Suo
d) Cwvi
The vprimaprojetownclimblocatedistu
Disc
Ha)
Less Francformaproje
The GFrancRichmbays such to theand nvisibl
MOND CENTRAL
VIRONMEN
AESTHETd the project:
ave a substanista? ubstantially dut not limitedistoric buildinubstantially dr quality of threate a new s
which would adiews in the ar
visual landscarily of residect site is surhouses, and
bing gym, roed south of rbed land co
ussion
Have a substa
Than Signifcisco and Saally identify
ect would no
General Plancisco and Samond, thougare limited f as residentie north, souneighborhooe.
INITIAL STUDY C
NTAL CHE
TICS
ntial adverse e
amage scenicd to, trees, rocngs within a segrade the ex
he site and itsource of subsdversely affecea?
cape surroundential uses rrounded by apartments
oofing compathe project sovered by gr
antial adver
ficant. The Gn Pablo baysany specifict adversely a
does contain Pablo bays
gh not scenicfrom the siteal buildings th and west
od trees. Loo
CHECKLIST
PU
ECKLIST
effect on a sce
c resources, inck outcroppintate scenic hixisting visual surroundingstantial light oct day or nigh
nding the prand accesso
y a mix of ons. Various onany, the Pacsite. The proravel, dirt, an
rse effect on
General Plans are prominc scenic vistaaffect any “s
in policies ths, which are c vistas. Duee. The views (single- and are impede
oking east fr
BLIC REVIEW
Po
SiIm
enic
ncluding, ngs, and ghway?
character s?
or glare ttime
oject site is ory commercne- and two-sne- and two-ific East Maloject would bnd sparse ve
a scenic vis
n states that nent scenic aas or resourccenic vistas”
hat protect v considered e to site’s fla in the proje
d multi-famild by residenom San Mat
DRAFT
otentially
gnificant mpact
Pote
SignUnle
MitiInco
■
heavily devecial uses in tstory single-story comml, and a selfbe constructegetation.
ta?
surroundingareas in Richces. As a res” though it m
views of hills the promineat topographect area conly) and roadwntial and comeo Street ac
entially
nificant ess
igation orporation
Le
SigIm
■
■
■
eloped, conshe nearby a-family homeercial uses,
f-storage busted on previ
g hills and thhmond, but dsult, construmay change
sides and thent scenic arhy, views of sist largely oways. Views mmercial devross the site
APRIL 20
ess Than
gnificant mpact
No Imp
sisting rea. The es, including a siness are ously
he San does not ction of the some views
e San reas in hillsides or tof urban use across the svelopment, e, hillsides a
014
act
.
the es, site
re
APRIL 20
Views fsignificviews wof viewconsideeast woproject
Subb)out
No ImpCaliforby the within
The GeRichmocurrentThe prooutcropon scen
Subc)sur
Less Tof new developneighbcommean impthe prosurroun
Cred)nig
Potentdoes nprovidenot yetinclude
014
from San Macantly. Althowould not exws would notered to be a ould still be t.
bstantially dtcroppings, a
pact. California’s naturaState’s scenthe City of R
eneral Plan sond, but doet a paved vacoject would ppings or hinic resource
bstantially drroundings?
han Signific residential pment wouldorhood and
ercial scale trovement to
oject would nndings.
eate a new sghttime views
ially Signifiot contain oe for the comt include a de substantial
ateo Street toough some rexceed that cot affect a sub significant visible from
damage scenand historic
nia’s Scenic l scenic beauic resources
Richmond, ac
tates that sues not formacant lot withnot result instoric buildis.
degrade the e
cant. The visdevelopmend be consist create an apo its western
o the currentnot substant
ource of subs in the area
cant Unlessn-site lightin
mfort, safetyetailed lightl amounts of
PUBL
o the hillsideeduced privaommonly acbstantial numimpact on th
m Central Ave
nic resources buildings wi
Highway Prouty and to ps. I-80 and I-ccording to
urrounding hally identify ah a limited nn the removangs and the
existing visu
sual charactent, vegetatedent with theppropriate vn neighborht visual qualtially degrad
bstantial ligha?
s Mitigationng. The projy, and securiing plan. Buf reflective m
RICHMOND
LIC REVIEW DR
es would be ate views woccepted in anmber of peohe environmenue, the ma
s, including, ithin a State
ogram serverotect the so580 are not California Sc
hills and bayany specific umber of treal of a substrefore would
ual character
er of the sited setbacks ane visual contevisual transitood charactity of the un
de the existin
ht or glare w
Incorporatect would inty of residenilding mater
materials. Th
D CENTRAL PRO
RAFT
obstructed ould be unavn urban settple and wou
ment. In additain roadway
but not limie Scenic High
es to protectocial and eco designated cenic Highw
ys are promiscenic resouees along thantial numbd have a less
r or quality
e would channd increasedext of the sution from theter. The projnoccupied sitng visual cha
which would
tion. The sitencrease the ants and visitrials includehe following
OJECT INITIAL ST
by the projevoidable, anying. This los
uld not rise ttion, hillside in the vicini
ited to, treeshway?
t and enhanconomic valu as Scenic H
way mapping
nent scenic urces. The phe perimeter ber of trees, s-than-signif
of the site a
nge with thed landscapinurrounding e site’s easteect would bte. For thesearacter of th
adversely a
e is currentlyamount of litors. The pro windows, b mitigation m
TUDY CHECKLIST
ect, but not y change in ss or changeto a level e views to thity of the
s, rock
ce ues providedighways system.
areas in project site is of the site. rock ficant impac
nd its
e introductiong. The
ern e considerede reasons, he site or its
ffect day or
y vacant andghting to
oject does but do not measure
T
9
e
e
s
ct
on
d
d
RICHMOND CENTRAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST APRIL 2014
10 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
would reduce the potential impact of a substantial light or glare source that would adversely affect views to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure AES-1 – Lighting Plan: Prior to issuance of a building permit, an exterior lighting plan including fixture and standard design, coverage and intensity, shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Building Services. In its review of the lighting plan, the City shall ensure that any outdoor night lighting proposed for the project is directed downward and shielded to prevent light spill onto surrounding properties, sky glow, and glare. The City shall ensure that all development plans for the proposed project conform to the performance standards provided under Section 15.04.840.040 of the Zoning Code.
APRIL 2014 RICHMOND CENTRAL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 11
Potentially
Significant Impact
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
II. AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California agricultural land evaluation and site assessment model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significantly environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California department of forestry and fire protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the forest and range assessment project and the forest legacy assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in forest protocols adopted by the California air resources board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to a non-agricultural use?
■
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
■
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Governmental Code section 51104(g))?
■
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
■
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
■
As described above, the project would be constructed on a site in an urbanized area of Richmond and a small portion in El Cerrito that has already been disturbed by previous development. These lands are classified as “Urban and Built-Up Land” by the California
RICHM
12
DepaUp Laor apinduslandfagricidentuses.
Disc
Ca)(FM
No Imwould
Cb)
No ImAct cuse, o
Cc)RseC
No Imland,
Rd)
No Im
Ine)mo
No Im
Costa
MOND CENTRAL
artment of Coand is occuppproximatelystrial, commfills, sewage ultural use aified on or n
ussion
Convert PrimFarmland), a
Monitoring Pr
mpact. No fad not conver
Conflict with
mpact. The pontract. Theor a Williams
Conflict with Resources Coection 4526)
Code section
mpact. The p timberland,
Result in the
mpact. See r
nvolve other mature, couldf forest land
mpact. See r
5 California D
a County Impo
INITIAL STUDY C
onservation pied by strucy 6 structureercial, instit treatment aand is not unnear the proj
me Farmland,as shown on rogram of th
armland is mrt Farmland
existing zon
project site ierefore, the pson Act cont
existing zonode section 1), or timberl 51104(g))?
project area , or timberla
loss of fores
esponse II(c
changes in d result in cod to non-fore
response II(a
Department ofortant Farmla
CHECKLIST
PU
Farmland Mctures with aes per 10 acrutional facil
and water conder a Williaject site, and
, Unique Far the maps prhe California
mapped on oto a non-agr
ning for agri
s not zonedproject woultract.
ning for, or c2220(g)), tim
land zoned T
contains noand producti
st land or co
) above.
the existing onversion ofest use?
a) and II(c) ab
f Conservatio
and 2010.
BLIC REVIEW
Mapping and a building dere parcel. Coities, cemetentrol structumson Act cod the project
rmland, or Farepared pura Resources
r near the pricultural use
icultural use
d for agricultld not confli
cause rezonimberland (aTimberland P
forest or timon.
nversion of
environmenf Farmland,
bove.
n, Division of
DRAFT
Monitoring ensity of at lommon exameries, airporures. The prontract. No ft site is not
Farmland of rsuant to the Agency, to a
roject site. Te.
e, or a William
tural use andct with exist
ing of, foresas defined byProduction (
mberland an
forest land t
nt which, due to non-agric
f Land Resour
Program.5 Ueast 1 unit pmples includrts, golf couroject site is forest land ozoned for fo
Statewide Ime Farmland Ma non-agricu
Therefore, th
mson Act co
d is not undeting zoning
t land (as dey Public Reso(as defined b
nd is not zon
to non-fores
e to their loccultural use
rce Protection
APRIL 20
Urban and Buper 1.5 acresde residentiarses, sanitarnot zoned f
or timberlandorest or timb
mportance Mapping andultural use?
he project
ontract?
er a Williamsfor agricultu
efined in Pubources Code by Governme
ned for fores
st use?
cation or or conversio
, 2011. Contr
014
uilt-s, al, ry for d is ber
d
son ural
blic ent
st
on
ra
APRIL 20
III. Where aby the apollutiothe folloa) Con
appb) Viol
subviol
c) Resof aregfede(incqua
d) Expcon
e) Crenum
Note: Wpollution
The procurrentambien
Discus
Cona)
Less TProtectpublic nitrogealso esstringeinsteadfor toxvary depotenti
014
AIR QUALavailable, the applicable air on control distowing determnflict with or oplicable air qulate any air qu
bstantially to aation? ult in a cumu
any criteria poion is non-atteral or state a
cluding releasantitative threpose sensitive centrations? ate objection
mber of peoplWhere available, n control distric
oject site is tly designatent air quality
ssion
nflict with or
han Significtion Agency health for si
en dioxide, ltablished am
ent than the d of NAAQS tic air contam
epending onial sensitive
LITY significance c quality manatrict may be r
minations. Wouobstruct impleality plan? uality standaran existing or
latively consiollutant for whainment unde
ambient air quing emissionssholds for oz receptors to
able odors affe? the significanc
ct may be relied
located withed as a nonay standards.
r obstruct im
cant. Under established ix criteria airead, and parmbient air quNAAQSs. Thto evaluate aminants (TAC site-specific receptors.
PUBL
criteria establagement or airelied upon tould the projecementation o
rd or contribur projected air
derable net inhich the projeer an applicabuality standars which exceeone precurso substantial p
fecting a subs
ce criteria estabd upon to make
hin the San Fattainment a
mplementatio
the Clean Ai national amr pollutants:rticulate matuality standa
herefore, theapplicable aiCs), becausec conditions
RICHMOND
IC REVIEW DR
PoteSign
Impa
ished r
o make ct:
f the
te r quality
ncrease ect ble rd ed rs)?
ollutant
stantial
blished by the a the following d
Francisco Bayarea for the o
on of the ap
ir Act of 197mbient air qu
ozone, carbtter (PM). Thards (CAAQS CAAQS are ir quality ime air quality such wind d
D CENTRAL PRO
RAFT
entially nificant
act
PotenSignif
UnlesMitiga
Incorp
■
applicable air qdeterminations.
y Area Air Baozone and p
pplicable air
70, the Uniteality standabon monoxidhe CaliforniaSs), which ar referenced pacts. Thereimpacts fromdirection and
OJECT INITIAL ST
tially ficant
s ation
poration
LessSign
Impa
■
■
■
■
quality manage.
asin (SFBAABparticulate m
quality plan
ed States Envrds (NAAQSsde (CO), sulf
a Air Resourcre equal to oin this initiae are currentm TACs are d the locatio
TUDY CHECKLIST
1
s Than ificant
act
No
Impac
ment or air
B), which is matter (PM)
n?
vironmental s) to protectfur dioxide, ce Board hasor more al study tly no CAAQlocalized an
on of
T
3
t
t s
QS d
RICHM
14
The Bqualitadopmeas(GHGanalyincorTransThe pprojeaccouthe pimple
Vb)a
PotenCAP, were Air Qqualitoperapolluincludoxiderespe
On MBAAQthe 2a writ2010revise2010
BAAQthe Sreinst
Septe
MOND CENTRAL
Bay Area Air ty plans in oted by BAAQ
sures to redus) in the SFB
ysis of existiporated trafsportation Cproject is coections. The unted for in
plan. Therefoementation o
Violate any air quality vio
ntially Signi the BAAQMD incorporate
Quality Guidety impacts gational phastion emissiode emissiones [NO
x]), PM
ectively), loca
March 5, 201QMD had fail010 Threshot of mandate
0 Thresholdsed the CEQA
0 Thresholds
QMD appealetate of Califotating the BA
6 Bay Area Ai
mber 15. 7 BAAQMD, 2
INITIAL STUDY C
Quality Manorder to attaQMD is the Buce emissionBAAB.6 The 2ng air qualitffic and popuommission nsistent withtraffic and pthe 2010 CA
ore, the projeof the applic
air quality staolation?
ificant UnleD developedd into the 2
elines is to agenerated froes of a proje
ons would ca values for o
M with a diamal CO, TACs
2 the Alameled to complolds are cone ordering Bs until approA Air Quality s for CEQA a
ed the Alameornia, First AAAQMD’s sig
r Quality Man
2010b. Califor
CHECKLIST
PU
nagement Diin CAAQSs i
Bay Area 201ns of ozone 2010 CAP waty monitorinulation growand the Assoh the Generapopulation gAP and woulect would hacable air qua
andard or co
ss Mitigatiod and adopte010 CEQA Assist lead agom new deveect. The 201ause significozone precumeter less th, and GHGs.
eda County Sly with CEQA
nsidered a “pAAQMD to sved under C Guidelines nalysis.
eda County SAppellate Dignificance th
nagement Dist
rnia Environm
BLIC REVIEW
strict (BAAQn the SFBAA0 Clean Air precursors,
as developedg data and e
wth projectioociation of Bal Plan, whicrowth projed not conflicave a less-thality plan.
ontribute su
on Incorporaed thresholdAir Quality Ggencies in thelopments d0 Thresholdant environmrsors (reacti
han 2.5 and
Superior CouA before adoproject” subjset aside andCEQA. In viewin 2012 to e
Superior Coustrict, revershresholds fo
trict (BAAQMD
mental Quality
DRAFT
QMD) prepareAB. The most Plan (CAP), PM, TACs, ad based on cemissions inons preparedBay Area Govch is consistected for the ct with or ob
han-significa
ubstantially t
ation. In accds of significuidelines.7 T
he evaluationduring the cods establishemental impave organic g10 microns
urt issued a jopting the 20ect to CEQAd cease dissw of the couexclude the r
urt’s decisiosed the trial
or evaluating
D), 2010a. Ba
Act Air Quali
es and implet recent air qwhich includ
and greenhocomputer monventories. Td by the Metvernment, reent with the project is thbstruct implent impact on
to an existin
cordance witcance (ThresThe purpose n and mitigaonstruction ed levels at wacts. The 20gases [ROG] (PM
2.5 and PM
judgment fin010 Thresho
A review. Theemination ort’s order, threcommende
on. The Cour court's deci
g air quality i
ay Area 2010
ty Guidelines
APRIL 20
ements air quality plan des 55 contruse gases odeling and
The 2010 CAropolitan espectively. se growth hus generallementation n
ng or project
th the 2010 holds) that of the CEQA
ation of air and which air 10 Threshol and nitrogeM
10,
nding that tholds, because court issueof the adoptehe BAAQMD ed use of th
rt of Appeal sion, impacts und
Clean Air Pla
. May.
014
rol
AP
y of
ted
A
ds n
he se ed ed e
of
der
n.
APRIL 2014 RICHMOND CENTRAL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 15
CEQA. The Court of Appeal's decision was appealed to the California Supreme Court, which granted limited review, and the matter is currently pending there.
Since the court did not challenge the scientific soundness of the 2010 Thresholds, lead agencies may continue to use the 2010 Thresholds for CEQA analysis at their discretion. The 2010 Thresholds are used in this initial study for the evaluation of air quality impacts from the project.
The BAAQMD recommends using the most current version of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod)8 to estimate construction emissions and operational emissions of a project. The model calculates the daily maximum and annual average for criteria pollutants. CalEEMod utilizes widely accepted models for emission estimates combined with appropriate default data that can be used if site-specific information is not available. A copy of the CalEEMod report for the project, which summarizes the input parameters, assumptions, and findings, is included in Appendix A.
Construction Phase
Common pollutant emissions of concern during construction include ROG, NOx, exhaust PM
2.5 and PM
10 from equipment, and fugitive dust PM
2.5 and PM
10 from earth- moving
activities. Emissions of ozone precursors and PM above applicable Thresholds could substantially contribute to existing violations of CAAQSs in the SFBAAB. Potential emission sources for the project would include grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coatings. Pollutant emissions during project construction were estimated using the CalEEMod default values for a mid-rise residential development, except as noted below.
Demolition and site preparation activities would not be required for the project because the site is currently a vacant lot that is generally void of vegetation.
The duration of grading was reduced from 8 to 2 weeks, because the project site is relatively flat.
The area of grading was increased from 1.0 to 1.7 acres to equal the footprint of the project site.
Based on the size and type of development, CalEEMod estimated that project construction would likely last 268 days. The average daily emissions of criteria pollutants or precursors estimated over that time period are compared to applicable Thresholds in Table III-1. The estimated emissions for ROG, NOx, and exhaust PM
2.5 and PM
10 were below applicable
Thresholds. The project’s criteria pollutant construction emissions would not be expected
8 ENVIRON International Corporation and the California Air Districts, 2013. California
Emissions Estimator Model Version 2013.2.2. July.
RICHMOND CENTRAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST APRIL 2014
16 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
to violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing violation and, therefore, would be less than significant.
TABLE III-1 SUMMARY OF AVERAGE CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS DURING PROJECT
CONSTRUCTION
Pollutant ROG NOx Exhaust
PM10
Exhaust PM
2.5
Units lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day
Emissions 10.0 31.5 2.1 2.0
Thresholds 54 54 82 54
Exceedance No No No No
Note: lb/day = pounds per day. Source: BAAQMD, BASELINE Environmental Consulting, 2013.
The BAAQMD recommends implementing Basic Construction Mitigation Measures9 for all construction projects to reduce ozone precursors and PM, regardless of whether or not the unmitigated estimates of emissions exceed applicable thresholds. Therefore, the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures shall be incorporated into the project under Mitigation Measure AQ-1, below. There are no quantitative Threshold values for fugitive dust PM
2.5
and PM10
; however, the BAAQMD considers implementation of the BMPs sufficient to reduce related air quality impacts from fugitive dust to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure AQ-1 – Basic Construction Best Management Practices: The project shall comply with the following BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures:
All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.
9 BAAQMD, 2012. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Last updated
May.
APRIL 2014 RICHMOND CENTRAL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 17
All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer‘s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator.
Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would satisfy the BMP Threshold requirement for fugitive dust emissions and reduce the potential impact on attainment of CAAQS to a less-than-significant level.
Operational Phase
Common pollutant emissions of concern during the operational phase of a project include ROG, NOx, exhaust PM
2.5 and PM
10 from equipment, and CO. Emissions of ozone
precursors and PM above applicable Thresholds could substantially contribute to the existing violations of CAAQSs within the SFBAAB. Ambient CO concentrations in the SFBAAB do not currently violate CAQQS; however, the BAAQMD considers emissions of CO to be significant if localized concentrations (also known as “hot spots”) exceed the CAAQSs.10
Pollutant emissions of concern during the operational phase of the project would primarily be from mobile sources (i.e., vehicle trips). Other common emission sources would include the use of consumer products, architectural coatings, and landscape maintenance equipment. Pollutant emissions during project operations were estimated using the CalEEMod default values for a mid-rise residential development, except as noted below.
The weekday vehicle trip rate was reduced to 5.41 trips/dwelling unit/day based on the Transportation Impact Assessment conducted for the project site.11
10 Ibid. 11 Fehr & Peers, 2013a. Addendum to Central Avenue Residential Transportation Impact
Assessment. September 27.
RICHMOND CENTRAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST APRIL 2014
18 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
The average daily emissions of criteria pollutants or precursors estimated during the operational phase of the project are compared to applicable Thresholds in Table III-2. The estimated emissions for ROG, NOx, and exhaust PM
2.5 and PM
10 were below applicable
Thresholds. The project’s criteria pollutant operational emissions would not be expected to violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing violation and therefore, would be less than significant.
TABLE III-2 SUMMARY OF AVERAGE CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS DURING PROJECT
OPERATION
Pollutant ROG NOx Exhaust
PM10
Exhaust PM
2.5
Units lb/day lb/day lb/day lb/day
Emissions 11.4 12.3 0.2 0.2
Thresholds 54 54 82 54
Exceedance No No No No Source: BAAQMD, BASELINE Environmental Consulting, 2013.
The 2010 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines12 provide a preliminary screening methodology to conservatively assess if a proposed project would result in CO emissions that would cause local CO concentrations to exceed the Thresholds, which are equivalent to the CAAQS. A project would result in a less-than-significant impact to localized CO concentrations if the following screening criteria are met:
The project is consistent with an applicable Congestion Management Program (CMP) established by the County Congestion Management Agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans.
The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.
The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway).
The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) serves as the Congestion Management Agency for Contra Costa County. The most recent CMP adopted by CCTA requires an analysis of any project that is expected to generate more than 100 peak hour vehicle
12 BAAQMD, 2010b. op. cit.
APRIL 20
trips13. projecttraffic creportetraffic vhour bywould horizonmeets tquality
Resc)thequafor
Less Timpactquality considecumulaCAAQSdiscussconstruThreshwould
Expd)
Less Tpotentiwhich aon estipurposassumecancer lifetime
13
Congest14
1. 15
updated
014
Since the prt is consistencorridor neaed near the pvolume neary 203015. Thnot increasental mixing the BAAQMD impact rela
sult in a cume project regality standarr ozone precu
han Signific and, therefo impacts on ered the ematively considSs. The Bay Ased under Seuction and oolds; therefobe less than
pose sensitiv
han Significially be expoare regionalmations of l
ses, TACs areed to have n risk is expree of exposur
Contra Costation Managem Fehr & Peers
CCTA, 2009.d July 31.
roject wouldnt with the Car the projecproject site ir the projecterefore, add
e traffic voluof air is not D screening ted to locali
mulatively coion is non-atrd (includingursors)?
cant. Air polore, future d a cumulativission levelsderable; incl
Area is curreection III(b), operational pore, the cum significant.
ve receptors
cant. The prosed to existly regulated ocalized cone separated
no safe thresessed as excre. Non-carc
a County Tranment Program, 2013b. Tran
West County
PUBL
not generatCCTA CMP. It site with a in 2008. Bas site would i
ditional traffmes to more substantiallcriteria, the zed CO conc
onsiderable nttainment ung releasing e
lution in thedevelopmentve basis. In ds for which aluding the ently designaabove, emis
phases of themulative imp
to substanti
oject site woting sources based on thncentrations into carcinoshold below cess cancer inogenic sub
nsportation Aum. nsportation Im
y Action Plan f
RICHMOND
IC REVIEW DR
te more thannterstate 80 peak trafficsed on CCTAincrease aboic from the pe than 44,00y limited ne project woucentrations.
net increase nder an appemissions wh
e Bay Area ist projects codeveloping than individualmissions of
ated a nonatssions of ozoe project woact of ozone
ial pollutant
ould be a nes of TAC emihe CAAQSs, Ts and risk asogens and nowhich healthcases per onbstances are
uthority (CCTA
mpact Assessm
for Routes of
D CENTRAL PRO
RAFT
n 100 peak 0 (I-80) is thec volume of 6A traffic voluout 16 perceproject (less00 vehicles par the proje
uld have a le
of any criteplicable federhich exceed q
s generally contribute to he 2010 Thr project’s em criteria polltainment areone precursoould not excee precursors
concentrati
ew receptor wissions. UnliTAC emissiosessments. on-carcinogeh impacts wone million exe generally a
A), 2011. 201
ment for Cent
Regional Sign
OJECT INITIAL ST
hour vehiclee most heavi6,209 vehiclme forecast
ent to 7,179 s than 100 trper hour. Vect site. Sincess-than-sign
eria pollutanral or state aquantitative
onsidered a the region’sresholds, themissions woutants alreaea for ozoneors and PM deed applicabs and PM fro
ions?
where resideke criteria p
ons are evaluFor risk asseens. Carcinoould not occxposed indivassumed to h
11 Contra Cos
tral Avenue Re
nificance – 20
TUDY CHECKLIST
1
e trips,14 the ily congestees per hour
ts, the peak vehicles perrips per hourtical and/oe the projectnificant air
t for which ambient air
e thresholds
cumulative s adverse aire BAAQMD
ould be dy exceedine and PM. Asduring the ble m the projec
ents could pollutants uated based essment
ogens are cur, and viduals over have a safe
sta County
esidential. Jul
009 Last
T
9
d
r r) r t
ng s
ct
a
y
RICHMOND CENTRAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST APRIL 2014
20 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
threshold below which health impacts would not occur. Acute and chronic exposure to non-carcinogens is expressed as a hazard index (HI), which is the sum of expected exposure levels divided by the corresponding acceptable exposure levels. In the Bay Area, adverse air quality impacts to public health from TACs are predominantly from diesel PM
2.5.
Common sources of TAC emissions include stationary sources, such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and mobile sources, which is predominately vehicle exhaust along high-volume roadways. The BAAQMD recommends using their online tools to evaluate TAC emissions from stationary and mobile sources within 1,000 feet of a new receptor (i.e., the project site).16 The screening tools provide conservative estimates of how much existing TAC sources would increase risk levels, HI, and/or PM
2.5 concentrations in a
community based on worst-case assumption scenarios. Sources of TAC emissions identified near the project site included three gasoline stations, an automobile maintenance shop, Central Avenue traffic, and Interstate 80 (I-80) traffic. The BAAQMD’s Gasoline Dispensing Facility Distance Multiplier Tool17 was used to adjust the reported screening values for TAC emissions from gasoline stations to account for attenuation of concentrations over distance. According to the California Environmental Health Tracking Program's Traffic Spatial Linage Web Service, the average traffic volume along Central Avenue is 25,700 vehicles per day.18 Based on the average traffic volume, the screening values for TAC emissions from Central Avenue were linearly interpolated from the screening table from the BAAQMD’s Roadway Screening Analysis Tool.19 The screening values for TAC emissions from I-80 were linearly interpolated from the screening table from the BAAQMD’s Highway Screening Analysis Tool.20
Both individual and cumulative risks and hazards posed to the project site from nearby TAC sources are summarized and compared to the thresholds in Table III-3. The individual and cumulative estimates of cancer risk, HI, and PM
2.5 from nearby TAC sources were
below applicable thresholds; therefore, air quality impacts from exposure to localized TAC emissions would be less than significant at the project site.
16 BAAQMD, 2013. Tools and Methodology. Accessed October 23.
http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Tools-and-Methodology.aspx.
17 Ibid. 18 California Department of Public Health, 2013. California Environmental Health Tracking
Program's Traffic Spatial Linage Web Service. Environmental Health Investigations Branch. http://www.ehib.org/traffic_tool.jsp. Accessed on 24 October.
19 BAAQMD, 2013, op. cit. 20 Ibid.
APRIL 20
TABLE I
Name
Centra
Centra
101 Au
Unoca
Centra
Interst
Individ
Individ
Cumul
Cumul
CumulNote: ThSource: B
TAC emdiesel vand canperiodsvariablcomplyequipmrequireequipmtuned iconstrurecepto
Cree)
Less TexistinTypicalland uscompo
014
II-3 SUM
al Ave Shell
al Valero
uto Body
l #4296
al Avenue
tate 80
dual Threshold
dual Exceedan
lative Risks an
lative Thresho
lative Exceedae 20-foot elevaBAAQMD, BASE
missions durvehicles andncer risk mos of 9, 30 ane nature of cy with all of Cment, includiements that ment when nin accordancuction activitors.
eate objectio
han Significg sensitive rl odor sourcses, such as sting station
MARY OF RISK
Location
5500 Central
5430 Central
5327 Jacuzzi
3160 Carlson
10 feet north
565 feet sout
ds:
nce:
nd Hazards:
olds:
ance: ation exposure LINE Environme
ring construc equipment
odeling methnd 70 years, constructionCalifornia Aing limits onreduce consot in use ance with manuties would n
onable odors
cant. Odor imreceptors or es are gener wastewater ns, food man
PUBL
KS AND HAZAR
Avenue, Rich
Avenue, Rich
St, Suite 3A,
n Boulevard, E
h of the projec
thwest of the
table (2nd flooental Consulting
ction are typ. Constructiohodologies a which do no
n activities. Cir Resource B
n emissions ostruction exhd that constufacturer‘s sot be expec
s affecting a
mpacts coul exposing a rally associa treatment pnufacturing
RICHMOND
IC REVIEW DR
RDS FROM TA
hmond
hmond
Richmond
El Cerrito
ct
project
r exposures) wg, 2013.
pically limiteon-phase TAare associateot correlate ConstructionBoard’s reguof PM. Mitigahaust emissitruction equspecificationted to result
substantial
d result from new sensitivted with mu
plants, landfiplants, refin
D CENTRAL PRO
RAFT
AC EMISSIONS
Cancer Risk (10-6)
1.45
1.27
0.00
0.45
2.77
9.81
10.0
No
15.7
100
No was referenced t
ed to diesel PACs, howeveed with longwell with the
n equipmentulations relaation Measuions by limitipment be m
ns. Thereforet in significa
number of p
m creating ave receptor t
unicipal, induills, confined
neries, and c
OJECT INITIAL ST
ChronicHazard In
0.0016
0.0018
0.0003
0.0063
< 0.02
0.0097
1.0
No
0.04
10.0
No to assess impac
PM from hear, would be er-term expe temporaryt would be reted to off-ro
ure AQ-1 inclting idle timemaintained ae, the tempoant health ris
people?
a new odor sto existing oustrial, or agd animal facchemical plan
TUDY CHECKLIST
2
c dex
PM2.5
(μg/m
6 NA
8 NA
3 0.00
3 NA
0.13
7 0.09
0.3
No
0.22
0.8
No cts from I-80.
avy-duty temporary, osure
y and highly equired to oad ludes es for
and properly orary sks to nearb
ource near odor sourcesgricultural ilities, nts. The
T
21
5
m3)
0
3
9
2
by
s.
RICHMOND CENTRAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST APRIL 2014
22 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
project is a residential development that would not be expected to generate significant odors. The project site is surrounded by mixed residential and commercial land uses, which would also not be expected to generate significant odors. Therefore, project impacts related to odors would be less than significant.
APRIL 2014 RICHMOND CENTRAL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 23
Potentially
Significant Impact
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
■
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
■
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
■
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any 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) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
■
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
■
The project site is located in an infill setting on the southern portion of the City of Richmond. The site was previously developed with structures and pavement occupying most of the property. Structures have been demolished, but concrete and asphalt still occupy most of the site. A concrete-lined channel borders the eastern and southeastern edge of the site. Vegetation is largely absent on the site, including the concrete channel. Scattered clumps of invasive fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) and non-native weedy grasses
RICHM
24
and fplantcoastsinglefeet sconcrthe ceast twest
Disc
Wa)mspD
Less proteas wetrusteisolathabit
A recBase otherspeciContrwith tHowecontaproje
Hb)coC
Less elimipreviidentWildlveget
MOND CENTRAL
forbs are scaed sapling tt redwood (Se pittosporusouth of Cenrete channeloncrete chanto west approf I-80.
ussion
Would the promodificationspecies in loc
Department o
Than Signifected under ell as other see agencies ted populatiat.
cord search c(CNDDB) of
r relevant infes with specra Costa Couthe open waever, the siteains suitableect would hav
Have a substaommunity id
California De
Than Signifnating all naously presenified in locaife Service (Utation along
INITIAL STUDY C
attered in brrees occur a
Sequoia sempum (Pittosporntral Avenue in the southnnel flows inroximately 8
oject have a s, on any specal or regionaof Fish and G
ficant. Specthe State anspecies that to warrant sons, nesting
conducted o the Californformation, incial-status haunty and theaters and coae has been e habitat for ve a less-tha
antial adverdentified in lepartment of
ficant. The sative plant spnt. No riparial or regionalUSFWS) are p the on-site
CHECKLIST
PU
oken openinalong the sopervirons), prum sp.) gro. A clump ofheastern corn a southwes800 feet sout
substantial ecies identifial plans, polGame or U.S
ial-status spd/or federalare conside
special consig or denning
f records conia Departmendicates thaave been rece Richmond vastal salt maxtensively dany special-
an-significan
rse effect on local or regiof Fish and Ga
site has beenpecies and nan habitat ol plans, policpresent on thsegments, in
BLIC REVIEW
ngs of the couthwestern eplum (Prunuows along thf dense bamrner of the ssterly directith of the site
l adverse effied as a candlicies, or reg
S. Fish and W
ecies are plal Endangeredred rare enoideration, pa
g locations, c
ontained in tent of Fish at occurrencecorded or arvicinity. Manarsh habitatsdisturbed by status plant
nt impact on
any ripariaonal plans, pame or US F
n extensivelynatural commr other senscies, regulathe site. The ncluding abs
DRAFT
oncrete and edge of the
us sp.), and ohe west side mboo grows osite. Surface ion into Cere, and flows
fect, either ddidate, sens
gulations, or Wildlife Servic
ants and anid Species Acough by the articularly wcommunal ro
he Californiaand Wildlife (es of numerore suspectedny of these os found alon past develot or animal s special-stat
n habitat orpolicies, reg
Fish and Wild
y disturbed munities thasitive naturalions or by th concrete chsence of any
asphalt pavsite, includi
ornamental s of the channon the east s water converitos Creek, into San Fra
directly or thsitive, or sper by the Califce?
imals that arcts, or other scientific coith regard tooosts and ot
a Natural Div(CDFW), togeous plant an
d to occur in occurrences ng San Francopment, and species. As atus species.
r other sensiulations or bdlife Service?
by past deveat may have l communityhe CDFW or annel contay marshland
APRIL 20
ing. A few ng a small species. A nel about 15side of the eyed through which runs ancisco Bay
hrough habitcial status fornia
re legally regulations
ommunity ano protection ther essentia
versity Data ether with nd animal western are associatcisco Bay. no longer
a result, the
itive natural by the ?
elopment, been y types U.S. Fish anins no or riparian
014
50
h
tat
, nd of al
ted
d
APRIL 20
habitatless-tha
Woc)defveroth
Potentwetlandinundasoil. Wetheir inand wa
Jurisdicof SectmateriapermitSectiondischarClean WJurisdicFish analter th
No wetmay beCDFW bremnanproject
The onhave beor bed shade triparianon the waters review providethe potauthor
014
t. Due to thean-significan
uld the projefined by Sectrnal pool, coaher means?
ially Signifids are gener
ated by surfaetlands are r
nherent valueater recharge
ction of the ion 404 of tal into “wate. Regional Wn 401 of the rges in wateWater Act, anctional authond Game Codhe channel, b
tlands are pre consideredbecause it isnts of a natut generally w
e exception een prepare of the concrthe bottom on habitat giv design of th and may req by these aged, if necesstential preseizations, this
e lack of any nt impact as
ect have a stion 404 of tastal, etc.) t
cant Unlessrally consideace or grounrecognized ae to fish ande, filtration a
U.S. Army Che Clean Wa
ers of the U.SWater Quality Clean Waterr quality whnd under theority of the Cde, which pebed or bank
resent on thed jurisdictions hydrologicaural channel would not alt
to this is thd for the prorete channelof the concrven the absehe bridge anquire authorencies would
sary to reducence of jurisds has been d
PUBL
sensitive na a result of p
ubstantial athe Clean Wahrough dire
s Mitigationered to be ardwater, andas importantd wildlife, usand purificat
orps of Engiater Act, whiS.” below they Control Boar Act, which enever a Coe State PorteCDFW is estaertains to act of any lake,
e site, includnal waters byally connecte that could hter the existi
e proposed oposed bridgl would be dete channel,nce of vegetd footings, trization fromd require thace potential dictional watdetermined t
RICHMOND
IC REVIEW DR
atural commproject imple
adverse effecater Act (incct removal,
Incorporatreas that are support vegt features one as storagetion function
neers (Corpch prohibitse Ordinary Hard (RWQCB) requires cerrps permit is
er-Cologne Wablished undtivities that w river or stre
ding the cony the regulated to downshave flowed ing alignmen
bridge crosge crossing,irectly affec, but this wotation alongthe structure
m the CDFW,at impacts bimpacts to aters and posto be a pote
D CENTRAL PRO
RAFT
munities on thementation.
ct on federalluding, but n filling, hydr
tion. Althouge periodicallygetation adan a regional e areas for sns.
s) is establiss the discharHigh Water M) jurisdictionrtification ors required u
Water Qualityder Sections would disrueam.
ncrete channtory agenciestream waterthrough thent or banks
sing to Belm, and it is unted. The new
ould not affe the channee could tech RWQCB and
be minimizeda less-than-sssible need fntially signif
OJECT INITIAL ST
he site, ther
lly protectednot limited t
rological inte
gh definitiony or permanapted to life and nationatorm and flo
shed througrge of dredgMark (OHWMn is establishr waiver to cunder Sectiony Control Ac 1600-1607 pt the natur
nel. Howevers, Corps, RWrs and may b
e vicinity. Thof the concr
mont Avenuenclear whethw bridge strect any wetlal. However,
hnically affecd/or Corps. d and mitigasignificant lefor agency ficant impac
TUDY CHECKLIST
2
re would be
d wetlands ato, marsh, erruption, or
ns vary, ently in saturated
al level due toodwaters,
h provisionsed or fill ) without a
hed through ontrol n 404 of thect. of the Stateal flow or
r, the channeWQCB, and be the e proposed rete channel
. No details er the bank ucture wouldand or depending
ct regulated Further ation evel. Given
ct.
