RICHMOND CENTRAL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

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


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


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,



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.



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.



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.



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



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.



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.



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 earthmoving

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.



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.



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.



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



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.



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.



Potentially

Significant Impact



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



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



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



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/.



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,

/.



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



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.



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



Potentially

Significant Impact



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



FIGURE VIII-1 FORMER STRUCTURES AND GROUNDWATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS



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.



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



Potentially Significant

Impact


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



Potentially

Significant Impact



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



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.



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



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.



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.



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.



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


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.



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.



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.



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.



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).



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



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



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


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.



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



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.



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.



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



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.



Potentially

Significant Impact



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



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.



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



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

,



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.




Impact


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



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



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.



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



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.



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.



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.



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/.



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

RICHMOND CENTRAL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST

Documents

Transcript of RICHMOND CENTRAL PROJECT INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST