The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRESOLUTIONS - 12032013 - 2013/443 EXHIBIT A: BOARD RESOLUTION 2011/233 EXHIBIT B: “ APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY”, FINAL REPORT – JUNE 2013, CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 11-14 ftSLOEFITZGERALDDRSARAH DRA P P IA N W A Y MICHAEL DRDALESIDRAVIWEAVFUTNWAYRANCHORDM ANOR RDKISTER CIRARGYLE RDAPPIAN W A Y APPIAN VILLAGE DRVALLEYVIEWDSOBRANTE AVEAPPIAN W A YPinole City LimitsContra Costa CountyRLLSLOEFITZGERALDDRSARAH DRA P P IA N W A Y MICHAEL DRDALESIDRAVIWEAVFUTNWAYRANCHORDM ANOR RDKISTER CIRARGYLE RDAPPIAN W A Y APPIAN VILLAGE DRVALLEYVIEWDSOBRANTE AVEAPPIAN W A YPinole City LimitsContra Costa CountyRLLExisting R.O.W. dimension and location unclear; conict between parcel data and built conditions Existing R.O.W. dimension and location unclear; conict between parcel data and built conditions5-12 ft11-14 ft10-20 ft11-12 ft15-17 ft13-14 ft7-10 ft5-11 ft13 ft11-14 ft10-20 ft11-12 ft5-8 ft5-7 ftNo change to roadway conguration; new signal at Rancho RdSB84’ R.O.W.68’ Curb-to-Curb14’11’5’8’8’11’SB11’5’Bike Bike Side-walkSide-walk Turn NB 11’NB A BBCD B C D See Figure 11 A Pkg SB 84’ R.O.W. 64’ Curb-to-Curb 14’12’5’8’8’10’10’12’5’ Bike Bike Pkg Side- walk Side- walk Turn NB SB 68’ R.O.W. 48’Curb-to-Curb 14’12’5’10’10’12’5’ Bike Bike Side- walk Turn NBSide- walk SB 64’ R.O.W. (70’ at Post Office) 44’ Curb-to-Curb (48’ at Post Office) 12’11’5’10’10’11’5’ Bike Bike Side- walk Turn NBSide- walk No construction required; re-striping only SB 78’ R.O.W. 58’ Curb-to-Curb 14’12’6’ 10’ 8’10’12’6’ Bike Bike Pkg Side- walk Side- walk Turn NB 6’ Appian Way/Valley View Rd intersection remains as isNo construction required; re-striping only Existing asphalt curb and sidewalk replaced with concrete curb and 5’-6” wide sidewalk 400200100 FEET 0 400200100 FEET 0 Alternative B: Requirements Under CCTALOS Methodology Alternative C: Complete Street (Under HCM-2000 Methodology) Edge of Proposed R.O.W. Building Footprint Parcel Line (source: Contra Costa County Mapping Information Center) Edge of Proposed R.O.W. Building Footprint Parcel Line (source: Contra Costa County Mapping Information Center) Note: All dimensions are approximate, based on satellite imagery and eld measurements. Note: All dimensions are approximate, based on satellite imagery and eld measurements. R.O.W. passes through existing structure New Trac Signal Existing Trac Signal New Trac Signal Bus shelter Existing Trac Signal Requires signicant grading Requires signicant grading Acquisition requiredX ftAcquisition requiredX ftPinole City LimitsContra Costa CountyAPPIANWAYFITZGERALDDRSARAH DRMICHAEL DRDALESSIDRFULTONWAYRANCHORDM ANOR RDKISTER CIRARGYLE RDAPPIAN VILLAGE DRVALLEYVIEWRDSOBRANTE AVEAPPIAN W A YAPPIAN W AYALLVIEWAVE R.O.W. dimension and location unclear; conict between parcel data and built conditions FILAPPIAN W A Y FITZGERALDDRMICHAEL DRAPPIANAYSARAH DRMICHAEL DRDALESIDRALIEAVERANCHORDWYM ANOR RDKISTER CIRARGYLE RDAPPIAN VILLAGE DRVALLEYVIEWRAPPIAN W A Y SOBRANTE AVEW SFUTONADLVWPinole City LimitsContra Costa CountyExisting R.O.W. dimension and location unclear; conict between parcel data and built conditions 17-22 ft12-16 ft20-24 ft20-22 ft26 ft18 ft12-14 ft11-15 ft15-16 ft11-16 ft12-19 ft5-6 ft5-8 ft5-8 ft45’ Curb-to-Curb12’12’4’12’4’NBACSSBTurn 5’ACS4’-6”Bike Bike60’ R.O.W.ACS 55’ Curb-to-Curb12’12’6’20’4’NBSBTurn 7’CCS5’Bike Bike87’ R.O.W.75’ Curb-to-Curb93’ R.O.W.SB11’-6”17’-6”5’13’19’NBCCSSBMedian/Turn14’NBCCS5’80’ R.O.W.63’ Curb-to-CurbBike/Parking 12’-6”11’-6”6’-5”12’13’-6”NBCCSSBTurn 13’CCSTravel5’SB 95’ R.O.W.74’ Curb-to-Curb*16’12’5’5’-6”5’12’12’5’Bike BikeSidewalkUtilityEasement SidewalkUtilityEasementMedian/Turn NB NBSB12’5’-6”5’No construction required; re-striping only Appian Way/Valley View Rd intersection remains as is 4 Travel Lanes+ Turning Lane/Median Transition Transition2 Travel Lanes+ Turning Lane & Bike Lanes Concrete Curb & Sidewalk (CCS)Asphalt Curb& Sidewalk (ACS)Bike LaneOn-street ParkingCrosswalkCurb CutBus StopIntersection analyzedfor existing and futuretrac operationsRetaining WallSteep SlopeTrac SignalBuilding Footprint 400200100FEET0 400200100 FEET 0 Existing Conditions Alternative A: 5 Lanes Edge of Proposed R.O.W. Requires signicant grading R.O.W. passes through existing structure Acquisition required Building Footprint Parcel Line (source: Contra Costa County Mapping Information Center) Note: All dimensions are approximate, based on satellite imagery and eld measurements.Note: All dimensions are approximate, based on satellite imagery and eld measurements.X ft*All asphalt curbs to be replaced with concrete curbs, and the majority of existing concrete curb to be replaced with new concrete curbs. Details illustrated in CAD le accompanying report. Appian Way Alternatives Analysis and Complete Streets Study Final Report June 2013 A P P I A N W A Y Illustrative diagram only; feasibility to be evaluated upon further analysis. Lane reductions along Valley View Road to be considered. Reduced right-of-way better channelizes motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians and provides an opportunity for a widened sidewalk and/or an architectural statement at the intersection Oset crosswalk provides a two-stage crossing for improved pedestrian accessibility Skip striping guides cyclists and highlights conicts for motorists, enhancing bicycle safety New mixed-use development V A L L E Y V I E W R D A P P I A N W A Y804020 FEET 0 In association with Prepared by Appian Way Alternatives Analysis and Complete Streets Study Kittelson and Associates Final Report June 2013 Contra Costa County City of Pinole APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY iTABLE OF CONTENTS Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................1 Project Purpose .................................................................................1 Conditions and Policies .....................................................................2 Conclusions .......................................................................................3 Organization .....................................................................................4 2 POLICY CONTEXT .............................................................................5 Countywide Transportation Plan .....................................................5 West County Action Plan Update of 2009 .......................................7 City of Pinole .....................................................................................7 Contra Costa County ........................................................................8 3 PHYSICAL CONDITIONS ALONG THE CORRIDOR ............................9 Methodology ....................................................................................9 General Conditions ..........................................................................9 Conditions along Specific Segments .............................................10 4 TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS ........................................................12 Forecast Approach ..........................................................................12 Analysis Methodologies .................................................................12 Findings and Recommendations ....................................................13 5 DESIGN ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................16 Overview .......................................................................................16 Alternative A – Five Lanes ..............................................................16 Alternative B – Requirements under CCTALOS Methodology ......17 Alternative C – Complete Street Using HCM-2000 Methodology 17 Comparison of Alternatives with Conclusions ...............................20 Appian Way/Valley View Road Intersection ..................................22 Conclusions .....................................................................................25 APPENDIX: COST ESTIMATES OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES ..................26 ii APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS Tables Table 1: Intersection Level of Service (Year 2012 Existing Conditions) ....................................13 Table 2: Intersection Level of Service (Year 2030 Future Scenario using CCTALOS and HCM-2000 Methodology) ......................................14 Table 3: Comparison of Alternatives ..........................................21 Figures Figure 1: Location Map ...................................................................1 Figure 2: Location Map and Existing Configuration ....................2 Figure 3: Existing Land Uses ...........................................................6 Figure 4: General Plan Land Uses City of Pinole and Contra Costa County .......................................................6 Figure 5: Existing and Future Traffic Volume and Lane Geometries (Volumes: AM (PM)) ......................................................13 Figure 6: Existing Conditions/Opportunities and Constraints ...18 Figure 7: Alternative A–Five Lanes ..............................................18 Figure 8: Alternative B–Requirements under CCTALOS Methodology .................................................19 Figure 9: Alternative C–Complete Street Using HCM-2000 Methodology ..............................................19 Figure 10: Appian Way/Valley View – Existing Intersection .........23 Figure 11: Appian Way/Valley View – Intersection Improvement Options ..................................................24 1 APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 Introduction PROJECT PURPOSE The Appian Way Alternatives Analysis and Complete Streets Study evalu- ates options and recommends a future design for the one-mile long segment of Appian Way from Fitzgerald Drive (just south of Interstate 80) to the Valley View “Triangle Area.” The study, which is funded by Contra Costa Transpor- tation Authority (CCTA or “Authority”), is intended to help the City of Pinole and the Contra Costa County (CCC) develop a consistent and complementary approach for the design of the roadway, one that supports the needs of the sur- rounding communities and serves all potential users. The purpose of this study is to help Contra Costa County and the City of Pinole develop a common vision for the part of Appian Way that is within the planning area, as design options that would inform development of a shared vision have not been explored. Within the City of Pinole, Appian Way has been improved to five lanes around Interstate 80 to a point just south of Fitzgerald. The five-lane cross section includes two through lanes in each direction with a center turn lane or median. S A N P A BL OAVEAPPIANWAYbrante Com St S A MARKET A V E CHURCH LNAPPIA N WY SAN P ABL O AVE PI NOLEVALLE Y R D C A S T R O R ANC H R D S Y C AMORE AV E S A N P A B L O D A M R DSANPABLOAVE EL PORTA L D RR.MI L L ER D R HILLTOP DR BLUMED R R I C H MONDPKWY APPIANWAYRIC H M O N D PKW YRUMRILLBLV D T ARAH I LLS DR WILLOW AV E SA NPAB L O D A M RDVAL L E YVI EWR D Pinole Richmond Richmond San Pablo Hercules Richmond El Sobrante May Valley Hilltop Mall Rollingwood Hilltop Green Tiffany Ridge Tara Hills Marsten RanchBayview Montalvin Point Pinole Regional Park Hasford Heights El Sobrante Hills Carriage Hills Birds Greenbriar Parchester Village Hilltop Village Foxboro Downs FITZGER A L D D R San Pablo Bay Complete Streets Study Area 10 MILES 231/2 80 80 S A N PA BL OAVEAPPIANWAYbrante Com St S A MARKET A V E CHURCH LNAPPIAN WY SAN P ABL O AVE PI NOLEVALLE Y R D C A S T R O R ANC H R D S Y C AMORE AV E S A N P A B L O D A M R DSANPABLOAVE EL PORTA L D RR.MI L L E R D R HILLTOP DR BLUMED R R I C H M ONDPKWY APPIANWAYRIC H M O N D PKW YRUMRILLBLV D T A RA H I LLS DR WILLOW AV E SA NPAB L O D A M RDVAL L E YVI EWR D Pinole Richmond Richmond San Pablo Hercules Richmond El Sobrante May Valley Hilltop Mall Rollingwood Hilltop Green Tiffany Ridge Tara Hills Marsten RanchBayview Montalvin Point Pinole Regional Park Hasford Heights El Sobrante Hills Carriage Hills Birds Greenbriar Parchester Village Hilltop Village Foxboro Downs FITZGER A L D D R San Pablo Bay Complete Streets Study Area 10 MILES 231/2 80 80 Figure 1: Location Map 2 APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION South of the five-lane segment, Appian Way narrows to three lanes, which would be widened under Pinole’s General Plan and Three Corridors Specific Plan. Contra Costa County’s General Plan has also called for widening Appian Way from three to five lanes, south of Pinole to Valley View Road. The Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment, however, concluded that the community’s interests would be better served by not widening the roadway, because that wid- ening would require a significant purchase of private property. Instead, a three- lane roadway accompanied by significant pedestrian and bicycle improvements would be more cost effective and support the community’s livability goals. Contra Costa County, the City of Pinole and CCTA are jointly examining whether there is a need for widening all or part of Appian Way from three lanes (one lane in each direction with a center turn lane) to five lanes (two lanes in each direction with a center turn lane). Because of frequent driveways, the turn lane would run continuously and a continuous bicycle lane is assumed. To inform decisions regarding Appian Way’s ultimate character, this study presents designs for five-lane and three-lane roadway options. It also considers “[a]dditional modifications [that] may include improved pedestrian and bicycle access through installation of pedestrian crosswalks, traffic calming measures, and streetscape improvements,” as called for by the West County Action Plan.1 Options are evaluated from the standpoint of transportation performance, community benefits and project cost. The Appian Way Alternatives Analysis and Complete Streets Study is the result of a collaborative effort led by and funded by CCTA, with the direct participa- tion of the County and the City of Pinole, and with support from the consultant team of Dyett & Bhatia and Kittelson Associates. CONDITIONS AND POLICIES General Context Appian Way serves as a major arterial that extends from San Pablo Avenue to the north, through Pinole and the unincorporated community of El Sobrante, and to San Pablo Dam Road to the southwest. The entire length of Appian Way within the study area is designated on the I-80 Bikeway, which extend from El Cerrito to Rodeo. This study examines the part of Appian Way between Fitzger- ald Drive and Valley View Road. On the preceding page, Figure 1 shows the regional context, while Figure 2 shows how Appian Way is configured in the study area and the local streets that inter- sect with it. On the northern end, Fitzgerald Drive extends west, and Sarah Drive 1 CCTA, West County Action Plan Update, 2009, page 32. east. Other local streets along Appian Way include Dalessi Drive, Allview Ave- nue, Rancho Road, Manor Road, Kister Circle and Argyle Road. At the southern end, Appian Way connects to Valley View Road at the Appian Way/Valley View Triangle. Valley View is a five-lane arterial serving DeAnza High School and subdivisions in the City of Richmond. The City of Pinole and Contra Costa County have jurisdiction over separate seg- ments of Appian Way. Within this project’s planning area, Pinole has jurisdic- tion over the northern third and Contra Costa County has jurisdiction over the southern two-thirds. City of Pinole Pinole’s segment of the planning area includes a five-lane roadway around Fitzgerald, a small portion of three-lane roadway around the city limit line, and a transition from five to three lanes in between. The City of Pinole Gen- eral Plan’s “Major Roadways” map defines Appian Way as an “Arterial Route of Regional Significance.”2 Pinole’s General Plan also emphasizes growth along its primary transit corridors, including Appian Way to support increased develop- ment intensity within the City.3 Pinole also proposes to maintain a Class II bicy- cle facility (bike lanes) along the full length of Appian within its city limits.4 In addition, Pinole’s Three Corridors Specific Plan calls for a five-lane cross sec- tion with two travel lanes in each direction plus bicycles lanes, sidewalks and medians or turning lanes.5 Five lanes were also assumed by Pinole’s 2010 General Plan’s EIR analysis of future conditions.6 Contra Costa County At present and in those portions of the planning area in unincorporated Contra Costa County, Appian Way is three-lanes, except for a short segment at Valley View Road where it briefly becomes five lanes. In June 2011, Contra Costa Coun- ty’s Board of Supervisors adopted the Downtown El Sobrante Amendment to the County General Plan.7 This amendment removed all references to a planned five-lane arterial for Appian Way from Valley View Road at the Appian Triangle to the Pinole city limits, and instead retained the existing three-lane roadway configuration as the planned roadway. Prior to that amendment, the Roadway Network Map in the County’s Circulation Element depicted Appian Way as ulti- mately becoming five lanes.8 2 City of Pinole, General Plan, 2010, page 7.0-11. 3 Ibid, page 7.0-19. 4 Ibid, page 7.0-9. 5 City of Pinole, Three Corridors Specific Plan, 2010, page 5.0-37. 6 City of Pinole, General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report, July 2010, page 4.4-27. 7 Contra Costa County, Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment, 2011, http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/ index.aspx?NID=2460. 8 Contra Costa County, General Plan, January 2005, “Roadway Network Plan.” Figure 2: Location Map and Existing Configuration 80 800400200 FEET 0 MICHAEL DR DALESSI DR ALLVI E W A V E F U L T O N WAYF I T ZGERALD DR APPIAN VILLAGE DRCity of P i nol e El Sobrante (Unincorporated Contra Costa County)Richm PinoLi m i t s City ond le City APPIAN WAYLimits 4 Travel Lanes + Turning Lane/Median Transition Transition 2 Travel Lanes + Turning Lane & Bike Lanes Planning Area APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY 3CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION At the request of the City of Pinole and in consultation with CCTA, the Board of Super- visors deferred a decision on the portion of Appian Way between Valley View and the Pinole city limits until the results of this study were available. Additionally, Policy 3-186 of the Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment says that: “the County will evaluate the feasibility of the planned or ultimate four lane [plus turn lane] roadway configuration … compared to retention of the current three lane configuration.”9 The Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment also emphasizes the creation of more pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly environments in the Triangle Area, and calls for a study of the “feasibility of the planned or ultimate four lane roadway configuration for this segment of Appian Way compared to retention of the current three lane configura- tion.” The study would also “examine whether improvements for this roadway segment are needed for pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit and whether such improve- ments can be provided within the existing public right-of-way.” 10 West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) To carry out its responsibilities for a cooperative planning process, CCTA works with four Regional Transportation Planning Committees, or RTPCs. These RTPCs, of which the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) is one, are made up of elected and appointed representatives in each region; they are assisted by a Technical Advisory Committee. Each RTPC oversees one Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance, such as Appian Way. The West County Action Plan (WCAP) requires findings for future performance to be made prior to funding “of any vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements.”11 Under the Action Plan, Appian Way is designated as a Route of Regional Significance. 12 The Action Plan, which helps carry out the requirements of the Measure J Growth Man- agement Program (GMP), was prepared collaboratively by the member agencies of the WCCTAC. The WCAP establishes Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives (MTSOs) and actions for achieving them; for Appian Way, the MTSO is to maintain Level of Service (LOS) D or better at all signalized intersections.13 CONCLUSIONS Three design alternatives were developed for evaluation. Principal distinctions among these include the number of lanes, the quality of the pedestrian environment, and the presence of on-street parking. Every alternative provides continuous bicycle lanes, pedestrian crosswalks, and maintains existing bus stop locations. 9 Contra Costa County, General Plan, 2010, page 3-66. 10 Contra Costa County, General Plan, 2011, page 3-66. 11 WCCTAC, West County Action Plan Update, 2009, page 32. 12 WCCTAC, West County Action Plan Update, 2009, pages 6-7. 13 WCCTAC, West County Action Plan Update, 2009, page 32. Alternative A: Five Lanes Alternative A shows the County’s standard five-lane cross-section along the entire corri- dor. This alternative reflects the City of Pinole’s adopted plans and the County’s previous General Plan policies. More specifically, it illustrates improvements needed to apply a uniform 95-foot right- of-way under County Public Works standards and accommodates sidewalks, bike lanes, four through lanes and a median/turn lane. It would require land acquisition for the planned right-of-way. Alternative B: Requirements under CCTA Methodology Alternative B represents improvements that would be required to maintain LOS D or better at all signalized intersections, consistent with the West County Action Plan which also specifies that traffic modeling use CCTA LOS software.14 Alternative B widens Appian Way from three to five lanes between Michael Drive and Fulton Way–about 37 percent of the length of the corridor. The remaining three-lane segment from Fulton Way to Valley View Road would remain unchanged except for the addition of one intersection signal. Alternative C: Complete Street Alternative C represents the policy established by the Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment for Appian Way between San Pablo Dam Road and the Appian Way/ Valley View Triangle. Alternative C stresses the quality of pedestrian environments by using distance and street trees to separate sidewalks from moving traffic. It also con- siders ways to enhance the corridor from the standpoint of urban design, economic development, and community identity. Alternative C also includes on-street parking and sidewalk treatments that could encourage new street-facing commercial/mixed-use development in the locations called for by City’s and County’s General Plans. No part of Appian Way is widened from three lanes to five lanes under Alternative C, as traffic modeling showed that LOS D can be maintained if the full effects of responses allowed under the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM-2000) operations manual are considered.15 For example, HCM-2000 allows signal timing benefits to be considered, whereas the CCTALOS software does not. Comparison and Recommendation Three alternatives were evaluated for: relative traffic performance, enhancements to pedestrian environments and community character, and construction and preliminary land acquisition costs. 14 WCCTAC, West County Action Plan Update, 2009, page 32. 15 Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. 4 APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Transportation Performance. For motor vehicles, the benchmark of performance is conformance to the West County Action Plan’s MTSO to “maintain LOS D or better at all signalized intersections on Appian Way.”16 All three alternatives meet this require- ment. Alternatives A and B meet the requirement as measured by the CCTALOS meth- odology prescribed by the Action Plan. Alternative C meets the MTSO requirement as determined by the HCM-2000 methodology, which is not noted in the WCAP but is accepted as an alternative method in CCTA’s Technical Procedures manual.17 All three Alternatives depict bicycle lanes along the entire length of the corridor, and maintain bus stops. With regard to pedestrians, however, Alternative C is superior in several respects: continuous concrete sidewalks, curb extensions at some crosswalks, and separation of pedestrians from moving vehicles by street trees and parked cars in some locations. Community Character. Alternative C would create a more attractive walking environ- ment than the other Alternatives. Alternative C would provide street trees, pedestrian- scaled lighting, landscaping and opportunities for seating. Alternative C has the poten- tial of transforming the character of the corridor and of making special recognizable destinations where mixed-use development is encouraged by City and County policies. Enhanced walking environments were assumed as part of Alternatives A or B. Alterna- tive A examines the effects of applying the County’s standard five-lane cross section, and Alternative B examines the extent to which improvements can be minimized if the CCTALOS method of analysis is applied, as is called for by the West County Action Plan. Land Acquisition and Cost Implications. Cost estimating was conducted by Contra Costa County’s Public Works Department. Alternative A is the most expensive (about $17.7 million) because land and building acquisition costs are considerable and grading and construction would be more extensive. Alternative B represents the lowest construc- tion costs (about $9.5 million), as it makes no improvements to Appian Way south of Fulton Way, except for a new light signal at Manor Road. Alternative C (about $13 mil- lion) is less expensive than Alternative A but more expensive than Alternative B. While Alternative C acquisition costs are similar to those under Alternative B, street trees, landscaping, pedestrian-scaled lighting and curb extensions add significant costs–but these improvements could accelerate redevelopment in commercial mixed-use areas and enhance the image and land values in the larger area. Recommendation. This report recommends Alternative C, Complete Street, because public improvements provide numerous benefits relating to walkability and community character at a cost comparable or less than if a five-lane roadway were built. Alternative C delivers superior pedestrian environments and safety. It would have a transformative effect on the area’s image and identity. Alternative C also has the best chance of encour- 16 WCCTAC, West County Action Plan Update, 2009, page 32. 17 CCTA, Technical Procedures Update, 2012, page 40. aging new private investment to redevelop commercial areas into pedestrian-friendly districts, thereby better leveraging public investments along the corridor. As designed, Alternative C would also be most responsive to site-specific conditions along the corri- dor and best support abutting land uses. ORGANIZATION The remaining chapters of this report provide a comprehensive analysis of conditions, considerations, and design options, organized as follows: • Policy Context. Established Contra Costa County, City of Pinole and CCTA policies are summarized to highlight objectives for Appian Way improvements and its per- formance as a transportation corridor and series of places. Existing County, City and CCTA policies are summarized to ensure consistency between recommendations and adopted plans. • Physical Conditions along the Corridor. The corridor is comprised of different seg- ments that are characteristically different and may call for varying design responses. Factors assessed include: the number of traffic lanes, the frequency of curb cuts, the character of abutting uses, the presence of steep slopes and retaining walls, and other factors. • Transportation Analysis. Technical analysis projects future year LOS within the Appian Way planning area. Where future operations might be substandard, intersec- tion configurations have been recommended and incorporated into the Study’s design alternatives. Two different analysis methodologies are used. The CCTALOS methodology is required by the West County Action Plan to evaluate conformance to the MTSO for Appian Way. A separate analysis was made using the HCM-2000 methodology, which is recognized by CCTA’s Technical Procedures. The HCM-2000 methodology accounts for additional factors affecting intersection performance, such as the full effects of signal timing. The two methodologies result in different conclusions: the CCTALOS methodology indicates that Appian Way should be widened from Michael Drive to Fulton Way, while the HCM-2000 methodology indicates that no road wid- ening is needed. • Design Alternatives. Design alternatives were prepared to examine and evaluate the three different options, as have been summarized above and are described later in this document. The three alternatives have been evaluated for: relative traffic performance; enhancements to pedestrian environments and community character; and construc- tion and land acquisition costs. APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY 5 2 Policy Context The City of Pinole and Contra Costa County have jurisdiction over separate segments of the portion of Appian Way that is subject of this study, and are responsible for helping achieve the Multimodal Transportation Service Objectives (MTSOs) established in the West County Action Plan. Circulation policies for Pinole and Contra Costa County are summarized below. Some policies are aligned, as they target congestion relief and encourage alternative modes. Pinole and County land use and urban design policies are also similar as both juris- dictions encourage new pedestrian-friendly development in commercially-designated areas. Land use policy highlights also appear in this section. To put these policies in context, note that the existing pattern of land use includes commercial uses along the corridor’s north end, near Fitzgerald Drive, and along its south end, near Valley View Road. (Fig- ure 3: Existing Land Uses shows existing land uses in the corridor.) Residential uses line the middle half of the corridor and generally consist of single-family lots. Exceptions include less than half a dozen multi-family parcels, less than half a dozen churches and a school. (For more detail on conditions, please see “Conditions along Specific Segments” in Chapter 3.) COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION PLAN The Countywide Transportation Plan (CTP) calls for cooperative multi-jurisdictional planning among CCTA and local jurisdictions in Contra Costa, such as this Study. The CTP also lays out CCTA’s vision for Contra Costa’s future, goals and strategies for attaining that vision, and transportation priorities. For the Authority, that Vision is: Strive to preserve and enhance the quality of life of local communities by promot- ing a healthy environment and a strong economy to benefit the people and areas of Contra Costa, sustained by 1) a balanced, safe and efficient transportation net- work; 2) coopertive planning; and 3) growth management. The transportation CHAPTER 2: POLICY CONTEXT network should integrate all modes of transportation to meet the diverse needs of Contra Costa.18 CTP goals and strategies that are particularly relevant to the Appian Way study are those that underscore the idea of increasing multi-modal mobility, making more efficient use of the existing system, and promoting infill and redevelopment in existing areas. Spe- cific to Appian Way, the CTP calls for the funding of “vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements, including widening of Appian Way and installation of pedestrian cross- walks, traffic calming measures, and streetscape improvements.”19 The CTP also calls for the Authority to work with the County and local jurisdictions to ensure that new transportation projects are environmentally sustainable through: “1) supportive transportation‐land use relationships, 2) transit, 3) bicycle and pedestrian improvements, 4) safe and efficiently managed highways and roads, and 5) new tech- nologies.” A key implementation strategy is to require local jurisdictions to incorporate policies and standards that support transit, bicycle and pedestrian access in new development as well as promote development of multi-modal facilities–a central tenet of the “com- plete streets” concept. For the existing arterial system, the emphasis is on completing the “gaps” and enhancing operational capacity through both capital and operational enhancements. The CTP also seeks to ensure that projects respect each community’s character and enhance the quality of life in Contra Costa communities.20 This goal is well aligned with another central tenet of complete streets: to be context sensitive and responsive to the unique needs of each setting. A principal vehicle for implementing the CTP is CCTA’s administration of Measure J funds. The CTP provides a framework for setting project and program priorities, which are defined by Action Plans for subregions within the County. To receive Measure J funds, projects and programs must be consistent with these Action Plans. 18 CCTA, Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan, 2009, page v. 19 Ibid, page 93. 20 Ibid, page 37. 6 APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY CHAPTER 2: POLICY CONTEXT Thr e eCorri d o rsSpecificP lan PinoleSphereofInfluencePinole City LimitsA P P IA N W A Y FITZGERALDSARAH DRMICHAEL DRDALESSIDRFULTO N WA Y RANCHORDM ANOR RDKISTER CIRARGYLE RDVALLEYVIEWRDEVA ETNARBOSAPPIAN W A Y APPIAN W A Y ALLVIEWAVEAPPIAN W A Y C OMPLE TE STREE T S STUD Y City of Pinole and Contra Costa CountyGeneral Plan Land Use Commercial Open Space Light Industrial Vacant Multi-family Residential Single Family Residential Public/ Semi-public Motel Oc e 200 FEET 0080040100 Existing Land Use Pinole City LimitsEl S obrant e P ino l e PinoleSphereofInfluenceThr e eCorri d o rsSp ecific Plan A P P IA N W A Y FITZGERALDDRSARAH DRDALESSIDRFULT O N WAYRANCHO RDM ANOR RDKISTER CIRARGYLE RDVALLEYVIEWRDEVA ETNARBOSAPPIAN W A Y APPIAN W A Y ALLVIEWAVEMICHAEL D R Suburban Residential 1.1-10.0 du/ac (City of Pinole GP) Commercial Mixed Use 20.1-30.0 du/ac (min 51% commercial, retail, and service use)(City of Pinole GP) Multiple-Family Residential Medium Density 12.0-20.9 du/ac(Contra Costa County GP) Single Family Residential High Density 5.0-7.2 du/ac(Contra Costa County GP) Single Family Residential Low Density 1.0-2.9 du/ac(Contra Costa County GP) Multiple-Family Residential Low Density7.3-11.9 du/ac (Contra Costa County GP) Commercial 0.1-1.0 FAR (Contra Costa County GP) M-12 Triangle Area Mixed-Use up to 8 du/ac; 0.1-1.0 FAR (Contra Costa County GP) Residential Mixed Use 20.1-35.0 du/ac (min 51% residential use)(City of Pinole Three Corridors Specic Plan) High Density Residential20.1-35.0 du/ac (City of Pinole GP) Rural 0.0-0.20 du/ac (City of Pinole GP) Pinole City Limits Pinole Sphere of Inuen ce Three Corridors Specic Plan Building Footprint Figure 3: Existing Land Uses Figure 4: General Plan Land Uses City of Pinole and Contra Costa County ThreeCorri d o rsSpecificP lan PinoleSphereofInfluencePinole City LimitsA P P IA N W A YFITZGERALDSARAH DRMICHAEL DRDALESSIDRFULTONWAY RANCHORDM ANOR RDKISTER CIRARGYLE RDVALLEYVIEWRDEVA ETNARBOSAPPIAN W A YAPPIAN W A YALLVIEWAVE APPIAN W A Y C OMPLE TE STREE T S STUD Y City of Pinole and Contra Costa CountyGeneral Plan Land Use Commercial OpenSpace LightIndustrial Vacant Multi-familyResidential Single FamilyResidentialPublic/Semi-publicMotelOce 200 FEET 0080040100 Existing Land Use Pinole City LimitsEl S obrant e P ino l e PinoleSphereofInfluenceThr e eCorri d o rsSp ecific Plan A P P IA N W A Y FITZGERALDDRSARAH DRDALESSIDRFU LT O N WAYRANCHO RDM ANOR RDKISTER CIRARGYLE RDVALLEYVIEWRDEVA ETNARBOSAPPIAN W A Y APPIAN W A Y ALLVIEWAVEMICHAEL D R Suburban Residential1.1-10.0 du/ac (City of Pinole GP) Commercial Mixed Use20.1-30.0 du/ac (min 51% commercial, retail, and service use) (City of Pinole GP) Multiple-Family ResidentialMedium Density 12.0-20.9 du/ac (Contra Costa County GP) Single Family ResidentialHigh Density 5.0-7.2 du/ac (Contra Costa County GP) Single Family ResidentialLow Density 1.0-2.9 du/ac (Contra Costa County GP) Multiple-Family Residential Low Density 7.3-11.9 du/ac(Contra Costa County GP) Commercial0.1-1.0 FAR (Contra Costa County GP) M-12 Triangle Area Mixed-Useup to 8 du/ac; 0.1-1.0 FAR (Contra Costa County GP) Residential Mixed Use20.1-35.0 du/ac (min 51% residential use) (City of Pinole Three CorridorsSpecic Plan) High Density Residential 20.1-35.0 du/ac(City of Pinole GP) Rural0.0-0.20 du/ac (City of Pinole GP) Pinole City Limits Pinole Sphere of Inuen ce Three Corridors Specic Plan BuildingFootprint APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY 7CHAPTER 2: POLICY CONTEXT WEST COUNTY ACTION PLAN UPDATE OF 2009 For each CCTA Action Plan, a Regional Committee assesses the impacts of future growth on the regional transportation system and identifies actions for mitigating these impacts.21 The West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) updated its West County Action Plan (WCAP) in 2009. The WCAP addresses the cumulative impacts of regional growth on West Coun- ty’s major transportation facilities. The WCAP defines Appian Way as a Route of Regional Significance that con- nects San Pablo Dam Road and Interstate 80. WCCTAC’s Multimodal Trans- portation Service Objective (MTSO) for Appian Way is to “maintain LOS D or better at all signalized intersections on Appian Way.”22 To attain the MTSO, the WCAP calls for WCCTAC, Contra Costa County and City of Pinole to “work with CCTA and MTC to fund construction of any vehi- cle, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements. Modifications may include widen- ing Appian Way to four lanes from Valley View Road in unincorporated Contra Costa County to Michael Drive in the City of Pinole. Additional modifications may include improved pedestrian and bicycle access through installation of pedestrian crosswalks, traffic calming measures and streetscape improvements.” As is demonstrated by this study’s design alternatives, a potentially limiting fac- tor in how the MTSO can be attained is the requirement that, for Appian Way, LOS must be measured at intersections “using the CCTALOS software to ana- lyze peak hour vehicular turning movement counts.” 23 Some methods such as accounting for the full effects of signal timing for improv- ing LOS are not recognized by the CCTALOS software as is considered under HCM-2000. However, CCTA’s Technical Procedures manual recognizes HCM- 2000 as an acceptable methodology. In the introduction to its chapter on Level- of-Service Methodology for Intersections, the manual says: Both the Authority’s LOS [CCTALOS] method which relies on volume-to- capacity, and the HCM-2000 method, which reports intersection delay, may be used for traffic analysis.24 21 Ibid, page 83. 22 WCCTAC, West County Action Plan Update, 2009, page 32. 23 Ibid. 24 CCTA, Technical Procedures Update, 2012, page 40. CITY OF PINOLE Land Use. Within the City of Pinole, the Three Corridors Specific Plan pro- vides policy guidance. The Specific Plan promotes a combination of commercial and residential development, which must have entrances and frontages oriented toward Appian Way as a result of small maximum (or “build to”) setbacks and street-oriented “building type” requirements. Vertical mixed use, where upper- story residences are above street-level commercial, is encouraged, In Pinole, significant land use intensification is allowed along Appian Way – except on the single-family subdivision between Sarah Drive and Michael Drive. Most parcels along the west side of Appian Way have a Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) designation, which allows for a wide variety of commercial uses as well as high-density multi-family residential up to 30 dwellings per acre (du/ac). Fig- ure 4: General Plan Land Uses shows Pinole’s land use design. Along the east side of Appian Way, the single-family subdivision to the north will remain, while to the south, the Residential Mixed Use (RMU) designation allows commercial uses and residential uses up to 35 du/ac. The southernmost parcels on the west side of Appian Way have this same designation, except for one High-Density Residential parcel, which also allows up to 35 dwellings per acre. Circulation. The Circulation Element of the Specific Plan reinforces Pinole’s vision for a more pedestrian-oriented and bicycle-friendly Appian Way. Cir- culation Policy 2 of the Specific Plan says: “all future roadway and intersection improvements will consider pedestrian and traffic safety first and foremost.”25 Specific features for attaining this goal include narrowing travel lanes to regulate speeds, using curb extensions to reduce crossing distances as crosswalks, and planting street trees.26 The Specific Plan describes a preferred five-lane cross section for Appian Way that includes sidewalks (separated from the curb by street trees) and bicycle lanes.27 The five-lane street improvement subsequently made by the City does not have street trees between sidewalk and curb, nor does it have bicycle lanes – although sufficient room for a striped bicycle lane appears to be available (see Chapter 5: Design Alternatives). 25 City of Pinole, Three Corridors Specific Plan, 2010, page 5.0-2. 26 Ibid, pages 5.0-47 through -48. 27 Ibid, page 5.0-37. 