T
25
s
r
d to
s
e
el
.
d
RICHM
26
The fjurisdfor an
McrthdUmreimthCpEpisad
Wd)mw
Less suitadevelsaplincontiin urblimitspropoconnconcr
Givenpotensignif
We)re
MOND CENTRAL
following midictional watny modificat
Mitigation Merossing to Behe CDFW aloeterminationnited States
modificationsequired as pmplementedhe project si
California andermits or otndangered Srovided to t
ssuance of a dequately co
Would the promigratory fiswildlife corrid
Than Signifbility as wildlopment woung trees, butnue to proviban areas. Ts its possibleose to alter oecting to Berete channel
n the urbanizntial impactsficant.
Would the proesources, su
INITIAL STUDY C
tigation meaters and enstions to the c
easure BIO-1elmont Aven
ong with projn of the pres and State as shall be obpart of the au as part of tte, consultatd federal Endher authorizSpecies Acts he City of Ri grading or oordinated w
oject interfesh or wildlifedors, or imp
ficant. The ldlife habitat uld eliminatet landscapinide limited r
The concrete e use as a wor affect thelmont Avenu for existing
zed conditios on wildlife
oject conflicuch as a tree
CHECKLIST
PU
asure is recoure approprconcrete cha
– Jurisdictionue, as propject plans ansence of jurire present a
btained fromuthorizationhe project. Etion or inciddangered Spzations for th shall be obtchmond Coother permit
with jurisdict
re substantie species or wede the use
ack of vegetor use as a e the scatter
ng would be oosting and channel conildlife move
e channel, wue, and no sg wildlife, fis
ons on the si movement o
t with any loe preservatio
BLIC REVIEW
ommended triate authorizannel on the
on Waters: Ifosed, the apnd the CEQAsdictional w
and cannot b the Corps, s by the CorEven thoughdental take ppecies Acts, ahe potential tained. Copimmunity Det for the protional agenc
ially with thewith establis of native wi
tative cover migratory cored clumps oprovided aro foraging opntinues upstment corridoith the excepubstantial d
sh or aquatic
te and lack opportunitie
ocal policies on policy or o
DRAFT
to mitigate pzations are o
e site.
f the projectpplicant shalA Notice of Dwaters. Wherebe avoided, aRWQCB, and
rps, RWQCB, no species
permitting mand, if requi “take” of spes of all aut
evelopment Doject to ensucies.
e movement shed native rildlife nurser
over most oorridor or nuof invasive sound the pepportunities tream into a or. Howeverption of the isruption of
c life is antic
of importanes are consid
or ordinancordinance?
potential impobtained by
t includes a bll submit no
Determinatioe jurisdictioauthorizatiod/or CDFW. A and/or CDF have been i
may be requirired, all lega
pecies listed thorizations Department ure that the a
t of any natiresident or mry sites?
of the site limursery area. sweet fennel erimeter, and for bird spe culvert syst, the project bridge strucf the possiblcipated.
t wildlife hadered to be
ces protectin
APRIL 20
pacts on the applican
bridge tification to
on for n waters of tn for proposAll conditionFW shall be dentified onred under thally required under the shall be prior to applicant ha
ve resident omigratory
mits its Proposed and few d would ecies commotem which t does not cture e use of the
bitat featureless than
ng biological
014
nt
the sed ns
n he
as
or
on
es,
APRIL 20
Less Tand poresourcconcreton the
The CoPlan 20Policy C(Urban restorinwhere fconcretof the Rconside
The CitCode. CShrubsgroundRecreatdeputiethe siteconcretprepareexistineasternChapte
Wof)Nathab
No Impregiona
014
han Significolicies in the ces. Adequate channel a site that wo
onservation, 030 contain CN1.1 (Habit Creek Restong creeks cufeasible. Thete channel oRichmond Gered mandat
ty of RichmoChapter 10.0 or Plants) p
d, boulevardtion and Pares. Street tree. A number te channel wed on the prg trees alonn access. Aper 10.08 if an
uld the projetural Commbitat conserv
pact. There ial, or state h
cant. The pr City of Richte mitigation
are addresseuld be affec
Natural Reso a number otat and Biolooration), andurrently divee proposed on the site toeneral Plan tory accordi
ond protects08 (Trimmin
prohibits trim, alley or purks Director ees are abse of Street tre
which forms roposed bridg Belmont Apropriate auny street tre
ect conflict wunity Conservation plan?
is no applicahabitat conse
PUBL
oposed projmond relaten is recommd, and no wted by the p
ources and Of policies anogical Resoud Action CN1rted in culveproject doeso a natural s 2030. Howeng to the po
landscape tng, Pruning, mming or remblic place” wof the City ont on the Ceees occur alothe eastern
dge structureAvenue coulduthorizationses are affect
with the prorvation Plan
?
able Habitat ervation plan
RICHMOND
IC REVIEW DR
ect would ned to protect
mended to enetlands or o
proposed pro
Open Space nd actions reurces Protect1.H (Urban Certs or hardes not containtate, which w
ever, these aolicy and act
trees under tCare, Plantinmoving tree
without first of Richmondentral Avenuong Belmont boundary ofe over the cod be affecteds and replacted by these
visions of ann or other ap
Conservation.
D CENTRAL PRO
RAFT
ot conflict wtion of biolonsure that poother sensitivoject.
Element of telated to protion and ResCreek Restorened channen any proviswould conflire advisory, ion languag
the City of Rng, Removals in or on anobtaining a or any of h
ue and San Mt Avenue, onf the site. Nooncrete chand or removedement would
e improveme
n adopted Happroved loca
on Plan or ot
OJECT INITIAL ST
with any releogical and weotential impave resources
the Richmonoperties withstoration), Poration) all caels to their nions to restoict with thes and complie.
Richmond Ml and Movingny “street, pa permit fromis or her aut
Mateo Street n the east sido details havnnel, but oned to accommd be require
ents.
abitat Conseal, regional, o
ther approve
TUDY CHECKLIST
2
vant goals etland acts on the s are present
nd General h creeks. olicy CN1.3 ll for
natural stateore the e provisionsance is not
unicipal g of Trees, ark, pleasur
m the thorized frontages ode of the ve been e or more
modate the ed under
ervation Planor state
ed local,
T
27
t
,
s
e
f
n,
RICHM
28
V. Would
a) Csi§
b) Csip
c) Dpage
d) Din
Backgwere identresult
Disc
Wa)h
Less the p
Back
RecorCalifoPark, NWICState NAHCsignif
MOND CENTRAL
CULTURd the project:
ause a substagnificance of 15064.5? ause a substagnificance of ursuant to §1irectly or indialeontologicaeologic featuristurb any hu
nterred outsid
ground resea present withify cultural rts of these t
ussion
Would the proistorical res
Than Signifpotential imp
ground
rds searchesornia Histori and the Cal
C, an affiliate repository oC maintains ficance to N
INITIAL STUDY C
RAL RESOUR
antial adverse a historical r
antial adverse an archaeolo5064.5?
irectly destroyal resource or re? man remains
de of formal ce
arch and a fhin and adjaresources wiasks are sum
oject cause aource as def
ficant. Therepact related t
s were conducal Resourceifornia Nativ
e of the Stateof cultural rethe Sacred Lative Americ
CHECKLIST
PU
RCES
change in thesource as de
change in thogical resourc
y a unique site or uniqu
, including themeteries?
field survey wacent to the ithin and adjmmarized be
a substantiafined in Sect
e are no histto changes t
ucted at the es Informative Americane of Californesources’ recLands File, wcan groups.
BLIC REVIEW
Po
SiIm
e efined in
e e
e
ose
were done toproject site.jacent to theelow.
al adverse chtion 15064.5
torical resouto historic re
Northwest Ion System, S Heritage Coia Office of cords and re
which include
DRAFT
otentially
gnificant mpact
PoteSignUnle
MitiInco
■
■
■
o identify wh Record seae project site
hange in the 5?
urces on the esources is l
Information Sonoma Statommission (Historic Preseports for Coes the locati
entially nificant ess
igation orporation
Le
SigIm
■
hether historches were ce (within a ¼
e significance
project siteess than sig
Center (NWIte UniversityNAHC), Sacrservation, isontra Costa ons of sites
APRIL 20
ess Than
gnificant mpact
No Imp
rical resourcconducted to¼-mile). The
e of a
; as a result gnificant.
IC) of the y, Rohnert ramento. The the official County. The with cultura
014
act
ces o
e e al
APRIL 2014 RICHMOND CENTRAL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 29
As part of the records search, LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) reviewed historical maps identified in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment21 completed for the project. The following State and local inventories were also reviewed for cultural resources in, and immediately adjacent to, the project site:
Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California;22
California Inventory of Historic Resources;23
Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File.24 The directory includes the listings of the National Register of Historic Places, National Historic Landmarks, the California Register of Historical Resources, California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest; and
Historic Resources Inventory Master Report.25
Background Research Results
The NWIC records search was conducted on October 14, 2013. There is no record of a previous cultural resources study of the project site, and there are no recorded cultural resources at the project site on file at the NWIC. Local and State cultural resource inventories do not identify cultural resources in or adjacent to the project site.
On October 11, 2013, LSA faxed a letter describing the project and a map depicting the project area to the NAHC requesting a review of their Sacred Lands File for any Native American cultural resources that might be affected by the project. LSA received a faxed response on October 16, 2013, from Debbie Pilas-Treadway, Environmental Specialist III with the NAHC, stating that a search of the Sacred Lands File “failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area.”
U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps from 1895 and 1915 indicate that the project site was once at the San Francisco Bay tidal margin. A Sanborn Fire Insurance map published in 1929 indicates that a residence and garage were once situated in the project site at the corner of Central Avenue and San Mateo Street. By 1950, the residence and garage had been removed, and Sanborn Fire Insurance maps indicate a variety of industrial uses at the project site until at least 1981.
21 SOMA Environmental Engineering, Inc., 2012. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. SOMA Environmental Engineering, Inc., Pleasanton, California. August.
22 California Office of Historic Preservation, 1988. Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California.
23 California Department of Parks and Recreation, 1976. California Inventory of Historic Resources. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
24 California Office of Historic Preservation, 2012. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. August 15.
25 City of Richmond, 2013. Historic Resources Inventory Master Report. March 13.
RICHM
30
Field
LSA cof theeffecthoweshell,
Field
No hiidenthave appeaarcha
Conc
Thereundeconsiuneato arc
Wb)a
Potenidentgenecond(Cerrarcha
MOND CENTRAL
Survey
conducted a e project sitetive archeolo
ever, and the, heat-affecte
Survey Resu
istorical resoified during been removars to have baeological de
clusion
e are no builr CEQA (CEQidered historrthed duringchaeological
Would the prorchaeologica
ntially Signiified within ral archaeoloucive to habito Creek) toaeological re
P-07-0025remnant oaccumulaoften conNWIC, thi
CA-CCO-2remnantsexcavatioArchaic Pe420 years
INITIAL STUDY C
cultural resoe was pavedogical surveyese were reved rock, and
ults
ources, inclu the survey.
ved. Marine sbeen importeposit.
ldings or strQA Guidelinerical resourcg the projectl deposits ar
oject cause aal resource p
ificant Unlea 1/4-mile oogical sensit
bitation and o the south aesources are
582/P-07-00of the Albantions of diettaining hums site includ
29/P-07-000 of a large sns at this siteriod (4700 s before pres
CHECKLIST
PU
ources surve with asphay to be compiewed for ar
d culturally f
uding archae All buildingshell was ideted with sand
ructures on tes §15064.5ces under CEt’s ground-dre discussed
a substantiapursuant to
ss Mitigatioof the projectivity of the vuse during pand San Fran briefly desc
03065. This y Shellmountary and hab
man internmees small pie
0046. This phellmound ate indicate a to 4620 yeasent).
BLIC REVIEW
ey of the prolt at the timepleted. Areachaeologica
flaked or gro
eological deps associatedentified on td deposited
the project s(a)). Archaeo
EQA (CEQA Gisturbing ac in further d
al adverse ch Section 150
on Incorporact site. The pvicinity, whiprehistory, sncisco Bay ancribed below
prehistoric ands, a complbitation debrents, as wellces of shell.
rehistoric arand two beda habitation ars before pr
DRAFT
oject site on e of the surv
as of exposeal materials, ound stone.
posits or hisd with industhe project s on site and
site that quaological siteGuidelines §ctivities. Potedetail below.
hange in the 064.5?
ation. Archapresence of tch includes
such as a neand tidal mar
w.
archaeologiclex of prehisris deposited. According .
rchaeologicadrock mortarsite occupieresent) to th
October 17vey, which pd soils wereincluding m
storic buildintrial operatioite, but this does not re
alify as histos, which ma15064.5(c)),entially sign
e significance
aeological sitthese sites ienvironmenarby freshwargin to the w
cal site is destoric moundd over thous to the recor
al site includrs. Archaeolod during the
he Emergent
APRIL 20
, 2013. Mosprecluded an present,
midden soil,
ngs, were ons on the s material
epresent an
rical resourcay be , may be ificant impac
e of an
tes have beendicates the
ntal features ater stream
west. Nearby
escribed as ads comprisinsands of yeard on file at
des the ogical e Middle Period (520
014
st
site
ces
cts
en e
a ng rs, the
0 to
APRIL 2014 RICHMOND CENTRAL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 31
Geotechnical excavations indicate the project site is underlain by 10 to 17 feet of “bay mud.”26 Although estuarine deposits are considered to be of low sensitivity for containing archaeological deposits, “Pre-Bay” Holocene-age land surfaces could underlie this mud, particularly in and along former Bay margins.27
Conclusion
There are no recorded archaeological resources in the project site. The presence of nearby prehistoric archaeological sites, however, indicates the general archaeological sensitivity of the vicinity. Furthermore, although the project site is underlain by bay mud, there is a potential to encounter buried surfaces containing archaeological materials below the bay mud or archaeological materials that have been redeposited at the project site from nearby archaeological sites for use as fill. Therefore, in order to reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
Mitigation Measure CULT-1 – Archaeological Deposits and Human Remains: The project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor project ground-disturbing activities. Prior to project ground-disturbing activities, the archaeologist shall prepare a Monitoring Plan that will guide the monitoring for the project. The Monitoring Plan shall describe the specific methods and procedures that will be used in the event that archaeological deposits are identified.
Archaeological monitors shall be empowered to halt construction activities at the location of a discovery to review possible archaeological material and to protect the resource while the finds are being evaluated. Monitoring shall continue until, in the archaeologist’s judgment, cultural resources are not likely to be encountered.
If archaeological materials or human remains are encountered during project activities, all work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected until the archaeologist assesses the finds, consults with agencies and Native American tribes as appropriate, and makes recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. If avoidance of the archaeological deposit is not feasible, the archaeological deposits shall be evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. If the deposits are not eligible, mitigation is not necessary. If the deposits are eligible, adverse effects on the deposits shall be mitigated. Mitigation may include excavation of the archaeological deposit in accordance with a data recovery plan (see CEQA Guidelines §15126.4(b)(3)(C)) and standard archaeological field methods and procedures; laboratory and technical analyses of recovered archaeological materials; preparation of a report detailing the methods,
26 SOMA Environmental Engineering, Inc., 2012, op. cit. 27 Meyer, Jack, 2011. Buried Archaeological Site Assessment and Extended Phase I Subsurface
Explorations for the I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility Project, Caltrans District 04, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California. Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis, California.
RICHM
32
findinaccesfacilitCode
Uponexcavthe mRichmcompwouldthan-
Wc)si
Potenindicaand Precensignifthe pgastrand mwouldfollow
Mregpatoadinrerethb
Bedro
MOND CENTRAL
ngs, and sigssioning of aty. Human re §7050.5.
n completionvation and la
methods andmond and thpletion of thed reduce pot-significant l
Would the proite or unique
ntially Signiates the projPleistocene (nt to containficant paleon
project site aropods and bmammoth. Pd constitute wing mitigat
Mitigation Meesources be round-distualeontologisppropriate, ao be significdverse effecnclude moniteport, and acepository. Puhe assessmee prepared a
28 Graymer, R
ock Formation
INITIAL STUDY C
nificance of archaeologicemains shall
n of the monaboratory an results of t
he Northweste resource atential impaevels.
oject directlye geologic fe
ificant Unleject site is u10,000 to 1 paleontologntological ret an unknowbivalves, andProject groun a significantion measure
easure CULT encounteredrbing activitst shall be coand make reant, and prots on paleontoring, recorccessioning ublic educatent, a report and submitt
R.W., D.L. Jones in Contra C
CHECKLIST
PU
the archaeocal materials l be treated
itoring and nalysis), the hese effortst Information
assessment. cts on archa
y or indirecteature?
ss Mitigatiounderlain by .5 million yegical resourcesources andwn depth. Pled such Pleistnd-disturbint impact. In e shall be im
T-2 – Paleontd during proies within 25ontacted to aecommendatoject activitientological rerding of the the fossil mional outrea documentined to the Cit
es, and E.E. Brosta County,
BLIC REVIEW
ological site a and a technin accordanc
any associatarchaeologis. The report n Center at SImplementa
aeological de
tly destroy a
on Incorpora Quaternary ears old) depces (fossils).d could undeeistocene detocene megag activities h order to red
mplemented:
ological Resoject subsurf5 feet shall bassess the stions for thees cannot avsources sha fossil localit
material and tch may also
ng methods,ty of Richmo
rabb, 1994. PCalifornia. U.
DRAFT
and associatnical data recce with Calif
ted studies (st shall prep shall be subSonoma Stat
ation of Mitigeposits and
a unique pale
ation. A reg Holocene (pposits.28 Holo Pleistoceneerlie the Holeposits can la-fauna as hohave a potenduce the pot
sources: Shoface constrube redirectedituation, con
e treatment ovoid the paleall be mitigatty, data recotechnical rep
o be appropr findings, an
ond for revie
Preliminary Ge.S. Geological
ted materialcovery reporfornia Health
(i.e., archaeopare a reportbmitted to tte Universitygation Meashuman rema
eontological
ional geologpresent to 10ocene-age d
e deposits arocene-aged ocally contaorse, camel,ntial to uneatential impac
uld paleontouction activitd and a quansult with agof the discoveontological ted. Mitigatiovery and anport to a palriate. Upon cnd recommeew. If paleon
eologic Map E Survey, Wash
APRIL 20
s; and rt at a curatih and Safety
ological t to documehe City of y upon ure CULT-1 ains to less-
resource or
gic map 0,000 years)eposits are t
re sensitive f deposits in ain fossils of bison, sloth
arth fossils act, the
ological ties, all lified gencies as very. If foun resources, on may
nalysis, a finaleontologicacompletion oendations shntological
Emphasizing hington, D.C.
014
ion y
nt
r
) too for f h, and
d
al al of hall
APRIL 20
marep
Thepalinc
Imppal
The prohave no
Wod)for
Potentrecordefrequen29/P-0remainarchaeoDisturb
Mitredsig
014
terials are repository, suc
e applicant seontologicaluded in the
“The subsuresources. constructioa qualified as appropriProject persPaleontologevidence offossils suchvertebrate fmammals msloth, dire wpetrified wo
plementationeontologica
oject site doo impacts.
uld the projermal cemeter
ially Signified at the prontly contain 7-000046, ws. There is aological depbance of suc
igation Meaduce potentianificant leve
ecovered, thh as the Uni
shall inform l resources. appropriate
rface of the If paleontolon, all groundpaleontologiate, and masonnel shall gical resourcf past life as h as snails, cfossils such may include wolf and bisood, and ani
n of Mitigatil resources t
oes not conta
ect disturb aries?
cant Unlessoject site. Pr human intewithin a ¼-ma potential thposits could h remains w
sure CULT-3al impacts ols.
PUBL
e report shaversity of Ca
its contracto The City shae constructio
constructionogical resourd-disturbingist contacted
ake recomme not collect oces include f tracks. Anc
clam and oysas fish, whabones of maon. Paleontoimal tracks.”
on Measure to less-than-
ain a unique
any human r
s Mitigationrehistoric arcrnments, ho
mile of the prhat Native Abe unearthe
would constit
3: Implementn archaeolog
RICHMOND
IC REVIEW DR
all also be sualifornia Mus
or(s) of the sall verify thaon documen
n site may brces are enc
g activities wd to assess tendations foor move anyfossil plants ient marine ster shells, sale, and sea ammoth, camological reso”
CULT-2 wou-significant l
geologic fe
remains, inc
Incorporatchaeologicalowever, and roject site, ismerican humd during protute a signif
tation of Mitgical deposi
D CENTRAL PRO
RAFT
ubmitted to seum of Pale
sensitivity ofat the followts:
be sensitive fountered du
within 25 feetthe situation
or the treatmy paleontolog and animals sediments msponges, andlion bones. Vmel, saber toources also i
uld reduce pevels.
ature and th
cluding those
tion. There al deposits alnearby archas known to cman remainsoject groundficant impact
tigation Meats and huma
OJECT INITIAL ST
a paleontoloeontology.
f the projecting directive
for paleontouring projectt shall be ren, consult wi
ment of the dgical materias, and such tmay contain d protozoa; Vertebrate laooth cat, honclude plant
potential imp
hus, the proj
e interred ou
are no humaong the bayaeological scontain hums associatedd-disturbing t.
asure CULT-1an remains t
TUDY CHECKLIST
3
ogical
t area for e has been
ological t subsurfacedirected andith agenciesdiscovery. als. trace fossil invertebrateand and rse, ground t imprints,
pacts on
ject would
utside of
an remains yshore ite CA-CCO-an skeletal with activities.
1 would to less-than-
T
33
e d
e
-
RICHM
34
VI. Would
a) Exsuloi.
ii
ii
iv
b) Reto
c) Beureoliq
d) Be1cr
e) Hudfo
This locateare a
Disc
Exa)o
i.
MOND CENTRAL
GEOLOGd the project:
xpose peopleubstantial advoss, injury, or Rupture of
delineated EarthquakeState GeolosubstantiaDivision ofPublication
. Strong seis
i. Seismic-relliquefactio
v. Landslides
esult in substopsoil? e located on anstable, or thesult of the prr off-site landquefaction ore located on e8-1-B of the Ureating substaave soils incase of septic taisposal systemor the disposa
section analed about 1.6lso evaluate
ussion
Expose peoplef loss, injury
Rupture oPriolo Earbased on and Geolo
INITIAL STUDY C
GY AND SO
or structuresverse effects, death involvif a known eart on the most e Fault Zoningogist for the al evidence of f Mines and Gn 42. smic ground s
lated ground n? ?
tantial soil ero
a geologic unat would becoroject, and poslide, lateral collapse? expansive soiUniform Buildiantial risks toapable of adeqanks or alternms where sewal of waste wa
yzes impact6 miles northd.
e or structury, or death in
of a known erthquake Fau other substaogy Special P
CHECKLIST
PU
ILS
s to potential including theng: thquake faultrecent Alquis
g Map issued area or baseda known faulteology Specia
shaking?
failure, includ
osion or the lo
it or soil that ome unstableotentially resuspreading, su
l, as defined iing Code (199
o life or propequately supponative waste wwers are not avater?
ts resulting fheast of the
res to potentnvolving:
earthquake fult Zoning Mantial evidenPublication 4
BLIC REVIEW
PoSi
Im
e risk of
, as st-Priolo by the on other t? Refer to al
ding
oss of
is e as a ult in on- ubsidence,
in Table 94), rty?
orting the water vailable
from seismic project site
tial substant
fault, as deliMap issued bnce of a kno42.
DRAFT
otentially gnificant
mpact
PoteSign
UnleMiti
Inco
■
■
■
■
c activity on . Soil condit
tial adverse
ineated on thy the State Gwn fault? Re
entially nificant
ess igation
orporation
LeSig
Im
■
■
■
the Haywardions on the
effects, incl
he most receGeologist forefer to Divisi
APRIL 20
ess Than gnificant
mpact
No
Imp
■
d Fault, project site
luding the ri
ent Alquist-r the area orion of Mines
014
act
isk
r
APRIL 2014 RICHMOND CENTRAL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 35
Less Than Significant. Surface rupture occurs when the ground surface is broken due to fault movement during an earthquake. Surface rupture is generally expected to occur along active fault traces that have exhibited signs of recent geological movement (i.e., within the past 11,000 years). Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones mapped by the California Geological Survey (CGS) delineate areas around active faults with potential surface fault rupture hazards that would require specific geological investigations prior to approval of certain kinds of development within the delineated area. The Earthquake Fault Zone boundaries generally have about a ¼-mile buffer around the surface traces of active faults.29 The project site is not located within or adjacent to an Earthquake Fault Zone.30 Therefore the project would have a less-than-significant impact on people or structures related to surface fault rupture.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporation. Seismic ground shaking generally refers to all aspects of motion of the earth’s surface resulting from an earthquake, and is normally the major cause of damage in seismic events. According to a preliminary geotechnical investigation, the project site is underlain by 10 to 17 feet of soft to very soft wet clay, which is commonly referred to as “Bay Mud.”31 Bay Mud is a seismic hazard because it shakes much harder than bedrock and other geological units.32
The extent of ground shaking is controlled by the magnitude and intensity of the earthquake, distance from the epicenter, and local geologic conditions. The magnitude of a seismic event is a measure of the energy released by an earthquake; it is assessed by seismographs that measure the amplitude of seismic waves. The intensity of an earthquake is a subjective measure of the perceptible effects of a seismic event at a given point. The Modified Mercalli Intensity scale (MMI) is the most commonly used scale to measure the subjective effects of earthquake intensity in values ranging from I to XII.
The Hayward Fault, located about 1.6 miles northeast of the project site, is the closest active fault that could trigger ground shaking at the project site. The Hayward Fault has a 31 percent probability of generating a 6.7 moment magnitude earthquake or higher in the next 30 years. Based on seismic shaking hazard maps prepared by the Association of Bay
29 California Geological Survey (CGS), 2008. Special Publication 117A; Guidelines for Evaluating
the Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. 30 Department of Conservation, 2010. CGS – Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones in Electronic Format.
Accessed October 30,2013.http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/ap/ap_maps.htm 31 Crawford & Associates, Inc., 2013. Preliminary Geotechnical Memo, 5620 Central Avenue,
Richmond, California. June 6. 32 United States Geological Survey, 2012. Earthquake Hazards Program; Soil Type and Shaking
Hazard in the San Francisco Bay Area. Last updated July 24. Accessed October 28, 2013. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/nca/soiltype/.
RICHMOND CENTRAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST APRIL 2014
36 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Area Governments (ABAG), there is a 10 percent chance that an earthquake along the Hayward Fault could generate moderate to heavy ground shaking (VIII on the MMI) at the project site within the next 50 years, which could cause considerable damage to buildings not constructed in accordance with seismic-design criteria included in the current California Building Code.33 Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which requires the project applicant to include analysis of the potential for strong seismic shaking as part of the design-level geotechnical investigation to be prepared for the project, would reduce the potential strong seismic shaking impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1 – Geotechnical Investigation: Prior to the issuance of any site-specific grading permits, a design-level geotechnical investigation, in compliance with City of Richmond requirements, shall be prepared by a licensed professional and submitted to the City for review and confirmation that the proposed improvements fully comply with City requirements. The investigation shall determine the project’s geotechnical conditions, including seismic shaking and liquefaction hazard, unstable soils hazards, and destabilization and erosion hazards associated with the drainage channel and measures to address these hazards. In addition, the following guidance for the design-level geotechnical investigation shall be addressed:
Analysis presented in the geotechnical investigation shall conform to the California Division of Mines and Geology recommendations presented in the Guidelines for Evaluating Seismic Hazards in California. Briefly, the guidelines recommend that the investigation include: a site screening evaluation; evaluation of on- and off-site geologic hazards; quantitative evaluation of hazard potential; detailed field investigation; estimation of ground-motion parameters; evaluation of drainage channel bank stability, liquefaction, lateral-spreading and ground-displacement hazards; and recommendations to reduce identified hazards.
All design measures, recommendations, design criteria, and specifications set forth in the design-level geotechnical investigation shall be implemented as a condition of project approval.
Design review for the project shall include evaluation of fixtures, furnishings, and the fasteners with the intent of minimizing collateral injuries to building occupants from falling fixtures or furnishings during the course of a violent seismic event.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporation. Liquefaction is the temporary transformation of loose, saturated, granular sediments (e.g., sand and silt) to a fluid-like
33 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2013a. Contra Costa County Earthquake
Hazard. Last updated October 7, 2013. Accessed October 28, 2013. http://quake.abag.ca.gov/earthquakes/contracosta/.
APRIL 20
state aloss of and setlands asaturat
The CGliquefaof poteyet beehazardmappinmodera
The coprojectFault toposes a
Mitprodesthe
iv.
Less Tlarge mSeismiclandslidpotentiHazardrelativeprojectseismic
Resb)
34 35 36
http://q37
014
s a result of strength, wttlement. Aradjacent to rted by groun
GS has develoction that re
ential grounden evaluated at the site ing of liquefaate to very h
mbination ot vicinity como cause moda significant
igation Meaoject applicasign-level ge potential liq
Landslides?
han Significmasses of soc Hazard Zodes that reqial ground fa
d Zones haveely flat, seismt would havecally-induced
sult in substa
CGS, 2003. S Crawford & A ABAG, 2013b
quake.abag.ca CGS, 2003, o
seismic growhich commo
eas most suivers, creeks
nd or surface
oped Seismiequire additid failure prio in the vicins included i
action suscephigh.36
of sedimentsmbined with derate to hea risk of seism
sure GEO-2: nt to includeotechnical inquefaction im
?
cant. Seismicil on unstabne Maps thauire additionailure prior te not yet beemically-induce a less-thand landslides.
antial soil er
State of CalifoAssociates, Inb. Liquefactioa.gov/earthquop cit.
PUBL
ound shakingonly causes gsceptible to s, beaches, ae water.
c Hazard Zoonal investig
or to developity of the prn the prelimptibility, the
with moder the high poavy ground smically-indu
Implement e analysis ofnvestigationmpacts to a
cally-inducedble slopes duat delineate anal investigato developmen evaluatedced landslid-significant .
rosion or the
ornia Seismic Hc., 2013, op. n Susceptibili
uakes/.
RICHMOND
IC REVIEW DR
g. In the proground disp liquefactionand estuarie
one Maps thagation to depment. Howoject site,34 a
minary geotec liquefaction
rate to very htential for ashaking at thced ground
Mitigation Mf the potenti to be prepa less-than-sig
d landslidesuring an eartareas suscepation to deteent. As disc
d in the projees would noimpact on p
e loss of tops
Hazard Zones cit. ity Map. Acces
D CENTRAL PRO
RAFT
ocess, the solacement su
n are generaes where gra
at delineate etermine the ever, Seismiand no menchnical repon potential in
high liquefacn earthquakhe project si failure from
Measure GEOal liquefacti
ared for the gnificant lev
occur as ththquake. Theptible to seisermine the eussed in Secect vicinity.37
ot likely occupeople or str
soil?
s, Richmond Q
ssed October
OJECT INITIAL ST
oil undergoesuch as lateraally located ianular sedim
areas susce extent and c Hazard Zotion of the l
ort.35 Accordn the projec
ction potentke along the ite (see Secti
m liquefactio
O-1, which reon hazard aproject, wou
vel.
e rapid move CGS has desmically-induxtent and mction VI.a.iii,7 Since the pur at the projuctures rela
Quadrangle. F
28.
TUDY CHECKLIST
3
s transient al spreading n low lying
ments are
ptible to magnitude ones have noiquefaction
ding to ABAGt vicinity is
tial in the Hayward ion VI.a.ii) n.
equires the as part of theuld reduce
vement of eveloped uced
magnitude of, Seismic project site isject site. Thted to
February 14.
T
37
ot
G
e
f
s e
RICHM
38
Less naturthe losuch stormsoils Equat
AccoServicSoils factosusceregulthis Isignif
Bc)a sp
Potenconcesignifwas psuggcast-ireporareas
MGhp
handbDC.
NRCS)
Asses
MOND CENTRAL
Than Signifral processesocal landsca as construc
mwater runofto water erotion.38
rding to Unice (USDA NR with a low srs estimatedeptibility to wations, whicnitial Study wficant.
e located on result of thpreading, su
ntially Signiern for new ficant compaprepared forested that inin-drilled-hort suggesteds to mitigate
Mitigation MeGEO-1 requireazard as parroject, woul 38 Wischmeie
book 537. Un
39 United Stat), 2013. GeoS
40 Institute ofsment Tool. A
41 USDA NRC42 Crawford &
INITIAL STUDY C
ficant. Erosis, such as wpe, climate, tion gradingff is the domosion is desc
ted Stated DRCS), soils onsusceptibilityd by USDA Nwater erosioch are descriwould ensur
n a geologic ue project, an
ubsidence, liq
ificant Unlebuildings, baction of ther the project n the absencle foundatio
d over-excava settlement.
easure GEO-3es the projecrt of the desd reduce the r, W.H. and Dited State Dep
ted DepartmeSpatial Data Gf Water ReseaAccessed OctoS, 2013. op c
& Associates,
CHECKLIST
PU
on is the enwind and wat and soil prog and excavaminant naturcribed by the
Department on the projecty to water erRCS, clay so
on with a K fabed in detaire that impa
unit or soil tnd potentiallquefaction o
ss Mitigatioecause the we underlying site to evaluce of special on types, excation and re42
3: Implemenct applicant
sign-level geoe potential s
D.D. Smith, 19partment of A
ent of Agricultateway. Acces
arch, Michiganober 29, 2013it. Inc., 2013, op
BLIC REVIEW
trainment aer. The rate
operties, canation. In the ral erosion pe K factor de
of Agriculturt site have brosion have oils mapped actor of 0.20il in the Hydcts related t
that is unstaly result in oor collapse?
on Incorporaweight of ne soils. A preuate the bea foundation cessive settleplacement o
nt Mitigation to include aotechnical inettlement im
978. PredictingAgriculture. Ag
ture, Natural ssed October n State Univer3. http://35.8
p. cit.
