Bay Walk - Richmond

Transcription

Bay Walk - Richmond

Bay Walk Mixed-Use Project Draft Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of Richmond File No. PLN-‐14-‐021 Planning and Building Services Department
City of Richmond
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
City of Richmond
October 7, 2014
________________________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
A. Summary of Project Information ........................................................................................ 1
B. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ..................................................................... 11
C. Determination .................................................................................................................. 11
D. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts .............................................................................. 12
I.
Aesthetics ........................................................................................................... 12
II.
Agricultural and Forest Resources ..................................................................... 18
III.
Air Quality ........................................................................................................... 19
IV.
Biological Resources .......................................................................................... 36
V.
Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 40
VI.
Geology and Soils .............................................................................................. 44
VII.
Greenhouse Gasses .......................................................................................... 48
VIII.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................................................................... 56
IX.
Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................. 63
X.
Land Use and Planning ...................................................................................... 68
XI.
Mineral Resources ............................................................................................. 75
XII.
Noise .................................................................................................................. 77
XIII.
Population and Housing ..................................................................................... 88
XIV. Public Services ................................................................................................... 90
XV.
Recreation .......................................................................................................... 94
XVI. Transportation/Traffic ......................................................................................... 95
XVII. Utilities and Service Systems ........................................................................... 100
XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................. 105
E. References .................................................................................................................... 107
F. Report Preparers ........................................................................................................... 109
Appendix A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Appendix B: Air Quality
Appendix C: Transportation
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
Environmental Checklist
A. SUMMARY OF PROJECT INFORMATION
1. Project Title: Bay Walk Mixed-Use Project at 830 Marina Way South (Project No.
PLN14-021)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
Planning and Building Services Department
City of Richmond
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Jonelyn Whales
Senior Planner
Planning Department
City of Richmond
(510) 620-6785
4. Project Location:
The project site is located in the Ford Peninsula area of Richmond, California. It is
bounded by Wright Avenue on the north, South 17th and South 19th Streets on the east,
the Union Pacific Railroad on the south, and Marina Way South on the west. (See
Figure 1: Project Location.) The address is 830 Marina Way South, and the Assessor’s
Parcel Numbers are 560-190-007, and 560-190-008.
5. Project applicant:
Matt Hamilton
Development Solutions Seascape, LLC.
4100 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 330
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(855) 773-322
6. General Plan Designation: Medium Intensity Mixed-Use (Commercial Emphasis)
7. Zoning: M-1 Industrial/Office Flex, RMO (Resource Management Overlay) District:
Liquefaction Physical Constraint Area
Initial Study – Bay Walk Mixed-Use Project
1
RICHMOND PKWY.
23RD ST.
PETALUMA
121
116
37
N
VALLEJO
NOVATO
San Pablo
B ay
1
13 TH ST.
SAN
FRANCISCO
.
VD
BL
a
19 TH ST.
20 TH ST.
21 ST ST.
22 ND ST.
HARBOUR WAY
23 RD ST.
D
AR
RR
880
580
HAYWARD
AVE.
VE.
ALD AVE
.
VD
.
E.
Project
Site
BL
37 TH ST.
N
AV
SO
LO
RL
AB
23RD ST.
NP
AVE.
CA
CUTTING BLVD.
580
M
123
POTRERO AVE.
SOUTH
MARINA WAY
R WAY
HARBOU
80
.
PKWY
nne l
r Cha
Richmond
M arina
Bay
BAY
Ha r b o
HALL AVE.
BLVD.
A
REGATTA BLVD
.
l
IN
SOUTH
AR
ne
REGATTA
GA
SAN
RAMON
SA
HOFFMAN BLVD.
WRIGHT
an
680
Bay
280
n
CUTTING BLVD.
Ch
DALY CITY
e
MACDON
WALNUT
CREEK
24
ALAMEDA 580
sco
nci
Fra
c
580
Fe
CONCORD
OAKLAND
O
BARRETT
NEVIN A
OHIO AVE.
ta
PINOLE
RICHMOND
Sa n
CA
STR
OS
T.
c
if i
P ac
CHANSLOR AVE.
San
580
80
BERKELEY
GRANT
W. MACDONALD AVE.
4
SITE
SAN
RAFAEL
BARRETT AVE.
FAIRFIELD
80
121
Ford
C hannel
rbou
Ric hmo nd Inne r Ha
Brooks
Island
0
r
1/
4
580
N
1/2
CE
3/
4
N
A
TR
VE
LA
.
1
MILES
Figure 1
Project Location
Source: Grassetti Environmental, Inc.
8. Description of Project:
Project Site Conditions
The approximately 10.0-acre project site is located on the southeast corner of Marina Way
South and Wright Avenue in the southern portion of Richmond, in an urbanized area with
flat and level topography. (See Figure 1: Project Location, and Figure 2: Surrounding Land
Uses.) The project site is currently occupied by a vacant two-story industrial warehouse.
Parking areas are located on the north and south sides of the building. Vehicular access
to the site is provided from Marina Way South and Wright Avenue. A railroad spur is
located on the southeast portion of the site.
Proposed Structures
Development Solutions Seascape, LLC, the project sponsor, proposes to demolish the
existing industrial building, railroad spur, and parking lots at the site, and construct a threestory, mixed-use development with 76 two-bedroom, three-story townhomes; 80 threebedroom, three-story townhomes; 25 two-bedroom, three-story live-work townhomes; and
74 three-bedroom, three-story live-work townhomes; a two-story building containing a
2,980-square-foot business incubator suite and a 2,630-square-foot fitness center; an
internal network of driveways; and 590 parking spaces, consisting of 510 garage stalls and
80 guest stalls. The project would have a total of 255 townhomes (156 townhomes and 99
live-work townhomes). (See Figure 3: Site Plan, Figure 4: Live/Work Townhome
Elevations, Figure 5: Townhome Elevations, and Figure 6: Business/Fitness Center
Elevation.)
The townhomes would have a total of approximately 388,000 square feet of residential
area and approximately 28,000 square feet of commercial area (in the work areas of the
live/work units). The maximum height of the buildings would be approximately 40 feet.
Each unit would have a private outdoor balcony off the second floor as well as a private
roof deck. The average private outdoor space for each unit would be approximately 223
square feet.
Access and Parking
There would be combined vehicle entrance/exits on both Marina Way South and Wright
Avenue providing access to the internal driveway network. The median in Marina Way
South would be adjusted to allow left turns into the project site. Pedestrian access to the
internal network of paths would be available from multiple locations on Marina Way South
and Wright Avenue. The project would include a total of 590 parking spaces, consisting of
510 garage stalls within the townhomes and 80 exterior guest stalls distributed throughout
the site.
3
Figure 2
Aerial Photogrpah and Surrounding Land Uses
Live/
Work
Industrial
Industrial
Industrial
Industrial
Office
Office
Project Site
Industrial
Residential
Office
Commercial
Industrial
Residential
Office
Residential
Commercial
0
N
FEET
500
750
1000
Source: Google Earth, May 2014
250
Figure 3
Site Plan
0
30
FEET
60
N
90
120
Source: Summa Architecture
PREFACE LLC
4100 MAC ARTHUR BLVD, # 330
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
(855) 773-3223
8
FEET
16
24
Figure 4
Live/Work Townhome Elevations
0
32
Scale
0
8'
16'
24'
Bonsall, CA 92003
760.724.1198
ARCHITECTURE
5256 S. Mission Road, Ste. 404
www.summarch.com
Figure 5
Townhome Elevations
PREFACE LLC
(855) 773-3223
0
8
FEET
16
24
32
Scale
0
8'
16'
24'
Bonsall, CA 92003
760.724.1198
ARCHITECTURE
www.summarch.com
4
PREFACE LLC
(855) 773-3223
8
FEET
Figure 6
Business/Fitness Center Elevation
0
12
16
Scale
0
4'
8'
12'
Bonsall, CA 92003
760.724.1198
ARCHITECTURE
www.summarch.com
Grading, Landscaping, and Storm Drainage
Grading would be required for site preparation, including shallow excavations for utilities
and foundations. About 3,500 cubic yards of potentially contaminated soils would be
excavated and disposed of off-site at an appropriately licensed disposal facility.
A network of landscaped “paseos” (pedestrian paths) would traverse the site and connect
with an approximately one-third-acre recreation area near the middle of the site, with a dog
park, barbeque areas, and fitness equipment. A 12-foot high sound wall screened with
landscaping, would be constructed along the southern property line, adjacent to the
existing railroad tracks.
Runoff from the front half of the building units would be treated by bioretention planters
(about 4,000 sq. ft. of either in-ground or raised flow-through planters). To treat runoff
from the rear half of the buildings, along with all of the paved roads/alleys, there would be
about 9,600 sq. ft. of bioretention space, spread out over the six “paseo” areas. Runoff
would be pumped into these areas prior to discharge to the City’s storm drain system.
Energy and Water Conservation
The project would incorporate tankless water heaters, low flow water fixtures, low VOC
paints and coatings, Home Energy Rating System (HERS) inspections, drought tolerant
landscaping, energy efficient appliances, and bicycle parking.
Construction Phasing
The anticipated construction period is approximately 31 months. After demolition of the
existing building and grading and site preparation, the townhome buildings would be
constructed in phases of two or three buildings at a time. A maximum of approximately
100 construction workers at one time would be on-site. All construction staging would
occur on the project site. Occasional short-term closures of adjacent streets may be
required for construction.
9.
Surrounding Land Uses:
The project site is surrounded by existing urban development and roadways. (See Figure
3: Surrounding Land Uses.) Nearby land uses consist of a mix of industrial, commercial
and live/work development in one- to three-story buildings. Nearby land uses consist of a
mix of one- to three-story industrial, commercial and live/work developments. North of the
site is the two-lane Wright Avenue with the below-grade Interstate 580 farther north of the
site across Wright Avenue. West of the site, on the opposite side of Marina Way South,
are a trucking facility and vehicle storage lot, automotive repair, and recreational vehicle
storage areas. Southwest of the site, the first phase of a new, two-story live/work
development recently was constructed (additional phases have been permitted but not yet
constructed). South of the railroad bordering the site is a Kaiser Permanente laboratory
9
and commercial office development. East of the site, South 17th Street is currently gated
and not open to public use. On the east side of South 17th Street is a one-story light
industrial building.
10. Permits and Approvals:
The following City of Richmond approvals would be required:
•
•
•
•
•
Rezoning to PA-Planned Area District, Planning Commission and City Council
Design Review for proposed design and layout, Design Review Board
Conditional Use Permit for Medium-density residential development, Planning
Commission
Tentative Subdivision Map, Planning Commission
Street Vacation, Planning and Engineering Department
11. Project Size: The project area is 10.0 acres.
12. Project Density: The project site is 10.0 acres gross, and 7.8 acres net (excluding
internal drives and guest parking spaces). The density of the project is 32.7 units per net
acre.
13: The following section addresses the potential environmental effects of the project.
10
D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS – Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,
but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
a) Views of the site area are characterized by existing urban development and roadways
(see Figures 7-8). Adjacent industrial, commercial and live/work developments are
comprised of one to three-story structures sided with concrete, wood, and stucco building
materials. Industrial development characterizes views west of Marina Way South and east
of South 17th Street, which is currently gated and not open to public use. A one-story
Kaiser Permanente laboratory and commercial office development, with a contemporary
rectilinear design character, is located south of the railroad bordering the site. A new, twostory live/work development with a contemporary rectilinear design incorporating and
articulated façade with varying colors and textures, was recently constructed southwest of
the site. A trucking facility and vehicle storage lot is located west of the site behind a
concrete block wall that is partially hidden by landscape trees. Additional automotive
repair and recreational vehicle storage areas are visible west of the site along Wright
Avenue. North of the site is the two-lane Wright Avenue with the below-grade Interstate
580 visible to the north of the site across Wright Avenue.
The project site is developed with a large, vacant, two-story industrial warehouse and
associated paved parking/loading areas. The warehouse building is oriented east-west,
and is dominant in near-field views from Wright Avenue and Marina Way South. Major
views of the site also occur from office and industrial buildings directly south and east of
the site, however there are no public roadways on those sides of the site. Views of the site
are characterized by a long, unified white building with windows on the upper floor. Views
from the north (Wright Avenue) side include loading docks and bays.
12
Figure 7
Kaiser Lab and commercial development south of site looking east from Marina Way South Source: GECO Environmental
Figure 8
View of Artisan Cove Live/Work Lofts looking southwest from the Marina Way South Source: GECO Environmental
Views from the west (Marina Way South) side include a nearly flat façade broken by
windows; and the building’s the west facade is set back approximately five feet from the
sidewalk, with the exception of the building entrance which is built up to the property line
(see Figures 9 and 10). Parking areas are visible on the north and south sides of the
building. A railroad spur is visible on the southeast portion of the site.
The project site is flat and does not provide scenic views of the San Francisco Bay located
approximately 3,700 feet south of the site. The project area has been heavily developed
for the last 75 years, and no natural scenic resources such as trees or rock outcroppings
are present on the site or in the project area. There are several dozen landscaping trees
along the southern boundary of the site, and in the I-580 right-of-way north of the site.
These trees provide visual relief and soften the urban viewscape in the immediate vicinity
of the project site, but these non-native landscaping trees do not have unique or unusual
scenic value. Intermittent views of the hillsides in the Miller/Knox Regional Park to the
west and Wildcat Canyon Regional Park to the east can be seen from the site and
adjacent roadways.
The site is not located along a state scenic highway (I-580 in the project vicinity is not a
designated scenic highway). Views of the project site are generally limited to the
immediate area, although the project site may be visible from elevated viewpoints in
Miller/Knox Regional Park. Portions of the existing building on the site are visible to
motorists on the adjacent segment of I-580, which is slightly below grade near the project
site; landscaping in the highway right-of-way screens the remainder of the existing
building. Due to the flat topography of the project vicinity, the existing buildings on the site
and project vicinity screen long-distance views from I-580 and other nearby vantage
points. The proposed buildings would be three stories and approximately 40 feet in height,
which would exceed the height of the existing building and be more prominent from nearby
vantage points. However, because of the topography and existing development discussed
above, the project but would not substantially block scenic views and is not anticipated to
have a substantial effect on any scenic vista. The impact on scenic vistas would be less
than significant.
b) The project site is currently occupied by a vacant two-story industrial warehouse, with
parking areas located on the north and south sides of the building. The project site does
not contain any historic or scenic structures, nor does it contain significant trees, rock
outcroppings, topographic features, or other noteworthy scenic resources.
The
landscaping trees on and near the site discussed above provide visual relief and soften the
urban viewscape in the immediate vicinity of the project site, but these non-native
landscaping trees do not have unique or unusual scenic value. The Ford Motor Company
Assembly Plant is located at the southern end of Ford Peninsula, approximately one-half
mile southwest of the project site, is a listed on the National Register of Historic Places and
identified in the Historic Resources Element of the General Plan.1 This historic structure
1
City of Richmond, General Plan 2030, Historic Resources Element, April 25, 2012, Table 14.2, page 14.12.
14
Figure 9
View of project site from Marina Way South at Wright Avenue, looking southeast Source: GECO Environmental
Figure 10
View of project site from Marina Way South median looking northeast Source: GECO Environmental
would not be affected by the proposed project. The project site is not within or near a state
scenic highway or eligible scenic highway. For these reasons, the impact on scenic
resources would be less than significant.
c) The project site is located within the Ford Peninsula area of Richmond, a developed
urban area. The site is not located along a state scenic highway. Views of the project site,
are dominated by the existing two-story industrial warehouse, are generally limited to the
immediate area. Due to the flat topography and urbanized nature of the project vicinity,
most views of the site from more distant streets and buildings would be partially or
completely screened by intervening buildings, although the project site may be visible from
elevated viewpoints in Miller/Knox Regional Park.
Views of the site vicinity are characterized by existing urban development and roadways.
Adjacent industrial, commercial and live/work development is comprised of one to threestory structures sided with concrete, wood, and stucco building materials, with a variety of
ages and architectural styles. North of the project, on the opposite side of Wright Avenue,
is the slightly below-grade I-580 highway and landscaped right-of-way.
The project would consist of 255 three-story townhomes and an approximately 6,000square-foot business/fitness center.
Although the proposed redevelopment would
represent a substantial visual change from a single two-story warehouse structure, it is
consistent with the type of development allowed for the site in the Richmond General Plan
2030. The project would include a landscaped 12-foot soundwall along the southern
perimeter of the site. This soundwall would located between the project buildings and the
railroad track and commercial building to the south; it would not located along a public
street. The project’s buildings would be three stories and approximately 40 feet in height,
which is similar to the tallest nearby building, and higher than most buildings in the project
vicinity. While the project buildings, especially the upper floors, would be apparent from
the vantage points of nearby streets and buildings, including I-580, they would not
substantially change the overall visual character of the neighborhood, which is a mixture of
industrial, commercial, and live/work uses. The design and visual character of the project
would be consistent with the existing buildings and urbanized nature of the project area.
Other than local streets, there are no public areas in the project vicinity from which the
project would be visible. Existing mid-range views of the site from streets and public areas
are limited by the flat topography and intervening buildings in the project vicinity. As a
result, the project would not have a substantial effect on these views. The proposed
project would be visible from some more distant elevated public areas, such as Miller/Knox
Regional Park to the west and Wildcat Canyon Regional Park to the east, but its visual
effect would be limited by the distance from these elevated viewpoints and because the
project would be similar in overall appearance to the existing urban fabric of development
that currently surrounds the site.
The project would not significantly degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings. Off-site views would appear to be infill development within the
existing urbanized neighborhood of industrial, commercial, and live/work uses. See Items
16
I.a and I.b, above, for additional discussion. The impact on visual character would be less
than significant.
d) The proposed project would have windows, and walkway and street lighting typical of
three-story townhome construction. This lighting would be visible at night from nearby
dwellings and businesses and public roads including Marina Way South, Wright Avenue,
and I-580, but would not be substantially greater than that created by existing development
in the project area. The proposed townhomes would not contain highly reflective building
materials. Lighting proposed on the site would be subject to the City’s standards (including
Section 15.04.840.040 of the Zoning Ordinance, which prohibits any source of illumination
from producing glare on public streets or on any other parcel), and would be subject to the
City’s design review process. Project lighting is not expected to be substantially out of
character with existing lighting or the mixed commercial, industrial, and live/work nature of
the project vicinity, and the project would not create a source of substantial light or glare
that would adversely affect views in the area. Project residents may be subject to existing
light and glare conditions related to reflections from existing nearby buildings or windows
or passing vehicles. These light-and-glare effects would be intermittent conditions typical
of the urban environment, and could be readily addressed (e.g., by temporarily closing the
blinds within a residential unit). For these reasons, impacts of the project on light and
glare would be less than significant.
17
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES:
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program on
the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code Section
4526), or timberland zone Timberland Production
(as defined by Government Code Section
51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result
in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural
use?
a) No agricultural uses are located on the 10.0-acre site. No prime farmland exists on the
site, and the proposed project would have no impact on farmland.
b) The site is zoned M-1 Industrial/Office Flex, where agricultural uses are not permitted.
The site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. There would be no impact on zoning
for agricultural use and Williamson Act contracts.
c, d, e) There are no forestry uses in the City of Richmond. There would be no impact on
zoning for forest land and timber land.
18
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. AIR QUALITY:
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
a, b, c) The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted its 2010
Bay Area Clean Air Plan (CAP) in accordance with the requirements of the California
Clean Air Act (CCAA) to implement all feasible measures to reduce ozone; provide a
control strategy to reduce ozone, particulate matter, air toxics, and GHG emissions in a
single, integrated plan; and establish emission control measures to be adopted or
implemented in the 2010 through 2012 timeframe. The primary goals of the 2010 Bay
Area CAP are to:
•
Attain air quality standards;
•
Reduce population exposure and protect public health in the Bay Area; and
•
Reduce GHG emissions and protect the climate.
19
The recommended measure for determining project support of these goals is
consistency with BAAQMD-approved CEQA thresholds of significance. Therefore, if
approval of a project would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts
after the application of all feasible mitigation, the Project would be considered
consistent with the 2010 Bay Area CAP. The Project would not result in significant and
unavoidable air quality impacts after the implementation of mitigation measures
identified in this Initial Study.
The air quality analyses addressing these checklist items was performed using the
methodologies and criteria recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD) in their CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (dated June 2010, updated in
May 2011, and revised in May 2012).2 The air pollutants evaluated are: carbon
monoxide (CO), reactive organic compounds (ROG) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) (both
being precursors to ozone formation), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter equal to
or less than 10 micrometers (coarse particulates or PM10), and particulate matter equal
to or less than 2.5 micrometers (fine particulates or PM2.5). Greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions are addressed further below in Section VII.
The text below describes existing regional and local air quality, the location of sensitive
receptors, the construction and operational air pollutant impacts from Project and
cumulative sources, and the City of Richmond’s Air Quality Conditions of Approval that
are required to be implemented as part of the City’s CEQA review process.
Meteorological Effects on Air Quality
The Project Site lies in the Northern Alameda/Western Contra Costa climatological subregion of the Bay Area. The westerly marine air flow through the Golden Gate is
predominant in this sub-region, but the Oakland-Berkeley Hills cause it to slow and
divert to the north and to the south as it approaches the East Bay shore. Thus,
Richmond being northeast of the Golden Gate is in a predominant southerly flow.
At the Point San Pablo meteorological station, located west-northwest of downtown
Richmond, the prevailing direction is south southwesterly with over 50 percent of the
winds coming from the south through southwest sector. The average wind speed is 11
miles per hour (mph). On average, Richmond's maximum summer temperatures are in
the low 70's with minima averaging in the mid-50s. In winter maxima range from the
high 50’s to low 60’s and minima reach the low to mid-40s. Precipitation averages
about 22 inches annually.
The potential for air pollutants to concentrate in areas closest to the Bay shore (which
includes the project site) is low due to frequent good ventilation and less influx of
2
The Air District’s June 2010 adopted thresholds of significance were challenged in a lawsuit. Although the
BAAQMD’s adoption of significance thresholds for air quality analysis has been subject to judicial actions,
the City of Richmond has determined that BAAQMD’s Revised Draft Options and Justification Report
(October 2009) provide substantial evidence to support the BAAQMD recommended thresholds. Therefore,
the City of Richmond has determined the BAAQMD recommended thresholds are appropriate for use in this
analysis.
20
pollutants from upwind sources. Occurrence of light winds, however, mainly during the
night and early morning, may promote occasional elevated pollutant levels.3
Sensitive Receptors
People that are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution within the general
population, deemed ‘sensitive receptors’, include children, the elderly, and those that
suffer from certain illnesses or disabilities. Therefore, schools, convalescent homes,
and hospitals are considered to be typical locations of sensitive receptors. Residential
areas are also considered sensitive receptors because people (including children, the
elderly and the sick) usually stay home for extended periods of time, which results in
greater exposure to localized air pollutants.
BAAQMD considers the relevant zone of influence for an assessment of air quality
health risks in a CEQA study to be within 1,000 feet of a project site. Adjacent
properties to the Project site include commercial land uses to the west, east and south,
and a mix of commercial and residential land uses to the north and south. The nearest
existing residential land uses are within 350 feet to the north and 980 feet to the south.
However, construction of a new live/work complex at 901 Marina Way South, about 125
feet southwest of the project site, is now partially complete and being offered for lease.
No schools are located within 1,000 feet of the project site. Traffic on Marina Way
South, adjacent to and west of the project site, and I-580, 200 feet north of the project
site, are sources of air pollutants that would affect future Project residents.
Regulatory Framework
The BAAQMD monitors and regulates air quality in the Bay Area pursuant to the
Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). The BAAQMD
adopts and enforces controls on stationary sources of air pollutants through its permit
and inspection programs. Other BAAQMD responsibilities include preparation of
regional clean air plans and responding to citizen air quality complaints. The BAAQMD
has also authored the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to assist lead agencies in
evaluating air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed in the Bay Area.
Current Air Quality
The BAAQMD operates a set of regional ambient air quality monitoring stations where
readings are taken of the six criteria pollutants considered in this Initial Study.
Currently, the criteria pollutants of most concern in the Bay Area are ozone (O3), PM10
and PM2.5.
The monitoring station closest to the Project site is in San Pablo approximately 2.75
miles north-northwest of the Project site; here levels of O3, PM10, PM2.5, CO, NO2, and
SO2 are recorded.
3
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. October 4, 2010, Bay Area Climatology
http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Communications-and-Outreach/Air-Quality-in-the-Bay-Area/Bay-AreaClimatology.aspx.
21
Table III-1 summarizes the most recent three years of data from the San Pablo air
monitoring station. The federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard was exceeded twice in 2013;
the State 24-hour PM10 standard was exceeded once in 2011. No other State or federal
air quality standards were exceeded during the three-year period.
The Bay Area is currently designated “nonattainment” for state and national (1-hour
and 8-hour) ozone standards, for the state PM10 standards, and for state and national
(annual average and 24-hour) PM2.5 standards. The Bay Area is designated
“attainment” or “unclassifiable” with respect to the other ambient air quality standards.
Pollutant
Ozone
Ozone
Ozone
PM10
PM10
PM2.5
Carbon Monoxide
Nitrogen Dioxide
Nitrogen Dioxide
Sulfur Dioxide
TABLE III-1
AIR QUALITY DATA SUMMARY
SAN PABLO, CA, 2011 – 2013
Standard
Days Standard Exceeded
2011
2012
2013
State 1–Hour
0
0
0
Federal 8–Hour
0
0
0
State 8–Hour
0
0
0
Federal 24–Hour
0
0
0
State 24–Hour
1
0
0
Federal 24–Hour
0
0
2
State/Federal 8–Hour 0
0
0
State 1–Hour
0
0
0
Federal 1–Hour
0
0
0
State 24-Hour
0
0
0
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Annual Bay Area Air Quality Summaries,
http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Communications-and-Outreach/Air-Quality-in-the-Bay-Area/Air-QualitySummaries.aspx, 2014.
Air Pollutant Emissions Significance
The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would exceed the
following BAAQMD construction and/or operational pollutant emission thresholds for
exhaust emissions and/or if appropriate air pollutant control measures are not
implemented to control fugitive dust. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
recommend that the cumulative air quality effects of criteria air pollutants also be
addressed by comparison to the same daily and annual emission thresholds, which
were developed to identify cumulatively considerable contributions to a significant
regional air quality problems.
22
Construction
Operational
Average Daily
(lbs./day)
Average
Daily
(lbs./day)
Maximum
Annual
(tpy)
54
54
10
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)
54
54
10
Coarse Inhalable
Particulate Matter (PM10)
82 (exhaust)
82
15
Fine Inhalable Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
54 (exhaust)
54
10
PM10/PM2.5 Fugitive Dust
BMPsa
N/A
N/A
Pollutant
Reactive Organic Gases
(ROG)
Notes:: BMPs = Best Management Practices
N/A = Not Applicable
a
If BAAQMD Best Management Practices (BMPs) for fugitive dust control are implemented during
construction, the impacts of such residual emissions are considered to be less than significant.
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2011 May (Revised), California Environmental Quality
Act Air Quality Guidelines.
Local Pollutant Concentrations
The Project would have a significant operational environmental impact if CO emissions
from the motor vehicle traffic it generates or from the cumulative traffic congestion it
causes would exceed the ambient air quality standards of 9.0 ppm (8-hour average) or
20.0 ppm (1-hour average).
Project Construction-Related Impacts
Construction activities are expected to commence in 2015 with demolition of the existing
structure. Grading and site improvements would occur during the second half of 2015,
and construction would occur from the fall of 2015 through 2017 when two or three of
the component residential structures would be built at a time.
Project construction would generate short-term emissions of criteria pollutants, including
fugitive dust and equipment exhaust emissions. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality
Guidelines recommend quantification of construction-related exhaust emissions and
comparison of those emissions to significance thresholds. Therefore, this analysis
includes quantification of construction emissions and comparison of the emissions to the
BAAQMD’s construction significance thresholds. The CalEEMod (California Emissions
23
Estimator Model, Version 2013.2.2) was used to quantify construction-related emissions
of criteria pollutants (see Appendix B for emissions estimate assumptions).
Table III-2 provides the estimated short-term construction emissions that would be
associated with the Project and compares those emissions to the BAAQMD’s thresholds
for construction exhaust emissions. As the construction phases (i.e., grading, building
construction, paving, etc.) are sequential, the average daily construction period
emissions (i.e., total construction period emissions divided by the number of
construction days) were compared to the BAAQMD significance thresholds. All
construction-related emissions would be below the BAAQMD significance thresholds.
TABLE III-2
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
(pounds per day)
Condition
ROG
NOx
PM10
PM2.5
CO
Unmitigated
Construction Period
Average
11.7
33.9
5.1
3.0
31.0
Significance Thresholds
54
54
82
54
--Significant Impact?
No
No
No
No
No
Mitigated
Construction Period
9.4
27.1
2.6
1.2
28.2
Average
54
54
82
54
--Significant Impact?
No
No
No
No
No
BAAQMD regulations applicable to Project construction relate to gasoline- or dieselpowered equipment (e.g., electrical generators, pumps, compressors, backhoes,
cranes, etc.) and the fugitive dust generated by construction activity, and to pollutant
emissions from architectural coatings and paving materials.
BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines require a number of Construction Mitigation
Measures to control fugitive dust and exhaust emissions. But for the Project, all
construction emissions would be below the BAAQMD significance thresholds with or
without the implementation of these measures. Nevertheless, the following measures
must be implemented by the Project construction contractor:
BAAQMD Required Dust Control Measures: The construction contractor shall reduce
construction-related air pollutant emissions by implementing BAAQMD’s basic fugitive
dust control measures, including:
•
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.
24
•
All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed
using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry
power sweeping is prohibited.
•
All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.
•
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.
•
A publically visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to
contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall
respond and take corrective action with 48 hours. The Air District’s phone
number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
BAAQMD Required Basic Exhaust Emissions Reduction Measures. The construction
contractor shall implement the following measures during construction to reduce
construction-related exhaust emissions:
•
Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use
or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the
California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California
Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers
at all access points.
•
All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in
accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked
by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to
operation.
BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3 for Architectural Coatings. Emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) due to the use of architectural coatings are regulated by the limits
contained in Regulation 8: Organic Compounds, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings (Rule 83). Rule 8-3 was revised to include more stringent VOC limit requirements. The revised
VOC architectural coating limits, which went into effect on January 1, 2011, was
projected to result in a 32 percent reduction of VOC emissions in the Bay Area
associated with architectural coating applications.
•
The applicant shall use paints and solvents with a VOC content of 100 grams
per liter or less for interior and 150 grams per liter or less for exterior surfaces.
25
Project Operational Impacts
Air Pollutant Emissions
The CalEEMod was also used to estimate emissions that would be associated with motor
vehicle use, space and water heating, and landscape maintenance emissions, etc.
expected to occur after the Project is complete. See Appendix B for details.
Estimated operational daily and annual emissions that would be associated with the
Project are presented in Tables III-3 and III-4 and are compared to BAAQMD’s thresholds
of significance. Fireplaces and wood stoves, if they are included, would result in potentially
significant operational emissions, but such emissions would be reduced through Mitigation
Measure III-1. As indicated, the estimated Project operational emissions would be below
the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds and would be less than significant with this
mitigation.
TABLE III-3
PROJECT DAILY OPERATIONAL CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
(pounds per day)
Emission Category ROG
NOx
PM10
PM2.5
CO
Unmitigated
Area
101
1.47
15.9
15.9
132
Energy
0.18
1.55
0.13
0.13
0.67
Mobile
5.85
12.2
8.78
2.44
60.6
Total Project
107
15.3
24.8
18.4
193
Significance
54
54
82
54
--Thresholds
Significant Impact?
Yes
No
No
No
No
Mitigated
Area
11.7
0.25
0.39
0.39
21.2
Energy
0.18
1.55
0.13
0.13
0.67
Mobile
5.85
12.2
8.78
2.44
60.6
Total Project
17.7
14.0
9.28
2.95
82.5
Significance
54
54
82
54
--Thresholds
Significant Impact?
No
No
No
No
No
Mitigation Measure III-1: Hearths. Fireplaces, if proposed for installation in Project
residential units, shall use natural gas only.
26
TABLE III-4
PROJECT ANNUAL OPERATIONAL CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
(tons per year)
Emission Category ROG
NOx
PM10
PM2.5
CO
Unmitigated
Area
2.20
0.03
0.05
0.05
2.19
Energy
0.03
0.29
0.02
0.02
0.12
Mobile
0.92
1.96
1.42
0.40
9.19
Total Project
3.15
2.27
1.50
0.47
11.5
Significance
10
10
15
10
--Thresholds
Significant Impact?
No
No
No
No
No
Mitigated
Area
2.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
1.91
Energy
0.03
0.29
0.02
0.02
0.12
Mobile
0.92
1.96
1.42
0.40
9.18
Total Project
2.96
2.26
1.45
0.43
11.2
Significance
10
10
15
10
--Thresholds
Significant Impact?
No
No
No
No
No
Cumulative Emission Impacts
Since Tables III-3 through III-5 show that Project-related emissions would be below the
BAAQMD significance thresholds with implementation of the recommended mitigations
measures, the Project would not make cumulatively considerable contributions to the Bay
Area’s regional problems with ozone or particulate matter. Thus, cumulative emission
impacts would be less than significant.
Carbon Monoxide Concentrations
The BAAQMD has identified the following screening criteria for determining whether a
project’s motor vehicle CO emissions would likely cause ambient air quality standards to
be exceeded:
•
The Project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program
established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways, the regional transportation plan, and local congestion management
agency plans.
•
The Project traffic would increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more
than 44,000 vehicles per day.
•
The Project traffic would increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more
than 24,000 vehicles per day where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially
27
limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street
canyon, below-grade roadway).
Based on the relatively small size of the Project, the additional traffic it generates would
not have substantial effects on traffic flow locally or regionally and would not exceed either
of the quantitative traffic volume thresholds specified above. Therefore, the Project’s
operational ambient CO impacts would be less than significant
d) The air quality analyses for this checklist item uses the methodologies and criteria
recommended by the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to address health
risks and hazards from exposures to Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs), especially to
the TAC diesel particulate matter (DPM).
Toxic Air Contaminants Significance
Project-Level Risks and Hazards
Project construction-related or operational emissions of TACs or PM2.5 that impact
sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the project site and exceed any of the thresholds
listed below are considered significant:
•
•
An excess cancer risk level of more than 10 in one million, or a non-cancer (i.e.
chronic or acute) hazard index greater than 1.0.
An incremental increase of greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) for
annual average PM2.5 concentrations.
Cumulative Risks and Hazards
Cumulative impacts include the combined effects of either construction-related or
operational project TACs and PM2.5 sources plus TAC and PM2.5 impacts from all
freeways, state highways and high volume roadways (i.e., the latter defined as having
traffic volumes of 10,000 vehicles or more per day or 1,000 trucks per day), plus TAC and
PM2.5 impacts from all BAAQMD-permitted stationary sources within 1,000 feet of the
project site. TAC or PM2.5 combined impacts to sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of
the project site that exceed any of the thresholds listed below are considered cumulatively
significant:
•
•
An excess cancer risk levels of more than 100 in one million or a chronic noncancer hazard index (from all local sources) greater than 10.0.
An incremental increase of greater than 0.8 µg/m3 for annual average PM2.5
concentrations.
Cancer Risk
Cancer risk is the lifetime probability of developing cancer from exposure to carcinogenic
substances. Following HRA guidelines established by California Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and the BAAQMD in Recommended Methods for
Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, incremental cancer risks were
28
calculated by applying established toxicity factors to modeled TAC concentrations (see
Appendix B for details).
Project Construction-Related Impacts
With implementation of required BAAMQD Mitigation Measures for construction activity
and equipment described previously, the maximum cancer risk from construction DPM for
a residential-adult receptor would be 2.2 per million and for a residential-child would be
24.3 per million. Thus, the cancer risk due to construction activities is above the BAAQMD
threshold of 10 per million and would be potentially significant.
However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure III-2, the maximum cancer risk
from construction for a residential-adult receptor would be 0.6 per million and for a
residential-child would be 6.2 per million. Thus, the cancer risk due to construction
activities would be below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 per million and would be less than
significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measure III-2: Implement Enhanced Exhaust Emissions Reduction
Measures. The construction contractor shall implement the following measures
during construction to further reduce construction-related exhaust emissions:
All off-road equipment greater than 25 horsepower (hp) and operating for more than
20 total hours over the entire duration of construction activities shall meet the
following requirements:
1. Where access to alternative sources of power are available, portable diesel
engines shall be prohibited; and
2. All off-road equipment shall have:
a. Engines that meet or exceed either USEPA or CARB Tier 2 off-road
emission standards, and
b. Engines that are retrofitted with a CARB Level 2 Verified Diesel
Emissions Control Strategy (VDECS). Acceptable options for reducing
emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel
products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment
products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options
as such are available.
Operational Impacts
The maximum cancer risks from the Project operations due to motor vehicle DPM would
be less than 0.1 per million for all receptors with implementation of the measures the City
requires by law. Thus, the health impacts from Project operations would be below the
BAAQMD threshold of 10 per million and less than significant.
29
Non-Cancer Health Hazard
Both acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) adverse health impacts unrelated to
cancer are measured against a hazard index (HI), which is defined as the ratio of the
Project’s incremental TAC exposure concentration to a published reference exposure level
(REL) as determined by OEHHA. To compute the total HI, individual ratios or Hazard
Quotients (HQs)) of each individual TAC are added to produce an overall HI. If the overall
HI is greater than 1.0, then the impact is considered to be significant.
