AC TRANSIT DISTRICT Board of Directors
GC Memo No. 10-208a Meeting Date: December 15, 2010
Committees: Operations Committee External Affairs Committee Board of Directors
Planning Committee Finance and Audit Committee Financing Corporation
SUBJECT: Consider the Adoption of Resolution No. 10-059 Approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Richmond Parkway Transit Center as the Appropriate Environmental Document; Approve Issuance of a Notice of Determination and the Filing of a Department of Fish and Game Exemption. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Briefing Item
Recommended Motion
Adopt Resolution No. 10-059
Budgetary/Fiscal Impact: The Richmond Parkway Park and Ride is a $28.7 million grant-funded project. The funding is comprised of $16 million in Regional Measure 2 (RM2) funds from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), and $12.7 million in State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds from the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). About $500,000 of these grant funds have been expended on the environmental process. An allocation of $3.6 million in RM2 funds for the architecture and engineering segment of the work is pending completion of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) environmental review.. Background/Discussion: GC Memo No. 10-208, approved by the Board on September 22, 2010, authorized submittal of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) to the State Clearinghouse for state and public review. The review period closed November 10, 2010, without comment. The attached notification from the State Clearinghouse indicates AC Transit has complied with “review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.” Board approval of the MND is necessary at this time, in order to proceed in a timely fashion with approval of the document as an Initial Study, pursuant to the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), an administrative action by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Formal approval is required in order for MTC to act on the $3.6 million RM2 allocation for design and engineering of the project. The District currently operates a park and ride lot at the intersection of Richmond Parkway and Interstate Route 80. This project proposes to expand the existing, at-grade parking facility (which accommodates about 200 cars) to include a 4-story garage accommodating approximately 700 cars and 12-14 bus bays (the Project). The Project would:
GC Memo No. 10-208a Meeting Date: December 15, 2010 Page 2 of 2 • • • • •
Allow more commuters to use the facility; Ease or reduce congestion along I-80; Improve intersection operations for vehicles and buses accessing the facility; Increase commuter and transit options; and Provide adequate facilities for casual carpool and transit rider pick-up/drop-off
The District, as the lead agency for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance, contracted with EIP Associates/PBS&J to prepare an Initial Study (IS) to determine the environmental impacts of the Project in accordance with CEQA and its Implementing Guidelines. Based on the results of the IS, a determination would occur regarding the type of environmental document appropriate for the Project. In the present case, the IS indicated a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) as the appropriate environmental document. Attached to GC Memo No. 10-208a is the “Initial Study/Proposed Mitigation Negative Declaration for the Richmond Parkway Transit Center, Richmond, CA” dated June 2010 for the Board’s consideration. Since the District is the lead agency, the Board must determine that the document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and its Guidelines, and that it is satisfied that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental document. Approval of the IS/MNG by the Board and authorizing the issuance of the Notice of Determination will allow the project to move forward at this time Prior Relevant Board Actions/Policies: GC Memo 10-208 GM Memo 09-174 GM Memo 08-017 GM Memo 04-154 GM Memo 03-262a Attachments: A – November 12, 2010 letter from Director of California State Clearinghouse B – Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration C – Draft Resolution No. 10-059
Approved by: Prepared by: Date Prepared:
Kenneth C. Scheidig, General Counsel Kenneth C. Scheidig, General Counsel Jon Twichell, Transportation Planning Manager December 8, 2010
Att. A to GC Memo No. 10-208a
Att. A to GC Memo No. 10-208a
Att. B to GC Memo No. 10-208a
INITIAL STUDY/PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Screencheck Draft
Richmond Parkway Transit Center Richmond, CA
AC Transit June 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS I.
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE .................................................................................. 1
II.
PROJECT INFORMATION............................................................................................... 1 A. Project Title............................................................................................................. 1 B. Lead Agency Name and Address............................................................................ 1 C. Contact Person and Telephone Number ................................................................. 1 D. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address..................................................................... 1 E. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required............................................. 1 F. Project Location ...................................................................................................... 2 G. Assessor’s Parcel Numbers..................................................................................... 2 H. Zoning Districts and General Plan Designations .................................................... 2 I. Setting and Surrounding Land Uses ....................................................................... 2
III.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................. 4
V.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS .................................................................... 10 A. Aesthetics.............................................................................................................. 10 B. Agricultural and Forestry Resources .................................................................... 17 C. Air Quality ............................................................................................................ 19 D. Biological Resources ............................................................................................ 26 E. Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 32 F. Geology And Soils................................................................................................ 37 G. Greenhouse Gas Emissions................................................................................... 42 H. Hazards And Hazardous Materials ....................................................................... 45 I. Hydrology And Water Quality.............................................................................. 49 J. Land Use ............................................................................................................... 54 K. Mineral Resources ................................................................................................ 56 L. Noise ..................................................................................................................... 57 M. Population And Housing....................................................................................... 62 N. Public Services/Recreation ................................................................................... 64 O. Traffic ................................................................................................................... 67 P. Utilities And Service Systems .............................................................................. 89 Q. Mandatory Findings Of Significance.................................................................... 92
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page i
FIGURES Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure A-1 Figure A-2 Figure A-3 Figure A-4 Figure O-1 Figure O-2 Figure O-3 Figure O-4 Figure O-5 Figure O-6 Figure O-7
Project Location Map.............................................................................................. 3 Existing Site Plan.................................................................................................... 6 Proposed Site Plan .................................................................................................. 7 View from Richmond Parkway Overcrossing - Existing ..................................... 12 Views from Richmond Parkway Overcrossing - Proposed .................................. 13 Views from I-80 Westbound - Existing ................................................................ 14 View from I-80 Westbound - Proposed ................................................................ 15 Existing (No Project) Peak Hour Volumes: AM (PM)......................................... 69 Baseline (No Project) Peak Hour Volumes: AM (PM) ........................................ 71 Trip Distribution for Non-Transit Vehicles – Inbound......................................... 75 Trip Distribution for Non-Transit Vehicles – Outbound ...................................... 76 Baseline Plus Project Peak Hours Volumes: AM (PM)........................................ 79 Cumulative 2032 (No Project) Peak Hour Volumes: AM (PM)........................... 82 Cumulative 2032 Plus Project Peak Hour Volumes: AM (PM) ........................... 85
TABLES Table L-1 Table L-2 Table L-3 Table L-5 Table O-1 Table O-2 Table O-3 Table O-4 Table O-5 Table O-6 Table O-7
Noise Ranges of Typical Construction Equipment............................................... 59 Typical Outdoor Construction Noise Levels ........................................................ 59 U.S. Department of Transportation Construction Noise Guidelines .................... 60 Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment...................................................... 61 Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria .................................................................... 68 Stop Controlled Intersection LOS Criteria ........................................................... 68 Study Intersections LOS - Existing Conditions .................................................... 70 Study Intersections LOS - Baseline Conditions.................................................... 72 Study Intersections LOS – Baseline and Baseline plus Project Conditions ......... 80 Study Intersections LOS – 2032 Cumulative Conditions (No Project) ................ 81 Study Intersections LOS – Cumulative and Cumulative plus Project Conditions ..................................................................... 86
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page ii
I.
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
This Initial Study was prepared pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section15000 et. seq.). This Initial Study addresses the potential environmental impacts of the Richmond Parkway Transit Center (the “proposed project”) at the existing Richmond Parkway Transit Center located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Richmond Parkway and Blume Drive. This Initial Study has been completed in order to determine if either a Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report is warranted to satisfy CEQA requirements for environmental review of the proposed project.
II.
PROJECT INFORMATION
A.
PROJECT TITLE Richmond Parkway Transit Center
B.
LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) 1600 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94612
C.
CONTACT PERSON AND TELEPHONE NUMBER Jon Twichell Transportation Planning Manager AC Transit (510) 891-4801
D.
PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS AC Transit 1600 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94612
E.
OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED • • • •
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB) City of Richmond Contra Costa County
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 1
F.
PROJECT LOCATION The project site is occupied by the Richmond Parkway Transit Center (RPTC), which is a park and ride lot and bus transit center operated by AC Transit. The project site consists of several parcels located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Richmond Parkway and Blume Drive in the City of Richmond and unincorporated Contra Costa County. The southern portion of the project site is within the City of Richmond and the northern portion of the project site is within unincorporated Contra Costa County. A portion of the project site within unincorporated Contra Costa County is owned by the State (Caltrans). The site is bounded by Richmond Parkway to the north, Interstate 80 (I-80) to the east, Blume Drive to the west, and a private roadway to the south. The private roadway along the southern edge of the project site provides access to the existing RPTC and the Hilltop Plaza Shopping Center commercial uses to south. Figure 1 shows the project location in a local and regional context.
G.
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS The project site consists of six parcels. Four of the parcels are entirely within the proposed project site and portions of the remaining two parcels are proposed to be developed. The APN numbers are as follows: • • • • • •
H.
405-290-059 405-290-066 405-290-067 405-290-064 426-070-021 (partial) 405-290-065 (partial)
ZONING DISTRICTS AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS The southern portion of the site is zoned C-3, Regional Commercial District, in the City of Richmond Municipal Code and is designated “Regional Office and/or Shopping” in the City of Richmond General Plan. The northern portion of the project site is zoned R-6, Single-Family Residential District, by the Contra Costa County Code and is designated PS “Public/Semi Public” in the Contra Costa County General Plan.
I.
SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES The project site is at the intersection of several major roadways including I-80, Richmond Parkway, and Blume Drive. The existing RPTC is served by local and transbay express buses operated by AC Transit and Western Contra Costa Transit (WestCAT). The facility also serves as an origin point for casual carpooling for transbay commuters. High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes exist on I-80 from Pinole Valley Road east of the project site to the Bay Bridge. Direct access ramps are provided from the Richmond Parkway overcrossing onto the westbound HOV lanes and from the eastbound HOV lanes to the Richmond Parkway
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 2
Figure 1
Project Location Map
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 3
overcrossing. Land uses to the south and west, within the City of Richmond are primarily commercial with open space and residential uses beyond. Uses to the north of Richmond Parkway are primarily single-family residential uses in the unincorporated Tara Hills area of west Contra Costa County. The cities of Pinole and Hercules are located further to the north. Land uses to the east of the project site are primarily regional commercial uses within the City of Pinole. The unincorporated El Sobrante area of west Contra Costa County is located further to the east.
III.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AC Transit proposes to make physical and operational improvements to the existing Richmond Parkway Transit Center (RPTC) at the Interstate 80 (I-80)/Richmond Parkway interchange. Location. The project is located in the City of Richmond and portions of unincorporated Contra Costa County. The project site is bounded by Richmond Parkway to the north, I-80 to the east, Blume Drive to the west, and Hilltop Plaza Access Road, a private roadway, to the south. Hilltop Plaza Access Road along the southern edge of the project site provides access to the existing RPTC and the Hilltop Plaza Shopping Center commercial uses. Background. The RPTC was constructed in the 1990’s by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as part of the I-80 Operational Improvements Project. Since that time, the RPTC has been operated by AC Transit. A number of previous studies indicated that expansion of the RPTC facility would ease overcrowding at the site and contribute to significant improvement of I-80 traffic flow by removing peak period automobile trips. About $8,665,000 in State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds were approved in 2001 towards engineering and construction of an upgraded facility. The approval of Regional Measure 2 (the third dollar on State-owned toll bridges) provides additional funding for an expanded parking facility, and a redesigned and expanded RPTC. A group of public agencies (the RPTC Planning Group), consisting of AC Transit, Caltrans, West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC), City of Richmond, Western Contra Costa Transit (WestCAT), and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) were tasked with supervising the proposed project. The RPTC’s two main parking purposes are for transbay express bus users and casual carpoolers originating in west Contra Costa County. These patrons use the lot because these services provide substantial time and cost savings over the alternative of a drive alone auto commute to jobs in downtown San Francisco. Demand for parking at the RPTC has historically been strong, with parking spaces filling before 7:00 a.m. during the weekday commute. In 2006, a parking fee was implemented at the RPTC, resulting in a reduced demand for parking. A future parking demand was developed based on historic uses of the site prior to implementation of the parking fee. The potential future parking demand at the RPTC ranges from 600 to 800 spaces.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 4
The main component of parking demand at the RPTC is the transbay market. There are two components to this market, those using the AC’s transbay buses and those using casual carpools. These components overlap because many patrons use casual carpools in the morning, but use transit on their return trip in the afternoon. Both AC Transit and carpools take advantage of the continuous carpool lanes between the site and the Bay Bridge. Local bus service is also provided to the RPTC site by WestCAT and AC Transit, and Rapid Bus services is anticipated to be extended to the RPTC as part of the Measure J funding. However, there is currently only minimal demand for parking related to other functions of the RPTC. Most users of local buses (AC Transit and WestCAT) are transferring from other buses. Existing Conditions. The existing RPTC consists of an approximately 200-space parking lot and a bus transfer area that includes eight active bus bays (shown in Figure 2). It is served by local and transbay express buses operated by AC Transit and WestCAT. The facility also serves as an origin point for casual carpooling for transbay commuters. High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes exist on I-80 from Pinole Valley Road east of the project site to the Bay Bridge. Direct access ramps are provided from the Richmond Parkway overcrossing onto the westbound HOV lanes and from the eastbound HOV lanes to the Richmond Parkway overcrossing. Project Objectives. Objectives of proposed project include: •
Allow more commuters to use the RPTC, particularly during the peak of the commute;
•
Improve intersection operations for vehicles and buses accessing the RPTC;
•
Ease or reduce congestion along I-80;
•
Increase commuter and transit options; and
•
Provide adequate facilities for casual carpool and transit rider pick-up/drop-off.
Project Characteristics. The proposed project includes the construction of a four-level parking garage on the northeastern portion of the existing park and ride lot. Construction of the proposed garage would increase the number of parking spaces to approximately 660 spaces. Figure 3 shows the improvements proposed as part of the RPTC. The project also includes an expansion of the bus transfer center to accommodate up to 12 buses at any one time. Additional facilities that are planned for the project site would include up to 12 bus shelters, security facilities, restrooms, bicycle parking, and service/maintenance areas. The location of each of these facilities has not been finalized as of the time of preparation of this document, but would be included as part of final site design. The final site design would also include a landscaping plan for the proposed project, which would include landscaping typical of a park and ride facility.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 5
Figure 2
Existing Site Plan
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 6
Figure 3
Proposed Site Plan
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 7
Circulation. Access to the proposed project, access to and from the project site would be improved as part of the project. The proposed project would reduce the number of access points from the Hilltop Plaza Access Road to the project site. Under current conditions, there are four driveways from the Hilltop Plaza Access Road to the RPTC: two for the bus transfer center and two for the park and ride facility. Under the proposed project, there would be one driveway for access to the bus transfer area, and one for access to the parking garage and casual carpool pickup/drop-off location. The passenger pick-up/drop-off location is proposed for the area within the proposed project, south of the parking garage entrance. This area would also include up to 10 short-term parking spaces (up to 10 minutes). The parking garage is proposed to have separate entrance and exit points on the south side of the garage, with all inbound traffic entering on the southeast side of the garage (near I-80) and all outbound traffic exiting on the southwest side of the garage (near the bus transfer center). Also as part of the project, the Blume Drive/Hilltop Plaza Access Road intersection would be signalized and u-turns at this intersection would be prohibited. This new signal would be synchronized with the existing signal at the Richmond Parkway/Blume Drive intersection to optimize the operation of the two intersections. The proposed project would also modify the radius of the curb at the southeast corner of the Richmond Parkway/Blume Drive intersection to improve sight distance from the stop bar on Blume Drive. Pedestrian and Bicycle Access. Pedestrian and bicycle access to the site would continue to be provided by the existing bike lanes, crosswalks, and sidewalks on the adjacent roadways. Construction Schedule. Construction of the proposed project would begin in 2011 and would last approximately 10 months.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 8
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics
Biological Resources Greenhouse Gas Emissions Land Use/Planning
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Air Quality
Cultural Resources
Geology/Soils
Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources
Hydrology/Water Quality Noise
Population/Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities/Services Systems
Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION has been prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on the attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature
Date
Jon Twichell
AC Transit For
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 9
V.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS
This Initial Study evaluates the potential environmental effects of the Richmond Parkway Transit Center Project (proposed project) as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
A.
AESTHETICS
1.
Setting
The project is located in northeast Richmond, just west of I-80 and the City of Pinole border. The overall development character surrounding the project site is suburban, defined by low-rise commercial and retail buildings. A scenic vista is a vantage point with a broad and expansive view of a significant landscape feature, such as views of the San Francisco Bay or a mountain range, or a panoramic view of significant historical or architectural features. There are no identified scenic vistas that would include views of the project site, but hillsides to the east of the project site, within the City of Pinole, may include views of the Bay from nearby hillsides. However, due to low-lying nature of the site, and the raised elevation of the adjacent Richmond Parkway overcrossing, the project site would not be visible from most areas along the hillside. No rock outcroppings, historic buildings, or similar visual resources exist on the site. I-80 is not designated as a State or Local Scenic Highway in the vicinity of the project site. Views from the project site to the east include limited views of I-80 and the nearby hillsides in the City of Pinole. Views from the project site to the south and west primarily include the surrounding commercial developments. Views from the project site to the north are blocked by the Richmond Parkway overcrossing.
2.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion Significant or Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant Impact
No Impact
1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
2) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
3) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Would the project:
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 10
3.