DRAFT
nd movemen of soil erosn be accelera project vicin
process. The erived for the
re, Natural Rbeen mappedK factors les on the proje0.41 Compliarology and Wto soil erosio
able, or that on- or off-site
ation. Settleewly construeliminary geoaring capacit designs, eitements coulof soils in pa
n Measure GEanalysis of thnvestigationmpacts to a l
g Rainfall Erogricultural Re
Resources Co 29. http://da
rsity, 2002. RU8.121.139/rus
nt of soil maion, which isated by humnity, erosion susceptibilie Universal S
Resources Cod as Clear Lass than 0.25ect site haveance with apWater Qualiton are less t
would become landslide,
ement is a cocted buildinotechnical rety of the soilther driven sld occur. In aarking lot an
EO-1. Mitigahe potential to be prepaless-than-sig
osion Losses. Asearch Servic
onservation Seatagateway.nrUSLE On-Line sle/kfactor.ht
APRIL 20
aterial by s dependentan activities
n from ty of specifiSoil Loss
onservation ake Clay.39 .40 Based on
e a low plicable ty section of han
me unstable lateral
ommon gs can causeport (reportls. The reporsteel H-piles addition, the
nd driveway
tion Measur settlement ared for the gnificant leve
Agricultural e, Washingto
ervice (USDA rcs.usda.gov/ Soil Erosion m.
014
t on s
c
K
f
e as
e t) rt or e
re
el.
n,
/.
APRIL 2014 RICHMOND CENTRAL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 39
Subsidence is the settlement of organic soils and/or saturated mineral soils of low density following drainage. Near-surface clay soils mapped on the project site are not susceptible to subsidence. 43 Landslides are primarily a function of the underlying soil or bedrock quality, the geometry of the slope (height and steepness), and rainfall. Since the project site is relatively flat, landslides would not likely occur at the project site. Soil collapse occurs as the result of unstable subsurface structures or geological voids, which are not likely present beneath the project site.
Soils susceptible to lateral spreading, sloughing, or caving pose a risk when to human health and structures when located near a steep or vertical slope (e.g., basement foundation). Since the project site is relatively flat and there would be no subsurface structures, caving would only likely occur during excavation or trenching activities at the project site. Caving is always a potentially significant hazard for excavation or trenching greater than about 5 feet below ground surface. The clay soils mapped on the project site also have a high potential for caving during shallow excavation or trenching at depths less than 5 feet below ground surface.44 The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) requires adequate protection from potential caving during all excavation and trenching activities, such as the installation of protective barricades along trench walls.45 Compliance with Cal/OSHA requirements would reduce project impacts related to caving to a less-than-significant level.
It is possible that operation of heavy equipment and/or vibration associated with pile driving in close proximity to the drainage ditch located on the east side of the project site could cause cracking of the concrete liner and small bank failures. The drainage ditch has relatively steep banks that are 3 to 4 feet in height. Destabilization of the drainage channel could increase long-term erosion potential and bank failures which could eventually affect the structures and/or utilities proposed by the project. Mitigation
Measure GEO-1, which requires the project applicant to include analysis of the potential effects on the drainage channel, including destabilization and long-term bank stability, as part of the design-level geotechnical investigation to be prepared for the project, would reduce the potential impacts related to the drainage channel to a less-than-significant level.
As discussed in Section VI.a.iii, there is a significant risk of seismically-induced ground failure from liquefaction in the project vicinity. Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which requires the project applicant to include analysis of the potential liquefaction hazard as part of the design-level geotechnical investigation to be prepared for the project, would reduce the potential liquefaction impacts to a less-than-significant level.
43 USDA NRCS, 2013, op. cit. 44 Ibid. 45 United States Department of Labor. Code of Federal Regulations, title 29, sec. 1926.650.
RICHM
40
Bd)(1
Potencharasoil damouthe shigh perce
MGexpth
He)ww
No Imon thDistrimpa
MOND CENTRAL
e located on1994), creat
ntially Signiacterized by decreases anunt and typeoil volume (expansion p
ent.46
Mitigation MeGEO-1, whichxpansion imrepared for han-significa
Have soils incwaste water dwater?
mpact. Septihe project sitict wastewatct related to
46 USDA NRCS
INITIAL STUDY C
n expansive sting substant
ificant Unle the potentia
nd increases, of clay minreferred to apotential wit
easure GEO-4 requires th
mpacts as pathe project,
ant level.
capable of adisposal sys
c tanks or ate, because tter collectiono septic tank
S, 2013, op c
CHECKLIST
PU
soil, as defintial risks to
ss Mitigatioal for shrink, respectivelerals presenas the “lineah estimated
4: Implemene project aprt of the des would redu
dequately sutems where
lternative wathe project an system andks or alternat
it.
BLIC REVIEW
ned in Table life or prope
on Incorporaing and swey. Shrink-sw
nt and can ber extensibilit linear exten
nt Mitigationplicant to in
sign-level gece the poten
upporting th sewers are
aste water darea is servicd treatment tive waste w
DRAFT
18-1-B of therty?
ation. Expanlling as the
well potentiale measured ty”). Soils onnsibility valu
n Measure GEnclude analysotechnical in
ntial expansi
he use of sepnot availabl
disposal systced by the E plant. The p
water disposa
he Uniform B
nsive soils amoisture col is influence as a percenn the projectues ranging f
EO-1. Mitigasis of the ponvestigationive soils imp
ptic tanks or le for the dis
ems would nEast Bay Munproject woulal systems.
APRIL 20
Building Code
re ontent of theed by the t change of t site have a from 6.0 to
tion Measurotential for sn to be pacts to a les
r alternative sposal of was
not be locatenicipal Utilitied have no
014
e
e
8.9
re soil
ss-
ste
ed es
APRIL 20
VII. Would t
a) Gendireimp
b) Conregthe
GreenhThe aff
Discus
Woa)tha
Less TSolutioimplemlevels bhydroflglobal dioxidedioxide(SFBAA
In 2010GHG thAir QuaemissioIII(b) abchalleninitial s
47 48
014
GREENHOthe project:
nerate greenhectly or indirepact on the ennflict with an aulation adopt emissions of
house gases fected enviro
ssion
uld the projeat may have
han Significns Act (AB 3
ment regulatoby 2020. Theluorocarbonwarming poe equivalente emissions
AB), accounti
0, the Bay Arhresholds of ality Guidelinon reductionbove, althounged by the Astudy becaus
BAAQMD, 20 BAAQMD, 20
OUSE GAS E
ouse gas emictly, that may
nvironment? applicable plaed for the pu greenhouse g
(GHGs) emisonment relat
ect generate a significan
cant. In 20032), which reory and mare primary GHs, perfluorotential (GWPs (CO
2e) whe
dominate thng for more
rea Air Qual significancenes.48 The GHn goals to cogh the proceAlameda Cose scientific
010a. Bay Are010b. Californ
PUBL
EMISSIONS
ssions, eithery have a signif
an, policy or rpose of redugases?
ssions are antive to green
e greenhouset impact on
6, legislationequires the Crket mechanHGs of conccarbons, and
P); therefore,ere each gashe GHG inven than 90 per
ity Manageme (thresholdsHG threshold
omply with thess by whichunty Superio soundness
a 2010 Cleannia Environme
RICHMOND
IC REVIEW DR
Pote
SignImpa
r ficant
ucing
nalyzed to enhouse gase
e gas emissi the environm
n passed theCalifornia Airisms that wiern are carbd sulfur hex, GHGs are os is weightedntory in the rcent of the
ment Districts) that were ds are desighe AB 32. Ash the 2010 Tor Court, thehas not been
n Air Plan. Sepntal Quality A
D CENTRAL PRO
RAFT
entially
nificant act
PotenSignifUnles
MitigaIncorp
evaluate potes is describe
ions, either dment?
e California r Resource Bill reduce GH
bon dioxide, xafluoride. Eaoften expresd according t San Francisc total CO
2e e
t (BAAQMD) incorporate
gned to help s discussed Thresholds we 2010 Thren challenged
ptember 15. Act Air Quality
OJECT INITIAL ST
tially ficant s
ation poration
Less
SignImpa
■
■
ential projeced below.
directly or in
Global WarmBoard to devHG emission methane, nach GHG hasssed in termsto its GWP. Cco Bay Area emissions re
developed ad into the 20 the SFBAABin the Air Q
were adoptedsholds are ud.
y Guidelines.
TUDY CHECKLIST
4
s Than
ificant act
No Impac
ct impacts.
ndirectly,
ming velop and s to 1990 itrous oxides a different s of carbon Carbon Air Basin ported.47
and adopted010 CEQA
B meet GHG uality Sectiod was
used in this
May.
T
41
t
e,
on
RICHMOND CENTRAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST APRIL 2014
42 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
The GHG threshold for the operational phase of the project requires compliance with one of the following:
Compliance with a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy; Annual emissions less than 1,100 metric tons per year (MT/yr) of CO
2e; or
Annual emissions less than 4.6 MT/yr of CO2e per service population.49
If annual emissions of operational-related GHGs exceed all of these levels, the project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant impact to global climate change.
The City of Richmond has not adopted a GHG Reduction Strategy though development of on as part of a Climate Action Plan was underway in 2013. The City of El Cerrito adopted a Climate Action Plan on May 21, 2013, which qualifies as a GHG Reduction Strategy. However, since only a small portion of the project site is located within the City of El Cerrito, it is assumed that the Climate Action Plan would not be applicable to the project and that GHG emissions need to be quantified to assess climate change impacts.
The BAAQMD recommends using the most current version of the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod)50 to estimate annual GHG emissions during the operational phase of a project. CalEEMod utilizes widely accepted models for emission estimates combined with appropriate default data that can be used if site-specific information is not available. A copy of the CalEEMod report for the project, which summarizes the input parameters, assumptions, and findings, is included in Appendix A.
GHG emissions during the operational phase of the project would primarily be from mobile sources (i.e., vehicle trips). Other common sources include onsite emissions from wood stoves, natural gas heating systems, and landscaping equipment, as well as offsite emissions related to energy production, water conveyance, wastewater treatment, and solid waste landfills. Both onsite and offsite GHG emissions during project operations were estimated using the CalEEMod default values for a mid-rise residential development, except as noted below.
The weekday vehicle trip rate was reduced to 5.41 trips/dwelling unit/day based on the Transportation Impact Assessment conducted for the project site.51
No woodstoves or fireplaces were included in the building design.
49 Service population = residents + employees 50 ENVIRON International Corporation and the California Air Districts, 2013. California
Emissions Estimator Model Version 2013.2.2. July. 51 Fehr & Peers, 2013a, op. cit.
APRIL 2014 RICHMOND CENTRAL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 43
Wastewater treatment processes were changed to 100 percent aerobic treatment and 100 percent anaerobic digestion with cogeneration, based on the design of the East Bay Municipal Utility District wastewater treatment plant that services the project area.
Based on the 2012 United States Census for the City of Richmond, there were 2.84 persons per household on average from 2007 to 2011.52 The project would build approximately 170 apartments, which would result in an average population of about 482 residents according to the census data. The residential population estimate for the project, which excludes employees, was used to conservatively estimate the project’s service population. The average emissions of GHGs calculated in CalEEMod for the operational phase of the project are compared to the GHG thresholds in Table VII-1. The project’s estimated GHG emissions exceeded the annual emissions threshold, but were below the efficiency-based threshold in terms of annual emissions per service population. Therefore, the project’s operational GHG emissions would have a less-than-significant impact on global climate change.
TABLE VII-1 SUMMARY OF AVERAGE GHG EMISSIONS DURING PROJECT OPERATION
Pollutant
Greenhouse Gases
MT/CO2e/yr MT/CO
2e/yr/SP
Emissions 1,291 2.7
Thresholds 1,100 4.6
Exceedance Yes No Source: Baseline Environmental, 2013.
The BAAQMD has not developed thresholds for construction-related GHG emissions. Common GHG emissions sources during construction include construction equipment, truck traffic, and associated construction worker traffic. The BAAQMD recommends calculating the GHG emissions to disclose the emissions levels that would occur during construction. Based on the size and type of development, CalEEMod estimated that project construction would likely last 268 days. Over this time period, the total emissions of GHGs calculated in CalEEMod for the construction phase of the project would be about 478 MT of CO
2e. By conservatively comparing these emissions to the operational threshold of
1,100 MT/yr of CO2e, the project’s construction GHG emissions would also have a less-
than-significant impact on global climate change.
52 United States Census Bureau, 2012. State and County QuickFacts. Last updated December 6.
Accessed October 23, 2013. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html.
RICHM
44
Wb)p
Less were projeannuwouldregulsignif
MOND CENTRAL
Would the prourpose of re
Than Signif designed to
ect’s GHG emal emissionsd comply witations relateficant.
INITIAL STUDY C
oject confliceducing the e
ficant. As dio ensure commissions wous per serviceth AB 32. Thed to GHG e
CHECKLIST
PU
t with an apemissions of
iscussed in Smpliance withuld be belowe population herefore, themission redu
BLIC REVIEW
pplicable planf greenhouse
Section VII (ah the AB 32
w the efficien (Table VII-1e project’s imuctions in th
DRAFT
n, policy or e gases?
a) above, the GHG reductncy-based GH), it can be a
mpact on aphe SFBAAB w
regulation a
e BAAQMD Ttion goals. SHG thresholdassumed thaplicable plan
would be less
APRIL 20
adopted for t
Thresholds ince the d in terms oat the projecns, policies, s than
014
the
f ct or
APRIL 2014 RICHMOND CENTRAL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 45
Potentially
Significant Impact
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
VIII. HAZARDS Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
■
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
■
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
■
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
■
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
■
f) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
■
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
■
h) Expose people or structures to 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?
■
The project would construct a residential development and is not anticipated to create a significant hazard to the public. Potential sources of contamination associated with former land uses have been evaluated and remediated on the site as described in the discussion below. This section also reviews the project in terms of its impacts on airports, emergency plans, and wildfires.
RICHM
46
Disc
Ca)tr
Less smallcleanmatethe ethe emate
Cb)foinhrecow
Less ProgrPreveone oSWPPsoil srelearequimatesolvewouldthan-
Ec)s
No Im
schoooperaTherethe e
24. ht
MOND CENTRAL
ussion
Create a signransport, us
Than Signifl quantities o
ning and landrials would nnvironment.nvironment rials.
Create a signoreseeable unto the envirazardous melease of hazonstruction
workers, the
Than Signifram, the Statention Plan (Sor more acrePP requires imstockpiles, inses to prevered SWPPP wrials and mints, and adhd reduce haz-significant l
Emit hazardoubstances, o
mpact. Basedols within onation of the efore, the prmission or h
53 California D
ttp://www.cde
INITIAL STUDY C
nificant hazase, or disposa
ficant. The pof commercdscaping supnot be used . The project related to th
nificant hazaupset and acronment? Pro
materials suczardous ma equipment c public, and
ficant. Undete Water ResSWPPP) to be
es of land. Amplementatinspections, mnt runoff int
would includnimize the chesives) withzardous matevel.
ous emissionor waste with
d on a reviewne-quarter mproject wouroject would handling of h
Department oe.ca.gov/re/s
CHECKLIST
PU
ard to the pual of hazard
project woulially-availablpplies, woul in sufficientt would havehe routine tr
ard to the puccident condioject construh as motor fterials durincould potent the environm
er the Nationsource Contre prepared fs detailed inion of contromaintenanceto existing se Best Mana
contact of hah stormwateterials releas
ns or handle hin one-quar
w of school dmile of the prld not store have no imhazardous o
of Education, 2d/.
BLIC REVIEW
ublic or the edous materia
d construct le hazardousd routinely bt quantities te a less-thanransport, use
ublic or the eitions involviuction activifuels, oils, song fueling, mtially occur ament.
nal Pollutant rol Board (SWfor all individn Section XI, ol measures e, training ofstormwater cagement Praazardous mar. Compliancses during c
hazardous orter mile of a
directories, roject.53 In ad or use any apact to exist
or acutely ha
2013. Califor
DRAFT
environmentals?
a residentias materials, be handled ato pose a th
n-significant e, and hand
environmentving the releaities would inolvents, and
maintenanceand pose a r
Discharge EWRCB) requirdual constru Hydrology a for hazardof employeescollection syctices used aterials (e.g.ce with thesonstruction
or acutely haan existing o
there are noddition, the acutely hazating or prop
azardous ma
rnia School Di
t through th
al developme such as houand used. Hreat to hum impact on tling of haza
t through rease of hazarnclude the u
d lubricants. , or imprope
risk to constr
Elimination Sres a Stormw
uction projecand Water Qous material s, and contaiystems or wato contain h, fuels, lubr
se existing re of the proje
azardous mor proposed
o existing or constructioardous mateosed school
aterials.
irectory. Acce
APRIL 20
e routine
ent, where usehold owever, thesan health orhe public orrdous
asonably rdous materuse of An accidenter operation ruction
System (NPDwater Polluticts that distu
Quality, the storage andnment of
aterways. Thhazardous icants, paintequirementsect to a less-
aterials, school?
r proposed n and rials. l facilities fro
ssed October
014
se r r
ials
tal n of
DES) on urb
d
he
ts, s
om
r
APRIL 20
Be d)pursig
PotentCode 6Departsubmitwaste dEnvironhazardidentifiIn 2012assess reporteto evalformerenvironare sum
Phase
The pro1990s.and stoprojectUST anyard bucontamwas enwith clefeet lonhydrocreporteground
54
October55 56
Industri57
Location
014
located on arsuant to Gonificant haz
ially Signifi65962.5 requment of Heat informationdisposal, andnmental Protous materiaied a release2, a Phase I potential soed release ofuate potenti buildings atnmental impmmarized be
I Environme
oject site wa The main b
orage space.t site from atd a fuel dispuilding.57 In 2
minated soil wcountered aean importeng by 19 feearbons as ded in six soild surface.
State Water Rr 24. http://g SOMA Enviro KCE Matrix, Ial Property, 5 P&D Environmns, 5620 Cent
a site which iovernment Card to the p
cant Unlessuire the Depalth Servicesn pertaining d/or hazardtection Agenal release sitee of diesel frEnvironment
ources of conf diesel.55 In al petroleumt the project
pacts associaelow.
ental Site A
as previouslybuilding, loca. An auto rept least the 1penser were 2000, the diwere excava
at about 7 fed fill materia
et wide by 7.iesel (TPH-d)l samples co
Resources Boaeotracker.swr
onmental EngiInc., 2013. Su5620 Central Amental, Inc., 2tral Avenue, R
PUBL
is included oCode Section
ublic or the
s Mitigationpartment of T, and Califor to sites assoous materia
ncy. A reviewes compiled om an undetal Site Assentamination 2013, a grom hydrocarbt site.56 The fated with haz
ssessment
y used as a lated near thpair shop wa970s to the formerly lociesel UST anated and remet below groal and repav5 feet deep.) as high as
ollected from
ard (SWRCB), 2rcb.ca.gov/. neering, 201
ubsurface EnvAvenue, Richm2011. Figure Richmond, Ca
RICHMOND
IC REVIEW DR
on a list of h 65962.5 an environmen
IncorporatToxic Substarnia Integratociated withls releases t
w of regulato pursuant torground sto
essment was associated w
oundwater quon contaminfindings of tzardous mat
umber yard e middle of as also locat mid-1990s cated along d about 135
moved from tound surfaceved. The exc. Concentrat230 milligra
m the walls o
2013. GeoTra
2, op. cit. vironmental Smond, Califor2, Site Aerial
alifornia.
D CENTRAL PRO
RAFT
azardous md, as a resu
nt?
tion. The proances Controted Waste Mah solid wasteo the Secret
ory databaseo Governmenorage tank (U prepared fowith former uality investnation in grothese reportterials releas
from about the propertyed on the w(Figure VIII-1the north si
5 cubic yardsthe site (Figue. The excavavation meations of totaams per kiloof the excava
acker Environm
Site Assessmenrnia 94804. JuPhotograph S
OJECT INITIAL ST
materials sitelt, would it c
ovisions of Gol, SWRCB, Canagement e disposal, htary of the Ces, includingnt Code 659UST) at the por the projec land uses, iigation was
oundwater as and potenses on the p
the 1950s ty, was used
western porti1). A 1,000-gde of the mas of petroleuure VIII-1). Gvation pit waasured approl petroleum gram (mg/kation at 6.5 f
mental Datab
nt Report. Comune 28. Showing Boreh
TUDY CHECKLIST
4
es compiled create a
Government California Board to azardous alifornia listed
962.5, project site.54
ct site to ncluding the performed round the tial
project site
to the mid-for office on of the gallon dieseain lumber um-Groundwateras backfilledoximately 31
kg) were feet below
ase. Accessed
mmercial-
hole
T
47
4
e
l
r 1
d
RICHMOND CENTRAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST APRIL 2014
48 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
FIGURE VIII-1 FORMER STRUCTURES AND GROUNDWATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS
APRIL 2014 RICHMOND CENTRAL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 49
Approximately 2,200 gallons of contaminated groundwater was pumped from the excavation pit. Concentrations of TPH-d in groundwater samples collected from the pit before and after groundwater pumping were reported at 290,000 micrograms per liter (μg/L) and 20,000 μg/L, respectively.58 On June 15, 2001, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) issued a case closer letter for the project site, indicating that further response actions related to the release of diesel were not necessary.59
In January 2012, all of the structures on the project site were demolished. In July 2012, two soil stockpiles of unknown origin and one rusted 55-gallon drum filled with soil were observed on the project site. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment made the following recommendations to evaluate potential impacts to soil and/groundwater:
Soil and groundwater sampling in the vicinity of the former diesel UST to evaluate the levels of residual contamination;
Soil sampling of the two soil stockpiles and abandoned soil drum observed on the project site for potential contaminants of concern; and
Shallow soil sampling across the entire project site for potential heavy metal contamination.
Groundwater Investigation
On March 19 and April 11, 2013, groundwater samples were collected from five exploratory borings and analyzed for extended range hydrocarbons (carbon chains ranging from C1 to C44+), benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes, methyl-tert butyl ether, and other volatile organic compounds (Figure VIII-1). Concentrations of petroleum constituents were not reported above laboratory reporting limits in any of the groundwater samples. The borings were backfilled and resurfaced upon completion of the groundwater sampling.
Environmental Impacts
The potential environmental impacts and recommendations for further investigation identified in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment have not been fully addressed at the project site. The potential environmental impacts include residual soil and/or groundwater contamination near the former diesel UST, potential contaminants of concern in a soil drum and two stockpiles, and potential metals contamination in shallow soils across the project site from former land uses.
58 Stellar Environmental Solutions, 2000. Underground Fuel Storage Tank Closure, 5620
Central Avenue, Richmond, California. February 8. 59 Regional Water Board, 2001. Case Closure – Underground Storage Tanks – 5620 Central
Avenue, Richmond, Contra Costa County. June 18.
RICHMOND CENTRAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST APRIL 2014
50 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
The Regional Water Board’s Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for TPH-d in soil and groundwater are 100 mg/kg and 100 μg/L, respectively, where land uses are residential and groundwater is a potential source of drinking water.60 Since previous soil and groundwater samples collected from the diesel UST excavation area exceed the current ESLs, residual soil and groundwater contamination may be present in the vicinity of the former diesel UST and fuel dispenser that could adversely impact human health and the environment (Figure VIII-1). The grab groundwater sampling (from soil borings) that was completed in 2013 did not include collection of a groundwater sample at the former diesel UST or dispenser area.
The soil stockpiles and drum on the project site, which were still present during an October 2013 site reconnaissance, may contain contaminants of concern that could adversely impact human health and the environment. In addition, shallow soils across the project site may contain elevated concentrations of metals from former auto repair and/or lumber yard activities that could adversely impact human health and the environment.
Direct contact, inhalation, or ingestion of hazardous materials in soil and/or groundwater at the project site, if present, could potentially cause adverse health effects to construction workers and future site users. The severity of health effects would depend on the contaminant, concentrations, exposure pathways, and duration of exposure. The disturbance of hazardous materials in soil and/or groundwater during earthwork activities, if present, could pose a hazard to construction workers, nearby receptors, and the environment. Future residents and trench workers who come into contact with contaminated soils, if present, could also experience adverse health effects.
The following mitigation measures are included as part of the project to minimize the potential Hazards and Hazardous Materials impacts during construction and operation of the project:
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1a – Phase II Site Investigation: The project applicant shall prepare a Phase II site investigation for the project which shall evaluate the potential environmental impacts identified during the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. The Phase II site investigation shall be conducted and evaluated by a licensed professional prior to construction and earthwork activities. If soil and/or groundwater contamination is identified above the applicable Regional Water Board’s ESLs, the findings of the Phase II investigation shall be submitted to the local and state regulatory agency for determination of potential remediation requirements. Remediation shall be performed in accordance with the regulatory agency requirements for the protection of public health and the environment. Remediation for
60 Regional Water Board, 2013. Environmental Screening Levels (Interim Final – May 2013).
May.
APRIL 20
idecon
The finspecificand grosafety encoun
Mitproworideaddsubthemaenv
The CRgroundidentifistoringdewateprovisistate aimplem1b wouground
Fore)beepro
No Impan Airpthe Couuse airrelated
61
Airport
014
ntified contantaminated m
ndings of thec Constructioundwater mrequirementntered during
igation Meaoject site sharkers, the gentified in thedress the pobsurface. Th Phase II sitenaged, and vironment, a
RMP shall incdwater suspeied at the sit
g, testing, anering activitieons for all wnd federal w
mentation of uld reduce imdwater at the
r a project loen adopted, oject result in
pact. The Coport Land Usunty. The prports define to aviation
Contra CostaLand Use Com
amination comaterials, in
e Phase II siton Risk Man
managementts, and contig constructi
sure HAZ-1ball be conduceneral publice Phase II sitssibility of ee CRMP shale investigatidisposed of
and in accord
clude measuected of conte. The CRMnd disposinges, respectiv
workers poteworker safety the CRMP. Impacts assoe project site
ocated withinwithin 2 miln a safety ha
ontra Costa Ce Compatib
roject site is ed by the ALUhazards aro
a County Airpmpatibility Pla
PUBL
ould include-situ treatme
e investigatinagement Plat and disposngency meaon, as requi
b - Constructcted under ac, and the ente investigatencounteringll incorporaton to ensure in a mannedance with a
res for identtaining hazaP will: (1) pr
g of soil and vely; (2) descentially expoy regulationsmplementatciated with e to a less-th
n an airport les of a publiazard for pe
County Airpoility Plan for not located UC.61 The pr
ound public-u
ort Land Use an. December
RICHMOND
IC REVIEW DR
, but is not ent, and/or
ion shall be an (CRMP). Tsal procedureasures in casred in Mitiga
tion Risk Maa project-spenvironment ftion (see Mitg unknown ce the soil ane that soil anr protective
applicable law
tifying, testiardous mateovide proced groundwatecribe requiresed to hazas; and (3) detion of Mitigpotential hahan-significa
land use plaic airport oreople residin
ort Land Use areas surro within any poject would use airports
Commission r 13.
D CENTRAL PRO
RAFT
be limited toinstitutional
used for devThe CRMP shes, construcse unknown ation Measu
anagement Pecific CRMP tfrom hazardigation Mea
contaminationd groundwand groundwaof human hws and regu
ng, and manerials that hadures for ever during proed worker herdous mater
esignate persgation Measzardous ma
ant level.
an or, wherer public use ang or workin
e Commissioounding pubprotected ai have no imp.
(ALUC), 2000
OJECT INITIAL ST
o, source reml or enginee
velopment ohall delineatection worker contaminatire HAZ-1b.
Plan: Construto protect co
dous materiasure HAZ-1aon or hazardater analyticater are storealth and th
ulations.
naging soil aave not previvaluating, haoject excavaealth and sarials in accorsonnel respo
sures HAZ-1terials in so
e such a planairport, wou
ng in the proj
on (ALUC) halic-use airporspace zonepact on pub
0. Contra Cost
TUDY CHECKLIST
5
moval of ring controls
of a project-e specific so health and ion is
uction at theonstruction als previousla) or to ds in the al data fromred,
he
and iously been
andling, ation and fety rdance with onsible for a and HAZ-il and
n has not uld the ject area?
as adopted orts within es for public-lic safety
ta County
T
51
s.
oil
e
y
m
-
RICHM
52
Ff)a
No Imprivapubli
Img)p
Less is resdisasEmerto or Deveor evAvenevacu
Exh)wre
No ImmappweathSeverCodeFire DresouHazapeop
Octobairpor
Servic
Hazar
MOND CENTRAL
For a project safety haza
mpact. Basedte airstrips ic safety rela
mpair implemlan or emerg
Than Signifsponsible forters in the Cgency Opera from the prlopment of tacuation plaue. The projuation plans
Expose peoplewildland firesesidences ar
mpact. The Cped areas in her, and othrity Zones, a Sections 51
Department,urces from wrd Severity Zle or structu
62 Federal Av
ber 28, 2013. rtdata_5010/.
63 Office of Eces. Accessed
64 California Drd Severity Zo
INITIAL STUDY C
located withard for peop
d on a reviewn the vicinit
ated to aviati
mentation ofgency evacu
ficant. The Rr respondingCity of Richmations Plan.6
roject site cothe project wans, becauseject would h.
e or structurs, including re intermixed
California De Contra Coster relevant fre classified175-51189 identify me
wildland fire.Zones in the ures related t
iation Admini Last updated. mergency Ser October 28. Department oones in LRA. R
CHECKLIST
PU
hin the vicinle residing o
w of Federal y of the projion hazards
f or physicauation plan?
Richmond Fig to and mit
mond. Overa3 In the even
ould be availwould not bee developmeave a less-th
res to a signwhere wildlad with wildla
epartment ota County wfactors. Thes by the CAL to assist resasures to re CAL FIRE ha project vicinto wildland f
stration, 201
d October 17.
rvices (OES), 2http://ca-rich
of Forestry anRecommended
BLIC REVIEW
ity of a privaor working in
Aviation Adject site.62 T around priv
lly interfere
re Departmeigating natull emergencynt of an emeable along I-e expected tnt would no
han-significa
nificant risk oands are adjands?
f Forestry anith significanse zones, re FIRE Directosponsible loeduce the poas determinenity.64 The pfire hazards
3. Airport Da http://www.f
2013. Responshmond2.civicpd Fire Protectd by CAL FIRE
DRAFT
ate airstrip, n the project
dministrationhe project w
vate airstrips
with an ado
ent Office ofural, manmady response i
ergency resp-80 or San Pto interfere wot restrict accant impact o
of loss, injurjacent to urb
nd Fire Protent fire hazarferred to as or in accordacal agencies
otential for loed that thereroject would.
ata & Contact faa.gov/airpo
sibilities of thplus.com/indetion (CAL FIRE on January 7
would the pt area?
n records, thwould have ns.
opted emerg
f Emergencyde, and accis governed
ponse or evacPablo Avenuewith emergecess to I-80 n emergency
ry or death ibanized area
ection (CAL Frds based on Very High Fance with Gos, such as thosses of lifee are no Verd have no im
Information. rts/airport_sa
he Office of Emex.aspx?NID=E), 2009. Very.
APRIL 20
project resul
here are no no impact on
gency respon
y Services (Odental by the City’scuation, acce. ency respons or San Pabloy response a
involving as or where
FIRE) has n fuels, terraFire Hazard overnment e Richmond, property, ary High Fire
mpact on
Accessed afety/
mergency =2009. y High Fire
014
lt in
n
nse
ES)
s ess
se o and
ain,
d and
APRIL 2014 RICHMOND CENTRAL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 53
Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? ■
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
■
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
■
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
■
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
■
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ■
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
■
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
■
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding of as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
■
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ■
The nearest surface water bodies to the project site are Cerritos Creek, which runs about 800 feet south of the project site, and San Francisco Bay, located approximately ½-mile to
RICHM
54
the wnearl
Disc
Va)
Less regulthe BContrContrand wPollutCleandischand fSan F
OperaRegioC.3 oconstthe eexistsystestorm(SCP)impleincludgrounprepafunde
Both (MunempocompprojeaccomCostaSectio
MOND CENTRAL
west. Federaly all of the p
ussion
Violate any w
Than Signifate water quay Area, incrol Board (Rerol Plan (Baswater bodiestant Discharn Water Act).harges to surfederal statuFrancisco Reg
ation of the onal Permit (of the MRP adtruction wouxisting impeing, new, anm design (i.
mwater runof must be preementation mde Low Impandwater migared to ensued for the lif
the City of Eicipal Code owers the citpliance with ects. Any permpanied by a County Cleon 12.22.05
INITIAL STUDY C
Emergency project site i
water quality
ficant. The Suality of surfluding the pegional Watein Plan). The
s within the rge Eliminati. The NPDES rface water btes and regugional Water
project wou(MRP), impleddresses newuld replace mervious surfand/or replacee., stormwaff from the eepared and measures toact Developmgration. A Stoure that stormfe of the proj
El Cerrito (MChapter 12.ties to ensurNPDES perm
rmit, varianca SCP that m
ean Water Pr0 (a)).
CHECKLIST
PU
Managemens located wi
y standards
State Board aface water a
project site, ter Board) is re Basin Plan region. Runoon System ( program obbodies. Comulations. Locr Board.
uld be subjecmented in Ow developm
more than 10ace at the pred imperviouter treatmenentire redevesubmitted fo meet MRP r
ment (LID) dormwater Famwater cont
oject.
unicipal Cod22) have adore that these
mits is requirce, design remeets the criogram Storm
BLIC REVIEW
nt Agency (Fthin the ma
or waste dis
and nine Regnd groundwthe San Franresponsible establishes off water quNPDES) Progbjective is to
mpliance withcally, the NP
ct to the RegOctober 2009ent and rede0,000 squarroject site, thus surfaces, nt systems melopment pror the projecrequirementesign measu
acility Operatrol measure
de Chapter 8opted Storme stormwaterred as a condview, or teniteria in the mwater C.3 G
DRAFT
FEMA) Flood pped 100-ye
scharge requ
gional Waterwater bodies ncisco Bay Refor impleme beneficial wality is regu
gram (establo control andh NPDES perDES Program
gional Water9 by Order Revelopment e feet and mhe entire pro must be inc
must be desiroject). A Stoct site details. The projeures, includition and Ma
es are inspec
8.40) and themwater Manar regulationsdition of apptative map amost recentGuidebook (
Map data shear flood zon
uirements?
r Quality Co throughout egional Wateentation the water uses folated by theished througd reduce polmits is mand
m is adminis
r Board’s MuR2-2009-007 projects. As
more than 50oject site, cocluded in thegned and si
ormwater Coling design eect will be reng a lining t
aintenance Pcted, mainta
e City of Ricagement Ords are enforceproval for deapproval mut version of t(Richmond M
APRIL 20
hows that ne.
ntrol Boards California. Ier Quality Water Qualior waterways National gh the federlutant dated by Stastered by the
nicipal 74. Provisions project 0 percent of onsisting of e treatment zed to treat
ontrol Plan elements anquired to to prevent lan must be
ained, and
hmond dinances, whed. Proof of evelopment ust be the Contra
Municipal Co
014
s In
ty s
ral
ate e
n
all
d
hich
ode,
APRIL 20
PotentioperatiBoard, one acrDischaGenerabe subjCity reqbe requwould controlstormwinspectCaliforConstr
A stormtreatmeprojectdischartreatme
Calculawould reductiSCP, wiand C.3stormw
Subb)grolowneapla
Less Tof the pWater Drecentl
65 66
Industri
014
al stormwation phases. A any construre or more wrges Associa
al Permit). Thject to the Cquirements, uired. Underbe required l, site managwater dischation/maintennia Stormwauction (Rich
mwater exhibent areas wot site. The strge to the exent area wou
ations on thebe reduced ion in peak sill be require3 requiremewater quality
bstantially doundwater rewering of thearby wells wanned uses fo
han Significproject. WatDistrict (EBMy measured
Sandis, 2013 KCE Matrix, Ial Property,56
er impacts iAccording toction activity
would requirated with Cohe project siConstruction preparationr Constructio to include bgement/hourges, runon nance/repairater Quality Amond Munic
bit has beenould be constormwater trxisting City suld discharg
e stormwatefrom 2.6 acrstormwater fed to demonnts. Complia
y impacts to
deplete grounecharge suc
e local grounwould drop toor which per
cant. Grounder supply is
MUD). Althou at 3.5 to 6.