The chronic reference exposure level for DPM as determined by OEHHA is 5 µg/m3. There
is no acute REL for DPM. However, diesel exhaust does contain the TAC acrolein and
other compounds, which do have an acute REL. Based on BAAQMD’s DPM speciation
data, acrolein emissions are approximately 1.3 percent of the total DPM emissions. The
acute REL for acrolein as determined by OEHHA4 is 2.5 µg /m3.
The unmitigated and mitigated chronic HI would be 0.03 and 0.01, respectively. Thus, the
chronic HI would be well below the BAAQMD threshold of 1 and the Project impact would
less than significant.
The unmitigated and mitigated acute HI would be 0.29 and 0.07, respectively. Thus, the
acute HI would be below the BAAQMD threshold of 1 and the Project impact would be less
than significant.
PM2.5 Concentration
Dispersion modeling also estimated the exposure of sensitive receptors to Project-related
concentrations of PM2.5. The BAAQMD Air Quality Guidelines requires inclusion only of
PM2.5 exhaust emissions in this analysis (i.e., fugitive dust emissions are addressed under
BAAQMD dust control measures and are required by law to be implemented during Project
construction). The Project’s unmitigated maximum annual PM2.5 concentration from
construction would be 0.17 µg/m3. With implementation of Mitigation Measure III-2, the
maximum annual PM2.5 concentration would be reduced to 0.04 µg/m3. Thus, the annual
PM2.5 concentration due to Project construction would be below the BAAQMD threshold of
0.3 µg/m3 and would be considered less than significant with or without mitigation.
Cumulative TAC Impacts
The BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines include standards and methods for
determining the significance of cumulative health risk impacts. The method for determining
cumulative health risk requires the tallying of health risk from permitted stationary sources,
major roadways and any other identified substantial TAC sources in the vicinity of a project
site (i.e., within a 1,000-foot radius) and then adding the individual sources to determine
whether the BAAQMD’s cumulative health risk thresholds are exceeded.
4
California Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment Toxicity Criteria Database, 2010.
http://www.oehha.ca.gov//.
30
BAAQMD has developed a geo-referenced database of permitted stationary emissions
sources throughout the San Francisco Bay Area and the Stationary Source Risk & Hazard
Analysis Tool (May, 2012) for estimating cumulative health risks from the permitted
sources. Three such permitted sources are located within 1,000 feet of the Project site.
BAAQMD has also developed a geo-referenced database of major roadways in the Bay
Area and the Highway Screening Analysis Tool (May 2011) for estimating cumulative
health risks from such roadways. An identified major roadway, I-580, is located 200 feet to
the north of the project site. BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines also require the
inclusion of surface streets within 1,000 feet of the Project with annual average daily traffic
(AADT) of 10,000 or greater5. Marina Way South meets this criterion.
Table III-5 shows the individual and cumulative cancer risks, hazard indexes, and PM2.5
concentrations (in µg/m3) impacting the new Project residences from BAAQMD-permitted
stationary sources and major roadways within 1,000 feet of the Project, and also includes
the effects of TACs emitted by ships at the Port of Richmond and by rail operations at the
rail yard south of the project site. For individual TAC sources, significance is evaluated
based on the source with the highest cancer risk, hazard or PM2.5 concentration.6 In this
case, the highest single source impact cancer risk for the Project residents would be 60.5
per million due to the rail yard activities, while the risk to people working on the project site
would be 3.2 per million. The cumulative cancer risk, 112 per million, would be well above
the BAAQMD cumulative significance threshold for new residential receptors. Thus,
mitigation measures would be required as specified in Mitigation Measure III-3.
Site #
TABLE III-5
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS FOR NEW RECEPTORS
Facility Type
Address
Cancer Hazard
Risk
Impact
19764 SunPrint
870 Harbour Blvd
15465 Kaiser
914 Marina Way
Permanente
South
13132 Dicon Fiberoptics 1689 Regatta Blvd
Emission Source
Port of Richmond
Rail Yard
I-580
Marina Way South
Highest Single Source Impact
Significant Impact?
0
0
PM2.5
Concentratio
n
0
13.3
0
0
0.5
0
0
3.37
60.5
31.8
2.50
60.5
10
Yes
0
0.02
0.03
0
0.03
1
No
0
0.05
0.17
0.10
0.17
0.3
No
5
BAAQMD County Surface Street Screening Tables, May 2011 and C E H T P T r a f f i c L i n k a g e
S e r v i c e D e m o n s t r a t i o n , http://www.ehib.org/traffic_tool.jsp.
6
BAAQMD, Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risk and Hazards, May 2011.
31
Site #
Facility Type
Address
Total Cumulative Impacts
Significant Impact?
Cancer
Risk
Hazard
Impact
112
100
Yes
0.05
10
No
PM2.5
Concentratio
n
0.77
0.8
No
Mitigation Measure III-3: The following measures shall be utilized in building
design to reduce TAC and PM2.5 exposure to future Project residents:
•
The Project sponsor shall install and operate in good working order an indoor air
filtration system that meets or exceeds an efficiency standard of Minimum
Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 (i.e., a filter efficiency of approximately 85
percent of particulates in the range of 1.0 to 3.0 micrometers) to limit DPM and
other particulate and gaseous TAC entry to the Project residential buildings. The
filtration system shall use filters rated by American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)7 to attain the
prescribed level of pollutant reduction indoors. These filters shall be maintained
and replaced according to manufacture specifications. Residences shall also be
equipped with low-air infiltration windows and sealed doors to limit entry of TACs
from the outdoor air.
•
The indoor air filtration system shall be maintained (e.g. filters changed on a
prescribed basis) and repaired when necessary. An operation and maintenance
manual shall be prepared for the system and the filters. The manual shall
include the operating instructions and the maintenance and replacement
schedule.
•
The Project sponsor shall retain a qualified consultant during the design phase
to locate the air intakes of the indoor ventilation system for each building at
points that provide the maximum reduction of TAC from the pollutant sources
identified herein (i.e., at the farthest feasible point from site boundaries and the
highest feasible point above ground level) to provide the cleanest intake air to
residences.
•
New residents shall be informed in their rental agreements or property
disclosures statements of the health effects of DPM and PM2.5 from I-580, the
rail yard, and the other identified local TAC sources. They shall also be informed
of the efficacy of reduce such exposures by closing windows and doors and
maintaining filtration systems in good working order.
ASHRAE Standard 52.2-1992: "Method of Testing General Ventilation Air Cleaning Devices for Removal
7
Efficiency by Particle Size."
32
Table III-6 shows the mitigated individual source and cumulative cancer risks, hazards,
and PM2.5 concentrations (in µg/m3) impacting the new Project residents. The highest
single-source mitigated impact cancer risk for Project residents is 9.1 per million due to the
rail yard activities to the south of the Project. The cumulative risk from all sources would be
below the BAAQMD cumulative significance threshold. Thus, cumulative TAC impacts
would be less than significant with imposition of the specified mitigations.
TABLE III-6
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS FOR NEW RECEPTORS - MITIGATED
Site # Facility Type
Address
Cancer
Hazard
PM2.5
Risk
Impact
Concentration
19764 SunPrint
870 Harbour Blvd
0
0
0
15465 Kaiser Permanente 914 Marina Way
2.00
0
0
South
13132 Dicon Fiberoptics
1689 Regatta Blvd 0.08
0
0
Emission Source
Port of Richmond
0.51
0
0
Rail Yard
9.08
0
0.01
I-580
4.77
0
0.03
Marina Way South
0.38
0
0.02
Highest Single Source Impact
9.08
0
0.03
10
1
0.3
Significant Impact?
No
No
No
Total Cumulative Impacts
16.8
0
0.06
100
10
0.8
Significant Impact?
No
No
No
Table III-7 shows the cumulative cancer risk, hazard level, and PM2.5 concentration from
Project construction and other local TAC sources on the closest existing residential
receptor at 150 feet to the north of the Project site. There are no permitted stationary
sources within 1,000 feet of this residential receptor, but TACs from I-580, the rail yard and
the Port of Richmond would have the individual as shown in the table. The cumulative
cancer risk for closest existing residence would be 86.2 persons per million. Thus, the
cumulative cancer risk is below the BAAQMD threshold of 100 per million and would be less
than significant. The cumulative HI would be less than 0.1, well below the BAAQMD
threshold of 10. Thus, the cumulative hazard impact would be less than significant.
The cumulative annual PM2.5 concentrations would be 0.4 µg/m 3, below the BAAQMD
threshold of 0.8 µg/m3. Thus, the cumulative PM2.5 impact would be less than significant.
33
TABLE III-7
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS FOR EXISTING RECEPTORS
Emission Source
Cancer Hazard PM2.5
Risk
Impact Concentration
Port of Richmond
2.87
0
0
Rail Yard
11.7
0
0.01
I-580
65.4
0.05
0.37
Mitigated Project Impacts
6.2
0.01
0.04
Total Impact
86.2
0.06
0.41
100
10
0.8
Significant Impact?
No
No
No
Odor
The BAAQMD’s significance criteria for odors are subjective and are based on the number
of odor complaints generated by a project. Generally, the BAAQMD considers any project
with the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors to
cause a significant impact. With respect to the proposed Project, diesel-fueled construction
equipment exhaust would generate some odors. However, these emissions typically
dissipate quickly and would be unlikely to affect a substantial number of people. Post
construction odors from a residential project would be minimal.
Odor impacts could also result from siting a new sensitive receptor near an existing odor
source. Examples of land uses that have the potential to generate considerable odors
include, but are not limited to wastewater treatment plants; landfills; refineries; and
chemical plants. The City of Richmond Sewage Treatment Plant is located approximately
1.2 miles to the west of the proposed Project and the Chevron Refinery is located 2.3 miles
to the west of the proposed Project. In the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (dated
May 2011), odor screening distances were recommended by BAAQMD for a variety of
land uses. Projects that would site a new receptor farther than the applicable screening
distance from an existing odor source would not likely result in a significant odor impact.
The odor screening distances are not used as absolute screening criteria, rather as
information to consider along with the odor parameters and complaint history. The odor
screening distances for a sewage treatment plant, refinery, and chemical plant are two
miles.8 Thus, the proposed Project is within the odor screening distance for the sewage
treatment plant. Typically odor impacts occur with 0.5 miles from a sewage treatment
plant. Odor complaints were reviewed based on information from the BAAQMD; however,
these records do not provide the location of odor complaints.9 Odor emissions at sewage
treatment plants typically peak during the warmest summer afternoons. Generally, odor
emissions are highly dispersive, especially in areas with higher average wind speeds.
8
Guide to Air Quality Assessment in Sacramento County, June 2014,
http://www.airquality.org/ceqa/cequguideupdate/Ch7OdorScreeningDistancesFINAL.pdf
9
Email from Rochelle Reed, BAAQMD, September 18, 2014.
34
However, odors disperse less quickly during inversions or during calm conditions, which
hamper vertical mixing and dispersion.
The regional prevailing wind direction is from the south to the north (especially during the
summer months; not from the west to the east (from the potential odor sources to the
proposed Project). Winds from the west to east tend to be at higher wind speeds. Odor
impacts associated with the Richmond Sewage Treatment Plant tend to be located at Point
Richmond (approximately 0.3 miles to the northwest of the facility and in the opposite
direction of the proposed Project). Therefore, odor impacts associated with the location of
the proposed Project would be less than significant.
35
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the
project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly
or through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation
Plan,
Natural
Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
g) Results in a conversation of Oak Woodlands that
will have a significant effect on the environment
36
a) The project site is primarily paved or covered by an existing building, with a vegetated
drainage ditch comprising the only semi-natural area on the site. There is little natural
habitat present that would be affected by the project. The drainage ditch and associated
vegetation are located on the southeastern corner of the site and extend along the Meeker
Avenue alignment to South 19th Street. This approximately one-acre portion of the site
contains large shrubs and grassland. No trees were identified on the project site during a
tree survey in July 2013 (Clark 2013), although some tree limbs from the railroad right-ofway south of the site extend onto the property.
Habitats in developed urban areas are relatively low in species diversity. Species that use
this habitat are urban and suburban adapted birds and mammals. Based upon the
developed habitats found on the site, no special-status plant or animal species are
expected to be present. The project site does not contain riparian habitat or other natural
community identified in any local or regional plans. The project site is not located within
the boundaries of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community
Conservation Plan.
State and federal laws protect most bird species. The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(FMBTA: 16 U.S.C., scc. 703, Supp. I, 1989) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in
migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the
Interior. This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. Birds
of prey, such as owls and hawks, are protected in California under provisions of the State
Fish and Game Code, Section 3503.5, (1992), which states that it is “unlawful to take,
possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or
to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise
provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Construction
disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or
nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest
abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “taking” by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
There are 17 non-native trees, including river red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) and
Canary Island pine (Pinus canariensis), located adjacent to the southwestern boundary of
the site. A number of these trees are large enough to support nesting birds. Although the
trees are not located on the project site, pruning and other construction activities within the
vicinity of these trees could result in disturbances to nesting birds, which may result in nest
abandonment. Tree nesting raptors, along with all migratory birds, are protected under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code. Construction disturbance
to nests that results in nest abandonment or death would be in violation of state and
federal law. The proposed project could result in direct impacts to nesting birds, if present
in trees adjacent to the site at the time of construction. This is a potentially significant
impact.
37
Mitigation Measure IV-1: Nesting Birds. Pruning of trees adjacent to the project site
shall be scheduled between September and December (inclusive) to avoid the
nesting season for birds.
Mitigation Measure IV-2: Pre-Construction Survey. Prior to the commencement of
construction between January and August (inclusive), a pre-construction survey for
nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified ornithologist to identify active nesting
raptor or other bird nests that may be disturbed during project implementation.
Between January and April (inclusive) pre-construction surveys shall be conducted
no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of construction activities. Between May
and August (inclusive), pre-construction surveys shall be conducted no more than
thirty (30) days prior to the initiation of construction activities. The surveying
ornithologist shall inspect all trees in and immediately adjacent to the construction
area for nests. If an active raptor nest is found in or close enough to the
construction area to be disturbed by these activities, the ornithologist shall
designate a construction-free buffer zone around the nest until the end of the
nesting activity.
Mitigation Measure IV-3: Report of Pre-Construction Survey. A report summarizing
the results of the pre-construction survey and any designated buffer zones or
protection measures for tree nesting birds shall be submitted to the Planning and
Building Services Department Director prior to the start of grading or tree pruning.
Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would result in this impact being
b) See discussion under Item IV. a, above. No riparian habitats or other sensitive natural
communities are located on the project site; therefore, the project would have no impact
on this resource.
c) An existing drainage on the southeastern portion of the site and extending to South 19th
Street would be piped and filled as part of the project. The drainage ditch does not contain
regulated wetlands or other waters of the state. There would be no impact on wetlands.
d) The project is located within a large, densely urbanized area. No fish or wildlife
corridors exist on or near the site. Species that travel through or near the project site are
adapted to urban environments and would not be substantially affected by the proposed
project. Development of the project is not expected to significantly alter wildlife movement
on the project site or in the vicinity. Therefore, the project site is not expected to be part of
a significant wildlife movement corridor and the project would result in a less than
significant impact.
e The City of Richmond Zoning Ordinance, section 15.04.840.050 Tree Preservation
Standards requires that all projects, both new development and additions or renovations to
existing properties, shall be reviewed by the Director of the Department of Public Works to
ensure their compliance with the provisions of the Urban Forest Management Plan and
related city or any other specific ordinances and guidelines. Landmark trees and major
38
groves will be preserved as required by the Department of Parks and Recreation and the
Municipal Code. Landmarks are defined in the Richmond General Plan 2030 as “A
landmark is a building, site, object, structure, or significant tree(s), having historical,
architectural, social or cultural significance and marked for preservation by the local, state,
or federal government. A landmark also refers to a visually prominent or outstanding
structure or natural feature that functions as a point of orientation or identification.”10 The
17 eucalyptus and pine trees located adjacent to the southwestern boundary of the site are
not identified for preservation,11 and are not outstanding, visually prominent natural
features. The proposed project would not conflict with these protections because it would
not result in the removal of significant or unique trees or vegetation. Therefore, this impact
would be less than significant.
f) The proposed project would not conflict with any adopted Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan or other approved conservation plan. No approved
conservation plans have been adopted encompassing the project site, and there would be
no impact.
g) There are no oak woodlands on the site that could be affected by the proposed project.
There would be no impact.
10
11
City of Richmond, General Plan 2030, Glossary, page 16.5, April 25, 2012.
City of Richmond, General Plan 2030, Historical Resources Element, Map 14.1, April 25, 2012.
39
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the
project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
The following discussion is based in part upon a Cultural Resources Inventory and Buried
Site Assessment prepared by Far Western in August 2013, and Subsurface
Geoarchaeological Explorations conducted by Far Western in November 2013. Copies of
these reports are on file with the City of Richmond Planning and Building Services
Department.
a) The warehouse building on the site was constructed in the early 1940s during the rapid
expansion of wartime industry in the City of Richmond. The Richmond General Plan 2030
identifies historic resources located in the City. The project site is not an identified
historical resource. The closest historic building to the site is the Ford Assembly Plant,
located on Harbour Way South approximately one-half mile southwest of the project site,
which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
The project site is not located on any national, state, or local registers of historic resources.
The Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park includes a number
of resources located south of the project site on Harbour Way South and Marina Way
South. A survey for historical resources was completed in the project area to compile a list
of additional potential historical resources in the City. The warehouse building on the
project site was not identified in any previous survey of the Richmond waterfront area
(Graves 2004). For these reasons, the impact on historical resources would be less than
significant.
b) The project site lies near the historic-era shoreline of the San Francisco Bay. In August
2013, a record search for prior archaeological studies was conducted at the Northwest
Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, at Sonoma State
University. The records search revealed that no archaeological sites have been previously
recorded on the project site. Two shellmound sites in the project vicinity are located
approximately 1,200 feet southwest (Ellis Landing) and 600 feet to the northwest. Five
40
additional prehistoric sites are located less than one mile southeast of the project site.
With the exception of the Ellis Landing shell mound, all of these sites are located less than
300 feet from the historic-era shoreline of Bay, as is the southern portion of the project site.
The shellmound located northwest of the site was mapped in the early 1900s on maps with
large scales, which makes the precise location and size of this shell mound difficult to
determine. It is possible that this previously recorded shellmound is located in closer
proximity to the site.
Based on USGS mapping, at least three structures were located on the northern portion of
the project site prior to its development in the early 1940s with the current warehouse. The
drainage ditch on the southeastern portion of the site previously extended through the site
but the western portion was previously piped and backfilled.
The potential for the project site to contain buried archaeological resources was assessed
based on a variety of sensitivity factors. Due to the proximity of the project to the previous
margins of the Bay, a previously recorded prehistoric site, and the elevation and soil types
of the site, there is potential for buried archaeological resources on the site. The presence
or absence of archaeological remains cannot be determined by pedestrian survey methods
because the original ground surface is covered by existing development on the site.
Therefore, it was recommended that a subsurface exploratory study be conducted on the
project site.
Subsurface explorations in November 2013 confirmed that the project area contains a
buried soil that has a potential for buried archaeological sites. However, because 11
trenches were excavated in a relatively small area and no buried archaeological materials
were identified, it is unlikely that the project parcel contains large and/or substantial buried
archaeological deposits. As such, no further archaeological identification efforts are
recommended for the project area. It remains possible, however, that small, sparse,
and/or isolated prehistoric archaeological materials may be located in some other part(s) of
the project area.
Redevelopment of the site could disturb buried archaeological resources. This is a
potentially significant impact, which would be reduced to a less-than-significant level
by implementation of the following mitigation measures.
Mitigation Measure V-1: Archaeological Resources. In the event of the discovery of
prehistoric or historic archaeological deposits or paleontological deposits, work shall
be halted within 50 feet of the discovery and a qualified professional archaeologist
(or paleontologist, as applicable) shall examine the find and make appropriate
recommendations regarding the significance of the find and the appropriate
mitigation. The recommendation shall be implemented and could include collection,
recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural materials.
Mitigation Measure V-2: Worker Training. Prior to the issuance of grading permits,
the project contractor provide documentation to the Richmond Planning Department
that all construction crews that will work on the project have undergone a training
session to inform them of the presence and nature of federal or state-eligible
41
cultural resources and the potential for previously undiscovered archaeological and
paleontological resources and human remains within the project area, of the laws
protecting these resources and associated penalties, and of the procedures to
follow should they discover cultural resources during project-related work.
c) Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of organisms from prehistoric
environments found in geologic strata. The majority of the coastal lowland areas in the
City, including the project site, contain deep alluvial soils (undivided Quaternary deposits)
overlying the Franciscan Complex, typically composed of interbedded clays, silts, gravel,
and sands deposited by upland erosion and marine action during the post-glacial flooding
of San Francisco Bay (approximately 12,000 years ago). The distribution of fossil localities
and the location of corresponding geologic units indicate that most of the vertebrate
paleontological resources in Contra Costa County are in the upland foothills of the Diablo
Range.
Based on the Richmond General Plan 2030 EIR, quaternary deposits in the study area are
considered highly sensitive for both vertebrate and invertebrate paleontological resources.
As discussed in Section VI. Geology and Soils, the site is underlain by two to six feet of
undocumented fill and, therefore, the likelihood of encountering paleontological resources
is considered low. Regardless, the project may disturb or destroy unique paleontologic
resources due to its location in a highly sensitive area for such resources. This would be a
potentially significant impact, which would be reduced to a less-than-significant level
by implementation of the following mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure V-3: Paleontological Resources. In the event of discovery of
paleontological deposits, work shall be halted within 50 feet of the discovery and a
qualified professional paleontologist shall examine the find and make appropriate
recommendation regarding the significance of the find and the appropriate
mitigation. The recommendation shall be implemented and could include collection,
recordation, and analysis of any significant paleontological resource.
Mitigation Measure V-4: Worker Training. Implement Mitigation Measure V-2.
d) As discussed in Item V.b above, there is potential for buried archaeological resources
on the site, which may include human remains. Redevelopment of the site could disturb
buried human remains. This is a potentially significant Impact, which would be reduced to
a less-than-significant level by implementation of the following mitigation measures.
Mitigation Measure V-5: Buried Human Remains. In the event that human remains
and/or cultural materials are found, all project-related construction shall cease within
a 50-foot radius of the find in order to proceed with the testing and mitigation
measures required. Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and
Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California:
•
In the event of the discovery of human remains during construction, there
shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area
42
reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The Contra Costa County
Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to whether the
remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains
are not subject to his authority, he shall notify the Native American Heritage
Commission who shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased
Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the
disposition of the remains pursuant to this State law, then the land owner
shall re-inter the human remains and items associated with Native American
burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface
disturbance.
•
A final report summarizing the discovery of cultural materials shall be
submitted to the Planning and Development Services Department Director
prior to issuance of building permits. This report shall contain a description
of the mitigation program that was implemented and its results, including a
description of the monitoring and testing program, a list of the resources
found, a summary of the resources analysis methodology and conclusion,
and a description of the disposition/curation of the resources. The report
shall verify completion of the mitigation program to the satisfaction of the
Planning and Development Services Department Director.
Mitigation Measure V-6: Worker Training. Implement Mitigation Measure V-2.
43
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated 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 Geologic Survey Special Publication
42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) 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?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative waste-water
disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water?
Discussion:
a, c) The following discussion is based on a Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
prepared for the proposed project by Cornerstone Earth Group in November 2012. The
San Francisco Bay Area is one of the most seismically active regions in the United States.
Active faults, including the San Andreas, Hayward, and Calaveras Faults, roughly parallel
the western and eastern limits of the Bay. The significant earthquakes that occur in the
44
Bay Area are generally associated with the crustal movements along well-defined active
fault zones of the San Andreas Fault system, which regionally trend in a northwesterly
direction. Nearby active or potentially active faults include the Hayward fault located
approximately 2.7 miles east of the site, the Rodgers Creek fault located approximately
11.6 miles north of the site, and the San Andreas fault located approximately 14.9 miles
west of the site.
i) Fault Rupture. The site is not located within a State-designated Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone. In addition, no surface expressions of active faults are known to
cross the site and fault rupture hazard is not a significant geologic hazard at the site.
ii) Seismic Shaking. Due to the proximity of the project site to these faults, ground shaking
caused by an earthquake could result in damage to structures. The Cornerstone report (p.
5) found the potential of moderate to severe seismic shaking on the site, with a Peak
Ground Acceleration of 0.4 g (one G is the force of gravity).
iii) Seismically-induced Ground Failure, Including Liquefaction. The project site is not
located within a designated State of California Liquefaction Hazard Zone and is mapped by
the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) as having a low potential for
liquefaction. Since the site is located near liquefaction hazard zones, a liquefaction
analysis was completed that indicated several subsurface soil layers could potentially
experience liquefaction. The Cornerstone report concluded that the project site’s 5- to 10foot thick surface layer of non-liquefiable cap is sufficient to prevent ground rupture. Soil
softening and post-liquefaction total settlement would range from one-half to one inch.
Differential settlement in the event of a design-level earthquake is anticipated on the order
of one-half to three-quarter inches over a horizontal distance of 50 feet, which is
considered low. (Cornerstone 2012)
Lateral spreading typically occurs as a form of horizontal displacement of relatively flatlying alluvial material toward an open or “free” face such as an open body of water, a
channel, or an excavation. Although potentially liquefiable layers were encountered on the
site, they do not appear to be continuous. Given the flat topography of the site and
surrounding area and the lack of open faces within 200 feet of the site, the risk of lateral
spreading is low. (Cornerstone 2012)
Cornerstone also concluded that the risk of seismic settlement affecting the project
improvements is low because the soils encountered at the site above the groundwater
table are stiff-to-very stiff clays, which are not susceptible to substantial settlement.
(Cornerstone 2012)
iv) Landsliding: The project site is relatively flat therefore the probability of landsliding
occurring at the site is low.
The overall impacts to project homes and residents from seismic hazards would be
significant and mitigable with implementation of Mitigation Measure VI-1, below.
45
Mitigation Measure VI-1: Seismic Hazards. The project shall be designed and
constructed in conformance with the applicable California Building Code guidelines
for Seismic Zone 4 to avoid or minimize potential damage from earthquakes and
liquefaction-induced settlement on the site. All required measures shall be outlined
in a final design-level geotechnical investigation that shall be reviewed and
approved by the Director of Planning and Building Services prior to issuance of a
building permit for the project.
b) Grading would be required for site preparation, including shallow excavations for
utilities and foundations and grading of about 3,500 cubic yards of potentially contaminated
soils. Although the site is nearly flat, site grading could result in erosion and subsequent
off-site deposition, which could potentially reach San Francisco Bay via the local storm
drain system. Development and implementation of a construction erosion control program
as part of the project’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), as identified in
Mitigation Measure IV-2, below, would reduce this impact to a less-than significant level.
Mitigation Measure IV-2: Storm Water and Erosion Control. As required by
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations, the project
applicant shall apply for coverage under the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) General Construction Permit, and implement a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that may include, but would not be limited to, the
following measures:
• Burlap bags filled with drain rock shall be installed around storm drains to route
sediment and other debris away from the drains.
• All unpaved entrances to the site shall be filled with rock to remove mud from
truck tires prior to entering City streets. A tire wash system may also be
employed at the request of the City.
• The project proponent shall submit a copy of the “Notice of Intent” (NOI) to
comply with the General Permit and draft SWPPP to the City of Richmond for
review and approval prior to start of construction on the project site. The
certified SWPPP shall be posted at the project site and shall be updated to
reflect current site conditions.
• When construction is complete, a Notice of Termination (NOT) for the General
Permit for Construction shall be filed with the RWQCB. The NOT shall
document that all elements of the SWPPP have been executed, construction
materials and waste have been properly disposed of, and a post-construction
storm water management plan is in place as described in the SWPPP for the
site.
c) See discussion under a), above.
d) The project site elevation is approximately 10 feet above mean sea level. Based on
subsurface soil samples taken for the project site, beneath surface pavements and
associated aggregate base there is a two- to six-foot thick layer of undocumented fill. The
fill is underlain by native alluvial soils consisting of stiff to very stiff lean clays with varying
46
percentages of sand interbedded with medium dense to dense silty and clayey sands. The
thickness of sand layers ranges from six inches to 10 feet. Sands were also encountered
as deep as 30 to 35 feet below ground surface (bgs). Soil samples from borings taken on
the site indicate the near-surface soil at the site is generally high-plasticity and, therefore,
has a high expansion potential. (Cornerstone 2012) These soils, if not properly treated or
designed for, could damage house foundations and infrastructure. This potentially
significant impact would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of
Mitigation Measure VI-1, below.
Mitigation Measure IV- 3: Expansive Soils. The project shall comply with the design
recommendations contained in the final design-level geotechnical investigation
prepared for the project to address the presence of expansive soils on the site. The
geotechnical investigation shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of
Planning and Building Services prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project.
e) Project houses and commercial spaces would not use septic systems, but rather would
be connected to the City’s sewage treatment system. Therefore no impacts associated
with septic systems and soil permeability would occur as a result of the Project.
47
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would
the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
a) Greenhouse gases (GHGs are atmospheric gases that capture and retain a portion of
the heat radiated from the earth after it has been heated by the sun. The primary GHGs
are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone, and water
vapor. While GHGs are natural components of the atmosphere, CO2, CH4, and N2O are
also emitted from human activities and their accumulation in the atmosphere over the past
200 years has substantially increased their concentrations. This accumulation of GHGs
has been implicated as the driving force behind global climate change.
Human emissions of CO2 are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas
methane results from off-gassing associated with organic decay processes in agriculture,
landfills, etc. Other GHGs, including hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur
hexafluoride, are generated by certain industrial processes. The global warming potential
of GHGs are typically reported in comparison to that of CO2, the most common and
12
influential GHG, in units of “carbon dioxide-equivalents” (CO2e).
There is international scientific consensus that human-caused increases in GHGs have
and will continue to contribute to global warming. Potential global warming impacts in
California may include, but are 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 a global rise in sea level, impacts to
agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity.13
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) estimated that in 2011 California produced
448 million gross metric tons of CO2e, or about 535 million U.S. tons.14 CARB found that
transportation is the source of 37.6 percent of the state’s GHG emissions, followed by
12
Because of the differential heat absorption potential of various GHGs, GHG emissions are frequently
measured in “carbon dioxide-equivalents,” which present a weighted average based on each gas’s heat
absorption (or “global warming”) potential.
13
California Climate Change Portal. Frequently Asked Questions about Global Climate Change. Available
Online at: http://www.climatechange.‌ca.‌gov/‌publications/faqs.html.
14
California Air Resources Board (ARB), “California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2011— by Category
as Defined in the Scoping Plan.” Available Online at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/tables/ghg_inventory_scopingplan_00-11_2013-08-01.pdf.
48
industrial sources at 20.8 percent and electricity generation (both in-state and out-of-state)
at 19.3 percent. Commercial and residential fuel use (primarily for heating) accounted for
10.1 percent of GHG emissions.15
In the San Francisco Bay Area, fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (onroad motor vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and aircraft) and the industrial and
commercial sectors are the two largest sources of GHG emissions, each accounting for
approximately 36 percent of the San Francisco Bay Area’s 95.8 million metric tons of CO2e
emitted in 2007.16 Electricity generation accounts for approximately 16 percent of the San
Francisco Bay Area’s GHG emissions followed by residential fuel usage at 7 percent, offroad equipment at 3 percent and agriculture at 1 percent.17
The City of Richmond published a community-wide GHG emissions inventory for the year
of 2005.18 The inventory attributed the largest sources of GHG emissions to
commercial/industrial sources such as natural gas and electrical (87.8 percent) and
transportation (8.7 percent). The City of Richmond emitted approximately 5,853,020 metric
tons of CO2e in 2005.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) GHG CEQA Guidelines and
Emissions Criteria
The BAAQMD is the primary agency responsible for air quality regulation in the nine
county San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. As part of that role, the BAAQMD has prepared
CEQA Air Quality Guidelines that provide CEQA thresholds of significance for operational
GHG emissions from land use projects for the first time. The BAAQMD has not defined
thresholds for construction GHG emissions. The BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines
methodology and thresholds of significance have been used in this Initial Study’s analysis
of potential GHG impacts associated with the Project.
Project GHG Emissions
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines identify a project-specific threshold of either
1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year or 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per year per service
population (i.e., the number of residents + the number of employees associated with a new
development), which is also considered a cumulatively considerable contribution to the
global GHG burden and, therefore, a significant cumulative impact. This analysis applies
the 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per year per service population significance criterion to Project
GHG emissions.
15
Ibid.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
Base Year 2007, Updated: February 2010. Available Online at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/‌~/‌media/‌Files/‌Planning%‌20and%20‌Research/‌Emission%20‌Inventory/‌regionalinven
tory2007_‌2_‌10.ashx.
17
Ibid.
18
City of Richmond, 2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, February 2009. Available Online at:
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/4279.
16
49
Emission Estimates
CalEEMod was used to quantify GHG emissions associated with Project construction
activities (for informational purposes), as well as long-term operational emissions produced
by motor vehicles, natural gas combustion for space and water heating, electricity use, and
landscape maintenance equipment. CalEEMod incorporates GHG emission factors for the
central electric utility serving the Bay Area and mitigation measures based on the
California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association (CAPCOA) Quantifying Greenhouse
Gas Mitigation Measures and the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting
Protocol.
The Project’s estimated construction and operational GHG emissions are presented in
Table VII-1. The estimated construction GHG emissions are 1,630 metric tons of CO2e. As
indicated, 30-year amortized annual construction related GHG emissions would be 54
metric tons of CO2e. There is no BAAQMD CEQA significance threshold for constructionrelated GHG emissions. The GHG operational emissions would be 3.2 metric tons per
service population (approximately 729 residences) per year, which is below the BAAQMD
threshold of 4.6 metric tons per service population and thus, less than significant. The
Project’s combined GHG construction and operational emissions would be 2,304 metric
tons of CO2e per year.
TABLE VII-1
PROJECT RELATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
GHG CO2e Metric Tons Per
Emission Source
Year
Construction (30-year amortized)
54.3
Operations
Area Sources
Energy
Mobile
Solid Waste
Water
Total Emissions (including construction)
Total Emissions per Service Population
BAAQMD Efficiency Threshold
Potentially Significant?
14.3
650
1,475
53.4
57.6
2,250
3.2
4.6
No
b) Project conformance with applicable plans is discussed below.
AB 32 and the California Air Resources Board 2008 Scoping Plan
Assembly Bill 32 (Núñez, Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006), the California Global Warming
Solutions Act, requires the CARB to lower GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020—a 25
50
percent reduction statewide with mandatory caps for significant GHG emission sources.
AB 32 directed CARB to develop discrete early actions to reduce GHG while preparing the
Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) in order to identify how best to reach the
2020 goal.
Motivated by AB 32, the CARB estimated statewide GHG emissions in 2020 under
business-as-usual (BAU) conditions (i.e., a scenario where no GHG reduction measures
are taken) and identified a 28.5 percent reduction in GHG from year 2020 BAU levels as
necessary to achieve the targets of AB 32. CARB has since updated the BAU forecast to
reflect conditions in light of the 2008 economic downturn and measures not previously
considered in the Scoping Plan baseline inventory. The revised forecast shows that a 21.6
percent GHG reduction from 2020 BAU would be necessary.
Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the Low Carbon Fuel Standard
(LCFS),19 the California Appliance Energy Efficiency regulations, the California Renewable
Energy Portfolio standard, changes in the motor vehicle corporate average fuel economy
(CAFE) standards, and other early action measures that would ensure the state is on
target to achieve the GHG emissions reduction goals of AB 32.
California Green Building Standards Code
On January 12, 2010, the State Building Standards Commission unanimously adopted
updates to the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), which went into
effect on January 1, 2011. CALGreen is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for
all residential, commercial and school buildings.
CALGreen contains requirements for construction site selection, storm water control during
construction, construction waste reduction, indoor water use reduction, material selection,
natural resource conservation, site irrigation conservation, and more. CALGreen provides
for design options allowing the designer to determine how best to achieve compliance for a
given site or building condition. CALGreen also requires building commissioning, which is
a process for verifying that all building systems, like heating and cooling equipment and
lighting systems, are functioning at their maximum efficiency. CALGreen provides the
minimum standard that buildings need to meet in order to be certified for occupancy, but
does not prevent a local jurisdiction from adopting a more stringent code.
The development of CALGreen is intended to (1) cause a reduction in GHG emissions
from buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to
live and work; (3) reduce energy and water consumption; and (4) respond to any additional
19
On December 29, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued several rulings
in the federal lawsuits challenging the LCFS. One of the court’s rulings preliminarily enjoins the CARB from
enforcing the regulation during the pendency of the litigation. In January 2012, CARB appealed the
decision and on April 23, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court granted CARB’s motion for a stay of the injunction
while it continues to consider CARB’s appeal of the lower court’s decision. In a separate case, on July 15,
2013, the State of California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District issued its opinion in POET, LLC v.
California Air Resources Board. The Court held that the LCFS would remain in effect and that the CARB
can continue to implement and enforce the 2013 regulatory standards while it corrects certain aspects of
the procedures by which the LCFS was originally adopted.
51
directives by the Governor. In short, CALGreen is established to reduce construction
waste, make buildings more efficient in the use of materials and energy, and reduce
environmental impacts during and after construction.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), representing
California's 35 local air districts, launched the CAPCOA Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Exchange (GHG Rx).20 The Exchange provides a reliable, low-cost, secure platform
to encourage locally generated, high quality GHG emission reduction credits that can be
used to meet CEQA or other compliance requirements. The GHG Rx features locally
generated and properly validated GHG emission reduction credits from voluntary projects
within California and allow interaction between those who create the credits, potential
buyers and funding organizations. City of Richmond General Plan
In January 2007, the City of Richmond signed onto the U.S. Mayor’s Climate Protection
Agreement, committing to reducing GHG emissions to meet or surpass the Kyoto Protocol
targets of a 7 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2012. Additionally, in September
2007, Richmond’s City Council directed staff to develop a comprehensive policy to lead by
example in the fight against global warming. On September 16, 2008, the City Council
passed a resolution committing to the GHG emissions targets established by California’s
AB 32. The City of Richmond is one of a handful of cities that have passed such
resolutions.
The Richmond General Plan 2030 Energy and Climate Change goals are listed as follows.
Action items are outlined in relation to each of the goals that pertain to sustainability and
are relevant to residential development projects.21
Goal EC1: Leadership in Managing Climate Change
Take steps to address climate change and to manage its effects. This entails not
only pursuing ground-breaking programs and innovative strategies, but educating
residents and businesses about these actions and actively monitoring results to
ensure progress in critical areas. Partner with other jurisdictions and organizations
to develop effective regional solutions and regulation at regional, state and federal
levels. Collaborate with residents, businesses, public agencies and neighboring
jurisdictions, in order to meet or exceed state requirements for reductions in GHG
emissions.
Goal EC2 Clean and Efficient Transportation Options
20
21
CAPCOA Greenhouse Gas Exchange, http://xappprod.aqmd.gov/ghgrx.
Richmond General Plan 2030 Energy and Climate Change,
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/8813.
52
Expand the City’s green transportation network by encouraging the use of climatefriendly technology, planning growth around multiple modes of travel and reducing
automobile reliance. In addition to promoting improved public transit, partner with
private developers to undertake citywide improvements that make active modes of
travel, such as walking and bicycling, more comfortable and preferable options.
Goal EC3 Sustainable and Efficient Energy Systems
Reduce the City’s consumption of energy by encouraging energy conservation, and
supporting the consumption of energy produced by climate-friendly technologies.
Reduce the City’s overall waste stream by reducing the City’s consumption of goods
and materials, and by adopting a zero-waste philosophy.
•
Renewable Energy: Promote the generation, transmission and use of a
range of renewable energy sources such as solar, wind power and waste
energy to meet current and future demand and encourage new development
and redevelopment projects to generate a portion of their energy needs
through renewable sources.
•
Energy Efficiency and Conservation: Promote efficient use of energy and
conservation of available resources in the design, construction, maintenance
and operation of public and private facilities, infrastructure and equipment.
•
Solid Waste Reduction and Recycling: Promote waste reduction and
recycling to minimize materials that are processed in landfills.
•
Water Conservation and Reuse: Promote water conservation and recycled
water use. Implement water conservation efforts for households, businesses,
industries and public infrastructure. Include measures such as the following:
o Require low-flow appliances and fixtures in all new development in
accordance with EBMUD Water Service Regulations.
o Work with water providers and water conservation agencies to create an
incentives program that encourages retrofitting existing development with
low-flow water fixtures;
o Require new development and landscaped public areas to utilize state-ofthe-art irrigation systems that reduce water consumption including
graywater systems and rainwater catchment;
o Encourage use of drought-tolerant and native vegetation;
o Require new plantings be grouped by hydrozones of water needs listed in
the WUCOL III developed by the Department of Water Resources and the
University of California Cooperative Extension (or successor document);
and
53
o Require development project approvals to include a finding that all
feasible and cost-effective options for conservation and water reuse are
incorporated into project design including graywater systems.
Goal EC4 Sustainable Development
Reduce energy consumption by promoting sustainable land uses and development
patterns. Pursue infill development opportunities and encourage the construction of
higher-density, mixed-use projects around existing public transit infrastructure,
schools, parks, neighborhood-serving retail and other critical services. Incorporate
ecologically sustainable practices and materials into new development, building
retrofits and streetscape improvements.
•
Infill Development: Promote infill development throughout the City, especially
in the targeted redevelopment areas of Central Richmond and avoid the
displacement of existing residents. Promote new development and
redevelopment projects to provide community amenities and uses that serve
priority community needs and retain the existing urban limit lines.
•
Compact Walkable Neighborhoods and Livable Streets: Promote safe and
walkable neighborhoods and inter-connected streets through the design of
streetscapes, public gathering places and all types of physical development.
•
Green Buildings and Landscaping: Require energy and resource efficient
buildings and landscaping in all public and private development projects.
Require that newly constructed or renovated City-owned and private
buildings and structures comply with the City’s adopted Green Building
Ordinances.22
•
Green Infrastructure: Develop green infrastructure standards that relies on
natural processes for storm water drainage, groundwater recharge and flood
management.
Goal EC5 Community Revitalization and Economic Development
Transform Richmond into a healthy community where green industries and
businesses can flourish. Support sustainable businesses and practices that provide
both community and environmental benefits while stimulating job and revenue
growth.
Goal EC6 Climate-Resilient Communities
22
City of Richmond Municipal Code, Commercial and Residential Green Building
Standards,http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2008standards/ordinances/richmond/2009-1216_Richmond_Green_Building_Ordinance.pdf.
54
While the impacts of climate change on local communities are uncertain, to the
extent possible, prepare to respond to and protect residents and businesses from
increased risks of natural disasters such as flooding or drought. Project Compliance with GHG Plans, Policies and Regulations
In addition to the State’s GHG reduction strategies of AB 32, the City of Richmond has
adopted a Climate Action Plan and has established a baseline government and
community-wide inventory of the City’s GHG emissions. The assumption is that AB 32 and
the Climate Action Plan will be successful in reducing GHG emissions statewide and
locally by 2020. The State and City have taken these measures because no project
individually could have a major impact (either positively or negatively) on the global GHG
emissions. Therefore, the Project has been reviewed for its compliance with AB 32
measures and Richmond General Plan 2030 Energy and Climate Change action items and
it has been determined that the Project would not conflict with the goals of AB 32 and of
the applicable Climate Action Plan.
The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions statewide to 1990 levels by
2020. Additional plans and regulations such as GHG emissions standards for vehicles and
the Low Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS) are being implemented statewide level. The
Project would be required to comply with these regulations and standards.
Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings and the
CALGreen code are directly applicable to the Project. The Project would be developed in
compliance with their requirements.
With implementation of project design elements, the CALGreen standards, and Richmond
General Plan 2030 Energy and Climate Change action items, the Project’s GHG
construction and operational emissions would be further reduced to 2,213 metric tons of
CO2e per year according to CalEEMod modeling.
In summary, the Project would not conflict with applicable plans, policies, and regulations
adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions and, thus, would have a less than
significant impact.
55
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS –
would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan
or where such a plan has not been adopted, within
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?
f) 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?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with
an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of
loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Discussion:
a, b, c) Hazardous materials are commonly used by large institutions as well as
commercial and industrial businesses. Hazardous materials include a broad range of
common substances such as motor oil and fuel, pesticides, detergents, paint, and
solvents. A substance may be considered hazardous if, due to its chemical and/or
56
physical properties, it poses a substantial hazard when it is improperly treated, stored,
transported, disposed of, or released into the atmosphere in the event of an accident. The
proposed Project is a residential/mixed use development and would not result in the use,
transport, or generation of substantial quantities of hazardous materials. Petroleum
products, paint, solvents, and other construction-related potentially hazardous substances
would be used during construction. These would be in approved containers, transported
and handled by professionals, and any spills would be promptly cleaned up. Therefore
they would not constitute a significant hazard or risk of upset. After construction, small
quantities of hazardous materials would be in household and live/work use. These also
would not constitute a hazard to public health or safety.
The project also would involve excavation and off-haul of up to 3500 cubic yards of
contaminated soils for disposal at a designated wastes landfill. These soils would be
transported in covered trucks, have low levels of contamination, and their transport would
not pose a hazard to humans. (See Section VIII.d, below, for a discussion of onsite
handling of contaminated soils.)
There are no schools within one-quarter mile of the site.
In summary, this impact would be less than significant.
d) A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Preliminary Soil, Soil Vapor and Ground
Water Quality Evaluation was prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group in November 2012
(Cornerstone 2012b).
A Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment was
subsequently prepared by Alta Environmental in April 2014 (Alta 2014). The Cornerstone
study included a site reconnaissance survey for evidence of site conditions that may be
indicative of potential sources of soil and groundwater contamination. Subsurface soil and
groundwater samples also were taken at locations determined on the basis of historical
uses of the project site and studies associated with a prior removal of an oil-water
separator and leaking underground storage tank (LUST). The Alta study included a limited
subsurface investigation for the previously identified areas of concern, including 23 soil
borings.
Cornerstone took soil samples near the northern and southern property boundaries and in
the up-gradient and down-gradient direction of the area where the former LUST and oilwater separator were assumed to be located. Based on petroleum and vapor odors noted
in one of the samples in the southeastern portion of the warehouse, seven additional
samples were taken to evaluate the lateral extent of the affected soils. Additional soil
samples were also taken by Cornerstone to evaluate the extent of elevated lead
concentrations in the warehouse.
Alta made three borings were completed in the vicinity of the former truck scale, ten
borings in the vicinity of the former UST/Clarifier area, and ten shallow borings in the
vicinity of the former rail line. While some borings were advanced to a depth of
approximately 30-feet below ground surface, water was only encountered in one boring at
the former UST/Clarifier Area of Concern. All other borings were observed to be dry at
57
terminus depth. It should be noted that there are significant differences between the
reported locations of borings previously advanced by Cornerstone and the actual boring
locations encountered on site during Alta’s investigation.
The samples were compared to the California Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs)
developed by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) on behalf
of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). The CHHSLs for residential
use are used to screen sites for potential human health concerns where releases of
chemicals to soil have occurred. Where no CHHSL has been established, Regional
Screening Levels (RSLs) established by the U.S. EPA Region 9 were used for detected
chemicals. Concentrations of metals were compared to published background levels.
Concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) were compared to Environmental
Screening Levels (ESLs) established by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board. Consistent with Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) vapor
intrusion guidance, sub-slab vapor results were compared to screening criteria that are
calculated to be 20 times the screening criteria for indoor air at residential and commercial
buildings using indoor air criteria from CHHSLs, RSLs, or ESLs. Results of the sampling
are summarized below.
Building Soils
Laboratory analyses of soil samples collected from the building pad soil, near-surface soil,
and native soil did not detect polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), total petroleum
hydrocarbons as oil (TPHo) or organochlorine pesticides. Concentrations of metals
detected appear consistent with typical background levels or were below screening levels
with the exception of lead in one location.
Total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel (TPHd) were detected in 4 of 5 building pad soil
samples at concentrations significantly below residential ESLs. Polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) were detected in one shallow soil sample above the residential CHHSL and appear
localized as PCBs were not detected at greater depths or in surrounding samples.
Former UST and Oil-Water Separator Area Soils
Cornerstone’s soil samples collected in the suspected former location of a leaking
underground storage tank on the site found total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline
(TPHg) that exceed residential ESLs at depths of six feet. TPHd was also found at levels
exceeding the residential ESLs at depths of three to six feet. Significantly lower
concentrations of these constituents were found at 10 feet below grade. Alta also found
elevated concentrations of TPH as gasoline and as oil in the northwestern portion of the
former UST/clarifier area of concern. Based on both the Alta and Cornerstone sample
results, it appears that TPH impacts are limited to the upper 15-feet of subsurface soil.
Railroad Spur Soil Quality
The railroad spur currently located at the southeast corner of the site previously extended
along the south side of the warehouse before the paved parking area was constructed on
58
the southwest portion of the site around 1980. Organochlorine pesticides and TPHs were
found to be below their respective residential CHHSLs. Arsenic was detected above the
background concentrations, and lead exceeded the residential CHHSL in samples taken
one foot below grade. Lead concentrations in the area of the railroad spur would exceed
California hazardous waste limits for soluble lead of five parts per million. Significantly
lower concentrations of arsenic and lead were detected in soil samples collected from
depths of 2 to 2.5 feet below grade. Alta also found elevated levels of lead and arsenic
within the former rail line area of concern along the southern portion of the site. Based on
both the Alta and Cornerstone sample results, it appears that lead and arsenic impacts are
limited to the upper 2.5 feet of subsurface soil.
Former Truck Scale Area
Elevated concentrations of TPH as oil ranging were identified in subsurface soils located
adjacent to the southwest of the former truck scale footprint. Based on both Alta and
Cornerstone sample results, it appears that TPH impacts are limited to the upper 7.5 feet.
Groundwater Quality
Groundwater samples were collected from the site in the area of the former LUST and oilwater separator. Groundwater samples contained slightly elevated levels of TPHo and
ethylbenzene when compared to their respective maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) and
ESLs.
Alta observed perched water in shallow soils (10-feet below ground surface) within the
former UST/Clarifier AOC near the corner of the warehouse building. The surface was wet
at this location. Alta was unable to locate groundwater to 30 feet below ground surface at
other locations on site, so it is very likely that the water observed at 10 feet below ground
surface is from the surface and does not represent a groundwater aquifer. While low levels
of TPH were detected in the water sample from this location, the water appears to be
extremely limited laterally and vertically, and does not represent true groundwater or an
aquifer. There is no evidence of a contaminated groundwater aquifer at the site at this
time.
Soil Vapor Quality
Soil vapor samples collected on the site detected one location south of the eastern section
of the warehouse with TPHg exceeding the residential ESL. Dichloroethane (DCA) was
also detected above the residential CHHSL. Benzene was also detected above the
residential CHHSL in the vicinity of the former LUST and oil-water separator.
Potential Off-Site Sources of Contamination
Section 65962.5 of the Government Code requires Cal EPA to develop and update (at
least annually) a list of hazardous waste and substances sites, known as the Cortese List.
The Cortese List is used by the State, local agencies, and developers to comply with
CEQA requirements. The Cortese List includes hazardous substance release sites
59
identified by the DTSC, SWRCB, and the Department of Resources Recycling and
Recovery (CalRecycle). There are no Cortese List (Government Code Section 65962.5)
sites on the site.
A former leaking underground storage tank (LUST) associated with a bakery at 833 South
19th Street directly across South 17th Street from the project site was removed and
received case closure in 1997. This site is assumed to be cross-gradient from the project
site. A second former LUST site associated with a construction and maintenance firm is
located at 867 South 19th Street across South 17th Street from the project site. A leak
was reported in 1987 affecting groundwater and the case was closed in 2003. This site is
assumed to be cross-gradient from the project site. Neither of the adjacent former LUST
cases are recognized environmental conditions for the project site.
The nearest Cortese List sites are on Meeker Avenue near Wright Street, a few blocks
east of the site.
Conclusion
Soils on-site are known to contain elevated levels of petroleum hydrocarbons, PCBs, lead,
and arsenic. In addition, groundwater on-site contains slightly elevated levels of TPHo and
ethylbenzene in the area of the former LUST and oil-water separator. This area also
contains soil vapors of TPHg and dichloroethane exceeding residential standards.
Approximately 3,500 cubic yards of soil would require removal and off-site disposal to an
appropriately licensed disposal facility (Alta 2014). Alta estimates the volume of potentially
impacted soils as follows:
•
•
•
As much as 700 CY of soil potentially impacted with TPH within the former
UST area;
As much as 600 CY of soil potentially impacted with TPH within the former
truck scale area; and
As much as 2,200 CY of soil potentially impacted with arsenic and lead in
former railroad area.
Various building elements on the project site were identified as including some asbestoscontaining construction materials. Given the age of the building, painted surfaces are
assumed to contain some lead-based paint. Demolition of the existing structures on the
project site, therefore, could expose construction workers to harmful levels of AsbestosContaining Materials (ACMs) or lead.
This is a potentially significant impact that can be mitigated to a less than significant
level with implementation of Mitigation Measures VIII-1 through IV, below.
Mitigation Measure VIII-1: Site Management Plan. Cleanup and remediation
activities on the site shall be conducted in accordance with the Remedial Action
Plan (RAP). The RAP shall be prepared and submitted to the DTSC for review and
approval prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project.
60
The approved RAP shall detail the procedures for management of soil, soil gas, and
groundwater containing environmental contaminants during site development
activities. The RAP also shall include Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) for
environmental contaminants of concern, including petroleum hydrocarbons, VOCs,
and metals to evaluate site conditions following RAP implementation. Removal of
contaminated soil is expected to reduce soil vapors and groundwater contamination
on the project site. Soil excavation on the site is anticipated to be up to 10 feet in
the area of the former LUST and oil-water separator and approximately one and
one-half in the area of the railroad spur. Lead impacted soil also shall be removed
from the southeast corner of the eastern warehouse.
Documentation that remediation activities have been completed on the site shall be
provided to the Director of Planning and Building Services prior to the issuance of
building permits.
Mitigation Measure VIII-2: Preparation of Site Management Plan, Health and Safety
Plan. The SMP shall be prepared by a qualified hazardous materials consultant.
The SMP shall include management practices for handling contaminated soil or
other materials if encountered during construction or cleanup activities and
measures to minimize dust generation, stormwater runoff, and tracking of soil offsite.
Each contractor working at the site shall also implement a health and safety plan
(HSP) prepared by a qualified hazardous materials consultant that addresses the
safety and health hazards of each phase of site operations that includes the
requirements and procedures for employee protection. The HSP will outline proper
soil handling procedures and health and safety requirements to minimize worker
and public exposure to hazardous materials during construction.
Mitigation Measure VIII-3: Surveys and Removal of Asbestos and Lead-Based
Paint. In conformance with federal and State regulations, a formal survey for
Asbestos-Containing Building Materials (ACBMs) and lead-based paint shall be
completed prior to the demolition of buildings on the site. All potentially friable
ACBMs shall be removed in accordance with National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines prior to building demolition or
renovation that may disturb the materials. All demolition activities shall be
undertaken in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards, contained in Title 8 of the
California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1529, to protect workers from
exposure to asbestos. Materials containing more than one percent asbestos are
also subject to Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regulations.
Mitigation Measure VIII-4: Procedures for Removal of Lead-Based Paint. During
demolition activities, all building materials containing lead-based paint shall be
removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8,
California Code of Regulations 1532.1, including employee training, employee air
61
coatings will be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste
being disposed.
e, f) There are no airports or airstrips within two miles of the Project site. Therefore there
would be no airport-related hazards to or from the Project. There would be no impact.
g) The Project would not change traffic access in the area. The project would not increase
hazards on or around the site and would undergo fire department review to ensure
adequate emergency vehicle access. There would be no impact. (See also Section
XVI.e.)
h) The Project site is located in a heavily urbanized area with no risk of wildfires. There
would be no impact.
62
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate
of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the course
of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the course
of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
63
Discussion:
a, f) Under existing conditions, the project site is primarily paved. A vegetated drainage
ditch is the only pervious area on the site. The on-site warehouse is currently vacant and,
therefore, the site does not represent a significant source of polluted runoff. Construction Impacts
Construction of the proposed project, as well as grading and excavation activities, may
result in temporary impacts to surface water quality. Project grading and construction
activities could affect the water quality of storm water surface runoff. Construction of the
proposed buildings and paving of streets, sidewalks, and parking areas would also result in
a disturbance to the underlying soils, thereby increasing the potential for sedimentation
and erosion. When disturbance to underlying soils occurs, the surface runoff that flows
across the site may contain sediments that are ultimately discharged into the storm
drainage system. The project would be required to include a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to control construction stormwater quality. Mitigation Measure
IV-II, in Geology, above, addresses the SWPPP and would reduce this impact to a lessthan-significant level.
Post-Construction Impacts
After construction, runoff from the site could include oil and grease from Project roadways,
and herbicides and pesticides associated with landscaping. The San Francisco Bay
RWQCB also has issued a Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (Permit Number
CAS612008) (MRP). Under provisions of the MRP, projects that add and/or replace more
than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface, or 5,000 square feet of uncovered parking
area, are required to design and construct stormwater treatment controls to treat postconstruction stormwater runoff. Amendments to the MRP require all of the postconstruction runoff to be treated by using Low Impact Development (LID) treatment
controls, such as biotreatment facilities.
The MRP also identifies hydromodification management requirements. Projects must
meet one of the following four options to show compliance with the Hydromodification
Management Standard: (1) no net increase in impervious area, (2) implementation of
hydrograph modification Integrated Management Practices, (3) estimated post-project
runoff durations and peak flows do not exceed pre-project durations and peak flows, or (4)
projected increases in runoff peaks and durations will not accelerate erosion of receiving
stream reaches.
The City of Richmond’s Municipal Code requires projects wishing to make alterations to a
watercourse to obtain a permit. The Municipal Code also requires new development that
might result in the release of stormwater pollutants to undertake all practicable measures
to reduce such pollutants and specifies building and design measures that reduce
64
stormwater pollution. Detailed standards for the building construction within designated
flood zones are also included.
The project proposes the use of bioretention areas and self-treating/self-retaining areas to
improve water quality and reduce the volume and rate of runoff from the site (See Figure
11, Conceptual Stormwater Treatment Plan). The front half of the building units would be
treated by bioretention planters (about 4,000 sq. ft. of either in-ground or raised flowthrough planters). The rear half of the buildings along with all of the paved roads/alleys
would require about 9600 sq. ft. of bioretention space to treat the required runoff. This has
been spread out over the six “paseo” areas. Runoff would be pumped into these areas
prior to discharge to the City’s storm drain system. Therefore the long-term impact of the
Project on water quality would be less than significant.
b) The Project would not substantially increase impervious surfaces on the site and would
not otherwise affect groundwater quantities. It would use water supplied by the East Bay
Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD). The Project would reduce the amount of impervious
surfaces on the site and, therefore, would not substantially interfere with groundwater
recharge. Soil remediation (See Section VIII, above) would slightly improve groundwater
quality underlying the site. Overall the project would not result in substantial direct or
indirect impacts to groundwater resources in the area. This impact would be less than
significant.
c, d, e) Surface runoff from the project site is conveyed via storm drain lines to the San
Francisco Bay, located approximately 3,700 feet south of the site. The site is mostly
paved with an existing drainage ditch on the southeast portion of the site that extends east
to South 19th Street/Meeker Avenue being the only pervious area on the site. Storm drain
lines adjacent to the site include an 18- to 21-inch line in Wright Avenue, a 30-inch storm
drain line in Marina Way South, and a 12- to 18-inch storm drain line running beneath 17th
Avenue which connects with a 36-inch line extending from Meeker Avenue at the
southeast corner of the project site and ultimately connects to the 36-inch storm drain line
along the southern site boundary. As described under item a), above, project runoff would
be retained/detained on site before being discharged to the City’s storm drain system.
Under existing conditions, the site is primarily covered with impervious surfaces including
the vacant warehouse and paved parking areas. Redevelopment of the site would result in
a decrease in stormwater runoff from the project site compared to existing conditions
because impervious surfaces would be reduced from about 400,000 sq ft. to about
330,000 sq. ft. In addition, the stormwater treatment system would retain/ detain/treat
runoff on-site.
The project proposes to construct an on-site storm drainage system in the alignment of the
proposed on-site private roadways. The site would connect with an existing 36-inch storm
drain-pipe at the southwest corner of the site, on the east side of Marina Way South.
Along the eastern site boundary, existing 12- to 15-inch storm drains would connect to the
on-site system. This impact would be less than significant.
65
Figure 11
Conceptual Stormwater Treatment Plan
0
FEET
60
N
90
120
Source: Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.
30
g, h) According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood
Insurance Rate Map, the site is located within Zone X which includes areas of 0.2 percent
annual flood; areas of one percent annual chance flood with average depths of less than
one foot or with drainage areas less than one square mile, and areas protected by levees
from the one percent chance flood (FEMA 2009). The project site is located approximately
10 feet above mean sea level and approximately 3,700 feet from the San Francisco Bay.
According to the City’s General Plan (Map 8.1), the site would be subject to isolated
pockets of inundation from sea-level rise of one meter by the year 2100. This is a
potentially significant impact that would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by
the following mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure IX-1: Flood Hazards. The project site shall be graded such that
finished floor elevations are 3.5 feet above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE), and
streets and pads are three (3) feet above BFE to allow for future sea-level rise,
thereby elevating all structures above the existing and potential future flood hazard
area.
i) The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) compiles the dam failure inundation
hazard maps submitted to the State Office of Emergency Services by dam owners
throughout the Bay Area. The project site is located within the dam failure inundation
hazard zone for Briones Dam, which is located approximately eight miles east of the
project site (ABAG 2013). Because of the distance from the dam, residents would have
ample warning in case of a failure, and inundation levels would not be expected to be
deep. Therefore this impact would be less than significant.
j) The site is located approximately 3,700 feet from the San Francisco Bay. According to
the Department of Conservation, the site is not located within a tsunami inundation area
(California Department of Conservation 2009). There are no identified seiche risk areas in
the City (City of Richmond 2011). The Cornerstone Preliminary Geotechnical Report found
the potential for site inundation from tsunamis or seiches is low. (Cornerstone 2012a) This
impact would be less than significant.
67
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the
project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,
or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to, the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan?
a) The 10.0-acre project site is located in the Ford Peninsula area of Richmond, within an
established urban neighborhood. The site is occupied by a vacant, two-story industrial
warehouse and associated parking lots. A chain-link fence delineates the property on the
east side and surrounds a parking lot on the southwest portion of the project site. A
drainage ditch is located on the southeast portion of the site. Access to the site is provided
from driveways on Marina Way South and Wright Avenue.
The project site is surrounded by existing urban development and roadways. Wright
Avenue, a two-lane roadway, is located north of the site, with the below-grade Interstate
580 located across Wright Avenue (see Figure 1). Nearby land uses consist of a mix of
industrial, commercial and live/work development in one- to three-story buildings.
Industrial development is located west of Marina Way South and east of South 17th Street,
which is currently gated at its intersection with Wright Avenue and not open to public use.
The industrial uses adjacent to the site are comprised of businesses where industrial
operations occur primarily indoors. Buildings east of the site include roll-up warehouse
doors that allow various delivery vehicles to use the buildings, however, none of the
buildings to the east would allow for large tractor-trailers. A Kaiser Permanente laboratory
and commercial office development is located south of the railroad bordering the site. A
two-story live/work development was recently constructed southwest of the site, and
residential uses are located off Regatta Boulevard farther south of the project site, as well
as on the north side of I-580 to the north of the site. Additional automotive repair and
recreational vehicle storage areas are located west of the site along Wright Avenue.
The project is located in an area planned for a mix of uses including commercial and
residential. Industrial uses in the project area currently operate in proximity to residential
uses. The project would not introduce a new use to the area, and the townhome
residential, live/work, and business incubator uses of the proposed project would be
68
compatible with the existing industrial, commercial and live/work uses in the vicinity.
Activities of future project residents, live/work tenants, and business incubator users would
be consistent with those of existing live/work tenants and business employees and visitors
in the area. It is not anticipated that the residents occupying the project would have
substantial adverse effects on the surrounding mix of industrial, commercial, and live/work
uses. The proposed project would be constructed within the existing pattern of streets,
and would not interfere with surrounding land uses, or divide any established community.
Given the nature of industrial uses adjacent to the site, the project is not anticipated to
result in any land use compatibility impacts. The impact on land use compatibility would
be less than significant.
b) The project site is located within the planning area for the Knox Freeway/Cutting
Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan, within Planning Sub–Area E, South Shoreline. The
Specific Plan supplements, rather than supersedes, the Richmond General Plan 2030
(adopted April 25, 2012), but serves as the primary planning document governing the
project. The project site also is within the project area of the Richmond South Shoreline
Specific Plan, which was under development at the time this Initial Study was prepared.
Until the South Shoreline Specific Plan is adopted, the Knox Freeway/Cutting Boulevard
Corridor Specific Plan and General Plan 2030 will govern land use at the project site.
Land Use Designations
The project site is designated Medium Intensity Mixed-Use (Commercial Emphasis) in the
City’s General Plan, which allows for residential-only development of up to 50 dwelling
units per acre (du/ac). This designation specifically allows for mixed-use development with
commercial or office/light industrial uses encouraged at street-level along corridors. This
classification is distinguished from the Medium-Density Mixed-Use (Residential Emphasis)
land use classification in that it allows residential-only or commercial-only development.
Residential uses may include condominiums, townhouses or apartments and commercial
uses may include small- to large-scale retail or office. New development must have a
pedestrian-oriented building design with minimal setbacks, and parking located to the
sides or rear of buildings is preferred. Building heights of 15 to 55 feet are allowed. The
proposed project would be redeveloped with 255 townhome and live/work residential units
on 10.0 acres (gross), or 7.8 acres (net) resulting in a residential density of approximately
32.7 dwelling units per net acre. The proposed buildings would be approximately 40 feet
in height. The project, therefore, is consistent with the General Plan land use classification
for the site.
The Knox Freeway/Cutting Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan designates the project site
R&D/Business (Commercial/Special Industry). R&D/Business land uses include research
and development office, professional office, hybrid flexible office and distribution space,
and light assembly and manufacturing. Other permitted uses include convenience retail,
sales and services, regional commercial, hotel and motel, health and fitness centers, day
care centers, restaurants, and public assembly space. Residential medium and high
density are permitted as conditional uses, while open lot storage and residential lowdensity uses are prohibited. This designation is intended to encourage an appropriate
69
transitional zone between Harbour and Marina Ways South to act as a buffer between the
Port/Maritime uses to the west and the mixed-use Marina Bay Development to the east. In
the Knox Freeway/Cutting Boulevard Corridor Specific Plan, live/work uses are permitted
in all commercial districts and conditionally permitted in all industrial districts. Thus,
residential and live/work uses are permitted in and consistent with the land use designation
of the Specific Plan.
Specific Plan Policies
The project would be consistent with policies that encourage development of new light
industrial uses (Land Use Objective 5), and promote creation of opportunities for research
and development/business uses, and mixed–use developments which include housing as
appropriate, in the areas south of the Knox Freeway (Objective 7).
The live/work project would be located on Marina Way South adjacent to existing bus
stops, and would be consistent with Land Use Objective 8, which encourages public transit
facilities and programs.
The Specific Plan requires development agreements between the City and project
developers to stipulate guidelines for streetscapes; within the Specific Plan area,
developers are required to install streetscape improvements located between the curb and
the property line for the length of the developer's property. The project applicant will be
required to comply with these provisions; thus, the project would be consistent with Open
Space/Urban Design Policy 4, which calls for street improvements in accordance with the
streetscape design of the Open Space/Urban Design Element.
Open Space/Urban Design Policy 13 encourages cluster development of industry in the
upland areas where the value of the land is not affected by the views or access to the
shoreline. The project would be consistent with this policy.
General Plan Policies
The proposed project would be consistent with the following Goals and Policies of the
General Plan 2030:
Land Use and Urban Design Element Goal LU1 An Improved Urban Environment:
Improve the urban fabric by crafting development strategies that emphasize highdensity, mixed-use infill development and a safe, vibrant, economically sustainable
environment that takes advantage of existing infrastructure and public facilities.
Provide improvements that strengthen connections between neighborhoods and
amenities such as retail, community facilities, parks and open space areas.
Focus area-specific revitalization endeavors on:
• Developing the Southern Shoreline, Ford Peninsula in Marina Bay and San
Pablo Peninsula as regional and recreational destinations…
70
Land Use and Urban Design Element Action LU1.H Vacant and Underutilized Sites:
Compile, maintain, and publish an inventory of vacant and underutilized sites in the
City that affect economic and social viability of neighborhoods and contribute
physical blight. Include an inventory of large publicly owned sites that may be
developed to serve community needs.
Land Use and Urban Design Element Policy LU3.4 Efficient and Productive Use of
Land:
Promote the efficient and productive use of industrial and commercial land
resources to maximize jobs and revenue. Encourage the reuse of underutilized
vacant or blighted sites that may impact the viability of surrounding uses. Prioritize
public investment in catalytic projects in major city centers such as Downtown,
Hilltop and the Ford Peninsula in Marina Bay and the entire Southern Shoreline
Area. Support the transformation of the Richmond Port into a 21st century business.
Ensure that all planning and development efforts prioritize the needs of the local
community and provide access and benefits for Richmond residents. This includes
job creation and training, and access to recreation amenities and open space.
Land Use and Urban Design Element Policy LU5.1 A Balanced Mix of Land Uses:
Promote a balanced mix of uses in major activity centers, community nodes and
gateways, in neighborhood nodes (corner commercial clusters), and along key
corridors as well as in industrial areas. Uses may include diverse housing options,
office, civic, commercial, retail and parks and open space.
In residential areas, the re-establishment of neighborhood nodes allow walkable
access to neighborhood retail, services, public parks and other neighborhood
amenities that support the daily needs of residents.
A mix of uses such as business, residential, light industrial, waterfront commercial,
and open space will enhance economic vitality and provide the flexibility needed to
adapt to changing economic conditions. Along Richmond’s shoreline, diverse uses
should balance community needs for recreation, interpretation, conservation,
historic and cultural preservation with economic development opportunities.
Land Use and Urban Design Element Policy LU5.2 A Mixed-Use Waterfront:
Continue to create a dynamic mixed-use waterfront that includes amenities and
attractions for residents and visitors. There are a number of different uses, features
and assets along Richmond’s shoreline that can be enhanced to create a series of
distinct places along the waterfront.
…
The Richmond Port (public and private) is recognized as a productive and important
component of the community’s economy and identity. Many of the adjacent
industries embrace high standards and provide high-wage, local jobs. Creative
transitions should be developed between port related activities and potential mixed-
71
used neighborhoods along the waterfront to provide strong connections, design
cohesion and effective buffers where necessary.
The Ford Peninsula in Marina Bay is a gateway to Richmond and an integral part of
the City where people work, live and recreate. The Peninsula’s historic Ford
Assembly Plant, open space, connection to the Bay Trail and convenient freeway
access present great potential for developing the eastern portion of the area as an
active mixed-use neighborhood that will attract visitors from around the Bay. In
February 2006 the City Council passed Resolution No. 15-06 to support and
promote the location of the proposed ferry terminal. Ferry transit to San Francisco
will enhance the Southern Shoreline’s appeal to residents and businesses.
Because the proposed project would provide additional high-density housing and live/work
uses in a mixed-use development, on an underutilized site in the Ford Peninsula area of
