ECCL CEQA Comments (Final)

7/28/2019 ECCL CEQA Comments (Final)

1/19

Comments on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

1

July 11, 2013

Attention: Roy Miller, District Architect

Emery Unified School District

1275 61st Street

Emeryville, CA 94608

[email protected]

Introduction

The undersigned are Emeryville residents, parents and guardians of children who currently or will

attend the schools of the Emery Unified School District (EUSD), and individuals that own

property or are employed in Emeryville, collectively hereinafter Community Commenters. The

Community Commenters are concerned about the environmental impacts that will result from the

proposed Emeryville Center of Community Life and provide the comments below in the hope of

assisting the EUSD in planning a project that would have a less significant environmental impact.

The Community Commenters submit these comments in their individual capacities and not on

behalf of any organization or employer.

General Comments

The Community Commenters have two general concerns about the environmental impacts of the

EUSDs proposed project. First, the Community Commenters believe that the available facts

demonstrate that the proposed project will have significant environmental impacts that will not be

adequately mitigated by the proposed mitigation measures and that therefore the EUSD should

prepare a full Environmental Impact Report to address these impacts and to discuss feasible

alternatives.

Second the Community Commenters believe that the available facts demonstrate that the proposed

project is inconsistent with Emeryvilles General Plan in numerous ways that create significant

harmful environmental impacts. Considering all of the proposed projects aspects, it will not further

the objectives and policies of Emeryvilles General Plan, but will instead obstruct their attainment.

This is not a case where the proposed project fails to conform with one or two aspects of

Emeryvilles General Plan, but rather, as proposed, the project is incompatible with numerous

objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in Emeryvilles General Plan that were

adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. Feasible alternatives to theproposed project should be considered that would not obstruct Emeryvilles General Plan objectives

and that would be consistent with Emeryvilles General Plan and specific plan policies.


2/19


2

Specific Comments

1. Aesthetics

Comment #1: The Community Commenters believe that the project may have a potentially

significant impact which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area because theproposed project creates new sources of substantial light or glare that are not adequately mitigated

by Mitigation Measures AES-1.

In particular, the proposed project includes six 80-foot tall lighting poles each equipped with six

1,500-watt lamp fixtures which would adversely affect residences on the north side of 53rd Street.

First, the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is inconsistent in its description of mitigation

measures that the EUSD will implement. On page 45 of the MND the EUSD says only that Musco

back visors can be installed to reduce off-site light trespass, but Mitigation Measures AES-1 does

not say that Musco back visors willbe used. Figure 15 contains a note suggesting Musco back visors

will be installed. If so, this should be specifically included when Mitigation Measures AES-1 are

detailed on page 56 of the MND.

Comment #2: Furthermore, the Community Commenters believe the proposed project creates new

sources of substantial light or glare that are not adequately mitigated by Mitigation Measures AES-1

because the Musco back visors only address spill light on the two lighting poles that are proposed to

the north of the sports fields and which would be aimed in a roughly southerly direction. Four of

the six proposed lighting poles are instead aimed in a roughly northerly direction, precisely in the

direction of the residences on 53rd Street. Thus, a back visor will not address the relevant spill light

from a majority of the lighting poles. In a full EIR the EUSD should consider feasible alternatives

such as relocating the proposed lighting poles to orient light from fewer of the poles in a northerly

direction, so as to minimize the impact on residences on 53rd Street.

Comment #3: Finally, the Community Commenters believe the proposed project creates new

sources of substantial light or glare that are not adequately mitigated by Mitigation Measures AES-1

because Table 7 and the subsequent discussion show that the EUSD is proposing a lighting system

that is not capable of producing as much light as IESNA (Illuminating Engineering Society of

North America) recommends for safe play on sports fields. On page 47, the MND reports that,

IESNA recommends an average level of 50 horizontal footcandles for football and soccer fields,

and 100 and 70 horizontal footcandles for safe play on a baseballs infield and outfield respectively.However, the EUSDs project proposal states that the proposed lamp fixtures would generate

averages of 30.6 footcandles for the football field, 31.0 footcandles for the soccer field, 20.19 for the

track, and 50.2 and 30.5 footcandles for the baseballs infield and outfield respectively. That is, the

EUSD is proposing a lighting system that IESNA would not recognize as one suitable for safe play

in either football, soccer, or baseball, each of which is a proposed use of the sports fields. This

suggests that at some point in the future when the inadequacy of the lighting for safe play is obvious,


3/19


3

perhaps after a student athlete is seriously injured, then the lighting will be increased to safe play

levels and the lighting will then certainly have a significant impact on the residences to the north on

53rd Street and possibly to the residences to the west in Emery Bay Village.