3, StormwaterInc., 2013, Su620 Central A
PUBL
n developmo the water qy, including
re complianconstruction ate is approx General Per
n of a Storm on General Pbest managesekeeping/w and runoff cr activities, aAssociation cipal Code Se
n prepared fostructed at treatment arestorm drain e to the exis
r exhibit indres to 2.2 acflow. Additionstrate that tance with tha less-than-s
ndwater suph that there
ndwater tablo a level whicrmits have b
dwater woul provided togh groundw5 feet below
r Exhibit, 5620ubsurface EnvAvenue, Richm
RICHMOND
IC REVIEW DR
ent projectsquality contr grading, thace with the Gand Land Disximately 2.5 rmit. Under t Water PollutPermit and mment practicwaste managcontrols, andas consistenStormwater ection 12.22
or the projeche northwes
ea at the norsystem at Csting drainag
dicate that ucres, which wonal informathe project cese existingsignificant le
pplies or inte would be a le level (e.g.,ch would no
been granted
d not be use the project
water elevatiow ground sur
0 Central Avevironmental Smond, Californ
D CENTRAL PRO
RAFT
may occur rol plans of at would res
General Permsturbance Ac acres in arethe Construction Prevent
municipal reqces (BMPs) fogement, mand BMP t with the m Best Manag2.050 (g)).
ct.65 It showst and southrthwest cornCentral Avenuge channel.
nder the prowould resultation, includcomplies witg requiremenevel.
erfere substa net deficit i the product
ot support exd)?
ed during co area by the on at the prorface (bgs),66
., October 24Site Assessmennia 94804. Ju
OJECT INITIAL ST
during consthe Regiona
sult in the dimit for Stormctivity (Consa, and wouldction Generaion Plan (SWquirements, or erosion anagement of
most recent vement Hand
ws that stormwest cornerer of the situe, while the
oject, imperv in a 10 percing a preparth El Cerrito,nts will redu
antially with n aquifer votion rate of pxisting land u
onstruction o East Bay Muoject site is 6 no significa
4. nt Report. Comne 28.
TUDY CHECKLIST
5
truction andal Water sturbance o
m Water struction d therefore al Permit and
WPPP) would the SWPPP
and sedimenf non-
version of thdbook-
mwater s of the e would e southwest
vious area cent ration of a , Richmond, ce potential
olume or a pre-existing uses or
or operationunicipal shallow, ant below-
mmercial-
T
55
d
of
d
t
he
RICHM
56
gradedurindevelsite, aSectiogrounresoua liniproje
Sc)ths
Less projeSectioappeaaesthcould
Sd)tha
Less projeSectiosite. Alined bridgbe a fchann
Ce)pp
Less the Eurbanstorm
MOND CENTRAL
e constructiong constructlopment of tand increaseon XI.a), addndwater undurces. The SWng to preven
ect on groun
ubstantially he alterationubstantial er
Than Signifect, implemeon XI.a) wouarance of th
hetically impd alter draina
ubstantially he alterationmount of su
Than Signifect, implemeon XI.a) wouAs discussed drainage ch
ge over the dfree-span brnel, and the
Create or conlanned stormolluted runo
Than Signifnvironmentan runoff.67 Amwater requi
67 Environme
INITIAL STUDY C
on is proposion would bethe site woue stormwateditional watederlying the WPPP describnt groundwadwater rech
y alter the exn of the courrosion or sil
ficant. Althontation of eld prevent ae concrete-lroved by theage patterns
y alter the exn of the coururface runoff
ficant. Althontation of eld reduce thd above (undhannel on thdrainage charidge. A freerefore would
ntribute runomwater draioff?
ficant. Cerrial Protections discussed irements wil
ntal Protectio
CHECKLIST
PU
sed. Any groe expected tld slightly rer retention a
er from preciproject site,bed in Sectioater migratioarge to a les
xisting drainrse of a streatation on- or
ough drainagxisting storm
any significained drainage use of lands are propos
xisting drainrse of a streaf in a manne
ough drainagxisting storm
he rate and ader Section Xe project sit
annel, but as-span bridged not alter d
off water whinage system
to Creek is ln Agency, as above (undel require tre
on Agency, 20
BLIC REVIEW
undwater deto be minor educe the amand treatmeipitation wou a small but on XI.a will ron, which wilss-than-signi
age pattern am or river, r off-site?
ge patterns wmwater requnt impacts fge channel odscaping feaed.
age pattern am or river, er which wou
ge patterns wmwater requamount of suXI.c), no fune are propo
s specified ine would not rainage patt
hich would exms or provid
listed as an a result of ter Section XIeatment of st
10. 2010 Wa
DRAFT
ewatering thin both exte
mount of impnt (see discuuld have the positive be
require LID dll reduce theificant level.
of the site o in a manne
would changuirements (dfrom erosionon the easteratures, no fu
of the site o or substantuld result in
would changuirements (durface waterctional altersed. The pron the Project include any terns or floo
xceed the cae substantia
“impaired” wtrash likely fI.a), compliatormwater a
aterbody Repo
hat might beent and durapervious surussion abovee potential tonefit to groudesign mease potential im
or area, incluer which wou
ge after comescribed abo
n or siltationrn site boun
unctional alte
or area, inclutially increas flooding on
ge after comescribed abo
r runoff fromrations to theoject would t Description encroachme
oding on-site
apacity of exal additional
waterbody, afrom illegal dance with exiand result in
ort for Cerrito
APRIL 20
required ation. As rface at the e under o recharge undwater ures, includmpact of the
uding througuld result in
mpletion of thove under . Although tdary would erations that
uding througse the rate o
n- or off-site?
mpletion of thove under
m the projecte concrete-construct a
n, this wouldent into the
e or off-site.
xisting or l sources of
according to dumping anisting a reduction
o Creek.
014
ing e
gh
he
the be t
gh or ?
he
t
d
d
in
APRIL 20
the volsignific
Othf)
Less TCreek, Francisstormwimpact
Plag)Haz
Potentthat neWhen sand aff
No basimmedrangingapproxsuch as
Both th(MunicfloodinconstruMunicithe elevenginenot creelevatiodrainagencroa
A recenestimat
68 Costa CEffective
69
014
ume of storcant impact w
herwise subs
han Signific which runs sco Bay, locawater requires to these w
ce housing wzard Bounda
ially Signifiearly all of thsignificant stfect areas ne
e flood eleviately to theg from 14 toximately 20 fs the concre
he City of El ipal Code Ch
ng hazards. Auction shall pal Code 12vation of theer or survey
eate obstructon in the vicge channel wchment into
nt concern isted that if cu Federal Emer
County, Califoe Date June 1 City of El Cer
mwater discwould occur
stantially deg
cant. The neeast to west
ated approxiements (disc
water bodies
within a 100ary or Flood
cant Unlesshe project sittorm events ear the creek
ation for thee east (from o 16 feet abofeet amsl, thte drainage
Cerrito (Munhapter 12.56Among othebe located a.56.050.A.3e lowest flooor to be protions that mcinity of the would be a fro the channe
s the effectsurrent trend rgency Managrnia and Incor6. rrito, 1999. G
PUBL
harge to ther.
grade water
earest surfact approximatmately ½-mi
cussed above to a less-tha
0-year flood Insurance R
s Mitigationte is located and high tidk, including
e project siteBelmont Aveove mean sehis suggests channel, wo
nicipal Code6) have munr features, t
at least one f). Upon com
or, includingoperly elevateight block flstructure. Asree-span bril, and theref
of global cls continue, t
gement Agencrporated Area
eneral Plan, R
RICHMOND
IC REVIEW DR
e City of Rich
r quality
ce water bodtely 800 feetile to the wee under Sectan-significan
hazard areaRate Map or
Incorporat within the m
des coincidethe project s
e is shown oenue to Lassea level (ams that only lo
ould be affec
Chapter 8.3icipal ordinahese ordinafoot above t
mpletion of ag a basemented. Other prlood waters s described dge. A free-sfore would n
imate changthe mean se
cy (FEMA), 200as, Panel 245
Resources and
D CENTRAL PRO
RAFT
hmond storm
dies to the prt south of th
est. Implemetion XI.a) wont level.
a as mapped other flood
tion. FEMA Fmapped 100
e, Cerritos Crsite.69
on the FEMA sen Street) hasl). As the prw-lying or b
cted by the 1
35) and the Cances to pronces requirehe base floo
a structure int, must be crovisions reqand increasabove undespan bridge not block flo
ge on floodinea level will r
09. Flood Insu of 602, Map
d HazardsElem
OJECT INITIAL ST
m drainage s
roject site arhe project sientation of eould reduce a
d on a federahazard delin
lood Map da0-year flood reek may flo
flood map, as base flooroject site elbelow-grade 100-year floo
City of Richmotect the pube that all resod elevation n a flood hazertified by a
quire that ste the base fr “d”, the br would not i
ood flows.
ng hazards. rise 18 inche
urance Rate MNumber 0613
ment.
TUDY CHECKLIST
5
system. No
re Cerritos te, and San xisting any potentia
al Flood neation map
ata shows zone.68
ood its banks
but the areaod elevationsevation is structures, od event.
mond blic from idential (Richmond zard zone, a professionaructures do lood idge over thnclude any
It is es by 2050
Map, Contra 3C0245F.
T
57
al
p?
s
a s
al
e
RICHM
58
and u2050on ellevel scena
To enevent
MMpopda
Implethan-
Ph)fl
PotenwithipotenwithiRichmabove
Exi)fl
No Immappearth
Rising
Annex
MOND CENTRAL
up to 55 inch0 and 2100, evation and rise could re
arios.71
nsure that prt of sea leve
Mitigation MeMunicipal Codroject site stne foot abovrofessional eeterminationnd a 55-inch
ementation o-significant l
Place within alood flows?
ntially Signin a 100-yearntial for strun the 100-yemond flood he, would red
Expose peoplelooding, incl
mpact. No daped nearest en dam loca
70 San Francis
g Bay: Vulnera71 Ibid. 72 Contra Cos
xes, Chapter 6
INITIAL STUDY C
hes by 2100and are ther existing flooesult in exac
roject designl rise, Mitiga
easure HYD-de Chapter 8tructure shave the base fengineer or n incorporath rise in sea
of the measuevel.
a 100-year f
ificant Unler flood zonectures const
ear flood hazhazard ordinduce the pot
e or structuruding floodi
am inundatidam inundaated slightly
sco Bay Conseability and Ad
sta County, 206, City of Rich
CHECKLIST
PU
0.70 It is likelrefore potenod hazard, tcerbated floo
n protects pation Measu
1- Base Floo8.35 and Ric
all be construflood level. Tsurveyor tha
tes estimateslevel by 210
ure would re
flood hazard
ss Mitigatio (see discustructed for tzard area. Anances and iential impac
res to a signng of as a re
on areas aretion area is more than a
ervation and Daptation in Sa
011. Hazard Mhmond Annex
BLIC REVIEW
y that projectially subjecthe project sod hazard d
ersons and ure HYD-1, b
d Elevation: chmond Munucted so thaThis shall alat the base fs for an 18-i00.
educe potent
d area struct
on Incorporasion above uthe project todherence tomplementat
ct from this h
nificant risk oesult of the f
e mapped atfor the San Pa mile east o
Development an Francisco B
Mitigation Plax.
DRAFT
ct site structct to the effesite is mappeuring both t
property frobelow, has b
In compliannicipal Codeat all floors aso include aflood elevatinch rise in m
tial impacts
tures which
ation. As theunder Sectioo interfere w
o City of El Ction of Mitighazard to a
of loss, injurfailure of a l
t the project Pablo Clearwof the projec
Commission Bay and on its
an Update, Vo
tures will stiects of sea leed as an arethe 2050 and
om flooding been drafted
nce with El C Chapter 12
are elevated a certificationion used for mean sea lev
from floodin
would imped
e project siton XI.g), therwith or divererrito and C
gation Measless-than-sig
ry or death ilevee or dam
site.72 The well dam, a 4ct site that is
(BCDC), 2011s Shoreline. O
lume 2: Plann
APRIL 20
ill be in use evel rise. Basa where sead 2100
hazards in td.
Cerrito .56, the a minimum n by a this vel by 2050
ng to a less-
de or redirec
e is located re may be a rt flood wateCity of sure HYD-1, gnificant lev
involving m?
nearest 42-foot highs owned and
1. Living WithOctober 6.
ning Partner
014
in sed a
the
of
-
ct
ers
vel.
h d
a
APRIL 20
maintaapprox
Inuj)
No Impbodiessite is non San and obSan Fra
73 74
Planning75
Francisc
014
ined by EBMximately 850
undation by s
pact. Tsunam, respectivelnot located w Francisco B
bserved in thancisco Bay b
Ibid. California Emg, Richmond- Borrero et alco Bay. June 8
MUD. The ma0 feet east of
seiche, tsuna
mis and seicy, that may within a mapay marine oe San Francibasin, non-ts
mergency ManSan Quentin q, 2006. Nume
8.
PUBL
apped inundaf the project
ami, or mud
hes are wavcreate floodpped tsunamil terminals, isco Bay Aresunami indu
nagement Agequadrangle. Juerical Modelin
RICHMOND
IC REVIEW DR
ation area ext site.73
dflow?
es generatedding impactsmi inundatio which exama, concluded
uced seiches
ency, 2009. Tuly 31. g of Tsunami
D CENTRAL PRO
RAFT
xtends west
d in the ocea during a sen area.74 A s
mined 51 hisd that due to were not a
sunami Inund
i Effects at Ma
OJECT INITIAL ST
tward from t
an and encloeismic effectstudy of tsustoric tsunamo the geomesignificant h
dation Map fo
arine Oil Term
TUDY CHECKLIST
5
the dam to
osed water . The projecnami effects
mis recordedetry of the hazard.75
r Emergency
minals in San
T
59
ct s d
RICHMOND CENTRAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST APRIL 2014
60 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ■
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
■
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
■
The project site is located within an urbanized area located in the southern portion of the City of Richmond. The land on each side of the project site has been disturbed and all surrounding parcels are developed with residential or commercial uses, or as parkland (i.e., Central Park). Specific surrounding uses include:
North: Located directly across Central Avenue from the project site are primarily one and two-story residential buildings, including single-family homes and multi-family structures. Central Park is located slightly northeast, across Central Avenue, from the project site. Residential uses continue further north, and a few three-story, multi-family buildings are located close to the intersection of Yolo Avenue and El Dorado Street.
East: Immediately east of the project site—west of Belmont Avenue and between Central Avenue and San Diego Street—are two single-family homes and three multi-family buildings. East of Belmont Avenue, one- to two-story single- and multi-family residential uses extend up to Carlson Boulevard where uses transition to commercial development.
South: Directly south of the project site are one-story small commercial uses including an awning company, a climbing gym, a yoga studio, and a tax service office. Further south at the termination of San Diego Street is Pacific East Mall, a large commercial shopping center with an associated parking lot. Tenants of Pacific East Mall include 99 Ranch Market, Cathay Bank, and a variety of restaurants and small service businesses. Further south of Pacific East Mall are additional residential uses and Creekside Park in the City of Albany.
APRIL 20
Discus
Woa)
Less Tconstrumovemvacant residualandsca(Centrathe pro
The apthat wothe siteresidensidewavicinitywould divide a
Wob)ageplapur
Potentsingle-districtmeasurrezonin
For thiswill preZoning
014
West: Locatthree-story uses becomand off- ram
ssion
uld the proje
han Significuction of a p
ment between infill site to al pavement aping. The pal Avenue, Saoject site.
plicant propould enhance would facilnces and neilks with add
y expand pednot alter anyan existing c
uld the projeency with jur
an, specific prpose of avo
ially Signifiuse residentt allows and re requiring ng, the pote
s project, theside. For inf classificatio
ted directly w residential b
me more commp for I-80.
ect physicall
cant. The divphysical boun or within e the surroun from the pr
property is san Mateo Str
poses to devee the currenlitate additioghborhood
ded landscapdestrian andy establishedcommunity,
ect conflict wrisdiction ov
plan, local coiding or mit
cant Unlesstial developm without the approval of ntial impact
e City of Ricformational ons are also
PUBL
west of San Mbuildings. M
mmercial in n
ly divide an
vision of an ndary or eleexisting comnding neighbrevious use, urrounded breet, and Bel
elop all residt property. T
onal residentuses. The pr
ping, preservd bicycle acced roadways. resulting in
with any appver the projeoastal prograigating an e
s Mitigationment with a mix of uses a density bo will be redu
chmond is th purposes, a provided.
RICHMOND
IC REVIEW DR
Mateo StreetMoving furthenature. One
established
established ment (such
mmunities. Tborhood. Thea perimeter
by residentialmont Avenu
dential frontThe multi-fats to locate iroject wouldve all pedestess via a new Therefore, t an less-than
plicable landect (includingam, or zonin
environmenta
Incorporatheight and ds required. Wonus given tuced to a les
he lead perma description
D CENTRAL PRO
RAFT
t from the per west towablock west o
community?
community as a freewayhe project we site curren fence, and al developmeue), and com
tages with amily residenin close prox
d retain and trian and bicw bridge frothe project wn-significant
d use plan, pg, but not limng ordinanceal effect?
tion. The prodensity highWith implemethe proposedss-than-signi
mitting agencn of El Cerrito
OJECT INITIAL ST
project site aards Pierce Sof Pierce Str
?
usually refey) that hampwould reconnntly containsminimal perent on three
mmercial loca
rchitectural ntial use proximity to othimprove all
cycle access om Belmont Awould not pht impact.
policy, or regmited to the e) adopted fo
oject is propher than the entation of ad affordabilificant level.
cy and its deo’s General
TUDY CHECKLIST
6
are two and Street, land eet is an on-
ers to the pers nect a largelys only ripheral sides ated south o
elements posed for her surrounding in the site’sAvenue, buthysically
gulation of a general for the
posed as a base zoninga mitigation ity levels or
esignations Plan and
T
61
-
y
of
g s
an
g a
RICHMOND CENTRAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST APRIL 2014
62 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
General Plan Consistency
The City of Richmond’s General Plan assumes commercial and residential redevelopment will continue along Central Avenue. The project site is a designated Activity Center, which are intended to be pedestrian- and transit-friendly community hubs characterized by mixed-use and higher-density development. The Richmond General Plan designation for the project site is Regional Commercial Mixed-Use.76 The El Cerrito General Plan designation for the small portion of the site in the City of El Cerrito is High Density Residential.77
The policies and strategies of the Richmond General Plan, in addition to those of the 2013 Housing Element, support the redevelopment of underutilized properties with mixed-use commercial/residential developments.
Specifically, the project addresses the following goals, policies, and actions from the Richmond General Plan:
Goal LU-6: High-Quality and Sustainable Development – Maintain a high standard of design, planning and construction of new and renovated public and private facilities, infrastructure and services. Continue committing to a comprehensive planning approach that supports a sustainable and healthy community and reduces impacts on the natural environment.
Provide new development near transit and in areas with existing transportation infrastructure. Activate public areas and reduce the need for residents and employees to travel by automobile to access daily good by promoting the location of housing, jobs and recreation uses close to transit lines, bicycle route and pedestrian improvements. In support of a walkable and vibrant community, develop complete mixed-use streets that are safe for pedestrians, bicyclists and all modes of travel.
Policy LU1.1: Higher Density and Infill Mixed-Use Development – Provide higher-density and infill mixed-use development affordable to all incomes on vacant and underutilized parcels throughout the City.
Goal H-1: A Balanced Supply of Housing – Promote a balanced supply of housing types, densities, and prices to meet the needs of all income groups.
Policy H-1.3: Supply of Affordable Housing – Promote the development of homes that are affordable to extremely low, very low, and moderate-income households in all new residential developments as well as in existing single-family neighborhoods.78
The proposed residential use is consistent with applicable General Plan policies, but it would require a density bonus and associated concession as discussed below. The
76 City of Richmond, 2012. General Plan, Land Use and Urban Design Element. 77 City of El Cerrito, 1999. General Plan, Community Development and Design Element. 78 City of Richmond, 2013. General Plan, Housing Element.
APRIL 2014 RICHMOND CENTRAL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 63
Regional Commercial Mixed-Use designation for the site allows 50 units per acre and limits building heights to 55 feet. At 67 units per acre and 66 feet at the uppermost roofline, the proposed project exceeds the density and height regulations for the Richmond General Plan designation and the High Density Residential designation of the El Cerrito General Plan (35 dwelling units per acre). However, the project may be eligible for a density bonus through the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance (Chapter 15.04.810.050) which allows for exceptions to zoning ordinance requirements, Land Use Element of the General Plan, or architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards, such as density and building height.
The number of concessions permitted and the total bonus is determined based on the percentage of affordable units provided (currently, proposed as 100 percent) and on the level of affordability provided (90% at 60% of AMI and 10% at 50% of AMI). Under this proposal, the project would be eligible for a 35 percent density bonus, which would allow the project to build up to 174 units, and utilize up to three concessions to development standards, such as height and parking requirements.79 With 172 units proposed, the project would meet the density requirements of the Regional Commercial Mixed-Use designation, with a bonus density. A concession for the height exceedance would also be required.
Zoning Consistency
The subject property’s current designation and zoning reflect the City of Richmond’s intention to encourage higher-density commercial and residential uses. Permitted uses in Richmond’s C-3 zone include: retail sales; retail services; residential uses as part of a mixed-use development; civic, public, and semipublic uses; agricultural uses; open space and recreational uses; industrial uses; and temporary uses. 80 Permitted uses in El Cerrito’s RM zone include single-family residential, multi-family residential, and residential care facilities. 81
The project does not propose a mix of uses as required by Richmond’s C-3 zone when residential uses are proposed. In order to be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, implementation of the project will require a density bonus and/or rezoning to designate the project site a Planned Area. For a density bonus, a concession may be provided by the City to modify the allowable development standards and permit a residential-only development, in addition to the density bonus and height concession described above.
79 Assuming 50 dwelling units/acre on a 2.58 site, consistent with the Regional Commercial
Mixed-Use designation, the site could accommodate 129 units. A 35 percent density bonus would permit up to 174 units.
80 City of Richmond, 2011. Zoning Ordinance. Section 15.04.230.020. 81 City of El Cerrito, 2008. Zoning Ordinance. Section 19.06.10.
RICHM
64
The pthe CunitsspaceDirecsystemaxithroube m
The fsignif
MpPfoam
Wc)co
No Imnaturhabitwithi
MOND CENTRAL
project, propCity’s Zoning, and 1 gueses. Parking sctor or desigm managemmum of 25
ugh a conditade to reduc
following mificant level.
Mitigation Meroject sponslanned Area or height, depproval for a
management
Would the proommunity co
mpact. Neithral communiat or naturan the projec
82 City of Rich
INITIAL STUDY C
posing 309 sg Code: 1.5 sst space per space reductnee, if a ride
ment programpercent mayional use pece the parkin
tigation mea
easure LANDsor shall app Developmeensity and ma reduction program, d
oject confliconservation
her Richmonty conservatl communityt area, the p
hmond, 2012
CHECKLIST
PU
spaces, provspaces per 2 5 units, whitions of up teshare, transm is providey be permitteermit procesng requirem
asure would
D-1 – Rezoninply for and rent in order t
mix of uses. Fin the parkinensity bonu
t with any a plan?
d nor El Certion plan. Thy conservatioproposed dev
. General Plan
BLIC REVIEW
vides slightly2-bedroom uich results ino 10 percensit incentived. Further ped if approves. Alternativent.
reduce the
ng and denseceive a dento modify thFor parking,ng requirems concession
pplicable ha
rito has apphe site is noton plan. Sincvelopment w
n, Conservatio
DRAFT
y less parkinnit, 2 spacen a requiremnt may be pe program, o
parking spaceed by the Pla
vely, a densit
potential im
sity bonus: Pnsity bonus ae allowable the project ent throughn, or conditi
abitat conser
proved a habt within an ace there are would not re
on and Natura
ng than whats per 3- or m
ment of 315 ermitted by tor other trane reductionsanning Comty bonus con
mpact to a les
Prior to apprand are/or rdevelopmen sponsor mu
h a transportonal use pe
rvation plan
bitat conservarea that is s no such pla
esult in a con
al Resources E
APRIL 20
t is required more bedrooparking the Planningsportation s up to a
mmission, ncession cou
ss-than-
oval, the ezoning to a
nt standardsust obtain tation systemrmit.
or natural
vation plan osubject to a ans in place nflict.82
Element.
014
by om
uld
a ,
m
or
APRIL 20
XI.
Would t
a) Resminreg
b) Resimpdelioth
Mineraelemenincludiresourcmineraoperatirock prquarry Canal BfocusedThe Cit
Discus
Woa)wou
No Impman-mresourcImplemminera
83
Element
014
MINERAL
the project:
ult in the lossneral resourceion and the reult in the loss
portant mineraineated on a ler land use p
ls are any nants and compng, but not ces, natural als by the Deions. Mineraroducts. Min on Canal BoBoulevard qud on recyclinty of Richmo
ssion
uld the projeuld be of val
pact. The proade fill mateces present
mentation of al resource.
City of Richmt.
RESOURCE
s of availabilite that would besidents of ths of availabilital resource reocal general lan?
aturally occupounds, formlimited to, cgas and pet
epartment ofal productionning for sandoulevard neauarry has beng and handond does not
ect result in lue to the re
oject site is erial, sands, at the projec the project
mond, 2012. G
PUBL
ES
ty of a knownbe of value to he State? ty of a locally-ecovery site plan, specific
urring chemimed from incoal, peat anroleum. Rocf Conservation in Richmondstone and car the Port ofen closed an
dling operatit anticipate a
the loss of agion and the
located on a silt, and varct site that wwould not re
General Plan,
RICHMOND
IC REVIEW DR
Pote
SignImpa
the
-
plan or
ical elementorganic procd oil-bearing
ck, sand, graon when extnd has been crushed rockf Richmond nd remediateons rather tany addition
availability oe residents o
a geologic urious clays. Twould be of vesult in the
Conservation
D CENTRAL PRO
RAFT
entially
nificant act
PotenSignifUnles
MitigaIncorp
or compouncesses and og rock, but eavel and earttracted by su largely limitk was, until rand anothered.83 The Pohan extracti
nal quarry op
of a known mof the State?
nit that consThere are novalue to the loss of avail
, Natural Reso
OJECT INITIAL ST
tially ficant s
ation poration
Less
SignImpa
nd, or grouporganic subsexcluding geth are also curface mininted to sand,recently, limr at Point Moint Molate qng mineral rperations in
mineral reso?
sists of undoo known min region or Stability of a k
ources and O
TUDY CHECKLIST
6
s Than
ificant act
No Impac
■
■
ps of stances eothermal onsidered
ng gravel and
mited to one olate. The uarry is resources. the future.
ource that
ocumented neral tate. known
pen Space
T
65
t
RICHM
66
Wb)reu
No ImotherConsand tin theRichmon m
http:/
MOND CENTRAL
Would the proesource recose plan?
mpact. The pr land use plervation, Na
the Departme City of Richmond.84 As sineral resou
84 Departmen
//maps.conse
INITIAL STUDY C
oject result iovery site de
project site ians as a loc
atural Resourent of Consehmond or Eluch, implemrces.
nt of Conservarvation.ca.gov
CHECKLIST
PU
in the loss ofelineated on
s not designally importarces and Opervation, on Cerrito, all
mentation of
ation. Accessev/mol/mol-ap
BLIC REVIEW
f availability a local gene
nated by theant mineral ren Space Elely three unidin the north the project
ed October 21pp.html
DRAFT
y of a locallyeral plan, sp
e City of Richrecovery siteement of thedentified mihwestern mowould not h
1, 2013.
y-important ecific plan o
hmond Genee. According e Richmond ning operati
ost portion ohave a signif
APRIL 20
mineral or other land
eral Plan or to the General Planions still exif the City oficant impact
014
d
n st f t
APRIL 20
XII. Would t
a) Explevelocaapp
b) Expgroleve
c) A sulevewith
d) A suambleve
e) For planwithairpor wleve
f) For airsor wleve
This seoperatiand rec
Discus
Expa)
in tage
Potentmitigatless-tha
014
NOISE the project:
posure of persels in excess oal general plaplicable standaposure of persund borne vibels? ubstantial perels in the projhout the projeubstantial tembient noise leels existing w a project locan or, where suhin 2 miles ofport, would thworking in theels? a project withstrip, would thworking in theels? ection examiion and consceptors in th
ssion
posure of perthe local genencies?
ially Signifition measurean-significan
sons to or genof standards en or noise ordards of other sons to or genbration or gro
rmanent increect vicinity abect? mporary or pevels in the prithout the proated within anuch a plan haf a public airphe project expe project area
hin the vicinithe project expe project area
nes the potestruction andhe vicinity of
rsons to or gneral plan or
cant Unlesse below will nt level.
PUBL
neration of noestablished indinance, or agencies? neration of exound borne no
ease in ambiebove levels ex
eriodic increasoject vicinity oject? n airport lands not been ad
port or public pose people rea to excessive
ty of a privatepose people ra to excessive
ential of the d the potentf the project
generation or noise ordin
s Mitigationreduce the p
RICHMOND
IC REVIEW DR
Pote
SignImpa
oise n the
xcessive oise
nt noise xisting
se in above
use dopted, use esiding noise
e esiding noise
project to gtial impacts, site.
of noise levelnance, or app
Incorporatpotential im
D CENTRAL PRO
RAFT
entially
nificant act
PotenSignifUnles
MitigaIncorp
■
■
■
generate noi on resident
ls in excess oplicable stan
tion. Implempact related
OJECT INITIAL ST
tially ficant s
ation poration
Less
SignImpa
■
■
se and vibratial tenants o
of standardsndards of ot
mentation of to noise sta
TUDY CHECKLIST
6
s Than
ificant act
No Impac
■
ation during of the projec
s establishedther
the andards to a
T
67
t
ct
d
a
RICHMOND CENTRAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST APRIL 2014
68 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
General Information on Noise
Noise is commonly defined as unwanted sound that annoys or disturbs people and can have an adverse psychological or physiological effect on human health. Sound is measured in decibels (dB), which is a logarithmic scale. Decibels describe the purely physical intensity of sound based on changes in air pressure, but they cannot accurately describe sound as perceived by the human ear since the human ear is only capable of hearing sound within a limited frequency range. For this reason, a frequency-dependent weighting system is used and monitoring results are reported in A-weighted decibels (dBA). Technical terms used to describe noise are defined in Table XII-1.
It should be noted that because decibels are based on a logarithmic scale, they cannot be added or subtracted in the usual arithmetical way. For instance, if one noise source emits a sound level of 90 dBA, and a second source is placed beside the first and also emits a sound level of 90 dBA, the combined sound level is 93 dBA, not 180 dBA. When the difference between two co-located sources of noise is 10 dBA or more, the higher noise source dominates and the lower noise source makes no perceptible difference in what people can hear or measure. For example if the noise level is 95 dBA and another noise source is added that produces 80 dBA noise, the noise level would still be 95 dBA.
TABLE XII-1 DEFINITION OF ACOUSTICAL TERMS
Term Definitions
Decibel (dB)
A unit describing the amplitude of sound on a logarithmic scale. Sound described in decibels is usually referred to as sound or noise “level.” This unit is not used in this analysis because it includes frequencies that the human ear cannot detect.
Frequency (Hz) The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure.
A-Weighted Sound Level (dBA)
The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. All sound levels in this report are A-weighted.
Equivalent Noise Level (Leq)
The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period. For this CEQA evaluation, Leq refers to a one-hour period unless otherwise stated.
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)
The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 5 decibels in the evening from 7 to 10 PM and after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels during the night between 10 PM and 7 AM.
Day/Night Noise Level (Ldn)
The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition of 10 decibels to levels measured during the night between 10 PM and 7 AM.
Ambient Noise Level
The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.
Source: Baseline Environmental, 2013.
APRIL 2014 RICHMOND CENTRAL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 69
Noise Exposure Standards
The Public Safety and Noise Element of the City of Richmond General Plan85 and the Resources and Hazards Element of the City of El Cerrito General Plan86 establish guidelines and standards that serve to avoid or reduce the noise impacts of proposed projects through site planning and project design. Tables XII-2 and XII-3 below summarize the applicable outdoor and indoor noise exposure standards for the cities of Richmond and El Cerrito.
TABLE XII-2 OUTDOOR NOISE EXPOSURE STANDARDS (LDN OR CNEL, DB) OF THE CITIES
OF RICHMOND AND EL CERRITO
City of Richmonda City of El Cerritob
Normally Acceptablec < 65 < 60g
Conditionally Acceptabled 60 to 70 60 to 75h
Normally Unacceptablee 70 to 75 --
Unacceptablef > 75 > 75
Notes: -- = no equivalent standard a Standards for the “Residential – Multifamily” land use category. Source: City of Richmond, 2012. b Standards for the “Residential” land use category. Source: City of El Cerrito, 1999. c New construction or development is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. d New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features are included in the design. Conventional constructions, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. e New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. f New construction or development should generally not be undertaken because mitigation to comply with noise exposure standards is usually not feasible. g 60 Ldn is a goal that cannot necessarily be reached in all residential areas within the realm of economic or aesthetic feasibility. This goal will be applied where outdoor use, such as recreation areas in multi-family housing projects, is a major consideration. The outdoor standard will not normally be applied to the small decks associated with apartments, but these will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The City may increase the Ldn to 65 dB at the discretion of the Planning Commission. h The Zoning Administrator may require a noise study for all new uses with outdoor noise levels within the conditionally acceptable range. Source: City of Richmond and City of El Cerrito Municipal Codes.
85 City of Richmond, 2012. General Plan, Public Safety and Noise Element. 86 City of El Cerrito, 1999. General Plan, Resources and Hazards Element.
RICHMOND CENTRAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST APRIL 2014
70 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
TABLE XII-3 INDOOR NOISE EXPOSURE STANDARDS OF THE CITIES OF RICHMOND AND EL CERRITO
City of Richmond City of El Cerrito
Indoor noise levels must not exceed 45 dB Ldn. Indoor noise levels must not exceed 45 dB Ldn.
-- Multi-family residential units exposed to an outdoor Ldn of 60 dB or greater should be limited to a maximum instantaneous noise level of 50 dB in the bedrooms and 55 dB in other rooms.
Notes: -- = no equivalent standard. Source: City of Richmond and City of El Cerrito Municipal Codes.
The dominant noise source in the vicinity of the project site is Interstate 80 (I-80), located approximately 600 feet west of the project site. Based on this distance, the noise level from I-80 traffic is estimated to be between 70 and 75 dB Ldn at the project site.87 However, the actual noise level is likely to be lower because there are several multiple story buildings located between the project site and Interstate 80 that deflect some of the highway noise. Other sources of noise in the vicinity of the project site would not be expected to generate noise levels above 60 dB Ldn, and consequently would not be expected cause a perceptible difference in the noise environment relative to I-80 (see description of the additive properties of decibels above).