Discussion
Comment on A.1 and A.2. The proposed project would not block a scenic vista or a scenic highway because there are neither designated scenic vistas nor scenic highways within the immediate vicinity of the project site. Since the proposed project would not block a scenic view and does not affect a scenic road or connector, the proposed project would have no impact on scenic vistas or scenic resources. Comment on A.3. The proposed project includes the construction of a four-story parking garage on the northeast corner of the project site, adjacent to I-80. Because the project site is currently a surface parking lot, construction of the parking structure could alter views to and from the project site. Figures A-1 through A-4 show existing and conceptual views of the project site with a four-story parking structure in the northeast corner, similar to the proposed project. As shown in Figure A-2, the proposed parking garage would be of a compatible height with the adjacent Richmond Parkway overcrossing, and would not block views toward the Bay from Richmond Parkway or other uses west of the project site, such as uses within the City of Pinole. As shown in Figure A-3, there are limited views from I-80 west toward the project site, and as shown in Figure A-4, while the proposed parking structure would block some views from the freeway toward the west, the proposed project would not be substantially different from existing views of commercial uses along this portion of I-80. Therefore, because the proposed project would not result in a substantial change in views of the project site from the surrounding area, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts to visual character of the project site and surrounding areas. Comment on A.4. The proposed project would introduce additional lighting elements into an area with numerous light sources among the existing uses. Existing lighting sources in the area include security lighting for parking areas within the existing RPTC and nearby commercial areas, and lighting along area roadways including I-80, Richmond Parkway, and Blume Drive. The proposed parking garage would, however, be taller than the existing lighting structures on the project site, but would not be taller than lighting structures along the adjacent Richmond Parkway overcrossing. Thus, the lighting elements of the proposed project would be compatible with the lighting elements of the existing structures. Lighting elements proposed as part of the project would include security lighting for the parking structure, bus shelter or waiting area amenities, and bus bays. All of the proposed light fixtures would be designed such that they direct light downward. Thus, the lighting from the proposed project would not create a substantial new source of light or glare, or adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. As a result, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact related to lighting.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 11
Figure A-1
View from Richmond Parkway Overcrossing - Existing
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 12
Figure A-2
Views from Richmond Parkway Overcrossing - Proposed
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 13
Figure A-3
Views from I-80 Westbound - Existing
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 14
Figure A-4
View from I-80 Westbound - Proposed
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 15
4.
Conclusion
The proposed project would have no impact on designated scenic vistas nor would the proposed project damage existing scenic resources, because such vistas or resources do not exist in the project area. The visual character of the project site would not be substantially different for views along the adjacent roadways. The project would marginally increase the amount of light at the project site as components of the project would be taller than the existing structures on the project site. However, the proposed project would be compatible with lighting heights for adjacent structures and potential light and glare impacts would be less than significant. As the proposed project would have no impact on scenic resources, scenic highways, and less-than-significant impacts to visual character and light and glare, the overall effect of the proposed project on aesthetics would be less than significant.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 16
B.
AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
1.
Setting
The project site is developed, does not contain agricultural uses, and is not agriculturally active land or farmland. Additionally, there is no agricultural land in the vicinity of the project.
2.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion Significant or Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant Impact
No Impact
1) 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 non-agricultural use?
2) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
3) 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 Government Code section 51104(g))?
4) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
5) 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?
Would the project:
3.
Discussion
Comment on B.1. Based on a review of the California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, no prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of Statewide Importance are on or in the vicinity of the project site. 1 Since these types of farmlands do not occur at the project site or in the vicinity of the project, construction of the proposed project would not affect farmlands by converting them to a nonagricultural use. Comment on B.2 and B.3. The majority of the project site is zoned C-3, Regional Commercial District, by the City of Richmond. The C-3 District does not have a provision for agricultural- or forestry-related 1
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection. 2004. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Contra Costa County.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 17
activities. The eastern edge of the project site is zoned CRR, Community Regional Recreation District, by the City of Richmond. The CRR District does have a provision for agricultural related activities permitted by conditional use permit. 2 However, the area designated CRR is a narrow strip of land between the existing park and ride lot and I-80 and is not conducive to agricultural activities. This strip of land is not currently utilized for agriculture or forest uses. The portion of the project site within Contra Costa County is zoned R-6, Single-family Residential, which does allow crop and tree farming as a permitted use. 3 This portion of the project site is also not currently utilized for or conducive to agriculture or forest uses. The project site is also not located on land that is currently under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts. Comment on B.4 and B.5. The proposed project includes redevelopment of the existing Richmond Parkway Transit Center in a developed, urban area on non-agricultural and non-forest lands with no agricultural or forest lands in the project vicinity. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not result in conversion of farmlands or forest lands to non-agricultural or non-forest uses.
4.
Conclusion
As described above, the project site is not currently used for agricultural or forest purposes, nor do agricultural or forest lands exist in the project vicinity. The project site is not designated by the California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program as containing prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of Statewide Importance, nor is the project site under a Williamson Act contract. Agricultural and forest uses are allowed in certain zoning districts applicable to the project site. However, agriculture or forest use is not the primary use allowed under the zoning districts. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on agricultural or forest resources.
2
3
City of Richmond. City of Richmond Municipal Code. Current through Ordinance 44-07, passed October 16, 2007. Contra Costa County. Contra Costa County Code. Current through Ordinance 2007-34. Adopted: July 24, 2007.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 18
C.
AIR QUALITY
1.
Setting
Climate The project is located in the San Francisco Air Basin (SFAB). Portions of the SFAB are further divided into sub-regions with the same climates and weather patterns. The proposed project is located in the Northern Alameda and Western Contra Costa Counties subregion. This climatological subregion stretches from Richmond to San Leandro. Its western boundary is defined by San Francisco Bay and its eastern boundary by the Oakland-Berkeley Hills. The Oakland-Berkeley Hills have a ridge line height of approximately 1,500 feet, a significant barrier to air flow. The most densely populated area of the subregion lies in a strip of land between the bay and the lower hills. In this area, marine air traveling through the Golden Gate, as well as across San Francisco and through the San Bruno Gap, is a dominant weather factor. The Oakland-Berkeley Hills cause the westerly flow of air to split off to the north and south of Oakland, which causes diminished wind speeds. The prevailing winds for most of this subregion are from the west. At the northern end, near Richmond, prevailing winds are from the south-southwest. Temperatures in this subregion have a narrow range due to the proximity of the moderating marine air. Maximum temperatures in summer average in the mid-70's, with minimums in the mid-50's. Winter highs are in the mid- to high-50's, with lows in the low- to mid-40's. The air pollution potential is lowest for the parts of the subregion that are closest to the bay, due largely to good ventilation and less influx of pollutants from upwind sources. The occurrence of light winds in the evenings and early mornings occasionally causes elevated pollutant levels. The air pollution potential at the northern (Richmond) and southern (Oakland, San Leandro) parts of this subregion is marginally higher than communities directly east of the Golden Gate, because of the lower frequency of strong winds. This subregion contains a variety of industrial air pollution sources. Some industries are quite close to residential areas. The subregion is also traversed by frequently congested major freeways. Traffic and congestion, and the motor vehicle emissions they generate, are increasing.
Regulatory Framework Air quality is monitored, evaluated, and regulated by federal, state, and regional regulatory agencies, including the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The EPA, CARB, and BAAQMD develop rules and/or regulations to attain the goals or directives imposed by legislation. Both state and regional regulations may be more, but not less, stringent than federal regulations. The CARB establishes state ambient air quality standards and motor vehicle emission standards, conducts research, and oversees the activities of regional Air Pollution Control Districts and Air Quality Management Districts. Ambient air quality standards are established for criteria pollutants, which include ozone,
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 19
carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter, and lead. Reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) are also regulated as criteria air pollutants because they are precursors to ozone formation. With regard to particulate matter, air quality standards have been adopted for suspended particulate matter less than ten microns in diameter (PM10) as well as for smaller respirable particles that are 2.5 microns in diameter or less (PM2.5). The San Francisco Bay Area, which includes the City of Richmond, is in a state of non-attainment for ozone and PM2.5 under both state and federal standards and non-attainment for PM10 under state standards, meaning that the Bay Area does not meet the air quality standards for these air pollutants. To comply with the California and Federal Clean Air Acts, BAAQMD, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) have prepared the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy (adopted January 4, 2006). The intent of Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy is to bring the SFAB into compliance with federal and state standards for ozone. The plan consists of adopted measures, emission inventories, contingency measures, and demonstration of emission reductions so that the region can attain ozone standards.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 20
2.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion Significant or Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant Impact
No Impact
1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
2) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
3) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is classified as non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors?
4) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
5) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Would the project:
3.
Discussion
Comment on C.1. As the proposed project would not be expected to result in significant emissions of ozone, ozone precursors or particulate matter (see Comment on C.2, below) with implementation of Mitigation Measure C-1, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the BAAQMD’s air quality plans to bring the Air Basin into attainment. Additionally, the main purpose for the proposed project is to encourage the conversion of single occupant vehicles originating in west Contra Costa County to use transbay express buses and casual carpools, as well as improved access to local transit. This conversion to transbay buses and casual carpools would facilitate the implementation of air quality plans and help bring the San Francisco Air Basin into attainment by reducing vehicle trips within the region. Comment on C.2.
Short-Term (Construction) Impacts Construction–related activities are generally short-term in duration, and the BAAQMD provides screening levels to determine if a project would exceed any of the thresholds of significance for their associated emissions, under the recently adopted BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (May 2010). The screening levels do not specifically address parking structures, but do identify construction-related screening sizes of between 259 to 277 thousand square feet for industrial/warehouse and commercial uses, respectively. Because the size of the proposed parking structure would be substantially less than these screening thresholds, the proposed project would not be expected to result in an exceedance of the
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 21
BAAQMD thresholds for construction emissions. If all appropriate emissions control measures recommended by the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines are implemented for a project, then construction emissions are not considered significant. MITIGATION MEASURE. Using the methodology outlined in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the following basic control measures would be sufficient to reduce impacts to less-thansignificant levels. 4 Implementation of Mitigation Measure C-1 below would reduce potentially significant localized dust emissions to a less-than-significant level. C-1.
4
Implement feasible control measures for construction emissions. The project sponsor shall ensure implementation of the following mitigation measures during project construction, in accordance with BAAQMD standard mitigation requirements: •
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 mph.
•
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 [CCR]). 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 mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
•
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 Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
BAAQMD. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, April 1996, revised December 1999.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 22
Long-Term (Operational) Impacts The proposed project would involve demolition of an existing 200-space surface parking lot and transit center and construction of a new 660-space parking garage with a new transit center facility. As a result, vehicular trips to the project site would increase with implementation of the proposed project. The 2005 Ozone Strategy was developed in order to bring the area into attainment of federal and state ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter violations. The intent of this air quality plan is to bring the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin into compliance with federal and state standards for ozone. The purpose of the proposed project is to encourage persons who currently travel in single occupant vehicles to use transbay buses or casual carpools, and would not be expected to create new person trip demands within the region. However, the project would generate local trips to and from the transit center. The project is anticipated to generate a maximum of 1,320 daily trips to the project site, which is based upon the number of proposed parking spaces for the proposed facility. The majority of the trips associated with the proposed project would arrive in the AM peak hour and leave in the PM peak hour. Through this anticipated “trip shifting” the proposed project would reduce regional vehicle emissions by increasing the use of transit and carpools. Increases in traffic from the proposed project would contribute to localized CO emissions. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines recommends the use of screening criteria to determine if significant impacts to localized CO would occur. The BAAQMD screening criteria indicates that a project would have a significant impact associated with CO if the project would increase intersection volumes to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. As shown in Checklist Item F, Traffic, intersection volumes in the project vicinity, with and without the proposed project, would be well below the 44,000 vehicle per hour threshold. Therefore, CO impacts would be less than significant. In addition to a CO emissions analysis at localized intersection, the project was also analyzed for CO impacts at the proposed parking structure. Because the proposed parking facility would primarily involve all day parking, the proposed project would potentially result in an increase of vehicles operating in a cold start mode in the PM peak hour. If the catalytic converter of a vehicle is not already warm from previous operation, the car is said to be in a “cold start” mode. A typical cold start would occur after the vehicle is parked in excess of eight hours overnight where the dewpoint could rise and lower the temperature. During a cold start, the catalytic converter is too cold for the chemical reaction that converts pollutants (e.g., carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides) to water vapor, nitrogen and carbon dioxide. More technically, the rate of the chemical reaction is too slow at low temperatures to control the emissions. Thus, the emissions from the tailpipe are the same as the uncontrolled emissions from the engine during a cold start. Cold starts could potentially result in higher CO emissions. The CARB approved EMFAC2007 and SCREEN3 models were used to calculate emissions associated with the proposed project. The methodology assumed a worst –case scenario in which the parking slots were occupied and operating in a cold start mode. Based upon the worst-case analysis, the parking structure could result in a 1-hour CO concentration of up to 6.96 ppm. Therefore, CO concentrations at the parking structure would be less than the federal and state 1-hour standards of 35 ppm and 20 ppm, respectively, and this impact would be less than significant.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 23
Comment on C.3. Construction of the proposed project would contribute to air emissions in the San Francisco Bay Area, which is designated as non-attainment for ozone at the federal and state levels and PM10 and PM2.5 at the state level. For the purposes of this analysis, the cumulative context is San Francisco Bay Area and the City of Richmond. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, any proposed project in combination with other proposed and foreseeable projects in its vicinity would have a potentially significant cumulative air quality impact if it were not consistent with the local general plan (in this case, the applicable general plan would be the City of Richmond General Plan, which is consistent with the Bay Area’s Clean Air Plan.) and if it individually had significant air quality impacts. The proposed project would not require a general plan amendment to proceed; therefore, it is consistent with the City of Richmond General Plan and the Bay Area’s Clean Air Plan, since it is an already existing transit facility. The proposed project by itself would temporarily increase emissions during grading, demolition, and construction activities, as noted in Checklist Item C.2. Implementation of the BAAQMD’s basic control measures together with the mitigation measures recommended for the proposed project, would reduce the proposed project’s contribution to construction emissions to less-than-significant levels. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, any proposed project that would individually have significant air quality impacts would also be considered to have a significant cumulative air quality impact. As discussed above in C.2., operational emissions resulting from the proposed project would not exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and particulate matter (less than 10 microns) (PM10). Based upon the guidance provided by the BAAQMD, the proposed project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution with regard to criteria pollutants, and this impact would be less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURE. Implementation of Mitigation Measure C-1 would reduce the project construction emissions to less than significant. Therefore, this measure would reduce the project’s contribution to less than cumulatively considerable. Comment on C.4. The proposed project is situated among commercial land uses, which are not generally considered sensitive receptors for air quality impacts. Construction emissions would create a potentially significant localized increase in PM10 emissions, which could be a nuisance to nearby businesses. However, based on the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the proposed mitigation measures would reduce this impact to less than significant. A Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was prepared for the project to analyze the potential for impacts from exposure of sensitive receptors to particulate matter emissions associated with changes to vehicular traffic and bus operations at the project site. This analysis does not include impacts associated with the planned bus schedule operations at the project site, as these are planned changes that would occur with or without the proposed project. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact would occur if the probability of contracting cancer would increase by more than 10 in one million, or if ground-level concentrations of non-carcinogenic toxic air contaminants would result in a Hazard Index greater than 1 at the nearest sensitive receptor.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 24
The HRA concluded that the proposed project would not result in an increase in health risks at the nearest sensitive receptor; therefore, impacts would be considered less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURE. Implementation of Mitigation Measure C-1 would reduce the impacts of project construction dust emissions on nearby businesses to less than significant. Comment on C.5. Parking garages and transit facility land uses are not among the land uses that the BAAQMD has identified as prime sources of odors (i.e., wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, certain manufacturing plants). Businesses and residences in the project vicinity may experience occasional odors from diesel equipment exhaust and the application of architectural coatings during construction. This effect would be intermittent, would be contingent on prevailing wind conditions, and would occur only during construction activities. The generation of diesel odors during construction would occur during daytime hours only, would be isolated to the immediate vicinity of the construction site and activity, and would not affect a substantial amount of people. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant.
4.
Conclusion
With implementation of basic control measures specified in Mitigation Measure C-1, the proposed project would not exceed significance thresholds for air quality standards during construction. Operational emissions of the project would be primarily from the operation of vehicles to and from the project site. However, the anticipated “trip shifting” associated with the proposed project would reduce regional vehicle emissions by increasing the use of transit and carpools. The project would also not be expected to expose sensitive receptors to excessive CO concentrations or create objectionable odors. Furthermore, based upon the HRA, the project would not result in impacts associated toxics emissions that would adversely impact nearby sensitive receptors. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-thansignificant impact on air quality after mitigation.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 25
D.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1.