Figure 17b shows that under Scenario A, which is competitive athletic use, at least one portion of

the north side of 53rd street can expect 1.97 footcandles of spill light and another portion isexpected to receive 1.95 footcandles. These levels are so close to the 2.0 footcandle threshold that

any increase in the lighting during competitive athletic use would be almost certain to exceed that

threshold and have a significant unmitigated impact. Thus the EUSDs proposal sets in motion a

chain of events that will inevitably result in an unmitigated significant impact.

2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources

No comments.

3. Air Quality


significant impact which would violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an

existing or projected air quality violation which may not be adequately mitigated by Mitigation

Measure AIR-1.

On page 60, the MND states, ...the proposed project would not...substantially increase vehicle

miles traveled. This conclusory statement is not credible and unsupported by the evidence. The

MND states on page 60, ...the project is expected to generate a maximum of 450 peak hour trips.

This statement too is not supported with specific evidence. For a project, once completed, that

would be built to accommodate a maximum of 900 students and 90 teachers/staff (MND at p. 16)

and which would include structures for community and school multi-purpose rooms; an

administrative and community services building; a community and student library; classroom spaces

for K-12 students; a school gymnasium; and outdoor sports and recreation features, providing

services, a majority of which that previously were sited at other locations, should necessarily increase

vehicle miles traveled substantially and generate a maximum of peak hour trips far in excess of 450,

which in turn would result in reduced air quality.

Mitigation Measure AIR-1 implements only construction practices during construction of theproject and therefore is completely ineffective at mitigating potential substantial impacts from

operational emissions.

The MND at Table 11 provides project emission estimates without any explanation of the numbers

assumed or the sources of emissions considered. Appendix B also sheds no light on the justification


4/19


4

of the assumptions used, the method of analysis undertaken, or explanation of any calculations

whatsoever. Instead the MND simply provides numbers in boxes without any justification.

4. Biological Resources

Comment #5: The Community Commenters believe that the project may have a potentiallysignificant impact which would have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat

modifications, on at least two 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 and that would not be mitigated.

The MND at page 66 states, No protected species are known to occur within the project site.

However, Canada Geese (the Aleutian Cackling Goose) are a federally protected migratory bird

species1 and are currently seen frequently on the sites fields, as they have been for many years past.

See Community Commenters Illustration 1.

Additionally, currently and for the past several years, it has been known that Cooper's Hawks

(Accipiter cooperii) have an active nest that has seen chicks produced annually in trees in Temescal

Creek Park, 0.3 miles east of the proposed project site.2 This species is also protected by the federal

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The range over which they hunt extends at least 0.3 miles from their

nesting site. See Community Commenters Illustration 2.

These species are also protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species

of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The conclusion that Implementation of the proposed project

would not have a significant direct or indirect effect on protected species. is unsupported by

analysis.

Instead, the proposed project would remove the grass sports fields and replace them with an

artificial turf. This habitat modification would have a significant direct impact on the Canada Geese

that are frequently seen feeding on these fields and to the extent such a modification also reduced

the attractiveness of the fields for species such as squirrels, sparrows, jays and others known to make

up the diet of Coopers Hawks, this destruction of the grassy fields may have an indirect substantial

impact on the Coopers Hawks.

1 MBTA List of Migratory Birds, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, available athttp://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/regulationspolicies/mbta/mbtandx.html 2See the October 16, 2012 Agenda of the Emeryville City Council, available at

http://web01.emeryville.org/sirepub/pubmtgframe.aspx?meetid=136&doctype=agenda and the Staff Reportand supporting materials for Administrative Item 8.2. The City Council decided not to remove the trees inwhich the hawks were nesting and to take precautions not to disturb the nests when maintaining the trees.


5/19


5

Illustration 1: Canada Geese on ECCL project site in April 2013

Illustration 2: Cooper's Hawk in a lot just north of Anna Yates

Elementary approximately 0.4 miles from the Temescal Creek Park

nesting site (July 2013)


6/19


6


significant impact on a 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 U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service that may not be adequately mitigated by Mitigation Measure BIO-1, Mitigation

Measures HYD-1, and HYD-2.

The MND states at page 66 that, The proposed project would result in a new outfall connection to

the [Temescal Creek] culvert and the project site eventually drains to the San Francisco Bay, which

hosts a variety of sensitive natural communities. Runoff from the project site could adversely affect

water quality in the Bay and associated natural communities.

The MND does not address whether runoff from the project site will be affected by the projects

use of an artificial turf surface instead of the grass presently on site. Many synthetic turf surfaces

incorporate crumb rubber, and may include lead, phthalates, Bisphenol-A (BPA), and other

chemicals of concern. The MND does not address whether materials related to the installation of

the artificial turf or water that has been in contact with the artificial turf will significantly impact the

water quality in the Bay.

The Mitigation Measures BIO-1, HYD-1, and HYD-2 do not specifically address potential

contaminants from the synthetic turf or water contact with the synthetic turf.

Comment # 7: The Community Commenters believe that the project may have a potentially

significant impact which would interfere substantially with the movement of a native resident or

migratory wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors which

may not be adequately mitigated by Mitigation Measure BIO-2.

Despite the project sites location in an urban environment, observation of the site demonstrates

that the site is a part of a natural migratory wildlife corridor used by Canada Geese (the Aleutian

Cackling Goose). The destruction of the grass-covered sports fields and their replacement with

synthetic turf seems likely to interfere substantially with the current natural migration of the Geese.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2 addresses only nesting concerns, not the almost daily use of the site by

the Geese for feeding and as part of a larger migration corridor. Therefore this potentially significant

impact may not be adequately mitigated.

5. Cultural Resources


significant impact that would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an

archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5 that may not be adequately mitigated by Mitigation

Measures CULT-1.


7/19


7

The MND states at page 75 that, Due to the project sites proximity to several recorded prehistoric

archaeological sites along Temescal Creek, historical archaeological site CA-ALA-634H, and

development of the project site by at least 1902, there is a high possibility of identifying subsurface

archaeological deposits and human remains during project ground-disturbing activities.

Mitigation Measures CULT-1 is entirely phrased in terms of what should be done, not in terms ofwhat the EUSD willdo to address this potentially significant impact. Archaeological monitoring

shouldbe conducted, The monitoringshouldbe done in accordance with, and as guided by, an

Archaeological Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (AMEP), The AMEP shouldbe approved by

the District, The AMEP shouldbe prepared by professionals, and so on throughout

(emphases added). As currently written, it is unclear that Mitigation Measures CULT-1 actually

commits the EUSD to doing anything, therefore it may not adequately mitigate these potentially

significant impacts.


significant impact that would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site

or unique geological feature that may not be adequately mitigated by Mitigation Measure CULT-2.

The MND states at page 76 that, There is the possibility of encountering significant paleontological

resources (fossils) in the Pleistocene alluvium underlying the project site.

However, once again, Mitigation Measure CULT-2 is entirely phrased in terms of what should or

may be done, not in terms of what the EUSD willdo to address this potentially significant impact.

all ground-disturbing activities within 25 feet shouldbe redirected, adverse effects to

paleontological resources shouldbe mitigated, Mitigation mayinclude, Public educational

outreach mayalso, and a report shouldbe prepared (emphases added) As currently

written, it is unclear that Mitigation Measure CULT-2 actually commits the EUSD to doing anything,

therefore it may not adequately mitigate these potentially significant impacts.


significant impact that would disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal

cemeteries that may not be adequately mitigated by Mitigation Measures CULT-1.

The MND states at page 76 only that, Implementation of Mitigation Measures CULT-1 would

reduce this potential impact However, the EUSD does not state that Mitigation MeasuresCULT-1 willbe implemented and thus it is not clear that the EUSD has committed to doing

anything in response to the potential to discover human remains during construction and therefore

this potentially significant impact may not be adequately mitigated.


8/19


8

6. Geology and Soils


significant impact that would expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,

including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking that is not

adequately mitigated by Mitigation Measures GEO-1a, GEO-1b, and GEO-1c.

The MND at page 78 states that, Ground shaking is likely to occur within the life of the project as

a result of future earthquakes. The closest known active fault to the project site is the Hayward Fault,

which has been mapped in an A-PEFZ approximately 2.8 miles east of the site.

Mitigation Measure GEO-1a proposes a geotechnical investigation to conform with

recommendations presented in the Guidelines for Evaluating Seismic Hazards in California.

However, the MND does not state whether those Guidelines or the EUSDs proposed study would

include a study of the topography using LIDAR (light detection and ranging) or a comparable

technique designed to identifyunknownfaults on the project site. Earthquakes occur frequently on

previously unknown faults and none of the Mitigation Measures GEO-1a, GEO-1b, or GEO-1c

indicate that competent efforts to detect any previously unknown faults will be undertaken.

Therefore, this potentially significant impact may not be adequately mitigated.


significant impact that would expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,

including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including

liquefaction that may not be adequately mitigated by Mitigation Measure GEO-1a.

The MND at 79-80 states that, ABAG [Association of Bay Area Governments] has identified the

liquefaction hazard at the project site and vicinity as generally moderate. and that a geotechnical

report conducted concluded that liquefaction-related settlement could be on the order of

approximately two inches in the northeast corner of the site, and 0.1 to 0.5 inches in the remainder

of the site during a design-level seismic event.

However, the MND at 80 proposes only that, Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1a

wouldreduce the liquification hazard impact (emphasis added) First, as currently conditionally

phrased, it is unclear that the EUSD is committed to any mitigation measures in response to this

potentially significant impact. Second, implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1a would resultsolely in a report as described in Mitigation Measure GEO-1a. The report alone, and hence GEO-1a

alone, would do nothing to actually directly address this potentially significant impact. Instead,

Mitigation Measure GEO-1c, which states that the recommendations of the report shall be

implemented might begin to address this potentially significant impact. Without at least the

inclusion of GEO-1c as a mitigation measure alongside GEO-1a, this potentially significant impact

may not be adequately mitigated.


9/19


9


significant impact since the project would be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or

that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site

landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse that may not be adequately mitigated

by Mitigation Measure GEO-1a.

The MND at 80 states that, Softer compressible soils were encountered below the northern

portions of the K-8 classroom and at 81 states that, Imported fill material was encountered to a

depth of 22 feet in the northeast corner of the site

The MND states that, Mitigation Measure GEO-1a wouldreduce the potential impacts related to

unstable soils again without actually committing the EUSD to any mitigating measures. The

Community Commenters repeat the concerns of Comment #12 regarding conditional phrasing and

the omission of GEO-1c as a mitigation measure here. Consequently, this potentially significant

impact may not be adequately mitigated.

Comment #14:The Community Commenters believe that the project may have a potentially

significant impact since the project would be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of

the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property that may not be

adequately mitigated by Mitigation Measure GEO-1a.

The MND at 81 states that, Expansive soils expand and contract in response to changes in soil

moisture, most notably when near surface soils change from saturated to a low moisture content

condition, and back again. As an initial matter, if this statement is meant to imply that soil will

rebound to its original volume after a round of expansion or contraction, then the Community

Commenters disagree and believe that soil cannot regain its original volume after a round of

expansion or contraction.

The MND continues, The onsite soils include clay materials that are potentially expansive.

However, the MND then states that, Mitigation measures mayinclude (emphasis added) again

without actually committing the EUSD to any of the potentially mitigating measures listed. Then

again the MND states that, Mitigation Measure GEO-1a wouldreduce the potential expansive soils

impact (emphasis added) The Community Commenters repeat the concerns of Comment #12

regarding conditional phrasing and the omission of GEO-1c as a mitigation measure here.

Consequently, this potentially significant impact may not be adequately mitigated.

7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions


significant impact that would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that

may have a significant impact on the environment that may not be adequately mitigated.


10/19


10

The MND at pages 81-82 and in Appendix B again presents numbers in boxes without any

explanation of the assumptions used to generate such numbers. The MND presents the total annual

emissions as 949.03 metric tons without supporting evidence or explanation. Any emissions,

particularly from transportation or electricity, whose total exceeded 150.97 metric tons per year

would therefore exceed the BAAQMDs significance threshold of 1,100 metric tons per year. Thus,if the MNDs unexplained estimates are off by just 16%, then the project would generate

greenhouse gas emissions in excess of BAAQMDs significance threshold. Consequently this

potentially significant impact may not be adequately mitigated.


significant impact that would conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the

purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases that may not be adequately mitigated by

Mitigation Measure GHG-1.

The Community Commenters believe that this proposal for the project would have numerous

potentially significant impacts that would conflict with the objectives of the Emeryville General Plan

and obstruct their attainment. The Community Commenters also believe that this proposal for the

project is in numerous ways inconsistent with specific policies, general land uses, and programs

specified in Emeryvilles General Plan and other specific plans and adopted for the purpose of

reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

The proposed design for the project conflicts with the objectives of the Emeryville General Plan,

obstructs their attainment, and is inconsistent with General Plan policies primarily because of the

proposed designs for the each edge of the project site. Numerous other aspects of the proposed

project design contribute to these inconsistencies, but in brief the chief flaws in the proposed design

are that:

Comment 16-A: the proposed design of the western edge of the project site lacks the

bicycle/pedestrian path called for in the Emeryville General Plan,

Comment 16-B: the proposed design of the northern edge of the project site obstructs the General

Plans objective of creating an east-west greenway along 53rd Street,

Comment 16-C: the proposed design of the eastern edge of the project site is inconsistent with theGeneral Plans policies regarding the San Pablo Avenue Urban Design Plan and with the designation

of the entire project site as a Pedestrian Priority Zone, and

Comment 16-D: the proposed design of the southern edge of the project site is inconsistent with

the General Plans policies making this portion of 47th Street a Key Green Street.