Based on 70 to 75 dB Ldn noise levels generated by I-80 and the noise exposure standards presented in Table XII-2, the noise environment at the project site is considered “normally unacceptable” in the City of Richmond and “conditionally acceptable” in the City of El Cerrito. Under these conditions, both cities require a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements to be conducted and noise insulation features to be included in the project design (Table XII-2). The existing noise environment could expose outdoor use areas (e.g., courtyards and patios) of the development to noise levels above 60 dB Ldn and could expose residents of the development to noise levels above the indoor standard of 45 dB Ldn. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 below, which requires a detailed noise analysis and implementation of specialized building design to achieve interior and outdoor noise threshold standards, would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Noise Generated by Construction Activities
The primary noise impacts from construction would occur from the noise generated by the operation of heavy equipment on the project site. Noise impacts would also result from trucks arriving to and departing from the site, which would be an intermittent source of noise. The construction regulations of the cities of Richmond and El Cerrito pertaining to noise are summarized in Table XII-4.
87 City of El Cerrito, 1999. Op. cit.
APRIL 2014 RICHMOND CENTRAL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 71
Additionally, the City of Richmond Community Noise Ordinance (Chapter 9.52) states that, where technically and economically feasible, maximum noise levels from temporary construction activity should not exceed the zoning district standards summarized in Tables XII-5 and XII-6, by zoning district. The project site is located in a commercial zoning district. The nearest residential zoning district is located approximately 200 feet northwest of the project site.
TABLE XII-4 CONSTRUCTION REGULATION CITIES OF RICHMOND AND EL CERRITO
City of Richmond City of El Cerrito
Excavation, grading, and earthwork construction operations shall be controlled to prevent nuisances to public and private ownerships because of noise and/or vibration.a
Work must be controlled to prevent causing a public nuisance such as noise and vibration.d
Grading operations located within 500 feet of residential occupancies shall be limited to the hours between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, or as approved by the Building Official, except that maintenance and service work on equipment may be performed until 9:00 p.m.a
The hours of work shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday. Work is prohibited on Sundays and Holidays.d
Grading and pile driving operations within ¼ mile of residential units shall be limited to between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., or as otherwise restricted as part of an approval.b
--
Use of pile drivers, sources of impulsive sound and jack hammers shall be prohibited on Sundays and holidays, except for emergencies or as approved in advance by the Building Official.c
--
All construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines shall be properly muffled and maintained. b,c
--
Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines is prohibited.c
--
All stationery noise-generating construction equipment such as tree grinders and air compressors are to be located as far as is practical from existing residences.c
--
Quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, are to be selected whenever possible.c
--
Notes: -- = no equivalent standard. a City of Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 12.44.060(h)(1). b City of Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 15.04.840.110. c City of Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 9.52.060. d City of El Cerrito Municipal Code Chapter 16.02.080 Section 117. Source: City of Richmond and City of El Cerrito Municipal Codes.
RICHMOND CENTRAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST APRIL 2014
72 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
TABLE XII-5 CITY OF RICHMOND MAXIMUM NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS FOR MOBILE
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT (DBA)
Single-Family
Residential Zoning Districts
Multi-Family Residential Zoning
Districts
Commercial and Industrial Zoning
Districts
Weekdays, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 75 80 85
Weekends, including legal holidays 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. 60 65 70
Source: City of Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 9.52.110.
TABLE XII-6 CITY OF RICHMOND MAXIMUM NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS FOR STATIONARY
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT (DBA)
Single-Family
Residential Zoning Districts
Multi-Family Residential Zoning
Districts
Commercial and Industrial Zoning
Districts
Weekdays, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 60 65 70
Weekends, including legal holidays 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. 55 60 65
Source: City of Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 9.52.110.
Construction is performed in distinct phases, each with its own mix of equipment, workers, and activities. Consequently, each phase of construction has its own noise characteristics. Table XII-7 shows typical exterior noise levels at various phases of commercial construction. Construction activities associated with the project would potentially include pile driving, grading, installation of utilities, landscaping, and erection of the residential building. The primary construction related noise of concern is the short-term noise impact when pile driving, grading, and utility installation is conducted near existing residential and commercial property lines. Equipment typically used in these activities includes pile drivers, bulldozers, excavators, graders, backhoes, compactors, rollers, concrete trucks, loaders, and heavy-duty trucks. Table XII-8 shows typical noise levels associated with various types of construction-related machinery.
APRIL 2014 RICHMOND CENTRAL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 73
TABLE XII-7 ESTIMATED NOISE LEVELS FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES (DBA)
Noise Source Noise Level
at 50 Ft Noise Level
at 100 Ft Noise Level at
150 Ft Noise Level
at 200 Ft Noise Level
at 300 Ft
Ground Clearing 83 75 71 68 64
Excavation 88 80 76 73 69
Foundations 81 73 69 66 62
Erection 81 73 69 66 62
Finishing 88 80 76 73 69
Notes: The following propagation adjustment was applied to estimate noise levels at 100, 200, and 300 feet assuming: dBA
2 = dBA
1 + 10 x Log 10 x (D
1/D
2)2.5
Where: dBA
1 reference noise level at a specified distance.
dBA1 is the calculated noise level.
D2 is the perpendicular distance from receiver. D1 is the reference distance. Source of noise levels at 50 feet: U.S. EPA, Legal Compilation, 1973.
TABLE XII-8 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT (DBA)
Equipment Noise Level
Pile Driver 101
Dump Truck 88
Portable Air Compressor 81
Concrete Mixer (truck) 85
Jackhammer 88
Scraper 88
Dozer 87
Paver 89
Generator 76
Pump 76
Pneumatic Tools 85
Backhoe 85
Source: Charles M. Salter, 1998. Acoustics, Architecture, Engineering, the Environment.
RICHMOND CENTRAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST APRIL 2014
74 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
The project would be required to comply with the limitations on construction activity included in the municipal codes of both the cities of Richmond and El Cerrito (Table XII-4 through XII-6). This would limit grading activities to the hours between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, and would limit all other construction activities to the hours between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8 a.m. through 5 p.m. on Saturday. However, even when restricted to the allowable construction hours, construction noise can still be a nuisance when conducted in close proximity to residential and commercial receptors. Some phases of construction are anticipated to generate noise levels that would result in an increase in the ambient noise environment by 5 dBA Leq, which is the change required before any noticeable change in community response is expected.88 Additionally some phases of construction could cause maximum noise levels to exceed the City of Richmond thresholds (Tables XII-5 and XII-6). Therefore, the noise impact from construction would be considered a significant short-term impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2 below, which requires development of a construction noise control plan and provides for community notification and communication, would reduce adverse impacts associated with construction noise to a less-than-significant level.
Noise Generated upon Project Completion
The City of Richmond Community Noise Ordinance (Chapter 9.52) states that the impact of a project should be evaluated in terms of the increase in existing noise levels and potential for adverse community impact. The ordinance also states that the maximum noise level generated by a use or activity cannot exceed 60 dBA, 65 dBA, and 70 dBA for more than 30 minutes in any hour at the property line or district boundary of single-family residential, multi-family residential, or commercial uses, respectively. The project site is located adjacent to single family residential, multi-family residential, and commercial use properties. The City of El Cerrito evaluates the noise impacts of projects in residential areas where the L
dn already exceeds 60 dBA (City of El Cerrito Municipal Code Chapter
19.21.050(B)(4)) and may require specific practices to mitigate potential noise impacts of proposed development projects on adjacent properties.89 Examples of commonly required mitigation measures include:90
Screen and control noise sources such as parking, outdoor activities, and mechanical equipment.
Increase setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings.
88 Salter, Charles M., 1998. Acoustics – Architecture, Engineering, the Environment, William
Stout Publishers. 89 City of El Cerrito, 1999. Op. cit. 90 Ibid.
APRIL 2014 RICHMOND CENTRAL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 75
Wherever possible, do not remove fences, walls, or landscaping that serve as noise buffers, although design, safety and other impacts must be addressed.
Use soundproofing materials and double glazed windows.
Control hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup to minimize noise impacts.
The proposed long-term use of this project site would be residential, so the primary noise generation would occur from ventilation systems such as air conditioning units and from vehicular traffic, neither of which would be expected to generate noise levels above the City of Richmond thresholds. As a result of the project, peak vehicular traffic at the busiest intersection near the project site (Central Avenue/San Luis Street/ Pierce Street) is estimated to increase from 1,536 to 1,576 vehicles in the a.m. (an increase of 40 vehicles) and 2,123 to 2,174 vehicles in the p.m. (an increase of 51 vehicles).91 The addition of approximately 40 to 51 vehicles to existing of the traffic volumes of 1,500 to 2,000 vehicles would not result in a perceptible increase in noise levels. This is due to the nature of the additive properties of noise discussed above: traffic volumes would have to nearly double for a perceptible change in noise levels to occur.
Additionally, the speed limit on the roads surrounding the project site is 25 mph. Because a large portion of vehicular noise results from the interaction between the tires and the roadway surface, the noise generated by vehicles at low speeds is minimal.92 Lastly, because the project involves the development of a multi-family residence in an area characterized by single- and multi-family residences and commercial uses, the development of the project site would not introduce a land use that would substantially alter the surrounding noise environment. Consequently, the project would not substantially increase long-term noise levels in the surrounding area or result in the exceedance of existing noise level thresholds.
The following mitigation measures are included as part of the project to minimize the potential noise impacts during construction and operation of the project:
Mitigation Measure NOI-1 – Noise Analysis: The project applicant shall prepare a noise analysis that specifies the means and methods required to ensure that noise levels meet the indoor (Table XII-3) and outdoor (Table XII-2) standards of the cities of Richmond and El Cerrito. At a minimum, the analysis shall be carried out to meet the following City of El Cerrito Chapter 19.21.050(B) (5) Municipal Code noise study standards:
91 Fehr & Peers, 2013b, op. cit. 92 Federal Transit Administration, 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (DTA-
VA-90-1003-06).
RICHMOND CENTRAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST APRIL 2014
76 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
The analysis shall be prepared by qualified person experienced in the fields of environmental noise assessment and architectural acoustics.
Noise levels shall be documented with sufficient sampling periods and locations to adequately describe local noise conditions and noise sources.
Existing and projected noise levels shall be estimated in terms of Leq and Ldn or CNEL. Levels shall be compared to existing ambient noise levels.
Mitigation shall be recommended, giving preference to site planning and design rather than noise barriers, where feasible.
Noise exposure after the prescribed mitigation measures have been implemented shall be estimated.
The project applicant shall coordinate with the cities of Richmond and El Cerrito to determine whether the outdoor noise exposure standards identified by each city (65 dBA in Richmond and 60 dBA in El Cerrito, though this may be increased to 65 dBA at the discretion of the Planning Commission) shall be applicable to any private patios, decks, or balconies on the apartment units or whether it shall only apply to courtyards and other community open spaces that are part of the project.
In order to control indoor noise levels, building sound insulation requirements may need to include the provision of forced-air mechanical ventilation, so that windows could be kept closed at the occupant’s discretion to control noise. Because the exterior noise levels generated by I-80 may be between 70 and 75 dBA, special building construction techniques may be required. These techniques include, but are not limited to, sound- rated windows and doors, sound- rated exterior wall assemblies, and acoustical caulking. The specific determination of what treatments are necessary to achieve the indoor noise performance standards of 45 dBA Ldn, with maximum instantaneous noise levels of 50 dBA in bedrooms and 55 dBA in other rooms, shall be conducted on a unit-by-unit basis during project design.
Results of the noise analysis, including a detailed description of all necessary noise control measures required to meet the indoor and outdoor noise standards shall be submitted to the cities of Richmond and El Cerrito along with the building plans and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. The implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the noise exposure levels of residents of the proposed land use to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure NOI-2 – Noise Control Plan: The project applicant shall prepare a construction noise control plan that identifies technically and economically feasible measures to reduce the noise levels generated by the use of construction equipment, particularly pile drivers, below the maximum noise level standards specified in
APRIL 2014 RICHMOND CENTRAL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 77
Chapter 9.52.110 of the City of Richmond Municipal Code (Tables XII-5 and XII-6). The control plan shall be prepared by a qualified noise professional and approved by the cities of Richmond and El Cerrito prior to issuance of grading permits by the cities. A qualified professional is defined as a Board Certified Institute of Noise Control Engineering member or other qualified consultant or engineer approved by the project engineer. The construction noise control plan would include, but not be limited to, the following measures:
a) Muffle and maintain all equipment used on-site. All internal combustion engine-driven equipment shall be fitted with mufflers that are in good condition. Good mufflers shall result in non-impact tools generating a maximum noise level of 80 dB when measured at a distance of 50 feet.
b) Use “quiet” air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.
c) Locate all stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors and portable power generators, as far away as possible from adjacent land uses.
d) Schedule construction activities to have the least impact on noise sensitive receptors (existing residents) in the area. In accordance with the municipal codes of the cities of Richmond and El Cerrito, this shall be accomplished with the following measures:
i. Limit grading operations to Monday through Friday between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. (City of Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 12.44.060(h)(1)).
ii. All other construction operations shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday. Work is prohibited on Sundays and Holidays (City of El Cerrito Municipal Code Chapter 16.02.080 Section 117).
e) Notify all adjacent residents and commercial properties of the construction schedule in writing.
f) Designate a “disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented.
RICHM
78
g
h
i)
j)
MpstacpCdqreonim
Comp(Tablimpa
Exb)b
Potenmitignoise
Vibraoscillactivi
MOND CENTRAL
) Conspicuoconstructconstruct
) Route truexample, avoid San
Combine noise leveoperation
Avoid imppile driveuse.
Mitigation Merepare a vibtructures locctivities proprepared by a
Cerrito prior efined as a Bualified conecommendaf 0.2 PPV (in/ot damage n
mpact assess
pliance with e XII-4) and ct of constru
Exposure of porne noise le
ntially Signiation measu
e to a less-th
ation is an osatory motioities attenua
INITIAL STUDY C
ously post aion site and ion schedule
ck traffic aw have truck t Mateo Stree
noisy operael produce wn wore perfo
pact pile drivr are a quiet
easure NOI-3ration impaccated in the posed on thea qualified pto issuance Board Certifsultant or entions shall b/sec) (Table Xnearby commsment shall
existing Citthe implemeuction noise
persons to orevels?
ificant Unleure below wohan-significa
scillatory mon through a
ates rapidly w
CHECKLIST
PU
a telephone n include it ine.
way from restraffic enter et.
tions so thawith not be srmed separa
ving, if posster alternativ
3- Vibration Ict assessmenvicinity of the project site
professional of grading pied Institute ngineer apprbe made to reXII-11) in ordmercial and be incorpora
y of Richmoentation of t to a less-tha
r generation
ss Mitigatioould reduce nt level.
otion througir). Typicallywith distance
BLIC REVIEW
number for tn the notice
idential stre and leave th
t they occurignificantly ately.
ible. Drilled ve where the
Impact Assent to determhe project sie. The vibratand approve
permits by th of Noise Coroved by theeduce vibrater to ensureresidential bated into con
nd and City the above man-significan
n of excessive
on Incorpora the potentia
h a solid mey, ground-boe from the s
DRAFT
the disturbasent to neig
ets to the exhe project si
r in the samegreater than
piles or the e geological
ssment: Thmine potentia
te generatedtion impact ed by the cithe cities. A qontrol Enginee project engtion levels be that the pilebuildings. Alnstruction p
of El Cerritoitigation ment level.
ve ground bo
ation. Impleal impact rel
edium (versuorne vibratiosource of the
ance coordinghbors regar
xtent possibte via Centra
e time periodn the level pr
use of a soconditions p
e project apal vibration ld by the pileassessment ties of Richmqualified proeering memgineer. Detaelow the dam
e driving activll recommenlans for the
o constructioeasures wou
orne vibratio
ementation olated to vibr
us noise whin generatede vibration. S
APRIL 20
ator at the rding the
ble. For al Avenue an
d. The total roduced if th
nic or vibratpermit their
pplicant shall evels at
e driving shall be
mond and El ofessional isber or otheriled mage criteriavities would
ndations in thproject.
on ordinanceld reduce th
on or ground
of the ation and
ch is an d by man-maSensitive
014
nd
he
tory
r
a he
es e
d
ade
APRIL 2014 RICHMOND CENTRAL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 79
receptors to vibration include structures (especially older masonry structures), people (especially residents, the elderly, and sick), and vibration-sensitive equipment. Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed as either peak particle velocity (PPV) or the root mean square (RMS) velocity. The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. The RMS of a signal is the average of the squared amplitude of the signal.
Table XII-9 summarizes the vibration standards of the cities of Richmond and El Cerrito. Tables XII-10 and XII-11 summarize the vibration criteria to prevent disturbance of residents and to prevent damage to structures. In contrast to airborne noise, groundborne vibration is not a common environmental problem.93 It is unusual for vibration from sources such as buses and trucks to be perceptible, even in locations close to major roads.
TABLE XII-9 VIBRATION STANDARDS OF THE CITIES OF RICHMOND AND EL CERRITO
City of Richmond City of El Cerrito
Work must be controlled to prevent causing a public nuisance such as noise and vibration.a
Work must be controlled to prevent causing a public nuisance such as noise and vibration.b
--
No use, activity or process shall produce vibrations that are perceptible without instruments by a reasonable person at or beyond the property line of the site on which they are situated.c
Notes: -- = no defined standard a City of Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 12.44.060(h)(1). b City of El Cerrito Municipal Code Chapter 16.02.080 Section 117. c City of El Cerrito Municipal Code Chapter 19.21.050(E). Source: City of Richmond and City of El Cerrito Municipal Codes.
TABLE XII-10 VIBRATION CRITERIA TO PREVENT DISTURBANCE OF RESIDENTS – VDB RMS
Frequent Events a Occasional Events b Infrequent Events c
72 75 80 a More than 70 vibration events of the same kind per day. b Between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same kind per day. c Fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day. Source: Federal Transit Administration, 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (DTA-VA-90-1003-06).
93 Federal Transit Administration, 2006, op. cit.
RICHMOND CENTRAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST APRIL 2014
80 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
TABLE XII-11 VIBRATION CRITERIA TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO STRUCTURES
Type of Situation PPV (in/sec)
Historic sites or other critical locations 0.1
Residential buildings, plastered walls 0.2 – 0.3
Residential buildings in good repair with gypsum board walls 0.4 – 0.5
Engineered structures, without plaster 1.0 – 1.5 Source: Jones & Stokes, 2004. Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual, June.
Construction activities can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment, activity, and relative proximity to sensitive receptors. The vibration levels for construction equipment that could be used at the project site are summarized in Table XII-12. Although the table provides one vibration level for each piece of equipment, it should be noted that there is considerable variation in reported ground vibration levels from construction activities, primarily due to variation in soil characteristics.
Vibration generated during construction activities could have the potential to disturb residents and to cause damage to buildings. The nearest residences are located adjacent to the project site; consequently, the vibration generated when construction equipment is operated in close proximity to these receptors could exceed the vibration impact criteria for the disturbance of residents (Table XII-10). However, the vibration would be temporary since the locations of grading, soil compaction, and pile driving activities would vary over time across the site and therefore the impacts of these activities to any given receptor would not be expected to last more than a few days.
In addition, the City of Richmond limits grading activities to the hours between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. The City of El Cerrito limits all construction activities to the hours between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8 a.m. through 5 p.m. on Saturday. This regulation restricts any impact to normal daytime hours, thereby reducing the likelihood of the disturbance of residents. As a result, the potential vibration impact on residents in the vicinity of the project site from the use of earthmoving and pile driving equipment would be less than significant.
The vibration levels generated by the use of an impact pile driver or sonic pile driver have the potential to exceed the 0.2 PPV in/sec vibration threshold above which damage to buildings may occur, depending on how close the building is to the construction activity. For instance, based on the upper range of vibration from impact pile driving in Table XII-
APRIL 20
12 (1.5vibratiobelow, that redbuildin
TABLE X
Equipm
Pile Driv
Pile Driv
Large b
Caisson
Loaded
Jackham
Small buSource: F06).
Substanear thconstruMuniciof the d
MitMitconless
A sc)leve
94
equipmTable X
014
518 PPV), if ton levels cou which requiduce vibratiogs, would re
XII-12 VIBR
ment
ver (impact)
ver (sonic)
ulldozer
n drilling
trucks
mmer
ulldozer Federal Transit
ntial groundhe project situction (Tablepal Codes ofdisturbance
igation Meaigation Mea
nstruction acs-than-signif
substantial pels existing w
PPVequip = Pent adjusted II-12 D is the
the building uld exceed 0ires a vibration to levels educe this im
RATION SOURC
Administration
dborne vibrate could be ges XII-10 thrf the cities o of nearby re
sure NOI-4: sure NOI-3 wctivities to dficant level.
permanent inwithout the p
PPVref x (25/Dfor distance Pdistance from
PUBL
is located w0.2 PPV.94 Thion impact awhich would
mpact to a le
CE LEVELS FOR
upper range
typica
upper range
typica
n, 2006. Transit
tion that disgenerated byough XII-12)
of Richmond esidents.
Implement Mwould reducamage near
ncrease in amproject?
D)1.5 where: PPPPV (ref) is them the equipme
RICHMOND
IC REVIEW DR
within 100 fee implemenssessment ad not damagess-than-sign
R CONSTRUCT
PPV at (in/s
e 1.5
al 0.64
e 0.73
al 0.17
0.08
0.08
0.07
0.03
0.00t Noise and Vib
sturbs residey the use of ). Constructi and El Cerr
Mitigation Me the potentby residentia
mbient noise
PV (equip) is te reference vient to the rec
D CENTRAL PRO
RAFT
eet of the cotation of Mi
and the implge nearby renificant leve
TION EQUIPME
25 ft sec)
18
44
34
70
89
89
76
35
03 bration Impact A
ents and dam heavy equipion hour limito (Table XI
Measure NOI-tial of vibratal and comm
e levels in th
he peak partibration level
ceiver.
OJECT INITIAL ST
nstruction atigation Melementation sidential andl.
NT
ApproximRMS (VdB) at
112
104
105
93
87
87
86
79
58 Assessment (DT
mages buildpment durinitations speI-4) limit the
-3. Implemenion generate
mercial build
he project vic
icle velocity inin in/sec at 2
TUDY CHECKLIST
8
activity the easure NOI-3 of practicesd commercia
ate t 25 ft
TA-VA-90-1003
ings locatedg cified in thee likelihood
ntation of ed during dings to a
cinity above
n in/sec of the5 feet from
T
81
3 s al
3-
e
RICHM
82
Less residresidintrodThe pas airsubstsubstimple
Ad)v
Potenequipincre
MMa
Fe)bp
Less withiAirpogeneRichmthe p
Ff)re
Less airstrmilesresid
MOND CENTRAL
Than Signifential, and tences and cduce a land primary noisr conditionintantial permtantial permementation.
A substantialicinity above
ntially Signipment on thease in ambie
Mitigation MeMitigation Me less-than-si
For a project een adoptedroject expos
Than Signifn two miles
ort, which is rated by aircmond area.95
project area t
For a project esiding or w
Than Signifrip. The nears northwest oing or worki
95 City of Rich
INITIAL STUDY C
ficant. The phe surroundommercial uuse that woe generation
ng units andanent increaanent increa
l temporary e levels exist
ificant Unlee project sitent noise lev
easure NOI-5easure NOI-2gnificant lev
located withd, within 2 mse people res
ficant. The pof a public o located appcraft from O Therefore, to excessive
within the vworking in th
ficant. The prest private aof the projecng in the pr
hmond, 2012
CHECKLIST
PU
proposed londing area is cuses. Therefould substantn from the p from vehicuase in ambiease in ambie
or periodic ting without
ss Mitigatioe could resuvels (Tables X
5: Implemen2 would decrvel.
hin an airpomiles of a pubsiding or wor
project site ior private ai
proximately 1akland Interthe project w aircraft nois
vicinity of a pe project are
project site iairstrip is thct site. Consroject area to
, op. cit.
BLIC REVIEW
ng-term usecharacterizeore, the devetially alter th
project wouldular traffic, nent noise levent noise lev
increase in a the project?
on Incorporault in a substXII-7 and XII
t Mitigation rease noise g
rt land use pblic airport orking in the
is not locaterport. The n12 miles sournational Airwould not exse.
private airstea to excess
is not locatee San Rafael
sequently, tho excessive a
DRAFT
of this projed by single-elopment ofhe surroundd occur fromneither of whvels, as discuvels is expect
ambient nois?
ation. The utantial temp-8).
Measure NOgenerated b
plan or, wheor public use project area
ed within an earest airpo
uth of the prport is belowxpose peopl
trip, would tsive noise lev
ed within thel Airport, loche project woaircraft nois
ect site wou and multi-ff the projecting noise en
m ventilationhich would russed aboveted as a resu
se levels in t
use of constrorary and pe
OI-2. Implemy constructi
ere such a ple airport, woa to excessiv
airport landort is Oaklanroject site. Tw the 65 dBAle residing o
the project evels?
e vicinity of acated approxould not exp
se from a pri
APRIL 20
uld be amily site would n
nvironment. n systems suresult in a . Therefore, ult of projec
the project
ruction eriodic
mentation of on activities
lan has not ould the ve noise leve
use plan ord Internatio
The noise A CNEL in
or working in
expose peopl
a private ximately 14 pose people vate airstrip
014
not
ch
no ct
s to
ls?
r nal
n
le
p.
APRIL 20
XIII. Would t
a) Indueithhomthroinfr
b) Dispnechou
c) Dispnechou
The prosectionthe pot
Discus
Woa)exaext
Less TCommiin July transpoimplemThe “Elattractihigh-deopport
Followiwas ideexistin
96
Strategy
014
POPULATIthe project:
uce substantiher directly (fomes and businough extensioastructure)? place substanessitating the
using elsewheplace substanessitating the
using elsewhe
oject would n analyzes thtential displa
ssion
uld the projeample, by prtension of ro
han Significission (MTC)2013, is theortation plan
menting fram Cerrito – Saive, thriving,ensity resideunities and j
ing the Draftentified as a g lower-inco
ABAG/MTC, 2y. May.
ION AND H
al populationor example, bnesses) or indon of roads or
ntial numbers e constructionre?
ntial numbers e constructionre?
add up to 1he potential acement of h
ect induce sroposing newads or other
cant. Plan Ba) and the Asse regional franning. The P
mework for wan Pablo” PD, vibrant, miential uses ajobs.96
t Plan Bay Ar “community
ome neighbo
2012. Visions
PUBL
HOUSING
growth in anby proposing ndirectly (for exr other
of existing hn of replacem
of people, n of replacem
72 units to timpact of thhousing or p
ubstantial pw homes andr infrastruct
ay Area, joinsociation of amework forPlan identifiewhere new hoA includes txed-use trant all levels o
rea process,y of concernorhoods cou
s for Priority D
RICHMOND
IC REVIEW DR
PoteSign
Impa
n area, new xample,
ousing, ent
ent
the housing he project onpeople.
opulation grd businesses)ture)?
tly adopted Bay Area Gor coordinatines Priority Deousing and jhe project snsportation of affordabili
much of Ricn” meaning ald be displac
Development A
D CENTRAL PRO
RAFT
entially nificant
act
PotenSignif
UnlesMitiga
Incorp
stock in then existing us
rowth in an ) or indirect
by the Metrovernments ng local and evelopment job developmite. The PDAcorridor witty, supporte
chmond, inca location wiced by new g
Areas: The Jo
OJECT INITIAL ST
tially ficant
s ation
poration
LessSign
Impa
■
e City of Richses in the vic
area, either tly (for exam
opolitan Tra(ABAG) Exec regional lanAreas (PDAsment shouldA is envisionh nodes of med by civic a
cluding the pthin a PDA wgrowth and
obs-Housing C
TUDY CHECKLIST
8
s Than ificant
act
No
Impac
■
■
hmond. Thiscinity due to
r directly (formple, through
ansportationcutive Board nd use and s) as the d be located.ed as an
medium- to nd cultural
project site, where investment.
Connection
T
83
t
s o
r h
.
RICHM
84
The aan op
The C
Gd
Gaqh
Ghpfa
Greo
The p492 rfacilitamenincrethan-
Wb)co
No Impropeprojeconst
the Ciresultfamilipersoowner
MOND CENTRAL
addition of mpportunity to
City of Richm
Goal H-1: A Badensities, and
Goal H-2: Bettend preserve auality living eousing, and c
Goal H-3: Expaousing oppor
persons with damilies.
Goal H-4: Equaegardless of rrientation, fa
project woulresidents98 aties and neignities. The siasing the su-significant i
Would the proonstruction
mpact. The perty. There a
ect would notruction of re
97 City of Rich98 According
ity of Richmont in approximaes: 74% 2-bedns per housership units.
INITIAL STUDY C
multi-family o increase th
mond Housin
alanced Supply prices to mee
er Neighborhoand enhance Renvironments,conserve affor
anded Housingrtunities for aldisabilities, fir
al Housing Accrace, religion,milial status,
d replace a vt an infill deghborhood-ote’s develop
upply of houmpact on ho
oject displac of replacem
project site care no residet result in theplacement
hmond, 2013to the 2010-2nd is 2.86 peately 492 residroom units, hold rate will
CHECKLIST
PU
housing unihe housing s
ng Element a
y of Housing –et the needs o
oods and QuaRichmond’s re, address subrdable housin
g Opportunitill special needrst-time home
cess for All – gender, mar source of inc
vacant lot wevelopment soriented usepment wouldsing in approusing and p
ce substantiaent housing
consists of aential units ohe displacemhousing els
. General Plan2012 Americarsons per houidents. Howev20% 3-bedroo likely be high
BLIC REVIEW
ts, includingstock and pr
adopted in Ja
– Promote a bf all income g
ality of Life – Iesidential neigstandard con
ng at risk of co
es for Specialds groups, incebuyers, large
Strive to achirital status, agcome, or disab
ith 172 residsite located ws, as well as
d thus contriropriate locapopulation g
al numbers o elsewhere?
a vacant prevon the site. A
ment of residewhere.
n, Housing Elean Communityusehold. With ver, the projecom units, and her—especiall
DRAFT
g below-marevent poten
anuary 2013
balanced suppgroups.
Improve the qghborhoods; s
nditions, preseonverting to m
l Needs Groupcluding seniore families, and
ieve equal houge, ancestry, bility.
dential unitswithin a PDA
s other citywibute toward
ations and wgrowth.
of existing h
viously-deveAs a result, ddential units
ement. y Survey, the 172 units prct’s unit mix 6% 4-bedrooly if it is oper
ket rate houtial displace
3 expresses
ply of housing
quality of life fspecifically prerve and modmarket rates.
ps – Promote trs, female-head homeless in
using access f national orig
s, adding apA, and proxi
wide and regd regional anould therefo
housing, nece
eloped commdevelopmen nor necessi
average housoposed, the pcontains unitm units. Thusated as renta
APRIL 20
using, providement.
four goals:97
g types,
for all residenromote high
dernize public
the expansionaded househo
ndividuals and
for all people in, color, sexu
proximatelymate to tranional nd City goalsore have a le
essitating th
mercial nt of the tate
sehold size in project could s targeted fors, the averagel—as opposed
014
des
7
nts
n of olds, d
ual
y nsit
s of ess-
he
r e d to
APRIL 20
Woc)con
No Imppropertpeople
014
uld the projenstruction of
pact. The proty. As a resu nor necessi
ect displace f replacemen
oject site coult, developmtate constru
PUBL
substantial nt housing e
nsists of a vment of the puction of rep
RICHMOND
IC REVIEW DR
numbers of lsewhere?
vacant previoproject woul
placement ho
D CENTRAL PRO
RAFT
f people, nec
ously-develold not resultousing elsew
OJECT INITIAL ST
cessitating th
oped commet in the displwhere.
TUDY CHECKLIST
8
he
ercial lacement of
T
85
RICHM
86
XIV. Would
a) Wpnenefasimop
Fi
Po
Sc
Pa
O
The pThis units
Disc
Wa)ppsirep
Fire Pthe RlimitsAven
To repersoCalifo
MOND CENTRAL
PUBLIC Sd the project:
Would the projhysical impacew or physicaeed for new oacilities, the cgnificant env
maintain accepr other perforublic servicesire protection
olice protectio
chools?
ars?
Other public fa
project site isection eval, on the prov
ussion
Would the prorovision of nhysically altignificant enesponse timerotection, po
Protection –Richmond Firs. The RFD sue, approxim
educe the imonnel, the Ciornia State F
INITIAL STUDY C
SERVICES
ect result in scts associatedally altered goor physically aonstruction oironmental im
ptable service rmance object: ?
on?
acilities?
s in an urbauates the povision of ser
oject result inew or physitered governnvironmentaes or other police protect
– Less Than re Departmetation nearemately 1.4 m
mpact of new ity requires tFire Code and
CHECKLIST
PU
substantial ad with the prov
overnmental faaltered governof which couldmpacts, in ord ratios, respotives for any o
an area serveotential imparvices.
in substantiaically altered
nmental facilal impacts, inperformancetion, schools
Significantnt (RFD). RF
est to the promiles from th
developmenthat the build City buildi
BLIC REVIEW
Po
SiIm
dverse vision of acilities, nmental d cause der to nse times of the
ed by existinact of the pr
al adverse pd governmenlities, the con order to me objectives f, parks, or o
. Fire protecD operates soject site is She project sit
nt on the exldings, accesng requirem
DRAFT
otentially
gnificant mpact
PoteSignUnle
MitiInco
ng infrastrucoject, which
physical impantal facilities
onstruction omaintain acce
for any of thother public
ction to the pseven fire stStation #64,te.
xisting RFD fss, and wate
ments. In add
entially nificant ess
igation orporation
Le
SigIm
■ ■ ■ ■ ■
cture and puh includes 16
acts associas, need for n
of which coueptable servhe public ser facilities?
project site itations withi, located at 4
facilities, equer supply medition, proje
APRIL 20
ess Than
gnificant mpact
No Imp
blic services65 residentia
ated with thenew or ld cause
vice ratios, rvices: fire
is provided bn the city 4801 Bayvie
uipment, andeet the ct developer
014
act
s. al
e
by
w
d
rs
APRIL 2014 RICHMOND CENTRAL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 87
are required to pay development impact fees as established by City ordinance to mitigate impacts on the existing RFD facilities, equipment, and personnel.
The RFD goal is to respond to 85 percent of emergency calls in 6 minutes or less, as described in the Richmond General Plan EIR. Average response times to the area around the project site are between 4 and 5 minutes. Implementation of the project may result in an incremental increased demand for fire protection services. However, the project is located on an urban site in a highly-developed area, in close proximity to existing fire protection services. The project would not require the provision of or need for new or physically altered facilities to continue to serve the project site. As a result, the project would not result in a substantial adverse physical impact nor would it substantially affect response times for fire services. The project’s impact related to the provision of fire services would be less than significant.
Police Protection – Less Than Significant. Police protection, 911 emergency dispatch, and investigative services throughout the city are provided by the Richmond Police Department (RPD). The City is geographically divided into three districts (Northern, Central, and Southern) with three beats per district. The project site is located in Beat 3 in the Southern Section (City of Richmond General Plan Map 12.6).100 The main police station is located at 1701 Regatta Boulevard, approximately 3.5 miles from the project site.
The Department’s current authorized strength is 198 sworn personnel, 101 which represents 1.9 officers per 1,000 residents.102 Depending on availability of personnel and the type of call, the Police Department’s response to calls is based on a system of priorities. It maintains a response time of three to five minutes or less for top priority calls (robberies in progress, imminent danger to life, etc.).
Implementation of the project may result in an incremental increased demand for police services. However this increase would not be substantially greater than the existing demand for police services in the area, and thus meeting this additional demand would not require the provision of or need for new or physically altered facilities to continue to serve the project site. The project would therefore have a less-than-significant impact on police protection services.
Schools – Less Than Significant. The City Richmond is part of the West Contra Costa County Unified School District (WCCUSD). The project site lies within the school boundaries for Harding Elementary School (kindergarten through 6th grade), Portola Middle School (7th through 8th grade), and El Cerrito High School (9th through 12th grade).