8 APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY CHAPTER 2: POLICY CONTEXT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Land Use. Much of the planning area within the County’s jurisdiction would remain as Single-family Residential (SFR) with up to 7.2 du/ac except in two sub- areas.28 The County’s General Plan designates the area near Pinole’s city limit on the east side of Appian Way as Multi-family Residential (MFR), with up to 20.9 du/ac allowed. Around and near the “Triangle Area,” neighborhood-oriented commercial uses with up to 1.0 FAR are allowed, along with modest amounts of residential (up to 8 du/ac) on the parcels designated as M-12 Triangle Area Mixed-Use. The County’s vision for the southern “Triangle Area” is that it should “develop into a unified, well-designed neighborhood, which at appropriate locations pro - vides opportunities for mixed use development, rather than an incremental accumulation of unrelated developments.”29 Most parcels at the south end are designated as “Triangle Area Mixed Use,” which calls for a pedestrian-oriented “main street” environment. Building(s) should be located close to street frontage with windows and entries facing the street. …The retail and/or commercial uses should be located along ground floor street frontages although offices for professional and business services may be located above retail use. …Surface parking should be located behind commercial frontage.30 The County also supports the reuse of previously developed land. Infilling of already developed areas shall be encouraged. …In accommo- dating new development, preferences shall generally be given to vacant or under-used sites within urbanized area.31 Community appearance shall be upgraded by encouraging redevelopment, where appropriate.32 [And the Triangle Area Mixed-Use designation] strongly encourages the consolidation of parcels so as to provide an improved development foot- print and combined access and parking areas.33 Circulation. Policy 3-186 of the County’s General Plan gives specific guidance for an Appian Way feasibility study that considers whether additional lanes need to be added and how pedestrian and bicycle environments can be improved: [T]he County will evaluate the feasibility of the planned four lane [plus turn lane] roadway configuration … compared to retention of the current 28 Contra Costa County, General Plan, 2010, Land Use Map. 29 Ibid, page 3-73. 30 Ibid, page 3-25. 31 Ibid, page 3-34. 32 Ibid, page 3-35. 33 Ibid. three lane configuration. This feasibility study will determine the footprint of a four lane cross-section for this segment of Appian Way to be used in estimating the right of way and construction costs for the planned road- way configuration, as a four lane arterial roadway. The feasibility study will then compare projected traffic volumes and levels of service for the planned four lane arterial roadway versus the existing three lane cross sec- tion (one lane in each direction plus a center two-way left turn lane) and evaluate any differences between the two in terms of traffic operations and safety. … Additionally, consistent with the principles of existing General Plan policies related to “Complete Streets,” the feasibility study will exam- ine whether improvements for this roadway segment are needed for pedes- trians, bicyclists, and public transit and whether such improvements can be provided within the existing public right-of-way. … The results of the study will then be used as the basis for the County to determine whether to amend the Transportation/Circulation Element, Roadway Network Map, changing this segment of Appian Way from a planned four lane roadway to retention of the existing three lane cross-section (one lane in each direc- tion plus a center two-way left turn lane) as the planned roadway configu- ration.34 The complete streets policies called for above embody the following principles, as defined by the General Plan: • Emphasize all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and motorists, of all ages and abilities; • Recognize the need for design flexibility as conditions and user needs vary by street; and • Require that complete streets solutions fit context of the local community.35 County General Plan policies also encourage efforts to develop and promote “alternative forms of transportation … in order to provide basic accessibility to those without access to a personal automobile and to help minimize automobile congestion and air pollution.” 36 Additionally, the General Plan seeks to establish “local transit service areas; areas where development densities will warrant the provision of fixed-route transit service.”37 Of special relevance to the Triangle Mixed-Use area, County Policy 5-37 says, “Pedestrian Districts should be created in areas of mixed or dense land use and dense or potentially intense pedestrian activity. Landscaping and trees should be used” and the design of street improvements should “encourage pedestrian activity” where high usage is anticipated.38 34 Ibid, page 3-6 35 Ibid, page 5-9. 36 Ibid, page 5-16. 37 Ibid, page 5-14. 38 Ibid, page 5-22. APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY 9CHAPTER 3: PHYSICAL CONDITIONS ALONG THE CORRIDOR 3 Physical Conditions Along the Corridor Constraints and opportunities have been evaluated across a range factors that have design or construction cost implications. A graphic synthesis of most fac- tors appears in Figure 6: Existing Conditions/Opportunities and Constraints, which is included later on page 18, to enable easy review alongside proposed design alternatives. METHODOLOGY CCTA’s consultant team mapped existing conditions using County parcel maps, satellite imagery and field measurements. No “as built” drawings were available, yet analysis and recommendations are represented with reasonable confidence, with mapping believed to be accurate within a few feet. Physical analyses of the corridor—and the design Alternatives that follow—are depicted using diagrams that emphasize critical planning factors (Figures 6 to 9). The basis for these diagrams is detailed mapping and design work using Computer-Aided Design (CAD). Development of CAD digital drawing files pro- motes more accurate base mapping, design work, and analysis. The CAD files might also provide a useful point of departure after a preferred design is selected and design development is initiated. GENERAL CONDITIONS Travel Lanes. Once a two-lane rural road, Appian Way has been improved incrementally and in segments as Pinole and Contra Costa County have devel- oped. As a consequence, physical conditions within the corridor could be quite varied. The number of lanes changes from five-lanes at Michael Drive to three- lanes from just north of Pinole’s City limit line through the rest of the corri- dor–except where the roadway widens briefly to five lanes at its intersection with Valley View Road. Lane widths and curb-to-curb dimensions vary considerably as well. Curbs and Sidewalks. Asphalt curbs and sidewalks are used in segments where recent development has not occurred, while more permanent concrete curbs and sidewalks are used in Pinole and in the unincorporated County with recent development. Sidewalks (concrete and asphalt) line the full length of Appian Way, except in the Triangle Area where continuous driveway access extends along the west side of the street. Pedestrian Crossings. Pedestrian crossings are delineated by single painted lines at Fitzgerald Drive, Allview Avenue, Manor Road, and Valley View and by a zebra crosswalk designation at Argyle Road. At some crossings, the intersec- tion design results in a crossing that is quite long (e.g. Manor Road). No special pavement or signage is provided. Driveways and Setbacks. Most of the corridor has frequent curb cuts and drive- ways that provide access to homes, businesses and institutions. Many residential structures are set relatively close to the street. No driveways occur off of Appian north of Michael Drive. Bicycle Lanes. Striped bicycle lanes are continuously present, except where Appian has five lanes in the northern part of the corridor. Bus Service. AC Transit provides bus service along Appian Way. To the north, bus route 70 links Appian Way with the Richmond Parkway Transit Center. To the south, bus route 70 crosses San Pablo Avenue and connects to the Richmond BART and Amtrak station. Bus stops are intermittent and are spaced about one- third of a mile apart. Simple wood benches accompany some bus stops. Hillside Slopes. Hillside slopes occur along significant portions of Appian Way. To stay within available right-of-way, some slopes have been cut and retained by walls with heights ranging from about three to fifteen feet. 10 APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY CHAPTER 3: PHYSICAL CONDITIONS ALONG THE CORRIDOR CONDITIONS ALONG SPECIFIC SEGMENTS Conditions for characteristically different segments are described below, in an order that moves from north to south. For a map of these segments, refer to Fig- ure 2: Location Map and Existing Configuration or Figure 6: Existing Condi- tions/Opportunities and Constraints. Pinole: Fitzgerald Drive to Michael Drive (Five lanes) Roadway Conditions. From Fitzgerald Drive to Michael Drive, Appian Way was improved by the City of Pinole to be a five-lane roadway. This segment is accom- panied by concrete curbs, concrete sidewalks, and landscaping. It lacks bicycle lanes but there appears to be sufficient curb-to-curb dimension for their addition (see Chapter 5: Design Alternatives). Between Fitzgerald Drive and Michael Drive, there is no direct access to abut- ting properties. Commercial property along the west edge gains access from Fitzgerald Drive, and the east edge of Appian has rear yard fences associated with a single-family subdivision. Land Use Context. To the west, low-intensity commercial uses presently exist but these lots could be candidates for infill or redevelopment. The Commercial Mixed Use designation allows high-density housing in addition to commercial uses. Single-family lots at the northeast corner of the planning area are likely to remain given their good condition and low-density Suburban Residential desig- nation. Looking south toward Michael Drive Looking north toward Sarah Drive Key Considerations. Except for restriping to provide bicycle lanes and the potential for lighting and landscape improvements, this segment of Appian Way might be considered to be fully improved for the foreseeable future. Pinole: Michael Drive to Pinole City Limit (transitions from five to three lanes) Roadway Conditions. For about 500 feet from just south of Michael Drive to north of the city limit line, Appian Way transitions from five-lanes to three- lanes. On-street parking is available where the number of travel lanes has been reduced but the curb-to-curb distance has not narrowed. This segment features concrete curbs and sidewalks. Land Use Context. The Commercial Mixed Use designation of the Three Corri- dors Specific Plan allows the integration of commercial and office uses. The Res- idential Mixed Use designation also allows housing. Under both designations, new construction should place “commercial use at the ground floor on the street front wherever possible.”39 Key Considerations. Mixed-use development that fronts onto the street would be encouraged by enhancing pedestrian sidewalks with street trees and ameni- ties, and by providing on-street parking. 39 City of Pinole, Three Corridors Specific Plan, 2010, pages 6.0-3 to 6.0-4. Looking north from Public Storage Looking south toward Dalessi Drive APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY 11CHAPTER 3: PHYSICAL CONDITIONS ALONG THE CORRIDOR Triangle Area Commercial Segment (three lanes transitioning to five lanes) Roadway Conditions. Appian Way remains at three lanes except immediately north of Valley View Road, where it transitions to five lanes. Along the east side of Appian, concrete sidewalks accompany relatively new commercial develop- ment. Appian Way’s west side is unimproved, as asphalt parking lots merge with the roadway and there is no clear pedestrian path. At the Appian Way and Valley View Road intersection, curbs and striping provide a perpendicular approach, but with sweeping right turns also present. Considerable right-of-way remains unused, while sidewalks are narrow. Land Use Context. To date, commercial development has had a suburban con- figuration with parking lots in front and building entrances set away from the street. Triangle Area Mixed Use and commercial designations allow for a range of local-serving commercial uses and housing is permissible on upper floors. A maximum height of 35 feet and a maximum FAR of 1.0 are allowed. Key Considerations. The Appian Way/Valley View Road intersection presents opportunities and challenges. The roads’ rights-of-way intersect in a skewed manner, which is reconciled by the existing roadway configuration made pos- sible by large rights-of-way (Figure 11). At the same time, pedestrian sidewalks are absent along the western edge of Appian Way. North of this intersection Appian Way widens to as much as two hundred feet, and Valley View’s right-of- way is over 130 feet at the intersection. Available right-of-way could be used for sidewalks, planting strips, and on-street parking to support new street-oriented businesses. Place-making features, such as a roundabout, might be considered as well because roundabouts offer transportation benefits as well as lower mainte- nance costs than the signalized intersections. Roadway improvements and pri- vate development in this segment have the potential to create a distinctive pedes- trian-oriented district. To encourage development, the County could increase allowable height and floor area ratios (FARs) to allow larger buildings, and/or make unused right-of-way available for sale. Looking south from Rancho Road Looking south from the post office Pinole City Limit to Triangle Area Commercial Area (three lanes) Roadway Conditions. This three-lane segment has bicycle lanes of varying width. Recent development has led to roadway widening, and construction of concrete sidewalks and curbs. Where development has not occurred recently, asphalt sidewalks and curbs remain. Steep slopes are present close to the right- of-way. Land Use Context. In unincorporated Contra Costa County, most of Appian Way’s frontage is lined by property designated Single-Family Residential High Density. This designation allows up to 7.2 dwelling units per net acre (du/ac), which makes redevelopment of existing lots unlikely. On the east side of Appian Way and within 800 feet of the Pinole City Limit, properties have a Multi-Fam- ily Residential Medium Density General Plan designation that allows up to 20.9 dwelling units per acre. Narrow parcels would need to be assembled for develop- ers to take advantage of this density. Key Considerations. From the standpoint of roadway design, residential uses generally need only be accompanied by modest sidewalk widths (about five feet in width). Where new sidewalks are being installed, street trees between curb and sidewalk should be considered to make the walking environment and com- munity more attractive. On-street parking adjacent to residential uses may not be needed because sufficient amounts of on-site parking exist. Furthermore, on- street parking would increase land acquisition and grading costs. Providing on- street parking, where feasible, could support successful mixed-use developments along Appian Way. Looking north from Argyle Road Looking north from Valley View intersection 12 APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY CHAPTER 4: TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS 4 Transportation Analysis As part of the technical evaluation, Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (K&A) assessed existing and future traffic operations at four intersections along Appian Way: 1) Michael Drive, 2) Allview Avenue, 3) Rancho Road, and 4) Manor Road. The All- view Avenue and the Manor Road intersections are currently signalized, while the Michael Drive and the Rancho Road intersections are currently controlled by stop signs on the minor street approaches. K&A’s analysis forecasts the future year vehicle volumes using the CCTA Travel Demand Model. This analysis compares future performance using two different methodologies: the Contra Costa Transportation Authority Level of Service (CCTALOS) meth- odology, the method cited specifically in the West County Action Plan MTSO for Appian Way, and the Highway Capacity Manual Operations methodology, which is an accepted alternative under CCTA’s updated Technical Procedures. The following section summarizes the forecast approach and the two different methodologies, and presents the findings of the future year intersection level of service (LOS) analysis. Where future operations would be substandard, inter- section configurations are recommended and have been incorporated into the design alternatives presented later in this report. FORECAST APPROACH Future year vehicle volume forecasts were estimated using the version of the CCTA Countywide Model prepared for the Pinole General Plan, which incor- porates the land use assumptions for the area, with adjustments to reflect the Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment (GPA). County staff reviewed and provided comments on the Downtown El Sobrante GPA and the number of lanes and travel speeds on the roadway network in the project vicinity. Changes were made in the model in response to these comments, and those changes are part of the baseline for this analysis. Traffic volume forecasts were prepared using the 2000 base and 2030 future year volumes from the CCTA model and the 2012 traffic counts following the process described in the CCTA Technical Procedures. 40 To be consistent with the approach used in the Pinole General Plan Update and for a more conserva- 40 As an intermediate step, the 2012 intersection turning movement counts were compared to the available historical counts from 2003/4 and 2006 at these locations. The comparison found that the 2012 counts were generally comparable or higher, which indicates that traffic volumes appear to have recovered from the recent economic downturn. tive analysis, the full 30-year growth increment (2000 to 2030) from the model was used, and no adjustment was made to account for the actual growth that occurred between 2000 and 2012, which was lower than anticipated. The existing and future year volumes and lane geometry assumptions are shown in Figure 5: Existing and Future Traffic Volume and Lane Geometries (Volumes: AM (PM)). Projected increases in traffic only occur at significant levels north of Fulton Way, with relatively little growth in volumes south of Fulton Way. In both the south- bound direction in the AM peak hour and in the northbound direction in the PM peak hour, this increase appears to be attributable to cut-through traffic due to congestions on the I-80, on Fulton Way as it connects via Manor Road to Hill- top Drive. This is reflected in the through volumes at the Michael Drive intersec- tion and the Allview Avenue intersection. ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES Contra Costa County’s level of service standard for signalized intersections in an urban area is high LOS D with volume-to-capacity (V/C) between 0.85 and 0.89 assessed using CCTALOS methodology, which is consistent with the West County Action Plan and CCTA’s Technical Procedures. While there is no explicit County standard for unsignalized intersections, these locations were evaluated using the methodology presented in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), which is an option recognized by CCTA’s updated Technical Procedures, but not identified separately as an alternate methodology for analyzing conformance with the MTSO for Appian Way. To provide the best planning information, K&A used both the CCTALOS methodology and the HCM Operations methodology. The HCM Operations methodology is a more robust analysis methodology for the signalized intersections that accounts for factors not included in the capac- ity-based CCTALOS method. The rationale for this is to show clearly the effects of methods for intersection performance that are not captured by the CCTALOS method, such as the full effects of signal timing. This analysis first compares future performance using the Contra Costa Trans- portation Authority Level of Service (CCTALOS) methodology and then applies the HCM Operations methodology. Both the average vehicle delay for vehicles at the intersection and the worst approach delay are shown in Tables 1 and 2. APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY 13CHAPTER 4: TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Table 1 presents the existing conditions, seconds of delay for unsignalized inter- sections, Volume-to-Capacity ratios using the CCTALOS methodology for sig- nalized intersections, and their corresponding level of service (LOS). The top row of Figure 5 shows existing conditions, vehicle volumes, and lane geometries for identified locations. The second and third rows show future con- ditionsthe baseline and volumes with improvements. The first number is the AM volume, while the second, in parenthesis, is the PM volume. Table 2 presents the future year analysis results using the CCTALOS and HCM methodologies. For three of the four locations where the LOS and volume/ capacity ratio (V/C) were studied, future conditions would not meet the County standard of high LOS D with V/C between 0.85 and 0.89, unless recommended improvements were implemented. Using the CCTALOS methodology, additional through lanes will be needed north of Fulton Way to meet the County’s LOS standard. While Fulton Way was not analyzed, it is used by motorists as a shortcut from Manor Road to Appian Way. Fulton Way is forecasted to carry more cut-through traffic in the future, due to the congestion on the I-80 freeway. Under this scenario, the CCTALOS methods point to the need to make Appian Way north of Fulton four lanes plus median/turn lane. South of Fulton, Appian Way could remain two-lanes plus a median/turn lane. The effects of potential improvements at the four locations that were analyzed using the CCTALOS methodology are shown in Table 2. Table 1 Intersection Level of Service (Year 2012 Existing Conditions) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Location Control Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS 1 Appian Way and Michael Drive Minor Stop3 0.5 A 1.8 A Eastbound Approach 56.0 F 102.2 F 3 Appian Way and Rancho Road Minor Stop3 3.5 A 1.2 A Westbound Approach 81.0 F 50.6 F V/C2 LOS V/C2 LOS 2 Appian Way and Allview Avenue Signal 0.69 B 0.87 D 4 Appian Way and Manor Road Signal 0.82 D 0.78 C 1. The delay shown is based on the 2000 HCM unsignalized intersection methodology, which provides an average delay in seconds for the overall intersection as well as the worst approach, shown on the second line. 2. Volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) based on the CCTALOS methodology for signalized intersections. 3. For the stop-controlled intersections, the average delay and corresponding LOS are reported for the overall intersection on the first line and for the stop-controlled side street approach on the second line. Figure 5: Existing and Future Traffic Volume and Lane Geometries (Volumes: AM (PM)) Existing Conditions (2012) Future Year–No Improvements (2030) Future Year–With Improvements (2030) 14 APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY CHAPTER 4: TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS Using the HCM methodology, the results for future (2030) conditions (shown in Table 2) indicate that the existing lane configurations at the two signalized inter- sections would be able to accommodate future traffic volumes while meeting the LOS D standard set as the MTSO for Appian Way in the West County Action Plan. At the two unsignalized intersections, improvements, as discussed below, would be required to improve the operations to acceptable standards. Potential Improvements and the Alternatives. The modeling methods that are employed relate to the design alternatives described in Chapter 5. Alternative A and Alternative B are designed to meet the MTSO using the CCTALOS meth- odology called for by the West County Action Plan – with Alternative A wid- ened to five lanes throughout and Alternative B widened to five lanes between Michael Drive and Fulton Way. Alternative C improvements are based on the HCM methodology, which recognizes operational improvements that will allow three lanes to remain where they now exist. Appian Way and Michael Drive (1). This unsignalized intersection would have overall LOS A during both AM and PM peak hours in the existing and future years. However, vehicles at the minor street approaches would experience long delays during both peak periods with LOS F conditions. In particular, left-turn- ing and through movements from the minor streets would be most affected due to the high volumes in both directions along the four-lane Appian Way. Potential Improvement: To address future needs, through and left-turn move- ments from Michael Drive and the opposing commercial center should be restricted. To head south, residents and visitors from the residential subdivision north of Michael Drive could be directed towards Sarah Drive and the signal at the intersection of Appian Way with Sarah/Fitzgerald Drive; while patrons of the commercial center may use the left-turn portion just south of the driveway exit to make a U-turn to head north. Upon implementation of the measure, the minor street operations would improve to LOS C. This mitigation is the same under both the CCTALOS methodology and HCM-2000 methodology scenar- ios. Appian Way and Allview Avenue (2). This intersection currently operates at LOS B and LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. However, when using the CCTALOS methodology, this intersection would function below standard in the future year at LOS E and LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, due to increased volumes of high through traffic on Appian Way. However, when using the HCM methodology, this intersection would operate at LOS D in both the AM and PM peak hours, and no improvements would be needed. Table 2 Intersection Level of Service (Year 2030 Future Scenario using CCTALOS and HCM-2000 Methodology) CCTA Methodology Before Improvements AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Location Control Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS 1 Appian Way and Michael Drive Minor Stop3 0.9 A 2.7 A Eastbound Approach 152.1 F 188.3 F 3 Appian Way and Rancho Road Minor Stop3 13.4 B 5.7 A Westbound Approach 213.9 F 182.4 F V/C2 LOS V/C2 LOS 2 Appian Way and Allview Avenue Signal 0.98 E 1.04 F 4 Appian Way and Manor Road Signal 0.81 D 0.82 D After Improvements Location Control Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS 1 Appian Way and Michael Drive Minor Stop3 0.1 A 0.3 A Eastbound Approach 15.5 C 17.9 C V/C2 LOS V/C2 LOS 2 Appian Way and Allview Avenue Signal 0.55 A 0.54 A 3 Appian Way and Rancho Road Signal 0.70 B 0.89 A 4 Appian Way and Manor Road Signal 0.81 D 0.82 D HCM 2000 Methodology Before Improvements Location Control Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS 1 Appian Way & Michael Drive Minor Stop3 0.9 A 2.7 A Eastbound Approach 152.1 F 188.3 F 2 Appian Way & Allview Avenue Signal 35.1 D 41.6 D 3 Appian Way & Rancho Road Minor Stop3 13.4 B 5.7 A Westbound Approach 213.9 F 182.4 F 4 Appian Way & Manor Road Signal 25.6 C 16.9 B After Improvements Location Control Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS 1 Appian Way and Michael Drive Minor Stop3 0.1 A 0.3 A Eastbound Approach 15.5 C 17.9 C 2 Appian Way and Allview Avenue Signal 35.1 D 41.6 D 3 Appian Way and Rancho Road Signal 0.70 B 0.89 A 4 Appian Way and Manor Road Signal 25.6 C 16.9 B 1. The delay shown is based on the 2000 HCM unsignalized intersection methodology, which provides an average delay in seconds for the overall intersection as well as the worst approach, shown on the second line. 2. Volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) based on the CCTALOS methodology for signalized intersections. 3. For the stop-controlled intersections, the average delay and corresponding LOS are reported for the overall intersection on the first line and for the stop-controlled side street approach on the second line. APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY 15CHAPTER 4: TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS Potential Improvement: Based on the results of the CCTALOS methodology, an additional exclusive through lane on both the northbound and southbound directions should be added to improve the service level to LOS A in both peak hours. Based on the HCM methodology additional through lanes would not be needed. Appian Way and Rancho Road (3). This unsignalized intersection currently operates at LOS A overall, but the minor street approach of Rancho Road oper- ates at LOS F with significant delays. In the future, the intersection would oper- ate at LOS B and LOS A during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. How- ever, vehicles at the minor street approaches would experience long delays with LOS F during both periods. Potential Improvement: Peak hour signal warrant analysis performed based on California MUTCD indicated that the intersection would satisfy signal warrant during the AM peak hour. As such, installation of a traffic signal at this intersec- tion may be considered. Further, an additional lane on the westbound approach to provide separate right-turn and left-turn lanes is needed to improve the oper- ations to acceptable level. Upon implementation of the measures, the intersec- tion would have LOS B in the AM peak hour and LOS D in the PM peak hour. This mitigation is the same under both the CCTALOS methodology and HCM- 2000 methodology scenarios. Appian Way and Manor Road (4). This intersection would function within standard in the future year with LOS D during both peak hours. No mitigation measure would be needed. Appian Way and Valley View Road. Although existing traffic counts for this intersection were not available, the relatively insignificant northbound and southbound traffic growth at Manor Road and the presence of two northbound lanes and two southbound lanes suggest that the Appian-Valley View intersec- tion will have more than adequate capacity to accommodate future traffic. It should be noted, however, that the present configuration of the Appian-Val- ley View intersection is not consistent with urban design goals for the Trian- gle Area, nor does it promote the “complete streets” philosophy expressed in the Countywide Transportation Plan, calling for support of transit, bicycle and pedestrian access, and similar concepts in the County’s General Plan. Additional analysis may show that alternative geometries could address transportation per- formance, while also supporting more pedestrian-friendly and bicycle-friendly environments and the mixed-use street-facing development envisioned by the County’s General Plan for the corridor. The suggested intersection configurations are shown in the third row of Figure 5: Existing and Future Traffic Volume and Lane Geometries. Even under existing conditions, traffic on the stop-controlled minor streets would experience unacceptable delays due to limited gaps in traffic on Appian Way. With the growth in traffic from future development expected by 2030, the delays to side street traffic will only increase with the increased volumes on Appian Way. Based on the analysis using the CCTALOS methodology, the cur- rent lane configuration at three of these four intersections along Appian Way would not be sufficient to maintain acceptable LOS in the future. However, based on the analysis using the HCM methodology, the existing lane configura- tions would be sufficient to meet CCTA’s LOS D standard at the two existing sig- nalized intersections. However, some improvements will be required at the two unsignalized intersections, including signalization of one of them. Appian Way and Manor Road intersections will not require any changes with either analysis methodology. Some of these impacts, however, may be overstated due to the con- servative approach to developing the future year volumes which assume the full 30-year increment of growth added to the 2012 volumes rather than an interpo- lated 18-year growth. In addition to the operations at the four intersections discussed above, imple- mentation of a Complete Streets concept for this segment of Appian Way should consider on-street parking as well as the opportunities to improve the configura- tion of the intersection with Valley View at the south end. • Future parking lanes will need to be provided for street-facing commercial frontage. Assuming recommended improvements, the presence of on-street parking spaces should not significantly alter the traffic operations of Appian Way, particularly at these four intersections. • The intersection of Appian Way and Valley View Road presents an opportu- nity to create a gateway to this segment and reconfigure the stop-controlled T-intersection. Although the traffic operations at this intersection were not analyzed, this intersection should accommodate a transition from four-lanes on Valley View Road to the proposed three-lane configuration on Appian Way. As noted earlier, the present configuration is not consistent with urban design goals for the Triangle Area and a “complete streets” philosophy. Alter- native geometries such as a roundabout configuration could address transpor- tation performance, while also supporting more pedestrian-friendly environ- ments and the mixed-use street-facing development envisioned by the Coun- ty’s General Plan. Looking ahead, it might make sense over the longer term to extend the idea of using roundabouts to the intersection with Sobrante Avenue and use the “complete streets” concept more broadly in the triangle area. The feasibility of doing this was not part of this study, but may be worth evaluating in the future. 16 APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ALTERNATIVES 5 Design Alternatives OVERVIEW Three design alternatives have been prepared to examine and evaluate the fol- lowing options. These Alternatives have been prepared in CAD and are repre- sented in this section in diagram form. Bicycle lanes are a common feature among all three alternatives. Features that vary include the number of through lanes and the extent of sidewalk improve- ments and pedestrian amenities. Alternative A: Five Lanes. Alternative A maintains a standard five-lane cross- section along the entire corridor. Alternative B: Requirements under CCTA Methodology. Alternative B rep- resents improvements that would be required to maintain LOS D or better at all signalized intersections, to be consistent with CCTA’s West County Action Plan which requires the use of the CCTALOS software to evaluate traffic impacts (although other methods may be used in addition to the CCTALOS software). Alternative B widens Appian Way from three to five lanes between Michael Drive and Fulton Way – about half way south along the corridor. The remain- ing three-lane segment would remain unchanged except for one new signal at Manor Road. Under the CCTALOS methodology, new light signals are recom- mended in two locations: at Allview Avenue and at Rancho Road. Alternative C: Complete Street Using HCM-2000 Methodology. Alternative C stresses the quality of pedestrian environments, and considers ways to enhance the corridor from the standpoint of urban design, economic development, and community identity. No part of Appian Way is widened from three lanes to five lanes under Alternative C, as traffic modeling showed that LOS D can be main- tained if conclusions are reached using the HCM-2000 methodology. Under the HCM-2000 methodology, a new light signal is recommended in one location: at Rancho Road. Comparison of Alternatives. Following descriptions of each alternative, this section provides a comparative assessment of the three alternatives for: • Relative traffic performance–all three alternatives address projected future traffic needs; • Relative costs–land acquisition as well as construction costs, including areas where a steep grade would require significant re-grading, have been esti- mated; and • Enhancements to pedestrian environments and community character–the alternatives support livability and aesthetic objectives in varying degrees. ALTERNATIVE A – FIVE LANES Alternative A describes a continuous five-lane configuration for the entire length of the planning area. Prior to 2011, the County General Plan’s Roadway Network Plan indicated that Appian Way would ultimately become five lanes, and this configuration was assumed by the City of Pinole’s General Plan EIR published in 2010. In July 2011, however, Contra Costa County’s Board of Supervisors amended the County General Plan to retain the existing three-lane configura- tion for Appian Way. The five-lane alternative applies a standard Contra Costa County Public Works Department cross section, with a uniform 95-foot right-of-way, including: five- to six-foot sidewalks; five-foot bicycle lanes; four 12-foot through lanes, and a 16-foot median/turn lane. The right-of-way also includes a five-foot back-of-side- walk unpaved area for utilities. The sidewalk width would allow regular street tree plantings, but would not provide the generous walkway that is appropriate for commercial areas and conducive to a pedestrian-friendly environment. This APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY 17 alternative does not provide any on-street parking. The existing on street park- ing, about 16 spaces, would be removed. North of Michael Drive, this alternative would require only re-striping to pro- vide bicycle lanes. Southbound travel lanes would be reduced to 12 feet with a six-foot bicycle lane, and northbound travel lanes would be reduced to 11 feet with a 50-foot bicycle lane. As diagrammed in Figure 7, Alternative A would require significant grading and land acquisition south of Michael Drive, including the acquisition and demoli- tion of several houses. Overall, at least 1,650 linear feet of Appian Way frontage would require grading and possibly the construction of new retaining walls or the re-construction of existing retaining walls. Typically, the west side would require fill and the east side would require cut. In addition, the majority of the frontage along Appian Way would require some amount of land acquisition even as much as 24 feet beyond the existing right-of-way in some locations. Lastly, construction for this alternative would pass through or come within one to two feet of at least eight existing structures. ALTERNATIVE B – REQUIREMENTS UNDER CCTALOS METHODOLOGY Alternative B provides the minimum improvements needed to conform with the WCAP, which requires that LOS D or better be maintained at all signal- ized intersections and that the CCTALOS methodology be used to make this determination. It does not preclude more complete streets improvements in the future, but would not allow as full a realization of them as does Alternative C. Keeping existing sidewalks, for example, saves money but could limit the ability to make the street more pedestrian-friendly. For the segment north of Michael Drive, this alternative is the same as Alterna- tive A: it proposes only to re-stripe, narrowing the southbound travel lanes to 12 feet, the northbound travel lanes to 11 feet, and adding a six-foot southbound and five-foot northbound bicycle lane. Between Michael Drive and Fulton Way, the CCTALOS methodology deter- mines that one through lane should be added in each direction. At Fulton Way, one of the southbound lanes peels off, leaving only one through southbound lane. In the northbound direction, the additional northbound through lane begins at the north side of the Fulton Way intersection. South of Fulton Way, only the addition of a traffic signal at Rancho Road is needed. As diagrammed in Figure 8, the Alternative B would require some land acquisi- tion and grading between Michael Drive and Fulton Way. Overall, about 350 lin- ear feet of Appian Way frontage would require grading. Land acquisition would be most significant on the west side of the Appian Way, with the most being about 20 feet beyond the existing right-of-way. Construction of this alternative would pass through or come within one or two feet of two existing structures. ALTERNATIVE C – COMPLETE STREET USING HCM-2000 METHODOLOGY Alternative C emphasizes the quality of pedestrian connections along and across Appian Way, and suggests design features to enhance the community’s livability and aesthetic character. Alternative C also maintains a three-lane roadway configuration where it now exists, while maintaining LOS D or better at signalized intersections – as deter- mined by using the HCM-2000 modeling methodology. Consequently, Alterna- tive C avoids property acquisitions and topographic grading to a large extent, while also adding street trees and on-street parking to support the creation of new street-oriented retail commercial mixed-use development is allowed. Curb extensions are also proposed at crosswalks to enhance the safety of pedestrians. For the segment north of Michael Drive, this alternative is the same as alterna- tives A and B: it proposes only to re-stripe, narrowing the southbound travel lanes to 12 feet, the northbound travel lanes to 11 feet, and adding a six-foot southbound and five-foot northbound bicycle lane. Just south of Michael Drive, Alternative C transitions to three lanes (two travel lanes plus a turn lane) and remains three lanes until the approach to the Triangle Area at the south end of the corridor. The turn lane is necessary given the fre- quency of driveways along the length of the corridor. Between Michael Drive and Allview Avenue, Alternative C provides on-street parallel parking where street-oriented mixed-use is encouraged by City policy. On-street parking gives developers a reason to have building entrances front onto the street. It also creates a buffer between the pedestrian path of travel and the roadway, and it has the effect of diminishing the perceived roadway width for motorists, thereby reducing travel speeds. In these segments, the 10-foot side- walk comfortably allows regularly spaced tree planters and grates. Crosswalks that occur in locations with on-street parking would be accompanied by curb extensions or “bump outs” to reduce pedestrian crossing distances and enhance pedestrian safety. CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ALTERNATIVES 18 APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY CHAPTER 6: CHAPTER TITLE CHAPTER 5: CHAPTER TITLEPinole City LimitsContra Costa CountyA P P IA N W A Y FITZGERALDDRSARAH DRMICHAEL DRDALESSIDRFULTONWAYRANCHORDM ANOR RDKISTER CIRARGYLE RDAPPIAN VILLAGE DRVALLEYVIEWRDSOBRANTE AVEAPPIAN W A Y APPIAN WAY ALLVIEWAVER.O.W. dimension and location unclear; conict between parcel data and built conditions FILAPPIAN W A Y FITZGERALDDRMICHAEL DRA P P IA N A Y SARAH DRMICHAEL DRDALESIDRALIEAVERANCHORDWYM ANOR RDKISTER CIRARGYLE RDAPPIAN VILLAGE DRVALLEYVIEWRAPPIAN W A Y SOBRANTE AVEW SFUTONADLVWPinole City LimitsContra Costa CountyExisting R.O.W. dimension and location unclear; conict between parcel data and built conditions 17-22 ft12-16 ft20-24 ft20-22 ft26 ft18 ft12-14 ft11-15 ft15-16 ft11-16 ft12-19 ft5-6 ft5-8 ft5-8 ft45’ Curb-to-Curb 12’12’4’12’4’ NBACSSBTurn 5’ ACS 4’-6” Bike Bike 60’ R.O.W. ACS 55’ Curb-to-Curb 12’12’6’20’4’ NBSBTurn 7’ CCS 5’ Bike Bike 87’ R.O.W. 75’ Curb-to-Curb 93’ R.O.W. SB 11’-6”17’-6”5’13’19’ NBCCSSBMedian/ Turn 14’ NB CCS 5’ 80’ R.O.W. 63’ Curb-to-Curb Bike/ Parking 12’-6”11’-6”6’-5”12’13’-6” NBCCSSBTurn 13’ CCSTravel 5’ SB 95’ R.O.W. 74’ Curb-to-Curb* 16’12’5’5’-6”5’12’12’5’ Bike BikeSidewalk Utility Easement Sidewalk Utility Easement Median/ Turn NB NBSB 12’5’-6”5’ No construction required; re-striping only Appian Way/Valley View Rd intersection remains as is 4 Travel Lanes + Turning Lane/Median Transition Transition 2 Travel Lanes + Turning Lane & Bike Lanes Concrete Curb & Sidewalk (CCS) Asphalt Curb & Sidewalk (ACS) Bike Lane On-street Parking Crosswalk Curb Cut Bus Stop Intersection analyzed for existing and future trac operations Retaining Wall Steep Slope Trac Signal Building Footprint 400200100 FEET 0 400200100 FEET 0 Existing Conditions Alternative A: 5 Lanes Edge of Proposed R.O.W. Requires signicant grading R.O.W. passes through existing structure Acquisition required Building Footprint Parcel Line (source: Contra Costa County Mapping Information Center) Note: All dimensions are approximate, based on satellite imagery and eld measurements. Note: All dimensions are approximate, based on satellite imagery and eld measurements.X ft*All asphalt curbs to be replaced with concrete curbs, and the majority of existing concrete curb to be replaced with new concrete curbs. Details illustrated in CAD le accompanying report. Figure 7: Alternative A - Five Lanes Figure 6: Existing Conditions/Opportunities and Constraints Bike lanes are assumed under every design alternative. APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY 19CHAPTER #: CHAPTER TITLE11-14 ftSLOEFITZGERALDDRSARAH DRA P P IA N W A Y MICHAEL DRDALESIDRAVIWEAVFUTNWAYRANCHORDM ANOR RD KISTER CIRARGYLE RDAPPIAN W A Y APPIAN VILLAGE DRVALLEYVIEWDSOBRANTE AVEAPPIAN W A YPinole City LimitsContra Costa CountyRLLSLOEFITZGERALDDRSARAH DRA P P IA N W A Y MICHAEL DRDALESIDRAVIWEAVFUTNWAYRANCHORDM ANOR RD KISTER CIRARGYLE RDAPPIAN W A Y APPIAN VILLAGE DRVALLEYVIEWDSOBRANTE AVEAPPIAN W A YPinole City LimitsContra Costa CountyRLLExisting R.O.W. dimension and location unclear; conict between parcel data and built conditions Existing R.O.W. dimension and location unclear; conict between parcel data and built conditions5-12 ft11-14 ft10-20 ft11-12 ft15-17 ft13-14 ft7-10 ft5-11 ft13 ft11-14 ft10-20 ft11-12 ft5-8 ft5-7 ftNo change to roadway conguration; new signal at Rancho Rd SB 84’ R.O.W. 68’ Curb-to-Curb 14’11’5’8’8’11’ SB 11’5’ Bike Bike Side- walk Side- walk Turn NB 11’ NB A BBCD B C D See Figure 11 A Pkg SB 84’ R.O.W. 64’ Curb-to-Curb 14’12’5’8’8’10’10’12’5’ Bike Bike Pkg Side- walk Side- walk Turn NB SB 68’ R.O.W. 48’Curb-to-Curb 14’12’5’10’10’12’5’ Bike Bike Side- walk Turn NBSide- walk SB 64’ R.O.W. (70’ at Post Office) 44’ Curb-to-Curb (48’ at Post Office) 12’11’5’10’10’11’5’ Bike Bike Side- walk Turn NBSide- walk No construction required; re-striping only SB 78’ R.O.W. 58’ Curb-to-Curb 14’12’6’ 10’ 8’10’12’6’ Bike Bike Pkg Side- walk Side- walk Turn NB 6’ Appian Way/Valley View Rd intersection remains as is No construction required; re-striping only Existing asphalt curb and sidewalk replaced with concrete curb and 5’-6” wide sidewalk 400200100 FEET 0 400200100 FEET 0 Alternative B: Requirements Under CCTALOS Methodology Alternative C: Complete Street (Under HCM-2000 Methodology) Edge of Proposed R.O.W. Building Footprint Parcel Line (source: Contra Costa County Mapping Information Center) Bulb-outs provided to shorten pedestrian crossing distances (where feasible) Edge of Proposed R.O.W. Building Footprint Parcel Line (source: Contra Costa County Mapping Information Center) Note: All dimensions are approximate, based on satellite imagery and eld measurements. Note: All dimensions are approximate, based on satellite imagery and eld measurements. R.O.W. passes through existing structure New Trac Signal Existing Trac Signal New Trac Signal Bus shelter Existing Trac Signal Requires signicant grading Requires signicant grading Acquisition requiredX ftAcquisition requiredX ft*** Figure 8: Alternative B–Requirements under CCTALOS Methodology Figure 9: Alternative C–Complete Street Using HCM-2000 Methodology 20 CHAPTER #: CHAPTER TITLE APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY Between Allview Avenue and the post office—just north of Appian Village Drive—Appian Way remains at three lanes with bicycle lanes and no on-street parking. In this segment, the curb-to-curb width varies depending on existing topography and existing concrete curbs; however, sidewalks are typically 10 feet wide; bicycle lanes are never less than five feet wide; travel lanes are never less than 11 feet wide; and the turn lane is never less than 12 feet wide. The 10-foot sidewalk would support a continuous four- or five-foot planter strip with street trees and other plantings. This will enhance pedestrian comfort along these res- idential-only areas. On-street parking is not recommended along this segment as it is not critical alongside residential uses, and would incur significant land acquisition costs. In the Triangle Area, beginning near the existing post office about 150 feet north of Appian Village Drive, an increased existing right-of-way allows for on-street parking to support redevelopment with street-facing commercial mixed-use. Regularly spaced planters or tree grates would be installed on the sidewalk in this segment to support pedestrian movement. This alternative minimizes the Appian Way frontage that would require land acquisition, with only three short segments requiring more than 12 feet beyond the existing right-of-way. Alternative C requires the same amount of grading as Alternative B (about 350 linear feet of Appian Way frontage) but likely avoids impacting existing structures. While all three alternatives maintain existing bus stops, Alternative C also assumes enhanced bus shelters at four bus stops, with one pair in the Triangle Area and the other pair within Pinole’s commercial mixed-use district. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES WITH CONCLUSIONS Alternatives were developed to provide a clear understanding of costs and ben- efits inherent in each, so as to help CCTA, Contra Costa County, and the City of Pinole reach agreement regarding future improvements. Comparisons among the Alternatives fall into three broad categories: • Transportation performance across all modes; • Aesthetic benefits, including factors affecting livability and community iden- tity; and • Cost implications, including construction costs, acquisition costs, and on- going maintenance. CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ALTERNATIVES Transportation Performance A fair evaluation of transportation performance must consider all major modes: motor vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and public transit. Motor Vehicles. For motor vehicles, the benchmark of performance is confor- mance to the West County Action Plan’s MTSO to “maintain LOS D or better at all signalized intersections on Appian Way.”41 All three Alternatives meet this requirement. However, only two Alternatives meet the requirement by using the CCTALOS methodology prescribed by the WCAP: Alternative A and Alterna- tive B. Alternative C meets the MTSO requirement as determined by the HCM- 2000 methodology, which is an alternative method recognized by CCTA’s Tech- nical Procedures manual.42 Bicycles. All three Alternatives depict bicycle lanes along one-hundred percent of the corridor. Pedestrians. While all three Alternatives provide continuous and reasonably safe paths of travel for pedestrians, Alternative C is superior in several respects: continuous concrete sidewalks, curb extensions at some crosswalks, a comfort- able micro-climate provided by street trees, pedestrian-scaled lighting, and separation of pedestrians from moving vehicles by street trees and parked cars in some location. Alternative A also provides concrete sidewalks but they are located at the curb with only bicycle lanes separating pedestrians from moving vehicles. Some asphalt sidewalks and curbs remain under Alternative B, where Appian Way is not widened to five lanes: asphalt sidewalks are prone to becom- ing uneven, which can make wheelchair use more difficult and sometimes pain- ful, and increases risk of tripping. Public Transit. The existing bus stops are maintained in all three Alternatives. In Alternative C, however, four bus shelters are recommended for the locations show in Figure 9 where commercial activity is concentrated, in Pinole and in the Triangle Area, as part of the Complete Streets approach. Parking. Alternative C proposes on-street parking to support the land use goals of Contra Costa County and Pinole. In both jurisdictions, policies envision the transformation of low-intensity commercial areas into pedestrian-friendly mixed-use districts where buildings front onto the street. On-street parking can be a requirement for many developers when they are asked to locate building entrances on the street. On-street parking also creates a more protected environ- ment for pedestrians. 41 CCTA, West County Action Plan Update, 2009, page 32. 42 CCTA, Technical Procedures Update, 2012, page 40. APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY 21CHAPTER #: CHAPTER TITLE Table 3: Comparison of Alternatives Alternative A: Five Lanes Alternative B: Requirements under CCTALOS Methodology Alternative C: Complete Street Transportation Performance Motor Vehicles A. Fitzgerald Dr.to Michael Dr 4 Travel + Median/Turn Substantially complies with MTSO requirements under both CCTALOS and HCM-2000 4 Travel + Median/Turn Meets MTSO requirements under both CCTALOS and HCM-2000 4 Travel + Median/Turn Meets MTSO requirements under both CCTALOS and HCM-2000 B. Michael Dr.to Dalessi Dr 2 Travel + Median/Turn Meets MTSO requirements under HCM-2000 only C. Dalessi Dr.to Allview Ave Allview Ave to Fulton Way Fulton Way to Post Office (150 feet north of Appian Village Drive)2 Travel + Median/Turn Meets MTSO requirements under both CCTALOS and HCM-2000Post Office to Triangle intersection New Signals None One new signal (Appian Way and Rancho Road) One new signal (Appian Way and Rancho Road) On-Street Parallel Parking None None 34% of corridor (See Figure 11, Sections A and B) Bicycles Bicycle lanes along 100 % of corridor Bicycle lanes along 100 % of corridor Bicycle lanes along 100 % of corridor Pedestrians Sidewalks 100% concrete sidewalks 59% concrete sidewalks; 41% (4300 linear feet) existing asphalt sidewalk to remain 100% concrete sidewalks Public Transit Shelters None None 4 transit shelters recommended at existing bus stops Community Character • County’s standard street lighting • No street trees (sidewalk width does not allow) • County’s standard street lighting, between Michael Dr.and Fulton Way only • No new street trees required • Street trees spaced 50 feet on center in planter strip (in residential areas) or tree grates (in mixed-use or commercial areas) Pedestrian-scaled acorn-style light fixtures 100 feet on center, recommended mid-block (with larger light poles at intersections) • Outdoor seating and/or other pedestrian amenities on sidewalks in commercial and mixed-use areas. • Curb extensions at crosswalks in areas with on-street parking • Roundabout design north of the triangle affords widened sidewalks and bulb-out for specialty landscaping, planters, pedestrian amenities and/or other identity elements. Land Acquisition and Cost Implications Land Acquisition 93,700 sf (2.15 acres)28,800 sf (0.66 acres)21,200 sf (0.49 acres) Structure Acquisition and Demo (#)Approx. 9 Approx. 2 None Grading Required Approx. 1,710 linear feet Approx. 370 linear feet Approx. 370 linear feet New Concrete Curb Required Approx. 7,000 linear feet Approx. 1,750 linear feet Approx. 6,180 linear feet Existing Concrete Curb Removed Approx. 1,225 linear feet Approx. 315 linear feet Approx. 425 linear feet Excess Right-of-Way available for Sale Insufficient room Not considered Approx. 6,000 sq. ft. on northern tip of triangle is available with the proposed roundabout design CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ALTERNATIVES 22 CHAPTER #: CHAPTER TITLE APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ALTERNATIVES Community Character Improvements to enhance the character of the corridor are assumed under Alter- native C. While these enhancements could also be included as part of the other alternatives, the following distinctions have been drawn: Alternative A repre- sents the County’s standard five-lane roadway only, and Alternative B represents the minimum level of improvements required under the CCTALOS method of analysis. Street Trees and Landscaping. The use of street trees and planting strips in Alternative C provides a more attractive environment, than is provided when the sidewalk is placed at the curb. The other Alternatives assume fewer or no street trees, but they could be added. Lighting. Alternative C also proposes pedestrian-scaled light standards between taller lights that are assumed at intersections under all schemes. The other Alter- natives assume taller cobrahead lighting but pedestrian-scaled lighting would not be precluded by the cross section. Furnishings. Under Alternative C, the sidewalks in commercial mixed-use areas would be wide enough to have enough space for benches and other forms of out- door seating. The other alternatives offer no space for furnishings. Placemaking. Alternative C has the potential of transforming the character of the entire corridor and of making special recognizable destinations where mixed-use development is encouraged by City and County policies. While the feasibility of a roundabout at the Appian/Valley View intersection has not been determined, a roundabout would provide clear aesthetic benefits if appropriately designed and landscaped. Land Acquisition and Cost Implications Area take-offs and cost calculations are summarized in the Appendix. The most significant costs for improvements will be associated with land acquisi- tion, grading, and roadway construction. All of these factors are affected by the physical size or overall extent of the project. Significant costs are also associated with street trees, traffic calming features and pedestrian-scaled street lights, as is assumed in Alternative C: Complete Street. Alternative A is the most expensive (about $17.7 million) because land and build- ing acquisition costs are considerable. The geographic extent of construction is also greatest under Alternative A. Alternative B represents the lowest construction costs (about $9.5 million), as it makes no improvements south of Fulton Way, except for a new light signal at Rancho Road. Some land acquisition would have to occur under Alternative B, but significantly less than under Alternative A. Alternative C is less expensive than Alternative A but more expensive than Alternative B. Alternative C is estimated to cost about $13 million if a round- about is assumed at the Appian Way/Valley View intersection (as described), and roughly $12.5 million if a roundabout is not assumed. While Alternative C acqui- sition costs are similar to those under Alternative B, the cost of street trees, land- scaping, pedestrian-scaled lighting, and curb extensions add significant costs. However, also note that these improvements are likely to accelerate redevelop- ment in commercial mixed-use areas and enhance the image and land values in the larger area. On-going maintenance costs are another factor for consideration. Maintenance costs would be higher under Alternative C, particularly for the care of street trees. Some portion of these costs might be assumed by Business Improvement District(s), if created. In addition, street-facing mixed-use buildings assumed in Alternative C might require utility locations that necessitate replacement of pavement when utility repairs occur, which is not the case under Alternative A and B where utilities can be placed in a back-of-sidewalk easement. APPIAN WAY/VALLEY VIEW ROAD INTERSECTION Figure 10 shows the existing configuration of the Appian Way/Valley View inter- section, and Figure 11 shows two improvement options. First is a T-intersection improvement, and second is a roundabout design that would create a distinctive place-making feature at the heart of the Triangle Mixed Use area. The improved T-intersection design modifies the existing configuration slightly by eliminating the sweeping right-turn lanes. This design narrows the right-of- way on the west side of the intersection, which slows traffic while providing addi- tional space for pedestrian movement or new development on the intersection. The design also improves pedestrian access with crosswalks that extend across the entire intersection and pedestrian refuges as needed. The roundabout option further reduces the right-of-way and enhances pedes- trian access and comfort. As its operational aspects have not been studied, addi- tional analysis will be needed to determine its feasibility. As depicted, the round- about conforms to geometric standards of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 672. It shows a two-lane circle in which traffic flows counter-clockwise around an island with an inside radius of 30 feet. This alter- native reduces the overall number of lanes that approach the intersection. In the existing “T” configuration, the rights-of-way expand near the intersection to five lanes on Appian Way and six lanes on Valley View Road, when lanes dedi- APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY 23CHAPTER #: CHAPTER TITLECHAPTER 5: DESIGN ALTERNATIVESA P P I A N W A Y A P P I A N W A YV A L L E Y V I E W R D 804020 FEET 0 Figure 10: Appian Way/Valley View – Existing Intersection 24 CHAPTER #: CHAPTER TITLE APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY A P P I A N W A Y Illustrative diagram only; feasibility to be evaluated upon further analysis. Lane reductions along Valley View Road to be considered. Reduced right-of-way better channelizes motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians and provides an opportunity for a widened sidewalk and/or an architectural statement at the intersection Oset crosswalk provides a two-stage crossing for improved pedestrian accessibility Skip striping guides cyclists and highlights conicts for motorists, enhancing bicycle safety New mixed-use development V A L L E Y V I E W R D A P P I A N W A Y804020 FEET 0 A P P I A N W A Y Excess right-of-way available for sale or as development incentive (1,950 Sq Ft) Excess right-of-way available for sale or as development incentive (3,840 Sq Ft) New mixed-use development Inside Radius = 30’ Outside Radius = 60’ Circulating Lane = 25-32’ Illustrative diagram only; feasibility to be evaluated upon further analysis. Lane reductions within circle and along Valley View Road to be considered. A P P I A N W A YV A L L E Y V I E W R D 804020 FEET 0 Figure 11: Appian Way/Valley View – Intersection Improvement Options CHAPTER 5: DESIGN ALTERNATIVES RoundaboutT-Intersection APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY 25CHAPTER #: CHAPTER TITLECHAPTER 5: DESIGN ALTERNATIVES cated to right turns are included. In the potential roundabout design, Appian Way widens into only four through lanes (without the sweeping right turn lane) just north of the intersection, and Valley View Road remains at only four lanes (without the sweeping right turn from Appian Way to Valley View). In addition, crosswalks are set back from the circle to provide motorists with adequate sightlines and reaction time. The crosswalks are accompanied by curb extensions and pass through medians to minimize pedestrian crossing distances and enhance pedestrian comfort. Under either Appian Way/Valley View configuration, unneeded right-of-way could be sold to abutting property owners, possibly in a way that creates an incentive for desirable forms of private redevelopment. Assuming the round- about, nearly 6,000 square feet of right-of-way might be sold to abutting prop- erty owners. Real estate sales in 2012 suggest that unimproved land near Appian Way would sell between $15 to $20 dollars per square foot, the market-based value of this excess right-of-way would be approximately $90,000 to $120,000.43 For comparison, both average and median assessed valuations of land (without improvements) on commercially-zoned land in the Triangle Area are $12 dollars per square foot.44 Street improvements at the Appian/Valley View intersection, such as a reconfig- ured intersection or a roundabout, have the potential to maintain adequate traf- fic performance while creating “place-making” features that could accelerate the transformation of the Triangle Area into a mixed-use pedestrian-friendly dis- trict. Striped crosswalks passing through planted medians will greatly enhance pedestrian comfort within the intersection. Furthermore, widened sidewalks along all sides of the intersection, including the northernmost corner of the tri- angle, are made possible by the overall reduction in lanes and provide pedestri- ans with ample room to gather and stroll. Space is also devoted to the creation of continuous planter strips, pedestrian amenities, and district identity features, such as pedestrian-scaled lighting. 43 Loopnet Commercial Real Estate Listings, query for vacant commercial land in El Sobrante, http://www.loopnet.com. 44 Office of the Assessor, Contra Costa County, GIS query on November 1, 2012. CONCLUSIONS This report recommends Alternative C: Complete Street, because it leverages the greatest number of community benefits at a cost comparable to or less than that of building a five-lane roadway through this entire segment of Appian Way. All these alternatives meet the transportation service objective of maintaining LOS D at signalized intersections. However, Alternative C would deliver superior pedestrian environments and safety. It would have a transformative effect on the area’s image and identity. And it has the best chance of encouraging new private investment to redevelop commercial areas into pedestrian-friendly districts. Some of the pedestrian-oriented amenities such as street trees, benches, and pedestrian-scaled lighting, could be incorporated into the other alternatives but the overall design concept in Alternative C fully realizes the complete streets idea. Higher maintenance costs for pedestrian amenities could be addressed, at least in part, by district-level financing strategies such as the formation of a Busi- ness Improvement District or by using new parking revenues as demand for on- street parking grows. As designed, Alternative C would also be most responsive to MTC’s Complete Streets initiative and to site-specific conditions along the corridor and it would best support abutting land uses. 26 APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY APPENDIX: COST ESTIMATES OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES Appendix: Cost Estimates of Design Alternatives Julia R. Bueren, Director Deputy Directors R. Mitch Avalon Brian M. Balbas Stephen Kowalewski Stephen Silveira "Accredited by the American Public Works Association" 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553-4825 TEL: (925) 313-2000  FAX: (925) 313-2333 www.cccpublicworks.org Memo January 14, 2013 TO: Chris Ford, Senior Associate, Dyett & Bhatia FROM: Alexander Rivas, Staff Engineer, Public Works SUBJECT: Appian Way Improvement Study Cost Estimates (Three Alternatives) Assumptions: Construction For all Alternatives, the road layout was intended to minimize full-takes of property; thus, improvements are generally centered over existing road pavement with widening on both sides. For Alternative A, an exception to the centered layout is the southern 1000-ft section of the Appian Way (South of Argyle Road) where the recently installed sidewalk on the easterly side is preserved, and widening is assumed to the west. Additionally, the adjacent streets in the triangle area were included in the cost estima te for Alternative A for the purpose of transitioning to the new five-lane layout. If Alternative A or B is selected, additional alternatives should be studied to determine if it is more cost efficient to hold an existing curb line and perform all widening on one side of the road or continue with improvements centered over the existing pavement as reflected in this estimates. Import fill was not included in any of the alternatives. For all Alternatives, it is projected that existing AC will not be replaced. The estimate does; however, include a 2-inch road overlay. A slurry seal option could be utilized instead of the overlay which could reduce the estimated costs for all alternatives. For Alternatives A and B, the street drainage pipe would remain. Laterals will be increased by 20-25 feet in the sections to be widened. This is based upon the assumption for all alternatives that the existing pipes are in fair condition and half would require replacement. Also included for all alternatives, are drainage modifications at the Appian Way – Argyle Road intersection. Chris Ford Dyett & Bhatia January 14, 2013 Page 2 of 3 For all Alternatives, past projects indicate that intersection signal replacement varies between $150k and $350k. The cost below reflect the addition or modification of traffic signals, minor street realignment, and left turn pocket) Appian Way Intersections are Included in the given alternatives per notation on the Dyett and Bhatia exhibit: Allview Avenue; Modification – All Alternatives ($225,000) Rancho Road; New Signal – Alternatives B and C ($300,000) Manor Road; Modification – Alternatives A and C ($225,000) Valley View Road; Modification – Alternatives A ($225,000) Valley View Road; Roundabout – Alternatives C ($500,000) Utilities Because of necessary coordination efforts and particular unknowns, adjustments to some utilities have been included; however, service boxes were assumed to remain. Assume through franchise agreement that Utilities may cover a majority of relocation cost. PG&E may decide to underground their facilities. If this results, additional cost will be associated to coordinate this effort. Streetscape There are no landscaping costs included for Alternatives A and B. For Alternative C, landscaping costs to include street trees, public planting, and pedestrian lighting was based on quantitative information provided in the draft study report. Public planting (grass and an assortment of indigenous plants) was limited to the proposed roundabout where Appian Way intersects Valley View Road. The initial street tree planting is assumed to be a 24-gallon tree with grate for a more mature look at the completion of the project. Street furniture costs were based on the length of commercial street frontage and the number of bus stops within the project scope. Traffic Not included in the estimate is the installation of flashing signs near the curve in the vicinity of the Appian Way and Argyle Road Intersection nor speed feedback signs. R/W R/W costs contain a contingency for cost of condemnation. APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY 27APPENDIX: COST ESTIMATES OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES Chris Ford Dyett & Bhatia January 14, 2013 Page 3 of 3 Factors in full property purchases include: $220,000 per 0.2 acre lot (Some lots are greater), $50,000 relocation cost, and upward trend of the housing market. R/W acquisition of portions of property on a square footage basis is based on the following: $20/SF for residential property $40/SF for government and church property $60/SF for commercial property None of the estimates account for sale of excess right-of-way. Alternatives A and B will have the ability to recover some of the costs through sale of a remnant property. For Alternatives A and B, the R/W acquisition area was calculated using the street layout drawing overlaid on the aerial and parcel maps. For Alternative C, the area of R/W to be acquired was determined by Dyett and Bhatia from Table 3, pg. 21 of the Draft Appian Way Alternatives Analysis and Complete Streets Study. The County did not verify Alternative C’s right of way needs. C.3 There are varying options when it comes to complying with C.3 requirements. The options in every alternative estimate assume a linear rain garden similar to the one installed by the City of El Cerrito, San Pablo Avenue. Given the varying elevations, a series of check dams may be installed to ensure a flat surface. All estimates account for enough treatment area to cover the newly created impervious surface. There are other options to constructing linear rain gardens. One is to utilize purchased property with flat enough slopes to cover larger areas without the need for check dams with the caveat of potential reduced resale revenue. Another option may be to treat stormwater runoff at an off-site location within the watershed. Because current rules are changing, bike lanes were not exempted from the total area of newly created impervious area. (See enclosed estimates) AR C:\Users\grivas\Desktop\Project Shortcuts\Appian Way\Appian Way Study DnB Memo 1-14-2013.docx c: Matt Taeker, matt@dyettandbhatia.com Michael Dyett, dyett@dyettandbhatia.com Jamar Stamps, Jamar.Stamps@dcd.cccounty.us Chris Lau, clau@pw.cccounty.us 28 APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY APPENDIX: COST ESTIMATES OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES Transportation Engineering Planning Cost Estimate Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Project Name:Appian Way Widening: 5Lane Option A Alternative:Sidewalk/curb Improvements w/bike lanes between Valley View Drive and Michael Drive Project Location:Appian Way from Valley View to Fitzgerald Drive Assumptions:R=5.0, TI = 9.0 Project Length (ft):5200 5200 ft to be Modified Date of Estimate:Jan. 11, 2013 Revision No.0 Revision Date Prepared by:A. Rivas Revised by No.Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total 1 Mobilization 1 LS 284,000.00$ 284,000$ 2 Traffic Control 1 LS 270,000.00$ 270,000$ 3 Construction Area Signs 10 EA 550.00$ 5,500$ 4 Pavement Marking Removal 80 EA 150.00$ 12,000$ 5 Tree Removal 30 EA 2,000.00$ 60,000$ 6 Saw Cut 10400 LF 3.25$ 33,800$ 7 Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS 67,200.00$ 67,200$ 8 Roadway Excavation 5900 CY 75.00$ 442,500$ 9 Cut Excavation 4800 CY 45.00$ 216,000$ 10 Roadway Fill 400 CY 75.00$ 30,000$ 11 Aggregate Base 8100 TON 45.00$ 364,500$ 12 Hot Mix Asphalt 3300 TON 125.00$ 412,500$ 13 Minor Concrete Sidewalk (Removal and Replacement)21700 SF 19.00$ 412,300$ 14 Curb and Gutter 10400 LF 35.00$ 364,000$ 15 curb ramps 20 EA 4,000.00$ 80,000$ 16 Driveway 60 EA 3,000.00$ 180,000$ 17 Retaining Wall 3000 SF 115.00$ 345,000$ 18 Utility Adjustments (Fire Hydrants, Utility Boxes, St. Lights)1 LS 100,000.00$ 100,000$ 19 Drainage Modifications (pipes, riprap, etc.)800 LF 150.00$ 120,000$ 20 Drainage Modifications (Inlet Relocations)18 EA 5,000.00$ 90,000$ 21 Intersection Improvements(Traffic Signal Mod, Turn Pocket)3 EA 225,000.00$ 675,000$ 22 Sign Relocation 40 EA 350.00$ 14,000$ 23 Traffic Sign Installation  Bike Lane 14 EA 350.00$ 4,900$ 24 Striping  Detail 1, Center Line 10400 LF 2.50$ 26,000$ 25 Striping  Detail 27B, Lane 10400 LF 2.50$ 26,000$ 26 Striping  Detail 39, Bike Lane Line 10400 LF 2.50$ 26,000$ 27 Pavement Markings Bike Lane 250 SF 10.00$ 2,500$ 28 AC 0.17FT Overlay + $10k add'l mobilization 4900 TON 110.00$ 549,000$ 29 C.3 On Site Stormwater Runoff Treatment (See Calc)1 LS 491,000.00$ 491,000$ $ $ $ $ 20,000$ PLAN Planning Engineering (TE) 424,000$ CONTRACT ITEMS 5,704,000$ PE Preliminary Engineering (Design) 1,085,000$ OTHER COSTS (CON)998,000$ Utility Coordination (Design)352,000$ CONTINGENCY*683,000$ Environmental 382,000$ SUBTOTAL (PreCon)10,282,106$ R/W R/W Engineering (Survey)465,000$ SUBTOTAL (PLAN)424,000$ Real Property Labor (including TCE's)432,000$ SUBTOTAL (PE)1,819,000$ R/W Acquisition 7,142,106$ SUBTOTAL (R/W)8,039,106$ CON Construction Engineering *856,000$ Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Fees 142,000$ GRAND TOTAL 17,687,106$ SUBTOTAL of OTHER COSTS (ALL)11,280,106$ CURRENT YEAR 2012 * Preliminary Engineering is minimum 15% of contract items. (See Issues to Consider)ESCALATION YEAR 2012 * Construction Engineering is 15% of contract items ($20,000 min.)ESCALATION RATE 2.5% * CONTINGENCY is 10% of contract items plus construction engineering. ($10,000 min.)TOTAL (in 2012 dollars)17,700,000$ Public Education Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project. Click here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also Appian Way Improvement Study Contra Costa County 1/14/2013 Transportation Engineering Quantity Takeoff Worksheet Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Project Name: Project length 5200 ft 5200 ft To be Modified Pavement and Shoulder Backing TI = 6.0 Existing pavement width 53 ft Proposed pavement width 74 ft 0 FALSE Complete Pavement Replacement Prop shoulder backing width (2sides)0 ft 0 FALSE AC 0.17-FT Overlay TRUE AC depth 0.4 ft 150 pcf FALSE AB depth 1.05 ft 140 pcf Proposed additional area incl taper 0 sf Taper area 0 sf TON 4900 110.00 AC 0.17-FT Overlay + $10k add'l mobilization Excavation depth 1.45 ft Excavation area (AB)109200 sf 5900 cy Slurry seal area No Slurry Seal 2.25 $/sy Shoulder grading 0 cf 0 cy Grading CUT 4726 cy Use Worksheet starting at I29 Grading FILL 373 cy Overlay area for road crown shift 12000 sf Overlay thickness 0.17 ft AC Overlay 65416 cf 4900 TON 110 $/ton AC 43680 cf 3280 ton Shoulders plus overlay to shift crown AB 114660 cf 8030 ton Shoulder backing 0 cf 0 ton Slope Work Site visit still needed for accurate take offs. [9/10/07] Cut (north slope) width [rough est.]see calc to right Cut (north slope) height [rough est.]see calc to right Cut 4726 cy Fill (south) width [rough est.]see calc to right Import Fill?cy Fill (south) height [rough est.]see calc to right Fill 373 cy Net Import fill:0 Retaining wall length 0 ft Reatining wall height [rough est.]5 ft Retaining wall area [rough est.]0 sf Drainage C.3 facilities (Bike lanes and slurry seal [maintenance] are exempt.) Full Length of Widening Work FALSE Both Sides Swale Length: 1100 ft 1100 ft Irrigation TRUE Check Dams Swale Width:5 ft 5,500 ft2 Swale Area 5%; Excedes the 4% Requirement Slope Variant (1-5):3 Engineered Soil Depth: 1.5 ft 310 cy 33,480.00$ 1 & 2 Relatively Flat Class II Perm:2 ft 410 cy 166,050.00$ 3 Moderate Slopes 6" perforated pipe 1120 ft 9.00$ per ft 10,080.00$ 4 & 5 Increasing Elevation Riprap 0 Tons 90$ Per Ton $ Ranges (Very Hilly) Check dams 4in (55 Total Count)20 ft Interval 1,000$ Per Dam 55,000.00$ Planting Type Cost $/sqr ft Planting Small Trees w/Plants 11$ per ft2 54,450.00$ None 1.00$ Pedestrial Safety Barrier Metalic Handrail Type 3%of Cost 9,571.80$ Grassy 4.00$ Irrigation 30%of Cost 95,718.00$ Grassy w/Plants 7.00$ Landscape Architect Consultant 15%of Cost 63,652.47$ Small Trees w/Plants 11.00$ Total Cost:Large Trees w/Grass 15.00$ Shoulder Perforated Pipe ($/ft)10.00$ 6 in. at 10ft, 5% slope Check Dams ($/ft2)40.00$ Excavation per linear ft.2.25 cf 0.083 cy $40/cf (2007 Deer Valley)Engineered Soil ($/ft3)4.00$ Class II Perm ($/ft3)15.00$ Erosion Control Erosion control turf reinforcement mat $95/sy (2004 Rossmoor) $490,652.47 Appian Way Widening: 5-Lane Option A 1 ALTERNATIVE A APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY 29APPENDIX: COST ESTIMATES OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES Appian Way Improvement Study Contra Costa County 1/14/2013 Erosion control blanket 0 sy $15/sy (2006 San Ramon Creek) Landscaping Street Trees:Along entire length of the project.FALSE Plant Trees Tree Size Planting Cost Quantities of Trees to be Removed:10 FALSE Regular Intervals Small 750.00$ Number of Trees to be Planted:0 TRUE Irrigation Medium 1,250.00$ Tree Grates? (Yes/No)Yes Cost:$400 FALSE Both Sides Large 1,750.00$ Tree Type:Medium Establishment Maint Cost per Year Trees $ Planter Areas:Planter Areas:41,772.60$ Planting Area: (ft2)10100 Tree Placement:$ Planting Type:Grassy w/Plants Planter Areas:70,700.00$ Public Lighting:$ Public Lighting:FALSE Lighting Irrigation:21,210.00$ Number of lights to be Placed:0 FALSE Regular Intervals Consultant: (15%)13,786.50$ Estimated Cost Per light:4,000.00$ FALSE Both Sides Total Cost:105,696.50$ Sidewalk + Curb & Gutter Sidewalk: Average Width:5 FT Length of Road (If dirrerent from above):FT Curb and Gutter?Yes Both Sides of the Road?Yes 2 General Sidewalk Thickness 5 IN Curb & Gutter Length:10400 LF Sidewalk Area:52000 SF Concrete Amount:802 CY 2 30 APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY APPENDIX: COST ESTIMATES OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES Transportation Engineering Planning Cost Estimate Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Project Name:Appian Way Widening: 5Lane North of Fulton Way Option B Alternative:Sidewalk/curb Improvements w/bike lanes between Valley View Drive and Michael Drive Project Location:Appian Way from Valley View to Fitzgerald Drive Assumptions:R=5.0, TI = 9.0 Project Length (ft):5200 2100 ft to be Modified Date of Estimate:Jan. 11, 2013 Revision No.0 Revision Date Prepared by:A. Rivas Revised by No.Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total 1 Mobilization 1 LS 151,000.00$ 151,000$ 2 Traffic Control 1 LS 140,000.00$ 140,000$ 3 Construction Area Signs 10 EA 550.00$ 5,500$ 4 Pavement Marking Removal 30 EA 150.00$ 4,500$ 5 Tree Removal 10 EA 2,000.00$ 20,000$ 6 Saw Cut 4200 LF 3.25$ 13,650$ 7 Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS 36,200.00$ 36,200$ 8 Roadway Excavation 2400 CY 75.00$ 180,000$ 9 Cut Excavation 100 CY 60.00$ 6,000$ 10 Roadway Fill 100 CY 95.00$ 9,500$ 11 Aggregate Base 3300 TON 45.00$ 148,500$ 12 Hot Mix Asphalt 1400 TON 125.00$ 175,000$ 13 Minor Concrete Sidewalk (Removal and Replacement)20000 SF 16.00$ 320,000$ 14 Curb and Gutter 9600 LF 35.00$ 336,000$ 15 curb ramps 20 EA 4,000.00$ 80,000$ 16 Driveway 26 EA 3,000.00$ 78,000$ 17 Utility Adjustments (Fire Hydrants, Utility Boxes, St. Lights)1 LS 70,000.00$ 70,000$ 18 Drainage Modifications (pipes, riprap, etc.)600 LF 150.00$ 90,000$ 19 Drainage Modifications (Inlet Relocations)10 EA 5,000.00$ 50,000$ 20 Intersection Improvements(Traffic Signal Mod, Turn Pocket)1 EA 225,000.00$ 225,000$ 21 New Traffic Signal w/Minor St Modification  Rancho Rd 1 EA 300,000.00$ 300,000$ 22 Sign Relocation 15 EA 350.00$ 5,250$ 23 Traffic Sign Installation  Bike Lane 14 EA 350.00$ 4,900$ 24 Striping  Detail 1, Center Line 4400 LF 2.50$ 11,000$ 25 Striping  Detail 27B, Lane 4400 LF 2.50$ 11,000$ 26 Striping  Detail 39, Bike Lane Line 4400 LF 2.50$ 11,000$ 27 Pavement Markings Bike Lane 125 SF 10.00$ 1,250$ 28 AC 0.17FT Overlay + $10k add'l mobilization 2000 TON 110.00$ 230,000$ 29 C.3 On Site Stormwater Runoff Treatment (See Calc)1 LS 204,000.00$ 204,000$ $ $ $ $ 20,000$ PLAN Planning Engineering (TE) 400,000$ CONTRACT ITEMS 2,917,000$ PE Preliminary Engineering (Design) 746,000$ OTHER COSTS (CON)510,000$ Utility Coordination (Design)233,000$ CONTINGENCY*394,000$ Environmental 268,000$ SUBTOTAL (PreCon)5,670,800$ R/W R/W Engineering (Survey)270,000$ SUBTOTAL (PLAN)400,000$ Real Property Labor (including TCE's)240,000$ SUBTOTAL (PE)1,247,000$ R/W Acquisition 3,513,800$ SUBTOTAL (R/W)4,023,800$ CON Construction Engineering *438,000$ Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Fees 72,000$ GRAND TOTAL 9,511,800$ SUBTOTAL of OTHER COSTS (ALL)6,180,800$ CURRENT YEAR 2012 * Preliminary Engineering is minimum 15% of contract items. (See Issues to Consider)ESCALATION YEAR 2012 * Construction Engineering is 15% of contract items ($20,000 min.)ESCALATION RATE 2.5% * CONTINGENCY is 10% of contract items plus construction engineering. ($10,000 min.)TOTAL (in 2012 dollars)9,500,000$ Public Education Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project. Click here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also Appian Way Improvement Study Contra Costa County 1/14/2013 Transportation Engineering Quantity Takeoff Worksheet Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Project Name: Project length:5,200 ft 2,100 ft To be Widened Pavement and Shoulder Backing TI = 6.0 Existing pavement width 53 ft Proposed pavement width 74 ft 0 FALSE Complete Pavement Replacement Prop shoulder backing width (2sides)0 ft 0 FALSE AC 0.17-FT Overlay TRUE AC depth 0.4 ft 150 pcf TRUE AB depth 1.05 ft 140 pcf Proposed additional area incl taper 0 sf Taper area 0 sf Excavation depth 1.45 ft Excavation area (AB)44100 sf 2400 cy Slurry seal area 384800 No Slurry Seal 2.25 $/sy Shoulder grading 0 cf 0 cy Grading CUT 63 cy Use Worksheet starting at I29 Grading FILL 51 cy Overlay thickness 0.17 ft AC Overlay 26418 sf 2000 TON 110 $/ton AC 17640 cf 1323 ton Shoulders plus overlay to shift crown AB 46305 cf 3241 ton Shoulder backing 0 cf 0 ton Slope Work Site visit still needed for accurate take offs. [9/10/07] Cut (north slope) width [rough est.]see calc to right Cut (north slope) height [rough est.]see calc to right Cut 63 cy Fill (south) width [rough est.]see calc to right Import Fill?cy Fill (south) height [rough est.]see calc to right Fill 51 cy Net Import fill:0 Retaining wall length 0 ft Reatining wall height [rough est.]5 ft Retaining wall area [rough est.]0 sf Drainage C.3 facilities (Bike lanes and slurry seal [maintenance] are exempt.) Full Length of Widening Work FALSE Both Sides Swale Length: 450 ft 450 ft Irrigation TRUE Check Dams Swale Width:5 ft 2,250 ft2 Swale Area 5.1%; Excedes the 4% Requirement Slope Variant (1-5):3 Engineered Soil Depth: 1.5 ft 130 cy 14,040.00$ 1 & 2 Relatively Flat Class II Perm:2 ft 170 cy 68,850.00$ 3 Moderate Slopes 6" perforated pipe 470 ft 9.00$ per ft 4,230.00$ 4 & 5 Increasing Elevation Riprap 0 Tons 90$ Per Ton $ Ranges (Very Hilly) Check dams 4in (22 Total Count)20 ft Interval 1,000$ Per Dam 22,500.00$ Planting Type Cost $/sqr ft Planting Small Trees w/Plants 11$ per ft2 22,275.00$ None 1.00$ Pedestrial Safety Barrier Metalic Handrail Type 3%of Cost 3,956.85$ Grassy 4.00$ Irrigation 30%of Cost 39,568.50$ Grassy w/Plants 7.00$ Landscape Architect Consultant 15%of Cost 26,313.05$ Small Trees w/Plants 11.00$ Total Cost:Large Trees w/Grass 15.00$ Shoulder Perforated Pipe ($/ft)10.00$ 6 in. at 10ft, 5% slope Check Dams ($/ft2)40.00$ Excavation per linear ft.2.25 cf 0.083 cy $40/cf (2007 Deer Valley)Engineered Soil ($/ft3)4.00$ Class II Perm ($/ft3)15.00$ Erosion Control Erosion control turf reinforcement mat $95/sy (2004 Rossmoor) Erosion control blanket 0 sy $15/sy (2006 San Ramon Creek) $203,313.05 Appian Way Widening: 5-Lane North of Fulton Way Option B 1 ALTERNATIVE B APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY 31APPENDIX: COST ESTIMATES OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES Appian Way Improvement Study Contra Costa County 1/14/2013 Landscaping Trees:Along entire length of the project.FALSE Plant Trees Tree Size Planting Cost Quantities of Trees to be Removed:10 FALSE Regular Intervals Small 750.00$ Number of Trees to be Planted:0 FALSE Irrigation Medium 1,250.00$ Tree Grates? (Yes/No)Yes Cost:$400 FALSE Both Sides Large 1,750.00$ Tree Type:Medium Establishment Maint Cost per Year Trees $ Planter Areas:Planter Areas:$ Planting Area: (ft2)0 Tree Placement:$ Planting Type:None Planter Areas:$ Public Lighting:$ Public Lighting:FALSE Lighting Irrigation: Number of lights to be Placed:0 FALSE Regular Intervals Consultant: (15%)$ Estimated Cost Per light:4,000.00$ FALSE Both Sides Total Cost:$ Sidewalk + Curb & Gutter Sidewalk: Average Width:5 FT Length of Road (If dirrerent from above):4800 FT Curb and Gutter?Yes Both Sides of the Road?Yes 2 General Sidewalk Thickness 5 IN Curb & Gutter Length:9600 LF Sidewalk Area:48000 SF Concrete Amount:741 CY 2 32 APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY APPENDIX: COST ESTIMATES OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES Transportation Engineering Planning Cost Estimate Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Project Name:Appian Way Widening: Complete Streets Option C Alternative:Sidewalk/curb Improvements w/bike lanes between Valley View Drive and Michael Drive Project Location:Appian Way from Valley View to Fitzgerald Drive Assumptions:R=5.0, TI = 9.0 Project Length (ft):5200 5200 ft to be Modified Date of Estimate:Jan. 11, 2013 Revision No.0 Revision Date Prepared by:A. Rivas Revised by No.Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Total 1 Mobilization 1 LS 295,000.00$ 295,000$ 2 Traffic Control 1 LS 280,000.00$ 280,000$ 3 Construction Area Signs 10 EA 550.00$ 5,500$ 4 Pavement Marking Removal 80 EA 150.00$ 12,000$ 5 Tree Removal 10 EA 2,000.00$ 20,000$ 6 Saw Cut 10400 LF 3.25$ 33,800$ 7 Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS 67,200.00$ 67,200$ 8 Roadway Excavation 1100 CY 75.00$ 82,500$ 9 Cut Excavation 1300 CY 45.00$ 58,500$ 10 Aggregate Base 1500 TON 45.00$ 67,500$ 11 Hot Mix Asphalt 600 TON 125.00$ 75,000$ 12 Minor Concrete Sidewalk (Removal and Replacement)43400 CF 15.00$ 651,000$ 13 Curb and Gutter 10400 LF 35.00$ 364,000$ 14 curb ramps 20 EA 4,000.00$ 80,000$ 15 Driveway 60 EA 3,000.00$ 180,000$ 16 Retaining Wall 1200 SF 125.00$ 150,000$ 17 Utility Adjustments (Fire Hydrants, Utility Boxes, St. Lights)1 LS 100,000.00$ 100,000$ 18 Drainage Modifications (pipes, riprap, etc.)600 LF 150.00$ 90,000$ 19 Drainage Modifications (Inlet Relocations)18 EA 5,000.00$ 90,000$ 20 New Traffic Signal w/Minor St Modification  Rancho Rd 1 LS 300,000.00$ 300,000$ 21 Intersection Improvements(Traffic Signal Mod, Turn Pocket)2 EA 225,000.00$ 450,000$ 22 Roundabout at Appian Wy & Valley View Rd Intersection 1 EA 500,000.00$ 500,000$ 23 Sign Relocation 40 EA 350.00$ 14,000$ 24 Traffic Sign Installation  Bike Lane 14 EA 350.00$ 4,900$ 25 Striping  Detail 1, Center Line 10400 LF 2.50$ 26,000$ 26 Striping  Detail 39, Bike Lane Line 10400 LF 2.50$ 26,000$ 27 Pavement Markings Bike Lane 250 SF 10.00$ 2,500$ 28 AC 0.17FT Overlay + $10k add'l mobilization 3500 TON 110.00$ 395,000$ 29 C.3 On Site Stormwater Runoff Treatment (See Calc)1 LS 84,000.00$ 84,000$ 30 Landscaping (Street Trees, Planting, Lighting)1 LS 1,022,900.00$ 1,022,900$ 31 Bus Shelters 4 EA 15,000.00$ 60,000$ 32 Street Furniture 1 LS 25,000.00$ 25,000$ 33 3Year Landscaping Maintenance Contract Extension 3 YR 111,851.54$ 335,555$ 20,000$ PLAN Planning Engineering (TE) 467,000$ CONTRACT ITEMS 5,948,000$ PE Preliminary Engineering (Design) 1,042,000$ OTHER COSTS (CON)982,000$ Utility Coordination (Design)339,000$ CONTINGENCY*672,000$ Environmental 368,000$ SUBTOTAL (PreCon)5,385,000$ R/W R/W Engineering (Survey)373,000$ SUBTOTAL (PLAN)467,000$ Real Property Labor (including TCE's)312,000$ SUBTOTAL (PE)1,749,000$ R/W Acquisition 2,484,000$ SUBTOTAL (R/W)3,169,000$ CON Construction Engineering *842,000$ Environmental Monitoring and Mitigation Fees 140,000$ GRAND TOTAL 13,007,000$ SUBTOTAL of OTHER COSTS (ALL)6,367,000$ CURRENT YEAR 2012 * Preliminary Engineering is minimum 15% of contract items. (See Issues to Consider)ESCALATION YEAR 2012 * Construction Engineering is 15% of contract items ($20,000 min.)ESCALATION RATE 2.5% * CONTINGENCY is 10% of contract items plus construction engineering. ($10,000 min.)TOTAL (in 2012 dollars)13,000,000$ Public Education Click here if this project is a surface treatment or overlay project. Click here if the project schedule for this project is to be 50 days or more; also Appian Way Improvement Study Contra Costa County 1/14/2013 Transportation Engineering Quantity Takeoff Worksheet Contra Costa County Department of Public Works Project Name: Project length 5200 ft 5200 ft To be Modified Pavement and Shoulder Backing TI = 6.0 Proposed Pavement Expansion 12400 ft2 Use worksheet Proposed Pavement Reduction 7000 ft2 0 FALSE Complete Pavement Replacement Existing Paved Area 269,600 ft2 0 FALSE Proposed Paved Area 275,000 ft2 AC 0.17-FT Overlay TRUE AC depth 0.4 ft 150 pcf FALSE AB depth 1.05 ft 140 pcf Proposed additional area incl taper 0 ft in xSect Taper area 0 sf TON 3500 110 AC 0.17-FT Overlay + $10k add'l mobilization Excavation depth 1.45 ft Excavation area (AB)19400 sf 26.62963 sy Slurry seal area No Slurry Seal 2.25 $/sy Shoulder grading 0 cf 0 cy Grading CUT 1224 cy Use Worksheet starting at I29 Grading FILL 0 cy Overlay area for road crown shift 0 sf Overlay thickness 0.17 ft AC Overlay 46750 sf 3500 TON 110 $/ton AC 7760 cf 582 ton Shoulders plus overlay to shift crown AB 20370 cf 1426 ton Shoulder backing 0 cf 0 ton Slope Work Site visit still needed for accurate take offs. [9/10/07] Cut (north slope) width [rough est.]see calc to right Cut (north slope) height [rough est.]see calc to right Cut 1224 cy Fill (south) width [rough est.]see calc to right Import Fill?cy Fill (south) height [rough est.]see calc to right Fill 0 cy Net Import fill:0 Retaining wall length 300 ft Reatining wall height [rough est.]4 ft Retaining wall area [rough est.]1200 sf C.3 facilities C.3 facilities (Bike lanes and slurry seal [maintenance] are exempt.) Full Length of Widening Work FALSE Both Sides Swale Length: 200 ft 200 ft Irrigation TRUE Check Dams Swale Width:5 ft 1,000 ft2 Swale Area 5.2%; Excedes the 4% Requirement Slope Variant (1-5):2 Engineered Soil Depth: 1.5 ft 60 cy 6,480.00$ 1 & 2 Relatively Flat Class II Perm:2 ft 80 cy 32,400.00$ 3 Moderate Slopes 6" perforated pipe 220 ft 9.00$ per ft 1,980.00$ 4 & 5 Increasing Elevation Riprap 0 Tons 90$ Per Ton $ Ranges (Very Hilly) Check dams 4in (8 Total Count)24 ft Interval 1,000$ Per Dam 8,333.33$ Planting Type Cost $/sqr ft Planting Grassy w/Plants 7$ per ft2 6,300.00$ None 1.00$ Pedestrial Safety Barrier Metalic Handrail Type 1%of Cost 554.93$ Grassy 4.00$ Irrigation 30%of Cost 16,648.00$ Grassy w/Plants 7.00$ Landscape Architect Consultant 15%of Cost 10,904.44$ Small Trees w/Plants 12.00$ Total Cost:Large Trees w/Grass 16.00$ Perforated Pipe ($/ft)10.00$ Center Medians:Check Dams ($/ft2)40.00$ (None)Engineered Soil ($/ft3)4.00$ Class II Perm ($/ft3)15.00$ Erosion Control Erosion control turf reinforcement mat $95/sy (2004 Rossmoor) Erosion control blanket 0 sy $15/sy (2006 San Ramon Creek) $83,904.44 Appian Way Widening: Complete Streets Option C 1 ALTERNATIVE C APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY 33APPENDIX: COST ESTIMATES OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES Appian Way Improvement Study Contra Costa County 1/14/2013 Landscaping Trees:Along entire length of the project.TRUE Plant Trees Tree Size Planting Cost Quantities of Trees to be Removed:10 TRUE Regular Intervals Small 750.00$ Tree Planting Interval: (ft)50 208 Trees TRUE Irrigation Medium 1,250.00$ Tree Grates? (Yes/No)Yes Cost:$400 TRUE Both Sides Large 1,750.00$ Tree Type:Medium Establishment Maint Cost per Year Trees 93,080.00$ Planter Areas:Roundabout (No other areas considered)Planter Areas:18,771.54$ Planting Area: (ft2)3000 Tree Placement:343,200.00$ Planting Type:Grassy w/Plants Planter Areas:21,000.00$ Public Lighting:416,000.00$ Public Lighting:TRUE Lighting Irrigation:109,260.00$ Lighting Interval: (ft)100 104 Lights TRUE Regular Intervals Consultant: (15%)133,419.00$ Estimated Cost Per light:4,000.00$ TRUE Both Sides Total Cost:1,022,879.00$ Sidewalk + Curb & Gutter Sidewalk: Average Width:10 FT Length of Road (If dirrerent from above):FT Curb and Gutter?Yes Both Sides of the Road?Yes 2 General Sidewalk Thickness 5 IN Curb & Gutter Length:10400 LF Sidewalk Area:104000 SF Concrete Amount:1605 CY 2 Average Width Worksheet Return Quantity Take-Off Expansion Area (ft2):12400 Total Length 5200 ft Total Length 5200 ft Reduction Area ((ft2):7000 Total Area 269600 ft2 Total Area 275000 ft2 Average Width 52 ft Average Width 53 ft No. Segment Length (FT) Width (FT) Area (FT2) No. Segment Length (FT) Width (FT) Area (FT2) Reduction (FT2) Expansion (FT2) 1 - 1700'100 55 5500 1 - 800'100 55 5500 2 100 55 5500 2 100 55 5500 3 100 55 5500 3 100 55 5500 4 100 55 5500 4 100 55 5500 5 100 55 5500 5 100 55 5500 6 100 55 5500 6 100 55 5500 7 100 55 5500 7 100 55 5500 8 100 55 5500 8 100 55 5500 9 100 55 5500 9 - 400'100 58 5800 300 10 100 55 5500 10 100 58 5800 300 11 100 55 5500 11 100 58 5800 300 12 100 55 5500 12 100 58 5800 300 13 100 55 5500 13 - 2000 100 44 4400 1100 14 100 55 5500 14 100 44 4400 1100 15 100 55 5500 15 100 44 4400 1100 16 100 55 5500 16 100 44 4400 1100 17 100 55 5500 17 100 44 4400 1100 18 - 2600'100 45 4500 18 100 44 4400 100 19 100 45 4500 19 100 44 4400 100 20 100 45 4500 20 100 44 4400 100 21 100 45 4500 21 100 44 4400 100 22 100 45 4500 22 100 44 4400 100 23 100 45 4500 23 100 44 4400 100 24 100 45 4500 24 100 44 4400 100 25 100 45 4500 25 100 44 4400 100 26 100 45 4500 26 100 44 4400 100 27 100 45 4500 27 100 44 4400 100 28 100 45 4500 28 100 44 4400 100 29 100 45 4500 29 100 44 4400 100 30 100 45 4500 30 100 44 4400 100 31 100 45 4500 31 100 44 4400 100 32 100 45 4500 32 100 44 4400 100 33 100 45 4500 33 - 500'100 48 4800 300 34 100 45 4500 34 100 48 4800 300 35 100 45 4500 35 100 48 4800 300 36 100 45 4500 36 100 48 4800 300 37 100 45 4500 37 100 48 4800 300 38 100 45 4500 38 - 400'100 58 5800 1300 39 100 45 4500 39 100 58 5800 1300 40 100 45 4500 40 100 58 5800 1300 41 100 45 4500 41 100 58 5800 1300 42 100 45 4500 42 - 1000'100 64 6400 1900 43 100 45 4500 43 100 64 6400 1900 44 - 700'100 63 6300 44 100 64 6400 100 45 100 63 6300 45 100 64 6400 100 46 100 63 6300 46 100 64 6400 100 47 100 63 6300 47 100 64 6400 100 48 100 63 6300 48 100 64 6400 100 49 100 63 6300 49 100 64 6400 100 50 100 63 6300 50 100 64 6400 100 51 - 200'100 75 7500 51 100 75 7500 52 100 75 7500 52 100 75 7500 53 0 Existing:Proposed: 34 CHAPTER #: CHAPTER TITLE APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY This page intentionally left blank. APPIAN WAY ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND COMPLETE STREETS STUDY 35APPENDIX: COST ESTIMATES OF DESIGN ALTERNATIVES D Y E T T & B H A TIA Urban and Regi onal P l anne r s 755 Sansome Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, California 94111 415 956 4300 415 956 7315 EXHIBIT C: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH#2002102119) DOWNTOWN EL SOBRANTE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (JUNE 2011) Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report County File: GP#02-0003 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2002102119 Prepared for Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Community Development Division Prepared by Mills Associates Lafayette, California October 2010 DOWNTOWN EL SOBRANTE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT County File: GP#02-0003 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2002102119 Prepared for Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Prepared by Mills Associates Lafayette, California October 2010 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction.................................................................. I-1 II. List of Commenters.................................................... II-1 III. Comments and Responses....................................... III-1 IV. ERRATA....................................................................IV-1 Appendix A – Traffic Data Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page I-1 I. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report This document has been prepared in response to the comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment General Plan Amendment. The Draft EIR identified the likely consequences associated with the General Plan Amendment, and identified feasible mitigation measures to help reduce potential significant impacts. This Final EIR responds to comments on the Draft EIR, and it includes an ERRATA to revisions to the Draft EIR , as necessary, in response to these comments and corrects for omissions to the Draft EIR. None of these revisions result in significant changes to the Project Description or findings of the Draft EIR that would trigger need to recirculate the Draft EIR As described in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a number of types of EIRs exist. Different types of EIRS are used for varying situations and intended uses. As described in Section 15161 of the CEQA Guidelines, the most common type of EIR is a project EIR, which examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project. As described in Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, a program-level EIR is appropriate when a project consists of a series of action related to the issuance of rules, regulations, and other planning criteria. In this case, the project that is the subject of this EIR is a General Plan Amendment that will be implemented over time as a series of land use and transportation/circulation policies to guide future development activities within the San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way corridors in El Sobrante. No specific development projects are proposed as part of the General Plan Amendment. Therefore, this EIR is a program-level EIR, as described in the Draft EIR on page S-2. The program-level EIR under CEQA allows the County to consider and evaluate the General Plan Amendment’s impacts by examining the environmental effects throughout the plan area, rather that on a case-by-case basis. The program-level EIR also allows for the examination of the effects of the General Plan Amendment’s basic policy considerations, without requiring the County to re-consider such policy considerations each time a specific development project is proposed. As such in certifying this EIR, the County will have completed its duties under CEQA to consider the effects of adopting the General Plan Amendment as a policy framework for future development proposals. However, certification of this EIR would not exempt future development projects from CEQA review. Section 15168 (c) of the CEQA Guidelines outlines the additional environmental review requirements which must be conducted for a development project that occurs in area for which a program-level environmental review has been prepared. Under these requirements, if the County finds the potential environmental impacts of a proposed Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page I-2 development project located within the General Plan Amendment area were not evaluated in the program-level EIR, or not sufficiently mitigated by the program-level EIR, new environmental analysis would be needed for the proposed development project. B. Environmental Review Process CEQA Guidelines (Section 15132) require that upon completion of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, as lead agency, consult with and obtain comments from public agencies having legal jurisdiction with respect to a proposed project. In addition the County, as lead agency, must provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR for the proposed Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment was made available for public review on November 4, 2009. The Draft EIR was distributed to local and state responsible and trustee agencies, and the general public was advised of the availability of the Draft EIR through a public notice of completion and availability of the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day review from November 4, 2009 to December 18, 2009. In addition to notice of availability and circulation of the Draft EIR for public comment, the Contra Costa County Zoning Administrator conducted a public hearing on December 14, 2009 to receive comment on the Draft EIR. Copies of the Draft EIR were made available for public review online at the Contra Costa County website, http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us , listed under the “What’s New” tab on the webpage for the Department of Conservation & Development, and in addition, hard copies were made available to the public at the Contra Costa County Library, El Sobrante and Central branches, Office of Supervisor John Gioia, District I, in El Cerrito and the Application & Permit Center, Contra Costa County Department of Conservation & Development, in Martinez, California. Response to comments have been prepared pursuant to County and State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15132), and respond to relevant and significant environmental issues received from public agencies and the general public on the Draft EIR. CEQA Guidelines specify that the Final EIR shall consist of the following: The Draft EIR or a revision of that draft; Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR; A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; The response of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and Any other information added by the Lead Agency. The written comments submitted on the Draft EIR did not raise any new issues to be addressed in the EIR, and did not result in substantial modifications to the analysis or conclusions contained in the Draft EIR. Aside from the ERRATA section, which makes corrections to text and figures, and includes the omission of a 2005 Supplemental Transportation Analysis cited in Final Transportation Analysis for Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment, prepared by Dowling Associates (see ERRATA section, Appendix A, Traffic Data), the document remains as initially written and published. Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page I-3 This Final EIR will be provided to the County Planning Commission for its review prior to its consideration of resolution recommending the Board of Supervisors adoption of the General Plan Amendment. The County Planning Commission will be asked to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on both the General Plan Amendment and the certification of the EIR. However, the County Planning Commission will not take final action on either the General Plan Amendment or the EIR. Instead, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will consider the County Planning Commission’s recommendation during a noticed public hearing and then take action on the proposed project, including certification of the EIR, the adoption of all necessary CEQA findings, and the adoption of program for mitigation and monitoring impacts identified in the EIR that are associated with the proposed project. Before the Board can approve the proposed project or a project alternative, the following findings must be made in order to certify the Final EIR for its adequacy: • It has adequately disclosed the environmental effects of the proposed project, • It has been completed in conformance with CEQA, • It has been independently reviewed, and • The information has been considered by the decision-making body. Given the presence of a significant and unavoidable impact resulting from the proposed project, the Board of Supervisors final action will need to contain a statement of overriding considerations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15039. C. Document Organization Following this introductory first chapter, Chapter II provides a list of persons and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR. Chapter III includes copies of all written comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to significant environmental points raised in the written comments. The comments are arranged beginning with those received from agencies and individual letters follow in alphabetical order. Each comment letter and individual comments have been numbered. Where the response refers to a previous comment/response, it is shown as Response 3-2 for example. The number 3 represents the comment letter and the 2 represents the second comment of that letter. Chapter IV is the ERRATA, which includes any changes to the Draft EIR that have been identified in response to the comment letters, and it includes supplemental information for the transportation analysis that was inadvertently omitted when the Draft EIR was printed. Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page II-1 II. LIST OF COMMENTERS State Agencies 1 State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, dated 12-24-09 2 State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans), letter dated 12-22-09 Regional Agencies 3 Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission, letter dated 12-15-09 4 East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), letter dated 12-14-09 5 West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee, letter dated 12-18-09 County Agency 6 Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District, memorandum dated 12-17-09 Cities 7 City of Pinole, letter dated 12-18-09 8 City of Richmond, letter dated 12-7-09 Individuals/Organizations 9 El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council, letter dated 12-7-09 10 El Sobrante Valley Planning & Zoning Advisory Committee, letter dated 12-16-09 11 Marilynne Mellander, letter dated 12-17-09 12 Kenoli Oleari, on behalf of the Institute of the Commons, the Long Range Education, Empowerment and Action Project, and the group of El Sobrante residents working to convert El Sobrante Elementary School into a community center, dated 12-18-09 III. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Letter 1 1-1 [Letter 2] Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-1 State of California LETTER 1 RESPONSE Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Scott Morgan, Acting Director December 24, 2009 1-1 Comment acknowledged; no further response is necessary. Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-2 Letter 2 2-1 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-3 2-2 2-3 2-4 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-4 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 2-8 2-9 2-10 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-5 State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Lisa Carboni, District Branch Chief December 22, 2009 LETTER 2 RESPONSE 2-1 Comment noted. The southbound left-turn movement on “Intersection 2” has been removed. 2-2 The intersection level of service worksheets from the Environmental Impact Report’s transportation analysis (Dowling Associates, October 23, 2007) as referenced in Appendix B, Technical Traffic Data, were inadvertently omitted in printing. The intersection level of service worksheets are provided in the ERRATA, Section IV., see Appendix A, Traffic Data. 2-3 The level of service (LOS) at intersections using the Highway Capacity Method is unknown. The transportation analysis (Dowling Associates, October 23, 2007) uses the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) LOS method. The CCTA LOS method is the standard procedure to evaluating congestion levels at signalized intersections for all jurisdictions in Contra Costa County. The use of this method for calculation LOS is required by under the Measure J Growth Management Program administered by the CCTA. Including another methodology would be costly and likely confusing to the public. It is further noted that the maximum intersection capacities under the Highway Capacity Method are typically lower than what is used in the CCTA method, and the CCTA method is generally a more conservative. 2-4 Comment noted. 2-5 The table is using CCTA LOS. Please also see above response to comment 2-3. 2-6 At this time, no turn restrictions are anticipated for the future San Pablo Dam Road/Pitt Way intersection. Since no engineering design for the new collector roadway connecting Pitt Way to Hillcrest Road has been prepared, it would not be possible to conduct a level of service evaluation for the future San Pablo Dam Road/Pitt Way intersection. Such level of service analysis will be conducted for the new intersection in conjunction with the design of the new collector roadway. 2-7 There was an error in the document and it has been corrected. The LOS for the El Portal Drive/I-80 WB Ramps should read “0.68/B” under the Existing + Project condition. This classification is based on the LOS Ranges stated in Table 9 (page 52) of the CCTA Technical Procedures (2006 Update). See ERRATA for the correction. 2-8 The report does state that the proposed General Plan Amendment would leave the lane configuration for San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way unchanged. Table 3.3- 16 compares volume and volume-to-capacity ratio for San Pablo Dam Road, Appian Way and El Portal Drive in the Future + Project and No Project scenarios. This table is provided to show the difference in v/c ratio and volume with and without the GPA. Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-6 A select link analysis for the Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment, prepared for the 2005 Supplemental Transportation Analysis by Dowling Associates (see Section IV, ERRATA, for a copy of the referenced document), indicated that traffic delays on the freeway would significantly increase during the next 20 years such that traffic from I-80 would be prone to utilize additional lanes on San Pablo Dam Road to avoid freeway congestion. El Portal Drive is not impacted by this diversion as much as San Pablo Dam Road as shown in the 2005 Supplemental Transportation Analysis 1 . In the project horizon year, this situation would worsen due to increasing traffic volumes diverted from I-80 to San Pablo Dam Road if its capacity were increased. Figure 3.3-6 and Table 3.3-16 represent two different project scenarios; Existing + Project, and Future/No project and Future + Project, respectively. 2-9 The proposed project could result in the development of 490 dwelling units (Page 2- 8). There are a total of 4,676 households in El Sobrante (Page 3-5). The proposed project would result in an approximately 11percent increase in the total number of households. There are approximately 125 spaces at the park & ride lot in question (intersection of EB I-80 and Hilltop Drive), and on an average weekday only about one-third of its capacity is used 2 . Based on this information, it would be reasonable to assume that the park & ride lot should have the available capacity to meet the demands of future residents in the El Sobrante area. In addition, there are various other ridesharing facilities available along and in close proximity to the I-80 corridor that are near the project area that could potentially accommodate future demand. For example, the Richmond Parkway Transit Center which is proposed for expansion, the Hercules Transit Center, as well as park and ride facilities off of the I-80/Willow Avenue intersection in Rodeo. 2-10 Comment noted. 1 The 2005 Supplemental Transportation Analysis for the Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment was conducted to supplement the traffic information for Contra Costa County’s Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment. Page 31 of the Final Transportation Analysis for the Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment (see under Appendix B, Technical Traffic Data, Draft Environmental Impact Report) provides a discussion on traffic diversion. 2 Per verbal communication with 511 Contra Costa. 511 Contra Costa is a comprehensive transportation demand management program, which promotes alternatives to the single occupant vehicle. 511 Contra Costa is sponsored by all twenty jurisdictions in Contra Costa County through four regional transportation planning committees – SWAT (southwest county), TRANSPAC (central county), TRANSPLAN (east county), and WCCTAC (west county). Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-7 Letter 3 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-8 3-1 3-2 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-9 3-3 3-4 Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) LETTER 3 RESPONSE Lou Ann Texeira, Executive Officer December 15, 2009 3-1 A review of maps of the service area boundaries contained in the “Directory of Local Agencies”, prepared by Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (October 2009), confirms that the project area (proposed Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment) is within service areas for fire protection (Contra Costa Fire Protection District), sewer service (West County Wasterwater District) and water service (East Bay Municipal Utility District). 3-2 A review of the service area boundary map for County Service Area L-100, street lighting, prepared by Special District Section, Contra Costa County Public Works Department, confirms that project area (proposed Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment) is within existing service area for the County Service Area L-100 covering El Sobrante. 3-3 The reference to East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) has been included in the ERRATA. 3-4 The LAFCO comment regarding the City of Richmond Sphere of Influence is noted. Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-10 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-11 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-12 4-1 Letter 4 4-2 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-13 4-2 4-3 East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) LETTER 4 RESPONSE William Kirkpatrick Manager of Water Distribution Planning December 14, 2009 4-1 The correction regarding the completion of the Freeport Regional Water Project has been included in the ERRATA. 4-2 Information pertaining to future development and location of water main extensions, water supply, fire flows, etc. is hereby noted. As individual project applications are submitted to the County Department of Conservation and Development, specific water supply information will be solicited from EBMUD at that time. 4-3 EBMUD’s water recycling policy 8.01 is acknowledged. As a part of the planning process, the County solicits input from the water agency when individual project applications are submitted. Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-14 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-15 5-1 Letter 5 West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee Christina Atienza, Executive Director December 18, 2009 LETTER 5 RESPONSE 5-1 Comments acknowledged; no further response required. Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-16 Letter 6 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-17 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-3 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-18 6-4 6-5 6-6 6-7 6-8 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-19 Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Homira Shafaq, Staff Engineer Flood Control December 17, 2009 6-1 The comment recommends that an assessment of the drainage impacts to San Pablo Creek, downstream of the project boundary, be provided to demonstrate that the increased storm runoff for the 100-year storm at Appian Creek, San Pablo Creek, and other natural watercourses, due to implementation of the General Plan Amendment would not adversely affect neighborhoods outside the project boundary. The General Plan Amendment does not specifically propose the building of new structures or the expansion of existing ones, therefore it is not possible to quantify the storm runoff that could be generated by future construction nor discuss the distribution of associated stormwater runoff in the EIR. The proposed project is a General Plan Amendment, which this EIR addresses. It includes establishment of new mixed use land use designations and corresponding policy changes to the Land Use and Transportation/Circulation elements to the County General Plan affecting the San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way corridors. There are no individual development projects under consideration at this time. Section 3.10 of the Draft EIR discusses relevant State and local stormwater regulations. When an individual project application within the project area is submitted, the applicant will be responsible for submitting a drainage study at that time. 6-2 There is no specific development project under evaluation at this time that requires verification of the floodplain map. The map presented within the EIR provides an overview of the potential for flooding within the study area. 6-3 As individual development projects are submitted, applicants will be informed of the drainage fees and will be responsible for those fees as a condition of approval. 6-4 Comment noted. The funding of Drainage Area 73 has been a standard condition of approval used by the County for development projects within the affected areas of El Sobrante. 6-5 Comment noted. Future development projects will be responsible for mitigating the impact of additional stormwater runoff as a condition of project approval. 6-6 Comment noted. Future development projects will be responsible for the design and construction of storm drain facilities as a condition of project approval. 6-7 Comment noted. Individual project applicants will be informed of the 100-year flood boundary and the Flood Plain Management ordinance at the start of the planning process. LETTER 6 RESPONSE Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-20 6-8 It is acknowledged that certain regulatory permits may be required when the stream courses or drainage systems are impacted by future development projects. The applicability of regulatory permits will be determined when specific project applications are submitted. Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-21 Letter 7 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-22 7-1 7-1 7-2 7-3 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-23 City of Pinole Belinda Espinosa, City Manager December 18, 2009 LETTER 7 RESPONSE 7-1 The Traffic Service Objective (TSO) for Appian Way (from San Pablo Avenue to San Pablo Dam Road) is LOS “D” in the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) Action Plan. According to the CCTA Traffic Service Objective Monitoring Report (2007), the intersection of Appian Way and Fitzgerald Drive/Sarah Drive operates at Level of Service (LOS) “B” in the AM peak hour period, and LOS “C” in the PM peak. Based on the 2005 Supplemental Transportation Analysis (see ERRATA, Appendix A), the traffic volumes for Appian Way between Valley View Road and I-80 are expected to increase in the cumulative scenario (2025). However, with the widening of Appian Way, under the cumulative scenario there will be approximately 862 additional vehicle trips on the southbound approach (peak direction) of the Appian Way road segment in the AM, and 611 vehicle trips in the opposite direction during the PM peak period versus if the widening is not applied (see Table 3.3-16). In other words, if Appian Way is widened pursuant to existing General Plan policy, there would be a substantial amount of new traffic traversing through the City of Pinole on Appian Way which would not occur with the change in policy under the General Plan Amendment. 7-2 Side street delays were not analyzed off of Appian Way. Measuring side street delays is not a traffic service objective (TSO) for San Pablo Dam Road in the WCCTAC Action Plan 2000 Update. 7-3 Mitigation 3.3-5 would require future developments in the project area to analyze their impacts on transit service. The location and frequency of bus stops along the corridors within the project area would ultimately be determined by the transit service provider. Addressing specific transit improvements and amenities could not be effectively identified at this time because individual development projects create unique situations and needs. The adequacy of bus stops and their locations, access, and sidewalks is not evaluated under this program-level EIR. However, the County has made the following changes to the aforementioned mitigation measure to ensure that all development within the project area will be considered (see changes to text that is italicized, underlined, and highlighted in yellow). “MITIGATION MEASURE 3.3-5: The County shall consult with AC Transit prior to the approval of all individual projects along the “project area” portions of San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way, within unincorporated County area, that may significantly increase transit patronage. Increases in transit demand generated by individual projects shall be assessed at the time application is made. The County shall forward an agency referral to AC Transit requesting comments on proposed developments that result in a net increase in vehicle trips. Individual projects shall provide mitigation to accommodate increases in transit demand, if necessary.” . Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-24 8-1 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-25 8-2 8-3 8-4 Letter 8 City of Richmond Kieron Slaughter, Assistant Planner LETTER 8 RESPONSE Planning Department December 7, 2009 8-1 It is not possible to assess cumulative impacts associated with the City’s draft General Plan, without the ability to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan update, because to date it has not been released for public review and comment. 8-2 This comment is requesting that the County’s EIR match the thresholds and development standards for the proposed mixed use designations with those proposed under the Draft City of Richmond General Plan. It is not possible to respond to this request because the Draft EIR for the Richmond General Plan update has not been released from which such a comparison could be attempted. 8-3 As requested, a copy of the City’s Draft General Plan Land Use Map is attached. 8-4 The City of Richmond Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvement Plan under the Draft City General Plan (December 2009) reflects a planned Class II and Class III bicycle route along San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way. San Pablo Dam Road is identified as a planned Class III bicycle route under the Bicycle Facilities Network Map, Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020). The proposed General Plan Amendment would re-classify San Pablo Dam Road as a Class II and Class III bicycle route. Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-27 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-28 9-1 9-2 9-3 Letter 9 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-29 9-4 9-5 9-6 9-7 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-30 9-8 9-9 9-10 9-11 9-12 9-13 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-31 9-14 9-15 9-15 9-16 9-17 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-32 9-18 9-19 9-20 9-21 9-22 9-22 9-23 9-24 9-25 9-26 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-33 9-27 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-34 9-28 9-29 El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council Barbara Pendergrass, Chair December 7, 2009 LETTER 9 RESPONSE 9-1 The comment refers to the planning process and not to the adequacy of the EIR; therefore no further response is necessary. 9-2 The proposed policy describing the rezoning to the Planned Unit District (P-1) District for Appian Way was inadvertently omitted in the Draft EIR. The proposed policies for the Appian Way corridor under the General Plan Amendment direct that this area be zoned to the P-1 District. 9-3 The correct spelling of Barbara Pendergrass is included in the ERRATA. 9-4 The change regarding auto, pedestrian and bicycles is included in the ERRATA 9-5 The ERRATA reflects the elimination of the following sentence that appears on page S-3, third paragraph: “No significant areas of controversy are known or have been brought to the attention of County of Contra Costa with regard to the proposed General Plan.” 9-6 Neighborhood streets in the vicinity of the project area (e.g. Hilltop Drive, La Paloma Road, and Manor Road) could be affected by diversion traffic as a result of the proposed General Plan Amendment. Diversion would occur when main arterial roads such as San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way become congested and experiencing higher traffic volumes. Mitigation Measure 3.3-3, page 3-52 of the Draft EIR, addresses this issue with the establishment of a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. The Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program provides a tool kit and process for identifying, measuring, and dealing with problems related to traffic safety on local streets. This process also facilitates the County’s goal to provide for safe and efficient vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle movements on Contra Costa County streets. Traffic calming strategies designed to address diversion traffic would be better analyzed for their feasibility and effectiveness once project specific impacts are determined. Such strategies may include, but are not be limited to; installing center medians, chockers/bulbouts at intersections, parabolic and/or flat topped speed humps, speed cushions, traffic circle or roundabouts, etc. 9-7 The General Plan Amendment proposes new land use designations and supporting policy changes to the Land Use and Transportation/Circulation elements to the County General Plan affecting the San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way corridors. A precise alignment study for San Pablo Dam Road would be initiated once the General Plan Amendment has been adopted. The precise alignment study would examine the ability to provide travel lanes and space for bicycle lanes, curb parking, expanded or improved sidewalk area, and bus transit stops within the existing road right-of-way, and reviewing the operational aspects within the existing right of way. The County concurs Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-35 that a parking management plan should be developed which could better manage existing conditions. Although there are presently limited resources available to conduct either a precise alignment study or a parking management plan, the County will pursue such studies and secure necessary funding to initiate and complete them. 9-8 As new projects are processed through the County planning process, they will be reviewed for compliance with Tittle 24 of the California Building Code to ensure that they have incorporated the latest energy efficient measures. 