Setting
Information for this section was obtained from the Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts) completed in June 2008, that was prepared for this project. 5 General. The project site is located immediately adjacent to I-80 in the City of Richmond at the southwest quadrant of the intersection of I-80 and Richmond Parkway. The project site contains an approximately 200-space paved parking lot; a paved transit facility with bus stalls; and sparse to moderate landscaping throughout the site. Existing site landscaping includes mostly shrubs with some trees along the eastern edge. The southeast corner of the site has been established as a wetland mitigation site. This wetland was created at the site as a requirement of the Wetland Mitigation Plan for the I-80 Operational Improvements project undertaken in 1993. The wetland area is depressed approximately thirty to forty feet below the existing grade of the parking lot and is approximately 8,700 square feet in area. 6 Special Status Species. Special-status plant and wildlife species are species that have been afforded special recognition and protection by federal, state, or local resource conservation agencies and organizations. These species are generally considered rare, threatened, or endangered due to declining or limited populations. Queries of the California Department of Fish and Game’s (CDFG) Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Online Threatened and Endangered Species Database (USFWS 2007a), were conducted for the project area (the Richmond, San Quentin, Briones Valley, Petaluma Point, Mare Island, Benicia, Oakland West, and Oakland East USGS 7.5 minute quadrangles). Of the species identified in the query, the majority of these species would not be expected to occur on the project site because the site does not include the known range or does not support suitable habitat. Only the Callippe silverspot butterfly (Speyeria callippe callippe) and the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) were determined to have a potential (low) for occurring on the project site. Vegetation. The majority of the project site is developed (the portion proposed for development under the proposed project, which does not include the wetland mitigation site), and is largely under pavement. The only vegetation in the development area is ornamental landscaping along the perimeter of the parking facility, along the face of the Richmond Parkway overpass, and small planting beds between the rows of parking spaces. Plant species occurring in these areas include rock rose (Cistus sp.), lavender (Lavendula angustifolia), wooly grevilla (Grevilla lanigera), Oregon grape (Mahonia aquifolium), gazania (Gazania rigens leucolania), and ornamental rose (Rosa sp.). The study area contains few trees, but coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), and purple leaved plum (Prunus cerasifera) are present as part of the landscaping. All of these trees are young, and measure less than 20 centimeters (cm) diameter at breast height (dbh). The remainder of the project site (not proposed for development) consists of the slope face along the west shoulder of I-80, and the wetland mitigation area to the south. This entire area was likely subject to 5 6
Richmond Parkway Transit Center, Natural Environment Study (Minimal Impacts, June 2008. Richmond Parkway Transit Center Technical Study, Draft Report, RPTC Planning Group, November 2006.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 26
contouring during the construction of the adjacent roads and parking areas, but has been landscaped and maintained in a relatively natural state. Topography is fairly steep, sloping down from surrounding roadways (I-80) and adjacent parking lots to the wetland mitigation area. Vegetation in the undeveloped portion of the study area consists primarily of non-native annual grassland species such as soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), wild oats (Avena fatua), clover (Trifolium sp.), fireweed (Epilobium brachycarpum), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), wild mustard (Brassica sp.), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), and vetch (Vicia villosa). Scattered throughout the grassland habitat, particularly near the upper portion of the slopes, are coastal scrub species including coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), coffee berry (Rhamnus californicus), and young coast live oak. The created wetland occurs in the southeast corner of the study area, and occurs approximately 40 feet below the surrounding roads and parking areas. This feature appears to be seasonally inundated, and is vegetated with willows (Salix sp.), and cattails (Typha latifolia). The water source for this wetland feature appears to be a combination of direct precipitation and runoff from adjacent hardscapes. Animals. Due to the highly urbanized nature of the surrounding region, and the isolation of the study area from areas of undisturbed habitat, wildlife use is very limited. Typically only those species tolerant of regular human disturbances would use this type of area. The only wildlife species observed during the site visit were white-crowned sparrows (Zonotrichia leucocephala), and common crow (Corvus brachyrhyncos). However, other urban tolerant wildlife species could be expected to occur in, and/or use this habitat. Examples of such species include western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens), house mouse (Mus musculus), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), California vole (Microtus californicus), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), black rat (Rattus rattus), California ground squirrel (Spermophilis beecheyi), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and raccoon (Procyon lotor).
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 27
2.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion Significant or Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant Impact
No Impact
1) 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?
2) 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
3) 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?
4) 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?
5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
6) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Would the project:
3.
Discussion
Comment on D.1 and D.2. As noted above, there is a low likelihood for occurrence for two specialstatus species, the Callippe silverspot butterfly (Speyeria callippe callippe) and the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii). The Callippe silverspot butterfly is found in grasslands and adjacent habitats. Females lay their eggs on the dry remains of the larval food plant, Viola pedunculata, or on the surrounding debris. Originally known from seven populations around the San Francisco Bay, several have been extirpated. Since 1988, callippe silverspot butterflies have been recorded at San Bruno Mountain and Sign Hill near South San Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 28
Francisco (San Mateo County), in the hills near Pleasanton (Alameda County), at Sears Point (Sonoma County), and in the hills between Vallejo and Cordelia (Solano County). No Callippe silverspot butterfly, or their host plant, Viola pedunculata, were observed during the October 18, 2007 survey of the study area. Given the historic disturbance to the site, the height and density of non-native annual grasses, and the proximity to heavily urbanized land uses, it is unlikely that this species occurs in the study area. However, the survey was not focused on this species, and was conducted outside the time of year when this species and its host plant are most readily observed. The possibility remains that this species and its host plant could occur at this site, but were simply not detected during the reconnaissance level survey. Project construction would occur only in the currently developed portion of the study area. No encroachment on the wetland mitigation area is expected to occur. Therefore, even if Callippe silverspot butterfly is present in the annual grassland portion of the study area, no impacts on this species would result from implementation of this project. California red-legged frog (CRLF) occurs in slow moving freshwater streams, ponds and marshes that typically lack non-native predators such as bullfrogs and non-native fishes. Originally found throughout the state, CRLF has been extirpated from much of its former range through habitat loss and introduction of non-native predators. Though now absent from the Central Valley and much of the Sierra Nevada foothills, this species is still relatively abundant along the coast. This species is known to occur in some portions of Contra Costa County. Given the historic disturbance of the study area, it is unlikely that CRLF occurs in the study area. Due to the lack of access into the wetland mitigation area, the suitability of the habitat could only be assessed from a distance. Additionally, review of aerial photography revealed the presence of a somewhat larger parcel of undeveloped land to the south where it appears a wooded stream corridor may be present. This parcel is largely separated from the study area by development, but there is a connection along the grassy shoulder of I-80. If CRLF are present in this other parcel, it is possible they could reach the undeveloped portion of the study area. As stated above, project construction would occur only in the currently developed portion of the study area, and no encroachment on the wetland mitigation area is expected to occur. Even if CRLF is present in the wetland mitigation portion of the study area, no impacts on this species would result from implementation of this project. Comment on D.3. A wetland area exists at the southeast corner of the project site between the existing park and ride lot and I-80. The proposed redevelopment of the project site would avoid development in the wetland area, and therefore would not physically alter or fill the wetland area directly. The proposed project would also not result in a substantial increase or decrease of impervious surface. As discussed in Section H, Hydrology and Water Quality, stormwater drainages from the project site would continue to flow into the wetland mitigation area. However, potential secondary impacts to this wetland area, such as erosion/siltation or degraded water quality impacts, could occur during construction or operation. However, as discussed in Section H, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project would be required to meet discharge requirements of the Caltrans Stormwater Management Plan, and implement best management practices during construction according to the Caltrans NPDES Construction Permit. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to the wetland area. Comment on D.4. The study area contains trees and shrubs in the landscaping beds along the perimeter and within the existing park and ride lot, as well as in the wetland mitigation area to the south. These trees and shrubs could provide valuable shelter and nesting habitat for a variety of resident and migratory
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 29
bird species occurring in the region (e.g., scrub jay, white-crowned sparrow, Brewer’s blackbird, etc.). Given the highly urbanized nature of the surrounding area, it is likely that any such landscape features are of great value to these species as little other cover is available in urban environments. Although the species likely to use these trees and shrubs are considered common and widespread, their active nests are afforded protection from removal by a variety of state and federal laws including Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If construction occurs within the nesting season, potential loss of nesting birds protected under Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act could occur as a result of the removal of trees and shrubs in the study area in preparation for project construction. This would be a potentially significant impact of the project. However, impacts on nesting birds can be avoided through timing of vegetation removal. Removal of existing shrubs and trees in preparation for construction of the proposed project shall be conducted outside the nesting season for birds known from the region (typically March through August). MITIGATION MEASURE. Implementation of Mitigation Measure D-1 would reduce potential impacts to biological resources to less than significant. D-1.
Conduct pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and implement protective measures if identified. The removal of trees, shrubs, or weedy vegetation shall be avoided during the February 1 through August 31 bird nesting period to the extent possible. If no vegetation or tree removal is proposed during the nesting period, no surveys shall be required. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, a survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist within 30 days prior to the removal of trees, shrubs, grassland vegetation, buildings, grading, or other construction activity. The area surveyed shall include all construction sites, access roads, and staging areas, as well as areas within 150 feet outside the boundaries of the areas to be cleared or as otherwise determined by the biologist. In the event that an active nest is discovered in the areas to be cleared, or in other habitats within 150 feet of construction boundaries, clearing and construction shall be postponed for at least two weeks or until a wildlife biologist has determined that the young have fledged (left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts.
Comment on D.5. Several trees were observed in the study area during the October 18, 2007 survey. These trees included native and exotic species planted in landscaping strips in the existing park and ride lot, and in the wetland mitigation area. Species included coast live oak, willow, and purple-leaved plum. All trees observed in the study area are less than 20 cm (7-7/8 inches) dbh. The City of Richmond’s Tree Protection Bylaw No. 8057 prohibits the cutting or removal of any tree larger than 20 cm (7-7/8 inches) dbh (measured at 1.4 meters or 4 feet 7 inches above the ground) without a permit from the City. While AC Transit is not required to comply with local regulations for removal of trees, there would be no project impacts to trees protected under the City’s Tree Protection Bylaw, because the trees found in the study area are not large enough to qualify for protection. Therefore, there would be no conflicts with local regulations protecting biological resources. Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 30
Comment on D.6. No Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans have been adopted that encompass the proposed site. Therefore, the continuation of the site as a bus and park-andride facility would not conflict with such plans.
4.
Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to sensitive status species or wetlands, as the proposed project would not result in construction activities within any potential habitat areas for these species or wetland areas. Impacts to nesting or migratory birds would be minimized to a less-thansignificant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure D-1, which requires nesting surveys to be completed if construction activities are conducted during the nesting season. There would be no conflicts with local regulations protecting biological resources or habitat conservation plans.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 31
E.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
1.
Setting
The project site is currently developed and includes a building, paved parking lot, and minimal landscaping. Cultural resources are known to exist throughout the Bay Area region, according to the City of Richmond General Plan 7 and the Contra Costa County General Plan. Approximately 600 archaeological sites have been recorded within Contra Coast County. The majority of these sites are located near water bodies and stream corridors as these areas suited seasonal and permanent Native American settlements. 8 For the purposes of this analysis, cultural resources are divided into historic resources, archeological resources, and paleontological resources. These types of resources are described below. In addition, a site survey of intact native soils was performed by PBS&J and is also described below. Archeological Resources. Prehistoric archeological resources typically include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars and pestles, and dark friable soil containing shell and bone, dietary debris, heataffected rock, and/or human burials. Native American cultural resources in the portion of Contra Costa County where the project is located are generally situated near the San Francisco Bay and found on terraces adjacent to intermittent or perennial creeks or springs, along ridges, and on broad or moderately wide midslope terraces. A records search performed by the Native American Heritage Commission concluded that no recorded Native American cultural resources within the project site. 9 A records search performed by the Northwest Information Center concluded that the immediate project area contains no recorded Native American or historic-period archaeological resources. The Northwest Information Center has no record of an archeological study for the project site. 10 Historic Resources. Historic resources typically include stone or adobe foundations or walls, structures and remains with square nails, and refuse deposits (often found in old wells and privies). The State Office of Historic Preservation has also determined that buildings and structures 45 years and older may be of historic value, depending on the integrity of the structure and other criteria that link it to a historic event, person, or the distinctive characteristics of an architectural type, period, or method of construction. The proposed project is located within a developed area containing modern commercial buildings and I-80.
7 8
9
10
City of Richmond General Plan (1992),Open Space and Conservation Element. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005 – 2025, Open Space Element, Historical and Cultural Resources Section. Adopted: January 2005. Pilas-Treadway, Debbie, Environmental Specialist III, Native American Heritage Commission, written correspondence with EIP Associates, PBS&J, August 2, 2007. Jillian E. Guldenbrein, Researcher I, Northwest Information Center, written correspondence with PBS&J, August 16, 2007.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 32
The majority of the project site and surrounding area has been disturbed. A records search performed by the Northwest Information Center did not reveal any historic properties within the project area. 11 Paleontological Resources. Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains and/or traces of prehistoric plant and animal life exclusive of human remains or artifacts. Fossil remains, such as bones, teeth, shells, and wood, are found in geologic deposits (rock formations). Although no paleontological sites have been discovered specifically within the project site, paleontological resources or prehistoric fossils have been discovered throughout Contra Costa County. Site Survey of Native Soils. The wetlands area at the southeast portion of the project site is the only unpaved area with potential to contain intact native soils. The wetlands area was examined for historic and prehistoric artifacts, features, and midden (dark, friable soil containing remnants of past human activity). The presence of tall, thick grasses in the heart of the wetlands limited the surface visibility. Along the perimeter of the wetlands ground visibility was only slightly better, as most of the area is covered with grasses and shrubs. Two archaeologists walked shoulder to shoulder, inspecting the ground surface for cultural materials. Soils along the perimeter of the wetlands consist of dark, sandy loam. A trench that was excavated for the storm water run-off system was also examined for cultural remains. In contrast to the soils along the wetlands perimeter, the soils in the trench wall are sandy loam, possibly indicating that the trench soils were imported as fill during construction of the existing RPTC. No cultural resources were encountered during the investigation. In addition, no evidence of midden or anthropegenic soils was observed in the project site which would indicate the presence of Native American or historic-era resources. 12
2.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion Significant or Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant Impact
No Impact
1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5?
3) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site, or unique geologic feature?
4) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Would the project:
11
12
Jillian E. Guldenbrein, Researcher I, Northwest Information Center, written correspondence with PBS&J, August 16, 2007. PBS&J. Cultural Resource Inventory for the Richmond Parkway Transit Center, Richmond, California. Memorandum to AC Transit. January 22, 2008.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 33
3.
Discussion
Comment on E.1. The proposed project would redevelop the existing Richmond Parkway Transit Center. Therefore, no historic resources exist on site. Construction of the proposed project would not involve demolition of any historic buildings and no historic buildings are located near the project site. Therefore, there would be no historic resources would be affected. Comment on E.2 and E.4. The project site does not contain recorded Native American or historicperiod archeological resources. Given the dissimilarity of these two environmental factors, there is a low likelihood that unrecorded Native American cultural resources exist on the project site. 13 However, construction activities would result in ground disturbance that could cause a adverse change in the significance of an unrecorded archeological resource. Thus, impacts are considered potentially significant. MITIGATION MEASURE. Implementation of Mitigation Measure E-1 would reduce potential impacts to unrecorded cultural and paleontological resources to less than significant. E-1.
Develop protocol and procedures for encountering unknown cultural resources. The following provisions shall be incorporated into the grading and construction contracts to address the potential to encounter currently unknown cultural resources: a. Prior to the initiation of construction or ground-disturbing activities, all construction personnel shall receive environmental training that will include discussion of the possibility of buried cultural and paleontological resources, including training to recognize such possible buried cultural resources, as well as the procedures to follow if such cultural resources are encountered. b. If potential historical or unique archaeological resources are discovered during construction, all work in the immediate vicinity shall be suspended and alteration of the materials and their context shall be avoided pending site investigation by a qualified archaeological or cultural resources consultant retained by the project sponsor. The immediate vicinity wherein work shall be suspended shall be approximately 50 feet from the discovery or within an appropriate distance to be determined by the archaeologist or cultural resources consultant. Construction work shall not commence again until the archaeological or cultural resources consultant has been given an opportunity to examine the findings, assess their significance, and offer proposals for any additional exploratory measures deemed necessary for the further evaluation of and/or mitigation of adverse impacts to any potential historical resources or unique archaeological resources that have been encountered. c. If the find is determined to be an historical or unique archaeological resource, and if avoidance of the resource would not be feasible, the archaeological or cultural resources consultant shall prepare a plan for the methodical excavation
13
Jillian E. Guldenbrein, Researcher I, Northwest Information Center, written correspondence with EIP Associates, PBS&J, July 6, 2006.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 34
of those portions of the site that would be adversely affected. The plan shall be designed to result in the extraction of sufficient volumes of non-redundant archaeological data to address important regional research considerations. The work shall be performed by the archaeological or cultural resources consultant, and shall result in detailed technical reports. Such reports shall be submitted to the California Historical Resources Regional Information Center. Construction in the vicinity of the find shall be accomplished in accordance with current professional standards and shall not recommence until this work is completed. d. The project sponsor shall assure that project personnel are informed that collecting significant historical or unique archaeological resources discovered during development of the project is prohibited by law. Prehistoric or Native American resources can include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, and pestles; and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat-affected rock, or human burials. Historic resources can include nails, bottles, or other items often found in refuse deposits. e. If human remains are discovered, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the discovery site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the project applicant has complied with the provisions of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). In general, these provisions require that the County Coroner shall be notified immediately. If the remains are found to be Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The most likely descendant of the deceased Native American shall be notified by the Commission and given the chance to make recommendations for the remains. If the Commission is unable to identify the most likely descendent, or if no recommendations are made within 24 hours, remains may be re-interred with appropriate dignity elsewhere on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. If recommendations are made and not accepted, the Native American Heritage Commission will mediate the problem. Comment on E.3. According to the study performed by the Northwest Information Center and information presented in the Contra Costa County General Plan, paleontological resources or prehistoric fossils have been discovered throughout Contra Costa County. Furthermore, while the project vicinity has been developed and no known paleontological resources have been recorded therein, paleontological resources may be found at depths greater than previously disturbed. Construction activities could thus disturb unknown paleontological resources, thus resulting in a potentially significant impact. MITIGATION MEASURE. Implementation of Mitigation Measure E-1 above would reduce potential paleontological impacts to less than significant.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 35
4.