100 City of Richmond, 2012. General Plan, Public Safety and Noise Element. 101 Gagan, Mark, Captain, Richmond Police Department. Personal Communication. 2013.
November 14. 102 Based on population of 106,516. United States Census Bureau. 2012 Population Estimates.
RICHMOND CENTRAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST APRIL 2014
88 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Table XIV-1 describes capacity and current (2012) enrollment for each of the schools serving the project site. To determine the number of students that the project could generate, WCCUSD uses students per household factors, by grade level, of to estimate student enrollment. For multi-family housing, the factors are: 0.333 (K-6th grade), 0.154 (7th through 8th grade), and 0.185 (9th through 12th).103 Based on these factors (and assuming 165 units and a 5 percent vacancy rate), an increase of approximately 54 elementary school students, 25 middle school students, and 30 high school students could result from the project.
TABLE XIV-1 PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH AND CAPACITY, BY SCHOOLS SERVING THE
PROJECT SITE
School (A)
Capacity
Enrollment
Remaining Capacity (A-B+C)
(B) Actual (2012)
(C) Estimate from
Proposed Project
Harding Elementary 413 251 +54 216
Portola Middle 600 565 +25 60
El Cerrito High 1,600 1,275 +30 355 Source: Capacity: West Contra Costa Unified School District, 2009. School Consolidation/Closure Review, January. Actual Enrollment: West Contra Costa Unified School District. Student Population Projections. SY 2012/2013.
The final column of Table XIV-1 identifies the remaining capacity at each of the three schools assuming existing enrollment, plus enrollment that could be expected from the project. All three schools would continue to have adequate capacity with the project. The project would cause an incremental increased demand for school services within the WCCUSD. However, the capacity for all three schools accommodates the project’s potential student enrollment.
In addition, the project would be subject to school impact fees for residential development constructed within the city to be paid to the district, as defined in Chapter 15.10 (School Fees and Dedications).
The project would not result in a substantially increased demand for school facilities, and would not require new or expanded school facilities. The project would thus result in a less-than-significant impact on school facilities.
103 West Contra Costa Unified School District, 2013. Student Population Projections. SY
2012/2013.
APRIL 2014 RICHMOND CENTRAL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 89
Parks – Less Than Significant. Parks in the vicinity of the project area (with distances from the project shown in parentheses) include: Central Park (0.01 mi, just across Central Avenue), Creekside Park in Albany (0.3 mi), Richmond Annex Senior Center (0.5 mi), Huntington Park (0.6 mi), Fairmont Park in El Cerrito (0.7 mi), Point Richmond Regional Shoreline (0.7 mi), Mendocino Park (1.1 mi), and Monterey Play Lot (1.2 mi).
The project includes private on-site open space and recreation including a tot lot, courtyards, patios, landscaped areas, a community room, and a fitness room that would provide residents with space to support active and passive recreation.
As described in the General Plan, the City has established a goal of providing 3 acres of community or neighborhood parkland per 1,000 residents. Currently, the City has 270 acres of community and neighborhood parkland and a population of 106,516,104 resulting in a ratio of 2.54 parks/1,000 residents, somewhat lower than the standard. The project would add approximately 492 residents, as described in the Population and Housing section and would not add community or neighborhood parkland Citywide. As a result, the ratio would decrease slightly to 2.53 community and neighborhood parks per 1,000 persons.
The City mitigates impacts created from additional demands on existing park and recreation services due to the increase in new residential development by imposition of development impact fees. As a condition of approval of a final map or parcel map, the developer is either required to dedicate land or pay a fee for park or recreational purposes as defined in Chapter 15.08.400 (Park and Recreation Dedication and Fees).
Residents of the project would not be expected to increase the use of existing neighborhood parks and recreation facilities to such extent that these facilities would be physically degraded or their substantial physical deterioration would be accelerated. The incremental residential growth that would result from the project would not require the construction of new recreational facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. The impact on recreational facilities would therefore be less than significant.
Other Public Facilities – Less Than Significant. The City of Richmond maintains a main library at the Downtown Civic Center and two branches, the Bayview Branch Library and the West Side Library. The City of Richmond also owns a 750-boatslip marina in the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor. The increase in population that would be caused by the project is not anticipated to create adverse physical impacts to any other public facilities.
104 United States Census Bureau. 2012 Population Estimates.
RICHM
90
XV. Would
a) Inrethfa
b) Drerep
The CtotaliparkseightcomprecreRichmPolice
Disc
Wa)ow
Less the precretheir be suresidaccelless t
Db)oe
Less any n
MOND CENTRAL
RECREATd the project:
ncrease the usegional parks hat substantiaacility would ooes the proje
equire the conecreational fachysical effect
City of Richmng 6,528 ac
s. In addition community
plex; and a mational facil
mond Counte Activities L
ussion
Would the prother recreat
would occur o
Than Signifproject wouldation faciliti substantial ubject to a ciential growterated physthan signific
Does the projf recreationanvironment?
Than Signifnew recreatio
INITIAL STUDY C
TION
se of existing or other recral physical detoccur or be acct include rec
nstruction or cilities which on the enviro
mond is servcres, rangingn, the City owy centers; twomunicipal naities, severary Club, MarLeague, the
oject increastional facilitior be acceler
ficant. As ded not be expes to such ephysical detitywide deveh that wouldical deteriorant.
ject include ral facilities w?
ficant. The ponal facilitie
CHECKLIST
PU
neighborhooeational faciliterioration of ccelerated? creational faciexpansion of might have a
onment?
ved by an extg from large wns and opeo senior cen
atatorium. Inl private facirina Bay YachBoys and Gir
se the use ofies such thatrated?
escribed in tpected to incextent that thterioration welopment imd result fromation. The im
recreationalwhich might
project doess that might
BLIC REVIEW
PoSi
Im
od and ties such the
ilities or n adverse
tensive netw regional paerates a rangnters; a swim addition to ilities are locht Harbor, Rrls Club and
f existing net substantial
the precedincrease the ushese facilitie
would be accpact fee for
m the projectmpact on rec
l facilities ort have an ad
s not propost have an adv
DRAFT
otentially gnificant
mpact
PoteSign
UnleMiti
Inco
work of 86 prks to small ge of recreat
m center; an publicly owcated in Rich
Richmond Ya Red Rock M
ighborhood l physical de
ng Public Serse of existines would be celerated. Mo parks and rt would not creational fa
r require thedverse physic
e the constrverse physic
entially nificant
ess igation
orporation
LeSig
Im
■
■
arks and op compact pltion facilitieindoor recre
wned and opehmond incluacht Club HaMarina.
and regionaeterioration
rvices sectiog neighborh physically doreover, the ecreation. Tresult in sub
acilities wou
e constructiocal effect on
ruction or excal effect on
APRIL 20
ess Than gnificant
mpact
No
Imp
pen space areay lots and s including: eation erated
uding the arbor, YMCA,
al parks or of the facilit
n, residents hood parks aegraded or project wou
The incremenbstantial or ld therefore
on or expans the
xpansion of the
014
act
eas
,
ty
of and
uld ntal
be
sion
APRIL 2014 RICHMOND CENTRAL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 91
environment, although the project does include on-site open space and recreation facilities including a tot lot and a fitness room. In addition, the project would be subject to a citywide development impact fee for parks and recreation. The incremental residential growth that would result from the project would not require the construction of new recreational facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. The impact on recreational facilities would therefore be less than significant.
RICHMOND CENTRAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST APRIL 2014
92 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Potentially
Significant Impact
Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact
XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or
policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
■
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
■
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
■
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
■
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ■
f) Conflict with adopted polices, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
■
As described above, the project would be constructed on a site in an urbanized area of Richmond and small portion of El Cerrito. The project site is bounded by Central Avenue to the north, Belmont Avenue to the east, and San Mateo Street to the west, which provides primary access to the site. Secondary access for bicyclists and pedestrians only would be provided by a bridge from Belmont Avenue, across the drainage channel, to the project site. The project would reconstruct sidewalks adjacent to the site. Along Central Avenue, improvements would include street trees and upgraded corner ramps that comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations. The project does not propose any other modifications to the existing street configuration. The analysis evaluated existing conditions, the contribution of the project, and contribution of the project along with other approved projects (e.g., the I-80/Central Avenue Operational Improvement Project).
APRIL 20
Discus
The folAvenuerevisedSan Mahigher anticip
Cona)effemocomstre
Less Tvehicleprovidevehiclethe mo
Genera
The proand hethe proeach po
Polisafe
Policlas
Poliwal
Actenhmo
AdditioGenerawith thtypicallsevere
10
014
ssion
llowing discue Residentiald project proateo Street, a than the cuated to chan
nflict with anectiveness fo
odes of transmponents of eets, highwa
han Significs, but accore equitable as–and that t
obility needs
al Plan Cons
oject is conslps to imple
oposed pedeolicy/action
icy CR1.5 Safee and conven
icy CR1.8 Placssification sys
icy CR2.2 Comking and bicy
ion CR2.C Strhance access, torists.
onally, the nual Plan and the density inly allow. The impacts tha
5 City of Richm
ussion is basl” prepared b
oposal with 1and one entrrrent proposnge the outc
n applicable or the perforsportation inf the circulatays and free
cant. The Citding to the Gaccess, recogthe use of an for non-aut
sistency
sistent with tment the fo
estrian/bicyc is listed bel
e and Convenient mode of
ce-Based Circustem.
mplete Streetsycling with oth
reetscape Imp lighting, safe
umber of trihe General Pcrease over e project doean those con
mond, 2012.
PUBL
sed on the “Tby Fehr & Pe178 apartmery on Belmonsed project oome of the a
plan, ordinarmance of thncluding mastion system, ways, pedes
ty of RichmoGeneral Plangnizing thatn auto-focuso roadway u
the circulatiollowing polic
cle bridge, anow; see the
ient Walking transportatio
ulation Appro
s. Promote miher modes of
provements. Cety and exper
ps projectedPlan EIR analand above wes not suggetemplated in
General Plan,
RICHMOND
IC REVIEW DR
Transportateers in Decement units andnt Avenue. Nof 172. Howanalysis or c
ance or poliche circulatioss transit an including bustrian and bi
ond does non, the city stt people traved level of s
users.
on policies ocies and actind on-site bcomplete Ge
and Bicyclingn.
oach. Promote
ixed-use urba travel.
Continue to imience for pede
d by the projysis for the
what this Geest new signn the Genera
Circulation E
D CENTRAL PRO
RAFT
ion Impact Amber 2013, d one entry aNote that thi
wever, this diconclusions
cy establishin system, ta
nd non-motout not limiteicycle paths,
t have a leverives to bala
vel by a varieservice stand
of the City oions thoughicycle parkineneral Plan f
. Promote wa
e the place-ba
an streets that
mplement streestrians, bicy
ject was conrelevant trafneral Plan d
nificant impaal Plan EIR.
Element.
OJECT INITIAL ST
Assessment which analyand one exits unit countfference is nbelow.
ing measureaking into acrized travel d to intersec, and mass t
el of service ance modes ety of modesdard does no
f Richmond sidewalk imng. (The sumfor details.10
alking and bicy
ased planning
t balance pub
eetscape impryclists, transit
ntemplated iffic analysis esignation w
acts or subst
TUDY CHECKLIST
9
for Central yzed the t driveway ot is slightly not
es of ccount all and relevanctions, transit?
policy for of travel ands–not just inot address
General Planmprovementsmmary text o
5)
ycling as a
approach an
blic transit,
rovements to users, and
n the zone, even would tantially mor
T
93
n
nt
d
n s, of
d
re
RICHMOND CENTRAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST APRIL 2014
94 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Significance Threshold
For the purposes of this checklist question and analysis, a significant impact is identified if:
A signalized intersection is projected to operate within expected delay ranges (i.e., level of service [LOS] D or better with an average control delay of equal to or less than 55 seconds per vehicle) without the project and the project is expected to cause the facility to operate at an unacceptable LOS (LOS E or F);
An intersection is projected to operate at or over capacity (i.e., LOS E or F) without the project, and the project is expected to increase the average control delay by more than 5 seconds; or
The operation of an unsignalized study intersection is projected to decline with the addition of project traffic, and if the installation of a traffic signal based on the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Peak Hour Signal Warrant (Warrant 3) would be warranted.
The “Transportation Impact Assessment for Central Avenue Residential” report analyzed trip generation, distribution, and assignment to evaluate potential impacts on the surrounding roadway network. The report analyzes trip generation using rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation (9th Edition) for residential apartments. Fehr & Peers then applied a 20 percent trip reduction adjustment to take into account the lower auto trip rates expected in this dense infill community with existing transit, retail, and other nearby services. Fehr & Peers estimated that the project would generate 962 daily vehicle trips and 241 daily walking or biking trips.
The findings, organized by the three thresholds defined above, follow:
Signalized Intersection and Delay
As shown in Table XVI-1, during the weekday AM and PM peak hour all signalized intersections operate at LOS C or better with the exception of the I-80 Westbound Ramps/Jacuzzi Street/Central Avenue intersection which operates at LOS E. During the Saturday midday peak hour, study intersections operate at LOS D or better with the exception of the I-80 Westbound Ramps/Jacuzzi Street/Central Avenue intersection which operates at LOS F.
Signalized intersections would continue to operate at LOS D or better with the project (right-hand columns in Table XVI-1), with the exception of the I-80 Westbound Ramps/Jacuzzi Street/Central Avenue intersection which is project to operate at LOS E during the weekday AM and PM peak hour and LOS F during the Saturday midday peak hour. Project traffic would slightly increase average signal delay at the Jacuzzi Street, Pierce Street, San Mateo Avenue and Belmont Avenue intersections along Central Avenue.
APRIL 2014 RICHMOND CENTRAL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 95
TABLE XVI-1 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LOS AND DELAY SUMMARY, SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Signalized Intersection Peak Houra
Existing Existing + Project
Delayb LOS Delay LOS
Jacuzzi Street/San Joaquin Street I-80 Westbound Ramps/Central Avenuec
AM 57.7 E 61.6 E
PM 56.9 E 61.2 E
Sat. >100 F >100 F
I-80 Eastbound Ramps/Central Avenue
AM 12.3 B 11.8 B
PM 31.6 C 30.4 C
Sat. 17.1 B 17.9 B
Pierce Street/San Luis Street/Central Avenue
AM 19.4 B 18.7 B
PM 19.1 B 24.3 C
Sat. 36.4 D 40.2 D a AM peak period: 7:00-9:00am; PM peak period: 4:00-6:00pm; Saturday peak period: 11:00am-2:00pm. b Average intersection delay is calculated for all signalized intersections using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual 2000 HCM) methods c Jacuzzi Street / I-80 Westbound Ramps / Central Ave operate with a single traffic controller and operate as one intersection, therefore a single delay and LOS is reported for both intersections. Source: Fehr & Peers, December 2013.
Central Avenue is a designated route of Regional Significance and LOS D or better must be maintained at intersections along the roadway. The I-80 Westbound Ramps/Jacuzzi Street/Central Avenue intersection currently operates below LOS D during the weekday and Saturday midday peak hours. With the project, this intersection would continue to operate below LOS D with the project during the weekday and Saturday midday peak hours. The project would contribute to deficient operations (particularly the Jacuzzi Street/San Joaquin Street I-80 Westbound Ramps/ Central Avenue intersection), but it would not add 5 or more seconds of delay, the threshold for a project-related impact. As a result, the impact is considered to be less than significant.
Unsignalized Intersection and Delay
In Table XVI-2, the average intersection delay is reported followed by the delay for the worst approach for each side-street stop controlled intersection. At the San Mateo Street and Yolo Avenue intersections with Central Avenue, the southbound stop controlled approach operates at a maximum of LOS F during the AM and Saturday midday peak hour. During the PM peak hour, the side street operates at an acceptable level of service. At Belmont Avenue, the northbound stop controlled approach operates at LOS F during the
RICHMOND CENTRAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST APRIL 2014
96 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Saturday midday peak hour but at an acceptable level of service during the AM and PM peak hour.
TABLE XVI-2 PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION LOS AND DELAY SUMMARY, UNSIGNALIZED
INTERSECTIONS
Side-Street Stop Controlled Intersection
Peak Hourb
Existing Existing + Project
Delaya LOS Delay LOS
San Mateo Street/Central Avenue
AM 10.3 (SB >100) B (F) 8.1 (NB 96.9) A (F)
PM 1.2 (NB 16.4) A (C) 1.3 (NB 14.7) A (B)
Sat. 12.7 (SB >100) B (F) 14.9 (SB >100) A (F)
Yolo Avenue/Central Avenue
AM 2.6 (SB 51.6) A (F) 2.2 (SB 49.2) A (E)
PM 0.4 (SB 6.1) A (A) 0.4 (SB 5.8) A (A)
Sat. 3.5 (SB >100) A (D) 4.1 (SB 98.1) A (F)
Belmont Avenue/ Central Avenue
AM 3.4 (NB 15.9) A (C) 5.3 (NB 62.5) A (F)
PM 0.8 (NB 14.7) A (B) 1.7 (NB 23.6) A (C)
Sat. 15.1 (NB >100) C (F) 16.4 (NB >100) C (F) a For side-street stop controlled intersections, average delay is listed first followed by the delay for the worst approach. b AM peak period: 7:00-9:00am; PM peak period: 4:00-6:00pm; Saturday peak period: 11:00am-2:00pm. Source: Fehr & Peers, December 2013.
With the addition of project traffic, side street stop controlled intersections would have little to no change with exception to the San Mateo at Central Avenue intersection during the AM peak hour. Without the project, existing traffic conditions are expected to have poor operations for the southbound stop controlled approach. With the project, the northbound approach deteriorates as the worst stop controlled approach. However, overall intersection operations show little change.
To assess the need for signalization of stop-controlled intersections, the MUTCD (Federal Highway Administration 2012) presents eight signal warrants. The Peak Hour Volume Warrant was used in this study as a supplemental analysis tool to assess operations at unsignalized intersections. Based on this analysis, none of the unsignalized intersections currently meet peak hour signal warrants. Although several side-street stop movements are projected to operate below LOS D, signal warrants would not be met so the project impact to this intersection is less than significant.
APRIL 20
As a restudy t
Conb)limesthig
Less TCongesCongesanalysitrips. SSaturda
The Gesegmen
These simplemGenerawould due to projecttraffic vincremneighbcontribcontribproject
Resc)or a
No Impvicinityfeet talresult iobstruc
014
sult of the pthresholds, t
nflict with anmited to level
ablished by ghways?
han Significstion Managstion Manags of any pro
Since the proay midday p
eneral Plan Ents, though
23rd Street
San Pablo D
I-580 betwe
segments wmentation of al Plan’s cumnot likely tra the lack of pt’s contributvolumes on ent to the cuorhood. How
butions to anbute considet results in a
sult in a chaa change in
pact. The proy of a privatell, would notn a change ctions to flig
project’s conthe project’s
n applicable of service st the county c
cant. The Coement Agenement Progr
oject that is eoject does noeak hour, it
IR identifiednot in the v
between Sa
Dam Road be
een Western
ould exceed the General
mulative impaavel substanproximity toions to traffthis freewayumulative lowever, the vony unacceptarably to any
a less-than-si
nge in air tr location tha
oject site is e airstrip. Tht interfere win air traffic
ght, or a cha
PUBL
nsistency wits impact is d
congestion tandards ancongestion m
ontra Costa Tncy (CMA) foram (CMP), rexpected to ot generate does not tri
d significant icinity of the
anford and G
etween Barra
Drive and th
d capacity in Plan. The pact for the fo
ntially througo the project ic volumes oy segment. Tong-term trafolume of adable intersecy cumulative ignificant im
raffic patternat results in s
not located he proposed ith air traffic patterns, in
ange in locat
RICHMOND
IC REVIEW DR
th General Pletermined to
managemennd travel demmanagement
Transportatir Contra Cosreferred to a generate momore than 1gger a cons
and unavoide project:
Grant
anca and El P
he San Rafae
both the Noproject wouldollowing reagh 23rd Stree site and theon I-580 are The proposeffic increaseditional tripction service traffic impa
mpact to the
ns, includingsubstantial s
within an ai new residenc patterns. Acluding eithion, that res
D CENTRAL PRO
RAFT
lan policies o be less tha
nt program, mand measut agency for
ion Authoritysta County.
as the 2011 Core than 10000 trips duristency anal
dable impact
Portal
el Bridge
o Project cond not contribasons. Project and San Pa
e availability minimal ped project wo on the locas would not
e levels. Thusacts. The relaCMP.
g either an insafety risks?
rport land untial buildingAs a result, ther an increasults in subs
OJECT INITIAL ST
and objectivan significan
including, bures, or other designated
y (CCTA) serCCTA’s mosCMP, require0 peak hourring the AM,ysis.
ts on three r
ndition and wbute considect generatedablo Dam Roy of alternatercentages ofould add a sal roadway ne result in cos, the projecative small s
ncrease in tr?
use plan areag, at a maximhe project w
ase in traffic stantial safet
TUDY CHECKLIST
9
ves, and nt.
but not er standards roads or
rves as the st recent es an vehicle , PM or
roadway
with erably to thed traffic oad above e routes. Thef the total mall etwork in thnsiderable ct would notsize of the
raffic levels
a or in the mum of 66
would not levels, ty risks.
T
97
s
e
e
e
t
RICHM
98
Sd)d
Less causehazarAventhe dprojeproviprojedesig
The fcond
Pdwmmtoslali
Platoin
PBli
Pin
Pmg
Re)
MOND CENTRAL
ubstantially dangerous in
Than Signife major traffrds. Primary ue, with secrainage cha
ect site wouldded in the g
ect would havgn feature.
following proitions within
roject Improesigns to as
with the Projemeet the Amemay also requo the Projectlopes withinnd pedestriaghts) alarms
roject Improandscaping oo avoid sightnches and tr
roject Improelmont Avenmit sight dis
roject Impron the garage
roject Impromeasures, suarage.
Result in inad
INITIAL STUDY C
y increase hatersections)
ficant. The pfic hazards, vehicle acceondary bicycnnel from Bed be provide
ground-level ve a less-tha
oject improvn and immed
ovement Measure that saect. This incerican’s withuire that far-t) ramps are the sidewal
ans on the ss are necessa
ovement Meaon the westet distance coee canopies
ovement Meanue for apprstances issue
ovement Mea directing dr
ovement Meach as speed
dequate eme
CHECKLIST
PU
azards due toor incompa
project woulnor would itess to and frcle and pedeelmont Avened from Cengarage, acc
an-significan
vement measdiately adjac
asure Trans-afe and comfludes assurih Disability A-side curb ramodified. Dks and with idewalks sucary.
asure Trans-ern corners oonflicts (shrushould be a
asure Trans-oximately 2es.
asure Trans-rivers to the
asure Trans- humps on d
ergency acce
BLIC REVIEW
o a design fetible uses (e
d not interfet have a signrom the site estrian accesnue to the prtral Avenue.essed from
nt impact on
sures are recent to the p
1: City Enginfortable pedng that all aAct (ADA) guamps are upDriveways sh
good visibilch that no au
2: The propof Belmont Aubs should napproximate
3: The proje0 feet on eit
4: The appli Belmont Av
5: The devedrive aisles,
ess?
DRAFT
feature (e.g.,.g., farm eq
ere with exisnificant effec
would be pss via a new roject site. N. All of the pSan Mateo Sa roadway o
commendedroject site:
neering staffestrian cond
adjacent sideuidelines. At graded wheould be deslity betweenudible (buzz
erty manageAvenue/projnot be higheely six feet fr
ect should rether side of t
icant shouldvenue exit.
loper shouldto reduce sp
sharp curvequipment)?
sting traffic ct on traffic-rovided frombridge that
No direct accproject’s parStreet. As a ror from a pr
d to promote
f will review ditions are coewalks and cthe City’s drever near-signed to mi entering/ex
zers) and vis
er should maect driveway
er than approrom the grou
estrict on-strthe Project d
provide way
d providing tpeeds throu
APRIL 20
es or
circulation orelated
m Belmont would cross
cess to the king would bresult, the oject related
e safe
site plan onstructed curb ramps discretion, it ide (adjacennimize crossxiting vehiclsual (flashing
aintain y intersectiooximately 30und).
reet parkingdriveway to
y-finding sig
traffic calmigh the park
014
or
s
be
d
nt s-es g
n 0
on
gns
ng ing
APRIL 20
Less TMateo would site or site frocontainDepartAs a rethe pro
Conf)pedfac
Less Tpedestsafety o
Public
AC Trathe proBelmonAvenuedestina
The adhave litsignific
One prsafety o
Bicycle
Bicycle Carlsonfacilitiepotentithe BAR
014
han SignificStreet or Belbe availableto other site
om along exined in the Buments wouldsult, the pro
oject site or
nflict with addestrian facicilities?
han Significrian, or bicyof these faci
Transit Fac
nsit currentloject site. Ront Avenue. Te or at El Cerations outsid
dition of newttle to no effcant transit i
oject improvof transit fac
Project Impbus stop froto include a
e Facilities
facilities aren Boulevard,es along Cenial connectioRT station a
cant. Emergelmont Avenu. The projeces in the viciisting city stuilding and Fd review theoject would hany surroun
dopted policilities, or oth
cant. The prycle facilitiesilities as det
cilities
ly has six buoute 25 stopThe five addirrito Plaza. Ede Richmond
w transit usefect on the smpact.
vement meacilities:
provement Monting the pa transit she
e currently p east of the
ntral Avenue on between tnd the Bay T
PUBL
ency vehicleue, such thatt would not nity. Emergereets. The pFire Codes, a final buildinhave less-thading sites.
es, plans, orherwise decr
oject would , nor would ailed below.
us routes thas directly in tional routesExisting routd such as Sa
ers from thesystem; there
asure is reco
Measure Tranproject at thelter with ben
provided on project site.between th
the project aTrail. Howeve
RICHMOND
IC REVIEW DR
access to tht if one entrainterfere witency vehicle
project wouldand the Richng plans to ean-significan
r programs rrease the per
not conflict it substantia
at provide trfront of the
s in the projtes provide an Francisco,
e project to tefore the pro
mmended to
ns-6: The appe Central Avench.
Belmont Ave. The Generae Bay Trail aand multipleer, these pro
D CENTRAL PRO
RAFT
he project siance is blocth emergencs would be ad be requirehmond Buildensure sufficnt impact on
regarding prformance o
with adopteally decrease
ransit accesse project siteject vicinity saccess to El Berkeley an
the existing oject would
o promote th
plicant shouenue at Belm
enue, south al Plan propoand San Pable facilities inoposed bicyc
OJECT INITIAL ST
ite would beked, alternacy access to able to reachd to meet thing and Firecient access
n emergency
ublic transitor safety of s
ed programse the perfor
s within the ve at Central Astop along CCerrito Plaza
nd Oakland.
transit netwhave a less-
he performa
ld upgrade tmont Avenue
of Lassen Stoses Class IIo Avenue including El Ccle facilities
TUDY CHECKLIST
9
e via San tive access the project
h the projeche standards and safety.
y access to
t, bicycle, or such
s for transit,mance or
vicinity of Avenue and Central a BART and
work would -than-
ance and
the existing e intersectio
treet and onI bicycle , creating a
Cerrito Plaza,were not
T
99
t s
r
n
n
,
RICHMOND CENTRAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST APRIL 2014
100 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
included in the Richmond Bicycle Master Plan, adopted after the General Plan. Therefore, this analysis does not consider the proposed bicycle facility plans.
The addition of new bicycle users from the project to the existing network would have little to no effect on the system; the project would not interfere with any existing bikeways; conflict with proposed bikeways or contradict any bicycle-related policies, therefore the project would have a less-than-significant bicycle impact.
One project improvement measure is recommended to promote the performance of bicycle facilities:
Project Improvement Measure Trans-7: The applicant should provide one bicycle parking space for every four units in a secured bicycle cage within the parking garage or provide a similarly safe and accessible bike parking.
Pedestrian Facilities
The project would reconstruct sidewalks adjacent to the site. Along Central Avenue, improvements would include street trees and upgraded ADA corner ramps. Driveways would be constructed such that they maintain good site distance to pedestrians on the sidewalks and minimize cross-slopes within the sidewalk. Existing pedestrian facilities, including sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signals, and multi-use trails near the site, would serve the expected pedestrian demand from the project.
The addition of new pedestrians from the project to the existing network would have little to no effect on the system; the project would not interfere with any existing walkways; conflict with proposed walkways or contradict any pedestrian-related policies, therefore the project would have a less-than-significant pedestrian impact.
Project improvement measures are recommended to promote the safety of pedestrian facilities:
Project Improvement Measure Trans-8: The applicant should provide striped walkways across drive aisles to enhance pedestrian connectivity.
Project Improvement Measure Trans-9: Prior to building occupancy, and as a condition of project approval, the applicant should provide a pedestrian hybrid beacon (also known as a HAWK signal) at the existing marked, uncontrolled crosswalk at the east leg of the intersection of Central Avenue at Belmont Avenue, in order to reduce potential conflicts between vehicles traveling on Central Avenue and residents of the project using the existing crosswalk to access Central Park.
APRIL 2014 RICHMOND CENTRAL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 101
Potentially Significant
Impact
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
■
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
■
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
■
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
■
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
■
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
■
g) Comply with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
■
The project site is in an urban area and would be served by existing public services. Three districts collect and treat wastewater in Richmond: the Richmond Municipal Sewer District, West County Wastewater District, and Stege Sanitary Sewer District. The project site is located within the Stege Sanitary Sewer District. Wastewater collected in the District system flows to the Special District #1 Interceptor sewer and is then conveyed to the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Wastewater Treatment Facility in Oakland.
EBMUD provides water service to Richmond. Potable water is supplied via the San Pablo Reservoir from the Mokelumne River Basin in the Sierra Nevada and from local rain-fed reservoirs. Groundwater is utilized only for a portion of irrigation demand.
The City of Richmond contracts with Veolia Water North America to operate and maintain its storm drainage facilities throughout the City.
RICHM
102
Richmcommcity.
Disc
Wa)R
Less of theRWQCbrowand sDischindus
To codetaisysteSysteoverfcleanrehab
Wasteto coThererequi
Wb)trca
Less const
ProjeEBMUFrancrehablines
105 Ste
MOND CENTRAL
mond Sanitamercial mun
ussion
Would the proRegional Wat
Than Signife San FranciCB provides nfields cleanstream and wharge Eliminastrial dischar
ontrol sanitaled requiremm managemm Managem
flows have dning, continubilitate every
ewater from mply with alefore, the prrements and
Would the proreatment facause signific
Than Signiftruction of w
ct-related waUD Wastewatcisco Oaklanbilitation plasubsequent
ge Sanitary D
INITIAL STUDY C
ry Services, icipal solid w
oject exceedter Quality C
ficant. The Csco Bay Reggroundwate
nups, stormwwaterway proation Systemrges to surfa
ary sewer ovements for sewment plans evment Plan in
eclined sincuous video iny line defect
the project ll provisionsroject would d the impact
oject requirecilities or expcant environ
ficant. The pwater and wa
astewater wter Treatmend Bay Bridge
an in 1997, f to the East
District, 2013.
CHECKLIST
PU
an affiliate owaste, recyc
d wastewaterControl Board
City of Richmional Water er protectionwater basin otection. Un
m permit sysace waters w
erflows, thewer collectiovery five yeaOctober 201e l992 whennspection, athat could p
would be di of the NPDEnot result in
t is less than
e or result inpansion of e
nmental effec
project woulastewater fac
ould continunt Plant, whie. The Stegefollowing theBay Inflow/I
Sewer System
BLIC REVIEW
of Republic Sling and gre
r treatment d?
mond is locaQuality Cont
n, wastewateplanning, wder the SF Btem, all exis
within the Cit
regional andon agencies,ars. The Steg13. The Distn the Districtnd began topotentially re
irected to exES program,n an exceedn significant.
n the construexisting facilcts?
d have less-cilities.
ue to flow inch is located Sanitary Dise hydraulic unfiltration (I
m Managemen
DRAFT
Services, Inceen waste co
requirement
ated within ttrol Board (S
er discharge water quality Bay RWQCB Nsting and futty would be
d State wate including p
ge Sanitary Drict reports t focused its
o dedicate fuesult in a se
xisting facilit as enforcedance of was.
uction of newlities, the con
-than-signific
nto the sewed in Oaklandstrict began upgrades to I/I) Study. As
nt Plan. Octob
., provides rollection serv
ts of the app
he jurisdictiSF Bay RWQCregulation, information
National Pollture municipsubject to r
er boards havpreparation oDistrict revisthat stoppag
s efforts on aunds to reparvice interru
ties, which wd by the SFBtewater trea
w water or wnstruction o
cant impacts
r system andd near the en
a sewer syssome of its s of 2012, a
ber.
APRIL 20
residential avices in the
plicable
on boundariCB). The SF Bsite cleanup
n, enforcemeutant pal and egulation.
ve developeof sewer ed its Sewerges and aggressive liir or
uption.105
would continRWQCB.
atment
wastewater f which coul
s on the
d flow to thentrance of Sastem major main total of
014
nd
ies Bay ps, ent,
d
r
ine
nue
ld
e an
APRIL 20
156,00assessmprojectsewer simprovthe coltreatmeconstru
For plasufficieduring reduce storagecomplechallenthis levnew waconstru
Woc)facsig
Less Tlocal st
The proexceptimpervasphaltcoveragsubstawould
Wod)exis
Less Tyear 20use-bas
10
10
014
00 feet of mament data tot would not nservice chargvements to tlection of saent. As a resuction of wa
anning purpoent to meet c single- and demand ane, infrastructeted a Waternges. Althouvel of increasater facilitiesuction of wa
uld the projecilities or expnificant envi
han Significtreams and c
oject would ion of some
vious surfacet paving, thege and assontially increaresult in a le
uld the projesting entitlem
han Signific040 as well ased method 7 Ibid. 8 East Bay Mu
ain lines havo determine necessitate mges would cohe sanitary sanitary sewesult, the projstewater tre
oses and loocustomer ne multi-year dd increase sture improve Supply Mangh the projese was contes and therefoter facilities
ect require opansion of exironmental e
cant. Stormwchannels, an
add new res landscaped
es. However,e project wociated volumase the stormess than sign
ect have sufments and r
cant. The WSas updated d to forecast
nicipal Utility
PUBLIC
ve been repla the priority major new sover the cossewer systemr flows. EBMject would hatment facil
oking to the eeds during droughts.108 Eupply, incluements and nagement Prect would haemplated in ore would ha.
or result in txisting facilieffects?
water passesnd ultimately
sidential unit spaces, the given that tuld not subs
me of stormwmwater runonificant impa
fficient waterresources, or
SMP 2040 esdemand projwater dema
District (EBM
RICHMOND
C REVIEW DRA
aced.107 Distr in which maewer facilitie
st of the opem. The Stege
MUD charges have a less-thities.
year 2040, Enormal yearEBMUD is puding throug water conseogram (WSM
ave an increm the General ave a less-th
the constructies, the con
s into the City enters San
ts to the sitee project wouthe existing stantially chawater runoffoff nor requiact on the st
r supplies avr are new or
stimates watjections. Thend. EBMUD m
UD), 2010. U
D CENTRAL PRO
AFT
rict engineeain lines are es to serve tration, maine Sanitary Di a separate fhan-significa
EBMUD’s currs, but insuffursuing a ranh public out
ervation meaMP 2040) to amental incre Plan. The p
han-significa
ction of new nstruction of
ty’s storm d Francisco a
e as well as uld largely c site is coverange the amf. The projecre new or extorm drainag
vailable to sr expanded e
ter supply nee demand pmet with sta
rban Water M
OJECT INITIAL ST
ring staff us rehabilitatethe project. ntenance, anistrict is respfee for wasteant impact o
rrent water sficient to menge of stratetreach, leak asures. In 20address thesase on wateroject would
ant impact on
storm waterf which could
rain system nd San Pablo
landscapingcover the sitered by impe
mount of impct, therefore,xpanded facge system.
serve the proentitlements
eeds for EBMrojections reaff at local ju
Management P
TUDY CHECKLIST
10
se condition d. . The Moreover,
nd capital ponsible for ewater
on the
supply is eet demand egies to fixes, water
012, EBMUD se r demand,
d not requiren the
r drainage d cause
and into o Bays.