9-9 Page 2-2 of the Draft EIR refers to the new collector street, not San Pablo Dam Road; thus there is no contradiction between the statements on page 2-2 and page 3-32. 9-10 The statements on Page 2-2 and 3-32 are consistent. The proposed General Plan Amendment would retain San Pablo Dam Road as a four-lane facility (two lanes in each direction), and promote the various streetscape improvements listed. The DEIR starting at page 3-9 and ending at 3-18 is simply restating the existing policies that are contained in the General Plan. 9-11 The Draft EIR is citing the existing policies contained in the County General Plan. 9-12 The Draft EIR is citing the existing policies contained in the County General Plan. 9-13 The County acknowledges that the El Sobrante area lacks sufficient park acreage. However, the Draft EIR addresses new mixed use designations and policy changes to the County General Plan within a specific project area, the San Pablo Dam Road Commercial Core and the Appian Way corridors, taken together comprising Downtown El Sobrante, and not the entire El Sobrante planning area. 9-14 Comment noted. The ERRATA reflects the statement that the community rejected annexation to the City of Richmond. 9-15 The Draft EIR evaluated the roads in El Sobrante identified in the Roadway Network Map, Transportation/Circulation Element, Contra Costa County General Plan (2005- 2020). These roads included in the road network were assumed in the traffic modeling used for the Draft EIR. 9-16 The traffic hours studied in the Draft EIR reflect the peak of the peak hour commute period. 9-17 On page 3-32, Project Conditions, the statement in the Draft EIR refers to existing policies in the General Plan, not the proposed project that amends these policies. 9-18 Figure 3.3-5 and 3.3-6 have been revised to show the additional collector facilities that were not described in the Draft EIR. The project proposes a General Plan Amendment that will establish policies intended to promote a development pattern that is more compact and conducive to downtown businesses and residential environment. The Appian Way and San Pablo Dam Road corridors would be affected by these changes and were studied and analyzed in the Draft EIR. Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-36 9-19 The County acknowledges that a parking management plan is needed. However, the Draft EIR evaluates the impacts resulting from the proposed General Plan Amendment, which is the establishment of new mixed use designations and corresponding policy changes for San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way within the Land Use and Transportation/Circulation elements to the County General Plan 9-20 Comment noted. The table has been corrected to refer to year 2003; refer to ERRATA sheet. 9-21 Comment noted. The intersections listed in Figure 3.3.8 and Table 3.3-12 are the study intersections. As explained above, the Draft EIR evaluated the roads in El Sobrante reflected in the Roadway Network Map, Transportation/Circulation Element, Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020). These roads in the Road Network Map, which directly serve the project area, were included in the traffic modeling and analysis used for the Draft EIR 9-22 Comment noted. Mitigation Measure 3.3-3, page 3-52 of the Draft EIR, addresses this issue by the establishment of a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. This program provides a tool kit and process for identifying, measuring, and dealing with problems related to traffic safety on local streets and diversion of traffic onto residential streets. The Institute of Traffic Engineers defines traffic calming as “the combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior, and improve conditions for the non-motorized street users”. Traffic calming seeks to improve neighborhood livability and pedestrian safety through the reduction of average travel speeds on residential streets from a range of measures. These measures can be used to address problems from speeding, cut-through traffic, increase volume, and pedestrian/bicyclist safety. One key objective is the reduction in travel speeds to discourage use of residential streets for cut through traffic or commute traffic. Traffic calming relies on the installation of physical features to slow vehicle speed and enhance safety on residential streets. This is accomplished by incorporating design elements into the roadway, such as crosswalks, chockers/bulbouts at intersections, parabolic and/or flat topped speed humps, speed cushions, traffic roundabouts and traffic circles. Such elements either lead a driver to travel at a reduced speed or to seek a more direct route of travel. As the term implies, the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program involves the direct participation of residents within the affected neighborhood. Neighborhood residents would be directly consulted and residents would be encouraged to participate in the development and selection traffic calming measures from the tool kit. Already used effectively in many Bay Area communities, neighborhood traffic calming techniques have reduced speeding on residential streets, lessened the frequency and severity of traffic accidents, and re-directed commute traffic away from residential streets onto the main arterial streets. The experience of several Bay Area communities, with small, inexpensive retrofits to a roadway, have resulted in reduced vehicle speeds and volumes that promote more livable neighborhoods. For example, the City of Sunnyvale implemented a relatively inexpensive, phased program of traffic calming measures on a residential collector street that was affected by significant commute Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-37 traffic diversion.1 Initial data gathered showed the average daily volume was 1200 vehicles per day and the 85th percentile speed was 35 miles per hour. The traffic calming measures were staged in two phases ultimately involving the installation of a traffic circle and deflector islands. One month after the installation, speed monitoring data showed that 85th percentile speed had been reduced to 26.5 mph, traffic volume decreased from 1200 vehicles per day to 1100 vehicles per day, and the neighborhood response was overwhelming positive (75% in favor; 25% against). Comprehensive traffic studies evaluating cumulative traffic impacts, in particular the effect of cut-through or commute traffic diversion in the vicinity of the Hilltop Drive area, have been prepared. The issue of potential traffic diversion resulting from the proposed Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment was thoroughly addressed in the traffic analysis prepared for the DEIR by Dowling Associates (October 2007) and the supplemental traffic analysis also prepared by Dowling Associates (2005). The Dowling Associates’ traffic studies included cumulative traffic impacts. Additionally, a supplemental traffic impact analysis for the Hillview Residential Subdivision (Hatch Mott MacDonald, October 2010) specifically addresses the cumulative effect of traffic associated with the 35-lot residential subdivision proposed at 4823 Hilltop Drive. 9-23 The Hilltop Drive area is located outside the boundary of the General Plan Amendment area and is not subject to the traffic analysis undertaken for the EIR. 9-24 Comment noted regarding the need for police and fire protection. 9-25 The County acknowledges the need for additional parkland within the community. At the present time the County has very limited financial resources to purchase land for a park, develop park, or operate and maintain a park. 9-26 The commenter is correct that since the photo was taken for the previous EIR, there have been some minor changes at the intersection. The photo reflects current conditions on the north side of Appian Way. The change is at the southwest corner of LaColina and San Pablo Dam Road. The existing photo shows a tree located at the corner, which has been removed, since the photo was taken. 9-27 Comment noted regarding the spelling of the Native American tribe. The text is correct based upon the archaeologist’s report. 9-28 Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR has identified the cumulative impacts on transportation as significant and unavoidable. As discussed previously, all potential development allowed by the proposed General Plan Amendment was considered in this EIR. 9-29 Comment noted regarding the Environmentally Superior Alternative. 1 City of Sunnyvale – Canary Drive Traffic Calming Case Study, March 14, 2003, Technology Transfer Seminar, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-38 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-39 10-1 10-2 10-3 10-4 Letter 10 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-40 10-5 10-6 10-7 10-8 10-9 10-10 10-11 10-12 10-13 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-41 El Sobrante Valley Planning & Zoning Advisory Committee Eleanor Loynd, Chair December 16, 2009 10-1 Comment noted regarding the need for a new street sign. 10-2 The population for the El Sobrante Census Designated Place (covering the unincorporated portions of El Sobrante Valley) updated to the year 2008 is approximately 14,000 residents (source: population estimate for El Sobrante CDP, East Bay Regional Park District’s calculation for El Sobrante’s share of WW bond measure funds). The estimated population in year 2008 for the area covered under the Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment is 1,888 residents. LETTER 10 RESPONSE 10-3 The citation on page 3-17 is a current General Plan policy. It does not reference a specific sheriff’s facility, but is a standard which the County seeks to achieve. 10-4 The citation on page 3-17 refers to the County parks and recreation standard contained in the General Plan. The County acknowledges the deficit of parks and recreation facilities in the El Sobrante community. 10-5 Comment noted regarding the change to the Transportation/Circulation Element for Appian Way. 10-6 See Response 7-2, City of Pinole, for discussion about why side street delays were not analyzed off of Appian Way. 10-7 The Sikh Temple expansion project was approved and conditions of approval are applied to the project. Conditions must be met during and after construction of the project. 10-8 The project area (which is the subject of the EIR) is not within an area prone to landslides. There is no record of landslides along that portion of San Pablo Avenue or Appian Way located within the project boundary. 10-9 The El Sobrante Elementary School was closed in 2009. The West Contra Costa Unified School District Board adopted Resolution 69-0809 to close the school on February 11, 2009. 10-10 Comment noted. The intersections listed in Figure 3.3.8 and Table 3.3-12 are the study intersections. As explained above, the Draft EIR evaluated roads in El Sobrante identified in the Roadway Network Map, Transportation/Circulation Element, Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020). These roads included in the road network map, which directly serve the project area, were assumed in the traffic modeling and analysis presented in the DEIR. 10-11 The commenter raises several concerns related to seismic safety and the potential threat of earthquake and landslides in El Sobrante. Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-42 Pursuant to CA Government Code sections 8875-8875.10, Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, Building Inspection Division, maintains and periodically updates a list of unreinforced masonry buildings within the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. A review of this listing unreinforced masonry buildings, indicates that there are no buildings in the area covered by the General Plan Amendment or in unincorporated El Sobrante that are listed as an unreinforced masonry building. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act was passed in 1972 to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active earthquake faults. The law requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones (known as Earthquake Fault Zones or Special Studies Zones) around active fault zones and to distribute maps to affected cities and counties for their use in land use planning and controlling new construction. A review of state issued maps indicates that the nearest earthquake fault zone or special studies zone to El Sobrante, or more specifically the General Plan Amendment study area, covers the Hayward Fault. The attached map depicts the El Sobrante area in relation to the location of the Earthquake Fault Zone or Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone for the Hayward Fault. This map shows that the area covered under the General Plan Amendment is outside the Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone for Hayward Fault Zone. 10-12 Refer to the traffic analysis in the Draft EIR which addresses the effects of the new street between San Pablo Dam Road and Hillcrest Road. Following the adoption of the General Plan Amendment, the County Public Works Department would prepare a precise alignment and conceptual design for the new collector roadway and it would include an analysis for the location of new traffic signals associated with the new roadway. 10-13 The commenter does not specifically state where inadequacies occur in the Draft EIR. The commenter only references the insufficient supply of parkland and the Draft EIR states that park acreage for El Sobrante is deficient. The County acknowledges that there is a deficiency of parks in the El Sobrante Valley; however, there are limited funds available for the El Sobrante community to acquire property for a park facility and to develop, operate, or maintain a park facility. See Response to Comment Letter 12, Kenoli Oleari, regarding parkland in El Sobrante for more on this topic. The commenter should be aware that there is no El Sobrante General Plan, but a countywide General Plan that includes a set of goals, policies, and implementation measures that are specific to the El Sobrante community. Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-43 San Pablo Dam Rd Richmond San Pablo Pinole §¨¦80 §¨¦80 ÄÅ123 23rd St Richmond Pkwy San Pablo Ave H i l l t o p D r Giant Rd Pinole Valley Rd Market Ave Ohio Ave El Portal Dr V a ll e y V i e w R d Atlas Rd 29th St Blume Dr F i t z g e r a l d D r Castro Ranch Rd S o la n o A v e 22nd St Appian WayAppian Way Barrett Ave S a n P a b l o D a m R d I General PlanAmendmentArea Earthquake Fault Zone (Alquist - Priolo Special Study Zone)Page III - 44 Legend Study Area Alquist Priolo Fault Zone Source: Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map, California Geological Survey, California Department of Conservation Map created 10/5/2010by Contra Costa Conservation and Development DepartmentCommunity Development Division--GIS Group651 Pine Street, 4th Floor North Wing, Martinez, CA 94553-009537:59:48.455N 122:06:35.384WThis map contains copyrighted information and may not be altered. It may be reproduced in its current state if the source is cited. Users of this map agree to read and accept the County of Contra Costa disclaimer of liability for geographic information. HaywardFault Zone 0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25 Miles Letter 11 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-45 11-1 11-2 11-3 11-4 11-4 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-46 11-5 11-6 Marilynne Mellander LETTER 11 RESPONSE December 17, 2009 11-1 The property in question would not be affected by the proposed change in land use designation to mixed use under the proposed General Plan Amendment. 11-2 The opinion of the commenter is acknowledged regarding the No Project Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative. The commenter should be aware that the projected buildout for the proposed project would be considerably less than what is projected in the existing General Plan. Also, the proposed Redevelopment Plan is no longer under consideration by the County. 11-3 The population generated by the General Plan Amendment represents a modest 11 percent increase in the household population for El Sobrante. The Sheriff’s Department was consulted to determine the impact on police services should the project be approved. Refer to Chapter 3.11 of the DEIR. 11-4 This a program-level EIR so a detailed level of design engineering has not been performed for the intersections recommended for widening in Mitigation Measures 3.3-1A and 3.3-1B (westbound San Pablo Dam Road approaching El Portal Drive, and westbound San Pablo Dam Road approaching Appian Way). Sufficient analysis has been completed to determine that these intersection modifications are feasible and effective. More detailed analysis would be performed as future development projects are proposed in the project area which will identify the necessary amount of right-of- way to construct the right-turn pocket facilities at the aforementioned intersections. 11-5 Comment noted regarding the effect of mixed-use development. This is a commentary on the proposed project and does not address the adequacy of the EIR. The General Plan Amendment proposes modest land use changes while significantly scaling back the ambitious planned roadway expansion dating back to the 1970’s that are currently assumed in the County General Plan. 11-6 Mitigation Measure 3.3-3 is directed at neighborhood streets to discourage neighborhood cut-through traffic. Traffic calming measures would not be used on San Pablo Dam Road. Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-47 Letter 12 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-48 12-1 12-1 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-49 12-2 12-3 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-50 12-4 12-5 12-6 12-7 12-8 12-9 12-9 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-51 12-10 12-11 12-12 Kenoli Oleari LETTER 12 RESPONSE December 18, 2009 12-1 Comments regarding inadequate parklands in El Sobrante are acknowledged. The lack of parklands in El Sobrante has been well documented in previous County studies. More specifically, in January 2001, Contra Costa County and the City of Richmond jointly prepared and released the El Sobrante Valley Parks Study. The 2001 study reviewed and evaluated a number of sites within the El Sobrante Valley that could be developed into a system of parks and open spaces to address the deficit of park space throughout the valley. However, the scope of the 2001 study was limited and it did not reach a conclusion about how to fund the acquisition, development, operation, and maintenance of new park facilities in the El Sobrante Valley. One of the principal sources for parkland funding for the unincorporated area of El Sobrante are park dedication fees on residential development projects pursuant to the Quimby Act (California Government Code section 66447). This section of California law enables the County to require developers to pay a park dedication fee or in-lieu of fees, or donate land for park/recreation purposes, as a condition of approval for new residential development. Park dedication fees are paid at the time building permits are issued. The current park dedication fee for El Sobrante is $7,238.00 for a single family residential unit and $5,213.00 for a multi-family/apartment unit. The park dedication fees collected in unincorporated El Sobrante go into a fund for County Service Area R-9 (El Sobrante). The current fund balance in County Service Area R- 9 (El Sobrante) is $485,888.00 (balance as of 8/31/2010). County Service Area, R-9 (El Sobrante) was formed in 1974 to maintain at least one park in El Sobrante; however, this is a “paper” park because voters in El Sobrante have not approved a parcel tax to operate and maintain a park. Note that Contra Costa County does not have a park and recreation department, unlike the City of Richmond, which does own and operate parks in the incorporated portions of the El Sobrante Valley. The other source of parkland funds currently available to the unincorporated portion of the El Sobrante Valley comes from Measure WW, which was a bond measure passed in November 2008 that extended the East Bay Regional Park District’s Measure AA: Regional Open Space, Wildlife, Shoreline, and Parks Bond. Measure WW provides for portion of bond proceeds to be allocated directly to cities, special districts, and county service areas. El Sobrante’s allocation or share of Measure WW funding is $641,740.00 (unincorporated area). Capital projects that provide lands and facilities for recreational activities and services and historic preservation are eligible for Measure WW. The Board of Directors for the East Bay Regional Park District retains project selection authority for WW funding to the projects in the unincorporated area. Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-52 There was a citizen advisory committee of El Sobrante residents for County Service Area R-9 that was established to advise the Board of Supervisors on the disbursement of park dedication fees collected within County Service Area R-9 (El Sobrante). This advisory function has recently been delegated to the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council. The El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council has also been delegated the advisory body to the Board of Supervisors on use of Measure WW funds in the El Sobrante Valley. As no formal parkland is currently provided within the El Sobrante Valley by the County, based on recommendation of the R-9 Advisory Committee and El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Committee, the park dedication fees collected in the unincorporated area of the valley have been used to fund joint-use facilities (e.g. most recently park dedication funds were allocated for the tot lot and reading garden adjoining the El Sobrante Public Library). The EIR for Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment is a program-level environmental review under CEQA, and as such, it provides a general analysis of the park needs within the project area – the General Plan Amendment study area. For a graphic depiction of the EIR project area, see Figures 2-1, Site Map, and Figure 2-2, Site Map (Aerial Photo) for the boundary of the General Plan Amendment study area. 12-2 As stated above, the EIR addresses the project area (General Plan Amendment study area) and the park/recreation deficit is acknowledged in the document. 12-3 This program-level EIR for a General Plan Amendment, which covers the limits of the project, or the General Plan Amendment study area, addresses the impacts within the project area. It would be inappropriate and not legally permissible to place the burden and responsibility to mitigate for the historic lack of parklands for the entire El Sobrante Valley on the project – the mitigation or burden of responsibility must be proportionate to the impact created by the project. 12-4 Comment noted. 12-5 Refer to response 12-1. 12-6 Comment noted. 12-7 As discussed in response 12-1, the EIR addresses the need for parkland space within the project area. The area indicated for public space within the project area is generally accessible by pedestrians, bicyclists and automobiles. 12-8 Comment noted regarding available open space within in El Sobrante. 12-9 Comment noted regarding public spaces in other communities. 12-10 Comment noted regarding the conversion of El Sobrante Elementary School. 12-11 Comment noted regarding practical ways to meet public space needs. Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-53 12-12 As stated previously, the County acknowledges that the El Sobrante Valley is lacking in parklands and agrees that more parks are needed. This EIR only addresses the fair share of project contribution to the need for parks and recreational facilities within the project, or General Plan Amendment study area. Based upon the projected population within the defined project boundary, the parks need generated by the project would be 4.3 acres. This is based upon the Growth Management Element standard of 3 acres of park area per 1,000 population (source: page 4-8, Parks and Recreation – Neighborhood Parks standard, Chapter 4, Growth Management Element, Contra Costa County General Plan, 2005-2020). Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page III-54 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page IV-1 IV. ERRATA Page S-2 Second paragraph, last sentence – add the following: “and bicycle traffic.” “The General Plan Amendment would encourage mixed-use development in the Project Area and, more generally, promote the goals of the Downtown El Sobrante Transportation and Land Use Plan (approved by the Board of Supervisors on January 15, 2002, refer to Appendix F). The Downtown El Sobrante Transportation and Land Use Plan established a vision of a pedestrian- oriented downtown area, with improvements to the circulation system to facilitate both automobile, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic.” Page S-3 Second paragraph last line – remove the word “in” prior to “result in impacts… .” “SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Section 15123(b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that this Executive Summary shall identify each potentially significant effect with proposed mitigation measures that would reduce or avoid that effect. This information is summarized in Table S-1, “Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures.” With the exception of traffic impacts, there is no evidence that the proposed project would in result in impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively significant. Fourth paragraph – remove sentence beginning with “No significant areas of controversy… .” “No significant areas of controversy are known or have been brought to the attention of the County of Contra Costa with regard to the proposed General Plan Amendment.” Page 1-4 Parenthical comment in the first paragraph – correct spelling of last name to Pendergass. “(See Appendix A, Notice Of Preparation and Responses, Attachment A, April 14, 2008 letter to Supervisor John Gioia from Barbara Pendergast Pendergass, Chair, El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council.)” Page 2-3 Fourth paragraph – correct spelling of last name to Pendergass. “See Appendix A, Notice Of Preparation and Responses, Attachment A, April 14, 2008 letter to Supervisor John Gioia from Barbara Pendergast Pendergass, Chair, El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council.” Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page IV-2 Page 3-18 Second paragraph – remove the last sentence and replace with the following sentence: “It should be noted that El Sobrante residents rejected any annexation to the City of Richmond some time ago.” ”City of Richmond The Project Area is located within the "Sphere of Influence" of the City of Richmond. The Sphere of Influence is a geographical boundary line established by the Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). The Sphere of Influence is generally the area to which the applicable agency, in this case the City of Richmond, is expected to eventually expand in terms of jurisdiction and responsibility for providing urban services. While the City of Richmond may eventually expand to include the Project Area, planning and land entitlement approvals for the Project Area continue as functions of the County, and the Board of Supervisors. There is no proposal at this time from the City of Richmond to annex the Project Area. It should be noted that El Sobrante residents rejected any annexation to the City of Richmond some time ago.” Page 3-39 Table 3.3-9 Table 3.3-9 EXISTING VERSUS EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Existing (v/c ratio / LOS) Existing + Project (v/c ratio / LOS) Study Intersection AM PM AM PM 1. San Pablo Dam Rd / El Portal Dr 0.65 / B 0.65 / B 0.74 / C 0.82 / D 2. San Pablo Dam Rd / Hillcrest Rd 0.49 / A 0.53 / A 0.54 / A 0.63 / B 3. San Pablo Dam Rd / Appian Way 0.72 / C 0.60 / A 0.84 / D 0.76 / C 4. El Portal Dr / I-80 WB Ramps 0.42 / A 0.64 / B 0.45 / A 0.68 / C B 5. El Portal Dr / I-80 EB Ramps 0.39 / A 0.69 / B 0.43 / A 0.75 / C 6. Appian Way / Valley View Dr a 0.51 / A 0.58 / A 0.54 / A 0.64 / B Note: a Although this intersection is striped as two through lanes and one right-turn pocket in the southbound direction, it operates and was therefore analyzed as one through lane and one right- turn lane. This assumption is based on the approaching lanes and their geometry, given right approaching lane is relatively short in length. Source: CCTALOS based on Technical Procedures, CCTA, July 19, 2006. Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page IV-3 Page 3-41 Third paragraph – remove “Error! Bookmark not defined.” “Since the boundaries of the GPA fall within several TAZs and the model already assumes some growth in these TAZs, a detailed review of the land uses was conducted to estimate what portion of the growth was attributed to the GPA and what portion was outside of the GPA but within the TAZ. Table 3.3-11 on page 3-41Error! Bookmark not defined. shows the total household and employment numbers for each CCTA TAZ within the GPA area. The trip generation process is handled by the CCTA model including the daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips.” Table 3.3-11 – revise table subheadings to read 2003 rather than 2000. 2000 Land Use Total GPA Project Land Use Total CCTA TAZ Year 2000 2003MF Households Year 2000 2003Total Employment Year 2030 MF Households Year 2030 Total Employment 10185 392 184 596 712 10186 531 603 341 411 10187 389 268 403 285 10189 898 508 957 621 10192 898 311 1,033 311 10193 577 174 988 175 10197 900 312 1,011 312 Total 4,585 2,360 5,329 2,827 MF – Multi-family Households. Page 3-166 Third Paragraph – replace East Bay Municipal Utility District under Park and Recreation Facilities: and add East Bay Regional Park District. “Public services in the Project Area are provided by the following entities: Water: East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Wastewater: West County Wastewater District (WCWD) Solid Waste: (disposal and collection services are privately owned) Electricity and Natural Gas: Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) Fire Protection: Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD) Police Services: Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff (CCCOS) Schools (K-12): West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD) Parks and Recreation Facilities: East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) County Service Area 9 City of Richmond, and West Contra Costa Unified School District (Joint Use Facilities)” Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page IV-4 Page 3-183 Fifth paragraph – change date in second sentence from 2009 to 2010. “In response to this concern, the District initiated the Freeport Regional Water Project with the County of Sacramento. Scheduled for completion in 2009 2010, this project will convey up to 100 MGD of Sacramento River water to the District’s Mokelumne Aqueduct system during dry years. With the Freeport Regional Water Project in place, the drought limit of 25 percent rationing will continue in the future.” Appendix A Traffic Data “Supplemental Transportation Analysis for El Sobrante General Plan Amendment” (Dowling Associates, 2005), including Level of Service computation worksheets. This report was cited in the traffic analysis section to the Draft EIR released in November 2009, but it was inadvertently omitted during the printing of the Draft EIR. Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Final EIR Page IV-5 ERRATA – APPENDIX A “Supplemental Transportation Analysis for El Sobrante General Plan Amendment” (Dowling Associates, 2005), including Level of Service computation worksheets. Draft ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT DOWNTOWN EL SOBRANTE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT County File: GP#02-0003 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2002102119 Prepared for Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Community Development Division Prepared by Mills Associates Lafayette, California November 2009 Draft ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT DOWNTOWN EL SOBRANTE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT COUNTY FILE: GP#02-0003 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2002102119 Prepared for Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Community Development Division Prepared by Mills Associates Lafayette, California November 2009 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary...................................................................................S-1 1. Introduction ......................................................................................1-1 1.1 Proposed Actions............................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Background ....................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Procedures......................................................................................................... 1-4 1.4 Methodology/Scope of EIR............................................................................... 1-5 1.5 Organization of the EIR..................................................................................... 1-7 1.6 Regulatory Context and Intended Uses of the EIR ........................................... 1-9 2. Project Description ..........................................................................2-1 2.1 Project Location and Characteristics................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Project Description and Objectives................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Projected Population and Commercial Square Footage.................................... 2-8 2.4 Rationship to Other Plans, Ordinances and Policies, and Land Use Assumptions............................................................................... 2-8 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Introduction....................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Land Use, Population, and Housing.................................................................. 3-1 3.3 Transportation ................................................................................................. 3-21 3.4 Noise ............................................................................................................. 3-56 3.5 Air Quality....................................................................................................... 3-69 3.6 Global Climate Change................................................................................... 3-88 3.7 Biological Resources..................................................................................... 3-115 3.8 Geology and Soils.......................................................................................... 3-139 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials................................................................. 3-150 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality....................................................................... 3-160 3.11 Public Services, Utilities and Related Facilities............................................ 3-166 3.12 Aesthetics ...................................................................................................... 3-190 3.13 Cultural Resources......................................................................................... 3-200 4. Impact Overview ..........................................................................................4-1 4.1 Irreversible Environmental Changes................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Impacts [Effects] Found Not to be Significant.................................................. 4-2 4.3 Significant Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided ............................. 4-4 4.4 Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................... 4-5 4.5 Growth-Inducing Impacts.................................................................................. 4-5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ii Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment 5. Alternatives.......................................................................................5-1 5.1 Introduction....................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Alternative A: No Project................................................................................. 5-2 5.3 Alternative B: Reduced Project Area............................................................... 5-6 5.4 Alternative C: Transportation-Circulation Element Amended – No Land Use Amendment................................................................................. 5-8 5.5 Alternative D: Land Use Amendment – No Change to Transportation-Circulation Element................................................................ 5-11 5.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative ............................................................ 5-14 6. Report Preparation .....................................................................................6-1 APPENDICES A Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Responses B Technical Traffic Data C Technical Noise Data D Air Quality Monitoring Data E EDR Report F Board of Supervisors Order and Summary of Transportation and Land Use Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page iii List of Figures 1-1 Location Map........................................................................................................... 1-2 1-2 Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................ 1-3 2-1 Site Map...................................................................................................................2-4 2-2 Site Map (Aerial Photo) ........................................................................................... 2-5 2-3 Project Area Overview............................................................................................. 2-6 2-4 Proposed Mixed Use General Plan Amendment...................................................... 2-7 3.2-1 Richmond City Limit & Sphere of Influence........................................................... 3-3 3.2-2 El Sobrante CDP...................................................................................................... 3-4 3.2-3 Existing General Plan Land Use Designations......................................................... 3-7 3.2-5 Existing Zoning Classifications ............................................................................... 3-8 3.2-6 Appian Way Corridor Special Concern Area......................................................... 3-14 3.3-1 Project Area............................................................................................................ 3-22 3.3-2 Existing Road and Intersection Geometrics........................................................... 3-24 3.3-3 Existing Intersection Volumes............................................................................... 3-27 3.3-4 Trip Distribution for Existing and Existing Plus Project Scenarios....................... 3-36 3.3-5 Proposed Roadway Network.................................................................................. 3-37 3.3-6 Existing Plus Project Intersection Volumes........................................................... 3-38 3.3-7 Traffic Analysis Zones........................................................................................... 3-42 3.3-8 Cumulative Intersection Volumes.......................................................................... 3-43 3.4-1 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments.............................. 3-60 3.7-1 Biotic Habitats...................................................................................................... 3-116 3.7-2 CNDDB Observation ........................................................................................... 3-120 3.8-1 Soils Map.............................................................................................................. 3-141 3.9-1 Location of LUST/UST Sites............................................................................... 3-154 3.10-1 Floodplain Map.................................................................................................... 3-165 3.11-1 Fire and Police Stations........................................................................................ 3-169 3.11-2 Schools Within One Mile of Project Area............................................................ 3-172 3.11-3 Inventory of Park Sites......................................................................................... 3-173 3.12-1 Photographs.......................................................................................................... 3-192 3.12-2 Photograph ........................................................................................................... 3-193 3.12-3 Photographs.......................................................................................................... 3-195 3.12-4 Photographs.......................................................................................................... 3-196 3.12-5 Photograph ........................................................................................................... 3-197 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page iv Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment List of Tables S-1 Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures.....................................S-4 2-1 Comparison of Existing General Plan and Proposed General Plan Amendment ........................................................................................ 2-7 3.2-1 Existing Land Use Designations within the Project Area........................................ 3-6 3.3-1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions............................................. 3-25 3.3-2 Road Segment Level of Service Definitions.......................................................... 3-26 3.3-3 Existing Intersection Levels of Service.................................................................. 3-28 3.3-4 Existing Road Segment Levels of Service............................................................. 3-28 3.3-5 Transportation Service Objectives......................................................................... 3-31 3.3-6 CMP LOS Intersection Standards.......................................................................... 3-31 3.3-7 Project Trip Generation.......................................................................................... 3-33 3.3-8 Project Trip Distribution ........................................................................................ 3-35 3.3-9 Existing Versus Existing Plus Project Intersection LOS........................................ 3-39 3.3-10 Existing Versus Existing Plus Project Road .......................................................... 3-40 3.3-11 Model Land Use Data ............................................................................................ 3-41 3.3-12 Cumulative Intersection LOS Summary................................................................ 3-44 3.3-13 Cumulative Road Segment LOS............................................................................ 3-45 3.3-14 Peak Hour Roadway Travel Speeds and Delay Index............................................ 3-45 3.3-15 Model Land Use Comparison ................................................................................ 3-46 3.3-16 Volume and Volume-to-Capacity Ratio Comparisons........................................... 3-47 3.3-17 Cumulative Intersection LOS With Mitigations .................................................... 3-51 3.4-1 Typical A-Weighted Maximum Sound Levels of Common Noise Sources.......... 3-57 3.4-2 Acoustic Terminology............................................................................................ 3-58 3.4-3 FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Results for Existing Conditions Downtown El Sobrante .......................................................................................... 3-59 3.4-4 Construction Equipment Noise .............................................................................. 3-63 3.4-5 FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Results, Existing No Project vs. Existing Plus Project Conditions............................................................................ 3-65 3.4-6 HWA Traffic Noise Prediction Results, Existing No Project vs. Cumulative Plus Project Conditions ...................................................................... 3-66 3.5-1 Health Effects of Air Pollutants............................................................................. 3-71 3.5-2 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards................................................. 3-72 3.5-3 Bay Area Atrtainment Status.................................................................................. 3-77 3.5-4 Ambient Air Quality at the Rumrill Boulevard-San Pablo Monitoring Station..... 3-79 3.5-5 Worst Case Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Near Selected intersections in PPM............................................................................................... 3-83 3.5-6 Feasible Control Measures for Construction Emissions of PM10........................... 3-86 3.6-1 Global Warming Potentials.................................................................................... 3-90 3.6-2 San Pablo Dam Road Corridor Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................... 3-106 TABLE OF CONTENTS Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page v 3.6-3 Appian Way Corridor Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................... 3-106 3.6-4 Total General Plan Amendment Greenhouse Gas Emissions.............................. 3-106 3.6-5 Project Compliance with Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies......... 3-110 3.7-1 Special-Status Plant and Animal Species within the Project Area....................... 3-121 3.9-1 Environmental Regulatory Database Inquiry Review.......................................... 3-152 3.9-2 Known LUST/UST and Other Release Sites within the Project Area................. 3-153 3.11-1 Capacity of Contra Costa Landfills...................................................................... 3-176 5-1 Summary of Alternatives Analysis ........................................................................ 5-16 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page S-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The County of Contra Costa Board of Supervisors proposes to amend the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020) affecting land use and transportation policies, implementation measures, and maps or figures for segments of San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way, an area referred to as Downtown El Sobrante Project Area (“Project Area”). Specifically, this amendment involves changes to the land use designations, updates policies and implementation measures, and revises maps or figures in the Land Use Element and updates policies and maps or figures in the Transportation-Circulation Element . The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) if the lead agency determines that a proposed project may cause a significant environmental impact. The purposes of an EIR are to provide full disclosure of the potentially significant environmental effects of the project to the public and the decision-makers and to identify ways to avoid or minimize such impacts. The preparation of an EIR is a public process that is intended to provide meaningful opportunities for public input with regard to environmental effects. Prior to preparing the EIR, Contra Costa County issued a Notice of Preparation to affected agencies, interested parties and organizations. (Refer to Appendix A.) Section 15123 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that an EIR shall contain a brief summary of the proposed action and its consequences. This Executive Summary identifies each potentially significant environmental effect with proposed mitigation measures that would reduce or avoid the effect; areas of concern known to the Lead Agency, including issues raised by regulatory agencies and the public; and issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives and mitigation of the potentially significant effects of the project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project being evaluated by this EIR is a General Plan Amendment that would revise the Land Use Element and Transportation-Circulation Element of the General Plan for the unincorporated community of El Sobrante, California. Contra Costa County is proposing to: (1) adopt a General Plan Amendment that would amend the Land Use Element to establish a new “mixed use” land use designation along the south side of San Pablo Dam Road, from El Portal Drive to Appian Way, and along Appian Way from Valley View to San Pablo Dam Road, and (2) adopt a General Plan Amendment to amend the Transportation-Circulation Element to remove all references to a planned six-lane bypass couplet for the San Pablo Road between El Portal Drive and Appian Way and replace with a planned collector street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page S-2 connecting Pitt Way to Hillcrest Road and remove all references to a planned four-lane roadway for Appian Way extending from San Pablo Dam Road to the Pinole city limits and retain the existing two-lane roadway configuration as the planned roadway. The General Plan Amendment would encourage mixed-use development in the Project Area and, more generally, promote the goals of the Downtown El Sobrante Transportation and Land Use Plan (approved by the Board of Supervisors on January 15, 2002, refer to Appendix F). The Downtown El Sobrante Transportation and Land Use Plan established a vision of a pedestrian-oriented downtown area, with improvements to the circulation system to facilitate both automobile and pedestrian traffic. The General Plan Amendment would also implement the recommendations from the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council for downtown El Sobrante (as outlined in a April 14, 2008 letter from the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council to Supervisor John Gioia, District I). The analysis of environmental impacts in this Draft EIR is based on land use assumptions for eventual buildout of the Project Area, consisting of a total of 490 new multiple-family dwelling units, and 402,585 square feet of commercial and office space. A complete Project Description is set forth in Chapter 2 of this EIR. USE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT This EIR has been prepared as a program EIR. A program EIR is an informational document prepared for a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project, and related (1) geographically; (2) logically as a chain of events; (3) in connection with the issuance of rules or regulations that would govern the continuing program; or (4) as individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority. Subsequent activities in connection with development, such as applications for development of individual vacant parcels within the Project Area, must be examined in light of the program EIR to determine whether additional environmental documentation must be prepared. If the later activity or project would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new initial study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a negative declaration (CEQA Guidelines Section 15068). Summary Table S-1 lists each potentially significant effect with proposed mitigation measures that would reduce or avoid that effect. The mitigation measures will become the basis for the mitigation monitoring program that will be adopted if the project is approved. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page S-3 POTENTIAL AREAS OF CONCERN AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED Based on responses received to the Notice of Preparation, the following were identified as potential areas of concern: • Transportation • Public Services, Utilities and Related Facilities SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Section 15123(b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that this Executive Summary shall identify each potentially significant effect with proposed mitigation measures that would reduce or avoid that effect. This information is summarized in Table S-1, “Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures.” With the exception of traffic impacts, there is no evidence that the proposed project would in result in impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively significant. Chapter 3. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures should be consulted for the full text of impacts and mitigation measures. No significant areas of controversy are known or have been brought to the attention of the County of Contra Costa with regard to the proposed General Plan Amendment. ALTERNATIVES Section 15126(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the EIR describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project or to the location of the project that could feasibly accomplish the basic objectives, and to evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Alternatives that reduce or avoid significant impacts may represent an environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project. However, if the environmentally superior alternative is the "no project" alternative, the EIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives The EIR identifies the following alternatives to the Project: • Alternative A: No Project • Alternative B: Reduced Project Area (Excludes Appian Way). • Alternative C: Transportation-Circulation Element Amendment – No Change in Land Use Designations. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page S-4 • Alternative D: Land Use Amendment – No Change in Transportation-Circulation Element. In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, all reasonable project alternatives have been evaluated for their comparative environmental superiority. Based on this evaluation, it has been determined that the proposed project, implemented with the mitigation measures identified in this Draft EIR, is the environmentally superior alternative. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table S-1 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significant Impact Mitigation Measures Does Implementation of the Mitigation Measure(s) Reduce theImpact to Less-Than- Significant Level? TRANSPORTATION 3.3-1: The General Plan Amendment would increase volumes at studied intersections. 3.3-1A: Widen westbound San Pablo Dam Road approaching El Portal Drive to include an exclusive right-turn pocket. Yes 3.3-1B: Widen westbound San Pablo Dam Road approaching Appian Way to include an exclusive right-turn pocket. 3.3-2: The General Plan Amendment would contribute to unacceptable levels of service on San Pablo Dam Road, Appian Way and El Portal Drive. The impact on the roadway segment LOS is considered to be a significant and unavoidable impact. 3.3-2A: To the extent feasible, provide signal coordination along the corridors where signals are closely spaced. 3.3-2B: Modify signal timings to establish a traffic gateway at key signalized intersection(s) to meter traffic entering the El Sobrante area and continuously monitor and evaluate traffic flows and patterns both upstream and downstream from these intersections. No 3.3-2C: Minimize additional driveways during development review process. 3.3-2D: Implement streetscape improvements along San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way to support and encourage alternative modes of transportation and, as necessary, establish a funding mechanism for the ongoing maintenance of these streetscape improvements. 3.3-3: The General Plan Amendment would contribute to diversion of commuter traffic onto local streets within the Project Area. 3.3-3: To address the neighborhood cut-through traffic, the County shall work with the local community and adjoining cities to develop a comprehensive Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. Yes Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page S-5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Significant Impact Does Implementation of the Mitigation Measure(s) Reduce theImpact to Less-Than- Mitigation Measures Significant Level? 3.3-5: The General Plan Amendment may generate new demand for transit services and facilities. 3.3-5: The County shall consult with AC Transit prior to the approval of individual projects that may significantly increase transit patronage. Increases in transit demand generated by individual projects shall be assessed at the time application is made. Individual projects shall provide mitigation to accommodate increases in transit demand, if necessary. Yes 3.3-7: The General Plan Amendment may generate new bicycle activity within the area. 3.3-7: The County shall require integration of bicycle facilities within the area. When individual development applications are received, the County shall ensure that adequate bicycle parking, access facilities, and signage are provided and oriented to encourage bicycle travel. Yes 3.3-8: The General Plan Amendment will generate new parking demand associated with development within the area. 3.3-8: When individual development applications are received, the County shall apply General Plan Policy 5-19 which requires individual projects to provide adequate off-street parking to serve anticipated parking demand generated by the site, or contribute funds, and/or institute programs to reduce parking demand. The possibility of shared parking because of the complementary nature of residential and commercial uses shall be considered when assessing appropriate parking supply. Yes NOISE 3.4-1: Short-term noise impacts would be generated by construction activity. These sounds, generally range between 85 to 90 dB at a distance of 50 feet, and could exceed normally acceptable sound levels at neighboring receptor locations. 3.4-1A: All heavy construction equipment and all stationary noise sources (such as diesel generators) shall be equipped with manufacturer-installed mufflers, or replacements that are at least as effective as the original equipment. Mufflers shall be maintained in good working order. Yes 3.4-1B: Equipment warm up areas, water tanks, and equipment storage areas shall be located in an area as far away from existing residences as is feasible. Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page S-6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Significant Impact Does Implementation of the Mitigation Measure(s) Reduce theImpact to Less-Than- Mitigation Measures Significant Level? 3.4-1C: Construction hours shall be restricted to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Saturday. The County may consider alternative hours for construction outside the time period restrictions identified above under hardship cases subject to approval by the County Zoning Administrator. No construction shall occur on Sundays or holidays. 3.4-2: The plus project traffic noise levels are expected to result in increases in noise levels on the street system in the project vicinity. These increases in traffic noise levels could result in noise levels that exceed the General Plan Noise Element criteria, or result in an otherwise significant increase in traffic noise levels. 3.4-2: The project applicant of individual residential or transient lodging land use development projects proposed for construction within any of the 60 dB Ldn noise contours shown in Tables 3.4-5 and 3.4-6, shall prepare a noise impact analysis. The noise impact analysis shall be submitted to the County’s Department of Conservation and Development for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. The noise impact analysis shall demonstrate how the proposed project would comply with the General Plan noise standards through site design, construction standards, or through implementation of appropriate design measures. Yes 3.4-3: Stationary noise sources associated with increased commercial uses within the Project Area could exceed the applicable noise level criteria. 3.4-3: Individual development projects shall be required to conduct a site-specific noise analysis for multi-family residential development, demonstrating compliance with the General Plan noise standards through site design, construction standards, or other means, and through implementation of appropriate measures. Yes AIR QUALITY 3.5-3: Demolition- and construction-period activities related to development allowed under the plan could generate significant dust, exhaust, and organic emissions. 3.5-3A: The “Basic” and “Enhanced” control measures recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and listed in Table 3.5-6 shall be implemented during construction of specific development projects in the Project Area. Yes Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page S-7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Significant Impact Does Implementation of the Mitigation Measure(s) Reduce theImpact to Less-Than- Mitigation Measures Significant Level? 3.5-3B: Any temporary haul roads to soils stockpiles areas used during construction of projects shall be routed away from existing neighboring land uses. Any temporary haul roads shall be surfaced with gravel and regularly watered to control dust or treated with an appropriate dust suppressant. 3.5-3C: Water sprays shall be utilized to control dust when material is being added or removed from soils stockpiles. If a soils stockpile is undisturbed for more than one week, it shall be treated with a dust suppressant or crusting agent to eliminate wind-blown dust generation. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE 3.6-1: Implementation of the General Plan Amendment could result in greenhouse gas emission levels that could conflict with implementation of the greenhouse gas reduction goals under AB 32 or other state regulations. 3.6-1: To the extent feasible and to the satisfaction of the County, the following measures shall be incorporated into the design and construction of the projects seeking County approval and developed as part of the General Plan Amendment: Yes Construction and Building Materials y On-site idling of construction equipment shall be minimized as much as feasible (no more than 5 minutes maximum); y All construction equipment shall be properly tuned and fitted with manufacturer’s standard level exhaust controls; y Limit the hours of operation of heavy duty equipment and/or the amount of equipment in use; Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page S-8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Significant Impact Does Implementation of the Mitigation Measure(s) Reduce theImpact to Less-Than- Mitigation Measures Significant Level? y Use locally produced and/or manufactured building materials for construction of the project; y Recycle/reuse demolished construction material; and y Use “Green Building Materials,” such as those materials which are resource efficient, and recycled and manufactured in an environmentally friendly way, including low Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) materials. Energy Efficiency Measures y Design all project buildings to exceed California Building Code’s Title 24 energy standard, including, but not limited to any combination of the following: − − Increase insulation such that heat transfer and thermal bridging is minimized; Limit air leakage through the structure or within the heating and cooling distribution system to minimize energy consumption; and − Incorporate ENERGY STAR or better rated windows, space heating and cooling equipment, light fixtures, appliances or other applicable electrical equipment. Design, construct and operate all newly constructed and renovated buildings and facilities as equivalent to “LEED Silver” or higher certified buildings. y Design building to facilitate use of solar energy for electricity, water heating and/or space heating/cooling; y Provide a landscape and development plan for the project that takes advantage of shade, prevailing winds, and landscaping; y Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems. Use daylight as an integral part of lighting systems in buildings; Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page S-9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Significant Impact Does Implementation of the Mitigation Measure(s) Reduce theImpact to Less-Than- Mitigation Measures Significant Level? y Install light colored “cool” roofs and cool pavements; y Install energy efficient heating and cooling systems, appliances and equipment, and control systems; and y Install solar or light emitting diodes (LEDs) for outdoor lighting. Water Conservation and Efficiency Measures y Devise a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the project and location. The strategy may include the following, plus other innovative measures that might be appropriate: − − Create water-efficient landscapes within the development, including drought tolerant landscaping; Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture-based irrigation controls; − − Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures and appliances, including low-flow faucets, dual-flush toilets and waterless urinals; and Restrict watering methods (e.g., prohibit systems that apply water to non-vegetated surfaces) and control runoff. Transportation and Motor Vehicle Measures y Provide transit facilities (e.g., bus bulbs/turnouts, benches, shelters); y Provide bicycle lanes and/or paths, incorporated into the proposed street systems and connected to a community-wide network; and y Provide sidewalks and/or paths, connected to adjacent land uses, transit stops, and/or community-wide network. Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page S-10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Significant Impact Does Implementation of the Mitigation Measure(s) Reduce theImpact to Less-Than- Mitigation Measures Significant Level? y To the extent feasible, provide infrastructure and support programs to facilitate shared vehicle usage such as carpool drop-off areas, designated parking for vanpools, or car-share services, ride boards, and shuttle service to mass transit. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.7-1: The proposed project would have potential direct and indirect impacts to the riparian habitat of San Pablo Creek and its tributaries, including Appian Creek. 3.7-1A: The construction envelope for proposed projects in the Project Area, including areas of construction, staging areas or other indirect activities, shall be identified as part of the application, and shall avoid a buffer area to include all areas within 50 feet of the top-of-bank or edge of riparian growth of San Pablo Creek or Appian Creek. Future projects shall be developed and operated, when feasible, in such a way as to avoid both direct (e.g., removal of riparian woodlands) and indirect (e.g., encroaching within the buffer with development) effects in the buffer area to the extent feasible. Yes 3.7-1B: Direct loss of riparian habitat in San Pablo Creek or Appian Creek shall be mitigated at an acreage ratio of 3:1 (acres of mitigation : acres of impact). Indirect or encroachment impacts shall be replaced at a 1:1 ratio. 3.7-1C: Projects that cause a direct or indirect loss of riparian habitat shall develop a Riparian Restoration Plan that describes the precise impact, area or areas where mitigation is proposed, the species mix, the planting density, performance standards and a monitoring plan that adequately evaluates the success of the mitigation program. The final success criteria for the site shall define the long-term goals for the site and identify percent vegetative cover and tree height. The Riparian Restoration Plan shall provide for regular maintenance for a minimum of three years for plant establishment. Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page S-11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Significant Impact Does Implementation of the Mitigation Measure(s) Reduce theImpact to Less-Than- Mitigation Measures Significant Level? 3.7-1D: Planting shall be conducted from November to January and all riparian plantings should be native species that are expected to occur regionally. The mitigation area shall be graded as required to provide appropriate topography and hydrology for the riparian planting. Plantings shall be installed according to the various species’ soil moisture requirements. 3.7-1E: Lighting associated with proposed projects shall be designed and sited to minimize light and glare impacts to wildlife within the riparian corridor. 3.7-1F: Future projects shall avoid using invasive exotic species in landscaping for common areas. Invasive species include tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), pampas grass (Cortaderia jubata), periwinkle (Vinca major), and English ivy (Hedera helix). Project proponents shall submit landscaping plans to the County for approval. 3.7-1G: Prior to grading or vegetation removal in riparian areas the project shall obtain all required permits from USACE, CDFG, and RWQCB. 3.7-2: Development may result in the loss of habitat for special-status plants. 3.7-2A: Project applicants for projects that would construct urban development in a previously vacant parcel shall conduct a survey for special status species during the appropriate survey period, and shall provide a written report to the County. In the event special status species are identified, the applicant shall comply with Mitigation Measures 3.7-2B and 3.7-2C. Yes 3.7-2B: Project applicants shall minimize impacts to the special status plant species populations, to the extent feasible, by one or more of the following actions: y Conducting survey and identifying sensitive plants. y Design development on the site to avoid direct impacts. Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page S-12 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Significant Impact Does Implementation of the Mitigation Measure(s) Reduce theImpact to Less-Than- Mitigation Measures Significant Level? y Establish buffers around any identified populations of special status plant species. Buffers as narrow as 50 feet could be sufficient depending on the adjacent uses but much wider buffers might be needed in certain circumstances (e.g., development up-slope of the population). y Establish a conservation easement on the area to be preserved and transfer it to an acceptable (as determined in consultation with CDFG and USFWS) agency or land trust organization for control and management. y Erect construction fencing around special status plant populations to ensure that these areas will not be inadvertently affected during construction. 3.7-2C: If the impact cannot be sufficiently avoided, then the applicant shall develop a Plant Restoration Plan that would identify suitable sites to propagate the species. This plan would at a minimum identify the following: y Locate suitable sites within the Project Area or within the region that supports proper soils, aspect, slope, biotic habitat; y Identify appropriate propagation techniques relevant for the target species; y Develop a monitoring schedule to evaluate the success of the mitigation; y Identify success criteria such as growth rate and cover, percent survival, etc; y Identify remedial and contingency measures that would be employed to correct failures; Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page S-13 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Significant Impact Does Implementation of the Mitigation Measure(s) Reduce theImpact to Less-Than- Mitigation Measures Significant Level? y Describe the process to preserve the mitigation site such as establishing a conservation easement on the area to be preserved and transferring it to an acceptable (as determined in consultation with CDFG and USFWS) agency or land trust organization for control and management. 3.7-7: Future development could disturb wetland areas. 3.7-7: Each specific project applicant shall comply with provisions of the 404 Clean Water Act and all U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permitting requirements, file a Section 401 Water Quality Certification, or waiver, to be obtained from the RWQCB, and comply with Section 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code by entering into a Streambed Alteration Agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game for any work that will substantially alter the bed or banks of a seasonal creek. Yes 3.7-8: Future development projects as a result of the General Plan Amendment could disturb active raptor nests. 3.7-8A: A qualified ornithologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey for nesting raptors, including both tree and ground nesting raptors, on any site on which construction is proposed. If ground disturbance is to occur during the breeding season (i.e., February 1 to August 31), the survey shall be conducted within the thirty-day period prior to the proposed date of commencement of construction. The survey shall be based on the accepted protocols for the various target species. The survey shall explicitly consider the burrowing owl as a potential target species. Yes Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page S-14 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Significant Impact Does Implementation of the Mitigation Measure(s) Reduce theImpact to Less-Than- Mitigation Measures Significant Level? 3.7-8B: If nesting raptors are identified on or adjacent to a specific site, the ornithologist shall determine a ground disturbance-free setback zone around the nest, to be established as a minimum of 250 feet. The actual distance of the ground disturbance free zone will depend on the species, location of the nest in the tree and local topography. The setback shall be temporarily fenced, and construction equipment and workers shall not enter the enclosed setback until the conclusion of the breeding season, or until young have fledged from the nests. A biological monitor shall periodically check to ensure that the construction free zone is being honored, and to determine when young have fledged. 3.7-8C: A qualified ornithologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys for burrowing owls during the non-breeding season. If the survey determines that burrowing owls occupy the site just prior to construction, and avoiding development of occupied areas is not feasible, and the applicant has not provided for mitigation in the form of a conservation easement, then habitat compensation on off-site mitigation lands shall be implemented. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 3.8-2: Development activities could expose people and property to geologic hazards, including liquefaction, landslides, slope instability, expansive soils and subsidence in the Project Area. 3.8-2: Structures proposed as part of any project in the Project Area shall be designed to required earthquake standards of the Uniform Building Code, taking into due consideration the findings of required geotechnical and soils studies to mitigate the potential hazards of expansive soils. Yes Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page S-15 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Significant Impact Does Implementation of the Mitigation Measure(s) Reduce theImpact to Less-Than- Mitigation Measures Significant Level? 3.8-3: Construction activities related to future development could increase the risk of erosion in the Project Area. 3.8-3: Development projects in the Project Area shall include a site-specific erosion control plan. Development projects greater than 1-acre shall prepare an erosion and sediment control plan, including implementation of appropriate Best Management Practices, to be implemented for exposed soil surfaces during construction. No onsite grading activities shall occur prior to approval of erosion and sediment control plans, grading plans or any other applicable plans. Yes HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.9-1: The Project Area includes sites that contain hazardous materials and future development activities could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. 3.9-1: In the event that storage, handling, or use of hazardous materials occurs on any parcel within the project Area, the applicant shall implement a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP). Prior to occupancy clearance, the applicant shall submit a HMBP to the Contra Costa Consolidated Fire District for review and approval. The plan shall be updated annually and shall include a monitoring section. The business plan shall also include a hazardous materials inventory, an emergency response plan and procedures, and a training program as required by the Health and Safety Code, Sections 25500-25520. Yes 3.9-2: Rehabilitation and demolition of older structures could encounter asbestos containing materials and lead based paint, which could be released into the environment. 3.9-2: In the event that substantial rehabilitation or demolition of older, substandard structures is undertaken as part of future development activities, asbestos and lead surveys shall be undertaken prior to any demolition work, and any appropriate abatement measures be implemented. Soil sampling on any proposed project site shall be conducted to determine if elevated levels of lead are present in the soils as a result of the confirmed use of lead-based paint on older structures. Yes 3.9-3: The Project Area may include sites that utilize hazardous materials or that have historically used or released hazardous materials at the site, and, as a result, development activities could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. 3.9-3A: The parcel history shall be evaluated for parcels identified in the December 24, 2002 EDR report (Appendix E) that are proposed for a new use, significant modification/demolition or subsurface excavation. This evaluation will determine whether current or past use of hazardous materials has occurred on the site. Yes Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page S-16 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Significant Impact Does Implementation of the Mitigation Measure(s) Reduce theImpact to Less-Than- Mitigation Measures Significant Level? 3.9-3B: The parcel history shall be evaluated for parcels identified in the December 24, 2002 EDR report (Appendix E) that are proposed for a new use, significant modification/demolition or subsurface excavation. The evaluation will determine whether the site had a historical release of oil or hazardous substances occurring on the site. PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES AND RELATED FACILITIES 3.11-1: The proposed change in land use designations in the Project Area would result in an increased demand for water. 3.11-1A: Individual development projects shall be required to provide a written description of water conservation practices to demonstrate the irrigated landscape will meet a landscape water budget not exceeding 80 percent of reference evapotranspiration. The applicant shall provide a legal description and accurate calculation of the irrigated area (e.g., measured in square feet) that shall be provided to the District for inclusion in the District's Irrigation Reduction Information System. Yes 3.11-1B: Individual development projects, depending upon size, shall be subject to the District's Water Service Regulations at time of application for service and will be required to prepare a Water Supply Assessment report. 3.11-5: The proposed change in land use designation could result in an increased demand for fire or police services in the Project Area. 3.11-5A: Each project proponent of a site-specific proposal that would increase the square footage of commercial or residential development on the subject site shall, prior to project approval, enter into an agreement with the County to fund its proportionate share of the additional police services that would be generated by new development. Yes 3.11-5B: During roadway improvements, additional hydrants shall be installed along both sides of San Pablo Dam Road, Appian Way and the new collector street to comply with the Fire District’s current standards for hydrant spacing. Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page S-17 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Significant Impact Does Implementation of the Mitigation Measure(s) Reduce theImpact to Less-Than- Mitigation Measures Significant Level? 3.11-5C: Traffic signal pre-emption systems (Opticom) shall be provided on all new or modified traffic signals installed for the San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way improvements. 3.11-6: The proposed project would result in an increase in population in the Project Area, and generation of additional students in the local public school district. 3.11-6: Each project proponent of a site-specific proposal that would construct residential dwelling units shall, prior to project approval, submit proof of satisfactory arrangements to pay the appropriate mitigation fee to the West Contra Costa Unified School District to fund the project’s proportionate share of the additional school services and facilities that would be generated by new development. Yes AESTHETICS 3.12-2: Light and glare in the Project Area could increase as a result of new or rehabilitated electrical lighting facilities. 3.12-2: The configuration of exterior light fixtures shall emphasize close spacing and lower intensity lighting that is directed downward in order to minimize light spill to adjacent streets and properties. Highly reflective mirrored glass walls shall be avoided as a primary building material. (See also Mitigation Measure 3.7-1E.) Yes Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page S-18 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Significant Impact Does Implementation of the Mitigation Measure(s) Reduce theImpact to Less-Than- Mitigation Measures Significant Level? CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.13-1: Construction activities associated with the proposed land use changes could disturb or destroy identified or previously unidentified cultural resources within the Project Area, including human remains. 3.13-1A: Archival research and field study to identify unrecorded cultural resources shall be completed prior to the commencement of construction on a project-specific basis within the Project Area for development activities involving construction and excavation. The Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted for a Sacred Lands File Check and a list of appropriate Native American contacts for consultation concerning the project site and to assist in identification of mitigation measures. If such resources are identified, the County Department of Conservation and Development (CDCD) shall identify and implement appropriate mitigation measures. Yes 3.13-1B: If the area of potential effect contains buildings, structures, and objects 45 years or older, the CDCD shall consult with the Office of Historic Preservation regarding potential impacts to these properties and implement appropriate mitigation measures, with the exception of affordable housing rehabilitation projects. 3.13-1C: If cultural resources are encountered during construction or excavation for development activities, construction shall be halted and the materials and their context shall not be altered until a cultural resource consultant has evaluated the site and appropriate mitigation measures are implemented. Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on DPR 523 (historic properties) forms. If human remains are encountered, the County Coroner shall be notified and local Native American organizations consulted. All cultural resource work shall be conducted by a qualified historian, architectural historian, or archaeologist. Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page S-19 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page S-20 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 1-1 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROPOSED ACTIONS This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared in connection with the proposed General Plan Amendment that would revise the Land Use Element and Transportation- Circulation Element of the General Plan for the unincorporated community of El Sobrante, California. Contra Costa County is proposing to: (1) adopt a General Plan Amendment that would establish a new “mixed use” land use designation along the south side of San Pablo Dam Road, from El Portal Drive to Appian Way, and along Appian Way from Valley View to San Pablo Dam Road, and (2) adopt a General Plan Amendment to remove the planned six-lane bypass couplet for the San Pablo Road between El Portal Drive and Appian Way and the removal of a planned four-lane configuration of Appian Way extending from San Pablo Dam Road to the Pinole city limits. The General Plan Amendments would encourage mixed-use development in the Project Area and, more generally, promote the goals of the Downtown El Sobrante Transportation and Land Use Plan (approved by the Board of Supervisors on January 15, 2002, refer to Appendix F). The analysis of environmental impacts in this Draft EIR is based on land use assumptions for eventual buildout of the Project Area, consisting of a total of 490 new multiple-family dwelling units, and 402,585 square feet of commercial and office space. The proposed Project Area is located within the unincorporated portion of Contra Costa County and extends along San Pablo Dam Road from its intersection with El Portal Drive to its intersection with Appian Way, and northeast from that point to the vicinity of Valley View Drive. The Project Area consists of a total of approximately 166 acres. See Figure 1-1, Location Map, and Figure 1-2, Vicinity Map. 1.2 BACKGROUND Contra Costa County released a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Downtown El Sobrante Redevelopment Project and General Plan Amendment on March 14, 2003 prepared by Quad Knopf, Inc. (assigned State Clearinghouse No. 2002102119), as proposed by the Contra Costa County Redevelopment Agency. The Draft EIR was prepared in connection with a proposal to adopt and implement a Redevelopment Plan for multiple parcels in El Sobrante along San Pablo Dam Road, between El Portal Drive, and Appian Way, between San Pablo Dam Road and Valley View Road. The 2003 Draft EIR also included a proposal to amend the Contra Costa County General Plan in support of the proposed Redevelopment Plan. The General Plan Amendment in 2003 included an amendment to the Land Use Element to establish mixed use designations for multiple 1. INTRODUCTION Page 1-2 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment 1. INTRODUCTION Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 1-3 1. INTRODUCTION Page 1-4 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment parcels within the proposed Redevelopment Project Area, and changes to the roadway network for San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way as described in the Transportation- Circulation Element. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Downtown El Sobrante Redevelopment Project was never completed because the Contra Costa Redevelopment Agency suspended work activities related to the Redevelopment Plan proposal. Although the Redevelopment Plan for Downtown El Sobrante is no longer under active consideration by Contra Costa County, there has been a concerted effort to reach a community consensus on aspects of the original 2003 General Plan Amendment proposal. The community consensus building involved workshops and meetings conducted under the auspices of the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council and the Office of Supervisor John Gioia, District I. This effort culminated in a new General Plan Amendment proposal affecting Downtown El Sobrante that was subsequently endorsed by the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Committee in April 2008. (See Appendix A, Notice Of Preparation and Responses, Attachment A, April 14, 2008 letter to Supervisor John Gioia from Barbara Pendergast, Chair, El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council.) This latest General Plan Amendment proposal, which has been endorsed by the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council, still calls for the establishment of mixed-use land use designations affecting parcels along San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way, but the potential intensity of development (including the number of residential units and commercial square footage) under the new mixed use designations is significantly reduced from the 2003 proposal. The El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council-endorsed General Plan Amendment retains the original 2003 proposal to remove the San Pablo Dam Road bypass couplet, as depicted in Figure 3-6, Land Use Element, and as depicted in the Roadway Network Map under the Transportation-Circulation Element. It also includes the removal of the future four- lane configuration of Appian Way, as depicted in the Roadway Network Map under the Transportation-Circulation Element, in favor of retaining the existing two-lane configuration for Appian Way. The purpose of this EIR is to evaluate the environmental effects of the 2008 General Plan Amendment proposal as endorsed by the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council. Certain information and data on the environmental setting for the Project Area that was presented in the 2003 Draft Environmental Impact Report, which is still pertinent and relevant, has been carried into this environmental review document. This document is intended to supersede and replace the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Downtown El Sobrante Redevelopment Project released in March 2003 by Contra Costa County. 1.3 PROCEDURES This Draft EIR has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Guidelines for CEQA Implementation as set forth in the California Administrative Code, Title 14, Chapter 3 (referred to as the CEQA Guidelines). The lead agency is the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division. 1. INTRODUCTION Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 1-5 CEQA applies to all discretionary projects. CEQA Guidelines Section 15357 defines a discretionary project as one that requires the public agency that would approve or deny the project to exercise judgment. A “project” is an action that has the potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378). The CEQA process requires that the Lead Agency consider input from other interested agencies, citizen groups, and individuals. CEQA provides for a public process requiring full public disclosure of the expected environmental consequences of the proposed action. The public must be given a meaningful opportunity to comment. CEQA also requires monitoring to ensure that mitigation measures identified in the EIR are carried out. CEQA requires a public review period for commenting on the EIR. Under Section 15105 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the public review period must be at least 30 days (45 days when a Draft EIR is submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by State agencies), but no longer than 60 days, except in unusual circumstances. A 45-day review period has been established for this Draft EIR. During the review period, any agency, group or individual may comment in writing on the Draft EIR, and the Lead Agency must respond to each comment on significant environmental issues in the Final EIR. Written comments regarding this Draft EIR should be addressed as follows: Patrick Roche, Principal Planner County of Contra Costa Department of Conservation and Development Community Development Division 651 Pine Street, North Wing - 5th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 1.4 METHODOLOGY / SCOPE OF EIR This Draft EIR addresses the potential effects of adopting and carrying out a General Plan Amendment to revise the Land Use Element and Transportation-Circulation Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020) for Downtown El Sobrante. As stated above, the EIR must be completed by the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development, and then certified by the Board of Supervisors, prior to the Board’s approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment. CEQA Guidelines, Section 15168 states that a Program EIR can be prepared when a series of actions characterized as one large project and are related either: (1) geographically; (2) a logical part in the chain of contemplated actions; (3) in connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program; or (4) as individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways. This EIR has been prepared as a program EIR. An EIR prepared for a General Plan Amendment of the type proposed in the project is described as a “program EIR” because 1. INTRODUCTION Page 1-6 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment all the specific impacts of the various individual development activities would not be known at the time of the General Plan Amendment approval. Subsequent activities in connection with future development, such as applications for development of individual vacant parcels within the Project Area, must be examined in light of the program EIR to determine whether additional environmental documentation must be prepared. If the later activity or project would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, a new initial study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a Negative Declaration (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168). Pursuant to Section 15082 of the state CEQA Guidelines, the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development (CDCD) prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP), which is included as Appendix A of this Draft EIR. This Draft EIR reviews various aspects of the environment in the context of possible impacts associated with the implementation of the General Plan Amendment. The following issue areas are discussed in the EIR: • Land Use, Population and Housing. The proposals for adoption of an amendment to the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020) have been compared with the existing conditions in the Project Area to determine the extent of potentially significant impacts. The intent is to maintain consistency with the General Plan, as amended by the proposed project, and as it may be amended and revised from time to time. Land use compatibility and potential changes in population and housing that could occur as a result of the proposed project are considered. Impacts concerning changes in land use are also analyzed, when relevant, in the various sections of the EIR that relate to specific types of impact. • Transportation. The EIR evaluates the impacts of the proposed General Plan Amendment on transportation and circulation within the Project Area and the surrounding area. Land use assumptions have been developed that are used as the basis for determining potential impacts for traffic and circulation. • Noise. The EIR analyzes noise effects relating to the implementation of the proposed adoption of the General Plan Amendment. The Noise Element of the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005–2020) has been reviewed to determine applicable noise contours and standards. This section addresses potential noise impacts related to the change in land uses and circulation proposed as part of the project. • Air Quality. Existing air quality conditions and current efforts to maintain state and federal air quality standards are described. Regional changes in emissions due to vehicular travel associated with the project are analyzed, and the significance of changes determined using state standards. • Global Climate Change. The EIR addresses the project’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and its potential impact on climate change. The change can be considered 1. INTRODUCTION Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 1-7 an “effect on the environment” and an individual project’s incremental contribution to global climate change can have a cumulatively considerable impact. • Biological Resources. This section of the EIR addresses potential impacts on plant and wildlife species in the Project Area, including any species of special concern. • Geology and Soils. Existing geologic hazards are identified, and project-related effects associated with soil disturbance, potential soil erosion, alteration of topography, and potential geologic hazards are analyzed. • Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Information regarding hazardous materials and potentially contaminated sites within the Project Area has been provided. Impacts are related to contaminated properties that might otherwise be available for development or redevelopment. • Hydrology and Water Quality. The general hydrology of the Project Area is described. The proposed project is examined to determine the anticipated change in impacts related to surface runoff, flooding, drainage, and ground and surface water quality resulting from the increases in impermeable surfaces and drainage basin response time. • Public Services, Utilities, and Related Facilities. This section examines the effects associated with the proposed amendment to the General Plan on current and future demand for public services, utilities, and related facilities. • Aesthetics. This issue is addressed in the context of existing conditions and the potential development of the Project Area. • Cultural Resources. This section addresses both archaeological and historical resources. Inventories of existing archaeological resources and existing and potentially eligible historic properties are reviewed and incorporated in the EIR. 1.5 ORGANIZATION OF THE EIR Chapter 2 of this Draft EIR describes the proposed General Plan Amendment for the Project Area in greater detail and summarizes the general characteristics of the Project Area. Chapter 3 describes specific characteristics of the project’s regulatory and environmental setting, organized within the framework of the topical areas of focus described in the paragraphs above. This chapter also identifies and discusses potentially significant project- related impacts on those aspects of the environment, including impacts that may be cumulatively significant, and sets forth mitigation measures for these impacts, as appropriate. The issue areas discussed in Chapter 3 have been organized in the order presented for the purpose of promoting a full understanding of the proposed project and its potential environmental impacts. The project proposes an amendment to the Contra Costa County 1. INTRODUCTION Page 1-8 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment General Plan (2005–2020). The amendment would change the General Plan land use designations and land use policies within the Project Area, and change the County’s approach to traffic circulation. The land use changes are identified and discussed first, followed by the discussion of transportation impacts. Because automobile traffic is usually the major component of noise and air quality concerns, these issue areas are discussed next. The changes in land use and circulation proposed as part of the project would affect other aspects of the environment, and these are discussed in the remainder of Chapter 3. The evaluation of impacts in each section is organized in the following manner: Environmental Setting This subsection contains a description of the regional and Project Area physical environment as it relates to the specific issue area. Regulatory Setting This portion of the document identifies federal, state, regional and local regulations that may apply to the proposed project. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Evaluation Criteria The standard or threshold by which impacts are measured is identified, with the objective of determining if an impact may be potentially significant. When relevant, construction and project operation impacts are identified and analyzed. IMPACT #: Each impact is described and listed by number. Discussion and Conclusion: This subsection discusses the identified impact and sets forth the assessment of the impact as less than significant or potentially significant. If the impact is potentially significant, the section sets forth a determination as to whether or not the impact can be avoided or reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of mitigation measures, or whether the impact is unmitigable, unavoidable and/or irreversible. MITIGATION MEASURE #: Each mitigation measure is described and listed by number Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure: This section states whether the recommended mitigation measure will reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level based on the criteria used in the analysis. Chapter 4 addresses mandatory CEQA sections, including identification of any significant irreversible commitment of resources that the project would entail, environmental effects 1. INTRODUCTION Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 1-9 found not to be significant, unavoidable and irreversible significant impacts of the proposed project, cumulative impacts, and growth-inducing impacts. Chapter 5 evaluates alternatives to the proposed project, including the no project alternative, as well as feasible alternatives that have the ability to avoid or substantially reduce any significant effects of the project. Chapter 6 provides a list of report preparers and those consulted during preparation of this EIR. Following the text of the EIR, several appendices have been included to facilitate full environmental review of the proposed project. The appendices include information concerning Notice of Preparation/Initial Study, plus additional technical supporting documentation. 1.6 REGULATORY CONTEXT AND INTENDED USES OF THE EIR The General Plan is a legal document that provides a framework by which County planners can identify land uses for the long-term physical development within the County’s jurisdiction. Many of the circumstances existing in a community can influence the nature and scope of a General Plan with physical changes evolving over the life of the plan. California planning law (65358) allows for flexibility in that a legislative body (Board of Supervisors) can approve amendments to the General Plan. As individual projects are submitted to the County, these will be reviewed in the context of the Land Use designations as implemented by the proposed amendment. The Final EIR will include responses to comments on the Draft EIR, and any changes or modifications to the Draft EIR. The Final EIR will be prepared following the close of the public review period. Certification of the Final EIR is required prior to approval of the General Plan Amendment. The Contra Costa County Planning Commission will review and consider the Draft EIR, along with the proposed amendments, in forwarding a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. In addition to review in conjunction with the proposed General Plan Amendment, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors may use this EIR in connection with the later evaluation of potential environmental impacts of specific projects. The proposed project is evaluated in this EIR at the program level, and specific actions that would require the approval of other local, state or federal agencies are not included. At the time such specific actions or activities are identified, the County and other local, state and federal agencies would undertake the appropriate level of review as provided by the California Environmental Quality Act. Page 1-10 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 2-1 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND CHARACTERISTICS The proposed Project Area is located in the unincorporated area of El Sobrante in west Contra Costa County. The proposed Project Area includes multiple parcels in the unincorporated community of El Sobrante along San Pablo Dam Road between El Portal Drive and Appian Way, and along Appian Way between San Pablo Dam Road and Valley View Drive. See Figure 2-1, Site Map; Figure 2-2, Site Map (Aerial Photo); and Figure 2-3, Project Area Overview. The portion of the Project Area along San Pablo Dam Road is flat, and is characterized by commercial strip development. San Pablo Creek flows adjacent to this portion of the Project Area on the north. Appian Way rises gradually from its intersection with San Pablo Dam Road to Valley View Drive. Appian Way is characterized by a variety of land uses, with properties improved with single-family residences, apartments, a mobile home park, retail or commercial service uses and some vacant properties. Regional access to the Project Area is provided via Interstate 80, San Pablo Dam Road and State Highway 24. The Project Area consists of approximately 171 acres. 2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVES The project being evaluated in this environmental impact report (EIR) is the approval of a General Plan Amendment of the Land Use and Transportation-Circulation Elements of the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020) affecting the unincorporated community of El Sobrante, California. The proposed Land Use Map is shown in Figure 2-4. The General Plan Amendment has multiple objectives, including: • Promoting the goals of the Downtown El Sobrante Transportation and Land Use Plan (approved by the Board of Supervisors on January 15, 2002, Appendix F); • Implementing the recommendations from the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council for downtown El Sobrante (as outlined in a April 14, 2008 letter from the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council to Supervisor John Gioia, District I); • Establishing a development pattern that is more compact and conducive to a vibrant downtown business and residential environment; • Supporting the Board of Supervisors recent directives to promote a “healthy” built environment in the unincorporated areas of the County, which encourages infill 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 2-2 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment development (compact and mixed use) and other changes to the built environment that provide healthy lifestyle choices for residents; • Implementing the principles of “Complete Streets”, which recognizes that streets do more than move vehicles and serve many users (motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians) and establishes that the development of the local roadway system needs to accommodate multiple modes of travel (e.g. transit, bicycling, and walking); • Encouraging economic development consistent with the provisions of the Contra Costa County General Plan; and • Providing new opportunities for decent and affordable housing to all segments of the community. Specifically, the General Plan Amendment affects areas along San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way as follows: San Pablo Dam Road • Land Use Element. Establishment of a new Mixed Use land use designation along the south side of San Pablo Dam Road, from El Portal Drive to Appian Way to be depicted on the Land Use Element Map and described in the Land Use Element text. The new Mixed Use designation would enable the development of commercial/ office/retail uses with multi-family residential units. The focal point of this new mixed use development pattern would be centered around a new block to be formed by a portion of San Pablo Dam Road, between Hillcrest Road and Pitt Way, and by the development of a new east-west collector street aligned on the south side of San Pablo Dam Road connecting Pitt Way to Hillcrest Road. In addition to the placement of a new Mixed Use designation on the Land Use Element Map and description in the text, there would be corresponding revisions and updates to the text in the Land Use Element, beginning at page 3-69 under the section entitled “Policies for San Pablo Dam Road” and Figure 3-6, “San Pablo Dam Road Commercial Special Concern Area.” Under the Mixed Use designation, the projected maximum commercial square footage would be 221,920 square feet that could generate 815 jobs and 204 housing units. • Transportation-Circulation Element. The removal of an ultimate or planned six- lane, bypass couplet for San Pablo Road between El Portal Drive and Appian Way, as currently depicted on the Roadway Network Map in the Transportation-Circulation Element (and in the Land Use Element, Figure 3-6, San Pablo Dam Road Commercial Special Concern Area) in favor of the redesign and reconfiguration of the San Pablo Dam Road cross-section to provide two travel lanes in each direction during peak periods, wider sidewalks, curb parking lane (off-peak), Class III bicycle lane, and possible replacement of the existing center median continuous left turn lane with a central (landscaped) median with left turn pockets. In substitution for the San Pablo Dam Road bypass couplet, there is the proposed the development of a new east-west roadway, designed to collector street standards, which would provide one 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 2-3 travel lane in each direction. It would be located and aligned along the south side of San Pablo Dam Road, connecting Pitt Way to Hillcrest Road. Appian Way • Land Use Element. Establishment of two new Mixed Use land use designations along Appian Way from Valley View to San Pablo Dam Road to be depicted on the Land Use Element Map and described in the Land Use Element text. The new Mixed Use designations would enable the potential to combine development of commercial/ office/retail uses with multi-family residential units. In addition to the placement of new Mixed Use designations on the Land Use Element Map for Appian Way and descriptions in the text, there would be corresponding revisions and updates to the text in the Land Use Element, beginning at page 3-68 under the section entitled “Polices for Appian Way Corridor” and Figure 3-5, Appian Way Corridor Special Concern Area. Under the Mixed Use designation, the projected maximum commercial square footage would be 180,665 square feet that could generate 664 jobs and 286 housing units. Transportation/Circulation Element. The removal of an ultimate or planned four- lane roadway for Appian Way extending from San Pablo Dam Road to the Pinole city limits, as currently depicted on the Roadway Network Map in the Transportation- Circulation Element (and in the Land Use Element, Figure 3-5, Appian Way Corridor Special Concern Area) in favor of retaining the existing number of travel lanes on Appian Way. Policies for El Sobrante Area • Land Use Element. Additionally, the General Plan Amendment proposes to revise and update the section in the Land Use Element under the heading “Policies for El Sobrante Area,” beginning at page 3-58 and ending at page 3-59, to correspond with the proposed changes to policies affecting San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way. See Appendix A, Notice Of Preparation and Responses, Attachment A, April 14, 2008 letter to Supervisor John Gioia from Barbara Pendergast, Chair, El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council. 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 2-4 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 2-5 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 2-6 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 2-7 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 2-8 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment 2.3 PROJECTED POPULATION AND COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE The proposed General Plan Amendment would provide a mix of commercial and residential land uses. Based upon 490 new dwelling units and a household size of 2.9 persons/dwelling unit, the proposed change is anticipated to generate a population of 1,421 residents. The potential commercial development within the Project Area is anticipated to be 402,585 square feet. This is based upon the allowable building height and mass that would be permitted under the proposed land use designation. Commercial uses would be restricted to a 35-foot height limit and must meet certain design criteria, as well as not exceed a designated floor area ratio of 0.1 to 1.0. Table 2-1 shows a comparison of land use scenarios between the existing General Plan and the proposed General Plan Amendment. The proposed project would result in less commercial square footage and fewer new dwelling units within the project area. The reduction in commercial square footage would be 87 percent from that estimated in the 2005 General Plan and the number of residential units would be 68 percent less. Table 2-1 COMPARISON OF EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT General Plan Buildout Proposed General Plan Amendment Dwelling Units Commercial Sq. Ft. Dwelling Units Commercial Sq. Ft. San Pablo Dam Road 116 1,322,966 204 221,910 Appian Way 1,234 1,755,568 286 180,665 Total 1,350 3,078,534 490 402,585 2.4 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS, ORDINANCES AND POLICIES, AND LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS Land uses and population density in the Project Area would continue to be controlled by the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005–2020). Land uses in the Project Area include residential, commercial, school, park and library. The type, size, height and density of commercial, industrial and other structures would continue to be determined by the applicable federal, state and local statutes, ordinances and regulations, and applicable General Plan provisions—all as they currently exist or as amended from time to time. The proposed project includes an amendment to the General Plan, and the discussion and analysis presented in this EIR are based on the assumption that all such changes would be enacted. 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 2-9 The existing street pattern would not be changed by the project, with the exception of revisions to the General Plan Transportation-Circulation Element as described above. Normal extensions or improvements to the existing street system would occur as required to serve new development or to remove development constraints in the area. Use of the adopted General Plan and County Zoning regulations would ensure that development activities would remain consistent with the General Plan over the life of the project. The proposed amendment to the General Plan would encourage development that is more compact, pedestrian-friendly and conducive to a downtown business and residential environment. The proposed changes in land use designations of any particular site does not require a change in existing or established uses (e.g., change from automobile-oriented to mixed use), but it is assumed that over time many existing uses would be replaced by mixed- use development. Because it is not possible to predict which specific parcels or businesses would be affected, the analysis in this EIR does not attempt to identify any diminution in impact or intensity that might occur. For example, the development of new mixed uses (residential combined with commercial/office/retail space) would involve some properties on which existing, automobile-oriented businesses now operate. Traffic generated by the existing businesses would be eliminated when they relocate, but the amount of traffic actually generated and the new location of any relocated business cannot be predicted. The analysis of traffic impacts of the proposed project, therefore, evaluates the traffic generated by the proposed new development without attempting to deduct the potential decrease in traffic that could result from the displacement and relocation of existing businesses. This approach is conservative, and would tend to overstate the traffic impacts expected from the project. Environmental impacts are evaluated based on the land use designation changes and build- out assumptions generated by the proposed General Plan Amendment as set forth above. Page 2-10 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-1 3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 3.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter discusses the environmental impacts that could be generated by implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendment. The discussion includes a review of the environmental and regulatory setting of the proposed project, identification of the standards used to determine significance of any identified impact, and mitigation measures that would avoid or minimize any impacts identified as potentially significant. Because this General Plan Amendment does not address a specific project, but encompasses changes to land use and transportation policies in a planning area, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines provide that an EIR for such a project may be treated as a program EIR. A program EIR, evaluates the effects, including cumulative effects, of the overall project, that might not receive sufficient attention in environmental reports for individual projects. This EIR is a program EIR. The proposed project does not include any specific projects, and analysis of environmental impacts with regard to future projects would be speculative. This program EIR evaluates the potential impact of development in the Project Area on a qualitative level. 3.2 LAND USE, POPULATION AND HOUSING CEQA requires that an EIR discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans and regional plans. The EIR also must include a discussion of the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. The intent of the discussion, as with the discussion of social or economic effects of the project, is to identify and evaluate the changes the project may have on the physical environment. This section discusses the various provisions of the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005–2020) and plans adopted by other agencies that may be affected by the proposed project. The growth- inducing potential of the project is discussed in Chapter 5. In those cases where the project may have a physical impact on the environment, that impact and its potential significance is discussed in the appropriate section of this chapter. This section first identifies, as the "Setting," the various plans and policies that apply to the Project Area, including the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005–2020) and the growth management measures that have been adopted in recent years. The Project Area has received considerable attention in the General Plan, including the adoption of policies relating to the Appian Way and San Pablo Dam Road "special concern" areas. As stated previously, the Project Area was considered by the County Redevelopment Agency, a plan was formulated, and a Draft EIR was released for public review in 2003. The redevelopment proposal was 3.2 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING Page 3-2 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment subsequently withdrawn by the Redevelopment Agency. The proposed General Plan Amendment generally follows the land use patterns initially identified in that EIR, although the number of residential units and the amount of square footage is substantially less than what was proposed in 2003. The proposed project is the outcome of public input gathered over the past several years and supported by the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council (MAC). The proposed project is an amendment to the General Plan, and a discussion of the effects of the proposed amendment is included. Chapter 5, Section 5 of this EIR discusses the ways in which the project could promote economic or population growth that could induce growth, and potentially affect the physical environment. As noted, the coverage of any identified physical changes is included in the appropriate chapter of this EIR. CEQA requires an examination of the effects a proposed project may have on the environment, which includes physical conditions that exist in the Project Area that would be affected by the project. These conditions include land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise, and objects of historic and aesthetic significance (Public Resources Code Section 20160.5). This EIR examines those effects in its various sections, based on the analysis of the proposed project in the previous Initial Study, and responses to the Notice of Preparation. The Notice of Preparation and its responses are included in Appendix A. Environmental Setting Project Location The proposed Project Area extends from the intersection of El Portal and San Pablo Dam Road northeast to the intersection of Appian Way and San Pablo Dam Road and then northeast along Appian Way to Valley View Drive. Refer to Figure 2-1, Site Map and Figure 2-3, Project Area Overview. The Project Area is located within the unincorporated portion of Contra Costa County. It is included in the City of Richmond sphere of influence. See Figure 3.2-1, Richmond City Limit & Sphere of Influence. The proposed project includes an amendment to the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020) for the San Pablo Dam Road corridor between Appian Way and El Portal Drive and along Appian Way to Valley View Drive. (Refer to the Proposed General Plan Amendment Land Use Map in Figure 2-4.) The amendment would change the land use designation along these roadways for the establishment of a new “mixed use” land use designation as well as amend the Transportation/Circulation Element to remove the planned six-lane bypass couplet and the planned four-lane configuration of Appian Way between San Pablo Dam Road to the Pinole City Limits. In lieu of these roadway plans, improvements to San Pablo Dam Road are planned. (Refer to Chapter 2, Project Description, for a complete list of recommended roadway improvements.) 3.2 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-3 3.2 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-4 3.2 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-5 Project Area Population, Employment and Housing The Project Area is located in a portion of western Contra Costa County known as El Sobrante. The general region identified as "El Sobrante" or "El Sobrante Valley," in which the Project Area is located, is much larger than the Project Area as reflected in Figure 3.2-1. While no specific boundary has been established by Contra Costa County for the El Sobrante community, the El Sobrante Valley Parks Study concluded that the relevant area for purposes of studying demand for park space and access to parks was Service Area 11 for the City of Richmond. Service Area 11 is bounded by Interstate 80 on the west, and Castro Ranch Road and its vicinity on the east. Residential development north of Valley View Road provides the northern boundary, and hillsides south of San Pablo Dam Road provide the southern boundary. The U.S. Census Bureau recognizes the community of El Sobrante as a census designated place, or CDP. The El Sobrante CDP area is illustrated in Figure 3.2-2, El Sobrante Census Designated Place (CDP). The CDP, as established by the United States Census, has been used to identify data regarding general characteristics of the community, except with regard to parks and recreation, where the discussion in Section 3.10 utilizes information contained in the General Plan. The total population of the El Sobrante CDP in 2000 was 12,260. Of those residents identifying themselves as one race, approximately 60% were White, 12% were Black or African American, and 12.5% were Asian. There were 4,676 total households in the El Sobrante CDP. Approximately 68% were family households; the average family size was 3.11 persons; and the average household size was 2.61 persons, with a slightly higher average for owner-occupied units. For purposes of this report, the Association of Bay Area Governments projected 2010 household size of 2.69 persons/household will be used. The home ownership rate in the El Sobrante CPD was approximately 64%. The rental vacancy rate was 1.8%. The United States Census indicated that approximately 21% of the population in 2000 consisted of persons of school age, from age 5 to 19. Regulatory Setting Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020) Provisions The Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020) has assigned land use designations to the Project Area. The General Plan land use designations are shown in Figure 3.2-3, General Plan Land Use Designations. Contra Costa County has adopted zoning classifications for the parcels within the Project Area, and these are shown on Figure 3.2-4, Zoning Classifications. Table 3.2-1, Existing Land Use Designations within the Project Area, sets forth the approximate acreage subject to the various land use designations within the Project Area. The total acreage shown is 166 acres when rounded up. The total number of parcels is higher than the actual number in the Project Area due to the fact that some parcels with split General Plan designations have been included twice. 3.2 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING Page 3-6 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment TABLE 3.2-1 EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Land Use Designation # of Parcels With Designation % of Total Parcels Acreage % of Total Acreage Commercial 182 51.56 95.69 57.74% Single-Family Residential 28 7.93 11.80 7.12% Multi-Family Residential 95 26.91% 45.70 27.58 Office 3 .85% 2.76 1.66% Public/Semi-Public 5 1.42% 3.92 2.37% Open Space 40 11.33% 5.83 3.53% Total 353 (split parcels included) 100.00% 165.70 100.00% The Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020) contains various goals, policies and implementation measures that could affect development in the Project Area. The proposed General Plan Amendment would change land use designations for most of the parcels within the Project Area, and amend the Transportation-Circulation Element with regard to the design and elimination of some future Project Area roadways. The County General Plan includes nine elements: Land Use, Growth Management, Transportation- Circulation, Housing, Public Facilities/Services, Conservation, Open Space, Safety and Noise. Those provisions that apply most directly to land use planning for the Project Area are discussed below. Policies that apply to a particular aspect of environmental analysis, such as noise or traffic, are identified in the appropriate section of this EIR. 3.2 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-7 3.2 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-8 3.2 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-9 The General Plan provisions identified and discussed below are of three types. Some provisions apply generally to all land within the County or to particular portions of the County, such as the "West County" area in which the project is located; some apply specifically to the El Sobrante area; and some are related to the growth management policies of the County. Relevant General Plan provisions include: L AND U SE E LEMENT Land Use Goals, Policies, and Implementation Measures 3-A. To coordinate land use with circulation, development of other infrastructure facilities, and protection of agriculture and open space, and to allow growth and the maintenance of the County’s quality of life. In such an environment all residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and agricultural activities may take place in safety, harmony, and to mutual advantage. 