11/19


11

Emeryvilles General Plan contains ten guiding principles, several relevant here:

Guiding Principle 2 calls for A connected place stating that The General Plan fosters new

connectionsfor automobiles, pedestrians, and bicyclistsbetween the western and eastern halves

of the city; better connections to the Peninsula; and new and safe pedestrian and bicycle linkages to

the San Francisco Bay.

Guiding Principle 3 calls for Enhanced and connected open space network and green streets

stating that, The General Plan outlines strategies for an expanded public realm, building on the

strength and connectivity of the citys greenways, with a range of new parks, plazas, community

commons, and recreational paths.

Guiding Principle 4 calls for A walkable, fine-grained city, emphasizing pedestrians stating that,

The General Plan establishes that all of Emeryville will be easily traversed on foot. A fine-grained

pattern of blocks and streets is a fundamental prerequisite of a walkable and accessible city; the

General Plan promotes walkability through encouragement of active uses, creation of smaller

parcels/blocks and inter-connections as large sites are redeveloped, and improved sidewalks,

pathways, and streetscapes. Where larger buildings may be appropriate, these shall be constructed

with smaller footprints to preserve views and ensure pedestrian access. Where appropriate, in

people-intensive placessuch as retail, office, and residential districtspedestrians will have

priority over automobiles

Guiding Principle 5 calls for A diversity of transportation modes and choices stating that, The

General Plan fosters and provides incentives for alternative transportation modes, including transit,

car/vanpooling, bicycling, walking, and telecommuting. Residents will be able to access stores,

offices, the waterfront, or regional transit networks without needing a car. Land uses capitalize on

Amtrak, AC Transit, and Transbay bus lines, and proximity to BART, and are integrated with the

Emery Go-Round that extends to within walking distance of most locations. Bicycle paths link

housing, activity centers, and recreational amenities, and are buffered where feasible from

automobiles to further safety.

Guiding Principle 9 calls for sustainability and innovation, with respect for the past stating that,

The Emeryville community strives to live within means that do not compromise the ability of

future generations in Emeryville to enjoy a livable, healthy, and vibrant city. The Plan encourages

redevelopment of contaminated land as a healthy and cost-effective way of improving the localenvironment, use of green construction techniques, and a lifestyle with low ecological impacts

upon energy consumption, climate, and the natural environment.

These principles reflect the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases and avoiding or

mitigating the harmful environmental effects of automobile-centric development. The principles


12/19


12

repeatedly emphasize pedestrians and bicycles, and connectivity throughout the city via greenways,

paths, fine-grained blocks, and improved sidewalks that enable a lifestyle with low ecological impacts.

Specific policies within the General Plan put these principles into action and are relevant here.

Policy T-P-13 states, Pedestrian routes will be provided across large blocks, pursuing creativeoptions if necessary such as purchasing private alleys, designating pathways through buildings, and

acquiring public access easements. Failure to include the bicycle/pedestrian path along the western

property edge of the project site is inconsistent with this policy. Even in Phase 2, see Figure 5, the

project drawings show no bicycle-pedestrian path on the western border of the project site, as

required by the Emeryville General Plan. The description of Phase 2 on pages 31 and 32 of the

MND makes no mention of the addition of a bicycle-pedestrian path on the western border, as

required by the Emeryville General Plan. It also notes that the timing of Phase 2 will be dependent

on availability of additional bond funds. However, the amortization schedules of the currently issued

bonds, Series A-D, show that the EUSD cannot issue additional bonds within the next 30 years

unless the assessed valuation in Emeryville consistently exceeds the optimistic assumptions the

EUSD relies upon of 4% annual assessed valuation growth. Increases beyond these optimistic

assumptions are so unlikely that the possibility of a Phase 2 at allis extremely remote and even if

possible, would likely be decades in the future. Compliance with the General Plan therefore cannot

be postponed until Phase 2 both because there likely will never be a Phase 2 and because if there

will be, it is so far in the distant future as to have effects equivalent to failing to follow Emeryvilles

General Plan.