Conclusion
There are no cultural resources known to exist on the project site based on archival research performed by the Northwest Information Center. However, due to the history of the region and the discovery of other archeological and paleontological resources throughout Contra Costa County, unknown cultural resources could exist. To prevent impacts to unidentified subsurface cultural resources, Mitigation Measure E-1 has been recommended to ensure that potential impacts to unknown cultural resources remain less than significant.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 36
F.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
1.
Setting
Faults. The known active fault traces closest to the project site are those of the Hayward fault, approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the project site along the western edge of the Briones Hills, east of the project site. The Franklin-Calaveras Fault runs along the eastern edge of the Briones Hills to the southeast. In addition, the San Andreas fault is approximately 17 miles southwest of the site. The project site is not in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. 14 Seismicity. The City of Richmond, Contra Costa County, and the Bay Area are in one of the most active seismic regions in the United States. Each year, low and moderate magnitude earthquakes occurring in or near the Bay Area are felt by residents of the City and County. Since 1800, six major earthquakes have affected areas in Contra Costa County, with at least two of the faults that produced them being partially in the County. These earthquakes include the 1836 and 1868 earthquakes that originated on the Hayward fault and the 1861 earthquake on the Calaveras fault. 15 Two earthquakes originated on the San Andreas fault in 1838 and 1906. The April 1906 earthquake on the San Andreas fault, estimated at about Moment Magnitude (MW) 7.9 (M8.3 on the Richter scale), probably was the largest seismic event felt in the City and County. Most recently, the MW 6.9 (M7.1) Loma Prieta earthquake of October 1989 on the Santa Cruz Mountains segment of the San Andreas fault caused severe damage throughout the Bay Area. Liquefaction. Liquefaction in soil and sediments occurs when granular material is transformed from a solid state to a liquid state because of increases in pressure generated by an earthquake. Earthquakeinduced liquefaction occurs most often in low-lying areas with soils or sediments composed of unconsolidated, saturated, clay-free, uniformly sized sands and silts, but can occur in dry granular soils, or saturated soils with some clay content. The Contra Costa County General Plan’s Estimated Liquefaction Potential Map illustrates the likelihood for liquefaction throughout the County. The project site is in an area with generally low potential for liquefaction.2 Landslides. Because the project site and adjacent properties are nearly level, landslides are not considered a hazard. Slope stability issues related to the sides of excavations are regulated by Chapters 18 and 18A, and Appendix J of the 2007 California Building Code. Soils. The majority of the project site is covered with asphalt and concrete. The soil survey for Contra Coast County completed in the early 1970’s, prior to original site development, identified soils on site as Diablo and Lodo Clays with original slopes varying from 15 to 50 percent. These soils still may be present on-site. They have moderate to high erosion hazards when the soil is exposed and runoff rates are
14
15
California Geological Survey, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps, , Special Publication 42, 11th revision (2007) available in electronic version only. Contra Costa County General Plan, Safety Element, 2005 to 2025.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 37
medium to rapid. 16 The site may include other soils imported as fill during site preparation activities for construction of the existing facility.
2.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion Significant or Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant Impact
No Impact
a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as described on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to California Geological Survey Special Publication 42.)
b) Strong seismic groundshaking?
c) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Landslides?
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
3) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
4) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or property?
5)
Would the project:
1) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
2)
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
3.
Discussion
Comment on F.1(a). The project site is not in a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Thus, the proposed project is not expected to expose people to potential substantial adverse effects caused by the rupture of a known fault. There is no impact. Comment on F.1(b). The City of Richmond, Contra Costa County, and the larger San Francisco Bay Area are in a seismically active region. Recent studies by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) indicate that there is a 63 percent mean probability of a MW 6.7 or higher earthquake occurring in the Bay Area within the next 30 years, and a 27 percent mean probability that one or more earthquakes of a MW 16
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, California, 1977.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 38
6.7 or greater would occur on the Hayward fault in the same time frame. 17 The project site and surrounding area could experience a range of groundshaking effects during an earthquake on a Bay Area fault, particularly the Hayward fault. A characteristic earthquake on the Hayward fault could result in very strong to violent (Modified Mercalli Intensity IX) groundshaking intensities. 18, 19 Groundshaking of this intensity would result in heavily damaged or destroyed masonry, damage to foundations, and shifting of frame structures (if not bolted down) off their foundations. Development of the proposed project would be required to comply with construction standards and seismic design criteria contained in the California Building Code. Chapters 16 and 16A of the 2007 California Building Code deal with Structural Design requirements governing seismically resistant construction, including (but not limited to) factors and coefficients used to establish seismic site class and seismic occupancy category for the soil/rock at the building location and the proposed building design. Chapters 18 and 18A of the 2007 California Building Code include (but are not limited to) the requirements for foundation and soil investigations (Sections 1802 & 1802A); excavation, grading, and fill (Sections 1803 & 1803A); allowable load-bearing values of soils (Sections 1804 & 1804A); and the design of footings, foundations, and slope clearances (Sections 1805 & 1805A), retaining walls (Sections 1806 & 1806A), and pier, pile, driven, and cast-in-place foundation support systems (Sections 1808, 1808A, 1809, 1809A, 1810 & 1810A). Chapter 33 of the 2007 California Building Code includes (but is not limited to) requirements for safeguards at work sites to ensure stable excavations and cut or fill slopes (Section 3304). Appendix J of the 2007 California Building Code includes (but is not limited to) grading requirements for the design of excavations and fills (Sections J106 & J107) and for erosion control (Section J110). Review and approval of building permit plans and building inspection services would be completed under the direction of Caltrans or require AC Transit to obtain the services of a local agency for review and approval of building permit plans as well as building inspection services. These reviewing agencies could include, among others, the City of Richmond Building Regulations Division or the Contra Costa County Building Inspection Division. Although the potential for seismic groundshaking to occur at the project site is unavoidable, the risk of excessive, permanent damage to the buildings is anticipated to be relatively minor because the structural design would be required to adhere to 2007 California Building Code standards. Therefore, groundshaking hazards are considered less than significant. Comment on F.1(c). Because the project site is in a seismically active region, there is a potential for seismic-related ground failure at the project site. The Contra Costa County General Plan’s Estimated 17
18
19
2007 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF 2), United States Geological Survey, Open File Report 2007-1437, April 2008, pages 66 and 74. Shaking intensity is a measure of groundshaking effects at a particular location, and can vary depending on the magnitude of the earthquake, distance to the fault, focus of earthquake energy, and type of underlying geologic material at the project site. The Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale is used commonly to measure earthquake effects caused by groundshaking. The MMI values range from I (earthquake not felt) to XII (damage nearly total). ABAG, Shaking Intensity Map http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Shaking-Maps/top.htm, accessed October 2, 2007.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 39
Liquefaction Potential Map illustrates that the project site is in an area with generally low potential for liquefaction. Before construction of the proposed project, a site-specific soils report would be prepared that would identify any potentially unsuitable soil conditions (such as expansive, liquefiable, or compressive soils) and contain appropriate recommendations for foundation type and design criteria, including provisions to reduce the effects of expansive soils. The recommendations made in the soils report for ground preparation and earthwork are required by the Building Code to be incorporated in the construction design. The soils evaluations must be conducted by registered soil professionals, and the measures to eliminate inappropriate soil conditions must be applied. Compliance with the 2007 California Building Code would reduce liquefaction hazard at the project site to less than significant. Comment on F.1(d). Construction of the proposed project would need minimal grading to create foundations for buildings and pavement because the project site is not a steep or unstable slope and does not have an irregular surface. Therefore, because the ground surface at the project site is relatively flat and slopes nearly imperceptibly, because there are no steep or unstable slopes adjacent to the project site, and because grading activities would be minimal, there is no landslide hazard. Comment on F.2. The proposed project is not expected to create substantial erosion or loss of topsoil because most of the project site would be paved or landscaped. Soil erosion after construction would be controlled by implementation of approved landscape and irrigation plans, as needed. However, earthdisturbing activities associated with project construction have the potential to increase erosion if proper sedimentation and erosion control methods are not in place during construction. Section J110 of Appendix J of the 2007 California Building Code contains requirements for the design of erosion control systems. Because one of the major effects of loss of topsoil is sedimentation in receiving waters, erosion control standards are set by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) through administration of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process for storm drainage and construction site discharge. The NPDES permit requires implementation of nonpoint source control of runoff through the application of a number of Best Management Practices (BMPs). These BMPs are meant to reduce the amount of constituents, including eroded sediment, that enter streams and other water bodies. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for individual projects greater than 1 acre, as required by the RWQCB, must describe the stormwater BMPs (structural and operational measures) that would control the quality (and quantity) of stormwater runoff. Erosion and sedimentation issues are addressed more fully in Section H (Hydrology and Water Quality). Comment on F.3 and F.4. The project would conform to the 2007 California Building Code requirement that a site-specific soils report identify any potentially unsuitable soil conditions and make design recommendations accordingly, as described in Comment C.1, above. Because the proposed project would not involve groundwater withdrawal, land subsidence is not expected to occur as a result of the proposed project. Consequently, the proposed project would create a less-than-significant impact or risk to life and property associated with soil instability or expansive soils. Comment on F.5. Sewer mains are available to the project site and would be used for wastewater disposal. As a result, there would be no impact related to the capability of the soil to support septic tanks or alternative disposal systems. Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 40
4.
Conclusion
The proposed project would create no impacts related to fault rupture or seismically-related ground failure. The proposed project would be required to conform to 2007 California Building Code standards and, thus, would not expose people to significant geologic or seismic hazards. Conformance with the Stormwater Management Plan for the Project would ensure that erosion would not result from the proposed project. There would not be any impacts related to wastewater disposal through the soil, because the proposed project would be connected to the existing sanitary system. A geotechnical report would be prepared and would contain recommendations for ground preparation and earthwork specific to the project site which can be integrated into the construction design. Thus, geologic impacts would be less than significant or nonexistent.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 41
G.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
1.
Setting
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as greenhouse gases (GHGs) because they capture heat radiated from the sun as it is reflected back into the atmosphere, much like a greenhouse does. The accumulation of GHG’s has been implicated as a driving force for global climate change. Climate change is commonly used interchangeably with “global warming” and the “greenhouse effect.” Definitions of climate change vary between and across regulatory authorities and the scientific community, but in general can be described as the changing of the earth’s climate caused by natural fluctuations and anthropogenic activities which alter the composition of the global atmosphere. Individual projects contribute to the cumulative effects of climate change by emitting GHGs during demolition, construction, and operational phases. The principal GHGs are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor. (Ozone—not directly emitted, but formed from other gases—in the troposphere, the lowest level of the earth’s atmosphere, also contributes to retention of heat.) While the presence of the primary GHGs in the atmosphere are naturally occurring, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide (N2O) are largely emitted from human activities, accelerating the rate at which these compounds occur within earth’s atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is the “reference gas” for climate change, meaning that emissions of GHGs are typically reported in “carbon dioxide-equivalent” measures. Emissions of carbon dioxide are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas methane results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Other GHGs, with much greater heat-absorption potential than carbon dioxide, include hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride, and are generated in certain industrial processes. There is international scientific consensus that human-caused increases in GHGs have and will continue to contribute to global warming, although there is uncertainty concerning the magnitude and rate of the warming. Potential global warming impacts in California may include, but is not limited to, loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years. Secondary effects are likely to include global rise in sea level, impacts to agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity. The California Energy Commission (CEC) estimated that in 2004 California produced 500 million gross metric tons (about 550 million U.S. tons) of carbon dioxide-equivalent GHG emissions. The CEC found that transportation is the source of 38 percent of the state’s GHG emissions, followed by electricity generation (both in-state and out-of-state) at 23 percent and industrial sources at 13 percent. In the Bay Area, fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on-road motor vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of the Bay Area’s GHG emissions, accounting for just over half of the Bay Area’s 85 million tons of GHG emissions in 2002. Industrial and commercial sources were the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one-fourth of total emissions. Domestic sources (e.g., home water heaters, furnaces, etc.) account for about 11 percent of the Bay Area’s GHG emissions, followed by power plants at 7 percent. Oil refining currently accounts for approximately 6 percent of the total Bay Area GHG emissions.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 42
In 2005, in recognition of California’s vulnerability to the effects of climate change, Governor Schwarzenegger established Executive Order S-3-05, which sets forth a series of target dates by which statewide emission of GHG would be progressively reduced, as follows: by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. In 2006, California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill No. 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500, et seq., or AB 32), which requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to design and implement emission limits, regulations, and other measures, such that feasible and cost-effective statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 1990 levels by 2020 (representing a 25 percent reduction in emissions). AB 32 establishes a timetable for the CARB to adopt emission limits, rules, and regulations designed to achieve the intent of the Act. CARB staff is recommending a total of 44 discrete early action measures. Measures that could become effective during implementation of the proposed project could pertain to construction-related equipment operations. Some proposed early action measures will require new legislation to implement, some will require subsidies, some have already been developed, and some will require additional effort to evaluate and quantify. Applicable early action measures that are ultimately adopted will become effective during implementation of proposed project and could be subject to these requirements, depending on the proposed project’s timeline. BAAQMD recently adopted their Draft BAAQMD Air Quality Guidelines in June 2010, which includes recommended significance thresholds, assessment methodologies, and mitigation strategies for GHG emissions. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines includes significance determination based on a three-tiered threshold for the analysis of a project. Based on the BAAQMD three-tiered threshold a project would be considered less-than-significant if it either a) complies with a qualified Climate Action Plan (CAP); b) emits less than the screening threshold of 1,100 metric tons (MT) CO2e per year; or c) emits less than 4.6 MT/service population/year (MT/SP/yr) for land use development projects.
2.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion Significant or Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant Impact
No Impact
1) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
2) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Would the project:
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 43
3.
Discussion
Comment on G.1 and G.2. It is expected that the proposed project would primarily result in short-term GHG emissions from the combustion of fuel during construction and long-term GHG emissions from local traffic increases (mobile sources) and indirect emissions associated with electricity generation. However, the proposed project is a transit facility that is intended to reduce regional vehicle trips associated with passenger cars along freeways and surrounding roadways. Because of this, the proposed project would not be expected to result in a net increase in GHG emissions on a regional level. While the proposed project is expected to result in a reduction of vehicle miles travelled within the region, if increases in electricity use at the project site were to cause a net increase in CO2e emisisons, the project’s incremental increase associated with traffic and electricity would not be expected to exceed the BAAQMD’s screening threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e per year. It is also important to note that future state actions taken pursuant to AB 32 including requirements for lower carbon-content in motor vehicle fuels, improved vehicle mileage standards, and increased share of renewable energy in electricity generation will also serve, in time, to further reduce GHG emissions related to the proposed project. Therefore, project effects on GHG emissions would be less than significant.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 44
H.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
1.
Setting
This section provides a summary of information obtained from the Phase I Initial Site Assessment (ISA) by Ninyo & Moore (N&M) for the project site. 20 The objective of the ISA was to identify Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) that should be taken into consideration during construction and operation of the proposed project. The ISA was based on document reviews, database reviews, site reconnaissance and interviews. The data records search was conducted within a distance of approximately 0.25 to 0.5 miles of the project site and includes records kept by federal, State, and local agencies. In general, the project site and surrounding area was vacant, undeveloped land from at least 1915 until approximately 1949. I-80 was constructed to the east of the project site during the 1950s. Development of residential and commercial uses commenced after construction of I-80 and has continued to present day. The project site remained undeveloped until the RPTC was constructed in the late 1990s. Based on information obtained for the project site, no RECs are present or recorded with the exception of a former oil pipeline which traversed the southern portion of the site within a joint utility easement. This pipeline has been removed. Information obtained from an interview with the inspector on-site during removal of the pipe, revealed that there were no signs of leakage from the pipe identified during removal. The Chevron station located to the west and upgradient from the site at 3411 Blume Drive is listed on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Info database as a small quantity generator (SQG). The RCRA Info database includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat, and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the RCRA. No violations were listed for this property; therefore it poses a low likelihood of environmentally impacting the project site. This station is also listed on the Underground Storage Tank Database provided by the State Water Resources Control Board, but is not listed as a Leaking Underground Storage Tank case, therefore it poses a low likelihood of environmentally impacting the site.
2.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion
Would the project:
1) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
20
Significant or Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant Impact
No Impact
Ninyo & Moore for PBS&J, Phase I Initial Site Assessment, Richmond Parkway Transit Center, SE Corner of Richmond Parkway and Blume Drive, Richmond, California, August 8, 2007.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 45
Significant or Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant Impact
No Impact
2) 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?
3) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
4) 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?
5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two 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?
6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
7) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
8) 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?
Would the project:
3.
Discussion
Comment on H.1 and H.2. Construction activities would involve the standard use of fuels and lubricants considered as hazardous materials or hazardous wastes. These materials are typical in construction activities and the project sponsor would be required to manage all hazardous materials pursuant to regulations of the Contra Costa County Health Services Department, the City of Richmond Fire Department and the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. Compliance with these applicable health and safety requirements regarding standard construction equipment would minimize impacts related to construction equipment, resulting in a less-than-significant impact. Construction would involve minor quantities of solvents, oil and grease, and petroleum hydrocarbons used during the construction phase of the project. As discussed in Checklist Items F, Geology and Soils, Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 46
and H, Hydrology, the proposed project would be required to comply with the Caltrans Stormwater Management Plan. Compliance with hazardous materials best management practices (BMPs) and the requirements of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to be prepared for the proposed project would reduce potential impacts from spills or leaks association with construction hazardous materials to a less-than-significant level. Additionally, subsequent to construction the proposed project would not involve the use, handling, or disposal of hazardous materials. Consequently, operation of the proposed project would not emit hazardous materials and/or be expected to pose any risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances. As noted, no RECs are present or recorded on or near the project site, with the exception of a former oil pipeline which traversed the southern portion of the site within a joint utility easement. This pipeline has been removed from the project site. The inspector on-site during removal of the pipe indicated that there were no signs of leakage from the pipe identified during removal. However, according to the Phase I ESA, soil impacted with product from the pipeline may be encountered during construction, should subsurface work occur in the vicinity of the former pipeline. If construction in this area is to occur, appropriate measures would need to be taken in the form of a soil management plan and worker training, designed to protect construction workers and the environment from potentially hazardous conditions. As such, the following mitigation measure would be implemented to minimize potential impacts to construction workers. MITIGATION MEASURE. Implementation of Mitigation Measure H-1 would reduce potential impacts from unknown contaminants to less than significant. H-1.
Develop monitoring protocol and procedures for encountering unknown soil contamination. Provisions for monitoring and handling of unknown soil contamination on the project site shall be incorporated into the grading and construction contracts to address the potential to encounter currently unknown soil contamination. Monitoring will occur during soil disturbing activities in the area of the former oil pipeline, and a plan for handling potential soil and groundwater contamination in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local regulations, will be prepared prior to construction. Any contaminated soils encountered on the project site will be tested and handled appropriately, depending upon the levels and types of contaminants present.
Comment on H.3. Based on a review of the West Contra Costa Unified School District’s website and maps of the project vicinity, the proposed project is not within a quarter-mile of a school. Thus, there would be no impact related to the emission or handling of hazardous materials, substances, or wastes within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Comment on H.4. The project site is not included on any lists of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment associated with such listed sites. Comment on H.5. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan nor is the project site located within two-miles of public airport or public use airport.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 47
Comment on H.6. The project site is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip and, therefore, would have no impact on safety related to proximity to a private airstrip. Comment on H.7. The proposed project would redevelop the existing RPTC and would not encroach on any major arterial roadways that could be used as an evacuation route in case of emergency. According to the traffic report prepared for the proposed project, the project would result in a net increase of approximately 285 inbound and 164 outbound passenger vehicle trips during the AM peak-hour trips, and 102 inbound and 349 outbound passenger vehicle trips during PM peak-hour trips. The projected change in volumes would not be expected to substantially impede emergency response vehicles. Emergency access to the project site is expected to be adequate and, with regard to busy streets, an emergency response vehicle would use sirens, and vehicles are required by law to move out of the way. Comment on H.8. The project site is in a developed urbanized area and is not adjacent to or intermixed with wildlands. The proposed project would not substantially alter the current exposure of people or structures to potential hazards involving fires. Accordingly, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
4.
Conclusion
Under the proposed project, hazardous materials would not be present at the project site in excess of typical quantities for construction and operation. The ISA did not reveal any RECs; however, as recommended by the ISA, Mitigation Measure H-1 is proposed to reduce impacts associated with unknown soil contamination in the vicinity of the former pipeline at the project site. The proposed project would not result in the release of hazardous materials or exposure of people and the environment to hazardous materials because the project would be required to adhere to existing regulations. The project site is not identified as a hazardous materials site. The proposed project would not pose a safety hazard to nearby air traffic. The project would have a less-than-significant impact on emergency access within the City of Richmond and communities in Contra Costa County. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to wildland fires. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in any significant safety or health hazards with mitigation.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 48
I.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1.
Setting
The project site is located in a developed area within the City of Richmond and unincorporated Contra Costa County, and is primarily covered by a paved park and ride facility. The City of Richmond has a Mediterranean type of climate, characterized by dry, relatively cool summers and wet, mild winters. The project vicinity receives an average annual rainfall of approximately 23.74 inches per year, with 85 percent of the rainfall occurring between October and April. 21 The project site does not contain any natural surface drainage features and does not overlay any Department of Water Resources defined groundwater basin. 22 The existing on-site stormwater runoff is collected by a local piped system within the site. The collected storm water is conveyed via an 18-inch storm drain and outfall into a depressed wetland area in the southeast corner of the site. This area was established as a wetland mitigation site and was required as part of I-80 Operational Improvements Project. The site then drains east through a 36-inch reinforced concrete pipe under I-80 and ultimately into the San Pablo Bay. 23
2.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion Significant or Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant Impact
No Impact
1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
2) 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)?
3) 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?
Would the project:
21
22
23
Desert Research Institute, Western Regional Climate Center, Richmond, California NCDC 1971-2000 Monthly Tabular Data, http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca7414, accessed October 1, 2007. Department of Water Resources, Bulletin 118: Groundwater Basins in California, Available at: http://www.dpla2.water.ca.gov/publications/groundwater/bulletin118/maps/correct_statewide_basin_map_V3_s ubbas.pdf, 2004 ARUP, RPTC Planning Group, Richmond Parkway Transit Center Technical Study, Technical Study Report, March 2007.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 49
Significant or Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant Impact
No Impact
4) 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 offsite?
5) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
6) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
7) 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?
8) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
9) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
10) Be subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Would the project:
3.
Discussion
Comment on I.1. The project site is located in the San Pablo Basin, where the receiving water body is the San Pablo Bay. Wetland areas are also located in the San Pablo Basin, including the wetland on the project site and wetlands related to San Pablo and Wildcat Creeks. The majority of the project site is owned by Caltrans; however, the rest of the site is not under Caltrans jurisdiction. AC Transit would have a lease agreement for the property from Caltrans. Therefore, development and operation of the proposed project on the Caltrans-owned portion of the projects would be subject to the Caltrans Statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (Order No. 99-06-DWQ and NPDES No. CAS000003) waste discharge requirements (WDR) and associated Caltrans Stormwater Management Plan (Caltrans SMP). Because the proposed project would disturb more than one acre, construction on the non-Caltrans portion of the project site would be subject to the statewide Construction General Permit WDR (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002). Sanitary waste discharges would be subject to the individual NPDES permit for the West County Wastewater District. Development of the entire project site is subject to the regulations of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB), including the associated San Francisco Bay Basin Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) and the Urban Creeks Pesticide Toxicity
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 50
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL). Applicable water quality standards for the San Pablo Bay are listed in the Basin Plan. AC Transit is responsible to state and federal government agencies for maintaining water quality standards set under the authority of the Clean Water Act. As part of the requirements, all storm drainage that discharges into public water is required to meet water quality standards outlined in the governing NPDES permit requirements. Consequently, construction of the proposed project would require preparation and implementation of a project-specific stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) under either the Statewide Caltrans NPDES Permit or the Construction General Permit. The SWPPP would contain stormwater quality best management practices (BMPs) that may include activity scheduling to avoid wet weather, prohibitions of certain practices, maintenance and materials handling procedures, and other BMPs to prevent or reduce the transport of pollutants stormwater runoff during construction. The SWPPP would be reviewed and approved by Caltrans and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Caltrans and the RWQCB have authority to inspect and monitor project sites to ensure compliance with the approved SWPPP. These WDRs are considered by the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) and RWQCB as protective of water quality. The joint-agreement with Caltrans for development on this portion of the project site would ensure Caltrans oversight of both construction and operation for compliance with Caltrans requirements and that the Caltrans Statewide NPDES Permit is not violated. Operation of the Caltrans portion of the project site would also be required to comply with the post-construction stormwater quality best management practices (BMPs) as noted in the Caltrans SMP. Additionally, Caltrans oversight would ensure compliance with the Construction General Permit for the non-Caltrans portion of the project site. The RWQCB may also inspect and monitor the project site for compliance with the Construction General Permit. Consequently, construction of the proposed project would not violate any WDRs or water quality standards. However, there is no Caltrans oversight for operation of the non-Caltrans portion of the project site and there is no governing NPDES permit to ensure implementation of operational stormwater quality BMPs. Consequently, polluted runoff from the project site would not be required to implement BMPs protective of water quality and could, therefore, result in polluted runoff that could cause or contribute to violation of water quality standards. Implementation of Mitigation Measure I-1 would ensure that postconstruction stormwater runoff from the non-Caltrans portion of the project site does not violate water quality standards and impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Sanitary wastewater generated by the proposed project would be collected by the West County Wastewater District sanitary sewer system and treated at the South Bayside System Authority Wastewater Treatment Plant, (WWTP) which is permitted by the RWQCB to discharge wastewater into San Francisco Bay (see Checklist Item O, Utilities and Service Systems, for further analysis of wastewater impacts). This WDR was prepared by the RWQCB for the WWTP to be protective of water quality for its allowable discharge capacity. There is sufficient discharge capacity for treatment of wastewater from the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project sanitary wastewater would not violate this WDR or water quality standards. MITIGATION MEASURE. Implementation of Mitigation Measure I-1 would reduce potential violation of water quality standards to less-than-significant levels.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 51
I-1
Prepare and implement post-construction stormwater quality BMPs. AC Transit shall prepare and implement post-construction stormwater quality best management practices (BMPs) for the entire project site in accordance with the Caltrans Statewide NPDES Permit and SMP. Caltrans staff shall review site plans and BMPs for effectiveness, completeness, and design criteria. Prior to the beginning of construction activities, AC Transit shall obtain approval from Caltrans for compliance with the SMP for the entire project site. This will provide for adequate stormwater quality management for the entire project site and a consistent design and implementation of post-construction stormwater quality BMPs.
Comment on I.2. The proposed project would not include any groundwater supply wells or other facilities that could lower the local groundwater table or deplete groundwater supplies. Additionally, the project site does not overlay any Department of Water Resources groundwater basin. The project site is currently covered with impervious surfaces and, therefore, does not serve as a substantial groundwater recharge zone. The proposed project would involve replacement of the existing impervious surface with new impervious surfaces. Thus, no impact to groundwater recharge is anticipated from the proposed project. The proposed project includes a new parking lot structure and may require excavation for belowgrade structures, such as the foundation, support pilings, and utility trenches/pits. The existing depth to groundwater is currently unknown. Therefore, there is a potential for construction dewatering that would temporarily lower the shallow groundwater table. However, any potential groundwater dewatering would be temporary and not substantial. Consequently, proposed project impacts on the local groundwater table and water supplies would be less than significant. Comment on I.3. The proposed project would involve minor excavation and grading construction of foundations that could contribute to on-site erosion during construction activities. The Caltrans Statewide NPDES Permit and Construction General Permit require development and implementation of a SWPPP including erosion and sediment controls. Additionally, excavation and grading activities would comply with California Building Code requirements, which are described in Checklist Item F, Geology and Soils. Therefore, potential on-site erosion and sediment transport during construction would be less than significant. Development of the proposed project would replace paved areas with new pavement and otherwise protect surfaces that were exposed during construction in accordance with the SWPPP. Therefore, potential on-site erosion impacts during operation of the proposed project would be less than significant. Additionally, because there would be no increase in impervious surfaces and that the overall drainage pattern of the project site would not be substantially altered from existing conditions, there would be no substantial differences in stormwater runoff rates or volumes compared to existing conditions. Consequently, the potential for increased rate and amount of stormwater runoff that could contribute to off-site erosion and sediment transport would not be substantial. Therefore the potential for off-site erosion would be less than significant. Comment on I.4 and I.5. As noted above, the proposed project would not increase the amount of impervious surfaces or otherwise substantially alter the site runoff characteristics. Additionally, the project site is served by a drainage system that drains to the adjacent mitigation wetland. Therefore, there Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 52
would be no substantial increase in the rate or volume of stormwater runoff and potential impacts to onor off-site flooding or storm drain system capacity would be less than significant. Pollutants typically present in runoff from construction sites include paint, lubricants, soil and sediment, and debris. As mentioned above, construction of the proposed project would require development and implementation of a SWPPP that would include stormwater quality BMPs to prevent off-site transport of pollutants in stormwater runoff during construction activities. Additionally, development of the proposed project would not substantially alter the type or amount of pollutants in stormwater runoff because land use would remain essentially the same. Implementation of stormwater quality BMPs in compliance with the Caltrans SMP and Mitigation Measure H-1 would further reduce the potential for pollutants in stormwater runoff. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute additional sources of pollutants in runoff and impacts would be less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURE. Implementation of Mitigation Measure H-1 would reduce the potential for pollutants in stormwater runoff to less-than-significant levels. Comment on I.6. The proposed project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality and there would be no impact. Comment on I.7 and I.8. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area. 24 Therefore, there would be no impacts regarding development within a flood hazard area. Comment on I.9. The proposed project would not directly expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. Levees along the San Francisco Bay shoreline are at elevations lower (approximately 8 feet above mean sea level) than that of the project site (approximately 45 to 55 feet above mean sea level); thus, floodwaters resulting from levee failure would not inundate the project site. Also, the dam failure inundation map for the area created by the Association of Bay Area Governments shows that the project site is not in or near a dam failure inundation zone. 25 Therefore, there would be no impacts associated with dam or levee failure innundation. Comment on I.10. Tsunamis are large ocean waves, typically generated by seismic activity, that historically have caused significant damage to coastal communities throughout the world. The project site is not located within an area of potential inundation by tsunamis. 26 Seiches are large waves primarily caused by seismic activity in enclosed or partially enclosed (e.g., bay) bodies of water. The project site is located near the San Pablo Bay, however, it is 45 to 55 feet above the San Pablo Bay and would therefore, not be subject to seiche inundation. Additionally, the upland location and generally level terrain of the site and surrounding areas precludes inundation by mudflow. As a result of the above assessments, the proposed project would have no impacts related to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
24
25
26
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, FIRM, Contra Costa County Unincorporated Areas, Panel 230 of 625, Community Panel Number 0600250230C Revised September 7, 2001. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Dam Failure Inundation Hazard Map, www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/damfailure/damfail.html, accessed October, 2007. Ritter, J. R. and W. R. Dupre,. Maps Showing Areas of Potential Inundation by Tsunamis in the San Francisco Bay Region, California, United States Geological Survey, 1972.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 53
J.
LAND USE
1.
Setting
Land uses to the south and west of the project site, within the City of Richmond are primarily commercial with open space and residential uses beyond. Uses to the north of Richmond Parkway are primarily single family residential uses located in the unincorporated Tara Hills area of west Contra Costa County. The cities of Pinole and Hercules are further to the north. Land uses to the east of the project site are primarily regional commercial uses within the City of Pinole. The unincorporated El Sobrante area of west Contra Costa County is further to the east. The project site is surrounded on all sides by existing roadways, including I-80 to the east, Richmond Parkway to the north, Blume Drive to the west, and a private access roadway to the south. The project site is located in the City of Richmond and unincorporated Contra Costa County. The applicable land use plans for the project site include: the City of Richmond General Plan; the City of Richmond Zoning Ordinance; the Contra Costa County General Plan; and the County Costa County Code. The southwest portion of the site is zoned C-3, Regional Commercial District, and the southeast portion of the site is zoned CRR, Community and Regional Recreation District, in the City of Richmond Municipal Code. 27 The entire portion of the site within the City of Richmond is designated “Regional Office and/or Shopping” in the City of Richmond General Plan. 28 The northern portion of the project site is within unincorporated Contra Costa County and is zoned R-6, Single-Family Residential District, by the Contra Costa County Code 29 and is designated PS “Public/Semi Public” in the Contra Costa County General Plan. 30
2.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion Significant or Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant Impact
No Impact
1) Physically divide an established community?
2) 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?
3) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
Would the project:
27 28 29 30
The Municipal Code of the City of Richmond, Article 15.04-Zoning Ordinance. City of Richmond, General Plan, Adopted: August, 1994. Contra Costa County Code, Title 8-Zoning. Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020, Adopted: January 2005.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 54
3.
Discussion
Comment on J.1. The proposed project would redevelop the existing RPTC. As stated above, the project site is surrounded by a mix of commercial uses and is bordered by roadways, including I-80 and Richmond Parkway. The I-80 corridor is a substantial barrier that limits the connectivity between the City of Richmond and the nearby communities to the east of I-80. The proposed project is located immediately adjacent to this barrier. Additionally, the proposed project would not convert existing land uses, nor create new barriers to circulation, and no new right-of-way would be acquired. Therefore, the proposed project would not introduce a new use or design that would divide the surrounding community. Comment on J.2. The applicable land use plans for the proposed project site include: the City of Richmond General Plan; the City of Richmond Zoning Ordinance; the Contra Costa County General Plan; and the County Costa County Code. The proposed project would not result in a change to the designations or zoning within any of these applicable plans or codes, and the proposed project would not result in changes to the uses at the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would generally comply with all applicable plans, policies, and regulations regarding development of the site adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. However, as a district, AC Transit may be exempt from local land use regulations and may not need to comply with the policies and regulations of such plans and ordinances. Comment on J.3. The proposed project would not conflict with any habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans, or other approved local or regional conservation plans because there are no such approved plans that apply to the project area.
4.
Conclusion
The proposed project would not divide the community surrounding the project. The proposed project would generally comply with all applicable plans, policies and regulations regarding development of the site adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. However, as a district, AC Transit may not need to comply with such plans, policies, and regulations. The proposed project would not conflict with any habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans, or other approved local or regional conservation plans. Thus, there would be no land use impacts.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 55
K.
MINERAL RESOURCES
1.