Richmond, be consistent with the surrounding mixed-use neighborhood, occur in an infill
area already served by community facilities and utilities, and add to the range of housing
available in Richmond, the project would be consistent with the goals and policies
identified above.
Zoning
The project site is currently zoned M-1 Industrial/Office Flex, which is intended to create,
preserve and enhance areas containing establishments primarily engaged in research,
product development, testing and administration, and controlled production of high
technology electronic, industrial or scientific products or commodities. Manufacturing
activities are limited to non-nuisance light manufacturing and assembly as well as pilot
plant operations for construction and testing of prototype products. Commercial offices
and limited retail uses providing support services, or which are regional serving and sell in
bulk warehouse quantities, are permitted. The intent is to allow uses appropriate for the
district to operate without the prospect of intrusion from incompatible activities and to
provide the proper safeguards for industrial development consistent with the desires and
needs of the City.
In the M-1 Industrial/Office Flex district, live/work, and research and development, are
principally permitted uses in this district, but residential uses such as the proposed
townhomes are not permitted.23
The proposed project includes rezoning of the site to Planned Area (Zoning Ordinance
Section 15.04.610). The purposes of the Planned Area (PA) district include establishing a
procedure for the development of large parcels of land (two acres or more), and large
residential developments including condominium developments. If rezoned to Planned
Area, residential uses consistent with the General Plan would be allowed on the project
site. Therefore, the project would require rezoning to Planned Area to be approved by the
Planning Commission and City Council. However, without this approval, the project’s
23
City of Richmond, Zoning Ordinance, Section 15.04.310, M-1 (Industrial/Office Flex District), page 87.
72
conflict with the requirements of the M-1 district for the site would be a significant adverse
impact.
The project site is also in a RMO (Resource Management Overlay) District,24 because it is
in a Liquefaction Physical Constraint Area.25 Among other requirements, multiple
dwellings over 35 feet in height in a Liquefaction Physical Constraint Area require a
Conditional Use Permit.
The Transition Zone Overlay District (TZOD) is generally bounded by I-580, Marina Way
South, Hall Avenue, and Harbour Way South. The TZOD is intended to guide
development to avoid physically conflicting land uses, between residential, light-industrial,
and heavy-industrial or marine-port land users. The proposed project site is located east
of the TZOD.
Development Standards
The Richmond Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances contain development standards that
apply to the proposed project. Applicable development standards from the Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinances are discussed below, as appropriate to the project site.
Height Limits. The applicable height limit in the M-1 zone is 50 feet, or 35 feet when
located within 100 feet of a shoreline, public park, recreational trail, recreational right-ofway or residential development. (Richmond Zoning Ordinance 15.04.310.050
Development Standards). The project site is located within 100 feet of the San Francisco
Bay Trail, which runs along Marina Way South. The Planning Commission may allow up
to 75-foot height with the approval of a conditional use permit. In addition, if the site is
rezoned to PA, the height limits of the base zoning district can be modified as part of the
approved PA district. The height of the proposed buildings would be approximately 40 feet,
which, with approval of a Conditional Use Permit and/or modification of height limits as part
of a PA district, would conform to the height restrictions of the City Zoning Ordinance.
However, without this approval, the project’s conflict with the height limits of the M-1 district
for the site would be a significant adverse impact.
Lot Size. The Zoning Ordinance does not set forth a minimum lot size in the M-1 zone
(Richmond Zoning Ordinance 15.04.310.050). The minimum area of a PA district is two
acres of contiguous land (Richmond Zoning Ordinance 15.04.610.020). The project would
comply with these requirements.
Density. The Zoning Ordinance does not set forth density standards for residential uses in
the M-1 zone. As mentioned above, the project site is designated Medium Intensity MixedUse (Commercial Emphasis) in the City’s General Plan, which allows for residential-only
development of up to 50 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). In the PA district, density is
limited to that permitted by the General Plan land use designation. The proposed project
24
City of Richmond, Zoning Ordinance, Article 15.04.500 Overlay Districts, page 125.
City of Richmond, General Plan 2030, Public Safety and Noise Element, Liquefaction Potential Map 12.2,
Page 12.32, April 25, 2012.
25
73
would be have 255 townhome and live/work residential units on 10.0 acres (gross), or 7.8
acres (net), resulting in a residential density of approximately 32.7 dwelling units per net
acre, which would comply with the General Plan density requirement.
Parking Requirements. Parking requirements in PA districts are those of the base zoning
of the site. In the M-1 zone, three parking spaces per 1,000 gross square feet of Research
and Development, two spaces per single-family residential unit26 1 are required
(15.04.310.070 Parking and Loading Standards, and 15.04.850.060 Parking Space
Standards). In addition, one guest parking space per five dwelling units is required.
Offices require three spaces per 1,000 square feet. Athletic facilities require 5 spaces
minimum plus 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet or one space for each spectator seat,
whichever is greater, plus 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet for exercise floor. The project
would require 510 spaces for the townhomes, 51 guest spaces, nine spaces for the
business incubator, and 20 spaces for the fitness center, or a total of 590 spaces. The
project would provide a total of 590 parking spaces (510 garage stalls and 80 guest
spaces), which would conform to the parking requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance.
Setbacks. In the M-1 zone, required front setbacks are 10 feet on minor streets and 25 feet
on collector streets (15.04.310.050 Development Standards). Side setbacks are required
only when abutting residential, public park, recreational trail, recreational right-of-way, or
shoreline. No rear setbacks are required. The proposed project would have 12-foot
setbacks on Wright Avenue and 10.5-foot setbacks on Marina Way South, with the
exception of the business center/fitness building, which would have smaller setbacks.
If the site is rezoned to PA, the setback requirements of the base zoning district may be
modified as part of the approved PA district. With rezoning of the site to PA district, the
proposed setbacks of the project discussed above would conform to the setback
requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance. However, without this approval, the project’s
conflict with the setback requirements of the M-1 district for the site would be a significant
adverse impact.
Open Space. Open space requirements in PA districts are those of the base zoning of the
site. In the M-1 zone, dwellings in a structure with two or more units must have 60 square
feet of private open space per dwelling unit, 200 square feet of common open space per
dwelling unit, and an additional 100 square feet of common or private open space per
dwelling unit with two or more bedrooms (15.04.310.050 Development Standards and
15.04.830.040 Open Space Standards). Each unit of the proposed project would have a
private outdoor balcony off the second floor as well as a private roof deck. There would be
a total of 56,970 square feet of balconies and roof decks, or approximately 223 square feet
per unit. In addition, there would be 164,646 square feet of open space at grade, or
approximately 646 square feet per unit. The project’s open space would comply with the
requirement.
26
Townhomes are considered single-family dwellings, according to the Richmond Municipal Code
Section 15.04.020: “Dwelling, single-family, attached (duplex, townhouse, zero lot line
developments) means 1 or 2 or more dwelling units situated on separate lots and having a
common or party wall separating the dwelling units”.
74
Other Development Standards. A variety of additional regulations may apply to the project,
including the performance standards set forth in Section 15.04.840 of the Zoning
Ordinance, addressing such issues as noise, air quality, lighting, design, fire hazards,
sidewalks, and more. A more detailed review of the project’s consistency with all
applicable development standards will be performed as part of the development and
design review processes.
No potential conflicts other than those set forth above were identified during the course of
this environmental review. Impacts on plans and policies would be less than significant.
c) There are no habitat conservation plans applicable to the site or area. See Item IV.f,
above.
75
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the project:
a) a) 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?
b) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
a, b) The federal Office of Surface Mining has designated three locations in the City of
Richmond as Mineral Resource Zone-2 (MRZ-2), indicating that they contain a deposit that
meets certain criteria for value and marketability. Located west of the project site near the
Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline and extending northwest to Point San Pablo, these areas
were designated by the State of California as regionally significant “sectors.”27 The
quarries at these locations have since ceased operation.
The project site is not located within an identified mineral resources area and has not been
historically used as a site for mineral resource extraction nor would it be expected to in the
future. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not result in the loss of
availability of a known mineral resource. There would be no impact on known mineral
resources that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state.
27
City of Richmond, Richmond General Plan 2030 Final Environmental Impact Report, August 2011, page
3.7-15.
76
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. NOISE -- Would the project result in:
a) 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?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
ground-born vibration or ground-born noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) 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?
f) 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?
a) Regulatory Background
The City of Richmond’s General Plan 2030 – Public Safety and Noise Element identifies
the following as “significant noise generators” affecting its population: motor vehicles and
the major roadways they use (especially the I-80 and I-580 freeways), trains (Union
77
Pacific, BNSF, Richmond Pacific and BART lines traverse the City), and a variety of
stationary sources (i.e., machinery, heating/ventilation/air conditioning [HVAC] equipment,
landscape maintenance equipment/activities, etc.). Also, in Richmond’s industrial areas,
noise is generated by heavy equipment associated with shipping and loading activities,
metal scrapping facilities and recycling centers.
The Public Safety and Noise Element includes the following goal, along with policies and
implementing actions related to noise control:
•
Goal SN4 (Acceptable Noise Levels). Achieve noise levels consistent with
acceptable standards and reduce or eliminate objectionable noise sources. Prevent
where possible, or mitigate noise impacts from industries, roadways, railroads and
businesses in residential areas and sensitive uses in the community. Apply new
technology, buffers and other solutions to reduce excessive noise.
In the listing of policies and implementing actions below, only those with applicability to the
Project have been included, and aspects of each with particular relevance to the Project
are underlined:
•
Policy SN4.1 Noise Levels: Work with regulatory agencies to monitor and enforce
noise standards in the community. Reduce or mitigate objectionable noise sources
and require new noise sources to comply with noise standards. Regulate both
indoor and outdoor noise levels to protect health and safety. Use a combination of
noise standards and existing noise levels to determine impacts and mitigation
measures.
•
Policy SN4.2 Land Use Compatibility: Minimize conflicts between land uses to
protect wetlands, marshlands, and creeks, human and environmental health and
safety, preserve community character and retain job generating activities that have
long-term viability. Types, intensities and ranges of use and development should be
compatible with existing uses and should minimize or eliminate conflicts that
adversely impact wetlands, marshlands, creeks, mudflats, public safety, human or
environmental health or generate nuisances. All new development must avoid or
mitigate to the greatest extent feasible potential negative impacts such as noise,
odors, and pollution.
•
Policy SN4.3 Transportation-Related Noise: Monitor changes in technology that
will prevent and mitigate transportation related noise impacts on residential and
sensitive uses in the community. Support traffic and freeway improvements that will
reduce noise impacts of vehicles. Alternatives to sound walls should be considered
where possible.
•
Action SN4.A Noise Study Report Requirement: Require proposed commercial
and industrial uses with potential noise and vibration-producing activities or new
noise-sensitive uses that locate in an area with day-night average sound level (Ldn)
of 55 or greater to provide noise study reports. The report should identify noise
78
mitigation measures that limit noise to an acceptable level compared to existing
conditions.
•
Action SN4.B Noise Study Guidelines: Regularly review and update guidelines
for the analysis of noise impacts and conflicts in the community. Ensure that the
effect of brief loud noises such as locomotive horns are analyzed and that noise
limitations include a maximum acceptable noise level for noises of short duration for
interior sleeping areas of residential and other uses. Use the noise analysis to
review development proposals to assure consistency with noise standards.
Consider the following measures for mitigating noise impacts on adjacent
properties:
o Screen and control noise sources such as parking, outdoor activities and
mechanical equipment.
o Use technology to reduce noise impacts in instances where setbacks cannot be
increased.
o Use state of the art noise-abating materials technology and construction
standards and double or triple glazed windows to meet noise standards.
o Control hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup to minimize
noise impacts.
o Use the Future Noise Contours data and Municipal Codes on noise to determine
if additional noise studies are needed.
•
Action SN4.C Noise Ordinance: Regularly review and update the noise ordinance
to regulate noise-generating activities and proposed developments near noisegenerating activities based upon changes in state law. Where feasible, limit the
impact of noise sources on noise-sensitive uses and consider noise and vibration
impacts in land use planning decisions. Require mitigation of potential noise
impacts on adjacent properties. Enforce the Land Use Compatibility Standards
presented in the State of California's General Plan Guidelines when siting new uses
in existing noise environments. Require new residential development and other
noise sensitive uses near railroad crossings or other sources of brief loud noise to
be analyzed for noise compatibility using standards based on both 24-hour
averages and maximum instantaneous interior noise levels to determine the noise
effects on sleep disturbance and other essential human functions. Encourage
projects to use site planning and building orientation principles as well as state-ofthe-art noise-abating materials, technology and construction standards to minimize
noise.
•
Action SN4.E Construction Traffic Plan Guidelines: Maintain guidelines for
preparing traffic plans to mitigate noise, traffic and dust during major construction
activity. Continue to require construction traffic plans for all developments of ten or
more homes or commercial projects larger than five acres in size to regulate vehicle
speeds, dust and noise mitigation, hours of operation, phased fencing plans and
safety standards. The plan should ensure the safety of the public and employees
during construction of major projects.
79
There are no policies, implementing actions or standards in General Plan 2030 for
avoiding/reducing vibration impacts. However, it is most common for government
agencies to rely on assessment methodologies, impact standards and vibration-reduction
strategies developed by the Federal Transit Agency (FTA). According to the FTA, limiting
vibration levels to 94 VdB or less would avoid structural damage to wood and masonry
buildings (which are typical of residential uses), while limiting vibration levels to 80 VdB or
less at residential locations would avoid significant annoyance to the occupants.
Background ground vibration levels in most inhabited areas are usually 50 VdB or lower,
well below the threshold of perception (i.e., typically about 65 VdB).
Project Site Noise
The project site is situated between two strong noise sources: I-580, about 250 feet to the
north (as measured from that roadway’s centerline to the site’s northern boundary), and
the Southern Pacific Railroad line, about 50 feet to the south (as measured from the track
centerline to the site’s southern boundary).
A noise survey was conducted and long-term measurements (both extending over multiday periods) were taken at two locations to quantify existing ambient noise levels near the
site boundaries (where maximum noise exposure is expected due to their proximity to the
above-mentioned noise sources). The noise measurement locations are described and
the measurement data collected are shown below in Table XII-1.
Table XII-1: Existing Noise Levels in the Project Area
Location
Location #1
Southern boundary of the
project site - 40 feet from
the centerline of the SPRR
railroad track, and 125 feet
east of the centerline of the
Marina Way South.
Location #2
Northern boundary of the
project site - adjacent to
Wright Avenue and 25 feet
from its centerline; 240 feet
Time Period
Tues. – Fri.
Feb. 26–Mar. 1
2013
72 hours
Tues.
Jul. 22, 2014
12 noon – 3 pm
3 hours
Wed. – Thurs.
Feb. 27-28
2013
48 hours
Noise Levels
(dBA)*
Ldn : 74
Leq (1-hr. avg.)
Day: 52–84
Night: 51-79
Leq (1-hr. avg.)
56, 58, 56
Contributing Noise
Sources
Railroad operations, traffic on
Marina Way South, and
loading dock, parking lot and
maintenance activity at the
Kaiser facility to the south.
Traffic on Marina Way South,
and maintenance activity (leaf
blower) at the Kaiser facility.
Ldn: 73
Leq (1-hr. avg.)
Day: 66-72
Night: 60-71
80
Traffic on I-580 and Wright
Avenue.
Location
Time Period
Noise Levels
(dBA)*
Contributing Noise
Sources
from the centerline of I-580.
Tuesday
July 22, 2014
3:00 pm – 3:15 pm
15 minutes
Leq (1-hr. avg.)
64
Traffic on I-580 and Wright
Avenue
Source: Bayshore Residential Development Environmental Noise and Vibration Assessment Richmond, California,
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. April 3, 2013. Measurement data taken in 2013 was verified by additional measurements taken
by Grassetti Environmental Consulting during a site visit in July 2014.
* Decibels are said to be A–weighted, abbreviated as dBA, when corrections are made to accommodate the known,
varying sensitivity of the human ear to sounds of different frequencies. The Equivalent Sound Level, abbreviated as
Leq, is a constant sound level that carries the same sound energy as the actual time–varying sound over the
measurement period. The Day–Night Average Sound Level, abbreviated as Ldn, is a 24–hour average, A–weighted
Leq with a 10–decibel penalty added to sound levels occurring at night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
The Day-Night Average Noise Level (Ldn) at Location #1 was 74 dBA with hourly-average
daytime noise levels ranging from 52 to 84 dBA and hourly-average nighttime noise levels
ranging from 51 to 79 dBA. The main influence on noise level here was the passage of
trains and the sounding of train warning horns on approach to and departure from the
Marina Way South grade crossing. An examination of the noise monitoring data showed
that an average of six trains passed the project site during a 24-hour period. Maximum
noise levels from these peak-noise events ranged from 96 to 113 dBA with an overall
average recurring maximum noise level of 103 dBA.
The Ldn at Location #2 was 73 dBA. Noise levels here follow a diurnal pattern
characteristic of traffic noise with hourly-average daytime noise levels ranging from 66 to
72 dBA and hourly-average nighttime noise levels ranging from 60 to 71 dBA.
The City of Richmond uses the “Land Use Compatibility Standards” referred to in Action
SN4.C above are included in the City’s General Plan Public Safety and Noise Elements as
Table 12.1. The compatibility standards for the land-use category Multifamily Residential,
the General Plan category that most fits the noise-sensitive residential component of the
Project, are shown below:
o Normally Acceptable - up to 65 dBA Ldn28 - no special noise insulation features are
required.
o Conditionally Acceptable - between 65 and 70 dBA Ldn - detailed analysis of noise
reduction/insulation features should be undertaken and its recommendations should
be included in the design.
28
Decibels are said to be A–weighted, abbreviated as dBA, when corrections are made to
accommodate the known, varying sensitivity of the human ear to sounds of different frequencies.
The Equivalent Sound Level, abbreviated as Leq, is a constant sound level that carries the same
sound energy as the actual time–varying sound over the measurement period. The Day–Night
Average Sound Level, abbreviated as Ldn, is a 24–hour average, A–weighted Leq with a 10–decibel
penalty added to sound levels occurring at night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
81
o Normally Unacceptable - between 70 and 75 dBA Ldn - development should
generally be discouraged, however it may be allowed if a detailed analysis of the
noise reduction/insulation features shows that acceptable exterior/interior levels can
be attained.
o Clearly Unacceptable - no specific recommendations for Multifamily Residential
land uses.
Requiring the compatibility of proposed land uses with the above-mentioned standards
with the imposition of noise reduction features where specified is usually sufficient to attain
acceptable interior noise levels, which for residential land uses is an Ldn of 45 dBA to
prevent undue activity interference and annoyance.29
However, in situations where loud, intermittent noise events are superimposed over high
average background noise (e.g., the sounding of train horns or engine noise near railroad
tracks/crossings) achieving an Ldn of 45 dBA within residential uses so exposed may not
be sufficient to avoid significant sleep disturbance. A review of sleep disturbance study
data shows that limiting such peak recurring noise levels to a maximum of 55 dBA within
bedrooms so exposed would limit the probability of waking to less than 5% per
occurrence.30
Therefore, in accordance with Actions SN4.B and SN4.C, which seek to ensure that the
sleep disturbance effect of brief loud noises from locomotive horns/engines are analyzed
and that mitigations include controls on maximum noise levels to minimize sleep
disturbance, the Project noise analysis also included consideration of a maximum noise
exposure criterion of 55 dBA for Project residential living spaces facing the SPRR line.
Based on the noise measurements taken at the north and south project site boundaries,
the unshielded Project residential buildings facing I-580 and the SPRR railroad tracks
would be exposed to Ldn noise levels between 70 and 75 dBA, which is Normally
Unacceptable for new multifamily residential development under the City’s General Plan
Noise standards. Therefore this would be a significant impact.
The other Project residential buildings interior to the project site and that receive noise
shielding from residential buildings facing I-580 and/or the railroad tracks would be
exposed to Ldn noise levels 65 dBA or less, which is Normally Acceptable for new
multifamily residential development under the City’s Land Use Compatibility Standards, a
less than significant noise impact.
All Project residential buildings directly facing I-580 and the SPRR line would be exposed
to daily average noise exceeding 70 dBA Ldn and the residential buildings directly facing
the SPRR line would be exposed to recurring maximum noise levels above 80 dBA when
29
Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare
with an Adequate Margin of Safety, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 1974).
30
Kryter, Karl D, The Effects of Noise on Man, Second Edition, Academic Press, London 1985, p.
444-446.
82
trains pass and their warning horns are sounded. If only typical non-sound rated, standard
thermal insulating windows are installed there, the 45 dBA Ldn interior average standard
and the 55 dBA maximum noise level criterion would be exceeded.
As a condition of approval, the proposed Project shall implement the following measures to
reduce interior noise impacts to a less than significant level:
Mitigation XII-1. To assure that average interior noise levels within Project
residences are less than 45 dBA Ldn, all residences on the project site shall have
sound-rated windows and exterior doors. The needed Sound Transmission Class
(STC) ratings of the windows of these residences shall be 30 to 32. All residences
on the project site that directly face the SPRR line along the southern boundary
shall have windows rated STC 42 to 45.
or
As an alternative to the above requirement on all windows for the SPRR-facing
units, a 12-foot high shall be constructed along the southern project site boundary.
In this case, the first floor windows facing the SPRR tracks shall have windows with
STC ratings of 30 to 32, while all upper story windows facing SPRR shall have
windows with STC ratings of 42 to 45.
The adequacy of the IS recommendations regarding window STC ratings for units
facing I-580 or the SPRR line shall be verified by unit-specific acoustical analysis
during the final design phase of the Project. Window STC ratings shall achieve
noise reduction to meet the 55 dBA maximum interior standard during each train
pass-by. Results of the analysis, including the description of the necessary noise
control features, will be submitted to the City along with the final building plans and
approved prior to issuance of a building permit.
Mitigation XII-2. All residences on the project site shall be provided with
mechanical ventilation systems to allow the windows to remain closed at the
residents’ discretion.
After the imposition of the stated mitigation measures, traffic and railroad noise impacts on
the Project would be less than significant.
b) Railroad operations are known sources of ground vibration; impact severity depends on
the distance of the track to the receptor, the track type, and the speed of the trains and the
number of operations per day.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has developed vibration impact criteria primarily
based on experience with passenger train operations; the main difference between
passenger and freight operations is the time duration of individual events; a passenger
train pass-by lasts a few seconds whereas a long freight train may last several minutes or
more. The FTA vibration impact criteria are shown in Table XII-2. Based on the
83
residential nature of the project and the relatively infrequent use (i.e., 5-6 train operations
per day) of the adjacent SPRR rail line, 80 VdB is used as the vibration annoyance
significance criteria.
A vibration monitoring survey was conducted near the southern boundary of the project
site. Over a 70-hour period, vibration measurement data was collected during 11 train
pass-by events. Based on these data, the site-specific attenuation rate of rail-generated
groundborne vibration on the project site was determined. The distances to the 72 VdB,
75 VdB and 80 VdB maximum groundborne vibration contours were determined to be 105,
85, and 60 feet from the track centerline, respectively.
Table XII-2: Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria Land Use Category Category 1: Buildings where low ambient is essential for interior operations Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime use Groundborne Vibration Impact Limits (VdB re 1µ inch/sec, RMS) Frequent Infrequent Occasional
2
1
Events
Events
Events3
65 VdB4 65 VdB4 65 VdB4 72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB 75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB Notes: 1
“Frequent Events” are defined as more than 70 vibration events per day. Most rapid transit projects fall into this category. 2
“Occasional Events” are described as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day. Most commuter trunk lines have these many operations. 3
“Infrequent Events” is defined as fewer than 70 vibration events per day. This category includes most commuter rail systems.
4
This limit is based on levels that acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes. Vibration sensitive manufacturing or research should always require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration limits. The closest residences on the project site are setback by more than 60 feet. Thus, the
FTA residential, infrequent-event vibration criteria (80 VdB) would not be exceeded and
train vibration impacts would be less than significant.
Construction activities can also be a source of potentially significant vibration impacts. Of
all construction equipment, pile driving is the source of the most substantial vibrations. But
pile driving will not be required for Project construction. Of all the other equipment
commonly used for construction, none would exceed the FTA vibration significance
threshold unless that equipment operated at 25 feet or less from a sensitive receptor. In
this case the nearest existing sensitive receptor is the Artisan Cove development across
the SPRR line about 125 feet southwest of the project site. Thus, Project construction
vibration impacts would be less than significant.
84
c) The FTA has the most authoritative criteria for what constitute substantial permanent
noise increments, particularly when the source of that noise is motor vehicle traffic. These
incremental criteria are shown in Table XII-3. In the case of the project site, where daily
average noise levels near the north and south site perimeter are about 70 dBA (but less
than 75 dBA), a project-induced noise level increment of 1 dBA or greater would be
considered significant if existing residential receptors were affected.
Table XII-3: FTA Incremental Noise Impact Criteria (dBA) Residential and other buildings where people
normally sleep1
Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and
evening uses2
Existing Ldn
Allowable Noise
Increment
Existing Peak Hour Leq
Allowable Noise
Increment
45
8
45
12
50
5
50
9
55
3
55
6
60
2
60
5
65
1
65
3
70
1
70
3
75
0
75
1
80
0
80
0
Notes:
1. This category includes homes, hospitals, and hotels where a nighttime sensitivity to noise is assumed to be of utmost
importance.
2.
This category includes schools, libraries, theaters, and churches where it is important to avoid interference with such activities as
speech, meditation, and concentration on reading material.
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment, May 2006.
The nearest exiting residential receptor to the project site is the Artisan Cove (901 Marina
way South) development just south of the SPRR tracks and fronting Marina Way South.
Using Project traffic analysis data to initialize the Traffic Noise Model, it is estimated that
project-generated traffic would have a maximum incremental impact of about 0.3 dBA at
the Artisan Cove receptor. Thus, the impact of project traffic noise would be less than
significant.
d) Project construction activity would be a temporary source of noise impacting existing
residential and commercial uses located near the project site. Construction noise can be
significant for short periods of time at any particular location and generates the highest
noise levels during grading and excavation, with lower noise levels occurring during
building construction. Large pieces of earth-moving equipment, such as graders, scrapers,
and bulldozers, generate maximum noise levels of 90 to 95 dBA at a distance of 50 feet.
85
Typical hourly average construction-generated noise levels are approximately 81 to 88
dBA measured at a distance of 50 feet from the site during busy construction periods
Construction noise impacts primarily occur when construction activities occur during noisesensitive times of the day (early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), or where
construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise sensitive land uses, or when
construction durations last over extended periods of time.
Significant noise impacts do not normally occur when standard construction noise control
measures are enforced at the project site or when the duration of construction is limited.
Reasonable regulation of the hours of construction, as well as regulation of the arrival and
operation of heavy equipment and the delivery of construction materials, are necessary to
protect safety and promote the general welfare and quality of life in the community. The
Project shall adhere to its construction schedule and noise control requirements of the
Municipal Code for temporary construction activity (Section 9.52.090). Given the
implementation of the following mitigations, the Project would not have a significant
temporary construction noise impact.
Mitigation Measure XII-3: Construction Noise. The Project applicant shall
implement technically and economically feasible measures construction noise
control measures to reduce the noise levels generated by the use of construction
equipment below the maximum noise level standards specified in Chapter 9.52.110
of the City of Richmond Municipal Code. The measures shall include, but not be
limited to, the following:
a) Muffle and maintain all equipment used on-site. All internal combustion enginedriven equipment shall be fitted with mufflers that are in good condition.
b) Use “quiet” air compressors and other stationary noise sources where
technology exists.
c) Locate all stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors and
portable power generators, away from adjacent land uses.
d) Notify all adjacent residents and commercial properties of the construction
schedule in writing.
e) Designate a “disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding
to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator
shall determine the cause of the complaint and shall require that reasonable
measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented.
f) Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the
construction site and include it in the notice sent in the neighbors regarding the
construction schedule.
g) Combine noisy operations so that they occur in the same time period.
e) The project site is not located within an area covered by an airport land use plan or
within two miles of a public or public use airport. Development on the site would not
expose people working or residing in the Project area to excessive airport noise levels, no
impacts would occur.
86
f) There are no private airstrips located near the project site and therefore would not
expose people working or residing in the project area to excessive aircraft noise levels.
The Project would not increase onsite exposure to aircraft noise. Thus, no impacts would
occur.
87
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING – Would the
project:
a) 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)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
a) The project site is located in a developed area within the incorporated limits of the City
of Richmond that is already served by roads and other infrastructure. Redevelopment of
the project site would not require any extension of infrastructure or result in an expansion
of urban services or pressure to expand beyond the City’s existing Sphere of Influence.
The proposed project would directly generate population growth through the provision of
255 residential units. According to the U.S. Census, the average number of persons per
household in Richmond between 2008 and 2012 was 2.86 (U.S. Census Bureau 2014).
Based on this estimate, the construction of 255 townhome and live/work residential units
on the site would result in a population increase of approximately 729 residents. The City
of Richmond population was approximately 106,138 in January 2014 (California,
Department of Finance 2014). The 729 new residents at the site would represent
approximately 0.7 percent of the 2014 population in the City.
To meet the current and projected housing needs in the City, the Richmond General Plan
2030 identifies change areas to accommodate a population increase of 30,147, an
additional 22,488 jobs, and 15,548 new housing units by 2030 (City of Richmond 2011).
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Knox/Cutting Specific Plan
land use designations for the site, and is within the South Richmond Priority Development
Area identified in the Housing Element of the General Plan (City of Richmond 2013).
Therefore, the increase in population and housing is within the increases accounted for
and disclosed in the General Plan and General Plan EIR, and the project would not induce
unplanned growth within the City. For these reasons, the growth-inducing impacts of the
proposed project would be less than significant.
88
b) There is no housing on the project site. There would be no impact on existing housing.
c) There are no residents on the project site. There would be no impact on existing
residents.
89
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
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:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
i) Fire protection services for the project site are provided by the Richmond Fire
Department (RFD). The RFD has a staff of 93 sworn personnel and four non-sworn
personnel who are responsible for emergency medical services, fire suppression,
mitigation of disasters, and rescue activities.31 The closest station to the project site is
Station No. 67 located at 1131 Cutting Boulevard, approximately 0.5 miles northwest of the
site.
For fire protection services, the RFD goal is to respond to 85 percent of emergency calls in
six minutes or less. In 2009, the average response time for emergency and nonemergency calls was five minutes (City of Richmond 2011). The City of Richmond also
has mutual aid agreements for exchange of fire, rescue, and emergency medical services
with the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, the City of Pinole Fire Department,
and the City of Rodeo-Hercules Fire Department.
Although the proposed project would increase the population and intensity of development
on the site, it would be located within the urban limits of Richmond and the service area of
the RFD would not be expanded. The proposed increase in development on the project
site is accounted for in the growth projections disclosed in the General Plan EIR. The
project is a small fraction of the total growth planned for the city and by itself would not
preclude the RFD from meeting its service goals.
31
Richmond Fire Department website, available on the internet at:
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=1483, accessed 30 May 2014.
90
To minimize impacts to existing RFD facilities, new development projects are required to
provide access, structures, and water supply that meet the California State Fire Code and
City building requirements. The proposed residential buildings would be constructed in
accordance with current building and fire codes and would be required to pay development
impact fees set by the City. The City currently levies a Public Facility Impact Fee of $380
per single-family residential unit to offset the cost of providing fire protection service and
infrastructure (City of Richmond 2011). This revenue would allow the RFD to provide any
needed additional personnel and facilities required to serve the project. Any new or
expanded police facilities that are required, in part, to serve the proposed project would not
create environmental impacts beyond those analyzed in the General Plan EIR, which
found these impacts to be less than significant (City of Richmond 2011). For these
reasons, the impact on fire protection would be less than significant.
ii) Police protection services for the project site are provided by the Richmond Police
Department (RPD), which is headquartered at 1701 Regatta Boulevard. The RPD has 187
authorized sworn officers and 34 civilian personnel. Average response times in 2009 were
6 minutes and 43 seconds for Priority 1 calls and 14 minutes and 50 seconds for Priority 2
calls.32 The RPD does not have response time standards or levels of service. The RPD
headquarters is located approximately 0.5 miles southeast of project site. The project site
is located within the Southern District (one of three police districts in the city), and within
Beat 1 of the Southern District.
The General Plan EIR concluded that planned growth under the General Plan would
increase the population of the City such that 48 additional sworn police officers would be
required (City of Richmond 2011). While the overall service area would not increase, the
increase in police personnel may require the expansion of existing police facilities or the
construction of new facilities. The General Plan EIR also concluded that planned growth
would increase the intensity of development in designated “change areas”, but these areas
are already currently served by police protection services and thus would not result in an
increase in response times for various calls for service. The change areas include Change
Area 15 – Regatta/Marina Bay, in which the proposed project is located (City of Richmond
2011).
The proposed project would result in approximately 729 additional residents in Richmond.
To maintain the current officer-to-resident ratio of 1.6 for every 1,000, the proposed project
would require an additional sworn officer, and would contribute incrementally to the need
for new or expanded police facilities. The City currently levies a Public Facility Impact Fee
of $312 per single-family residential unit to offset the cost of providing police protection
service and infrastructure (City of Richmond 2011). This revenue would allow the RPD to
provide the additional personnel and facilities required to serve the project, and to maintain
its call response times. Any new or expanded police facilities that are required, in part, to
serve the proposed project would not create environmental impacts beyond those
analyzed in the General Plan EIR, which found these impacts to be less than significant
32
Priority 1 calls are in progress emergencies such as shootings, robberies, burglaries and assaults. Priority
2 calls are immediate emergencies, but not in progress, where the suspect is no longer present.
91
(City of Richmond 2011). For these reasons, the impact on police protection would be
iii) The project site is located within the West Contra Costa Unified School District
(WCCUSD), which has 15 elementary schools, two middle schools, and three high schools
in the City of Richmond. Students in the project area attend Washington Elementary
School, Fred T. Korematsu Middle School, and Kennedy High School.33 Washington
Elementary School is located approximately 1.8 miles northwest of the project site on Wine
Street in Richmond. Fred T. Korematsu Middle School (formerly Portola Middle School) is
located approximately 4.3 miles east of the project site on Navelier Street in El Cerrito.
Kennedy High School is located approximately 2.2 miles northeast of the site on Cutting
Boulevard in Richmond. Korematsu Middle School was recently demolished due to
seismic safety concerns and construction of a replacement is currently underway.
Students attending Korematsu Middle School are temporarily located in portable
classrooms placed on the school playground.
The project proposes development of 255 single-family townhome and live/work
residences. West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD) student generation
rates for single-family attached dwellings are 0.047 grade K-6 (Elementary)
students/dwelling unit, 0.015 grade 7-8 (Middle School) students/ dwelling unit, and 0.014
grade 9-12 (High School) students/dwelling unit (City of Richmond 2011). Based on the
WCCUSD single-family attached residence rates, the proposed project would result in
approximately 12 additional students for Washington Elementary School, four additional
students for Korematsu Middle School, and four additional students for Kennedy High
School.
State Law (Government Code Section 65996) stipulates that the payment of a school
impact fee prior to the issuance of a building permit will offset a project’s effect under
CEQA on the adequacy of school facilities. The affected school district is are responsible
for implementing the specific methods for mitigating school effects under the Government
Code, including setting the school impact fee amount consistent with state law. The
proposed project would increase the number of children attending public schools in the
project area, but compliance with state law regarding school impact fees would reduce the
impact on schools to a less than significant level.
iv) The City of Richmond has a total of 6,527.5 acres of parkland and open space, 5,718.5
acres of which are owned and operated by regional agencies, and 809 acres of which are
City-owned facilities or jointly used by the City and other public or private entities (City of
Richmond 2012). The City of Richmond owns and operates 74 parks totaling 267 acres
(City of Richmond 2013), consisting of compact parks, pocket parks, overlooks, pathways,
neighborhood parks, and community parks. Recreational facilities in the City include play
lots, play fields, eight community centers, two senior centers, the swim center, an indoor
recreation complex, and a municipal natatorium, The Plunge. The City currently maintains
33
West Contra Costa Unified School District, School Directory. Available on the internet at:
http://www.wccusd.net/site/default.aspx?PageID=1, accessed 26 August, 2014.
92
a local parkland ratio of 2.57 acres per 1,000 residents34, which is below the City’s
standard of three acres per 1,000 residents. This ratio does not take into account the
5,718.5 acres of regional and state parks located in the City, or City-owned open space,
which supplement local parks for residents.
Parks in the neighborhood include the 13-acre Marina Park and Green (approximately 0.7
miles southeast of the site) and the 13-acre Martin Luther King Junior Park (approximately
0.4 miles to the north).
Each residential unit would have a private outdoor balcony off the second floor as well as a
private roof deck.
The average private outdoor space for each unit would be
approximately 223 square feet. In addition, there would be 164,646 square feet of open
space at grade, or approximately 646 square feet per unit. The at-grade open space
would include an approximately one-third-acre recreation area near the middle of the site,
which would include a barbecue area, dog park, and fitness equipment. Future residents
of the site would use existing recreational facilities in the area as well as the common
recreational area and private open space proposed as a part of the project.
Under the City of Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 15.08.400, the City of Richmond
requires new development to either dedicate land or pay a fee for park and/or recreational
purposes. The City currently levies a Public Facility Impact Fee of $5,537 per single-family
residential unit to offset the cost of providing parks and open space (City of Richmond
2011). Payment of an in-lieu fee or dedication of land to be used for recreation purposes
would ensure that new development in the City provides its fair share of adequate park
facilities. The proposed project would be required to conform to the City’s parkland
dedication policies and would pay in-lieu fees to the City that would be used for park
facilities in the project vicinity.
With the existing, available parkland in the project area and implementation of the City’s
parkland dedication requirements, the incremental increase in use from the residential
development proposed would not cause significant physical deterioration of existing park
facilities or require construction of new facilities. Any new or expanded park facilities that
are required, in part, to serve the proposed project would not create environmental impacts
beyond those analyzed in the General Plan EIR, which found these impacts to be less than
significant (City of Richmond 2011). For these reasons, the impact of the proposed project
on parks would be less than significant.
e) Neither the construction nor the operation of the proposed project would significantly
affect government services other than those discussed in Items XIII.a through XIII.d,
above. There would be no impact.
34
Based on a current population of 103,701 from: City of Richmond California, City Facts, Updated March
15, 2013, available on the internet at: http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/8348,
accessed 29 May 2014.
93
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. RECREATION:
a) Would the project 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?
b) 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?
a) See Item XIV.iv, above.
b) The proposed project would include an approximately one-third-acre recreation area
near the middle of the site, which would include a barbecue area, dog park, and fitness
equipment. The impacts of construction and use of this recreation area are included in the
evaluation of the project’s impacts in Items I through XVIII of this Initial Study. All impacts
of the project would be less than significant or would be reduced to a less-thansignificant level by mitigation measures identified in this Initial Study.
94
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC – Would
the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level
of service standard established by the County
Congestion Management Agency for designated
roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including
either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
A traffic study was prepared for the Project by PHA Transportation Consultants (PHA
2014). (See Appendix C.) The discussion below summarizes the findings of that analysis.
a) Roads and Access
The street network providing access and circulation to the area and the project site
consists of Harbour Way, Cutting Boulevard, Marina Way, Marina Bay Parkway, Wright
Avenue, Regatta Boulevard, Meeker Avenue/South 19th Street. Freeways I-80 and I-580
provide regional access to and from the area and the project site. A brief description of the
streets that provide immediate access to and from the project site is as follows:
95
Harbour Way is a north-south roadway that connects downtown Richmond in the north to I580 and the South Shoreline area. North of I-580, Harbour Way provides two lanes of travel
in both directions. South of I-580, Harbour Way narrows to one lane of travel in both
directions, with a two-way left-turn lane at mid-block driveways. There is a bicycle route on
the west side (southbound travel) of the roadway and bicycle lanes on the east side
(northbound travel). Harbour Way is designated as an existing truck route in the Richmond
General Plan (2012). The posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour (mph) north of I-580 and
35 miles per hour (mph) south of freeway I -580.
Cutting Boulevard is an east-west roadway that connects San Pablo Avenue in the east
and freeway I-580 in the west. North of the study area, Cutting Boulevard provides two
lanes of travel in both directions with left-turn pockets at signals and two-way left-turn lanes
at mid-block driveways. According to the Richmond General Plan (2012), Cutting
Boulevard is designated as an existing truck route west of Harbour Way and is also a Route
of Regional Significance classified by the CCTA. East of Harbour Way, Cutting Boulevard
provides shared travel lanes with bicycles, marked with “sharrows.” The posted speed limit
is 35 miles per hour (mph).
Marina Bay Parkway/South 23rd Street is a north-south roadway that connects downtown
Richmond to I-580 and the South Shoreline Area. The roadway is called Marina Bay
Parkway south of I-580 and is called South 23rd Street north of I-580. In the study area the
roadway generally provides two travel lanes in each direction, with turn lanes at
intersections. The posted speed limit is 30 mph.
Marina Way is a north-south roadway connecting downtown Richmond to the South
Shoreline Area. Marina Way provides two lanes of travel in both directions and forms the
western boundary of the Project site. The Richmond General Plan (2012) designates
Marina Way, between Wright Avenue in the north and Hall Avenue in the south, as a truck
route. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph).
Wright Avenue is an east-west roadway in the South Shoreline Area, connecting South 4th
Street in the west to South 19th Street in the east, forming the northern boundary of the
Project site. Wright Avenue is generally a two-lane roadway with bicycle lanes on both
sides of the street west of Marina Way South. Wright Avenue is designated as a truck route
in the Richmond General Plan (2012). The posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour (mph).
Meeker Avenue/South 19th Street is an east-west roadway connecting the Project site to
Marina Bay Parkway. Meeker Avenue/South 19th Street provides one lane of travel in both
directions. This roadway provides sidewalks near to the intersection with Marina Bay
Parkway, fronting commercial uses, and along South 19th Street. The width of the travel
lanes is generally large enough to accommodate on-street parking.
Freeway I-80 and I-580 are freeways provide regional access to the area and connect
Richmond to with Sacramento in the north, Concord and Livermore in the east, Oakland
and San Francisco in the south and west, and Marin County in the west.
96
Transit, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Facilities
AC Transit (Alameda and Contra Costa Transit) provides public transit services to the
study area and surrounding cities. However, only line 74 serves the immediate area from
Marina Bay Parkway, Richmond to Castro Ranch Rd. & San Pablo Dam Rd., El Sobrante,
via Richmond BART, 23rd St., Contra Costa College and San Pablo Dam Rd. Weekends,
some trips travel from Contra Costa College to Hilltop Mall. Service begins about 5:30 a.m.
From Ford Point and ends at about 10:30 p.m. Service is provided at about 30- minute
intervals. Additionally, BART provides regional public transportation service to various
cities in the Bay Area via its Richmond Station, approximately one mile north of the project
site.
Pedestrian facilities in the study area include sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signals
and multi-use trails. Most roadways in the study area provide sidewalks on both sides of
the street; except Wright Avenue, which has sidewalks on the south side of the street;
Meeker Avenue where sidewalks are generally only provided where there are fronting
uses; Marina Bay Parkway south of Meeker Avenue, which has sidewalks only on the west
side of the street; and Regatta Boulevard, which provides continuous sidewalk on the north
side and gaps in sidewalk on the south side of the street. The San Francisco Bay Trail is
generally located along the bay shoreline to the south of the project site, but passes along
Marina Way South immediately west of the project site.
Existing bicycle facilities near the project site include Class II lanes on Wright Avenue
between Harbour Way and Marina Way; Class III routes on the west side of Harbour Way
and Class II lanes on the east side of Harbour Way; Class III routes on Marina Way, south
of Wright Avenue; and Class I paths on the north side of Regatta Boulevard.35 The
Richmond Bicycle Master Plan includes several proposed Class I and Class II facilities in
the study area, including Class II lanes on Wright Avenue, just north of the Project site,
Class II lanes along Regatta Boulevard west of Marina Bay Parkway, extending further
east to connect to the I-580 Bayview Avenue interchange; and Class II lanes on Marina
Bay Parkway connecting the South Shoreline to areas north of freeway I-580.
Trains
Although there is not much traffic congestion in Richmond south of freeway I-580 and in
the study area, a major traffic issue in the vicinity is train operations. There are at-grade
railroad crossings south of I-580 on Harbour Way South, Marina Way South, and Marina
Bay Parkway. BNSF (Burlington Northern and Santa Fe) and UPRR (Union Pacific Rail
Road) both run trains daily through the area and also use the area as a switching station.
Trains sometimes run at a very low speed moving back and forth along these rails in an
35
According to the City of Richmond Bicycle Master Plan, Class I bicycle facilities are off-street
paths that serve both bicyclists and pedestrians. Class II facilities provide a dedicated area for
bicyclists within the paved street width through the use of striping and appropriate signage. Class
III facilities are found along streets that do not provide sufficient width for dedicated bicycle lanes.
The street is designated as a bicycle route through the use of signage informing drivers to expect
bicyclists.
97
east-west direction, blocking north-south traffic circulation for long periods of times
because all of the rail crossings in the area are at grade. The City of Richmond is in the
process of constructing a grade separation to provide relieve to north-south traffic
circulation. Currently, BNSF is proposing a rail connector project in North Richmond. If
constructed, more trains would use the rail lines north of I-580 to travel to the Port of
Oakland, thereby reducing trains passing through the study area, and improving northsouth vehicle traffic circulation at Harbour Way, Marina Way South, Marina Bay Parkway,
and Regatta Boulevard.
Traffic Conditions
The proposed project is expected to generate 112 a.m. and 133 p.m. peak-hour trips. To
assess the potential project impact, PHA Transportation Consultants evaluated traffic
operations for 10 key street intersections near the project site for existing conditions, and
2040 cumulative conditions based on local traffic level-of-service (LOS) standards and the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines.
The traffic analysis evaluated the following study intersections:
1. Harbour Way/Cutting Boulevard - signalized
2. Marina Way/Cutting Boulevard - signalized
3. Harbour Way/Hoffman Boulevard - signalized
4. Harbour Way/Wright Avenue – side street stop control
5. Marina Way/Wright Avenue - signalized
6. Marina Way South/Project driveway – stop control
7. Marina Way South/ Regatta Boulevard – side street stop control
8. Wright Avenue/ Project driveway – stop control
9. Marina Bay Pkwy/Meeker Avenue - signalized
10. Marina Bay Pkwy/Regatta Boulevard - signalized
LOS is a qualitative measure of traffic flows. It ranges from A to F; LOS A represents freeflow and LOS F represents jammed conditions. The City of Richmond does not have a
specific traffic level-of-service standard, but follows the adopted policies of Contra Costa
Transportation Authority (CCTA) established guidelines and standards. Generally, LOS A
through D acceptable conditions, LOS E is considered at capacity and warrant
investigation for improvement.
The traffic LOS analysis indicated that all study intersections currently operate at LOS D or
better for both a.m. and p.m. peak hours and would continue to operate at the same
service levels with the addition of project-generated traffic. Under 2030 cumulative
conditions, the Harbour Way/Wright Avenue intersection is projected to operate at capacity
LOS E (without the project), and would remain at the same LOS E with the addition of
project traffic. The intersection delay caused by the additional project traffic would be less
98
than two seconds. Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed mixed-use project would
not have a significant traffic impact on area street system and no mitigation is required.
The Project is not projected to increase traffic or have an adverse impact on existing traffic
load and capacity of the access roads or the surrounding street system. The Project area
would be accessible from Wright Avenue and Marina Way south. All study intersections
are expected to operate at the same LOS with and without the project under current
conditions and 2030 cumulative conditions with added intersection delays less than five
seconds. Therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact on existing
traffic patterns and conditions.
b) The result of the traffic LOS analysis indicated that all study intersections currently
operate at LOS D or better for both a.m. and p.m. peak hours and would continue to
operate at the same service levels for the project condition scenario. Under 2030
cumulative conditions, the Harbour Way/Wright Avenue intersection is projected to operate
at capacity LOS E, but would remain at the same LOS E with the addition of the project
traffic. The intersection delay caused by the additional project traffic would be less than
two seconds. Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed project would have a less-thansignificant traffic impact on area street system and no mitigation is required.
c) The project would only generate vehicle traffic and there are no airport facilities nearby.
The Project would not 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. Therefore,
there would be no impact on air traffic from the Project.
d) The Project would not create any transportation hazards due to design features. Both
proposed driveways would have adequate sight distance and are expected to operate at
acceptable LOS C or better under project conditions and 2030 cumulative conditions. The
project also would reduce potential conflict points along Wright Avenue as it would
eliminate several truck access driveways to loading docks of the previous industrial
building and thereby improving traffic safety in the area. There would be no impact on
transportation hazards from the Project.
e) The project would have two access driveways, one on Marina Way South and one on
Wright Avenue and would provide adequate access for tenants and emergence vehicle
access. All access driveways would operate at LOS C or better under currently and 2030
conditions, and would have adequate sight distance. There would be no impact on
emergency access from the Project.
f) The project would not conflict with city policies supporting alternative transportation.
Although it is not required to mitigate a potentially significant impact, the City intends to
require installation of bicycle storage racks in the garages for residents, which would
encourage bicycle use, reduce traffic load on streets, reduce auto emissions, and improve
air quality. The proposed access driveways would not affect existing sidewalks other than
creating a curb-cut near the project site. There would be no impact on alternative
transportation from the Project.
99
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would
the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities; the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities; the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
a) The existing building is vacant and accounts for little (if any) sewage generation.
Wastewater from the project area is treated at the City’s wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP) on the Point Richmond Peninsula. Wastewater treatment facilities such as the
WWTP have a permit to discharge their wastewater. Pursuant to the federal Clean Water
Act and California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requires waste discharge requirements
(WDRs) for treatment plant discharges. Wastewater permits contain specific requirements
100
that limit the pollutants in discharges. As required by the RWQCB, the WWTP monitors its
wastewater to ensure that it meets all requirements. The RWQCB routinely inspects
treatment facilities to ensure permit requirements are met. Sewage from the proposed
project would be treated at the WWTP in accordance with their existing NPDES permit.
The sewage generated by the project would not exceed the wastewater treatment
requirements of the RWQCB. The project would have a less than significant impact on
wastewater treatment requirements.
b) Water service to the project site is provided by the East Bay Municipal Utilities District
(EBMUD). The existing building is vacant and accounts for little (if any) water use. Based
on single-family residential water use of 288 gallons per day for interior and exterior use
per household, it is estimated that 255 single-family attached residences would use
approximately 73,440 gallons of water per day, or 26.8 million gallons per year (EBMUD
2011). According to the Richmond General Plan EIR, water supply and infrastructure
would be adequate to serve future development out to 2040, including development
associated with the General Plan. The proposed project would be consistent with the
General Plan and would implement water conservation measures such as tankless water
heaters, low flow water fixtures, and drought tolerant landscaping. The project’s landscape
plans would comply with the California Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO,
California Government Code 65595). The project would require a connection to the
existing water line in Wright Avenue. The improvements for the water connection would
occur on-site and within existing right-of-way and are not anticipated to result in significant
environmental impacts. For these reasons, the proposed project would result in a lessthan-significant impact on water service and supply.
Sanitary sewer lines in the project area are maintained by the City of Richmond
Department of Engineering Services. There is an existing six-inch sewer line running
along the southern boundary of the project site between South 17th Street and Marina Way
South. The six-inch line connects to an 18-inch sewer pipe beneath Marina Way South,
which in turn connects to a 30-inch sewer main that runs along Wright Avenue (City of
Richmond 2006).
Wastewater from the project area is treated at the City’s wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP) on the Point Richmond Peninsula. The WWTP has a dry-weather treatment
capacity of 24 mgd and a wet-weather capacity as high as 40 mgd, depending on the type
of treatment. The average dry-weather flows are approximately seven mgd and wet
weather flows peak at 56 mgd, approximately 16 mgd above the WWTP capacity. Treated
effluent flows into the San Francisco Bay via a 72-inch outfall pipe approximately one mile
offshore of Point Richmond.
The City is currently working to address sanitary sewer system and WWTP deficiencies
through the implementation of a Sanitary Sewer Management Plan. The Sanitary Sewer
Management Plan identifies several key strategies to prevent Sanitary Sewer Overflow
from occurring due to inability of the plant’s headwork to treat excess wastewater during
storm events. The key projects identified include upsizing several miles of large diameter
pipes, installation of duckbill check valves and flap gates and the construction of
101
wastewater storage ponds which will act as a bypass for flow into the treatment plants
influent station by diverting excess flows to the holding ponds. During wet weather events
the planned storage ponds could hold up to 20 million gallons of wastewater thereby
preventing Sanitary Sewer Overflows from reaching the Bay through the designed Sanitary
Sewer Overflow structure (City of Richmond 2012). The 2014/2018 Capital Improvement
Program includes funding for the Wet Weather Storage Project that is scheduled for
completion in fall 2014.
The existing building is vacant and accounts for little (if any) sewage generation. The
project is estimated to generate 45,543 gpd of sewage.36 The Richmond Municipal Sewer
District’s WWTP that currently serves the project site experiences wet weather flows that
exceed its treatment capacity. The proposed project would generate less than 0.3 percent
of the total wet weather flows that exceed its treatment capacity. The project proposes the
use of low flow plumbing fixtures and tankless water heaters to reduce its wastewater
generation.
The General Plan Policy CF-1.4 requires new development to provide proportionate
facilities and infrastructure improvements as it occurs. The City of Richmond mitigates
utility impacts arising from incremental demand increases by imposing sewer service fees
to developers (City of Richmond 2011). The City currently levies a Public Facility Impact
Fee of $2,890 per single-family residential unit to offset the cost of sewer facilities (City of
Richmond 2011). The proposed project would connect to the existing sanitary sewer line
located in Marina Way South via an eight-inch lateral. However, the proposed project
could worsen the existing deficiencies in the sewer system and wastewater treatment plant
(Sanitary Sewer Overflow due to inability of the plant’s headwork to treat excess
wastewater during storm events). This is a potentially significant impact that would be
reduced to a less than significant level by implementation of the following mitigation
measure.
Mitigation Measure XVI-1: Sanitary Sewer Overflow. The applicant shall submit to
the City Engineering Department an engineering study that:
1) Evaluates and documents that there is sufficient capacity in the local
network of sewer lines to accommodate the effluent flow from the project.
2) Determines the effect of wet weather flows from the project on storage and
treatment capacity of the wastewater treatment plant, taking into account the
planned Wet Weather Storage Project.
3) Identifies, if necessary, method(s) to prevent the project from contributing
to increased Sanitary Sewer Overflow from the City's sewer system.
After review by the Engineering Department, the applicant shall, if requested, revise
the engineering study prior to granting of a building permit for the project.
36
Based on interior water usage of 178.6 gallons per day as identified in the EBMUD 2010 Urban Water
Management Plan (page 4-6). Available on the internet at: https://ebmud.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/UWMP2010-2011-07-21-web-small.pdf, accessed 30 May 2014.
102
The Richmond Municipal Sewer District’s WWTP would have adequate capacity to serve
the project pending completion of the Wet Weather Storage Project. The proposed project
would be required to pay sewer service fees to the City of Richmond, which would be used
to offset costs for the increased treatment demands resulting from the project. The
proposed project would have a less than significant impact on demand for water or
wastewater treatment.
c) The site’s stormwater drainage is discussed in detail in Items IX.a through IX.j
Hydrology and Water Quality. As described in that section, the project, therefore, would
not require the construction or expansion of off-site storm drainage improvements and this
impact would be less than significant.
d) See Item XVI.b, above.
e) See Items XVI.a and XVI.b, above.
f) The City of Richmond is part of the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management
Authority (WCCIWMA), now known as RecycleMore. Solid waste and recycling collection
services in the project area are provided by Richmond Sanitary Services, an affiliate of
Republic Services, Inc. Much of the garbage from the City is sent to the Potrero Hills
Landfill in Solano County via the Golden Bear Transfer Station. As needed, RecycleMore
also sends solid waste to landfills throughout the greater San Francisco Bay region
including Newby Island Sanitary Landfill in Milpitas and the Altamont Landfill in Livermore.
The Potrero Hills Landfill has a permitted capacity of 4,330 tons/day and a total permitted
capacity of 83.1 million cubic yards. The landfill has an estimated life of 34 years, after a
recently concluded approval process for an expansion. (Approval of the expansion was
the subject of litigation that was recently resolved in favor of the expansion.37)
According to the Richmond General Plan EIR, implementation of the General Plan would
produce 55,796 tons of solid waste in 2030, an increase of 12,662 tons over 2005 levels.
Using the General Plan solid waste generation rate of 0.42 tons of solid waste per resident
per year and an estimated on-site population of 729, the proposed project would generate
approximately 306 tons of waste per year (City of Richmond 2011). The proposed project
would be consistent with the General Plan and General Plan EIR, which found that the Bay
Area landfills have adequate capacity to meet the City’s increasing demand for solid waste
facilities, therefore, the proposed project would be served by a landfill with adequate
capacity.
Future projections of growth in solid waste disposal at Potrero Hills Landfill account for
future waste generated in the City of Richmond. Although solid waste generated by the
37
The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission granted a marsh permit for the
landfill in 2010 due to its proximity to the Suisan Marsh. A subsequent trial court order vacating the landfill’s
permit was reversed by the appeals court on April 29, 2014, allowing the expansion to proceed. See
SPRAWLDEF v. San Francisco Bay Conservation & Development Commission, Cal. Ct. App. 1st Dist.,
04/29/2014, available at: https://elr.info/litigation/44/20096/sprawldef-v-san-francisco-bay-conservationdevelopment-commn.
103
construction and operation of the proposed project would be relatively small in comparison
to the total quantities disposed, landfill disposal capacity is a diminishing resource that is
difficult and expensive to expand or develop at new sites, and project-generated waste
would contribute to the exhaustion of the capacity of the Potrero Hills Landfill and/or other
regional landfills. Furthermore, the City of Richmond, as are all jurisdictions in California,
is legally obligated to divert 50 percent of the waste stream from disposal. This would be a
potentially significant impact on landfill capacity, which would be reduced to a less than
significant level by implementation of the following mitigation measures.
Mitigation Measure XVI-2: Recycling Plan for Construction
Prior to the initiation of project construction, the project sponsor shall prepare a
recycling plan to cover all phases of project construction. The recycling plan shall
identify a strategy for handling all waste materials that will be generated during
construction, in order to divert a minimum of 50 percent by weight. The project
sponsor shall provide a summary report of the diversion to the City.
Mitigation Measure XVI-3: Recycling Spaces within Residences
The project sponsor shall provide space within each residential unit sufficient to
conveniently accommodate standard recycling containers for the collection and
storage of separated recyclable materials, including glass, paper, plastic,
tin/aluminum cans, and garden waste.
g) In compliance with State law, RecycleMore diverted more than 50 percent of solid waste
in 2006. In 2012, the RecycleMore population solid waste disposal rate was 3.4 pounds
per person per day (ppd), 2.0 ppd lower than the target set by CalRecycle (CalRecycle
2102). The project site is served by existing RecycleMore waste and recycling collection
services. The proposed project would be required to comply with all laws and regulations
pertaining to solid waste. Implementation of the mitigation measures XVI-2 and XVI-3,
above, would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
104
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) 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 self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) 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)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Discussion:
a) As described in section IV, Biological Resources, the project may adversely affect
nesting birds; however, that impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by
implementation of identified mitigation measures. No cultural resources have been
identified on the site. This Initial Study includes mitigation measures to reduce the impacts
to unidentified cultural resources to less than significant.
b) Cumulative impacts of the project and other planned, approved, or reasonably
foreseeable projects have been assessed in this Initial Study. In addition the proposed
project, Artisan Cove, 65 live/work units at 901 Marina Way South near the project site,
had been approved and partially constructed at the time this Initial Study was prepared.
Proposed projects include the Bottoms Property Residential Project, 60 condominiums and
stacked flats (carriage houses) on 25.27 acres south of Seacliff Estates in the Point
Richmond Neighborhood near Sandpiper Spit; and Phase II of Anchorage at Marina Way,
48 townhomes at 3400 Jetty Drive. Construction of these projects may result in
overlapping grading and construction traffic. Residents near the project may be exposed
from overlapping construction and traffic noise from the completion of the Artisan Cove,
105
Bottoms Property, and Anchorage at Marina Way developments. All three projects also
would increase demand on the City’s water and sewer systems. Mitigation measures
applied to each project would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. While
each of these projects would contribute incrementally to cumulative air pollutant emissions,
traffic, and noise, the project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to
these impacts. Therefore the project’s contribution to these cumulative impacts would be
c) The project would not involve the use or transport of substantial quantities of hazardous
materials, or create other potential health risks to the public. All potential impacts identified
in this Initial Study would be reduced to a less than significant level by mitigation
measures, also identified in this Initial Study.
106
E. REFERENCES
Publications
Alta Environmental, Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Findings
830 Marina Way South, Richmond, California 94804, April 17, 2014.
CalRecycle, Countywide, Regionwide, and Statewide Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal
Progress Report, 2012.
City of Richmond California, City Facts, Updated March 15, 2013.
City of Richmond, General Plan 2030, adopted April 25, 2012.
City of Richmond, City of Richmond General Plan Housing Element, adopted January
2013.
City of Richmond, Master Fee Schedule, 19 July 2011.
City of Richmond, Richmond General Plan 2030 Draft Environmental Impact Report,
February 2011.
City of Richmond, Richmond General Plan 2030 Final Environmental Impact Report,
August 2011.
City of Richmond, Sewer Network (Map), May 30, 2006.
City of Richmond, Sanitary Sewer Management Plan, February 2, 2012.
City of Richmond, Zoning Ordinance.
Clark, James R., Ph. D., Vice President, Hort Science, Letter report to Mr. Ken Riding, The
Riding Company, Subject: 830 Marina Way South, July 9, 2013.
Cornerstone Earth Group, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Preliminary Soil,
Soil Vapor and Ground Water Quality Evaluation Marina Way Residential Development,
830 Marina Way South, Richmond, CA, prepared for The Riding Corporation, November 7,
2012.
Cornerstone Earth Group, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Marina Way Residential
Development, 830 Marina Way South, Richmond, CA, prepared for The Riding
Corporation, November 15, 2012.
East Bay Municipal Utilities District, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, June 2011.
107
Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Letter Report Re: Cultural Resources
Inventory and Buried Site Assessment for the 830 Marina Way South Project, Richmond,
Contra Costa County, California to Will Burns, Principal Project Manager, David J. Powers
& Associates, Inc., August 13, 2013.
Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., Letter Report Re: Results of
Subsurface Geoarchaeological Explorations for the 830 Marina Way South Project,
Richmond, Contra Costa, California to Will Burns, Principal Project Manager, David J.
Powers & Associates, Inc., November 15, 2013.
Federal Emergency Management
06013C0240F, June 16, 2009.
Agency,
Flood
Insurance
Rate
Map,
Panel
Graves, Donna, Mapping Richmond’s World War II Home Front, July 2004.
HGHB, Architecture, Planning, Urban Design, et al, Knox Freeway/Cutting Boulevard
Corridor Specific Plan, 1991.
PHA Transportation Consultants, Seascape Residential Development Traffic Impact Study
For City of Richmond, September 2014.
State of California, Department of Conservation, Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency
Planning, Richmond Quadrangle/San Quentin Quadrangle, July 31, 2009.
State of California, Department of Finance. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties
and the State with Annual Percent Change — January 1, 2013 and 2014, May 2014.
U.S. Census Bureau. State & County QuickFacts – Richmond (city), California, last revised
May 16, 2014.
Persons Referenced
Mr. Matt Hamilton, Development Solutions Seascape, LLC.
108
F. REPORT PREPARERS
City of Richmond
Jonelyn Whales, Senior Planner
Grassetti Environmental Consulting, Inc.
Richard Grassetti, Principal
Michael Kent, Land Use Planner
Richard Denney, Graphics
Geoff Hornek, Air Quality and Noise Consultant
Mike Ratte, KB Environmental Sciences, Inc., Air Quality Consultant
Pang Ho, PHA Transportation Consultants, Transportation Consultant
109
Appendix A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (to be added to Final IS)
Appendix B: Air Quality
Appendix B-1
Air Quality Assumptions and Methodologies
Project Construction Activities
The Project would allow for the development of approximately 255 townhouse and live/ work
lofts at 830 Marina Way South in Richmond, California, on an approximate 10.0-acre site with a
total floor square footage of approximately 422,000 (including 30,000 square feet of common
area), with approximately 730 residents. The site is currently developed with a vacant industrial
warehouse that would be demolished as part of the project.
Construction activities are assumed to commence in 2015 with demolition of the existing
structure (243,000 square feet), grading and site improvements would occur during the second
half of 2015, and vertical construction would occur from the fall of 2015 through 2017; in phases
of two to three buildings at a time. Construction is expected five days per week and ten hours per
day.
Air quality assessment methodologies in this section generally conform to those identified by the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (dated
June 2010, updated in May 2011, and revised in May 2012). Construction emissions were
estimated using the CalEEMod (California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2013.2.2).
BAAQMD acknowledges CalEEMod as an appropriate tool for assessment of air quality impacts
relative to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This model was also used to
calculate the effectiveness of mitigation measures.
Project Operations
The CalEEMod was used to estimate emissions that would be associated with space heating,
water heating, and landscape maintenance emissions expected to occur due to the
implementation of the Project. Operational emissions associated with motor vehicles from
residence and deliveries were also estimated.
Cumulative Sources
As part of the health risk assessment, in addition to Project emissions, emissions were
determined for cumulative sources located near the Project. These sources include the Port of
Richmond and the rail yard to the south of the Project.
Port of Richmond Operations
In general, emissions were estimated using the activity and operational information described
within this appendix and emission factors, which are measures of emissions that express the
mass of emissions in terms of a unit of activity. For example, emission factors for marine vessels
are expressed in terms of grams of emissions (of a particular pollutant) per horsepower-hour.
Horsepower-hours are the product of in-use horsepower times hours of operation times a load
factor. Emissions are then calculated, by multiplying hours of operation per year (activity data)
by in-use horsepower (operational information) by a load factor and by an emission factor (such
as pounds per horsepower-hour) to provide an estimate of emissions in pounds of emissions per
day or tons of emissions per year.
1
Table AQ-1 provides the operational levels for the Port of Richmond marine vessel activities.
Figure AQ-1 presents the location of the marine vessel berths within the Port of Richmond.
TABLE AQ-1
PORT OF RICHMOND OPERATIONS
Berth
Description
Port of Calls
Vessel Type
6C
7
8
9
11
12
14
16
17
20
21
22
23
24
Longwharf
PPMT
PPMT
RCIP
Arco
Unitank
Unitank
Gypsum
Castrol
IMTT
Levin Terminal
Levin Terminal
Time/Shore/Kaneb
California Oils
Stevedoring
Chevron
75
75
73
38
49
5
6
11
64
6
46
72
12
19
548
Auto Carrier
Auto Carrier
Tanker
Tanker
Tanker
Tanker
Bulk Carrier
Tanker
Tanker
Bulk Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Tanker
Tanker
Tanker
Tanker
SOURCE: Marine Exchange of the San Francisco Bay Region, 2013. Golden Gate Ports
Handbook, 2014.
Marine Vessels
For marine vessels, emission factors were developed by review of the literature and information
specific to the Port of Richmond.1 Emissions were calculated by multiplying the emission factors
by vessel-specific activity parameters such as in-use horsepower and hours of operation.
Calculations were made to adequately characterize the complex activities of marine vessels (e.g.,
separate calculations were made for vessel transit, maneuvering, and hotelling activities for
propulsion engines, auxiliary engines, and auxiliary boilers).
In developing an activity-based emissions inventory for marine vessels, emissions are estimated
as a function of vessel power demand (expressed in kilowatt-hours) multiplied by an emission
factor, where the emission factor is expressed in terms of grams per kilowatt-hour (g/kW-hr).
The emission factor is dependent on the fuel used; an average sulfur content of 0.3 percent
(residual oil) was assumed. Main engine emission factors (Table AQ-2) were then applied to the
various activity data (Table AQ-3). A main engine of 10,700 kilowatts (kW), 8,000 kW, and
9,400 kW (Tanker) for auto carrier, bulk carrier, and tankers were used.
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Current Methodologies in Preparing Mobile Source Port-Related
Emission Inventories. April 2009. http://epa.gov/cleandiesel/documents/ports-emission-inv-april09.pdf
2
TABLE AQ-2
AUTO CARRIER EMISSION FACTORS FOR MAIN ENGINE
Pollutant
Cruise
Emission Factor
(g/kW-hr)
Slow Cruise
Emission Factor
(g/kW-hr)
Maneuvering
Emission Factor
(g/kW-hr)
PM10
0.25
0.25
0.25
PM2.5
0.23
0.23
0.23
SOURCE: Current Methodologies in Preparing Mobile Source Port-Related Emission
Inventories, April 2009.
TABLE AQ-3
OPERATIONAL ASSUMPTIONS FOR MAIN ENGINE
Marine Vessel
Parameters
Cruise
Slow Cruise
Maneuvering
Auto Carrier
Load Factor
0.8
0.3
0.15
Bulk Carrier
Tanker
Hours per Operation
3
1
1
Load Factor
0.8
0.4
0.2
Hours per Operation
3
1
1
Load Factor
0.8
0.4
0.2
Hours per Operation
3
1
1
SOURCE: Current Methodologies in Preparing Mobile Source Port-Related Emission Inventories, April 2009.
Vessels typically never use the total auxiliary engine installed power when at sea, during
hotelling, and during maneuvering. This is due to the design of the auxiliary system and the need
for some level of redundancy in case of equipment failures. For each mode and vessel type, a
different number of engines may be used and at varying loads depending on several factors, such
as temperature. Hotelling load is primarily what is needed to meet the power needs of the lights,
heating/ventilation/air conditioning (HVAC) systems, communications, computers, ship cranes,
pumps, reefer load, and various other power demands while the vessel is at dock. Maneuvering is
generally the highest auxiliary load mode as the bow thrusters need to be available and used in
spurts. The fairway or open sea is generally where the lowest auxiliary loads are found as
additional auxiliary power is not required for maneuvering and many vessels have shaft
generators and exhaust turbine generators that help provide power to the ship in an effort to
reduce operating costs through lower fuel consumption.
Auxiliary engine emission factors (Table AQ-4) were then applied to the various activity data
(Table AQ-5). Auxiliary engines (total of three) of 983 kW, 612, and 735 kW for auto carrier,
bulk carrier, and tankers, respectively, were used. Three engines are operational within the sea
load and maneuvering load, while one engine is operational during the hotelling period. The
emission factor is dependent on the fuel used; an average sulfur content of 0.3 percent was
assumed.
3
TABLE AQ-4
EMISSION FACTORS FOR AUXILARY ENGINES
Pollutant
Sea Load
Emission Factor
(g/kW-hr)
Maneuvering
Emission Factor
(g/kW-hr)
Hotelling
Emission Factor
(g/kW-hr)
PM10
0.25
0.25
0.25
PM2.5
0.23
0.23
0.23
SOURCE: Current Methodologies in Preparing Mobile Source Port-Related Emission
Inventories, April 2009.
TABLE AQ-5
OPERATIONAL ASSUMPTIONS FOR AUXILARY ENGINES
Marine Vessel
Parameters
Sea Load
Maneuvering
Hotelling
Auto Carrier
Load Factor
0.15
0.45
0.26
Bulk Carrier
Tanker
Hours per Operation
3
1
19.6
Load Factor
0.17
0.45
0.10
Hours per Operation
3
1
71.1
Load Factor
0.24
0.33
0.26
Hours per Operation
3
1
34.9
SOURCE: Current Methodologies in Preparing Mobile Source Port-Related Emission Inventories, April 2009.
Analysis of Commercial Marine Vessels Emissions and Fuel Consumption Data, February 2000. Emissions
Estimation Methodology for Ocean-Going Vessels, May 2008.
In addition to the auxiliary engines that are used to generate electricity for on-board uses, most
marine vessels have one or more boilers used for fuel heating and for producing hot water.
Boilers are typically not used during transit at sea since vessels are equipped with an exhaust gas
recovery system or “economizer” that uses exhaust for heating purposes and therefore the boilers
are not needed when the main engines are used. Boilers are used at reduced speeds, during
maneuvering and when the vessel is at Port and the main engines are shut down.
Auxiliary boiler emission factors (Table AQ-6) were then applied to the various activity data
(Table AQ-7). A usage rate of 0.113 tons of fuel per hour was assumed for the auxiliary boiler.
TABLE AQ-6
EMISSION FACTORS FOR AUXILARY BOILER
Pollutant
Emission Factor
(lb/ton fuel)
PM10
0.25
PM2.5
0.23
SOURCE: Current Methodologies in Preparing
Mobile Source Port-Related Emission Inventories,
April 2009.
4
FIGURE AQ-1 PORT OF RICHMOND BERTH LOCATIONS
5
TABLE AQ-7
OPERATIONAL ASSUMPTIONS FOR AUXILARY BOILERS
Marine Vessel
Parameters
Maneuvering
Hotelling
Auto Carrier
Load Factor
0.45
0.26
Hours per Operation
1
19.6
Load Factor
0.45
0.26
Hours per Operation
1
71.1
Load Factor
0.45
0.26
Hours per Operation
1
34.9
Bulk Carrier
Tanker
SOURCE: Current Methodologies in Preparing Mobile Source Port-Related Emission Inventories,
April 2009.
Tugboats
Emission factors were developed for tugboat engines by review of the literature and information
specific to the Port of Richmond. Emissions were calculated by multiplying the emission factors
by the appropriate measure of activity (such as annual hours of operation). 2
Tugboats are used to propel auto carrier marine vessels to and from the berth. Emissions are
based on an average tugboat engine size of 1,493 kW and a load factor of 31 percent.3 Two tugs
are assumed to operate for each marine vessel at one hour each to maneuver it into the berth. The
emission factor is dependent on the fuel used; an average sulfur content of 1.5 percent (marine
diesel oil) was assumed. Tugboat emission factors (Table AQ-8) were then applied to the
various activity data.
TABLE AQ-8
EMISSION FACTORS FOR TUGBOATS
Pollutant
Emission Factor
(g/kW-hr)
PM10
0.32
PM2.5
0.32
SOURCE: Current Methodologies in Preparing Mobile
Source Port-Related Emission Inventories, April 2009.
Locomotives
Railroad operations are typically described in terms of two different types of operation, line haul
and switching. Line haul operations involve long-distance transportation between the Port and
points across the country whereas switching is the local movement of railcars to prepare them for
line haul transportation or to distribute them to destination terminals upon their arrival.
2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Current Methodologies in Preparing Mobile Source Port-Related
Emission Inventories. April 2009. http://epa.gov/cleandiesel/documents/ports-emission-inv-april09.pdf
3 Detroit Diesel specification 4000 Series,
http://extranet.detroitdiesel.com/public/specs/4SA419ev0310.pdf.
6
The types of information available for these two types of activity differs – for the on-port
switching locomotives, information on each locomotive and its activity (e.g., fuel use and throttle
notch setting frequency) can be used to estimate emissions, whereas for the line haul locomotives
the information is more general (e.g., in terms of fuel use per ton of cargo and total tons of cargo
carried). Published emissions information for switch and line haul locomotive operations in both
throttle notch and fuel consumption modes along with facility operational data was used to
estimate emissions. 4
Locomotives operate differently from other types of mobile sources with respect to how they
transmit power from engine to wheels. While most mobile sources use a physical coupling such
as a transmission to transfer power from the engine to the wheels, a locomotive’s engine turns a
generator or alternator powering an electric motor that, in turn, powers the locomotive’s wheels.
The physical connection of a typical mobile source means that the engine’s speed is dictated by
the vehicle’s speed through a fixed set of gear ratios, resulting in the highly transient operating
conditions (particularly engine speed and load) that characterize mobile source operations.
In contrast, the locomotive’s engine and drive system operate more independently, such that the
engine can be operated at a particular speed without respect to the speed of the locomotive itself.
This allows operation under more steady-state load and speed conditions, and as a result
locomotives have been designed to operate in a series of discrete throttle settings called notches,
ranging from notch positions one through eight, plus an idle position.
Many locomotives also have a feature known as dynamic braking, in which the electric drive
engine operates as a generator to help slow the locomotive, with the resistance-generated power
being dissipated as heat. While the engine is not generating motive power under dynamic
braking, it is generating power to run cooling fans, so this operating condition is somewhat
different from idling. Switch engines typically do not feature dynamic braking.
Locomotive switching activities consist of:

Breaking up inbound trains and sorting railcars into contiguous fragments, and delivering
the fragments to terminals.

Delivering empty container flat cars to terminals.

Delivering rail cars to non-container facilities, and removing previously delivered rail cars.

Rearranging full and empty railcars to facilitate loading by a terminal.

Picking up outbound containers in less than full train configuration and transporting them
to a yard for assembly into full trains – to be transported out of the facility by one of the
line haul railroads.
Line haul locomotives are typically operated in groups of two to five units, with three or four
units being most common, depending on the power requirements of the specific train being
pulled and the horsepower capacities of available locomotives. Thus, two higher-horsepower
locomotives may be able to pull a train that would take three units with lower power outputs.
4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Factors for Locomotives. April 2009.
http://www.epa.gov/nonroad/locomotv/420f09025.pdf
7
Locomotives operated in sets are connected such that every engine in the set is operated in
unison by an engineer in one of the locomotives. Two line haul engines were assumed to operate
simultaneously.
Emission estimates were estimated for two rail yards: the Port of Richmond PPMT and the
BNSF facility to the south of the Project. For locomotives, emissions were estimated as a
function of power demand (expressed in horsepower-hours) multiplied by an emission factor
(shown in Table AQ-9), expressed in terms of grams per horsepower-hour (g/hp-hr), and then
applied to the various activity data (Table AQ-10).
TABLE AQ-9
EMISSION FACTORS FOR LOCOMOTIVES
Pollutant
Switch Emission
Factor
(g/hp-hr)
Haul Emission
Factor
(g/hp-hr)
PM10
0.19
0.18
PM2.5
0.18
0.17
SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Emission Factors
for Locomotives, April 2009.
TABLE AQ-10
OPERATIONAL ASSUMPTIONS FOR LOCOMOTIVES
Facility
Parameters
Line Haul
Switching
Port of Richmond
Load Factor
0.20
0.25
Horsepower
3,200
2,000
Number per day
1
2
BNSF
Load Factor
0.20
0.25
Horsepower
4,400
2,500
Number per day
5
14
SOURCE: Honda Port of Entry at the Point Potrero Marine Terminal, Final Environmental Impact
Report. September 2008. David J. Powers and Associates, 830 Marina Way South Residential
Project, September 2013. Detroit Diesel specification 4000 Series.
8
Appendix B-2
Health Risk Assessment Assumptions and Methodologies
A health risk assessment (HRA) is accomplished in four steps: 1) hazards identification, 2)
exposure assessment, 3) toxicity assessment, and 4) risk characterization. These steps cover the
estimation of air emissions, the estimation of the air concentrations resulting from a dispersion
analysis, the incorporation of the toxicity of the pollutants emitted, and the characterization of
the risk based on exposure parameters such as breathing rate, age adjustment factors, and
exposure duration; each depending on receptor type.
This HRA was conducted in accordance with technical guidelines developed by federal, state,
and regional agencies, including U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), California
Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), California Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment (OEHHA) Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance1, and the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) Health Risk Screening Analysis Guidelines.2
According to CalEPA, a HRA should not be interpreted as the expected rates of cancer or other
potential human health effects, but rather as estimates of potential risk or likelihood of adverse
effects based on current knowledge, under a number of highly conservative assumptions and the
best assessment tools currently available.
TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
As the practice of conducting a HRA is particularly complex and involves concepts that are not
altogether familiar to most people, several terms and definitions are provided that are considered
essential to the understanding of the approach, methodology and results:
Acute effect – a health effect (non-cancer) produced within a short period of time (few
minutes to several days) following an exposure to Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs).
Cancer risk – the probability of an individual contracting cancer from a lifetime (i.e., 70
year) exposure to TAC in the ambient air.
Chronic effect – a health effect (non-cancer) produced from a continuous exposure
occurring over an extended period of time (weeks, months, years).
Hazard Index (HI) – the unitless ratio of an exposure level over the acceptable reference
dose (RfC). The HI can be applied to multiple compounds in an additive manner.
Hazard Quotient (HQ) – the unitless ratio of an exposure level over the acceptable
reference dose (RfC). The HQ is applied to individual compounds.
1 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), 2003. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program
Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments,
http://www.oehha.org/air/hot_spots/pdf/HRAguidefinal.pdf.
2 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2005. BAAQMD Health Risk Screening Analysis
Guidelines, http://www.baaqmd.gov/pmt/air_toxics/risk_procedures_policies/hrsa_guidelines.pdf.
1
Toxic air contaminants (TAC) – any air pollutant that is capable of causing short-term
(acute) and/or long-term (chronic or carcinogenic, i.e., cancer causing) adverse human
health effects (i.e., injury or illness). The current California list of TAC lists
approximately 200 compounds, including particulate emissions from diesel-fueled
engines.
Human Health Effects - comprise disorders such as eye watering, respiratory or heart
ailments, and other (i.e., non-cancer) related diseases.
Health Risk Assessment (HRA) – an analysis designed to predict the generation and
dispersion of TAC in the outdoor environment, evaluate the potential for exposure of
human populations, and to assess and quantify both the individual and population-wide
health risks associated with those levels of exposure.
Incremental – under CEQA, the net difference (or change) in conditions or impacts when
comparing the baseline to future year project conditions.
Maximum exposed individual (MEI) – an individual assumed to be located at the point
where the highest concentrations of TACs, and therefore, health risks are predicted to
occur.
Non-cancer risks – health risks such as eye watering, respiratory or heart ailments, and
other non-cancer related diseases.
Receptors – the locations where potential health impacts or risks are predicted (i.e.,
schools, residences, and recreational sites).
LIMITATIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES
There are a number of important limitations and uncertainties commonly associated with a HRA
due to the wide variability of human exposures to TACs, the extended timeframes over which the
exposures are evaluated and the inability to verify the results. Among these challenges are the
following:

The HRA exposure estimates do not take into account that people do not usually reside at
the same location for 70 years and that other exposures (i.e., school children) are also of
much shorter durations than was assumed in this analysis. Therefore, the results of the
HRA are highly overstated for those cases.

Other limitations and uncertainties associated with HRA and identified by the CalEPA
include: (a.) lack of reliable monitoring data; (b.) extrapolation of toxicity data in animals
to humans; (c.) estimation errors in calculating TACs emissions; (d.) concentration
prediction errors with dispersion models; and (e.) the variability in lifestyles, fitness and
other confounding factors of the human population.
HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION
Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of numerous individual gaseous and particulate compounds
emitted from diesel-fueled combustion engines. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is formed
2
primarily through the incomplete combustion of diesel fuel. DPM is removed from the
atmosphere through physical processes including atmospheric fall-out and washout by rain.
Humans can be exposed to airborne DPM by deposition on water, soil, and vegetation; although
the main pathway of exposure is inhalation.
In August 1998, the California Air Resource Board (CARB) identified DPM as a TAC. The
CARB developed the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from DieselFueled Engines and Vehicles and Risk Management Guidance for the Permitting of New
Stationary Diesel-Fueled Engines and approved these documents on September 28, 2000.34 The
documents represent proposals to reduce DPM emissions, with the goal of reducing emissions
and the associated health risk by 75 percent in 2010 and by 85 percent in 2020. The program
aimed to require the use of state-of-the-art catalyzed DPM filters and ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel.
In 2001, CARB assessed the state-wide health risks from exposure to diesel exhaust and to other
toxic air contaminants. It is difficult to distinguish the health risks of diesel emissions from those
of other air toxics, since diesel exhaust contains approximately 40 different TACs. The CARB
study detected diesel exhaust by using ambient air carbon soot measurements as a surrogate for
diesel emissions. The study reported that the state-wide cancer risk from exposure to diesel
exhaust was about 540 per million population as compared to a total risk for exposure to all
ambient air toxics of 760 per million. This estimate, which accounts for about 70 percent of the
total risk from TACs, included both urban and rural areas in the state. The estimate can also be
considered an average worst-case for the state, since it assumes constant exposure to outdoor
concentrations of diesel exhaust and does not account for expected lower concentrations indoors,
where most of time is spent.
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
Dispersion is the process by which atmospheric pollutants disseminate due to wind and vertical
stability. The results of a dispersion analysis are used to assess pollutant concentrations at or near
an emission source. The results of an analysis allow predicted concentrations of pollutants to be
compared directly to air quality standards and other criteria such as health risks based on
modeled concentrations.
Dispersion Modeling Approach
This section presents the methodology used for the dispersion modeling analysis. This section
addresses all of the fundamental components of an air dispersion modeling analysis including:

Model selection and options

Receptor locations

Meteorological data

Source release characteristics
3 California Air Resources Board. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from
Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October 2000. http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpfinal.pdf
4 California Air Resources Board. Risk Management Guidance for the Permitting of New Stationary
Diesel-Fueled Engines. October 2000. http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rmgfinal.pdf
3
Air dispersion modeling was performed to estimate the downwind dispersion of DPM exhaust
emissions resulting from hotelling, transit, and maneuvering of marine vessels and harbor craft
(tugboats) associated with the Port of Richmond and the rail operations. A description of the air
quality modeling parameters, including air dispersion model selection, modeling domain, source
exhaust parameters, meteorological data selection, and receptor network, is provided.
The methodology for this analysis followed guidance and procedures within CARB’s Diesel
Particulate Matter Exposure Assessment Study for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach
while accounting for site-specific data.5
Model Selection and Options
AERMOD (Version 14134)6 was used for the dispersion analysis. AERMOD is the USEPA
preferred atmospheric dispersion modeling system for general industrial sources. The model can
simulate point, area, volume, and line sources. AERMOD is the appropriate model for this
analysis based on the coverage of simple, intermediate, and complex terrain. It also predicts both
short-term and long-term (annual) average concentrations. The model was executed using the
regulatory default options (stack-tip downwash, buoyancy-induced dispersion, and final plume
rise), default wind speed profile categories, default potential temperature gradients, and assuming
no pollutant decay.
The selection of the appropriate dispersion coefficients depends on the land use within three
kilometers (km) of the Project site. The types of land use were based on the classification method
defined by Auer (1978); using pertinent United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1:24,000 scale
(7.5 minute) topographic maps of the area. If the Auer land use types of heavy industrial, lightto-moderate industrial, commercial, and compact residential account for 50 percent or more of
the total area, the USEPA Guideline on Air Quality Models recommends using urban dispersion
coefficients; otherwise, the appropriate rural coefficients can be used. Based on observation of
the area surrounding the Project site, rural (urban is only designated within dense city centers
such as San Francisco) dispersion coefficients were applied in the analysis.
Receptor Locations
Some receptors are considered more sensitive to air pollutants than others, because of preexisting
health problems, proximity to the emissions source, or duration of exposure to air pollutants.
Land uses such as primary and secondary schools, hospitals, and convalescent homes are
considered to be relatively sensitive to poor air quality because the very young, the old, and the
infirm are more susceptible to respiratory infections and other air quality-related health problems
than the general public. Residential areas are also considered sensitive to poor air quality because
people in residential areas are often at home for extended periods. Recreational land uses are
moderately sensitive to air pollution because vigorous exercise associated with recreation places
have a high demand on respiratory system function.
5 California Air Resource Board. Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure Assessment Study for the Ports of
Los Angeles and Long Beach. April 2006.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/ports/marinevess/documents/portstudy0406.pdf
6 USEPA, AERMOD Modeling System, http://www.epa.gov/scram001/dispersion_prefrec.htm.
4
Sensitive receptors such as residences, schools, and outdoor recreational areas near the Project
were chosen as the receptors to be analyzed. Receptors were placed at a height of 1.8 meters
(typical breathing height).
The adjacent properties are commercial land uses to the west and east, and a mix of commercial
and residential land uses to the north and south. The nearest residential land uses are within 125
feet to the southwest (Artisan Cove), 350 feet to the north across from Interstate 580 (I-580), and
980 feet to the south. No schools are located within 1,000 feet of the project site. Marina Way
South is located to the west of the project site and I-580 is located to the north within 200 feet.
Terrain elevations for receptor locations were used (i.e., complex terrain) based on available
USGS information for the area. Figure AQ-2 displays the location of the receptors used in the
HRA. Sensitive receptors were also placed at the Project to estimate health impacts on new
residences/workers from existing sources such as the rail yard and the Port of Richmond.
5
FIGURE AQ-2
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT RECEPTORS
6
Meteorological Data
Air quality is a function of both the rate and location of pollutant emissions under the influence
of meteorological conditions and topographic features affecting pollutant movement and
dispersal. Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, atmospheric stability, and
air temperature gradients interact with the physical features of the landscape to determine the
movement and dispersal of air pollutants, and consequently affect air quality.
Hourly meteorological data from BAAQMD’s University of California at Richmond station
(surface data), located approximately two miles to the east of the Project, and Oakland
International Airport (upper air) were used in the dispersion modeling analysis. Meteorological
data from 2004 through 2006, 2008, and 2009 were used. Figure AQ-3 displays the wind rose
during this period. Wind directions are predominately from the south and there is a high
frequency of calm and low wind conditions.
FIGURE AQ-3
WINDROSE FOR UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT RICHMOND
7
Source Release Characteristics
Construction equipment activities were treated as an area source. The release height of the offroad equipment exhaust was 3.05 meters. Haul trucks and employee trips were treated as a line
source (i.e., volume sources placed at regular intervals) located along the access road. The haul
trucks were assigned a release height of 3.05 meters and an initial vertical dimension of 4.15
meters, which accounts for dispersion from the movement of vehicles. Terrain elevations for
emission source locations were used (i.e., complex terrain) based on available USGS DEM for
the area. AERMAP (Version 11103)7 was used to develop the terrain elevations, although the
Project site is generally flat.
Model parameters for area sources include emission rate, release height, lengths of x and y sides
of a polygonal area, and initial vertical dimensions of the plume. Locomotive switch/line haul
areas are simulated as areas sources with a release height of 4 and 5 meters, respectively, and an
initial vertical dimension of 1.86 and 2.33 meters, respectively. Marine vessels and harbor craft
(tugboats) in open waters are simulated as line sources with a release height of 50 and 6 meters,
respectively, and an initial vertical dimension of 23.3 and 2.79 meters, respectively. The line
sources were simulated with a width of 60 meters within the maneuvering and slow cruise
conditions.
Model parameters for marine vessel during hotelling conditions include stack height, stack
diameter, stack exhaust temperature, and stack exhaust exit velocity which are included in Table
AQ-11.
TABLE AQ-11
MARINE VESSELS HOTELLING EXHAUST RELEASE CHARACTERISTICS
Stack
Height (m)
Stack
Diameter (m)
Exhaust
Temperature (K)
Exit Velocity
(m/s)
43
0.5
618
16
SOURCE: CARB’s Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure Assessment
Study for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, April 2006.
Temporal factors (Table AQ-12) are used to describe the relationship of activity levels in one
period of time to another period of time (i.e., the relationship of the activity during one-hour to
the activity during a 24-hour period). The use of temporal factors gives the model the ability to
more accurately reflect real world conditions.
7 USEPA, AERMAP, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/dispersion_related.htm#aermap.
8
TABLE AQ-12
EMISSION SOURCE TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION
Source
Period
Activity Distribution
Hours per Day
Marine Vessel
Manuvering
4 am – 8 pm
8 pm – 4 am
80%
20%
16
8
Hotelling
midnight-midnight
100%
24
Harbor Craft
6 am – 6 pm
6 pm – 6 am
80%
20%
12
12
6 am – 6 pm
80%
12
6 pm – 6 am
20%
12
SOURCE: CARB’s Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure Assessment Study for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach,
April 2006.
Rail
Dispersion Modeling Results
Using AERMOD, the maximum annual and 70-year average annual concentrations were
determined for DPM emissions for the emission sources of concern. These concentrations were
estimated for a unit emission rate (1 gram per second) and adjusted based on the calculated
emission rate.
The HRA was conducted following methodologies in BAAQMD’s Health Risk Screening
Analysis Guidelines8 and OEHHA’s Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance9. This was
accomplished by applying the highest estimated concentrations at the receptors analyzed to the
established cancer risk estimates and acceptable reference concentrations (RfC) for non-cancer
health effects.
The toxicity values used in this analysis were based on OEHHA guidance. These toxicity values
are for carcinogenic effects and acute/chronic health impacts. The primary pathway for
exposures was assumed to be inhalation and carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects were
evaluated separately. The incremental risks were determined for each emission source of TAC
and summed to obtain an estimated total incremental carcinogenic health risk.
The 80th percentile adult breathing rate of 302 liters per kilogram per day (L/kg-day) was used to
determine cancer risks to residents from exposure to TAC. The residential exposure frequency
and duration was assumed to be 350 days per year and 70 years. For children, OEHHA
recommends assuming a breathing rate of 581 L/kg-day to assess potential risk via the inhalation
exposure pathway. This value represents the upper 95th percentile of daily breathing rates for
children. The modeled TAC concentrations were used to represent the exposure concentrations
in the air. The inhalation absorption factor was assumed to be 1.
Cancer risk estimates also incorporate age sensitivity factors (ASFs). This approach provides
updated calculation procedures that factor in the increased susceptibility of infants and children
8 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2005. BAAQMD Health Risk Screening Analysis
Guidelines, June 2005,
http://www.baaqmd.gov/pmt/air_toxics/risk_procedures_policies/hrsa_guidelines.pdf).
9 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), 2003. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program
Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments,
http://www.oehha.org/air/hot_spots/pdf/HRAguidefinal.pdf.
9
to carcinogens as compared to adults. OEHHA recommends that cancer risks be weighted by a
factor of 10 for exposures that occur from the third trimester of pregnancy to 2 years of age, and
by a factor of 3 for exposures from 2 years through 15 years of age. For estimating cancer risks
for residential receptors over a 70 year lifetime, the incorporation of the ASFs results in a cancer
risk adjustment factor (CRAF) of 1.7.
For occupational receptors, BAAQMD guidance suggests that the exposure be based on 8 hours
per day, 5 days per week, 245 working days per year, and a 40-year working lifetime. This is a
conservative assumption, since most people do not remain at the same job for 40 years.
Based on OEHHA recommendations (see Table AQ-13), the cancer risk to residential receptors
assumes exposure occurs 24 hours per day for 350 days per year. For children at school sites,
exposure is assumed to occur 10 hours per day for 180 days (or 36 weeks) per year. Cancer risk
to residential receptors based on a 70-year lifetime exposure. Cancer risk estimates for children
at school sites are calculated based on 9 year exposure duration.
TABLE AQ-13
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT EXPOSURE PARAMETERS
Receptor
Breathing Rate
(DBR)
Cancer Risk
Adjustment
Factor (CRAF)
Daily Exposure
Annual
Exposure
Exposure
Duration (ED)
Adult
302
1.7
24 hours
350 days
70 years
Child
581
10
24 hours
350 days
3 years
School
581
3
10 hours
180 days
SOURCE: BAAQMD Health Risk Screening Analysis Guidelines, June 2005,
http://www.baaqmd.gov/pmt/air_toxics/risk_procedures_policies/hrsa_guidelines.pdf.
9 years
RISK CHARACTERIZATION
Cancer risk is defined as the lifetime probability of developing cancer from exposure to
carcinogenic substances. Cancer risks are expressed as the chance in one million of getting
cancer (i.e., number of cancer cases among one million people exposed). The cancer risks are
assumed to occur exclusively through the inhalation pathway. The cancer risk can be estimated
by using the cancer potency factor (milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day [mg/kgday]), the 70-year annual average concentration (microgram per cubic meter [µg/m3]), and the
lifetime exposure adjustment.
Following guidelines established by OEHHA, the incremental cancer risks attributable to the
Project were calculated by applying exposure parameters to modeled TAC concentrations in
order to determine the inhalation dose (mg/kg-day) or the amount of pollutants inhaled per body
weight mass per day. The cancer risks occur exclusively through the inhalation pathway;
therefore, the cancer risks can be estimated from the following equation:
Dose-inh
= Cair * {DBR} * A * CRAF * EF * ED * 10-6
AT
Dose-inh
= Dose of the toxic substance through inhalation in mg/kg-day
Where:
10
10-6
Cair
{DBR}
A
CRAF
EF
ED
AT
= Micrograms to milligrams conversion, Liters to cubic meters conversion
= Concentration in air in microgram (μg)/cubic meter (m3)
= Daily breathing rate in liter (L)/kg body weight – day
= Inhalation absorption factor
= Cancer Risk Adjustment Factor, Age Sensitivity Factor
= Exposure frequency (days/year)
= Exposure duration (years)
= Averaging time period over which exposure is averaged in days (25,550
days for a 70 year cancer risk)
To determine incremental cancer risk, the estimated inhalation dose attributed to the Project was
multiplied by the cancer potency slope factor (cancer risk per mg/kg-day). The cancer potency
slope factor is the upper bound on the increased cancer risk from a lifetime exposure to a
pollutant. These slope factors are based on epidemiological studies and are different values for
different pollutants. This allows the estimated inhalation dose to be equated to a cancer risk.
Non-cancer adverse health impacts, acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term), are measured
against a hazard index (HI), which is defined as the ratio of the predicted incremental exposure
concentration from the Project to a published reference exposure level (REL) that could cause
adverse health effects as established by OEHHA. The ratio (referred to as the Hazard Quotient
[HQ]) of each non-carcinogenic substance that affects a certain organ system is added to produce
an overall HI for that organ system. The overall HI is calculated for each organ system. If the
overall HI for the highest-impacted organ system is greater than one, then the impact is
considered to be significant.
The HI is an expression used for the potential for non-cancer health effects. The relationship for
the non-cancer health effects is given by the annual concentration (in µg/m3) and the REL (in
µg/m3). The acute hazard index was determined using the “simple” concurrent maximum
approach, which tends to be conservative (i.e., overpredicts).
The relationship for the non-cancer health effects is given by the following equation:
HI = C/REL
Where:
HI
C
REL
= Hazard index; an expression of the potential for non-cancer health effects.
= Annual average concentration (g/m3) during the 70 year exposure period.
= Concentration at which no adverse health effects are anticipated.
The chronic REL for DPM was established by the California OEHHA10 as 5 g/m3. There is no
acute REL for DPM. However, diesel exhaust does contain acrolein and other compounds, which
do have an acute REL. BAAQMD’s DPM speciation table (based on profile 4674 within the
USEPA Speciate 4.2)11 was used to assess the acute impacts. Acrolein emissions are
10
California Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment Toxicity Criteria Database, 2010,
11
Provides for a speciation faction of 1.3 percent of acrolein per DPM emission rate, http://www.epa.gov///
/.html.
11
approximately 1.3 percent of the total emissions. The acute REL for acrolein was established by
the California OEHHA12 as 2.5 g/m3.
CUMULATIVE SOURCES
The BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines include standards and methods for determining
the significance of cumulative health risk impacts.13 The method for determining cumulative
health risk requires the tallying of health risk from permitted sources and major roadways in the
vicinity of a project (i.e., within a 1,000-foot radius of the location of the Project’s maximum
impact area), then adding the Project impacts to determine whether the cumulative health risk
thresholds are exceeded.
BAAQMD has developed a geo-referenced database of permitted emissions sources throughout
the San Francisco Bay Area, and has developed the Stationary Source Risk & Hazard Analysis
Tool for estimating cumulative health risks from permitted sources. Three permitted sources are
located within 1,000 feet of the Project impact area. Table AQ-14 provides the estimated
screening cancer risk, hazard impacts, and the PM2.5 concentrations for the cumulative permitted
source.
TABLE AQ-14
CUMULATIVE HEALTH IMPACTS – PERMITTED SOURCES
Adjustment Factors and Screening Data
Facility #
Facility Type
Address
Adjustment
Factor
Cancer Risk
Hazard Impact
PM2.5
Concentration
914 Marina Way South
0.5
26.57
0.01
0.01
15465
Kaiser Permanente
19764
SunPrint
870 Harbour Blvd
1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
13132
Dicon Fiberoptics
1689 Regatta Blvd
0.05
9.32
<0.01
0.01
Information (cancer risks and chronic index) was adjusted for distance from source to receptor,
based on BAAQMD’s Distance Adjustment Multiplier for Diesel Internal Combustion Engine
and the Distance Adjustment Multiplier for Gasoline Dispensing Facilities.
BAAQMD has also developed a geo-referenced database of roadways throughout the San
Francisco Bay Area and has developed the Highway Screening Analysis Tool for estimating
cumulative health risks from roadways. I-580 is located 200 feet to the north of the project site
(new residences). I-580 is located 150 feet to the south of the Project construction maximum
impact (existing residences). Tables AQ-15 and AQ-16 display the health impacts from I-580 in
association with the new residences and existing residences, respectively. BAAQMD CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines also require the inclusion of surface streets within 1,000 feet of the Project
12 California Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment Toxicity Criteria Database, 2010,
13 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. May 2012.
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/BAAQMD%20CEQA%20Gu
idelines_Final_May%202012.ashx?la=en
12
with annual average daily traffic (AADT) of 10,000 or greater.14 Upon review of nearby
roadways, Marina Way South meets the criteria.
TABLE AQ-15
I-580 HEALTH IMPACTS – INDIVIDUAL PROJECT/EXISTING RECEPTOR
Distance from
Nearest Travel Lane (feet)
Cancer
Risk
Acute Impact
Chronic
Impact
PM2.5
Concentration
0
171
0.030
0.141
0.966
25
144
0.023
0.119
0.814
50
114
0.018
0.094
0.644
75
94.1
0.015
0.078
0.531
100
80.2
0.013
0.066
0.452
150
65.4
0.011
0.054
0.369
200
50.6
0.008
0.041
0.285
300
36.4
0.006
0.030
0.204
400
27.9
0.005
0.023
0.157
500
22.3
0.004
0.018
0.126
750
13.9
0.004
0.011
0.078
0.007
0.053
9.45
0.003
1000
SOURCE: BAAQMD Highway Screening Analysis Tool, May 2011.
TABLE AQ-16
I-580 HEALTH IMPACTS – INDIVIDUAL PROJECT/NEW RECEPTOR
Distance from
Nearest Travel Lane (feet)
Cancer
Risk
Acute Impact
Chronic
Impact
PM2.5
Concentration
0
108
0.024
0.089
0.598
25
90.3
0.018
0.074
0.497
50
71.2
0.015
0.058
0.390
75
58.9
0.013
0.048
0.321
100
50.2
0.012
0.041
0.273
200
31.8
0.009
0.026
0.172
300
22.9
0.007
0.018
0.123
400
17.6
0.005
0.014
0.094
500
14.2
0.005
0.011
0.075
750
8.90
0.003
0.007
0.047
1000
6.02
0.003
0.004
0.031
SOURCE: BAAQMD Highway Screening Analysis Tool, May 2011.
14 BAAQMD County Surface Street Screening Tables, May 2011 and C E H T P T r a f f i c L i n k a g e
S e r v i c e D e m o n s t r a t i o n , http://www.ehib.org/traffic_tool.jsp.
13
Appendix C: Transportation
Bay Walk Residential Development Traffic Study
PHA Transportation Consultants 14-06-406
Oct. 2014
Bay Walk Residential
Development
Traffic Impact Study
For
City of Richmond
October 2014
PHA
Transportation Consultants
2711 Stuart Street Berkeley, CA 94705
(510)848-9233
Oct. 2014
Bay Walk Residential
Development
Traffic Impact Study
For
City of Richmond
October 2014
PHA
Transportation Consultants
2711 Stuart Street Berkeley, CA 94705
(510) 848-9233
Oct. 2014
TABLEOFCONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................... Page 1
1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................3
1.1 Project Description ........................................................................................................3
1.2 Scope of Study .............................................................................................................3
1.3 Report Organization .....................................................................................................5
2. STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION ..........................................................................................................6
2.1 Land Use .......................................................................................................................6
2.2 Street Network and Access ...........................................................................................6
2.3 Transit Service................................................................................................................7
2.4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ...................................................................................7
3. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS........................................................................................................10
3.1 Study Approach and Assumptions...............................................................................10
3.2 Traffic (LOS) Analysis Methodology and Evaluation Criteria.......................................10
3.3 Significant Impact Definitions and Minimum LOS Standards ....................................11
3.4 Current Traffic Conditions (LOS) .................................................................................12
3.5 Project Conditions and Traffic Impact ........................................................................15
3.6 Cumulative (2030) Traffic Conditions and Project Impact ..........................................15
3.7 Mitigation Considerations ...........................................................................................23
4. CEQA REVIEW ........................................................................................................................... 27
4.1 CEQA Significant Impact Criteria ................................................................................ 27
4.2 CEQA Impact Discussion ..............................................................................................28
5. MITIGATION ............................................................................................................................. 29
5.1 Mitigation Considerations .......................................................................................... 29
6. SITE PLAN REVIEW .....................................................................................................................30
6.1 Project Site Plan Description .......................................................................................30
6.2 Site Access, Internal Circulation and Parking ..............................................................30
Oct. 2014
TABLEOFCONTENTS-Continue
List of Figures
Figure 1 Project Location Map .............................................................................................. Page 4
Figure 2 Study Area Public Transit service...................................................................................... 9
Figure 3 Current Condition Peak Hour Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations ...................... 14
Figure 4 Approved Projects Conditions Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations..................... 17
Figure 5 Project Traffic Distribution Assumptions ........................................................................ 20
Figure 6 Project Conditions Peak Hour Volumes and Lane Configurations.................................. 22
Figure 7 2030 Cumulative Conditions Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations ....................... 25
Figure 8 2030 Cumulative plus project Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations ...................... 26
Figure 9 Project Site Plan ............................................................................................................. 31
List of Tables
Table 1 Traffic Operation Ranking (LOS) Criteria................................................................ Page 11
Table 2 Existing Conditions Traffic Operation (LOS) .................................................................... 13
Table 3 Approved Project Traffic Operation (LOS) ...................................................................... 16
Table 4 Project Trip Generation Analysis..................................................................................... 18
Table 5 Project Conditions Traffic Operation (LOS) ...................................................................... 21
Table 6 Cumulative Conditions Traffic Operation (LOS) ............................................................... 24
Table 7 CEQA Project Impact Assessment .................................................................................... 27
APPENDIX (under separate cover)
LOS Calculations
Traffic Count
Oct. 2014
Executive Summary
PHA Transportation Consultants has completed this report to evaluate the potential traffic impact
for the proposed Bay Walk Mixed-use Residential Development to be located at the southwest
corner of Marina Way South and Wright Avenue. The project is a multi-family development consists
of 156 townhomes and 99 live-work townhomes, plus a 6,000 square feet business and fitness
center. Access to and from the site would be provided via two access driveways, one on Marina Way
south and the other on Wright Avenue.
Project Traffic Generation and Potential Impacts
The proposed project is expected to generate 112 a.m. and 133 p.m. peak-hour trips. To assess the
potential project impact, PHA Transportation Consultants evaluated traffic operations for 8 key
street intersections near the project site and two proposed access driveway for existing conditions,
approved projects conditions, project conditions, and 2030 cumulative conditions based on local
traffic level-of-service (LOS) standards and a set of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
guidelines.
The result of the traffic LOS analysis indicated that all study intersections currently operate at LOS D or
better for both a.m. and p.m. peak hours and would continue to operate at the same service levels for
the approved projects and project condition scenarios. Under the 2030 cumulative condition, all of
the study intersections would continue to operate at acceptable conditions LOS D or better. As such,
it is concluded that the proposed apartment project would not have a significant traffic impact on
area street system and no off-site mitigation is needed. LOS is a qualitative measure of traffic flows.
It ranges from A to F; LOS A represents free-flow and LOS F represents jammed conditions. The City
of Richmond does not have a specific traffic level-of-service standard, but generally follows the
adopted policies of Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) established guidelines and
standards. In general, LOS A through D are acceptable conditions, LOS E is considered at capacity and
warrants investigation for improvement.
PHA conducted traffic signal warrant analysis for two of the non-signalized study intersections,
Harbour Way south and Wright Avenue, Marina Way South and Regatta Boulevard, and the two
proposed access driveways to determine if signalization is needed, results indicated all of these
locations would not meet the minimum standards for installing traffic signals.
CEQA review also indicated the proposed project would not create significant impacts in the study
area or conflicts with regional transportation planning plans and policies.
Site Access, Internal Circulation and Parking
As proposed, the project will have two vehicle access driveways. This would provide adequate
site access and internal circulations. Driveway operation analysis indicated both driveways will
1
Oct. 2014
perform satisfactorily at LOS B or better for project conditions and 2030 cumulative conditions.
PHA recommends installing speed humps along the internal drive aisles and stop signs at the
driveway exits and speed humps along the drive aisles to enhance the traffic safety on the site.
2
1. Introduction
Oct. 2014
1.1 Project Description
PHA Transportation Consultants has completed this report to evaluate the potential traffic impact
for the proposed Bay Walk Residential Development to be located at southeast corner of the
Marina Way South and Wright Avenue intersection. The project is a mixed-use development consists
of 156 townhomes and 99 townhome/live-work units. Included also is a 6,000 square foot business
and fitness center catering to residents only. The site would have two proposed access driveways,
one on Marina Way South and the other on Wright Avenue. Both are full access driveway
accommodating both inbound and outbound traffic. Figures 1showstheprojectsitelocation.A more
detailed description of the project and site plans is discussed later in the “Site Plan Review” section
of the report.
1.2 Scope of Study
The study scope, designed to identify the potential project impact on area traffic circulation, was
determined in consultation with Richmond City staff. Specifically, the study evaluates project trip
generation, distribution, and the impact of the project traffic on eight (8) critical street intersections
near the project site plus the two proposed driveways for existing conditions, project conditions and
cumulative conditions. Below is a list of the study intersections and description of the study
scenarios.
Study Intersections
1. Harbour Way/Cutting Boulevard- signalized
2. Marina Way/Cutting Boulevard- signalized
3. Harbour Way/Hoffman Boulevard- signalized
4. Harbour Way/Wright Avenue– side street stop control
5. Marina Way/Wright Avenue - signalized
6. Marina Way South/Project driveway– stop control
7. Marina Way South/ Regatta Boulevard – side street stop control
8. Wright Avenue/ Project driveway – stop control
9. Marina Bay Pkwy/Meeker Avenue - signalized
10. Marina Bay Pkwy/Regatta Boulevard - signalized
Study Traffic Scenarios
1. Existing Conditions:
This scenario evaluates current traffic conditions based on field collected traffic counts to
establish a baseline.
3
Oct. 2014
1
2
Project Site
3
4
5
8
6
9
7
10
2
Study Intersection
Figure 1 Project Location and Study Intersections
Bay Walk Residential Development Traffic Study, Richmond - PHA Transportation Consultants
4
Oct. 2014
2. Approved Project Condition:
This scenario evaluates a short-term traffic condition by adding traffic from recently
approved but not yet built projects to the existing conditions.
3. Project Conditions:
This scenario evaluates a traffic condition that assumes the proposed Bay Walk
Development is built and generating traffic to the study area. In essence, this is the
critical scenario which adds traffic from the proposed Bay Walk Development to the
existing and approved projects traffic and will help identify project traffic impact.
4. Cumulative 2030 Conditions:
This scenario evaluates a long-term traffic condition for the study area. The traffic
analysis for this scenario is based on traffic forecasts obtained from the Countywide
Traffic Model prepared by Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) for the
study area.
5. Cumulative 2030 plus project Conditions:
This scenario evaluates a long-term traffic condition that assumes the proposed Bay
Walk Development is built and adding traffic to the study area. This scenario will
help identify project traffic impact in the future. The analysis for this scenario is
based on traffic forecasts obtained from the Countywide Traffic Model prepared by
Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) for the study area.
1.3 Report Organization
This report consists of six chapters.