Policy T-P-14 states, Establish Pedestrian Priority Zones in Neighborhood Centers, around schools,

and in other locations as indicated in Figure 3-4, where wider sidewalks, street lighting, crosswalks,

and other pedestrian amenities are emphasized. Link these zones to adjacent land uses to ensure that

building frontages respect pedestrians Figure 3-6 in Emeryvilles General Plan, as well as other

specific plans and policies, shows 53rd Street as a bicycle boulevard and Figure 3-4 in Emeryvilles

General Plan, as well as other specific plans and policies, shows 53rd Street and 47th Street as Key

Green Streets. Figure 3-4 also shows the entire project site as a Pedestrian Priority Zone. The

proposed project is inconsistent with each of these. In particular 53rd Street is not designed as the

critically important east-west greenway repeatedly referenced in both the General Plans Guiding

Principles and specific policies.

In general, numerous goals and policies, particularly within the Transportation, Urban Design,Conservation, Safety, and Noise, and the Sustainability sections of the General Plan are relevant to

and inconsistent with the designs proposed for the project, yet the MND focuses narrowly on the

Climate Action Plan as the only relevant policy aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This is

not a defensible reading of Emeryvilles General Plan, which is motivated by such an aim

throughout most of its objectives, goals, and policies. Consequently, the proposed design, through


13/19


13

numerous inconsistencies with these policies, creates a conflict with policies adopted for the purpose

of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases that may not be adequately mitigated.

8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Comment #17: The Community Commenters believe that the project may have a potentiallysignificant impact that would 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 that may not be adequately mitigated by Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and

HAZ-2.

The MND at 87 identifies six recognized environmental conditions on the project site and discusses

the details of contaminants found at the site such as asbestos and lead in what follows at 88-90. The

MND summarizes at 90 that, Hazardous materials, including metal and organic compounds, may

be present in shallow soils, soil vapor, groundwater, at the project site from current and past land

uses onsite and adjacent to the site. Hazardous building materials including lead and asbestos have

been reported onsite. Direct contact, inhalation, or ingestion of hazardous materials could

potentially cause adverse health effects to construction workers and future site users. However, the

MND then states that, Implementation of the following mitigation measures wouldreduce

potentially significant impacts (emphasis added) without committing the EUSD to the actual

implementation of the mitigation measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 that follow. Consequently this


Comment #18: Furthermore, the Community Commenters believe that the project may have a

potentially significant impact that would 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 that may not be adequately mitigated by Mitigation Measures HAZ-1

and HAZ-2 because it is located immediately north of the AC Transit bus yard which contains a

hydrogen refueling station and hydrogen gas tanks that exploded in May 2012 prompting the closure

of the Emery Secondary School on the proposed project site and the evacuation of the nearby Pixar

Studios.3

Nothing within mitigation measures HAZ-1 or HAZ-2 addresses the known significant hazard

posed to the occupants of the proposed site by the threat of a hydrogen gas tank explosion.

Consequently this potentially significant impact may not be adequately mitigated.

3 Christie Smith and Lisa Fernandez, Hydrogen Leak at Emeryville AC Transit Facility, NBC Bay Area,available athttp://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Emeryville-Leak-at-AC-Transit-Facility-150172645.html (May 4, 2012).


14/19


14

Comment #19:The Community Commenters believe that the project may have a potentially

significant impact that would impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted

emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan that may not be adequately mitigated.

The City of Emeryville has designated the gymnasium on the project site as the Citys emergency

shelter in the event of an emergency. The proposed project includes the renovation of thisgymnasium. However, nothing in the MND addresses the time frame during which such

renovations might make the gymnasium unsuitable as an emergency shelter or what arrangements

have been made for an alternative emergency shelter site during the gymnasiums renovation.

Consequently this potentially significant impact may not be adequately mitigated.

9. Hydrology and Water Quality


significant impact that would 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 that may not

be adequately mitigated by Mitigation Measures HYD-1, HYD-2, or HYD-3.

The MND at 98 states that, replacement of the existing natural turf athletic field with an artificial

surface would result in changes in the area and location of impervious surfaces.

Other communities have had the same experience, finding that some artificial turf surfaces do not

drain in ways comparable to natural grass and can cause flooding and damage of not only the

athletic field surface, but of nearby properties and public right of ways. Residents in North Collins,

NY experienced flooding due to a nearby artificial turf athletic field in areas that had never before

experienced flooding and suffered significant repeated property damage as a result.4 The villages of

Ridgewood and Glen Rock, New Jersey experienced a similar problem, blaming artificial turf at a

high school for pushing water onto nearby residences.5

Neither the MND nor the Mitigation Measures HYD-1, HYD-2, or HYD-3 address the potentially

significant impact that the artificial turf surface might have on increasing the rate or amount of

surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. Consequently this



significant impact that would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity or

4 Larry Wroblewski, Athletic field blamed for flooding woes, MetroWNY, available athttp://www.metrowny.com/news/676-Athletic_field_blamed_for_flooding_woes.html (Oct. 6, 2011).5 James Kleinmann, Poll: Should the District Do a Permeability Test on Turf Fields?, Ridgewood-Glen Rock,NJ Patch, available athttp://ridgewood.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/poll-should-the-district-do-a-permeability-test-on-turf-fields (Sep. 19, 2011).


15/19


15

planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff

that may not be adequately mitigated by Mitigation Measures HYD-1, HYD-2, or HYD-3.

The MND at 99 states that, Implementation of a required SWPPP (Mitigation Measure HYD-1)

and a SCP (Mitigation Measure HYD-2) wouldbe expected to reduce potential pollutants and result

in lower flows to the storm water drainage system than under current conditions. (emphasis added)As currently written, it is unclear that the EUSD is committed to doing anything, therefore

potentially significant impacts may not be adequately mitigated.

In particular, neither the MND, nor Mitigation Measures HYD-1, HYD-2, and HYD-3 address

whether the planned artificial turf athletic fields may create or contribute runoff water which would

exceed the capacity or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional

sources of polluted runoff. Consequently this potentially significant impact may not be adequately

mitigated.

10. Land Use and Planning


significant impact because the project conflicts with applicable land use plans, policies, and

regulations of agencies with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the Emeryville

General Plan, specific plans, local coastal programs, or zoning ordinances) adopted for the purpose

of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect that may not be adequately mitigated.

The Community Commenters reincorporate Comment #16 and its subparts A-D. The MNDs

narrow focus on stating that the project site is designated as public use and that the proposal

would be consistent with that designation ignores the numerous other goals and policies of the

General Plan and specific plans, adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental

effect, with which the proposed designs are inconsistent and which therefore may have a potentially

significant impact that may not be adequately mitigated.

11. Mineral Resources, 12. Noise, 13. Population and Housing, 14. Public Services, 15.

Recreation

No comments.

16. Transportation/Traffic


significant impact that would 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


16/19


16

of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,

pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit that may not be adequately mitigated.

Emeryvilles General Plan includes policy T-P-3 which states, The City does not recognize Level

of Service (LOS) as a valid measure of overall transportation operations LOS shall not be used

to measure transportation performance in environmental review documents Instead EmeryvillesGeneral Plan adopts a policy of evaluating transportation performance under a Quality of Service or

QOS method. The MNDs reliance on an LOS analysis and failure to provide an appropriate

QOS analysis as required by Emeryvilles General Plan makes the MND inadequate. A full EIR

should be prepared that provides an appropriate QOS analysis.

Additionally, the MND from page 142 to 169 provides at least 15 recommendation[s] but none of

the recommendations are phrased as mitigation measures that the EUSD will commit to

implementing. Without at least the implementation of all of these recommendations, numerous

potentially significant impacts may not be adequately mitigated.


significant impact that would conflict with adopted polices, plans, or programs regarding public

transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such

facilities that may not be adequately mitigated.

The MND recognizes at 158 that, With the project, traffic volumes on 53rd Street are expected to

increase by approximately 1,200 to 1,500 [vehicles per day (VPD)] between San Pablo Avenue and

Boyer Street and that Emeryvilles Pedestrian Bicycle Plan indicates that traffic volumes on bicycle

boulevards should be below 1,500 VPD for bicycle boulevards east of Hollis Street. The MND

does not commit the EUSD to following Recommendation 13, which itself is inadequate to create

sufficient traffic calming for this critical east-west greenway.

The Community Commenters reincorporate here Comment #16 and its subparts A-D, as the failure

to include the bicycle/pedestrian path on the western property edge and the inadequacy of bicycle

parking in the proposed project remain inconsistent with numerous General Plan and specific plan

objectives, goals, and policies, and thereby decrease the performance or safety of bicycle and

pedestrian facilities in ways that may not be adequately mitigated.

17. Utilities and Service Systems


significant impact that would require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage

facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant

environmental effects that may not be adequately mitigated.


17/19


17

The MND at 163 states that, The proposed project would connect to the existing stormwater

system and would include a new outfall into the Temescal Creek culvert. The project would not

increase impervious surfaces at the site This appears to be contradicted by the MND at 98 when

it states that, replacement of the existing natural turf athletic field with an artificial surface would

result in changes in the area and location of impervious surfaces. The MND should not be

internally inconsistent.

Neither the MND nor Mitigation Measures HYD-1 and HYD-2 explain the amount or method of

drainage at the project site currently or compare the current situation with estimates regarding

drainage into the proposed new outfall into the Temescal Creek culvert. Where will the new outfall

be located? What drainage sources would be or would be likely to pass through this new outfall and

in what amounts? Is there a likelihood of contaminated sources passing through this outfall, into

Temescal Creek, and eventually into the San Francisco Bay? The lack of answers to questions such

as these and the inconsistent description of the changes to the area and location of impervious

surfaces at the site leads the Community Commenters to believe that a potentially significant impact

that would require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of

existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects may not be

adequately mitigated.

18. Mandatory Findings of Significance


significant impact because the project has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,

substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to

drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the

number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important

examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory that may not be adequately

mitigated.

The MND at 168 states that, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3,

CULT-1, and CULT-2 wouldensure that potential impacts (emphasis added) As currently written,

it is unclear that the EUSD is committed to doing anything, therefore potentially significant impacts

may not be adequately mitigated.

Comment #27: The Community Commenters believe that the project may have a potentiallysignificant impact because the project has impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively

considerable that may not be adequately mitigated.

Numerous potentially significant impacts considered in these comments may be individually limited,

but cumulatively they are considerable because, as described in these comments, the EUSDs

proposed mitigation measures often appear to be incomplete or ineffective, and most frequently


18/19


18

appear to be merely hypothetical and lack any commitment on the EUSDs part to actually

implement the mitigation measures discussed. In particular the ways in which numerous project

proposals combine to make the overall project obstruct the Emeryville General Plans objective of a

bicycle and pedestrian-centric well-connected city are cumulatively considerable and may not be

adequately mitigated.


significant impact because the project has environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse

effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly that may not be adequately mitigated.

As described in these comments, the EUSDs proposed mitigation measures often appear to be

incomplete or ineffective, and most frequently appear to be merely hypothetical and lack any

commitment on the EUSDs part to actually implement the mitigation measures discussed, and

therefore potentially significant impacts which will cause substantial adverse effects on human

beings, either directly or indirectly may not be adequately mitigated.

Conclusion

The EUSD should prepare a full Environmental Impact Report to consider feasible alternatives to

existing project proposals that the Community Commenters believe may have a potentially

significant impact that may not be adequately mitigated.

The EUSD should also consider feasible alternatives to existing project proposals that would not

obstruct the attainment of the objectives of the Emeryville General Plan and that would be

consistent with policies, general land uses, and programs specified in Emeryvilles General Plan and

in specific plans.

[Signature page follows]


19/19


19

Signed by the Community Commenters:

(Alphabetically)

1. Ken Bukowski, Director, Emeryville Property Owners Association

2. Juanita A. Carroll, Emeryville resident and parent of recent Emery Secondary graduate

3. Brian Carver, Emeryville resident4. Kevin Christopher, Emeryville resident

5. Brian Donahue, Parent of Anna Yates Student & 32-year Emeryville resident

6. Scott Donahue, Emeryville resident

7. Susan Donaldson, Emeryville resident and parent of EUSD child

8. Scheffer Ely, Emeryville resident and parent of child going to Anna Yates this fall

9. Shirley Enomoto, Emeryville resident

10.Margaret Fisher, Emeryville resident since 1977

11.Marie Henry, Emeryville resident

12.Ron Henry, Emeryville resident

13.Arthur Hoff, Emeryville resident and former President EUSD Board of Trustees

14.Kim Kurata, Emeryville resident

15.Barbara MacQuiddy, Emeryville property owner

16.Ruth Major, Emeryville resident

17.Lenore K. McDonald, Emeryville resident

18.Bill Reuter, Emeryville resident

19.Joan Rochlin, Emeryville resident and former contractor for the City of Emeryville

20.Liana D. Rdegrd, Longtime Emeryville resident, Reg voter, Parent

21.Svante Rdegrd, Longtime Emeryville resident, voter, Parent, BPAC and Sr. Ctr. Member

22.Lillian Schroth, Emeryville resident

23.Amy Simpson, Emeryville resident, Property Owner, and Parent of a child in EUSD school

24.John Tann, Emeryville resident

25.Kairee Tann, Emeryville resident

26.Judith Timmel, Emeryville resident and property owner

27.Mark D. Zimmerman, Emeryville resident

ECCL CEQA Comments (Final)

Documents

Transcript of ECCL CEQA Comments (Final)