Setting
Mining activities in California are regulated by the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975. Based on guidelines adopted by the California Geological Survey (CGS – formerly know as the Division of Mines and Geology), areas known as Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) are classified according to the presence or absence of significant deposits. CGS Mineral Resource Zones and Resource Sectors Contra Costa County map classifies the western portion of Contra Costa County, including the project site, as MRZ-4, which is defined as an area that is often poorly mapped, has poor accessibility, and may be underlain by rock units that have never been quarried for aggregate.
2.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion
Significant or Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant Impact
No Impact
1) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
2) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Would the project:
3.
Discussion
Comment on K.1 and K.2. There are no known significant mineral resources on the project site, based on review of the CGS Mineral Resource Zones and Resource Sector Contra Costa County map. Furthermore, the site is not delineated as a locally-important mineral resource by the CGS or on any land use plan. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on known significant mineral resources.
4.
Conclusion
The proposed project would have no impact on known significant mineral resources.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 56
L.
NOISE
1.
Setting
Background. Sound is created when objects vibrate, resulting in air pressure variations characterized by their amplitude (loudness) and frequency (pitch). The standard unit of sound amplitude is the decibel (dB). The decibel scale is logarithmic; it describes the physical intensity of the pressure variations. The pitch of the sound is related to the frequency of the pressure variation. The human ear’s sensitivity to sound is frequency-dependent. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) measures sound intensity while discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating that of the human ear. Noise is “unwanted” sound. A typical noise environment consists of a base of steady “background” noise that is the sum of many distant and indistinguishable noise sources. Superimposed on this background is the noise from individual distinguishable local sources, such as traffic on an adjacent roadway. Vibration is sound radiated through the ground. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called groundborne noise. The ground motion caused by vibration is measured as particle velocity in inches per second and is referenced as vibration decibels (VdB). Groundborne vibration levels vary from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration velocity level that is barely perceptible by humans, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings. Existing Noise Conditions. Land uses in the vicinity of the project site include primarily commercial uses. Existing noise sources at the project site include traffic on nearby roadways and I-80 (west of the project site).
2.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion Significant or Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant Impact
No Impact
1) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
2) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
3) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Would the project:
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 57
Significant or Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant Impact
No Impact
4) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
5) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
6) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Would the project:
3.
Discussion
Comment on L.1, L.3, and L.4. Implementation of the proposed project would result in intermittent short-term noise impacts resulting from construction-related activities. Construction-related activities associated with the project would include demolition, excavation, grading, and general building construction. Pile driving may also be required for construction of the parking structure. The EPA has compiled data regarding the noise generating characteristics of typical construction activities. These data are presented in Table L-1 and Table L-2. These noise levels would diminish rapidly with distance from the construction activity at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance. For example, a noise level of 86 dBA measured at 50 feet from the noise source would decrease to 80 dBA at 100 feet and to 74 dBA at 200 feet. As shown in Table L-2, noise levels for general construction phases (excluding pile driving) could be as high as 80 dBA at times within 100 feet of construction activity. However, the closest sensitive receptors to the project site are residential uses along Richmond Parkway west of the project site. These uses are approximately 400 feet away from the western edge of the project site, and approximately 600 feet away from the proposed parking structure. At that distance noise levels from construction would have diminished to levels below 70 dBA. As noted, pile driving may be required for construction of the parking structure. Peak noise levels associated with pile driving could be as high as 101 dBA at times within 50 feet. At 600 feet away (distance to the closest sensitive receptor), these peak noise levels would diminish to below 80 dBA. These noise levels would not exceed the guidelines for construction noise levels shown in Table L-3. Therefore, project-related construction noise would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 58
Table L-1 Noise Ranges of Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels in dBA Leq at 50 feet1
Construction Equipment Front Loader
73–86
Trucks
82–95
Cranes (moveable)
75–88
Vibrator
68–82
Saws
72–82
Pneumatic Impact Equipment
83–88
Jackhammers
81–98
Pile Driver
96–101
Pumps
68–72
Generators
71–83
Compressors
75–87
Concrete Mixers
75–88
Concrete Pumps
81–85
Back Hoe
73–95
Tractor
77–98
Scraper/Grader
80–93
Paver
85–88
Source:
US Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, December, 1971.
Notes:
Machinery equipped with noise control devices or other noise-reducing design features does not generate the same level of noise emissions as that shown in this table.
Table L-2 Typical Outdoor Construction Noise Levels Noise Level at 100 Feet (dBA Leq)
Noise Level at 200 Feet (dBA Leq)
Noise Level at 400 Feet (dBA Leq)
Noise Level at 800 Feet (dBA Leq)
Construction Phase
Noise Level at 50 Feet (dBA Leq)
Ground Clearing
82
76
70
64
58
Excavation/Grading
86
80
74
68
62
Foundations
77
71
65
59
53
Structural
83
77
71
65
59
External Finishing
86
80
74
68
62
Source: US Environmental Protection Agency, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, December, 1971.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 59
Table L-3 U.S. Department of Transportation Construction Noise Guidelines One-Hour Leq (dBA) Land Use Residential
Day
Night
90
80
Commercial
100
100
Industrial
100
100
Source: Federal Transit Administration 1995.
According to the traffic report prepared for the proposed project, the project would result in approximately 285 inbound and 164 outbound passenger vehicle trips during the AM peak-hour trips, and 102 inbound and 349 outbound passenger vehicle trips during PM peak-hour trips. Table L-4 summarizes expected noise increases based on the level of traffic expected to be generated by the proposed project and shows that the noise level increase due to project-related traffic. Based upon estimates generated using expected traffic counts and the FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model, changes in noise levels would increase by a maximum of 0.2 dBA along Richmond Parkway under cumulative conditions. As shown in the table, this increase in traffic volume would not create a significant increase in noise levels. Only noise along Richmond Parkway was modeled since the project site is located in an urbanized commercial area, and sensitive receptors are not located along other roadways in the project vicinity that would be affected by the proposed project traffic. Therefore, increased noise generated by the proposed project would be less than significant.
Table L-4 Average Noise Levels Without and With the Proposed Project (dBA) Noise Level at 100 feet Roadway Segment
Existing
Without Project
With Project
Increase
69.0
69.0
69.1
0.1
69.0
69.4
69.6
0.2
Baseline (Completion Year) Richmond Parkway North of I-80 Cumulative (2030) Richmond Parkway North of I-80
Source: Numbers generated using the FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) Emission Levels, and information from PBS&J., June 2008.
Comment on L.2. Groundborne vibration would occur during project construction as a result of demolition and construction. Of the construction equipment likely to be used on site, loaded trucks and small bulldozers are the most likely to produce perceptible vibration in areas close to where they would operate. Vibration intensity is measured in vibration decibels (VdB). Vibration damage to fragile buildings can be avoided by keeping their exposures at or below 100 VdB, while sleep disturbance in residential areas can be avoided by keeping exposures to residential structures at or below 80 VdB, if the
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 60
vibration events are infrequent (i.e., fewer than 70 per day). Based on the construction vibration assessment methodology contained in the Federal Transit Administration’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, vibration levels for pile drivers, loaded trucks, and small bulldozers at varying distances from their locale of operation are presented in Table L-5.
Table L-5 Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment VdB1 Construction Equipment Pile Driver Loaded Trucks Small Bulldozer
25 Feet
50 Feet
75 Feet
100 Feet
400 Feet
112 86 58
103 77 49
98 72 44
94 68 40
76 50 22
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, Federal Transit Administration, May 2006. Note: 1 VdB = vibration decibels.
As shown in Table L-5, vibration from pile drivers would fall below the 80 VdB residential sleep disturbance threshold at the closest sensitive receptors, which are approximately 400 feet away or farther from the project site. Vibration intensity from construction equipment is expected to be barely perceptible in residential areas. Therefore, the groundborne vibration impact of the proposed project would be less than significant. Comment on L.5. The proposed project is not located within any airports. The closest airports are Oakland International Airport in Oakland and Buchanan Field in Concord, both of which are located over 15 miles away from the project site. No impacts associated with noise from this airport would occur. Comment on L.6. There would be no noise impact due to proximity to a private airstrip, because the project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
4.
Conclusion
The proposed project would result in a less-than-significant increase of outdoor noise levels and groundborne vibration in the project vicinity due to temporary construction. The proposed project would result in increases in permanent ambient noise levels as a result of project-generated traffic, but the increase would be considered less than significant as it would be below the identified thresholds for sensitive receptors. There would be no impacts from proximity to a public or private airport.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 61
M.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
1.
Setting 31
There were approximately 102,700 people living in the City of Richmond in 2005, according to estimates in the 2007 Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) projections. The population is projected to increase to 109,800 by 2015. Richmond provided nearly 41,050 jobs in 2005. ABAG projects that the City will provide approximately 47,860 jobs in 2015, an increase of about 6,810 jobs from 2005 to 2015. According to ABAG, Contra Costa County had a population of approximately 1,023,400 in 2005 and is projected to reach 1,107,300 by 2015. Contra Costa County was estimated to provide 379,030 total jobs in 2005 and is projected to increase to 436,970 in 2015. The existing RPTC is located in a commercial area and no residences exist on the site.
2.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion Significant or Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
1) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
2) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
3) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Would the project:
3.
Discussion
Comment on M.1. The proposed project would not directly induce population growth, because the proposed project would not include the construction of new housing units or create a substantial number of new jobs. The proposed project would increase the capacity of the existing RPTC. Demand for parking at the existing RPTC exceeds the available supply of approximately 200 parking spaces. The potential demand at the project site is estimated to be in the range of 600 to 800 parking spaces. 32 Construction of the proposed parking garage would increase the number of parking spaces at the RPTC to approximately 660 spaces. The proposed project also includes an expansion of the bus transfer station that would accommodate 12 buses, as well as other minor circulation improvements. No additional major 31 32
Association of Bay Area Governments. Projections 2007. Published: December 2006. ARUP, RPTC Planning Group, Richmond Parkway Transit Center Planning and Conceptual Design Study, Final Report, February 2005.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 62
infrastructure changes are included in the proposed project. As the existing RPTC would be expanded to accommodate existing demand, the proposed project would not result in substantial indirect population growth. Additionally, operation of the proposed project would not require substantial on-site staffing for operational activities. The proposed project would result in no impact. Comment on M.2 and M.3. The proposed project would redevelop the existing RPTC on a site that does not contain any residential uses. Thus, the proposed project would not result in the displacement of housing or persons, and the proposed project would result in no impact.
4.
Conclusion
The project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth, and would thus have no impact on population and housing. The proposed project would not result in the displacement of housing or persons.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 63
N.
PUBLIC SERVICES/RECREATION
1.
Setting
Public services for the project site are provided by the City of Richmond Fire Department, the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, the City of Richmond Police Department, the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department, and the West Contra Costa County Unified School District. Descriptions of these services follow. Fire Protection Service. Fire protection services for the project site are provided by the City of Richmond Fire Department and the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. The nearest City of Richmond Fire Station is Station 68, located at 2904 Hilltop Drive approximately one mile to the south of the project site. This fire station would provide fire and emergency service to the project site. The nearest Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Station is Station 69, located at 4640 Appian Way in El Sobrante, approximately one mile from the project site to the northeast. City of Richmond Fire Department is currently operating with the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, Pinole Fire, and Rodeo-Hercules under a tentative automatic aid agreement. The department also operates under an automatic aid agreement with the City of El Cerrito Fire Department. Police Service. Police services are provided for the project site by the City of Richmond Police Department, whose jurisdiction includes the City of Richmond and its sphere of influence, and the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department, whose jurisdiction includes unincorporated Contra Costa County. The Richmond Police Department operates the Hilltop Police Substation located at 3051 Hilltop Mall Road. The Sheriff’s Department serves the unincorporated areas of the County. The nearest sheriff’s station is the Bay Station located at 5555 Giant Highway in Richmond, approximately 2.0 miles northwest of the project site. Schools. Public school services in the area are primarily provided by the West Contra Costa County Unified School District. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space. Numerous parks and recreation facilities are located throughout the City of Richmond as well as the unincorporated areas of West Contra Costa County. Hilltop Lake Park and Hilltop Green Park are both located within one mile of the project site, in the City of Richmond. The East Bay Regional Park District also operates several parks and recreational facilities in the Richmond area, such Wildcat Canyon Regional Park, Point Isabel Regional Shoreline, and Brooks Island Regional Preserve. 33
33
East Bay Regional Park District website. Available at: http://www.ebparks.org/parks/. Accessed: December, 2006.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 64
2.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion Significant or Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant Impact
No Impact
Fire Protection?
Police Protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other Public Facilities?
2) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
3) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Would the project:
1) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
3.
Discussion
Comment on N.1, Fire and Police Protection. The proposed project would result in increased activity at the project site as a result of the increase in the number of parking spaces on-site. This would also result in increased traffic to and from the site, which could incrementally increase the number of motor vehicle accidents requiring fire and police response. However, neither increase would be substantial in the context of the existing transit center or existing response patterns in the area. Because the proposed project’s increase in demand for services would not be substantial compared to existing, the proposed project would not require new or expanded police and fire facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts to fire and police services. Comment on N.1, Schools. The proposed project would not include residential land uses. Therefore, there would not be an increase in population at the project site, and the proposed project would result in no impact on the provision of school services in the area.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 65
Comment on N.1, N.2, and N.3 Parks and Recreational Facilities. The proposed project would not include residential land uses. Therefore, there would not be an increase in population at the project site, and the proposed project would result in no impact on parks and recreational facilities in the area. Comment on N.1, Other Public Facilities. As the project would not include residential uses, the project would not result in the need for the expansion of other public facilities such as libraries and community centers. Therefore, the proposed project would result in no impact to other public facilities in the area.
4.
Conclusion
The project would result in a less-than-significant increase in demand for fire and police services on the project site when compared to the existing facility. There would be no increase in demand for schools, parks and recreation, or other public facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would have less-thansignificant impacts on public services.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 66
O.
TRAFFIC
1.
Setting
I-80 provides regional vehicular access to the project site. The primary local access routes to the project site are Richmond Parkway and Blume Drive. Access to the project site is also provided by a private access driveway owned and operated by the adjacent Hilltop Plaza shopping center. This section refers to the private roadway as the Hilltop Plaza Access Road. Information for this section is based on the Richmond Parkway Transit Center Traffic Impact Analysis Report. 34 Based on discussions with AC Transit and Caltrans staff, the following five intersections in the vicinity of the RPTC were analyzed during the weekday AM and PM peak hours: Signalized Intersections: • Richmond Parkway/I-80 EB On-ramps • Richmond Parkway/I-80 WB HOV On-ramp/I-80 EB HOV Off-ramp • Richmond Parkway/Blume Drive/I-80 WB On & Off-ramp Unsignalized Intersections: • Blume Drive/Hilltop Plaza Access Road • Hilltop Plaza Access Road/RPTC Driveway Traffic operations at intersections are typically described in terms of “Level of Service” (LOS). LOS is a qualitative measure of the effect of several factors on traffic operating conditions, including speed, travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort, and convenience. It is generally measured quantitatively in terms of vehicular delay and described using a scale that ranges from LOS A to F, with LOS A representing essentially free-flow conditions and LOS F indicating over-capacity conditions with substantial congestion and delay. Typically, analysis of intersections is conducted using methods described by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). For intersections, LOS is based on “control delay.” Control delay is defined as the delay directly associated with the traffic control device (i.e., a stop sign or a traffic signal) and specifically includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. These delay estimates are considered meaningful indicators of driver discomfort and frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. Tables O-1 and O-2 present the relationship between LOS and control delay for signalized and unsignalized intersections, respectively.
34
Richmond Parkway Transit Center Traffic Impact Analysis, PBS&J, June 2010.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 67
LOS
Table O-1 Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria Average Control Delay (seconds/vehicle) Description Operations with very slight delay, with no approach phase fully utilized. Operations with slight delay, and an occasional approach phase is fully utilized.
A
< 10.0
B
10.1 – 20.0
C
20.1 – 35.0
Operations with average delay. Individual cycle failures begin to appear.
D
35.1 – 55.0
Operations with tolerable delay. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.
E
55.1 – 80.0
F
> 80.0
Operations with high delay, up to several signal cycles. Long queues form upstream of intersection. Operation with excessive and unacceptable delays. Volumes vary widely depending on downstream queue conditions.
Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, 2000.
LOS
Table O-2 Stop Controlled Intersection LOS Criteria Average Control Delay (seconds/vehicle) Description
A B C
< 10.0 10.1 – 15.0 15.1 – 25.0
D
25.1 – 35.0
E
35.1 – 50.0
F
> 50.0
Minimal delay for stop-controlled approaches. Very light congestion; short delays. Light congestion; average delays. Significant congestion on critical approaches, but intersection is functional. Moderate to lengthy delays. Severe congestion with some longstanding queues on critical approaches. Extremely lengthy delays. Extreme congestion, with very high delays and lengthy queues unacceptable to most drivers.
Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, 2000.
Existing Conditions Existing intersection operating conditions were evaluated for the typical AM and PM weekday peak commute periods (7:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m., 4:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.). Existing turning movement counts were collected on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 at the five study intersections. The existing AM and PM peak hour turning movements are shown in Figure O-1.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 68
Figure O-1
Existing (No Project) Peak Hour Volumes: AM (PM)
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 69
Table O-3 presents the results of the intersection LOS analysis for the Existing weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions. During the AM peak hour, all study intersections operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better), with average delays of less than 27.2 seconds, and volume to capacity (v/c) ratios less than 0.78. During the PM peak hour, the unsignalized intersection of Blume Drive/Hilltop Plaza Access Road is operating at unacceptable conditions (LOS F) at the worst approach (westbound left-turn), while the other four intersections operate at acceptable levels of service with average delays of less than 44.9 seconds, and v/c ratios less than 0.97.