. With the e with rvious
pervious , would not cilities, and
oject from needed?
MUD to the ely on a landurisdictions
lan.
T
03
e
d
RICHM
104
to deresultupdaoccur
The pwaterwouldby thwould
We)wp
PotengeneGenelandsPlan waste
The cthe pHowenot repurpothe Swith tstudy
Mthpthfl
MOND CENTRAL
termine futut, the 2040 ted Richmonr under the p
project woulr necessary td not result e City of Ricd have a less
Would the prowhich serves roject’s proj
ntially Signiration is appral Plan EIR
scaping on sEIR analysis ewater.
contribution project wouldever, the resesult in an inoses by the tege Sanitarthe Stege Say, which is tr
Mitigation Mehe impact ofost-developmhe adequacyows. The stu
At a minimweather pthe sewermonitorin
The analyflow: 4.5
INITIAL STUDY C
ure growth tDemand Stund General Pproposed Ge
d develop neto serve the in an increa
chmond Gens-than-signif
oject result i or may servjected dema
ificant Unleproximately analysis, theite. In orderassumed th
to the daily d incrementaidential unitncrease in wCity of Richmy District an
anitary Distririggered by a
easure UTL-1f the project ment capaci
y of existing udy shall inc
mum, two mperiod to detr line nearesng shall be d
ysis of this dfor local line
CHECKLIST
PU
rends, as staudy (part of tPlan and takeeneral Plan.
ew residenti site, which se in water ueral Plan noficant impac
in a determive the projecnd in additio
ss Mitigatio70 to 90 pe
e variance be to provide aat 90 percen
wastewaterally increasets and additiwastewater gmond Genernd not the Riict’s requirema developme
1 – Sanitary S on the capaty, and the p local and trclude the fol
manhole locatermine exist the project
dynamic, con
ata will use es, 1.5 trunk
BLIC REVIEW
ated in the Rthe WSMP 20es into cons
al uses on tis currently use beyond r the EBMUDt on water s
ination by thct that it hason to the pro
on Incorporarcent of wateing largely a conservativnt of the wat
received by from the cuonal populaeneration be
ral Plan. Howchmond Muments includent of 10 or
Sewer Capacacity of the epercent of punk lines forlowing analy
ations shall bsting flow cht site, and atntinuous and
the followink lines.
DRAFT
Richmond Ge040) acknowideration inc
he site, thusa vacant lotthat assume
D WSMP 2040supply capac
he wastewats adequate covider’s exis
ation. In genter consumpattributed tove analysis, ter demand
y the treatmeurrent City’sation estimateyond that a
wever, since unicipal Seweding prepara more reside
city Study. Texisting saniipe full at per existing anyses/assump
be flow monharacteristicst the nearestd be recorde
ng peaking fa
eneral Plan Ewledges the rcreased grow
s increasing . However, ted for plann0. In summa
city.
er treatmencapacity to ssting commit
neral, wastewption, accordo the amoun the Richmowould beco
ent facilities daily wasteted from theassumed for the project er District, itation of a seential units.
The applicantitary sewer seak flow, annd anticipateptions:
itored for a s. The locatit trunk line.
ed at 15-min
actors for dr
APRIL 20
EIR. As a recently wth that wou
the amounthe project ing purposeary, the proj
nt provider serve the tments?
water ding to the nt of nd General me
resulting frwater flow.
e project wou planning is located int must compewer capacity
t shall analysystem, the d shall confed future
two-week wons shall be The ute intervals
ry weather
014
uld
t of
es ect
om
uld
n ply y
yze
irm
et e at
s.
APRIL 20
TheA lemuissu
With imcapacit
Wof)acc
Less T50 percThe PemeasurDepartdisposadiversio
Accordwould Potrerototal pe2048.11
While tincremcapacitthe lan
Wog)rela
11
#48-AA
014
In lieu of wepeak dry we
Fixture unitproject flow
The averageproposed re
e study shalletter from thst be providued.
mplementatioty would be
uld the projecommodate t
han Significcent of its sor Capita Disre progress ment of Resal target (exon equivalen
ing to the Rbe diverted
o Hills Landfermitted des10
he increasedentally to toty available adfill and thu
uld the projeated to solid
0 Solano Coun-0075 for Pot
et weather meather flow.
t equivalentsw.
e family unitesidential flo
l be submitthe Stege Sanded to the Ri
on of Mitigaless than sig
ect be servedthe project’s
cant. As estaolid waste thposal Measutoward meeources Recypressed as pnt: for 2012,
ichmond Geto the Goldeill. This landsign capacity
d use of the otal waste geat the Potrerus would hav
ect comply wd waste?
nty Land Exterero Hills Lan
PUBLIC
monitoring, w
s shall be us
t shall be 3 pows.
ed to the Stenitary Districchmond Pla
ation Measugnificant.
d by a landfs solid waste
ablished by Ahrough recycurement Systting the stat
ycling and Repounds per , this rate is
eneral Plan Een Bear Trandfill has a pey of 83.1 mi
site througheneration at ro Hills Landve a less-tha
with federal,
nsive Agricultdfill. February
RICHMOND
C REVIEW DRA
wet weather
sed to determ
persons per
ege Sanitaryt documentinning Depar
re UTL-1, th
fill with suffie disposal ne
Assembly Bicling, reuse,tem Act (SB tutory wasteecovery (CalRperson per d 4.3 pounds
IR, the City’snsfer Facility rmitted capallion cubic y
h residentialthe project sfill the projen-significant
State, and
ture District (Ly 13.
D CENTRAL PRO
AFT
r flow will be
mine the am
residences
y District for ing its capacrtment befor
he potential
icient permiteeds?
ll 939, the C composting1016) furthe
e diversion mRecycle) nowday) to repre/resident/da
s, including before beinacity of 4,33
yards; its est
developmesite, becausect would bet impact on
local statute
LEA), 2012. S
OJECT INITIAL ST
e calculated
mount of pro
and 100 gal
review and city to serve re a building
impact on w
tted capacity
City is requirg, and otherer specifies tmandates. Thw has an indesent their 5ay.
the project’ng disposed 30 peak tonstimated clos
nt would ade of the long
e adequatelysolid waste
es and regul
olid Waste Fa
TUDY CHECKLIST
10
at 400% of
posed
llons/day fo
acceptance. the project g permit is
wastewater
y to
red to divert activities. the way to he Californiadividual 50 percent
s solid wastof at the s/day and a ure date is
d g-term y served by facilities.
lations
acility Permit
T
05
r
a
e
RICHMOND CENTRAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST APRIL 2014
106 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Less Than Significant. State law requires a 50 percent diversion of solid waste from landfills. The West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority, of which Richmond is a part, met the 50 percent waste diversion goal in 2006, and continues to work to maintain this level of diversion.111 Assembly Bill 341, which went into effect in 2012 requires that multi-family housing with 5 or more units must recycle. On a local level, the city regulates solid wastes (Chapter 9.20: Solid Waste) and recycling (Chapter 9.21: Collection of Recyclables) within the City of Richmond in order to reduce recyclables in the solid waste stream. The project would divert construction debris, and provide on-site recycling and composting receptacles in compliance with statues and regulations relating to solid waste. The project would comply with all federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.
111 West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority, 2013. “RecycleMore FAQ.”
Accessed November 21. http://www.recyclemore.com/content/recyclemore-faq.
APRIL 20
XVIII.
a) Dotheredcauselplaor plaof pre
b) Doindconmearethecurfut
c) Dowhhu
Discus
Doea)subpopcomanipre
Potentpotentiresourcmitigatidentifi
The sitspeciescontain
014
MANDATSIGNIFICA
oes the projece quality of thduce the habituse a fish or wlf-sustaining lant or animal restrict the ra
ant or animal,the major perehistory? oes the projecdividually liminsiderable? (“eans that the e considerablee effects of parrent projectsture projects.)oes the projechich will causeman beings, e
ssion
es the projecbstantially repulation to dmmunity, redimal, or elimehistory?
ially Signifiially significaces, geologyted to less-thied within ea
e has been es and naturan suitable ha
TORY FINDIANCE t have the po
he environmentat of a fish owildlife populevels, threatecommunity, range of a rare or eliminate riods of Califo
t have impactted, but cumuCumulatively incremental ee when vieweast projects, ts, and the effe) t have enviro
e substantial aeither directly
ct have the peduce the hadrop below sduce the num
minate impor
cant Unlessant impacts y, hazards, hhan-significaach section.
extensively dal communitiabitat for any
PUBLIC
INGS OF
tential to degnt, substantiaor wildlife speation to drop
en to eliminatreduce the nue or endanger important exornia history o
ts that are ulatively considerableeffects of a prd in connectiothe effects of ects of probab
nmental effecadverse effecty or indirectly
potential to dabitat of a fielf-sustaininmber or restrtant exampl
s Mitigation to aesthetichydrology, laant levels thr
disturbed byies that mayy special-sta
RICHMOND
C REVIEW DRA
Pote
SignImp
grade ally cies, below e a
umber red xamples or
” roject on with other
ble
cts ts on
y?
degrade the ish or wildlifng levels, thrtrict the rangles of the ma
Incorporatcs, air qualityand use, noisrough imple
y past develoy have been atus plant or
D CENTRAL PRO
AFT
entially
nificant pact
PotSigUnl
MitInco
■
quality of tfe species, careaten to elimge of a rare ajor periods
tion. The aboy, biologicalse, and utilitmentation o
opment, elimpresent at o
r animal spec
OJECT INITIAL ST
tentially nificant less
igation orporation
L
SI
■
■
he environmause a fish ominate a pla
e or endanges of Californi
ove analysis resources, ties, which wof mitigation
minating all one time. It dcies. The co
TUDY CHECKLIST
10
Less Than
Significant mpact
NI
■
■
ment, or wildlife ant or animaered plant oria history or
identifies cultural
would all be n measures
native plant does not ncrete
T
07
No Impact
al r r
RICHM
108
channhabitchannhydrochannurbanpropointerfrequimodi
Thereprehiof theresouactiviresouthan-descrsignifmajo
Db)copth
Less cumuunits desigredevpededensiarea units (dupl
Cumufutur
MOND CENTRAL
nel containsat. No wetlanel may be cologically conel that coun area and isose to alter ofere with anyres the projfications to
e are no recostoric archae vicinity. It urces under ities. Any pources resulti-significant lribed in Sectficant impacr periods of
Does the projonsiderable?roject are cohe effects of
Than Signifulatively con on the bord
gnate this arvelopment, bstrian and trity developmfor high-den over time aex, three- an
ulatively, thee projects w
112 City of El C
INITIAL STUDY C
no vegetatiands are presconsidered jnnected to dld have flows completelyor affect they resident orect proponethe concrete
orded archaeeological sitis possible tCEQA, may
otential adveng from soilevel by impltion V: Cultuct to archeol California h
ject have im? (“Cumulationsiderable f other curre
ficant. The isiderable. T
der of Richmea as an “Arbut does antransit-friend
ment. Similarnsity residens older singnd four-unit
e project comwould result
Cerrito, 1999
CHECKLIST
PU
on along thesent on the urisdictionadownstream
wed through y covered bye channel or r migratory fent to obtaine channel on
eological restes, howeverthat archaeobe uneartherse effect tos disturbanclementation ral Resourceogical resou
history or pre
pacts that avely conside when viewedent projects,
mpacts of thhe project w
mond and El Cea of Changticipate it as ly communitrly, the El Cetial develople-family ho apartments
mbined within a physica
. General Plan
BLIC REVIEW
e on-site segsite, includinl waters by r waters and the vicinity.
y impervious vegetation afish or wildli the approp
n the site.
sources in thr, indicates tological sitesd during the
o CEQA-signice from the of Mitigatioes. Accordinurces througehistory.
are individuaerable” meand in connect and the effe
he project wwould result Cerrito. The e,” suggesti an “Activity ty hub chara
errito Generament, anticiuses are rep, condos, an
other past, l change to t
n, Community
DRAFT
gments—no ng the concrregulatory a may be the However, th surfaces. Tand thereforife species. riate author
he project sithe general as, which maye project’s gificant archeproject wou
on Measures gly, the projh the elimin
ally limited, bns that the intion with the ects of proba
would be indin the devel Richmond Gng substant
y Center” whiacterized by al Plan desigpating “a sm
placed by newnd townhous
present, anthe neighbo
y Developmen
marshland orete channelgencies beca remnants ohe site is loche project dre would notMitigation Mizations for
te. The presarchaeologicy be consideground-distueological or pld be reduce CULT-1 throject would n
nation of exa
but cumulatncremental ee effects of pable future p
ividually limopment of 1General Plantial amountsich is intend mixed-use a
gnates the Cemall increasew multifamises).”112
d reasonablyorhood by inc
nt and Design
APRIL 20
or riparian l. However, tause it is
of a natural cated in an oes not t affect or
Measure BIO- any
sence of neacal sensitivitred historicarbing paleontologed to a less-ough CULT-2not result in amples of
tively effects of a
past projectsprojects.)
mited and not65 resident does not
s of ded to be and higher-entral Avenue in residently structures
y foreseeablcreasing the
Element.
014
the
-1
rby ty al
ical
2, a
,
t tial
ue ial s
le e
APRIL 20
numbeHoweveof the pneighbdevelopneighba result
Doec)effe
Less Tzoningprecedproject
014
r of residenter, these chaproject and orhood, andpment were orhood and t of the proj
es the projecects on hum
han Signific requiremening sectionst to reduce a
Mitigation Mdue to light
Mitigation Mreduce ozo
Mitigation Mauthorizatiojurisdiction
Mitigation Mdiscovered
Mitigation Mdiscovery o
Mitigation Mreduce the soils and dr
Mitigation MMitigation MManagemen
Mitigation Mto reduce p
Mitigation Mconsistency
Mitigation Mnoise levels
tial units in anges wouldother propo
d the intensi not found to communityect would b
ct have enviran beings, e
cant. The prnts, as well as. The followadverse effec
Measure AESt and glare.
Measure AQ-ne precurso
Measure BIOons for any al wetlands.
Measure CUL archeologic
Measure CULof paleontolo
Measure GEOpotential of rainage chan
Measure HAZMeasure HAZnt Plan to re
Measure HYDpotential floo
Measure LANy with the Ci
Measure NOs meet indoo
PUBLIC
the surroundd not create sed projectsty and denso exceed the. As a resulte reduced to
ronmental eeither directl
oject would as State and wing mitigatiocts on huma
S-1 addresse
-1 provides crs and PM.
O-1 requires tmodification
LT-1 addressal resources
LT-2 addressogical resour
O-1 requires strong seismnnel impacts
Z-1a calls foZ-1b calls foduce potent
D-1requires od and sea le
ND-1 requirety of Richmo
-1 requires por and outdo
RICHMOND
C REVIEW DRA
ding area anadverse neigs are compatity of approve level of de, all environo a less-than
ffects whichly or indirect
be generallyfederal requon measuresn beings:
es potential i
construction
the project pns to the con
ses potentias or human r
ses potentiarces.
a design-levmic shakings.
r preparatioor preparatiotial hazard im
elevation ofevel rise imp
es a density ond Zoning
preparation oor standard
D CENTRAL PRO
AFT
nd adding poghborhood itible with thved and reasvelopment cmental impa
n-significant
h will cause stly?
y consistent uirements, as have been
impacts rela
n best mana
proponent toncrete chann
al adverse effremains.
al impacts re
vel geotechn, liquefactio
on of a Phaseon of a Consmpacts.
f all floors abpacts.
bonus and/oOrdinance
of a noise ads.
OJECT INITIAL ST
opulation deimpacts, as te land use zsonably forecompatible acts that cou level.
substantial a
with local laas described incorporate
ated to adver
gement prac
o obtain thenel on the sit
fect on accid
lated to the
nical investign, settlemen
e II site investruction Risk
bove the bas
or rezoning
nalysis to en
TUDY CHECKLIST
10
ensity. the land usezoning of theeseeable with the
uld occur as
adverse
and use and in the ed into the
rse effects
ctices to
appropriatete and any
dentally
accident
gation to nt, expansive
stigation andk
se flood leve
to assure
nsure that
T
09
es e
e
e
d
el
RICHMOND CENTRAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST APRIL 2014
110 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Mitigation Measure NO-1 requires preparation of a noise control plan to reduce noise levels during construction.
Mitigation Measure NO-1 requires preparation of a vibration impact assessment to address vibration impacts during construction.
Mitigation Measure UTL-1 requires preparation of a sewer capacity study.
These mitigation measures reduce the environmental effects which could cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, to a less-than-significant level.
APRIL 2014 RICHMOND CENTRAL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 111
REPORT PREPARERS
Urban Planning Partners, Inc., Prime Consultant 505 17th Street, 2nd Floor Oakland CA 94612 Lynette Dias, AICP, Principal in Charge and Project Manager Jean Eisberg, Principal Planner Hayley Cox, Assistant Planner Susan Smith, Word Processing
Additional Project Consultants
Air Quality, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise BASELINE Environmental Consulting 101 H Street, Suite C Petaluma, CA 94952-5100 Bruce Abelli-Amen, P.G., C.H., Principal James McCarty, Civil Engineer Todd Taylor, Environmental Associate Patrick Sutton, Environmental Engineer Biological Resources Environmental Collaborative 1268 64th Street Emeryville, CA 94608 James Martin, Principal Cultural Resources LSA Associates, Inc. 157 Park Place Point Richmond, CA 94801 Tim Jones, Cultural Resources Planner
RICHMOND CENTRAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST APRIL 2014
112 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
REFERENCES
Association of Bay Area Governments, 2013a. Contra Costa County Earthquake Hazard. Last updated October 7, 2013. Accessed October 28, 2013. http://quake.abag.ca.gov/earthquakes/contracosta/.
Association of Bay Area Governments, 2013b. Liquefaction Susceptibility Map. Accessed October 28. http://quake.abag.ca.gov/earthquakes/.
Association of Bay Area Governments/Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2012. Visions for Priority Development Areas: The Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy. May.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010a. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. September 15.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010b. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2012. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Last updated May.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2013. Tools and Methodology. Accessed October 23. http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Tools-and-Methodology.aspx.
Borrero et al, 2006. Numerical Modeling of Tsunami Effects at Marine Oil Terminals in San Francisco Bay. June 8.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, 2011. Contra Costa County Important Farmland 2010.
California Department of Education, 2013. California School Directory. Accessed October 24. http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/sd/.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), 2009. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. Recommended by CAL FIRE on January 7.
California Department of Parks and Recreation, 1976. California Inventory of Historic Resources. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.
California Department of Public Health, 2013. California Environmental Health Tracking Program's Traffic Spatial Linage Web Service. Environmental Health Investigations Branch. http://www.ehib.org/traffic_tool.jsp. Accessed on 24 October.
APRIL 2014 RICHMOND CENTRAL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 113
California Emergency Management Agency, 2009. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, Richmond-San Quentin quadrangle. July 31.
California Geological Survey, 2003. State of California Seismic Hazard Zones, Richmond Quadrangle. February 14.
California Geological Survey, 2008. Special Publication 117A; Guidelines for Evaluating the Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California.
California Office of Historic Preservation, 1988. Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California.
California Office of Historic Preservation, 2012. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. August 15.
City of El Cerrito, 1999. General Plan.
City of El Cerrito, 2008. Zoning Ordinance.
City of Richmond, 2013. Historic Resources Inventory Master Report. March 13.
City of Richmond, 2011. Zoning Ordinance.
City of Richmond, 2012. General Plan.
City of Richmond, 2013. General Plan, Housing Element.
Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission, 2000. Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. December 13.
Contra Costa County Transportation Authority, 2009. West County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance – 2009 Last updated July 31.
Contra Costa County Transportation Authority, 2011. 2011 Contra Costa County Congestion Management Program.
Contra Costa County, 2011. Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, Volume 2: Planning Partner Annexes, Chapter 6, City of Richmond Annex.
Crawford & Associates, Inc., 2013. Preliminary Geotechnical Memo, 5620 Central Avenue, Richmond, California. June 6.
RICHMOND CENTRAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST APRIL 2014
114 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Department of Conservation, 2010. California Geological Survey – Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones in Electronic Format. Accessed October 30,2013.http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/ap/ap_maps.htm
Department of Conservation. Accessed October 21, 2013. http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/mol-app.html
East Bay Municipal Utility District, 2010. Urban Water Management Plan.
ENVIRON International Corporation and the California Air Districts, 2013. California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2013.2.2. July.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2010. 2010 Waterbody Report for Cerrito Creek.
Federal Aviation Administration, 2013. Airport Data & Contact Information. Accessed October 28, 2013. Last updated October 17. http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/airportdata_5010/.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map, Contra Costa County, California and Incorporated Areas, Panel 245 of 602, Map Number 0613C0245F. Effective Date June 16.
Federal Transit Administration, 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (DTA-VA-90-1003-06).
Fehr & Peers, 2013a. Addendum to Central Avenue Residential Transportation Impact Assessment. September 27.
Fehr & Peers, 2013b. Transportation Impact Assessment for Central Avenue Residential. July 1.
Gagan, Mark, Captain, Richmond Police Department. Personal Communication. 2013. November 14.
Graymer, R.W., D.L. Jones, and E.E. Brabb, 1994. Preliminary Geologic Map Emphasizing Bedrock Formations in Contra Costa County, California. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
Institute of Water Research, Michigan State University, 2002. RUSLE On-Line Soil Erosion Assessment Tool. Accessed October 29, 2013. http://35.8.121.139/rusle/kfactor.htm.
KCE Matrix, Inc., 2013. Subsurface Environmental Site Assessment Report. Commercial-Industrial Property, 5620 Central Avenue, Richmond, California 94804. June 28.
APRIL 2014 RICHMOND CENTRAL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 115
Meyer, Jack, 2011. Buried Archaeological Site Assessment and Extended Phase I Subsurface Explorations for the I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility Project, Caltrans District 04, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California. Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Davis, California.
Office of Emergency Services (OES), 2013. Responsibilities of the Office of Emergency Services. Accessed October 28. http://ca-richmond2.civicplus.com/index.aspx?NID=2009.
P&D Environmental, Inc., 2011. Figure 2, Site Aerial Photograph Showing Borehole Locations, 5620 Central Avenue, Richmond, California.
Regional Water Board, 2001. Case Closure – Underground Storage Tanks – 5620 Central Avenue, Richmond, Contra Costa County. June 18.
Regional Water Board, 2013. Environmental Screening Levels (Interim Final – May 2013). May.
Salter, Charles M., 1998. Acoustics – Architecture, Engineering, the Environment, William Stout Publishers.
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), 2011. Living With a Rising Bay: Vulnerability and Adaptation in San Francisco Bay and on its Shoreline. October 6.
Sandis, 2013, Stormwater Exhibit, 5620 Central Ave., October 24.
Solano County Land Extensive Agriculture District (LEA), 2012. Solid Waste Facility Permit #48-AA-0075 for Potrero Hills Landfill. February 13.
SOMA Environmental Engineering, Inc., 2012. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. SOMA Environmental Engineering, Inc., Pleasanton, California. August.
State Water Resources Board (SWRCB), 2013. GeoTracker Environmental Database. Accessed October 24. http://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/.
Stege Sanitary District, 2013. Sewer System Management Plan. October.
Stellar Environmental Solutions, 2000. Underground Fuel Storage Tank Closure, 5620 Central Avenue, Richmond, California. February 8.
United Stated Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS), 2013. GeoSpatial Data Gateway. Accessed October 29. http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/.
RICHMOND CENTRAL INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST APRIL 2014
116 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
United States Department of Labor. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 29.
United States Census Bureau, 2012. State and County QuickFacts. Last updated December
6. Accessed October 23, 2013. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html.
United States Census Bureau. 2012 Population Estimates.
United States Geological Survey, 2012. Earthquake Hazards Program; Soil Type and Shaking Hazard in the San Francisco Bay Area. Last updated July 24. Accessed October 28, 2013. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/nca/soiltype/.
West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority, 2013. “RecycleMore FAQ.” Accessed November 21. http://www.recyclemore.com/content/recyclemore-faq.
West Contra Costa Unified School District, 2013. Student Population Projections. SY 2012/2013.
Wischmeier, W.H. and D.D. Smith, 1978. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses. Agricultural handbook 537. United State Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Research Service, Washington, DC.
APPENDIX A:
CalEEMod Report
Co
ntr
a C
ost
a C
ou
nty
, An
nu
al
Ric
hm
on
d C
entr
al
1.1
Lan
d U
sag
e
Land
Use
sS
ize
Met
ricLo
t Acr
eage
Flo
or S
urfa
ce A
rea
Pop
ulat
ion
Apa
rtm
ents
Mid
Ris
e16
5.00
Dw
ellin
g U
nit
4.34
165,
000.
0047
2
1.2
Oth
er P
roje
ct C
har
acte
rist
ics
Urb
aniz
atio
n
Clim
ate
Zo
ne
Urb
an
5
Win
d S
pee
d (
m/s
)P
reci
pit
atio
n F
req
(D
ays)
2.2
58
1.3
Use
r E
nte
red
Co
mm
ents
& N
on
-Def
ault
Dat
a
1.0
Pro
ject
Ch
arac
teri
stic
s
Uti
lity
Co
mp
any
Pac
ific
Gas
& E
lect
ric C
ompa
ny
2014
Op
erat
ion
al Y
ear
CO
2 In
ten
sity
(l
b/M
Wh
r)64
1.35
0.02
9C
H4
Inte
nsi
ty
(lb
/MW
hr)
0.00
6N
2O In
ten
sity
(l
b/M
Wh
r)
Cal
EE
Mod
Ver
sion
: Cal
EE
Mod
.201
3.2.
2D
ate:
11/
22/2
013
1:30
PM
Pag
e 1
of 2
6
Pro
ject
Cha
ract
eris
tics
-
Land
Use
-
Con
stru
ctio
n P
hase
- N
o de
mol
ition
or
Site
Pre
para
tion
(veg
etat
ion
rem
oval
) re
quire
d, b
ecau
se th
e lo
t us
vaca
nt.
Def
ault
grad
ing
redu
ced
from
8 to
2 w
eeks
, bec
ause
the
lot h
as p
revi
ousl
y be
en g
rade
d.
Trip
s an
d V
MT
-
Dem
oliti
on -
Gra
ding
- A
ssum
ed th
at n
o m
ater
ials
impo
rted
or
expo
rted
for
grad
ing.
T
otal
acr
es =
1.7
Arc
hite
ctur
al C
oatin
g -
Acc
ordi
ng to
the
Dis
tric
t's C
ompl
ianc
e A
dvis
ory
on 1
5 F
ebru
ary
2011
, the
max
imiu
m V
OC
con
tent
for
flat c
oatin
gs is
50
g/L.
The
ext
erio
r V
OC
con
cent
was
left
at th
e de
faul
t 150
ug/
L, w
hich
cor
resp
onds
to th
e th
resh
old
limit
for
nonf
lat-
high
glo
ss c
oatin
gs.
Veh
icle
Trip
s -
Upd
ated
trip
rat
e ba
sed
on F
ehr
Pee
rs (
2013
) A
dden
dum
to th
e C
entr
al A
venu
e R
esid
entia
l Tra
npor
tatio
n Im
pact
Ass
essm
ent:
WkD
y T
rip =
920
/170
units
/day
= 5
.41/
day
Woo
dsto
ves
- N
o w
oods
tove
s or
fire
plac
es e
xpec
ted,
all
valu
es c
hang
ed to
zer
o.
Are
a C
oatin
g -
Acc
ordi
ng to
the
Dis
tric
t's C
ompl
ianc
e A
dvis
ory
on 1
5 F
ebru
ary
2011
, the
max
imiu
m V
OC
con
tent
for
flat c
oatin
gs is
50
g/L.
The
ext
erio
r V
OC
co
ncen
t was
left
at th
e de
faul
t 150
ug/
L, w
hich
cor
resp
onds
to th
e th
resh
old
limit
for
nonf
lat-
high
glo
ss c
oatin
gs.
Wat
er A
nd W
aste
wat
er -
EB
MU
D s
ervi
ces
the
proj
ect s
ite, a
nd a
pplie
s 10
0% a
erob
ic p
roce
ss a
nd 1
00%
cog
ener
atio
n.
Con
stru
ctio
n O
ff-ro
ad E
quip
men
t Miti
gatio
n -
Cal
EE
Mod
Ver
sion
: Cal
EE
Mod
.201
3.2.
2D
ate:
11/
22/2
013
1:30
PM
Pag
e 2
of 2
6
2.0
Em
issi
on
s S
um
mar
y
Tab
le N
ame
Col
umn
Nam
eD
efau
lt V
alue
New
Val
ue
tblA
rchi
tect
ural
Coa
ting
EF
_Res
iden
tial_
Inte
rior
100.
0050
.00
tblC
onst
ruct
ionP
hase
Num
Day
s20
.00
0.00
tblC
onst
ruct
ionP
hase
Num
Day
s8.
002.
00
tblC
onst
ruct
ionP
hase
Num
Day
s5.
000.
00
tblC
onst
ruct
ionP
hase
Pha
seE
ndD
ate
12/1
8/20
1412
/25/
2014
tblC
onst
ruct
ionP
hase
Pha
seE
ndD
ate
1/2/
2014
1/30
/201
4
tblC
onst
ruct
ionP
hase
Pha
seE
ndD
ate
1/20
/201
51/
28/2
015
tblC
onst
ruct
ionP
hase
Pha
seS
tart
Dat
e1/
31/2
014
2/7/
2014
tblC
onst
ruct
ionP
hase
Pha
seS
tart
Dat
e1/
1/20
141/
29/2
014
tblC
onst
ruct
ionP
hase
Pha
seS
tart
Dat
e12
/26/
2014
1/3/
2015
tblF
irepl
aces
Num
berG
as90
.75
0.00
tblF
irepl
aces
Num
berN
oFire
plac
e51
.15
0.00
tblF
irepl
aces
Num
berW
ood
23.1
00.
00
tblG
radi
ngA
cres
OfG
radi
ng1.
001.
70
tblV
ehic
leT
rips
WD
_TR
6.59
5.41
tblW
ater
Aer
obic
Per
cent
87.4
610
0.00
tblW
ater
Ana
Dig
estC
ogen
Com
bDig
estG
asP
erce
nt0.
0010
0.00
tblW
ater
Ana
Dig
estC
ombD
iges
tGas
Per
cent
100.
000.
00
tblW
ater
Ana
erob
ican
dFac
ulta
tiveL
agoo
nsP
erce
nt2.
210.
00
tblW
ater
Sep
ticT
ankP
erce
nt10
.33
0.00
tblW
oods
tove
sN
umbe
rCat
alyt
ic0.
830.
00
tblW
oods
tove
sN
umbe
rNon
cata
lytic
0.83
0.00
Cal
EE
Mod
Ver
sion
: Cal
EE
Mod
.201
3.2.
2D
ate:
11/
22/2
013
1:30
PM
Pag
e 3
of 2
6
2.1
Ove
rall
Co
nst
ruct
ion
RO
GN
Ox
CO
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M10
T
otal
Fug
itive
P
M2.
5E
xhau
st
PM
2.5
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Yea
rto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
2014
0.54
684.
0078
3.48
245.
0900
e-00
30.
1450
0.26
500.
4100
0.04
040.
2493
0.28
970.
0000
451.
8110
451.
8110
0.08
070.
0000
453.
5064
2015
0.79
730.
2083
0.15
522.
4000
e-00
43.
6100
e-00
30.
0130
0.01
669.
6000
e-00
40.
0122
0.01
310.
0000
21.3
560
21.3
560
5.06
00e-
003
0.00
0021
.462
3
To
tal
1.34
414.
2162
3.63
765.
3300
e-00
30.
1486
0.27
810.
4267
0.04
140.
2615
0.30
280.
0000
473.
1670
473.
1670
0.08
580.
0000
474.
9687
Un
mit
igat
ed C
on
stru
ctio
n
RO
GN
Ox
CO
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M10
T
otal
Fug
itive
P
M2.
5E
xhau
st
PM
2.5
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Yea
rto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
2014
0.54
684.
0078
3.48
245.
0900
e-00
30.
1412
0.26
500.
4062
0.03
850.
2493
0.28
780.
0000
451.
8107
451.
8107
0.08
070.
0000
453.
5061
2015
0.79
730.
2083
0.15
522.
4000
e-00
43.
6100
e-00
30.
0130
0.01
669.
6000
e-00
40.
0122
0.01
310.
0000
21.3
560
21.3
560
5.06
00e-
003
0.00
0021
.462
3
To
tal
1.34
414.
2162
3.63
765.
3300
e-00
30.
1448
0.27
810.
4228
0.03
950.
2614
0.30
090.
0000
473.
1667
473.
1667
0.08
580.
0000
474.
9683
Mit
igat
ed C
on
stru
ctio
n
RO
GN
Ox
CO
SO
2F
ug
itiv
e P
M10
Exh
aust
P
M10
PM
10
To
tal
Fu
git
ive
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5P
M2.
5 T
ota
lB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
-CO
2T
ota
l CO
2C
H4
N20
CO
2e
Per
cen
t R
edu
ctio
n0.
000.
000.
000.
002.
560.
000.
894.
550.
000.
620.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
00
Cal
EE
Mod
Ver
sion
: Cal
EE
Mod
.201
3.2.
2D
ate:
11/
22/2
013
1:30
PM
Pag
e 4
of 2
6
2.2
Ove
rall
Op
erat
ion
al
RO
GN
Ox
CO
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M10
T
otal
Fug
itive
P
M2.
5E
xhau
st
PM
2.5
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
Are
a0.
8015
0.01
491.
2551
6.00
00e-
005
6.66
00e-
003
6.66
00e-
003
6.66
00e-
003
6.66
00e-
003
0.00
002.
0013
2.00
132.
1300
e-00
30.
0000
2.04
61
Ene
rgy
7.88
00e-
003
0.06
730.
0286
4.30
00e-
004
5.44
00e-
003
5.44
00e-
003
5.44
00e-
003
5.44
00e-
003
0.00
0025
1.49
5025
1.49
509.
3400
e-00
33.
0500
e-00
325
2.63
75
Mob
ile0.
7244
1.57
007.
4130
0.01
120.
7887
0.02
100.
8096
0.21
120.
0192
0.23
040.
0000
933.
3546
933.
3546
0.04
860.
0000
934.
3752
Was
te0.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
0015
.407
00.
0000
15.4
070
0.91
050.
0000
34.5
281
Wat
er0.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
003.
8035
22.2
470
26.0
505
0.01
418.
4800
e-00
328
.975
2
To
tal
1.53
381.
6522
8.69
670.
0117
0.78
870.
0331
0.82
170.
2112
0.03
130.
2425
19.2
105
1,20
9.09
79
1,22
8.30
84
0.98
470.
0115
1,25
2.56
21
Un
mit
igat
ed O
per
atio
nal
Cal
EE
Mod
Ver
sion
: Cal
EE
Mod
.201
3.2.
2D
ate:
11/
22/2
013
1:30
PM
Pag
e 5
of 2
6
2.2
Ove
rall
Op
erat
ion
al
RO
GN
Ox
CO
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M10
T
otal
Fug
itive
P
M2.
5E
xhau
st
PM
2.5
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
Are
a0.
8015
0.01
491.
2551
6.00
00e-
005
6.66
00e-
003
6.66
00e-
003
6.66
00e-
003
6.66
00e-
003
0.00
002.
0013
2.00
132.
1300
e-00
30.
0000
2.04
61
Ene
rgy
7.88
00e-
003
0.06
730.
0286
4.30
00e-
004
5.44
00e-
003
5.44
00e-
003
5.44
00e-
003
5.44
00e-
003
0.00
0025
1.49
5025
1.49
509.