Chapter 1
This chapter describes the proposed project characteristic, locations and study scope.
Chapter 2
This chapter reviews current study area land use, street system and access.
Chapter 3
This chapter describes project study methodology, procedures, evaluation criteria and
the potential project impact for various study scenarios.
Chapter 4
This chapter evaluates project impacts based on CEQA criteria and guidelines.
Chapter 5
This chapter identifies and discusses mitigation measures needed to minimize
unacceptable LOS conditions.
Chapter 6
This Chapter evaluates the project site plan for parking and internal circulation.
5
Oct. 2014
2. Study Area Description
2.1 Land Use
The project site is located at the southeast corner of Marina Way South and Wright Avenue, an
industrial area south of Freeway I-580. The site currently is occupied by a vacant industrial
building. Land use in the vicinity of the project site is mostly industrial.
2.2 Street Network and Access
The street network providing access and circulation to the area and the project site consists of
Harbour Way, Cutting Boulevard, Marina Way, Marina Bay Parkway, Wright Avenue, Regatta
Boulevard, Meeker Avenue/S. 19th Street. A brief description of the streets that provide immediate
access to and from the project site is as follows:
Harbour Way is a north-south roadway that connects downtown Richmond in the north to
I-580 and the South Shoreline area. North of I-580, Harbour Way provides two lanes of
travel in both directions. South of I-580, Harbour Way narrows to one lane of travel in
both directions, with a two-way left-turn lane at mid-block driveways. There is a bicycle
route on the west side (southbound travel) of the roadway and bicycle lanes on the east
side (northbound travel). Harbour Way is designated as an existing truck route in the
Richmond General Plan (2012). The posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour (mph) north of
I-580 a n d 3 5 miles p e r hour ( m p h) s o u t h o f freeway I-580.
Cutting Boulevard is an east-west roadway that connects San Pablo Avenue in the east and
freeway I-580 in the west. North of the study area, Cutting Boulevard provides two lanes
of travel in both directions with left-turn pockets at signals and two-way left-turn lanes at
mid-block driveways. According to the Richmond General Plan (2012), Cutting Boulevard
is designated as an existing truck route west of Harbour Way and is also a Route of
Regional Significance classified by the CCTA. East of Harbour Way, Cutting Boulevard
provides shared travel lanes with bicycles, marked with “sharrows.” The posted speed
limit is 35 miles per hour (mph).
Marina Bay Parkway/South 23rd Street is a north-south roadway that connects downtown
Richmond to I-580 and the South Shoreline Area. The roadway is called Marina Bay
Parkway south of I-580 and is called South 23rd Street north of I-580. In the study area the
roadway generally provides two travel lanes in each direction, with turn lanes at
intersections. The posted speed limit is 30 mph.
Marina Way is a north-south roadway connecting downtown Richmond to the South
Shoreline Area. Marina Way provides two lanes of travel in both directions and forms the
western boundary of the Project site. The Richmond General Plan (2012) designates
Marina Way, between Wright Avenue in the north and Hall Avenue in the south, as a truck
route. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph).
6
Oct. 2014
Wright Avenue is an east-west roadway in the South Shoreline Area, connecting South 4 th
Street in the west to South 19th Street in the east, forming the northern boundary of the
Project site. Wright Avenue is generally a two-lane roadway with bicycle lanes on both
sides of the street west of Marina Way South. Wright Avenue is designated as a truck
route in the Richmond General Plan (2012). The posted speed limit is 25 miles per hour
(mph).
Meeker Avenue/South 19th Street is an east-west roadway connecting the Project site to
Marina Bay Parkway. Meeker Avenue/South 19th Street provides one lane of travel in
both directions. This roadway provides sidewalks near to the intersection with Marina Bay
Parkway, fronting commercial uses, and along South 19th Street. The width of the travel
lanes is generally large enough to accommodate on-street parking.
Freeway I-80 and I-580 are freeways provide regional access to the area and connect
Richmond to with Sacramento in the north, Concord and Livermore in the east, Oakland
and San Francisco in the south and west, and Marin County in the west.
2.3 Transit Service
AC Transit (Alameda and Contra Costa Transit) provides public transit services to the study area
and surrounding cities. However, only line 74 serves the immediate area from Marina BayParkway,
Richmond to Castro Ranch Rd. & San Pablo Dam Rd., El Sobrante, via Richmond BART, 23rd St.,
Contra Costa College and San Pablo Dam Rd. Weekends, some trips travel from Contra Costa
College to Hill Top Mall. Service begins about 5:30a.m. from Ford Point and ends at about
10:30p.m. Service is provided at about 30- minute intervals.
BART provides regional public transportation service to various cities in the Bay Area via its
Richmond Station, which is about a miles to the north near Marina Way and Macdonald Avenue
intersection. Figure 2 shows public transit routes in the area.
2.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Pedestrian facilities in the study area include sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signals and multiuse trails. Most roadways in the study area provide sidewalks on both sides of the street; except
Wright Avenue, which has sidewalks on the south side of the street; Meeker Avenue where
sidewalks are generally only provided where there are fronting uses; Marina Bay Parkway south
of Meeker Avenue, which has sidewalks only on the west side of the street; and Regatta
Boulevard, which provides continuous sidewalk on the north side and gaps in sidewalk on the
south side of the street. The Richmond Bay Trail is located along the bay shoreline to the south of
the project site, connecting via Marina Bay Parkway to Regatta Boulevard and continuing west.
Marina Way South between Wright Avenue and Regatta Boulevard is a designated SF Bay Trail.
7
Oct. 2014
Existing bicycle facilities near the project site include Class II lanes on Wright Avenue between
Harbour Way and Marina Way; Class III routes on the west side of Harbour Way and Class II lanes
on the east side of Harbour Way; Class III routes on Marina Way, south of Wright Avenue; and
Class I paths on the north side of Regatta Boulevard. The Richmond Bicycle Master Plan includes
several proposed Class I and Class II facilities in the study area, including Class II lanes on Wright
Avenue, just north of the Project site, Class II lanes along Regatta Boulevard west of Marina Bay
Parkway, extending further east to connect to the I-580 Bayview Avenue interchange; and Class II
lanes on Marina Bay Parkway connecting the South Shoreline to areas north of freeway I-580.
According to the City of Richmond Bicycle Master Plan, Class I bicycle facilities are off-street paths
that serve both bicyclists and pedestrians. Class II facilities provide a dedicated area for bicyclists
within the paved street width through the use of striping and appropriate signage. Class III
facilities are found along streets that do not provide sufficient width for dedicated bicycle lanes.
The street is designated as a bicycle route through the use of signage informing drivers to expect
bicyclists.
8
Oct. 2014
Project Site
Figure 2 Study Area Public Transit Service Routes
Bay Walk Residential Development Traffic Study, Richmond - PHA Transportation Consultants
9
Oct. 2014
3. Traffic Impact Analysis
3.1 Study Approach
To identify the potential traffic impact of the proposed Bay Walk Development, PHA first
evaluated current study intersection traffic Level-of-Service (LOS) to establish a baseline -“Existing
Traffic Conditions”. Then, traffic LOS for study intersections was evaluated again with the added
trips from recently approved but not yet built projects to identify traffic impacts from the
approved projects. Finally, PHA evaluated study intersection LOS, adding traffic from the
proposed Bay Walk Development to the existing and approved projects conditions to identify
project impacts.
For “Cumulative Traffic Conditions”, PHA conducted study intersection traffic LOS first with traffic
volume forecasts for 2030 obtained from a traffic report prepared by Fehr and Peers
Transportation Consultants for another project for the same site in 2013 to form the 2030 future
baseline. The 2030 traffic volume forecasts were originally obtained from the Countywide Traffic
Model prepared by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA). Subsequently, traffic LOS
for study intersections was evaluated again with the added project trips to identify project traffic
impacts under the cumulative 2030 conditions.
3.2 Traffic (LOS) Analysis Methodology and Evaluation Criteria
The traffic study focuses on the evaluation of intersection capacity and operation because
intersection controls traffic flows. Study intersection traffic LOS was evaluated and ranked with
the traffic Level-of-Service (LOS) ranking scale. LOS is a qualitative measurement of traffic
operations and flow characteristics; LOS A represents free flow conditions with little to no delays.
LOS E represents conditions at capacity, and LOS F represents over saturation with excessive
delays. There are two sets of LOS calculation methods for intersection capacity analysis; one for
signalized intersections and the other for non-signalized intersection. For signalized intersection,
traffic LOS is determined based on the average delay per vehicle for the entire intersection as a
whole. For the non-signalized intersections, traffic LOS is determined based on the average
vehicle delay for approaches controlled by stop signs or yield signs at minor streets. Through
traffic movements on major street approaches were evaluated but are not the determining factor
intersection LOS. Table 1 shows the LOS rankings and their relationships to traffic conditions for
both signalized and non-signalized intersections.
10
Oct. 2014
Table1 Traffic Operation Ranking (LOS) Criteria
Bay Walk Residential Development Traffic Study– Richmond
Signalized Intersections (HCM 2000 Methodology)
LOS
A
B
C
D
E
F
Control Delay(1)(Seconds)
0.0- 10.0
10.1-20.0
20.1-35.0
35.1-55.0
55.1-80.0
>80.0
Non-signalized Intersections (HCM2000 Methodology)
LOS
A
B
C
D
E
F
Control Delay per Vehicle(Seconds)
0.0-10.0
10.1-15.0
15.1-25.0
25.1-35.0
35.1-50.0
>50.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manual 1985, 1997, and 2000.(1) Control delay includes delays of initial
deceleration, move-up-time in the queue, stops, and re-acceleration. Calculated LOS is for minor street
approaches. Major street traffic movements would operate at LOS A as they do not have traffic control.
3.3 Significance Criteria and Minimum LOS Standards
Significance criteria are used to determine whether a project impact is considered significant and
therefore required mitigation. A proposed development project is considered to have a
significant impact on the environment if it would cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a
substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, or delay and congestion at
intersections), or change the condition of an existing street (e.g., street closures, changing
direction of travel) in a manner that would substantially impact access or traffic load and
capacity of the street system.
The City of Richmond does not have a Level-of-Service policy for vehicle traffic and intersection
operation. For the purpose of this study, the following significant criteria were used in evaluating
project impact on study intersections. These criteria are consistent with policies and standards
established by Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) and cities in Contra Costa County.
 If a signalized intersection is projected to operate within expected delay ranges
(i.e., LOS D or better with an average control delay of equal to or less than 55
seconds per vehicle) without the project and the project is expected to cause the
intersection to operate at an unacceptable LOS (E or F);
11
Oct. 2014

If an intersection is projected to operate at or over capacity (i.e., LOS E or
F) without the project, and the project is expected to increase the average
control delay by more than 5 seconds; or

If the operations of a non-signalized study intersection is projected to decline
with the addition of Project traffic, and if the installation of a traffic signal
based on the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Peak Hour
Signal Warrant (Warrant 3) would be warranted.
In addition to the above local criteria, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has a broad
set “Significant Impact” criteria and guidelines for evaluating development project impacts. A
more detailed discussion of the project impact assessment based on the CEQA criteria and
guideline is in “Section 4 CEQA Review” of this report.
3.4Current Conditions Traffic (LOS)
The calculated traffic LOS for current conditions indicated most study intersections near the
project site operate mostly at LOS C or better, meaning traffic generally moves smoothly in the
area with no major congestion or delays, while two farther way intersections, Harbor
Way/Cutting Boulevard and Marina Bay Parkway/Meeker Avenue operated at LOS D. This is
expected since the Harbour Way/Cutting Boulevard intersection is operating with a specific timing
plan with a signal cycle length that must also accommodate adjacent intersections. For the
Marina Bay Parkway/Meeker Avenue intersection, which is because there is a major state office
building that generate a significant amount of traffic particularly during the afternoon peak when
workers leaving work. Overall, the calculated LOS results are consistent with observations from
the field. Table 2 show study intersection current traffic LOS and Figure 3 shows current study
intersection peak hour traffic volumes and intersection lane configurations.
Train Traffic
Generally speaking, there is not much traffic congestion in Richmond south of freeway I-580 and
in the study area. However, a major traffic issue in the area is train operations. There are a
number of at-grade railroad crossing south of I-580 at Harbour Way South, Marina Way South,
Marina Bay Parkway. BNSF (Burlington Northern and Santa Fe) and UPRR (Union Pacific Rail Road)
both run trains daily through the area and also use the area as a switching station. Trains
sometimes run at a very low speed moving back and forth along these rails in an east west
direction, blocking north south traffic circulation for long periods of times because all of the rail
crossings in the area are at grade. The City of Richmond Redevelopment Agency had studied
various options to create a grade separation at one of the north-south streets in the area to
provide relieve to north-south traffic circulation. Alternatives evaluated include Harbour Way,
Marina Way, and Marina Bay Parkway. However, no decision has been made so far. Currently,
BNSF is proposing a rail connector project in North Richmond. When complete, according to a
12
Oct. 2014
Caltrans report, more trains would use the rail lines north of I-580 to travel to the Port of
Oakland, thereby reducing trains using rails near the study area, thereby improving north-south
vehicle traffic circulation at Harbour Way, Marina Way South, Marina Bay Parkway and Regatta
Boulevard.
Table 2 Study Intersection LOS Analysis -Existing Conditions
Bay Walk Residential Development Traffic Study- Richmond
Peak
Period
Study Intersections
Existing Conditions
Delay
LOS
1
Harbour Way/Cutting Bl.
(signalized)
AM
PM
35.8
26.6
D
C
2
Marina Way/Cutting Bl.
(signalized)
AM
PM
18.7
22.9
B
C
3
Harbour Way/Hoffman Bl. –I-580 EB on-ramp
(signalized)
AM
PM
11.8
9.5
B
A
4
Harbour Way/Wright Ave.
(side street stop control)
AM
PM
13.4
15.3
B
C
5
Marina Way South/Wright Ave.
(signalized)
AM
PM
9.6
7.8
A
A
6
Marina Way South /West Drwy.
AM
PM
not exist
not exist
7
Marina Way South /Regatta Bl/.
AM
PM
8.8
9.3
A
A
8
Wright Ave./North Drwy.
AM
PM
not exist
not exist
9
Marina Bay Pkwy./Meeker Ave.
(signalized)
AM
PM
15.0
45.2
B
D
10
Marina Bay Pkwy./Regatta Bl.
(signalized)
AM
PM
14.6
18.0
B
B
PHA evaluated existing traffic operations with updated traffic counts obtained from a traffic report
prepared for another project on the same site in 2013 with traffic counts collected from the field during
rush hour periods (7-9 am and 4-6 pm).Study intersection traffic LOS was calculated with the
methodology discussed in the 2000 Highway Capacity manual using SYNCHRO computer software. For
signalized intersection, delays and LOS represents the average delays for the intersection as a whole.
For side street stop control intersections, the delays and LOS are for the side street traffic with the
highest traffic volumes. Traffic from main street approaches without traffic control are assumed
operating at LOS A. Delay is measured in second per vehicle, LOS=Level-of-Service.
13
Oct. 2014
Figure 3 Current Conditions Study Intersection Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations
Bay Walk Residential Development Traffic Study-PHA Transportation Consultants
14
Oct. 2014
Signal Warrant Analysis
Two of the study intersections, Harbour Way/Wright Avenue and Marina Way South/Regatta
Boulevard are not signalized, As such, PHA conducted signal warrant analyses to determine if
signalization is needed for these two intersections. Results of the “peak-hour-volume” warrant
analysis indicated both intersections would not satisfy the minimum requirements for installing
traffic signals currently. Caltrans (California Department of Transportation) Traffic Manual has
established 11 signal warrants serving as a guide for determining traffic signalization needs.
“Peak-hour-volume” is the easiest warrant to be satisfied.
3.5 Approved Project Conditions Traffic and Impact
As discussed above, the Approved Projects Condition includes existing traffic plus traffic from
recently approved but not yet built projects. Based on research, there is one previously approved
but not yet built or completed project in the area, also located on Marina Way South across from
the proposed Bay Walk Development site but further south near the intersection with Regatta
Boulevard. The project is a 65-unit light industrial live-work development and was approved more
than five years ago and is currently under construction. Based on the data from the traffic study
prepared for the project, the project is expected to generate 47 morning peak hour trips (19
inbound and 28 out bound) and 43 afternoon peak hour trips (16 inbound and 17 outbound).
PHA conducted traffic LOS analysis again for the study intersections with the added traffic from
the approved project. Table 3 shows the results of the LOS analysis along with a comparing with
the existing conditions traffic LOS. Figure 4 shows study intersection peak hour traffic volumes
for the approved project conditions.
PHA conducted signal warrant analysis again with the added traffic from approved projects to
determine if signalization would be s needed for these two intersections. Results of the “peakhour-volume” warrant analysis indicated both intersections would not satisfy the minimum
requirements for the approved projects conditions.
3.6 Project Conditions Traffic and Impact
Project Trip Generation Estimates
As discuss previously, the proposed project is a residential development consisting of 156
townhomes and 99live-work townhomes, plus a 3,000 square feet business center on the site
catering to residents use only. To determine the project trip generation, PHA estimated project
traffic generation used trip rates published in the latest ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers)
Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition for similar land uses and facilities. As Townhomes and
15
Oct. 2014
Table 3 Study Intersection LOS Analysis -Existing + Approved Projects Conditions
Study Intersections
Peak
Period
Existing
Conditions
Approved Projects
Conditions
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
1
(signalized)
AM
PM
35.8
26.6
D
C
35.9
26.6
D
C
2
(signalized)
AM
PM
18.7
22.9
B
C
19.0
24.6
B
C
3
Harbour Way/Hoffman Bl.
(signalized)
AM
PM
11.8
9.5
B
A
11.8
9.5
B
A
4
AM
PM
13.4
15.3
B
C
13.5
15.5
B
C
5
(signalized)
AM
PM
9.6
7.8
A
A
9.6
7.9
A
A
6
AM
PM
not
exist
not
exist
not
exist
not
exist
7
AM
PM
8.8
9.3
A
A
8.8
9.3
A
A
8
Wright Ave./North Drwy.
AM
PM
not
exist
not
exist
not
exist
not
exist
9
Marina Bay Bl./Meeker Ave.
(signalized)
AM
PM
15.0
45.2
B
D
15.3
45.6
B
D
10
Marina Bay Bl./Regatta Bl.
(signalized)
AM
PM
14.6
18.0
B
B
14.7
18.1
B
B
Study intersection traffic LOS was calculated with the methodology discussed in the 2000 Highway Capacity
manual using SYNCHRO computer software. For signalized intersection, delays and LOS represents the
average delays for the intersection as a whole. For side street stop control intersections, the delays and LOS
are for the side street traffic with the highest traffic volumes. Traffic from main street approaches without
traffic control operates at LOS A. Delay is measured in second per vehicle, LOS=Level-of-Service.
Townhomes for live- work, the project is expected to generate 112 morning peak hour trips (19
inbound and 93 outbound) and 133 afternoon peak hour trips (89 inbound and 44 outbound).
Table 4 summarizes site traffic generation analysis results.
16
Oct. 2014
Figure 4 Approved Projects Conditions Study Intersection Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations
17
Oct. 2014
Table 4 Project Trip Generation Analysis
Bay Walk Residential Development Traffic Study–Richmond
Mid Rise Apartment
Townhomes (ITE 230)
Townhome-Live-work (ITE 230)
Total
Units
156
99
Rates
0.44
0.44
AM Peak Hour Trips
In% Trips Out %
17%
11
83%
17%
8
83%
19
Trips
53
40
93
Rates
0.52
0.52
PM Peak Hour Trips
in% Trips Out %
67%
51
33%
67%
38
33%
89
Trips
25
19
44
Rates
5.81
5.81
In%
50%
50%
Daily Trips
Trips Out %
424
50%
317
50%
741
Trips
424
317
741
Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition. LOS calculations assume full trip generation of the proposed project without reduction for trips from the previous use
on the site since the site has been vacant and did not generate traffic. Live-work units are expected to generate fewer trips than Townhomes. However, ITE Trip
Generation Manual does not have survey rates for Live-work unit. As such, Townhome rates are used in this case to assume a more conservative scenario. According to
the project sponsor, the proposed 3k square feet business center on the site is for residents use only and would not generate external traffic.
18
Oct. 2014
Project Trip Distribution Assumptions
PHA estimated the directional distribution of project traffic with consultation with city traffic
engineering staff. The directional traffic distribution predicts the potential routes of travel, based
on examinations of the study area street layout, area land use, current circulation patterns and
traffic volumes. Figure 5shows the estimated directional trip distribution for the project.
Project Scenario Traffic LOS and Impact
PHA conducted traffic operation analyses for the study intersections to determine their traffic
LOS with the above trip generation estimates and directional distribution assumptions. The
project scenario assumes the same roadway geometrics as with existing conditions scenario
since there are no roadway improvement projects currently undertaken in the study area.
With the addition of project (Bay Walk) traffic, the intersection LOS analyses indicated that all of
the study intersections would continue to operate at the same LOS with minor increases (less
than 5 seconds) in intersection delays. Therefore, it can be concluded that the project’s impact
on area traffic operation is minimal. Table 5 shows study intersection analysis results and a
comparison with Current and Approved Projects conditions LOS analyses. Figure 6 shows study
intersection peak hour traffic volumes for the project condition.
Project Impact on Public Transit, Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
The proposed Bay Walk Development, as a 255 mixed-use townhome and live-work unit
development, has the potential to add to the use of public transportation, pedestrian and bicycle
facilities. While the Richmond BART Station is more than a mile to the north, AC Transit Line 74
provides service to the area near the site with bus stops on Regatta Boulevard and Marina Way
near Kaiser Permanente School of Health Science. This could help increase public transportation
use and ridership, reducing demand on traffic load and emission, and improve air quality.
PHA conducted signal warrant analysis again with the added traffic from approved projects and
traffic from the proposed Bay Walk development to determine if signalization is needed for these
two intersections and the two access driveways. Again, results of the “peak-hour-volume”
warrant analysis indicated both intersections would not satisfy the minimum requirements with
the added project traffic.
19
Oct. 2014
Figure 5Project Traffic Distribution Assumptions
20
Oct. 2014
Table 5 Study Intersection LOS Analysis –Approved Projects + Project Conditions
Study Intersections
Existing
Conditions
Peak
Period
Approved
Projects
Conditions
Approved
Projects+ Project
Conditions
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
1
(signalized)
AM
PM
35.8
26.6
D
C
35.9
26.6
D
C
36.4
33.3
D
C
2
(signalized)
AM
PM
18.7
22.9
B
C
19.0
24.6
B
C
20.6
28.2
C
C
3
(signalized)
AM
PM
11.8
9.5
B
A
11.8
9.5
B
A
11.8
9.5
B
A
4
AM
PM
13.4
15.3
B
C
13.5
15.5
B
C
13.7
16.5
B
C
5
(signalized)
AM
PM
9.6
7.8
A
A
9.6
7.9
A
A
9.6
8.0
A
A
6
AM
PM
not
exist
not
exist
not
exist
not
exist
9.3
10.0
A
A
7
AM
PM
8.8
9.3
A
A
8.8
9.3
A
A
8.8
9.3
A
A
8
Wright Ave. /North Drwy.
AM
PM
not
exist
not
exist
not
exist
not
exist
8.8
8.9
A
A
9
Marina Bay Pkwy./Meeker Ave.
(signalized)
AM
PM
15.0
45.2
B
D
15.3
45.6
B
D
17.5
47.4
B
D
10
Marina Bay Pkwy./Regatta Bl.
(signalized)
AM
PM
14.6
18.0
B
B
14.7
18.1
B
B
14.8
18.2
B
B
Study intersection traffic LOS was calculated with the methodology discussed in the 2000 Highway Capacity
manual using SYNCHRO computer software. For signalized intersection, delays and LOS represents the average
delays for the intersection as a whole. For side street stop control intersections, the delays and LOS are for the
side street traffic with the highest traffic volumes. Traffic from main street approaches without traffic control
operates at LOS A. Delay is measured in second per vehicle, LOS=Level-of-Service.
21
Oct. 2014
Figure 6 Project Conditions Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations
22
Oct. 2014
3.7 Cumulative 2030 Traffic Conditions and Project Traffic Impact
PHA conducted traffic LOS analyses for the cumulative 2030 conditions to evaluate future study
intersection traffic operation. For the future traffic scenarios, PHA first obtained 2030 traffic
volumes for study from a traffic report prepared for another project at the same site in 2013
with a one percent traffic growth reflect 2014 conditions. The 2030 Contra Costa County Traffic
Model was developed by CCTA based on projections of population and economic growth forthe
Contra Costa County Area.
Table 6 shows a summary of study intersection traffic LOS analyses, along a comparison with
existing conditions, approved projects conditions and project conditions. As indicated all study
intersections would operate at acceptable conditions LOS D or better, except the Harbour Way
and Wright Avenue intersection, which would operate at LOS E. However, comparing with and
without the proposed project scenarios, all intersection would have a minimal increase in delays.
Figure 7 and 8 show 2030 cumulative traffic volumes with and without project.
PHA conducted signal warrant analyses for the two non-signalized intersections and the two
proposed driveways with the 2030 traffic volumes with and without traffic from the proposed the
Bay Walk Residential Development. Again, results of the “peak-hour-volume” warrant analyses
indicated both intersections would not satisfy the minimum requirements with the 2030
cumulative traffic scenarios.
23
Oct. 2014
Table 6 Study Intersection LOS Analysis Summary
Study Intersections
Peak
Period
Approved
Projects
Conditions
Existing
Conditions
Approved
Projects+ Project
Conditions
Cumulative
2030
Conditions
Cumulative
2030 + Project
Conditions
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
1
(signalized)
AM
PM
35.8
26.6
D
C
35.9
26.6
D
C
36.4
33.3
D
C
37.2
35.1
D
D
37.3
39.2
D
D
2
(signalized)
AM
PM
18.7
22.9
B
C
19.0
24.6
B
C
20.6
28.2
C
C
27.9
35.9
C
D
30.8
36.0
C
D
3
(signalized)
AM
PM
11.8
9.5
B
A
11.8
9.5
B
A
11.8
9.5
B
A
12.9
10.8
B
B
12.9
10.8
B
B
4
AM
PM
13.4
15.3
B
C
13.5
15.5
B
C
13.7
16.5
B
C
27.0
42.4
D
E
28.6
44.3
D
E
5
(signalized)
AM
PM
9.6
7.8
A
A
9.6
7.9
A
A
9.6
8.0
A
A
9.8
8.6
A
A
9.9
8.7
A
A
6
Marina Way S. /West Access Drwy.
AM
PM
not
exist
not
exist
not
exist
not
exist
9.3
10.0
A
A
not
exist
not
exist
10.2
11.5
B
B
7
Marina Way S. /Regatta Bl.
AM
PM
8.8
9.3
A
A
8.8
9.3
A
A
8.8
9.3
A
A
9.7
10.7
A
B
9.7
10.7
A
B
8
Wright Ave./North Access Drwy.
AM
PM
not
exist
not
exist
not
exist
not
exist
8.8
8.9
A
A
not
exist
not
exist
8.9
9.0
A
A
9
Marina Bay Bl./Meeker Ave.
(signalized)
AM
PM
15.0
45.2
B
D
15.3
45.6
B
D
17.5
47.4
B
D
21.1
48.1
C
D
24.5
48.3
C
D
AM
PM
14.6
18.0
B
B
14.7
18.1
B
B
14.8
18.2
B
B
37.9
34.5
D
C
38.0
34.5
D
C
10 Marina Bay Bl./Regatta Bl.
(signalized)
Study intersection traffic LOS was calculated with the methodology discussed in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual using SYNCHRO computer software. For signalized
intersection, delays and LOS represents the average delays for the intersection as a whole. For side street stop control intersections, the delays and LOS are for the side
street traffic with the highest traffic volumes. Traffic from main street approaches without traffic control generally operates at LOS A. Delay is measured in second per
vehicle, LOS=Level-of-Service.
24
Oct. 2014
Figure 7 Cumulative 2030 Traffic Conditions Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations
25
Oct. 2014
Figure 8 Cumulative 2030 plus Project Condition Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations
26
Oct. 2014
4. CEQA Review
4.1Project Impact Assessment based on CEQA guidelines
In the previous section, PHA evaluated project impacts based on local criteria and standards. This
section evaluates project impacts based on a set of broader state mandated significance impact
guidelines and criteria. Table 7 summarizes the results of project impact evaluation based on
CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) guidelines and criteria.
Table 7 Project Impact Assessment with CEQA Guidelines
Potentially
Significant
Impact
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC:
Would the project:
a.
b.
c.
Less Than Less Than
No
Significant Significant Impact
w/Mitigation Impact
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, bicycle paths and mass transit?
X
Conflict with an applicable congestions management
program, including but not limited to level of service
demands and travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion management agency
for designated roads/highways.
X
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?
X
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
e.
Result in inadequate emergency access?
X
f.
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
X
d.
27
Oct. 2014
Discussion:
a) The Project is not expected to increase traffic or have an adverse impact on existing traffic
load and capacity of the access roads or the surrounding street system. The Project area
would be accessible from Marina Way South and Wright Avenue. All of the study
intersections are expected to operate at the same LOS with and without the project under
current conditions and 2030 cumulative conditions. Project impacts on study intersection
delays less than 3 seconds. Therefore, the Project would have less than significant impact
on existing traffic patterns and conditions.
b) Traffic LOS analysis results indicated that all study intersections currently operate at LOS D or
better for both a.m. and p.m. peak hours and would continue to operateat the same service
levels for the project condition scenario and 2030 cumulative plus project condition. As
such, it is concluded that the proposed apartment project would not have a significant
traffic impact on area street system and no off-site mitigation is needed.
c) There are no airport facilities nearby the project site and the project will only generate
vehicle traffic. Therefore, the project would not 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. Therefore, there is no impact on air traffic from the project.
d) The Project would not create any hazards due to design features on the adjacent street
system. All of the proposed driveways will have adequate sight distance and are expected
to operate at acceptable LOS C or better under project conditions and 2030 cumulative
conditions. The project also will reduce potential conflict points along Wright Avenue as it
will eliminate several truck access driveways to loading docks of the previous industrial
building and thereby improving traffic safety in the area.
e) The project will have two access driveways, one on Marina Way South and one on Wright
Avenue and will provide adequate access for tenants and emergence vehicle access. All
access driveways will operate at LOS C or better under currently and 2030 conditions and
without sight distance restrictions.
f) The project will not conflict with city policies supporting alternative transportation. The
proposed access driveways will not affect existing sidewalks other than creating a curb-cut
near the project site. It is recommended that the project sponsor to install bike storage
racks on the site for tenants to encourage bicycle use. 2010 Bay Area Census indicated
that about 15% of Richmond residents use public transportation travelling to and from
work. This will help increase public transportation use, reduce traffic load on streets,
reduce auto emission and improve air quality.
28
Oct. 2014
5. Mitigation Measure
5.1 Mitigation Considerations
The above traffic operation analyses indicated that the proposed Bay Walk project would not
cause any of the study intersections to operate at unacceptable conditions. Most study
intersections and traffic movements currently operate at LOS D or better will continue to operate
at the same LOS with minor increased delays of less than five seconds, except the Harbour Way
and Wright Avenue intersection, which is projected to operate at LOS E under the 2030
conditions. However, the added delay at the intersection due to the proposed Bay Walk project is
less than five seconds. As such, it can be concluded that the proposed Bay Walk project will not
create a significant impact in study area traffic operation. Traffic signal warrant analyses indicated
that the Harbour Way and Wright Avenue intersection would not meet the minimum requirement
for signalization. No project mitigation is recommended.
29
Oct. 2014
6. Site Plan Review
6.1 Project Site Plan Descriptions
The proposed development consists of 156 townhomes and 99 live-work townhomes plus a 6,000
square feet business center and fitness center on the site catering to residents only. There is also an
open space at the middle of the site which includes a dog park and barbecue area.
Vehicle access to and from the site would be via two driveways, one at Marina Way South and the
other at Wright Avenue. Both are full access driveways accommodating both inbound and outbound
traffic. Internal vehicle circulation is provided via a looping drive aisle while pedestrian access is
provided via paths throughout the site. Guest parking spaces and bicycle racks are provide at various
locations throughout the site. Figure 9 shows the project site plan.
6.2 Site Access, Internal Circulation, and Parking
Site Access and Internal Circulation
The site has two vehicle access driveways measuring at 24 feet wide or greater and would
provide adequate vehicle access and emergence access. Internal drive aisles are at 24 feet wide
and above would be sufficient for internal vehicle traffic circulation. The proposed access
driveways would not have sight distance problems as there are no horizontal or vertical curves
on Marina Way South and Wright Avenue near the project site. PHA conducted driveways LOS
analysis for both driveways, Results indicated both driveways would operate satisfactorily at
LOS A and B for both project conditions and 2035 cumulative conditions.
PHA recommends installing stop signs at both driveways, maintain any planting to be installed
adjacent the driveways less than three feet tall to provide a clear line of sight for motorist
exiting the driveways. The project sponsor should consider installing speed humps along the
drive aisles to prevent speeds (Please see markups in Figure 9 Project Site Plan).
Parking
According to the City of Richmond Parking Code for multi-family development with more than 3
units, the parking requirement is 2 spaces for each 3-bedroom unit plus 1 guest parking space
for every 5 units. For the proposed Bay Walk Development, with 255 3-bedroom units, the site
is required to provide 510 parking spaces plus 51 guest parking spaces.
According to the project site plan, the site would have 510 parking spaces (2 garage spaces per
units) plus 74 guest parking spaces (exceeding the minimum requirement). This should satisfy
Richmond’s parking requirement. The project site plan also shows bicycle parking racks at
various location throughout the site.
30
Oct. 2014
Keep plants
under 3 feet tall
Installed
stop sign
Installed
stop sign
Keep plants
under 3 feet tall
Figure 9 Project Site Plan (Project Sponsor) and Recommended Mitigation
31

Bay Walk - Richmond

Transcription

Similar documents

Lake Wisconsin Map - Lodi and Lake Wisconsin

Luminere Collection

GOL DE N B A Y

Yachtoberfest2015 - Green Bay Yachting Club

www.hotondo.com.au Major sponsor Hotondo Homes Batemans

rampion headquarters

Ride Flyer

5 Marina Terra - Seaside Realty

Novato game day flyer

Mi Escuelita Preschool