Table O-3 Study Intersections LOS - Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour Study Intersection Hilltop Plaza Access Road/RPTC Driveway2 Blume Drive/Hilltop Plaza Access Road2 Richmond Parkway/Blume Drive/I-80 WB on/off-ramp3 Richmond Parkway/I-80 WB HOV on-ramp/I-80 EB HOV off-ramp3 Richmond Parkway (Fitzgerald Drive)/I-80 EB on-ramps
Traffic Control Unsignalized4
Delay1 (NB)
LOS B
PM Peak Hour v/c ratio 0.06
12.8 4
Unsignalized
(WB)
Delay1 (NB)
LOS B
v/c ratio 0.25
F
1.38
14.6 B
0.14
13.1
(WB)
120.6
Signalized
27.2
C
0.78
44.9
D
0.87
Signalized
11.4
B
0.26
7.4
A
0.69
Signalized
10.9
B
0.44
17.7
B
0.97
Source: PBS&J, 2010. Notes: WB = Westbound; EB = Eastbound; NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound Shaded cells represent intersections operating under acceptable conditions. 1. Delay presented in seconds per vehicle. 2. Located in the City of Richmond. 3. Under Caltrans jurisdiction. 4. LOS reported for worst approach.
Baseline Conditions Baseline operating conditions at study intersections were evaluated for the typical AM and PM weekday peak commute periods (7:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m., 4:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.). The Baseline AM and PM peak hour turning movements are shown in Figure O-2. Baseline conditions represent future conditions projected to exist without the proposed project. Information from AC Transit and WestCAT on future transit service was obtained and used to project increases in bus volumes on the study intersections. From available transit service information, the timing of when the new service would be implemented is unknown. As a conservative assumption, additional bus trips were added to background traffic under Baseline Conditions.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 70
Figure O-2
Baseline (No Project) Peak Hour Volumes: AM (PM)
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 71
Table O-4 presents the results of the intersection LOS analysis for the Baseline weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions. During the AM peak hour, all existing study intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better), with average delays of less than 28.1 seconds, and v/c ratios less than 0.80. During the PM peak hour, the unsignalized intersection of Blume Drive/Hilltop Plaza Access Road would operate at unacceptable conditions (LOS F) at the worst approach while the other four intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service with average delays of less than 46.7 seconds, and v/c ratios less than 1.00. Note at the intersection of Blume Drive/Hilltop Plaza Access Road, the westbound left-turn is the worst operating approach.
Table O-4 Study Intersections LOS - Baseline Conditions
Study Intersection
Traffic Control
AM Peak Hour v/c Delay1 LOS ratio (NB)
Hilltop Plaza Access Road/RPTC Driveway2
Unsignalized4
Blume Drive/Hilltop Plaza Access Road2
Unsignalized4
Richmond Parkway/Blume Drive/I-80 WB on/off-ramp3
14.0
PM Peak Hour v/c Delay1 LOS ratio (NB)
B
0.07
15.5
25.7
D
0.17
Signalized
28.1
C
Richmond Parkway/I-80 WB HOV on-ramp/ I-80 EB HOV off-ramp3
Signalized
11.7
Richmond Parkway (Fitzgerald Drive)/I-80 EB on-ramps
Signalized
10.7
C
0.27
462.5
F
1.61
0.80
46.7
D
0.90
B
0.28
7.7
A
0.71
B
0.45
19.5
B
1.00
(WB)
(WB)
Source: PBS&J, 2010. Notes: WB = Westbound; EB = Eastbound; NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound Shaded cells represent intersections operating under acceptable conditions. 1. Delay presented in seconds per vehicle. 2. Located in the City of Richmond. 3. Under Caltrans jurisdiction. 4. LOS reported for worst approach.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 72
2.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion Significant or Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant Impact
No Impact
1) 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?
2) 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?
3) 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?
4) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible land uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
5) Result in inadequate emergency access?
6) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programsregarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
Would the project:
3.
Discussion
Comment on O.1 and O.2. This section provides the estimated travel demand generated by the proposed project. For purposes of this analysis, travel demand refers to the net new trips generated from vehicles parking at the proposed expanded RPTC, casual carpool vehicles picking-up/dropping-off at the site, and new/additional transit vehicles serving the RPTC. Trip Generation. To estimate the travel demand generated by the proposed RPTC facility, trip generation rates were developed based on existing RPTC operations for both passenger vehicles and buses. Passenger trips were estimated based on driveway counts and parking occupancy observations conducted at the existing facility. Bus trips were estimated based on future schedules and other bus information provided by the AC Transit and WestCAT.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 73
Passenger Vehicles. Passenger vehicle operations were observed at the existing RPTC on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 and on Thursday, December 13, 2007 during the AM peak hour (6:45 a.m. to 7:45 a.m.) and PM peak hour (5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.), respectively. Parking occupancies and passenger vehicle trips were collected and used as inputs for determining the future net vehicle trips to be generated by the proposed expanded RPTC facility. To determine the number of future passenger vehicle trips, trip generation rates were calculated based on the number of existing spaces and the rate of passenger vehicles entering and exiting the existing RPTC facility (i.e. ingress and egress driveway counts) during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. These inbound and outbound rates were then applied to the 660 parking spaces proposed for the expanded RPTC facility. Note that this methodology is similar to what is used in Parking Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2004. To calculate the total net new passenger vehicle trips, existing vehicle trips generated by the current RPTC facility were deducted from trips generated by the proposed expanded RPTC facility. During the AM peak hour, the RPTC facility had a parking demand of 175 parked vehicles or around 95 percent occupied. During this time, there were 103 inbound and 59 outbound vehicles at the RPTC facility’s driveways. This results in a rate of 0.59 inbound trips and 0.34 outbound trips per occupied space during the AM peak hour. Applying this rate to the proposed facility results in a net increase of 285 inbound and 164 outbound passenger vehicle trips during the AM peak hour. During the PM peak hour, the RPTC facility had a parking demand of 146 parked vehicles or around 68 percent occupied. During this time, there were 29 inbound and 99 outbound vehicles at the RPTC facility’s driveways. This results in a rate of 0.20 inbound trips and 0.68 outbound trips per occupied space during the PM peak hour. Applying this rate to the future proposed facility results in a net increase of 102 inbound and 349 outbound passenger vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. Buses. Bus trips to be operated at the proposed RPTC facility were based on existing and planned bus service schedules obtained from AC Transit and WestCAT. Since a total of 36 inbound and 36 outbound bus trips are proposed to utilize the RPTC facility in the future during both the AM and the PM peak hours, it was assumed these would be in place by the time the proposed RPTC facility is constructed. Trip Distribution/Assignment. To determine the trip distribution of passenger vehicles and buses generated by the proposed expanded RPTC facility, existing RPTC travel patterns were examined. This distribution was used as the basis for assigning the project-generated trips to the local streets and regional freeway in the study area. Passenger Vehicles. The trip distribution for the passenger vehicles were derived from existing travel patterns near the project site as well as major residential and commercial land-uses of the surrounding area. Figures O-3 and O-4 present the inbound and outbound distribution of passenger vehicles applied to the analysis. All passenger vehicles were assigned to enter and exit the RPTC facility at Hilltop Plaza Access Road.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 74
Figure O-3
Trip Distribution for Non-Transit Vehicles – Inbound
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 75
Figure O-4
Trip Distribution for Non-Transit Vehicles – Outbound
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 76
Buses. The trip distribution for buses was derived from planned future bus service routes obtained from AC Transit, WestCAT, and the long distance bus companies serving the site. Given the current and future bus origins and destinations, around 20 percent of buses would approach the project site to/from Bloom Drive, south of Hilltop Plaza Access Road, and around 80 percent would approach to/from Bloom Drive north of Hilltop Plaza Access Road. For traffic assignment, all outbound buses would exit using Hilltop Plaza Access Road. All inbound buses were assigned to enter from Hilltop Plaza Access Road.
Significance Criteria Caltrans Significance Criteria. The level of service (as defined in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, TRB, National Research Council), for operating state highway facilities is based upon measures of effectiveness (MOE). The MOE describe the measures best suited for analyzing state highway facilities (i.e. freeway segments, signalized intersections on- or off-ramps). Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS “C” and LOS “D” on state highway facilities. However, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not always be feasible and recommends that lead agencies consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS. As such, AC Transit will discuss the appropriate target LOS for all Caltrans facilities. If an existing state highway facility is operating at less than the appropriate target LOS, the existing MOE should be maintained. In addition to utilizing LOS to measure performance and compare between existing and future conditions, another criterion for determining when mitigation is required at an unsignalized intersection is the satisfaction of one or more traffic signal warrants. Traffic signal warrants are a set of criteria outlined in the Caltrans Traffic Manual. These criteria determine whether it is justified to install a signal at an intersection based on variables such as traffic volumes, pedestrian volumes, vehicular delays, accident rates, etc. City of Richmond Significance Criteria. Traffic impacts are considered significant for intersections under the City of Richmond’s jurisdiction if any of the following apply: •
Project traffic or construction activities must use an access road that is already at or exceeds LOS E or brings a roadway up to LOS E;
•
Project traffic or construction activities would result in a substantial safety hazard to motorists, bicyclists, or pedestrians;
•
Construction of the proposed project or alternatives would restrict one or more lanes of a primary or secondary arterial during peak-hour traffic, thereby reducing its capacity and creating congestion; and/or
•
Project implementation results in insufficient parking.
Baseline plus Project Conditions Baseline plus Project operating conditions at study intersections were evaluated for the AM and PM weekday peak hour of the peak commute period (7:00 a.m.– 9:00 a.m., 4:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.). Baseline
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 77
plus Project turning movement volumes were calculated by adding Project volumes to Baseline turning movement counts. The Baseline plus Project turning movement volumes were then analyzed for intersection LOS, average control delays, and v/c ratios using HCM 2000 methodology. The Baseline plus Project AM and PM peak hour turning movements are shown in Figure O-5. As discussed in the Project Description, the analysis for Baseline plus Project includes signalization of the intersection of Blume Drive/Hilltop Plaza Access Road as well as the prohibiting of u-turns at this intersection. In addition, the traffic signal at Richmond Parkway/Blume Drive/I-80 WB On/Off ramps would be optimized as part of the Proposed Project. Table O-5 presents the results of the intersection LOS, average control delay, and v/c ratio analysis for the Baseline plus Project weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions. As shown, during the AM peak hour, the unsignalized intersection of Hilltop Plaza Access Road/RPTC Driveway would operate at unacceptable conditions at the worst approach while the other four intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better), with average delays of less than 30.8 seconds, and v/c ratios less than 0.84. During the PM peak hour the unsignalized intersection of Hilltop Plaza Access Road/RPTC Driveway would operate at unacceptable conditions at the worst approach while the other four intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better), with average delays of less than 44.2 seconds, and v/c ratios less than 1.02. Compared to Baseline conditions, some intersections under Baseline plus Project conditions would have slightly higher seconds of delay (in most cases improved seconds of delay given the signal optimization/synchronization proposed with the project) but would maintain similar level of service with the exception of the intersection of Hilltop Plaza Access Road/RPTC Driveway. Given the project volumes exiting/entering the site at this intersection, vehicles traveling westbound at this intersection would have higher delays (average of 42 seconds of delay in the AM peak hour, and an average of 36 seconds of delay in the PM peak hour) than under Baseline conditions. However, given the limited number of vehicles traveling westbound (5 vehicles during the AM peak hour and 26 vehicles in the PM peak hour) as well as not meeting Caltrans signal warrants, this intersection would operate with limited delays. Therefore, there would not be significant impacts to intersections under Baseline plus Project conditions. Also shown in Table O-5, the v/c ratio for the Richmond Parkway/I-80 EB on-ramp intersection is 1.02 in the PM peak hour, indicating that the intersection is operating above capacity. Although the eastbound approach is operating above capacity in the Synchro model, the approach actually operates acceptably since the actual geometry is a freeway on-ramp with adequate storage to accommodate the high volume of vehicles during the peak hour.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 78
Figure O-5
Baseline Plus Project Peak Hours Volumes: AM (PM)
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 79
Table O-5 Study Intersections LOS – Baseline and Baseline plus Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Baseline Study Intersection Hilltop Plaza Access Road/RPTC Driveway2 Blume Drive/Hilltop Plaza Access Road2 Richmond Parkway/Blume Drive/I-80 WB on/off-ramp3 Richmond Parkway/I80 WB HOV onramp/ I-80 EB HOV off-ramp3 Richmond Parkway (Fitzgerald Drive)/I80 EB on-ramps
Traffic Control
Delay1
LOS
Baseline plus Project v/c ratio
(NB)
Unsignalized4
14.07
PM Peak Hour
Delay1
LOS
v/c ratio
(WB)
B
0.07
(WB)
42.47
Baseline Delay1
LOS
Baseline plus Project v/c ratio
(NB)
E
0.05
(WB)
15.57
Delay1
LOS
v/c ratio
(WB)
C
0.27
(WB)
36.67
E
0.23
(WB)
Signalized5,6
25.77
D
0.17
16.77
B
0.40
462.57
F
1.61
31.17
C
0.70
Signalized5
28.1
C
0.80
29.9
C
0.84
46.7
D
0.90
44.0
D
1.02
Signalized5
11.7
B
0.28
3.8
A
0.31
7.7
A
0.71
6.7
A
0.72
Signalized5
10.7
B
0.45
11.2
A
0.47
19.5
B
1.00
35.9
D
1.02
Source: PBS&J, 2010. Notes: WB = Westbound; EB = Eastbound; NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound Shaded cells represent intersections operating under acceptable conditions. 1. Average Control Delays presented in seconds per vehicle. 2. Located in the City of Richmond. 3. Under Caltrans jurisdiction. 4. LOS reported for worst approach. 5. Signal Timing optimized with the Project. 6. Unsignalized under No Project Conditions. 7. Note that this unsignalized intersection does not meet Caltrans signal warrants.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 80
Cumulative Conditions Cumulative operating conditions at study intersections were evaluated for the AM and PM weekday peak hours of the peak commute periods. To determine cumulative conditions for a 2032 year analysis, a traffic growth rate of 0.48 percent per year was assumed based on Contra Costa County Transportation Authority’s travel demand model. This rate was applied to the Existing volumes to determine future 2032 traffic volumes near the project site. The same quantitative LOS, average control delays, v/c ratios using HCM 2000 methodology used for Baseline and Baseline plus Project conditions above was applied to determine Cumulative 2032 Conditions. The Cumulative 2032 AM and PM peak hour turning movements are shown in Figure O-6. Table O-6 presents the results of the intersection LOS, average control delay and v/c ratio analysis for the Cumulative 2032 weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions. During the AM peak hour, all study intersections would operate at acceptable service levels (LOS D or better), with average delays of less than 31.2 seconds, and v/c ratios less than 0.85. During the PM peak hour, the unsignalized intersection of Blume Drive/Hilltop Plaza Access Road would operate at unacceptable conditions at the worst approach (westbound left-turn). The other four intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service with average delays of less than 51.4 seconds, and v/c ratios less than 0.93.
Table O-6 Study Intersections LOS – 2032 Cumulative Conditions (No Project) AM Peak Hour Study Intersection Hilltop Plaza Access Road/RPTC Driveway2 Blume Drive/Hilltop Plaza Access Road2 Richmond Parkway/Blume Drive/I-80 WB on/off-ramp3 Richmond Parkway/I-80 WB HOV onramp/ I-80 EB HOV off-ramp3 Richmond Parkway (Fitzgerald Drive)/I-80 EB on-ramps
Traffic Control
Delay1
PM Peak Hour
LOS
v/c ratio
B
0.07
16.3
(NB)
Unsignalized4
14.4
Delay 1
LOS
v/c ratio
C
0.30
(NB)
(WB)
(WB)
Unsignalized4
29.0
D
0.20
704.7
F
2.10
Signalized5
31.2
C
0.85
51.4
D
0.93
Signalized5
11.6
B
0.30
8.4
A
0.76
Signalized5
10.7
B
0.47
39.6
D
1.06
Source: PBS&J, 2010. Notes: WB = Westbound; EB = Eastbound; NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound Shaded cells represent intersections operating under acceptable conditions. 1. Average Control Delays presented in seconds per vehicle. 2. Located in the City of Richmond. 3. Under Caltrans jurisdiction. 4. LOS reported for worst approach.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 81
Figure O-6
Cumulative 2032 (No Project) Peak Hour Volumes: AM (PM)
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 82
As shown in Table O-6, the v/c ratio for the Richmond Parkway/I-80 EB on-ramp intersection is 1.06 in the PM peak hour, indicating that the intersection is operating with an excess of demand above available capacity. In this instance, the approach that is operating above capacity is the eastbound approach, whose actual geometry is a freeway on-ramp with adequate storage to accommodate the high volume of vehicles during the peak hour.