3400
e-00
33.
0500
e-00
325
2.63
75
Mob
ile0.
7244
1.57
007.
4130
0.01
120.
7887
0.02
100.
8096
0.21
120.
0192
0.23
040.
0000
933.
3546
933.
3546
0.04
860.
0000
934.
3752
Was
te0.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
0015
.407
00.
0000
15.4
070
0.91
050.
0000
34.5
281
Wat
er0.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
003.
8035
22.2
470
26.0
505
0.01
428.
4900
e-00
328
.981
2
To
tal
1.53
381.
6522
8.69
670.
0117
0.78
870.
0331
0.82
170.
2112
0.03
130.
2425
19.2
105
1,20
9.09
79
1,22
8.30
84
0.98
480.
0115
1,25
2.56
82
Mit
igat
ed O
per
atio
nal
3.0
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Det
ail
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Ph
ase
RO
GN
Ox
CO
SO
2F
ug
itiv
e P
M10
Exh
aust
P
M10
PM
10
To
tal
Fu
git
ive
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5P
M2.
5 T
ota
lB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
-CO
2T
ota
l CO
2C
H4
N20
CO
2e
Per
cen
t R
edu
ctio
n0.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
000.
00-0
.01
-0.0
90.
00
Cal
EE
Mod
Ver
sion
: Cal
EE
Mod
.201
3.2.
2D
ate:
11/
22/2
013
1:30
PM
Pag
e 6
of 2
6
Pha
se
Num
ber
Pha
se N
ame
Pha
se T
ype
Sta
rt D
ate
End
Dat
eN
um D
ays
Wee
kN
um D
ays
Pha
se D
escr
iptio
n
1D
emol
ition
Dem
oliti
on1/
1/20
1412
/31/
2013
50
2S
ite P
repa
ratio
nS
ite P
repa
ratio
n1/
1/20
1412
/31/
2013
50
3G
radi
ngG
radi
ng1/
29/2
014
1/30
/201
45
2
4B
uild
ing
Con
stru
ctio
nB
uild
ing
Con
stru
ctio
n2/
7/20
1412
/25/
2014
523
0
5P
avin
gP
avin
g1/
3/20
151/
28/2
015
518
6A
rchi
tect
ural
Coa
ting
Arc
hite
ctur
al C
oatin
g1/
29/2
015
2/23
/201
55
18
Off
Ro
ad E
qu
ipm
ent
Res
iden
tial
Ind
oo
r: 3
34,1
25;
Res
iden
tial
Ou
tdo
or:
111
,375
; N
on
-Res
iden
tial
Ind
oo
r: 0
; N
on
-Res
iden
tial
Ou
tdo
or:
0 (
Arc
hit
ectu
ral C
oat
ing
–
sqft
)
Acr
es o
f G
rad
ing
(S
ite
Pre
par
atio
n P
has
e):
0
Acr
es o
f G
rad
ing
(G
rad
ing
Ph
ase)
: 1.
7
Acr
es o
f P
avin
g:
0
Cal
EE
Mod
Ver
sion
: Cal
EE
Mod
.201
3.2.
2D
ate:
11/
22/2
013
1:30
PM
Pag
e 7
of 2
6
Pha
se N
ame
Offr
oad
Equ
ipm
ent T
ype
Am
ount
Usa
ge H
ours
Hor
se P
ower
Load
Fac
tor
Dem
oliti
onC
oncr
ete/
Indu
stria
l Saw
s1
8.00
810.
73
Dem
oliti
onE
xcav
ator
s3
8.00
162
0.38
Dem
oliti
onR
ubbe
r T
ired
Doz
ers
28.
0025
50.
40
Site
Pre
para
tion
Rub
ber
Tire
d D
ozer
s3
8.00
255
0.40
Site
Pre
para
tion
Tra
ctor
s/Lo
ader
s/B
ackh
oes
48.
0097
0.37
Gra
ding
Exc
avat
ors
18.
0016
20.
38
Gra
ding
Gra
ders
18.
0017
40.
41
Gra
ding
Rub
ber
Tire
d D
ozer
s1
8.00
255
0.40
Gra
ding
Tra
ctor
s/Lo
ader
s/B
ackh
oes
38.
0097
0.37
Bui
ldin
g C
onst
ruct
ion
Cra
nes
17.
0022
60.
29
Bui
ldin
g C
onst
ruct
ion
For
klift
s3
8.00
890.
20
Bui
ldin
g C
onst
ruct
ion
Gen
erat
or S
ets
18.
0084
0.74
Bui
ldin
g C
onst
ruct
ion
Tra
ctor
s/Lo
ader
s/B
ackh
oes
37.
0097
0.37
Bui
ldin
g C
onst
ruct
ion
Wel
ders
18.
0046
0.45
Pav
ing
Cem
ent a
nd M
orta
r M
ixer
s2
6.00
90.
56
Pav
ing
Pav
ers
18.
0012
50.
42
Pav
ing
Pav
ing
Equ
ipm
ent
26.
0013
00.
36
Pav
ing
Rol
lers
26.
0080
0.38
Pav
ing
Tra
ctor
s/Lo
ader
s/B
ackh
oes
18.
0097
0.37
Arc
hite
ctur
al C
oatin
gA
ir C
ompr
esso
rs1
6.00
780.
48
Tri
ps
and
VM
T
Cal
EE
Mod
Ver
sion
: Cal
EE
Mod
.201
3.2.
2D
ate:
11/
22/2
013
1:30
PM
Pag
e 8
of 2
6
3.4
Gra
din
g -
201
4
RO
GN
Ox
CO
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M10
T
otal
Fug
itive
P
M2.
5E
xhau
st
PM
2.5
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
Fug
itive
Dus
t6.
9200
e-00
30.
0000
6.92
00e-
003
3.41
00e-
003
0.00
003.
4100
e-00
30.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Off-
Roa
d3.
8700
e-00
30.
0411
0.02
683.
0000
e-00
52.
3700
e-00
32.
3700
e-00
32.
1800
e-00
32.
1800
e-00
30.
0000
2.86
892.
8689
8.50
00e-
004
0.00
002.
8867
To
tal
3.87
00e-
003
0.04
110.
0268
3.00
00e-
005
6.92
00e-
003
2.37
00e-
003
9.29
00e-
003
3.41
00e-
003
2.18
00e-
003
5.59
00e-
003
0.00
002.
8689
2.86
898.
5000
e-00
40.
0000
2.88
67
Un
mit
igat
ed C
on
stru
ctio
n O
n-S
ite
3.1
Mit
igat
ion
Mea
sure
s C
on
stru
ctio
n
Wat
er E
xpos
ed A
rea
Red
uce
Veh
icle
Spe
ed o
n U
npav
ed R
oads
Pha
se N
ame
Offr
oad
Equ
ipm
ent
Cou
ntW
orke
r T
rip
Num
ber
Ven
dor
Trip
N
umbe
rH
aulin
g T
rip
Num
ber
Wor
ker
Trip
Le
ngth
Ven
dor
Trip
Le
ngth
Hau
ling
Trip
Le
ngth
Wor
ker
Veh
icle
C
lass
Ven
dor
Veh
icle
Cla
ssH
aulin
g V
ehic
le C
lass
Dem
oliti
on6
15.0
00.
000.
0012
.40
7.30
20.0
0LD
_Mix
HD
T_M
ixH
HD
T
Site
Pre
para
tion
718
.00
0.00
0.00
12.4
07.
3020
.00
LD_M
ixH
DT
_Mix
HH
DT
Gra
ding
615
.00
0.00
0.00
12.4
07.
3020
.00
LD_M
ixH
DT
_Mix
HH
DT
Bui
ldin
g C
onst
ruct
ion
911
9.00
18.0
00.
0012
.40
7.30
20.0
0LD
_Mix
HD
T_M
ixH
HD
T
Pav
ing
820
.00
0.00
0.00
12.4
07.
3020
.00
LD_M
ixH
DT
_Mix
HH
DT
Arc
hite
ctur
al C
oatin
g1
24.0
00.
000.
0012
.40
7.30
20.0
0LD
_Mix
HD
T_M
ixH
HD
T
Cal
EE
Mod
Ver
sion
: Cal
EE
Mod
.201
3.2.
2D
ate:
11/
22/2
013
1:30
PM
Pag
e 9
of 2
6
3.4
Gra
din
g -
201
4
RO
GN
Ox
CO
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M10
T
otal
Fug
itive
P
M2.
5E
xhau
st
PM
2.5
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Wor
ker
7.00
00e-
005
1.00
00e-
004
1.02
00e-
003
0.00
001.
4000
e-00
40.
0000
1.40
00e-
004
4.00
00e-
005
0.00
004.
0000
e-00
50.
0000
0.13
200.
1320
1.00
00e-
005
0.00
000.
1322
To
tal
7.00
00e-
005
1.00
00e-
004
1.02
00e-
003
0.00
001.
4000
e-00
40.
0000
1.40
00e-
004
4.00
00e-
005
0.00
004.
0000
e-00
50.
0000
0.13
200.
1320
1.00
00e-
005
0.00
000.
1322
Un
mit
igat
ed C
on
stru
ctio
n O
ff-S
ite
RO
GN
Ox
CO
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M10
T
otal
Fug
itive
P
M2.
5E
xhau
st
PM
2.5
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
Fug
itive
Dus
t3.
1200
e-00
30.
0000
3.12
00e-
003
1.53
00e-
003
0.00
001.
5300
e-00
30.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Off-
Roa
d3.
8700
e-00
30.
0411
0.02
683.
0000
e-00
52.
3700
e-00
32.
3700
e-00
32.
1800
e-00
32.
1800
e-00
30.
0000
2.86
892.
8689
8.50
00e-
004
0.00
002.
8867
To
tal
3.87
00e-
003
0.04
110.
0268
3.00
00e-
005
3.12
00e-
003
2.37
00e-
003
5.49
00e-
003
1.53
00e-
003
2.18
00e-
003
3.71
00e-
003
0.00
002.
8689
2.86
898.
5000
e-00
40.
0000
2.88
67
Mit
igat
ed C
on
stru
ctio
n O
n-S
ite
Cal
EE
Mod
Ver
sion
: Cal
EE
Mod
.201
3.2.
2D
ate:
11/
22/2
013
1:30
PM
Pag
e 10
of 2
6
3.4
Gra
din
g -
201
4
RO
GN
Ox
CO
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M10
T
otal
Fug
itive
P
M2.
5E
xhau
st
PM
2.5
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Wor
ker
7.00
00e-
005
1.00
00e-
004
1.02
00e-
003
0.00
001.
4000
e-00
40.
0000
1.40
00e-
004
4.00
00e-
005
0.00
004.
0000
e-00
50.
0000
0.13
200.
1320
1.00
00e-
005
0.00
000.
1322
To
tal
7.00
00e-
005
1.00
00e-
004
1.02
00e-
003
0.00
001.
4000
e-00
40.
0000
1.40
00e-
004
4.00
00e-
005
0.00
004.
0000
e-00
50.
0000
0.13
200.
1320
1.00
00e-
005
0.00
000.
1322
Mit
igat
ed C
on
stru
ctio
n O
ff-S
ite
3.5
Bu
ildin
g C
on
stru
ctio
n -
201
4
RO
GN
Ox
CO
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M10
T
otal
Fug
itive
P
M2.
5E
xhau
st
PM
2.5
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
Off-
Roa
d0.
4448
3.59
422.
1769
3.09
00e-
003
0.25
620.
2562
0.24
120.
2412
0.00
0028
2.64
0328
2.64
030.
0719
0.00
0028
4.14
95
To
tal
0.44
483.
5942
2.17
693.
0900
e-00
30.
2562
0.25
620.
2412
0.24
120.
0000
282.
6403
282.
6403
0.07
190.
0000
284.
1495
Un
mit
igat
ed C
on
stru
ctio
n O
n-S
ite
Cal
EE
Mod
Ver
sion
: Cal
EE
Mod
.201
3.2.
2D
ate:
11/
22/2
013
1:30
PM
Pag
e 11
of 2
6
3.5
Bu
ildin
g C
on
stru
ctio
n -
201
4
RO
GN
Ox
CO
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M10
T
otal
Fug
itive
P
M2.
5E
xhau
st
PM
2.5
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
0.03
310.
2778
0.34
574.
9000
e-00
40.
0133
5.27
00e-
003
0.01
863.
8200
e-00
34.
8400
e-00
38.
6600
e-00
30.
0000
45.7
134
45.7
134
4.80
00e-
004
0.00
0045
.723
4
Wor
ker
0.06
500.
0947
0.93
201.
4800
e-00
30.
1246
1.16
00e-
003
0.12
580.
0331
1.06
00e-
003
0.03
420.
0000
120.
4564
120.
4564
7.53
00e-
003
0.00
0012
0.61
46
To
tal
0.09
810.
3725
1.27
771.
9700
e-00
30.
1379
6.43
00e-
003
0.14
440.
0370
5.90
00e-
003
0.04
290.
0000
166.
1697
166.
1697
8.01
00e-
003
0.00
0016
6.33
79
Un
mit
igat
ed C
on
stru
ctio
n O
ff-S
ite
RO
GN
Ox
CO
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M10
T
otal
Fug
itive
P
M2.
5E
xhau
st
PM
2.5
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
Off-
Roa
d0.
4448
3.59
422.
1769
3.09
00e-
003
0.25
620.
2562
0.24
120.
2412
0.00
0028
2.64
0028
2.64
000.
0719
0.00
0028
4.14
92
To
tal
0.44
483.
5942
2.17
693.
0900
e-00
30.
2562
0.25
620.
2412
0.24
120.
0000
282.
6400
282.
6400
0.07
190.
0000
284.
1492
Mit
igat
ed C
on
stru
ctio
n O
n-S
ite
Cal
EE
Mod
Ver
sion
: Cal
EE
Mod
.201
3.2.
2D
ate:
11/
22/2
013
1:30
PM
Pag
e 12
of 2
6
3.5
Bu
ildin
g C
on
stru
ctio
n -
201
4
RO
GN
Ox
CO
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M10
T
otal
Fug
itive
P
M2.
5E
xhau
st
PM
2.5
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
0.03
310.
2778
0.34
574.
9000
e-00
40.
0133
5.27
00e-
003
0.01
863.
8200
e-00
34.
8400
e-00
38.
6600
e-00
30.
0000
45.7
134
45.7
134
4.80
00e-
004
0.00
0045
.723
4
Wor
ker
0.06
500.
0947
0.93
201.
4800
e-00
30.
1246
1.16
00e-
003
0.12
580.
0331
1.06
00e-
003
0.03
420.
0000
120.
4564
120.
4564
7.53
00e-
003
0.00
0012
0.61
46
To
tal
0.09
810.
3725
1.27
771.
9700
e-00
30.
1379
6.43
00e-
003
0.14
440.
0370
5.90
00e-
003
0.04
290.
0000
166.
1697
166.
1697
8.01
00e-
003
0.00
0016
6.33
79
Mit
igat
ed C
on
stru
ctio
n O
ff-S
ite
3.6
Pav
ing
- 2
015
RO
GN
Ox
CO
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M10
T
otal
Fug
itive
P
M2.
5E
xhau
st
PM
2.5
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
Off-
Roa
d0.
0176
0.18
280.
1141
1.70
00e-
004
0.01
100.
0110
0.01
020.
0102
0.00
0015
.686
815
.686
84.
5600
e-00
30.
0000
15.7
827
Pav
ing
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
To
tal
0.01
760.
1828
0.11
411.
7000
e-00
40.
0110
0.01
100.
0102
0.01
020.
0000
15.6
868
15.6
868
4.56
00e-
003
0.00
0015
.782
7
Un
mit
igat
ed C
on
stru
ctio
n O
n-S
ite
Cal
EE
Mod
Ver
sion
: Cal
EE
Mod
.201
3.2.
2D
ate:
11/
22/2
013
1:30
PM
Pag
e 13
of 2
6
3.6
Pav
ing
- 2
015
RO
GN
Ox
CO
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M10
T
otal
Fug
itive
P
M2.
5E
xhau
st
PM
2.5
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Wor
ker
7.60
00e-
004
1.11
00e-
003
0.01
092.
0000
e-00
51.
6400
e-00
31.
0000
e-00
51.
6500
e-00
34.
4000
e-00
41.
0000
e-00
54.
5000
e-00
40.
0000
1.53
241.
5324
9.00
00e-
005
0.00
001.
5343
To
tal
7.60
00e-
004
1.11
00e-
003
0.01
092.
0000
e-00
51.
6400
e-00
31.
0000
e-00
51.
6500
e-00
34.
4000
e-00
41.
0000
e-00
54.
5000
e-00
40.
0000
1.53
241.
5324
9.00
00e-
005
0.00
001.
5343
Un
mit
igat
ed C
on
stru
ctio
n O
ff-S
ite
RO
GN
Ox
CO
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M10
T
otal
Fug
itive
P
M2.
5E
xhau
st
PM
2.5
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
Off-
Roa
d0.
0176
0.18
280.
1141
1.70
00e-
004
0.01
100.
0110
0.01
020.
0102
0.00
0015
.686
815
.686
84.
5600
e-00
30.
0000
15.7
826
Pav
ing
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
To
tal
0.01
760.
1828
0.11
411.
7000
e-00
40.
0110
0.01
100.
0102
0.01
020.
0000
15.6
868
15.6
868
4.56
00e-
003
0.00
0015
.782
6
Mit
igat
ed C
on
stru
ctio
n O
n-S
ite
Cal
EE
Mod
Ver
sion
: Cal
EE
Mod
.201
3.2.
2D
ate:
11/
22/2
013
1:30
PM
Pag
e 14
of 2
6
3.6
Pav
ing
- 2
015
RO
GN
Ox
CO
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M10
T
otal
Fug
itive
P
M2.
5E
xhau
st
PM
2.5
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Wor
ker
7.60
00e-
004
1.11
00e-
003
0.01
092.
0000
e-00
51.
6400
e-00
31.
0000
e-00
51.
6500
e-00
34.
4000
e-00
41.
0000
e-00
54.
5000
e-00
40.
0000
1.53
241.
5324
9.00
00e-
005
0.00
001.
5343
To
tal
7.60
00e-
004
1.11
00e-
003
0.01
092.
0000
e-00
51.
6400
e-00
31.
0000
e-00
51.
6500
e-00
34.
4000
e-00
41.
0000
e-00
54.
5000
e-00
40.
0000
1.53
241.
5324
9.00
00e-
005
0.00
001.
5343
Mit
igat
ed C
on
stru
ctio
n O
ff-S
ite
3.7
Arc
hit
ectu
ral C
oat
ing
- 2
015
RO
GN
Ox
CO
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M10
T
otal
Fug
itive
P
M2.
5E
xhau
st
PM
2.5
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
Arc
hit.
Coa
ting
0.77
430.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Off-
Roa
d3.
6600
e-00
30.
0231
0.01
713.
0000
e-00
51.
9900
e-00
31.
9900
e-00
31.
9900
e-00
31.
9900
e-00
30.
0000
2.29
792.
2979
3.00
00e-
004
0.00
002.
3042
To
tal
0.77
800.
0231
0.01
713.
0000
e-00
51.
9900
e-00
31.
9900
e-00
31.
9900
e-00
31.
9900
e-00
30.
0000
2.29
792.
2979
3.00
00e-
004
0.00
002.
3042
Un
mit
igat
ed C
on
stru
ctio
n O
n-S
ite
Cal
EE
Mod
Ver
sion
: Cal
EE
Mod
.201
3.2.
2D
ate:
11/
22/2
013
1:30
PM
Pag
e 15
of 2
6
3.7
Arc
hit
ectu
ral C
oat
ing
- 2
015
RO
GN
Ox
CO
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M10
T
otal
Fug
itive
P
M2.
5E
xhau
st
PM
2.5
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Wor
ker
9.10
00e-
004
1.33
00e-
003
0.01
312.
0000
e-00
51.
9700
e-00
32.
0000
e-00
51.
9800
e-00
35.
2000
e-00
42.
0000
e-00
55.
4000
e-00
40.
0000
1.83
891.
8389
1.10
00e-
004
0.00
001.
8411
To
tal
9.10
00e-
004
1.33
00e-
003
0.01
312.
0000
e-00
51.
9700
e-00
32.
0000
e-00
51.
9800
e-00
35.
2000
e-00
42.
0000
e-00
55.
4000
e-00
40.
0000
1.83
891.
8389
1.10
00e-
004
0.00
001.
8411
Un
mit
igat
ed C
on
stru
ctio
n O
ff-S
ite
RO
GN
Ox
CO
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M10
T
otal
Fug
itive
P
M2.
5E
xhau
st
PM
2.5
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
Arc
hit.
Coa
ting
0.77
430.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Off-
Roa
d3.
6600
e-00
30.
0231
0.01
713.
0000
e-00
51.
9900
e-00
31.
9900
e-00
31.
9900
e-00
31.
9900
e-00
30.
0000
2.29
792.
2979
3.00
00e-
004
0.00
002.
3042
To
tal
0.77
800.
0231
0.01
713.
0000
e-00
51.
9900
e-00
31.
9900
e-00
31.
9900
e-00
31.
9900
e-00
30.
0000
2.29
792.
2979
3.00
00e-
004
0.00
002.
3042
Mit
igat
ed C
on
stru
ctio
n O
n-S
ite
Cal
EE
Mod
Ver
sion
: Cal
EE
Mod
.201
3.2.
2D
ate:
11/
22/2
013
1:30
PM
Pag
e 16
of 2
6
4.0
Op
erat
ion
al D
etai
l - M
ob
ile
RO
GN
Ox
CO
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M10
T
otal
Fug
itive
P
M2.
5E
xhau
st
PM
2.5
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
Miti
gate
d0.
7244
1.57
007.
4130
0.01
120.
7887
0.02
100.
8096
0.21
120.
0192
0.23
040.
0000
933.
3546
933.
3546
0.04
860.
0000
934.
3752
Unm
itiga
ted
0.72
441.
5700
7.41
300.
0112
0.78
870.
0210
0.80
960.
2112
0.01
920.
2304
0.00
0093
3.35
4693
3.35
460.
0486
0.00
0093
4.37
52
4.1
Mit
igat
ion
Mea
sure
s M
ob
ile
3.7
Arc
hit
ectu
ral C
oat
ing
- 2
015
RO
GN
Ox
CO
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M10
T
otal
Fug
itive
P
M2.
5E
xhau
st
PM
2.5
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
Hau
ling
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Ven
dor
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Wor
ker
9.10
00e-
004
1.33
00e-
003
0.01
312.
0000
e-00
51.
9700
e-00
32.
0000
e-00
51.
9800
e-00
35.
2000
e-00
42.
0000
e-00
55.
4000
e-00
40.
0000
1.83
891.
8389
1.10
00e-
004
0.00
001.
8411
To
tal
9.10
00e-
004
1.33
00e-
003
0.01
312.
0000
e-00
51.
9700
e-00
32.
0000
e-00
51.
9800
e-00
35.
2000
e-00
42.
0000
e-00
55.
4000
e-00
40.
0000
1.83
891.
8389
1.10
00e-
004
0.00
001.
8411
Mit
igat
ed C
on
stru
ctio
n O
ff-S
ite
Cal
EE
Mod
Ver
sion
: Cal
EE
Mod
.201
3.2.
2D
ate:
11/
22/2
013
1:30
PM
Pag
e 17
of 2
6
4.2
Tri
p S
um
mar
y In
form
atio
n
4.3
Tri
p T
ype
Info
rmat
ion
Ave
rage
Dai
ly T
rip R
ate
Unm
itiga
ted
Miti
gate
d
Land
Use
Wee
kday
Sat
urda
yS
unda
yA
nnua
l VM
TA
nnua
l VM
T
Apa
rtm
ents
Mid
Ris
e89
2.65
1,18
1.40
1001
.55
2,11
9,53
62,
119,
536
Tot
al89
2.65
1,18
1.40
1,00
1.55
2,11
9,53
62,
119,
536
Mile
sT
rip %
Trip
Pur
pose
%
Land
Use
H-W
or
C-W
H-S
or
C-C
H-O
or
C-N
WH
-W o
r C
-WH
-S o
r C
-CH
-O o
r C
-NW
Prim
ary
Div
erte
dP
ass-
by
Apa
rtm
ents
Mid
Ris
e12
.40
4.30
5.40
26.1
029
.10
44.8
086
113
5.0
En
erg
y D
etai
l
5.1
Mit
igat
ion
Mea
sure
s E
ner
gy
4.4
Fle
et M
ix
LDA
LDT
1LD
T2
MD
VLH
D1
LHD
2M
HD
HH
DO
BU
SU
BU
SM
CY
SB
US
MH
0.52
6919
0.06
5238
0.17
6274
0.14
7663
0.03
6918
0.00
4962
0.00
9404
0.01
9426
0.00
1222
0.00
1497
0.00
6279
0.00
2142
0.00
2057
His
toric
al E
nerg
y U
se: N
Cal
EE
Mod
Ver
sion
: Cal
EE
Mod
.201
3.2.
2D
ate:
11/
22/2
013
1:30
PM
Pag
e 18
of 2
6
RO
GN
Ox
CO
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M10
T
otal
Fug
itive
P
M2.
5E
xhau
st
PM
2.5
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
Ele
ctric
ity
Miti
gate
d0.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
173.
5382
173.
5382
7.85
00e-
003
1.62
00e-
003
174.
2063
Ele
ctric
ity
Unm
itiga
ted
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
0017
3.53
8217
3.53
827.
8500
e-00
31.
6200
e-00
317
4.20
63
Nat
ural
Gas
M
itiga
ted
7.88
00e-
003
0.06
730.
0286
4.30
00e-
004
5.44
00e-
003
5.44
00e-
003
5.44
00e-
003
5.44
00e-
003
0.00
0077
.956
877
.956
81.
4900
e-00
31.
4300
e-00
378
.431
3
Nat
ural
Gas
U
nmiti
gate
d7.
8800
e-00
30.
0673
0.02
864.
3000
e-00
45.
4400
e-00
35.
4400
e-00
35.
4400
e-00
35.
4400
e-00
30.
0000
77.9
568
77.9
568
1.49
00e-
003
1.43
00e-
003
78.4
313
5.2
En
erg
y b
y L
and
Use
- N
atu
ralG
as
Nat
ural
Ga
s U
seR
OG
NO
xC
OS
O2
Fug
itive
P
M10
Exh
aust
P
M10
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5P
M2.
5 T
otal
Bio
- C
O2
NB
io-
CO
2T
otal
CO
2C
H4
N2O
CO
2e
Land
Use
kBT
U/y
rto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
Apa
rtm
ents
Mid
R
ise
1.46
086e
+00
67.
8800
e-00
30.
0673
0.02
864.
3000
e-00
45.
4400
e-00
35.
4400
e-00
35.
4400
e-00
35.
4400
e-00
30.
0000
77.9
568
77.9
568
1.49
00e-
003
1.43
00e-
003
78.4
313
To
tal
7.88
00e-
003
0.06
730.
0286
4.30
00e-
004
5.44
00e-
003
5.44
00e-
003
5.44
00e-
003
5.44
00e-
003
0.00
0077
.956
877
.956
81.
4900
e-00
31.
4300
e-00
378
.431
3
Un
mit
igat
ed
Cal
EE
Mod
Ver
sion
: Cal
EE
Mod
.201
3.2.
2D
ate:
11/
22/2
013
1:30
PM
Pag
e 19
of 2
6
5.2
En
erg
y b
y L
and
Use
- N
atu
ralG
as
Nat
ural
Ga
s U
seR
OG
NO
xC
OS
O2
Fug
itive
P
M10
Exh
aust
P
M10
PM
10
Tot
alF
ugiti
ve
PM
2.5
Exh
aust
P
M2.
5P
M2.
5 T
otal
Bio
- C
O2
NB
io-
CO
2T
otal
CO
2C
H4
N2O
CO
2e
Land
Use
kBT
U/y
rto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
Apa
rtm
ents
Mid
R
ise
1.46
086e
+00
67.
8800
e-00
30.
0673
0.02
864.
3000
e-00
45.
4400
e-00
35.
4400
e-00
35.
4400
e-00
35.
4400
e-00
30.
0000
77.9
568
77.9
568
1.49
00e-
003
1.43
00e-
003
78.4
313
To
tal
7.88
00e-
003
0.06
730.
0286
4.30
00e-
004
5.44
00e-
003
5.44
00e-
003
5.44
00e-
003
5.44
00e-
003
0.00
0077
.956
877
.956
81.
4900
e-00
31.
4300
e-00
378
.431
3
Mit
igat
ed
5.3
En
erg
y b
y L
and
Use
- E
lect
rici
ty
Ele
ctric
ity
Use
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Land
Use
kWh/
yrM
T/y
r
Apa
rtm
ents
Mid
R
ise
5965
3317
3.53
827.
8500
e-00
31.
6200
e-00
317
4.20
63
To
tal
173.
5382
7.85
00e-
003
1.62
00e-
003
174.
2063
Un
mit
igat
ed
Cal
EE
Mod
Ver
sion
: Cal
EE
Mod
.201
3.2.
2D
ate:
11/
22/2
013
1:30
PM
Pag
e 20
of 2
6
6.1
Mit
igat
ion
Mea
sure
s A
rea
6.0
Are
a D
etai
l
RO
GN
Ox
CO
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M10
T
otal
Fug
itive
P
M2.
5E
xhau
st
PM
2.5
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
Miti
gate
d0.
8015
0.01
491.
2551
6.00
00e-
005
6.66
00e-
003
6.66
00e-
003
6.66
00e-
003
6.66
00e-
003
0.00
002.
0013
2.00
132.
1300
e-00
30.
0000
2.04
61
Unm
itiga
ted
0.80
150.
0149
1.25
516.
0000
e-00
56.
6600
e-00
36.
6600
e-00
36.
6600
e-00
36.
6600
e-00
30.
0000
2.00
132.
0013
2.13
00e-
003
0.00
002.
0461
5.3
En
erg
y b
y L
and
Use
- E
lect
rici
ty
Ele
ctric
ity
Use
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Land
Use
kWh/
yrM
T/y
r
Apa
rtm
ents
Mid
R
ise
5965
3317
3.53
827.
8500
e-00
31.
6200
e-00
317
4.20
63
To
tal
173.
5382
7.85
00e-
003
1.62
00e-
003
174.
2063
Mit
igat
ed
Cal
EE
Mod
Ver
sion
: Cal
EE
Mod
.201
3.2.
2D
ate:
11/
22/2
013
1:30
PM
Pag
e 21
of 2
6
6.2
Are
a b
y S
ub
Cat
ego
ry
RO
GN
Ox
CO
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M10
T
otal
Fug
itive
P
M2.
5E
xhau
st
PM
2.5
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Sub
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
Arc
hite
ctur
al
Coa
ting
0.11
620.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
Con
sum
er
Pro
duct
s0.
6444
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Hea
rth
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Land
scap
ing
0.04
090.
0149
1.25
516.
0000
e-00
56.
6600
e-00
36.
6600
e-00
36.
6600
e-00
36.
6600
e-00
30.
0000
2.00
132.
0013
2.13
00e-
003
0.00
002.
0461
To
tal
0.80
150.
0149
1.25
516.
0000
e-00
56.
6600
e-00
36.
6600
e-00
36.
6600
e-00
36.
6600
e-00
30.
0000
2.00
132.
0013
2.13
00e-
003
0.00
002.
0461
Un
mit
igat
ed
Cal
EE
Mod
Ver
sion
: Cal
EE
Mod
.201
3.2.
2D
ate:
11/
22/2
013
1:30
PM
Pag
e 22
of 2
6
7.1
Mit
igat
ion
Mea
sure
s W
ater
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Cat
egor
yM
T/y
r
Miti
gate
d26
.050
50.
0142
8.49
00e-
003
28.9
812
Unm
itiga
ted
26.0
505
0.01
418.
4800
e-00
328
.975
2
7.0
Wat
er D
etai
l
6.2
Are
a b
y S
ub
Cat
ego
ry
RO
GN
Ox
CO
SO
2F
ugiti
ve
PM
10E
xhau
st
PM
10P
M10
T
otal
Fug
itive
P
M2.
5E
xhau
st
PM
2.5
PM
2.5
Tot
alB
io-
CO
2N
Bio
- C
O2
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Sub
Cat
egor
yto
ns/y
rM
T/y
r
Con
sum
er
Pro
duct
s0.
6444
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Hea
rth
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
Land
scap
ing
0.04
090.
0149
1.25
516.
0000
e-00
56.
6600
e-00
36.
6600
e-00
36.
6600
e-00
36.
6600
e-00
30.
0000
2.00
132.
0013
2.13
00e-
003
0.00
002.
0461
Arc
hite
ctur
al
Coa
ting
0.11
620.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
000.
0000
0.00
00
To
tal
0.80
150.
0149
1.25
516.
0000
e-00
56.
6600
e-00
36.
6600
e-00
36.
6600
e-00
36.
6600
e-00
30.
0000
2.00
132.
0013
2.13
00e-
003
0.00
002.
0461
Mit
igat
ed
Cal
EE
Mod
Ver
sion
: Cal
EE
Mod
.201
3.2.
2D
ate:
11/
22/2
013
1:30
PM
Pag
e 23
of 2
6
8.1
Mit
igat
ion
Mea
sure
s W
aste
7.2
Wat
er b
y L
and
Use
Indo
or/
Out
door
U
se
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Land
Use
Mga
lM
T/y
r
Apa
rtm
ents
Mid
R
ise
10.7
504
/ 6.
7774
426
.050
50.
0141
8.48
00e-
003
28.9
752
To
tal
26.0
505
0.01
418.
4800
e-00
328
.975
2
Un
mit
igat
ed
Indo
or/
Out
door
U
se
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
Land
Use
Mga
lM
T/y
r
Apa
rtm
ents
Mid
R
ise
10.7
504
/ 6.
7774
426
.050
50.
0142
8.49
00e-
003
28.9
812
To
tal
26.0
505
0.01
428.
4900
e-00
328
.981
2
Mit
igat
ed
8.0
Was
te D
etai
l
Cal
EE
Mod
Ver
sion
: Cal
EE
Mod
.201
3.2.
2D
ate:
11/
22/2
013
1:30
PM
Pag
e 24
of 2
6
Tot
al C
O2
CH
4N
2OC
O2e
MT
/yr
Miti
gate
d15
.407
00.
9105
0.00
0034
.528
1
Unm
itiga
ted
15.4
070
0.91
050.
0000
34.5
281
Cat
ego
ry/Y
ear
8.2
Was
te b
y L
and
Use
Was
te
Dis
pose
dT
otal
CO
2C
H4
N2O
CO
2e
Land
Use
tons
MT
/yr
Apa
rtm
ents
Mid
R
ise
75.9
15.4
070
0.91
050.
0000
34.5
281
To
tal
15.4
070
0.91
050.
0000
34.5
281
Un
mit
igat
ed
Cal
EE
Mod
Ver
sion
: Cal
EE
Mod
.201
3.2.
2D
ate:
11/
22/2
013
1:30
PM
Pag
e 25
of 2
6
10.0
Veg
etat
ion
8.2
Was
te b
y L
and
Use
Was
te
Dis
pose
dT
otal
CO
2C
H4
N2O
CO
2e
Land
Use
tons
MT
/yr
Apa
rtm
ents
Mid
R
ise
75.9
15.4
070
0.91
050.
0000
34.5
281
To
tal
15.4
070
0.91
050.
0000
34.5
281
Mit
igat
ed
9.0
Op
erat
ion
al O
ffro
ad
Equ
ipm
ent T
ype
Num
ber
Hou
rs/D
ayD
ays/
Yea
rH
orse
Pow
erLo
ad F
acto
rF
uel T
ype
Cal
EE
Mod
Ver
sion
: Cal
EE
Mod
.201
3.2.
2D
ate:
11/
22/2
013
1:30
PM
Pag
e 26
of 2
6