Cumulative plus Project Conditions Cumulative plus Project operating conditions at study intersections were evaluated for the AM and PM weekday peak hours of the peak commute period (7:00 a.m. – 9:00 a.m., 4:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.). Cumulative plus Project turning movement volumes were calculated by adding Project volumes to Cumulative turning movement counts. The Cumulative plus Project turning movement volumes were analyzed for intersection LOS, average control delays, v/c ratios using HCM 2000 methodology. The Cumulative plus Project AM and PM peak hour turning movements are shown in Figure O-7. Note that the analysis for Cumulative plus Project includes signalization of the intersection of Blume Drive/Hilltop Plaza Access Road as well as the prohibiting of “U” turns at this intersection. In addition, the traffic signal at Richmond Parkway/Blume Drive/I-80 WB On/Off ramps would be optimized as part of the Proposed Project. Table O-7 presents the results of the intersection LOS, average control delay and v/c ratio analysis for the Cumulative plus Project weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions. As shown, during the AM and PM peak hours, four intersections would operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better), with average delays of less than 36.9 seconds and v/c ratios less than 0.89 in the AM and average delays of less than 50.8 seconds and v/c ratios less than 1.03 in the PM. The unsignalized intersection of Hilltop Plaza Access Road/RPTC Driveway would operate at LOS E at the worst approach during the AM and PM peak hour. As shown in Table O-7, the v/c ratio for the Richmond Parkway/I-80 EB on-ramp intersection is 1.09 in the PM peak hour, indicating that the intersection is operating with an excess of demand above available capacity. In this instance, the approach that is operating above capacity is the eastbound approach, whose actual geometry is a freeway on-ramp with adequate storage to accommodate the high volume of vehicles during the peak hour. Similarly, the v/c ration for the Richmond Parkway/Blume Drive/I-80 WB on/offramp intersection is 1.03 in the PM peak hour. In this instance, there are two freeway on/off-ramps that are not routed directly through the intersection and that have adequate storage to accommodate the high volume of vehicles during the peak hour. Compared to Cumulative conditions, all intersections under Cumulative plus Project conditions would have slightly higher seconds of delay (or in some cases improved seconds of delay given the signal optimization/synchronization proposed with the project). However, similar levels of service would be maintained with the exception of the intersection of Hilltop Plaza Access Road/RPTC Driveway during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour. Given the project volumes exiting/entering the site at this intersection, vehicles traveling westbound at this intersection would have higher delays (average of 27.8 seconds of delay in the AM and 19.8 seconds of delay in the PM) than under Cumulative conditions. Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 83
However, given the limited number of vehicles traveling westbound (6 vehicles during the AM peak hour and 34 vehicles in the PM peak hour) as well as not meeting Caltrans signal warrants, this intersection would operate with limited delays. Therefore, there would not be significant impacts to intersections under Cumulative plus Project conditions.
Freeway Conditions The project site is adjacent to the I-80 freeway and regional access to and from the site is from I-80. The proposed project would primarily generate trips from the project site to I-80 westbound in the AM peak hour, and generate trips to the project site from I-80 eastbound in the PM peak hour. An analysis was conducted to determine the peak period person trip delays in the I-80 high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and the mixed-flow lanes from the Richmond Parkway interchange in Richmond to the Powell Street interchange in Berkeley. I-80 includes between three and five mixed-flow lanes and one HOV lane in both the eastbound and westbound directions between the Richmond Parkway interchange and the Powell Street interchange. Based on existing conditions along I-80, bottlenecks and queues occur in each peak period direction of travel for vehicles traveling in both the HOV lane and mixed-flow lanes. The peak travel period for westbound I-80 is from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. The peak travel period for eastbound I-80 is from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The most significant bottlenecks during the AM peak period occur between Hilltop Drive and El Portal Drive, between Cutting Boulevard and Central Avenue, and between Central Avenue and Gilman Street. In the PM peak period, the most significant bottlenecks occur between the start of the study limits and Powell Street, between Powell Street and University Avenue, and between Central Avenue and Cutting Boulevard. The proposed project is expected to increase the use of the HOV lane due to the opportunity for the formation of new carpools at the project site. There would also be additional transit trips to and from the site; however, these trips would be served by existing or planned bus service to the site. Any increase in bus service to and from the site is anticipated to occur with or without the proposed project. The proposed project would also result in a decrease in the number of cars using the mixed-flow lanes as trips are shifted from single occupant vehicles to transit and carpool vehicles. The proposed project was shown to result in an increase in person-trip delays in the HOV lanes during both the AM and PM peak periods. The proposed project was also shown to result in a decrease in person-trip delays in the mixed-flow lanes during the AM and PM peak periods. The analysis showed that with full occupancy of the proposed parking garage, there would be a net decrease to person-trip delay for the freeway, because the decreases in delay within the mixed-flow lanes was greater than the increased delays in the HOV lanes in both the AM and PM peak periods. Caltrans does not have a standard to measure impacts to a single lane, such as the HOV lane, within a freeway segment, only to the freeway segment as a whole. Therefore, because the project would result in a net decrease in person-trip delays to the overall freeway operations, the project would have a less than significant impact to freeway operations.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 84
Figure O-7
Cumulative 2032 Plus Project Peak Hour Volumes: AM (PM)
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 85
Table O-7 Study Intersections LOS – Cumulative and Cumulative plus Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Cumulative Study Intersection Hilltop Plaza Access Road/RPTC Driveway2 Blume Drive/Hilltop Plaza Access Road2 Richmond Parkway/Blume Drive/I-80 WB on/off-ramp3 Richmond Parkway/I80 WB HOV onramp/ I-80 EB HOV off-ramp3 Richmond Parkway (Fitzgerald Drive)/I80 EB on-ramps
Traffic Control
Delay1
Cumulative plus Project
LOS
v/c ratio
Delay1
B
0.07
42.27
(NB)
Unsignalized 4
14.4
PM Peak Hour
LOS
v/c ratio
E
0.06
(WB)
Cumulative Delay1
Cumulative plus Project
LOS
v/c ratio
C
0.30
(WB)
v/c ratio
36.17
E
0.24
(WB)
(NB)
16.3
LOS
Delay1
(WB)
Signalized 5,6
29.0
D
0.20
10.1
B
0.49
704.7
F
2.10
24.7
C
0.82
Signalized (5)
31.2
C
0.85
36.9
D
0.89
51.4
D
0.93
50.8
D
1.03
Signalized5
11.6
B
0.30
2.4
A
0.38
8.4
A
0.76
7.5
A
0.76
Signalized5
10.7
B
0.47
5.9
A
0.47
39.6
D
1.06
49.1
D
1.09
Source: PBS&J, 2010. Notes: WB = Westbound; EB = Eastbound; NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound Shaded cells represent intersections operating under acceptable conditions. 1. Average Control Delays presented in seconds per vehicle. 2. Located in the City of Richmond. 3. Under Caltrans jurisdiction. 4. LOS reported for worst approach. 5. Signal Timing optimized. 6. Unsignalized under No Project Conditions. 7. Note that this unsignalized intersection does not meet Caltrans signal warrants.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 86
Comment on O.3. The proposed project would involve redevelopment of the existing RPTC. No aircraft use is required for operation or construction of the proposed facilities. As such, the proposed project would not lead to an increase in air traffic and would have no impact on this mode of travel. Comment on O.4. The proposed project would redesign the existing RPTC and result in modifications to on- and off-site circulation patterns. As noted in the Project Description, the project would involve construction of a four-story parking garage, and redesign of the bus transfer center to accommodate additional bus bays and bus shelters. The proposed project would also reduce the access points from the Hilltop Plaza Access Road from four driveways to two driveways, and signalize and restrict u-turn movements at the Blume Drive/Hilltop Plaza Access Road intersection. The proposed project would not introduce sharp curves to the project site or on surrounding roadways. The reduction of access points along the Hilltop Plaza Access Road, and the signalization/restriction of u-turns at the Blume Drive/Hilltop Plaza Access Road would reduce the potential for conflicts at those intersections. As such, the proposed project would not involve design features that would cause or increase hazards. Comment on O.5. The proposed project would not substantially affect emergency response times or access to other sites in the area. Emergency access to the project site is expected to be adequate because emergency vehicles would be able to reach the project site from Hilltop Plaza Access Road. The proposed project would add congestion at study area intersections under cumulative conditions, which could slow emergency response vehicles. The issue of police patrol care, firefighting vehicles, and ambulances traversing busy streets is faced in many communities throughout the Bay Area. Typically emergency response vehicles use sirens, and vehicles are required by law to move out of the way. On streets in the project vicinity, an emergency vehicle could get through if vehicles move aside as they are required to. In addition, the open site design and landscape areas around the edges of the project site would allow limited emergency access to the site from Richmond Parkway and Blume Drive if direct access into the site was blocked. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact to emergency access. Comment on O.6. The existing parking capacity at the RPTC is 207 spaces. The proposed project would increase the capacity to approximately 660 spaces. According to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, if a parking facility contains more than 500 total parking spaces, at least two percent of the total parking spaces shall be designated accessible parking spaces. One of every eight accessible spaces shall be designated as “van accessible”. The proposed project would be required to provide adequate handicap parking spaces to meet the ADA requirements for handicap parking spaces. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in inadequate parking capacity and there would be no impact. Comment on O.7. The proposed project site is part of a program to support transit and carpool uses within Contra Costa County and the I-80 corridor. The proposed project would also include bicycle parking at the project site and connections from the site to the existing pedestrian and bicycle network surrounding the site. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the use of the site as an alternative transportation hub.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 87
4.
Conclusion
The proposed project would cause a less-than-significant increase in traffic in the project vicinity, as the proposed project would not result in exceedance of the thresholds at the study intersections. There would be no impacts from the proposed project in relation to air traffic patterns, or increased hazards along a roadway. Emergency access to the site would be adequate; however, the project would contribute to congestion along nearby roadways, which could slow emergency response vehicles, but no to a significant level. The proposed project would provide enhanced parking and transit services to the project site; therefore, the project would not result in inadequate parking capacity or conflict with alternative transportation programs.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 88
P.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
1.
Setting
The project site is within an urban area that is served by existing utility and service systems, including solid waste collection and disposal, wastewater and stormwater collection and treatment, and power, water, and communications facilities.
2.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion Significant or Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant Impact
No Impact
1) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
2) 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?
3) 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?
4)
5) 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?
6) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
7) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Would the project:
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
3.
Discussion
Comment on P.1, P.2 and P.5. The proposed project would redevelop the project site, which is surrounded by commercial development and major roadways. The proposed project would redevelop the project site with uses similar to those that exist on the site. Redevelopment of the project site would not involve extension of services or utilities into currently unserved areas or the expansion of infrastructure capacity. West County Wastewater District provides wastewater services to the project area. An existing Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 89
8-inch sewer line is located along Blume Drive, adjacent to the project site. 35 The proposed project would potentially include restroom facilities as part of the parking structure, but would not include uses that would generate significant amounts of wastewater. A connection would be made to the abovementioned sewer line in accordance with Wastewater District standards and all applicable connection fees and service charges would be assessed to AC Transit. Because the proposed project would not generate substantial wastewater flow and would comply with the wastewater district standards for connection and fees, the proposed project would have a minimal effect on the ability of a wastewater treatment plant to meet NPDES permit requirements issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on wastewater. Comment on P.3. The project site is currently paved, with limited landscaping within the park and ride lot. The proposed project would include redevelopment of the project site, and would not result in an increase in the amount of impervious surfaces on the project site. The existing on-site stormwater runoff is collected by a local piped system within the project site. The collected stormwater is conveyed into the existing Caltrans Wetland Mitigation site located in southeast corner of the site via an 18-inch storm drain and outfall. Stormwater then drains east through a 36-inch reinforced concrete pipe under I-80, southeast of the project site. 36 Redevelopment of the site as part of the proposed project would include a stormwater drainage system similar to what currently exists on site, and stormwater flows would continue to be conveyed into the existing Caltrans Wetland Mitigation area. As the proposed project would not introduce new impervious area on site, stormwater runoff is not expected to increase as a result of the project, and the stormwater generated is not expected to significantly affect existing stormwater drainage and treatment facilities. Comment on P.4. The proposed project would include accessory uses, such as restrooms that would require water service. The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) currently has water mains located along Richmond Parkway and Blume Drive, adjacent to the project site. 37 As part of the proposed project, a connection would be made to the existing water lines in accordance with EBMUD standards and all applicable connection fees and service charges would be assessed to AC Transit. Because the proposed project would not include uses that would generate a substantial increase in demand for water such that existing water supply entitlements would not be able to serve the project, and would not require new or expanded entitlements, impacts from the proposed project would be less than significant. Comment on P.6 and P.7. Project construction would generate solid waste in the form of waste asphalt, landscape materials, and soil removal. These activities would be required to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations governing solid waste disposal. Operation of the facility would generate solid waste from users who discard waste in trash collection containers throughout the transit center. Collection of solid waste at the project site is currently provided by the City of Richmond, and is expected to continue with implementation of the proposed project. As the proposed project would result in an increase in users of the park and ride facility, there would be an associated increase in the amount of solid waste generated by operation. This increase would not be expected to be substantial in relation to 35
36 37
ARUP, RPTC Planning Group, Richmond Parkway Transit Center Technical Study, Technical Study Report, March 2007. Ibid. Ibid.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 90
other uses in the project area, such as retail and commercial operations in the project vicinity. In addition, recycling and other waste reduction efforts at the site are expected to increase as part of the proposed project, resulting in increased diversion of waste from landfills. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact on solid waste due to implementation of the proposed project and disposal of solid waste generated by the project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
4.
Conclusion
The project would result in minimal increases in demand for utilities and service systems on the project site when compared to the existing facility. The minimal increases would not be in excess of amounts expected and provided for in the project area. The impacts of the proposed project on utility and service systems are considered to be less than significant. The proposed project would comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the relevant agencies, and not create significant additional demand for water, stormwater, wastewater, or solid waste facilities.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 91
Q.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
1.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion Significant or Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant Impact
No Impact
1) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
2) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals?
3) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
4) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Would the project:
2.
Discussion
Comment on Q.1. Because the project site is in a developed commercial area and is covered with pavement, the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce habitat for fish or wildlife, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate plant or animal communities, reduce the number of or restrict the range of a special status plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of California history. As discussed in Checklist Item D, Biology, there would be no impacts to protected trees as the trees proposed for removal at the project site do not qualify as protected. However, a potentially significant impact of the proposed project would be to nesting birds. Nesting birds, their nests, and eggs are fully protected by the Fish and Game Code. Disturbance of nesting activity or activities causing abandonment of a nest is considered a potentially significant impact. MITIGATION MEASURE. Implementation of Mitigation Measure D-1, described under Checklist Item D, Biology, would ensure potential nesting bird impacts would be less than significant.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 92
Comment on Q.2. The proposed project would further the goals of the local transit agencies (AC Transit and WestCAT), including increased accessibility to transit and carpools. It has been determined in previous sections of this document that adverse impacts such as increased demand on public services and utilities, which may result in long-term disadvantages, are less than significant. The construction of the proposed project would be beneficial in terms of long-term traffic, noise, and air quality conditions within Western Contra Costa County and the I-80 Corridor. No substantial long-term disadvantages are anticipated from operation of the project. Comment on Q.3. Impacts from the proposed project could cumulate with impacts from the other development within the area. Other, foreseeable projects in the vicinity with which impacts from the proposed project could cumulate include projects implemented under the I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility (ICM) Projects, which recently received funding for projects within the I-80 Corridor. At this time, no specific projects have been implemented under this program, however, as projects are proposed, these projects could include increased or improved transit service to the project site or improvements to the I-80 corridor in the project vicinity. The types of cumulative impacts that may be associated with the proposed project include impacts to air quality, traffic, and noise. Impacts related to air quality, noise, and traffic would be potentially cumulatively significant because the addition of peak hour traffic at nearby intersections with the project under cumulative conditions could result in unacceptable levels of congestion at the Richmond Parkway/Blume Drive and Blume Drive/Hilltop Plaza Access Road intersections. As described in Checklist Item N, Traffic, the proposed project would not result in a degradation of level of service even under cumulative conditions. However, if projects are proposed under the ICM Project, the cumulative impacts could result in increased bus or vehicle traffic at these intersections during the peak hours. Mitigations may be required to reduce any future impacts to less than significant. Impacts related to air quality and noise during construction would be potentially cumulatively significant because the proposed project and other foreseeable future projects would potentially contribute air quality emissions and noise from construction equipment, increasing the exposure at nearby sensitive receptors. However, there is low likelihood that construction of these projects would occur concurrently, and the proposed project’s contributions to these impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable with implementation of Mitigation Measure C-1, regarding construction related air quality. MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure C-1, recommended under Checklist Item C, Air Quality, and involving implementation of dust control best management practices, would reduce the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative dust emissions to less than cumulatively considerable. Comment on Q.4. The proposed project does not present significant environmental effects adverse to human beings, either directly or indirectly. Potential adverse impacts to humans that may be associated with the proposed project are related to hazardous materials, geology, water, air quality, and noise. As discussed in the preceding sections in this Initial Study, these impacts are less than significant or mitigable to less than significant. Therefore, significant adverse impacts to humans as a result of the proposed project are not anticipated after implementation of Mitigation Measure C-1, regarding construction related air quality impact and Mitigation Measure H-1, regarding hazardous materials.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 93
MITIGATION MEASURES. Mitigation Measure C-1, recommended under Checklist Item C, Air Quality, and involving implementation of dust control best management practices, and Mitigation Measure H-1 under Checklist Item H, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, regarding unknown soil contamination, would reduce the potential for adverse impacts to humans.
3.
Conclusion
The proposed project would have less-than-significant impacts related to degradation of the environment and reduction of sensitive specifies populations with mitigation measures for nesting bird impacts. The proposed project would have potentially significant cumulative impacts related to air quality, but would not result in cumulative impacts after implementation of the identified mitigation measures. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to adverse impacts to human beings, after mitigation of project-related air quality and hazardous materials impacts.
Richmond Parkway Transit Center—Draft Initial Study S:\GMMemos\2010 Meetings\12-15-10 Mtgs\Board\GC Memo No 10-208a Att B.doc
Page 94