3-B. To provide opportunities for increasing the participation of Contra Costa County in the economic and cultural growth of the region, and to contribute to, as well as benefit from, the continued growth in importance of the Bay Region and the State of California. 3-C. To encourage aesthetically and functionally compatible development which reinforces the physical character and desired images of the County. 3-D. To provide for a range and distribution of land uses that serve all social and economic segments of the County and its subregions. 3-E. To recognize and support existing land use densities in most communities, while encouraging higher densities in appropriate areas, such as near major transportation hubs and job centers. 3-H. To adopt and implement an innovative Countywide Growth Management Program which effectively links land use policy with transportation and other infrastructure improvements. 3-I. To coordinate effectively the land use policies of the County General Plan with those plans adopted by the cities and special service districts. 3-J. To encourage a development pattern that promotes the individuality and unique character of each community in the County. 3-K. To develop a balance between job availability and housing availability with consideration given to wage levels, commute distance and housing affordability. The individual characteristics of the several subregions of the County and their interaction with other regions shall be considered when establishing criteria for delivering that balance. 3-L. To safeguard the County’s obligations to provide its fair share of safe, decent and affordable housing. Countywide Policies Growth Management, 65/35 Land Plan, and Urban Limit Line 3-5. New development within unincorporated areas of the County may be approved, providing growth management standards and criteria are met or can be assured of being met prior to the issuance of building permits in accordance with the growth management [standards]. 3.2 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING Page 3-10 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment 3-6. Development of all urban uses shall be coordinated with provision of essential Community services of facilities including, but not limited to, roads, law enforcement and fire protection services, schools, parks, sanitary facilities, water and flood control. 3-7. The location, timing and extent of growth shall be guided through capital improvements programming and financing (i.e., a capital improvement program, assessment districts, impact fees, and developer contributions) to prevent infrastructure, facility and service deficiencies. 3-8. Infilling of already developed areas shall be encouraged. Proposals that would prematurely extend development into areas lacking requisite services, facilities and infrastructure shall be opposed. In accommodating new development, preference shall generally be give to vacant or under-used sites within urbanized areas, which have necessary utilities installed with available remaining capacity, before undeveloped suburban lands are utilized. Community Identity and Urban Design 3-15. The design of new buildings and the rehabilitation of existing buildings shall reflect and improve the existing character of the commercial districts in the County. 3-16. Community appearance shall be upgraded by encouraging redevelopment, where appropriate, to replace inappropriate uses. 3-19. Flexibility in the design of projects shall be encouraged in order to enhance scenic qualities and provide for a varied development pattern. Residential Uses 3-21. The predominantly single-family character of substantially developed portions of the County shall be retained. Multiple-family housing shall be dispersed throughout the County and not concentrated in single locations. Multiple-family housing shall generally be located in proximity to facilities such as arterial roads, transit corridors, and shopping areas. 3-22. Housing opportunities for all income levels shall be created. Fair affordable housing opportunities should exist for all economic segments of the County. 3-23. A diversity of living options shall be permitted while ensuring community compatibility and quality residential development. 3-26. Efforts to maintain and rehabilitate existing dwelling units in established neighborhood areas shall be supported. 3-27. Existing residential neighborhoods shall be protected from incompatible land uses and traffic levels exceeding adopted service standards. 3-28. New residential development shall be accommodated only in areas where it will avoid creating severe unmitigated adverse impacts upon the environment and upon the existing community. Business and Employment Uses 3-30. A variety of appropriately-sized, well-located employment areas shall be planned in order that industrial and commercial activities can contribute to the continued economic welfare of the 3.2 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-11 people of the County and to the stable economic and tax bases of the County and the various cities. 3-32. Commercial areas of appropriate size and location shall be provided to accommodate the needs of the present and anticipated population in each subregion or community of the County. 3-33. Well-defined commercial areas oriented to community shopping shall be provided in the County. 3-34. Local shopping facilities shall be distributed and spaced at intervals to accommodate the requirements of residential neighborhoods, minimize travel times, and reduce energy costs. 3-36. New areas of strip commercial development shall be discouraged except as provided in this plan. ("Strip commercial" shall be generally defined as commercial development of shallow depth limited to parcels fronting on a street and extending in a linear manner for a considerable distance.) 3-37. New local convenience shopping shall generally be located at the intersections of major streets and highways. Such uses shall be discouraged on more than two corners of an intersection. 3-38. Business and professional office development shall be encouraged in areas designated for commercial land use within shopping areas and where a transition or buffer use is appropriate between commercial and residential areas. 3-39. Existing employment areas shall be improved to create better pedestrian circulation, bicycle paths and adequate parking. Policies for the El Sobrante Area 3-164. In cooperation with the City of Richmond, develop a Specific Plan for the San Pablo Dam Road commercial corridor to provide detailed plans and implementation measures to increase parking for shoppers and increase roadway capacity for through traffic. 3-165. Minimize the number of streets and driveways intersecting or entering San Pablo Dam Road, Appian Way and Valley View Road. 3-166. Provide for well-designed projects and limited vehicular access to traffic arterials through the assembly of the deep, narrow parcels of land along San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way. 3-167. The overall goal of the area is to retain and reinforce the semi-rural and suburban character of the community with its strong emphasis on single-family residences, the feature which has drawn most residents to the area. 3-168. Provide for well designed projects and limited vehicular access to traffic arterials through the assembly of the deep, narrow parcels of land along San Pablo Road and Appian Way. 3-169. Discourage new areas of strip commercial development in the community. 3-170. Require development of more public off-street parking in the commercial core area along San Pablo Dam Road, so as to increase traffic bearing capacity of the arterial. 3.2 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING Page 3-12 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment 3-171. Upgrade the community’s drainage system to eliminate problems caused by local inundation, ponding and sheet overflow during storms, and eliminate open drainage ditches along portions of Appian Way and San Pablo Dam Road and throughout the community. 3-172. In view of the existing traffic problems and the limited ability of the circulation system to adequately handle substantial growth in traffic volumes, new development should be approved at the low to mid range of the respective single-family residential land use density designations. 3-173. This plan calls for residential development to be directed primarily to areas where infilling of previously "passed over" property can occur, as well as to a limited number of larger parcels of undeveloped acreage. These larger parcels include the western slope of Sobrante Ridge, and the lower portions of the north face of San Pablo Ridge. 3-174. A major policy of this plan is to eliminate deep, narrow lots through the aggregation of land parcels in areas designated for multiple family use. Every effort should be made to encourage the aggregation of such lots to provide for better-designed projects. 3-175. Areas outside the present and committed area of service capability of EBMUD and West Contra Costa Sanitary District are to be retained in the Open Space category. 3-176. In order to retain the ridgelines around El Sobrante in their natural state, it is recommended that a ridgeline preservation ordinance be developed which would prohibit the placement of any structure on or near the crest of a scenic ridge, such as San Pablo Ridge or Sobrante Ridge. All land above the 400' elevation shall not be developed for suburban purposes unless in conformance with the Land Use Plan Map. The General Plan identified three Special Concern Areas based on their key locations within the County. In West County, these areas include the Appian Way Corridor and San Pablo Dam Road. Together these two roadway corridors include an area substantially identical to the Project Area. See Figure 3.2-5, Appian Way Corridor Special Concern Area, and Figure 3.2-6, San Pablo Dam Road Commercial Special Concern Area. The policies set forth in the General Plan for these areas are as follows: Policies for the Appian Way Corridor 3-191. The Appian Way Corridor Special Concern Area is to develop into a unified, well-designed neighborhood rather than an incremental accumulation of unrelated developments. (a) Adhere to the adopted Appian Way Precise Plan, which provides for a standard 84-foot right-of-way. Develop continuous sidewalks and a bicycle path separated from automobile traffic, but designed for the right-of-way; (b) Where possible, retain existing mature trees located either within or encroaching into the potential right-of-way, and incorporate them into the overall roadway design; (c) Provide appropriate traffic signalization as new development occurs along the corridor, with each development required to pay an appropriate share of the cost; (d) Eliminate the hazardous ditches along Appian Way by installing appropriate storm drains as a part of the right-of-way improvements; 3.2 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-13 (e) Project design should reflect the objective of providing well-designed development suited to the building sites, at appropriate densities; (f) Commercial areas should maintain a low profile by limiting building height to 35 feet; (g) Emphasis should be on landscaping and architectural continuity along Appian Way, with building masses de-emphasized; (h) Variances to parking standards shall not be granted; (i) Design of buildings shall be interesting and innovative, but should have a harmonious relationship with each other; (j) Consolidation of parcels shall be encouraged with emphasis on combined access and parking areas; (k) Variation in building set-back from Appian Way and along sideyards should be encouraged to create openness along the corridor; (l) Provide attractive streetscape through street tree and frontage planting and encourage the use of drought-resistant plants; (m) Areas designated for commercial uses should be re-zoned from Retail Business District (R-B) to Neighborhood Business District (N-B) which zone reflects the desired commercial character along Appian Way. Multiple family development shall not be allowed by land use permit in these areas; (n) Rezone areas designated from multiple family residential use to M-12, except that current zoning may be retained where development already exists; (o) A landscaped buffer zone, including attractive fences wherever necessary to provide privacy and security shall be provided between new developments and existing residences; (p) Within areas designated for development in the Appian Way Special Concern Area there are those areas which, because of topography, steep slopes or aesthetic qualities, are unsuitable for development and which shall be protected as open space wherever feasible; and (q) Each individual multiple-family development shall provide recreational facilities for its occupants. 3.2 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-14 Figure 3.2-5 Appian Way Corridor Special Concern Area (Landscape) 3.2 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-15 Figure 3.2-6 San Pablo Dam Road Commercial Special Concern Area (Landscape) 3.2 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING Page 3-16 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Policies for San Pablo Dam Road 3-192. The San Pablo Dam Road Special Concern Area is the primary business district for El Sobrante. The El Sobrante Community desires to retain its identity and individuality in the face of urbanization pressures. Two distinct, yet interlocking problems must be addressed: (1) devising a circulation system which allows traffic into, through, and around the business district, and (2) [creating] effective land use and design policies for the area. (a) The commercial area shall be made attractive and convenient to the community with emphasis on the following: — improved localized traffic circulation; — adequate parking; and — diversion of non-shopper traffic by development of an alternative roadway; (b) Encourage commercial area rehabilitation and redevelopment, considering development of a unifying motif; (c) Commercial expansion shall be directed away from San Pablo Dam frontage to create a deeper and more appropriately shaped commercial district; (d) Improve overall area appearance through appropriate sign regulation. This would eventually result in removal of unsightly signs; (e) Provide adequate off-street parking, and secure the right-of-way for an alternate traffic route; (f) Enhance pedestrian traffic across San Pablo Dam Road by well marked and signalized crosswalks; and (g) Develop commercial sites and parking areas contiguous to existing development, conforming to the Plan map. Extend such uses only as far south as the proposed location of the new parallel arterial. Do not permit non-contiguous conversion of existing residential uses to commercial use. Growth Management The growth management provisions in the General Plan included in the Land Use Element and Growth Management Element are intended to work together. The Land Use Element establishes land use designations for the land areas in the unincorporated portion of the County, and also establishes Urban Limit Lines and the 65/35 Land Preservation Standard. The purpose of the Urban Limit Line is to ensure preservation of identified non-urban agricultural, open space and other areas by: (1) establishing a line beyond which no urban land uses will be developed during the General Plan period, and (2) facilitating enforcement of the 65/35 standard. The area included within the Project Area is within the Urban Limit Line as established in the Land Use Element. The 65/35 Land Preservation Standard was a fundamental component of Measure C-1990. The standard limits urban development in the County through at least the planning horizon of the General Plan to no more than 35 percent of the land in the County. The standard also requires that at least 65 percent of all land in the County shall be preserved for agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks and 3.2 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-17 other non-urban uses. The County General Plan, when adopted in 1996, indicated that land areas identified for urban use within the Urban Limit Line totaled 144,118 acres, and that the 65/35 standard would have allowed up to 168,000 acres in such uses. The County General Plan Growth Management Element is the product of a process that resulted in voter adoption of Measure C-1988 and Measure C-1990 that translated the community’s concerns regarding impacts of growth into programs, policies and standards. The policies and standards relate to traffic levels of services, and performance standards for fire, police, parks, sanitary facilities, and water and flood control. The Growth Management Element represents the County’s effort to establish a long-range program that matches the demand for public facilities to serve new development with plans, capital improvement programs and development impact mitigation programs. Section 3.3 of this EIR discusses the potential impact of the proposed project on traffic service levels mandated in the County General Plan; Section 3.11 does the same for public services. The Project Area is located in a portion of the County identified as "Urban" in the Growth Management Element. The performance standard identified for traffic in Urban Areas is a "high D" level of services (LOS) for peak hour, identified as a volume/capacity ratio of .85 to .89. LOS standards are met if intersection standards equal or exceed the stated standard, or if the County has included projects in its adopted capital improvements program that, when constructed, would result in operations equal to or better than the standard. Performance standards for other areas of services are established in the Growth Management Element as follows: Water: New development shall be required to demonstrate that adequate water quantity and quality can be provided. As noted in Section 3.11, recent state law imposes specific requirements in this regard on local agencies that approve large development projects. Sanitary Sewer: New development shall be required to demonstrate that adequate sanitary sewer quantity and quality can be provided. Fire Protection: Fire stations shall be located within one and one-half miles of developments in urban areas. Automatic fire sprinkler systems may be used to satisfy this standard. Public Protection: A Sheriff facility standard of 155 square feet of station area per 1,000 population shall be maintained within the unincorporated area of the County. Parks and Recreation: 3 acres required per 1,000 population. Flood Control and Drainage: Major new development should be required to finance the full costs of drainage improvements required to accommodate peak flows due to the project. Development within the 100-year flood plain should be limited until a flood plain management plan has been adopted, and implementation assured. The performance standards set forth above are to be incorporated into the review of individual development projects (Implementation Measure 4-a and 4-m). In addition, all new development should be required to contribute to or participate in the improvement of the parks, fire, police, sewer, water and flood control systems in reasonable proportion to the demand impacts and burdens of the project and its users (Implementation Measure 4-0). 3.2 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING Page 3-18 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment These General Plan provisions establish a system in which new development must demonstrate that the level of service standards of the Growth Management Element will be met. In addition, the Urban Limit Lines and 65/35 Land Development Standard ensure that future growth in the County will be well-considered and comply with the County’s various long-range planning policies. City of Richmond The Project Area is located within the "Sphere of Influence" of the City of Richmond. The Sphere of Influence is a geographical boundary line established by the Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). The Sphere of Influence is generally the area to which the applicable agency, in this case the City of Richmond, is expected to eventually expand in terms of jurisdiction and responsibility for providing urban services. While the City of Richmond may eventually expand to include the Project Area, planning and land entitlement approvals for the Project Area continue as functions of the County, and the Board of Supervisors. There is no proposal at this time from the City of Richmond to annex the Project Area. Effects of the Project on Plans and Policies The major effects of the proposed General Plan Amendment would be: • Establish the mixed use land designation along San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way, and encourage development of a variety of uses that would be more pedestrian-friendly, thus supporting a renewal of a downtown area in El Sobrante; • Change the General Plan Transportation/Circulation Element to remove the planned a six- lane bypass couplet for San Pablo Road between El Portal Drive and Appian Way as currently depicted on the Roadway Network Map in the Transportation/Circulation Element); • Provide for a new east-west roadway, designed to collector street standards that would provide one travel lane in each direction to be located and aligned along the south side of San Pablo Dam road connecting Pitt Way to Hillcrest Road. • Remove the planned four-lane configuration of Appian Way from San Pablo Dam road to the Pinole City Limits. The proposed project includes an amendment to the Contra Costa County General Plan (2050-2020), as described above. The amendment would directly affect the existing policies in two ways: (1) changing land use designations, and (2) changing the plan for roadways within the Project Area. The General Plan is required to maintain internal consistency, and the proposed changes should, therefore, be consistent with the remaining General Plan provisions. The proposed project does not include site-specific improvements, but instead sets forth a general program of future changes that would occur, consistent with the revised General Plan provisions and land use designations. Many of the General Plan provisions set forth above would be relevant to proposals for specific sites, but do not directly pertain to the proposed project. Some General Plan goals and policies are relevant. The General Plan supports development that is sensitive to the physical character and desired images of the County (Goal 3-C). Policy 3-16 encourages the upgrading of community appearance through redevelopment, and the replacement of inappropriate uses. 3.2 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-19 Goal 3-K seeks to achieve a better balance between job and housing availability. Decreasing the number of automobile commute trips in and out of the community would serve to reduce impacts in terms of traffic, air quality and noise. An optimum jobs-housing balance cannot be achieved simply by creating jobs, or housing, because those who live in the community may work elsewhere, and some persons that work elsewhere may elect to live in the Project Area. Development that encourages creation of new housing close to employment centers, as envisioned in the proposed project, is a strategy that should promote achievement of the goal. The proposed project would create opportunities for employment and housing within the Project Area, but more importantly would seek to create a physical environment with aesthetic and pedestrian amenities that would make working and living in the area more attractive. By making pedestrian and bicycle travel more feasible, the proposed project would also serve to provide an incentive to use these alternative methods of travel. The General Plan encourages efforts to ensure a fair share of safe, decent and affordable housing. The proposed project is forecast to result in the development of 490 multiple-family dwelling units. These have not been identified as affordable through restrictions on purchase price or rent levels, but the development of new units would provide reasonable alternatives to segments of the community that may not have access to such housing at present. The General Plan goals and policies also support well-defined commercial areas. The El Sobrante area was historically a readily identifiable location. The area has been affected by changing patterns of shopping, and the vehicle traffic loads on San Pablo Dam Road. The proposed General Plan Amendment seeks to re-create a downtown shopping area that once again can be supported by local residents. The proposed amendment would allow for up to 402,565 square feet. This is consistent with the General Plan. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Evaluation Criteria Based on common standards of land use compatibility, and on consideration of Appendix G of the state CEQA Guidelines, the project would be considered in this EIR to have a significant adverse land use impact if it would: • Physically divide an established community. • 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, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. • Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan. • Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use. • Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. • Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use. 3.2 LAND USE, POPULATION, AND HOUSING Page 3-20 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Activities, which are inconsistent with adopted General Plan or Area Plan policy statements, should be considered potentially significant. Land Use Compatibility IMPACT 3.2-1: New development as a result of the General Plan Amendment could result in land use conflicts as new uses consistent with the mixed use designation are developed on vacant parcels in the Project Area, or replace existing uses, resulting in inconsistent land uses on adjacent parcels. Discussion and Conclusion: The General Plan Amendment would allow for mixed use development, with commercial or office uses on the ground floor, and multiple family uses on the upper floors. Development of the allowable uses included in the mixed-use designation would not result in land use conflicts. As mixed use development occurs, however, it could result in land use conflicts when new development occurs on a parcel that is adjacent to an existing automobile-dependent use, such as an automobile repair or car sales business. The proposed project would re-designate the General Plan land use to Mixed Use for a major portion of the Project Area. The land use assumptions for the proposed project anticipate that a total of 402,585 square feet of commercial/retail/office space could be developed, along with 490 multiple- family residential dwelling units. The proposed project would result in substantial changes in the urban environment along San Pablo Dam Road. The change in land use designations would encourage a change in use in business type from automobile-dependent (e.g., automobile repair shops, gas stations) to pedestrian-serving (e.g., restaurants, retail businesses). The Project Area along San Pablo Dam Road between El Portal and Appian Way currently contains various land uses in close proximity, and land use conflicts exist in the neighborhood as presently constituted. Mixed-use development on specific parcels could result in temporary conflicts with other nearby land uses, however, implementation of the new land use designations would create a coherent, cohesive community as the Project Area evolves. Changes in land use along Appian Way are less predictable due to the fact that implementation of mixed use development will be primarily private-sector based, largely occurring as a result of investment and development decisions by individual landowners. The development of individual parcels in mixed use, consistent with the General Plan designation to be applied by the proposed project, would tend to increase pedestrian travel along Appian Way, and could provide new services for local residents that have been absent to this point. Development in the densities proposed in the land use assumptions would not divide an existing community. With the inclusion of both retail/commercial and residential components, such development would be consistent with the current development in the area, which provides an existing mix of single- and multiple-family-residential development, commercial uses, and properties that are undeveloped or committed to institutional use. This impact is considered less than significant. □ Mitigation Measure: No mitigation measures are required. 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-21 3.3 TRANSPORTATION This section describes the transportation setting of the proposed Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment and the potential impacts of the project on the transportation system. The evaluation of potential impacts includes roadway operations, local circulation, and pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and parking provisions. Environmental Setting Traffic Impact Analysis Area The Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment (GPA) covers the proposed land use and circulation changes along both sides of San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way, extending from El Portal Drive on the west and extending northeast to Valley View Road, as well as revisions to the Roadway Network Plan in the Transportation/Circulation Element. Figure 3.3-1 provides an overview of the area and the project site parcels involved around the Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment. The West County Action Plan 2000 Update (West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee, July 2000) identifies several major roadways as routes of regional significance. Each route of regional significance within the project study area is described below. Intra-County Corridors San Pablo Dam Road provides a connection between I-80 and State Route 24 in Orinda. It provides local access to I-80 and serves as a commuter route. San Pablo Dam Road has been designated a Scenic Route in the Contra Costa County General Plan. Through downtown El Sobrante, this facility provides two travel lanes in each direction plus a two-way left-turn lane. Within the Project Area, San Pablo Dam Road carries about 31,200 vehicles per day.1 While many sections of San Pablo Dam Road provide Class II bicycle lanes (i.e., on-street bike lanes designated by a painted stripe), through downtown El Sobrante the roadway accommodates only a Class III bicycle route (i.e., bike route designated by posted signs, but no painted lane). The Contra Costa County General Plan Transportation-Circulation Element Map includes a one-way couplet through downtown El Sobrante that would require the conversion of existing San Pablo Dam Road to a westbound roadway. The new roadway (couplet) would have been constructed to the south of existing San Pablo Dam Road to accommodate eastbound traffic. However, the construction of a one-way couplet will not be pursued due 11 Count conducted on November 15, 2006, by the County’s Public Works Department. 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Page 3-22 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Figure 3.3-1. Project Area to cost, difficult slopes, potential for community disruption, and its inconsistency with downtown revitalization efforts. The proposed project proposes to amend the Transportation-Circulation Element, which would maintain two directions of travel on San Pablo Dam Road with the provision for a new roadway connecting Pitt Way to Hillcrest Road. Major Arterials Appian Way provides a connection between San Pablo Dam Road and I-80. Through El Sobrante, this facility carries about 12,800 vehicles per day.2 Appian Way provides Class II bicycle lanes through the Project Area. The Contra Costa County General Plan Transportation-Circulation Element Map includes widening of Appian Way to two lanes in each direction. The project proposes to amend the Transportation- Circulation Element to maintain one travel lane in each direction. El Portal Drive provides direct access between I-80 and the Project Area. El Portal Drive extends from San Pablo Dam Road to San Pablo Avenue. El Portal Drive carries about 14,000 vehicles per day.3 2 Count conducted on April 17, 2007. Previous count conducted by Fehr & Peers Associates on January 15, 2003, was 11,200 vehicles per day. 3 Count conducted on April 17, 2007. 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-23 Local Roadways In addition to the regionally significant routes identified above, the following local road is important to this study area. Hillcrest Road intersects San Pablo Dam Road within the Project Area. It extends south to Alpine Road and serves as the border for the neighboring City of San Pablo. Study Facilities The following intersections and roadway segments were chosen for study because of their importance to traffic circulation within the Project Area, and their importance as routes of regional significance: • San Pablo Dam Road / El Portal Drive (signalized intersection); • San Pablo Dam Road / Hillcrest Road (signalized intersection); • San Pablo Dam Road / Appian Way (signalized intersection); • El Portal Drive / I-80 WB 4 Ramps (signalized intersection); • El Portal Drive / I-80 EB Ramps (signalized intersection); • Appian Way / Valley View Road (signalized intersection); • San Pablo Dam Road, between Appian Way and El Portal Drive (road segment); • Appian Way, between Valley View Road and San Pablo Dam Road (road segment); and • El Portal Drive, between I-80 EB Ramps and San Pablo Dam Road (road segment). The existing lane geometrics for the study intersections and roadway segments are shown in Figure 3.3-2. Traffic operations were examined at each study intersection during the weekday morning (AM) and weekday evening (PM) peak hours, consistent with peak commute traveler behavior in the area. Level of Service Concept Level of Service (LOS) is used to rank traffic operation on various types of roadway facilities based on traffic volumes and roadway capacity using a series of letter designations ranging from A to F. Generally, LOS A represents free flow conditions and LOS F represents forced flow or over-capacity conditions. The LOS designation is generally accompanied by a unit of measure that indicates a level of delay or a volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio. 4 Directions abbreviated as follows: WB (westbound), EB (eastbound), NB (northbound), and SB (southbound). 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Page 3-24 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-25 In general, intersection service levels are determined by methods including volume-to-capacity calculations and computations of vehicular delay. Road segment service levels are typically defined by theoretical service volumes. The following describes the analysis methodologies for each facility type. Signalized Intersections The specific evaluation approach is documented in CCTA’s Technical Procedures (July 19, 2006). The methodology required by the CCTA for impact studies on intersections is known as Contra Costa Transportation Authority Level of Service (CCTALOS) intersection capacity analysis. This method relates the total traffic volume for critical opposing movements to the theoretical capacity for those movements. The resulting v/c ratio is related directly to LOS grades, as shown in Table 3.3-1. Table 3.3-1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS Level of Service Description V/C Ratio A Operations with very low control delay, up to 10 seconds per vehicle. This LOS occurs when progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. 0.00 – 0.60 B Operations with control delay greater than 10 and up to 20 seconds per vehicle. This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. 0.61 – 0.70 C Operations with control delay greater than 20 and up to 35 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping. 0.71 – 0.80 D Operations with control delay greater than 35 and up to 55 seconds per vehicle. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. 0.81 – 0.90 E Operations with control delay greater than 55 and up to 80 seconds per vehicle. This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. 0.91 – 1.00 F Operation with control delay in excess of 80 seconds per vehicle. This level, considered to be unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be contributing factors to such delay levels. > 1.00 Sources: Technical Procedures, CCTA, July 19, 2006, and Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000. 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Page 3-26 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Roadway Segments CCTA’s Technical Procedures does not contain a specified methodology for roadway segment analysis. For this study, service volumes presented in the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual (2000) were utilized to assess peak hour, peak direction road segment operations. San Pablo Dam Road is a major arterial with a posted speed limit of 25 mph, and is therefore assumed to represent a Class IV facility as an arterial with 10 signals per mile and speeds of 30 miles per hour. Appian Way has a slightly higher posted speed limit of 35 mph, and is assumed to be a Class III facility for an arterial with 5 signals per mile and speeds of 35 miles per hour. El Portal Road has a posted speed limit of 35 mph west of I-80. Consequently, it is also assumed to be a Class III facility similar to Appian Way. Table 3.3-2 shows the LOS grades for these roads. Table 3.3-2 ROAD SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS Peak Direction Service Volume (vehicles/hour) San Pablo Dam Roada El Portal Driveb Appian Wayc Level of Service CLASS IV, 2 Lanes CLASS IV, 3 Lanes CLASS III, 1 lane CLASS III, 1 Lane CLASS III, 2 Lanes C ≤ 1,200 ≤ 1,900 ≤ 480 ≤ 480 ≤ 1030 D 1,200 – 1,570 1,900 – 2,370 480 – 780 480 – 780 1,030 – 1,600 E 1,570 – 1,620 2,730 – 2,430 780 – 850 780 – 850 1,600 – 1,690 F > 1,620 > 2,430 > 850 > 850 > 1,690 Notes: a Class IV (10 signals per mile), with two lanes in the peak direction. Class IV (10 signals per mile), with three lanes in peak direction. b Class III (5 signals per mile), with one lane in the peak direction. c Class III (5 signals per mile), with one lane in the peak direction. Class III (5 signals per mile), with two lanes in peak direction. Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000, page 10-10. Existing Conditions Existing Levels of Service Operating conditions were evaluated for the study intersections during both the AM and PM peak hours on a typical weekday. Traffic counts, shown in Figure 3.3-3, Existing Intersection Traffic Volumes, were conducted on three consecutive weekdays, April 17, 2007, Wednesday, to April 19, 2007 and are included in Appendix B. The AM and PM peak traffic hours in the Project Area typically begin around 8:00 a.m. and 4:45 p.m., respectively. Table 3.3-3 shows the existing intersection levels of service, based on the methodologies discussed above. Detailed service level calculations are contained in Appendix B. As shown, each study intersection operates at LOS B or better during each peak hour. 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-27 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Page 3-28 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Table 3.3-3 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Existing V/C Ratio / LOS Study Intersection AM PM 1. San Pablo Dam Rd / El Portal Dr 0.65 / B 0.65 / B 2. San Pablo Dam Rd / Hillcrest Rd 0.49 / A 0.53 / A 3. San Pablo Dam Rd / Appian Way 0.72 / C 0.60 / A 4. El Portal Dr / I-80 WB Ramps 0.42 / A 0.64 / B 5. El Portal Dr / I-80 EB Ramps 0.39 / A 0.69 / B 6. Appian Way / Valley View Dr a 0.51 / A 0.58 / A Note: a Although this intersection is striped as two through lanes and one right-turn pocket in the southbound direction, it operates and was therefore analyzed as one through lane and one right-turn lane. This assumption is based on the approaching lanes and their geometry, given right approaching lane is relatively short in length. Source: CCTALOS based on Technical Procedures, CCTA, July 19, 2006. Existing road segment levels of service are shown in Table 3.3-4 for each direction of travel during the AM and PM peak hours. San Pablo Dam Road currently operates at LOS D during both peak hours. Appian Way and El Portal Drive both also operate at LOS D during both peak hours. Table 3.3-4 EXISTING ROAD SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE Existing Volume / LOS Road Segment AM PM 1. San Pablo Dam Rd 995 / C (EB) 1,537 / D (WB) 1,525 / D (EB) 1,153 / C (WB) 2. Appian Way 377 / C (NB) 668 / D (SB) 623 / D (NB) 486 / D (SB) 3. El Portal Drive 453 / C (NB) 506 / D (SB) 616 / D (NB) 563 / D (SB) Note: Assume AM peak is from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m., and PM peak is from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000. Side Street Delay The side street delays for minor streets along San Pablo Dam Road were observed during the peak period during several signal cycles to determine whether side street traffic experienced delays beyond one signal cycle. Side street observations were made at Hillcrest, Appian Way, La Colina, and El Portal. Queues determined during the “red” phase were observed to see if all vehicles cleared during the next “green” phase. Observations of at least 25 cycles during each of the AM and PM peak hours found few instances were the queues on the side streets did not clear. At Appian Way, one instance out of 25 cycles during the AM peak hour and three out of 25 cycles during the PM peak hour, the queue did 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-29 not clear. At El Portal, only one instance out of 32 was observed during the AM peak hour where the queue did not clear. Delay Index The delay index represents the ratio of congested travel time to uncongested travel time along a corridor. Based on the Traffic Service Objectives Monitoring Report prepared in 2004, the delay index for San Pablo Dam Road from I-80 to State Route 24 in Orinda was 1.3 and 1.2 for eastbound and westbound traffic, respectively, during the AM peak hour, and 1.5 eastbound and 1.2 westbound during the PM peak hour. Transit Public transit service in the area is provided by Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit). AC Transit bus stops are located throughout the Project Area in both directions of San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way. AC Transit Route 70 runs on Appian Way, while Routes 70, 74, 669, and 679 provide service to San Pablo Dam Road. AC Transit Route 70 travels between El Cerrito Del Norte BART and the Richmond Parkway Transit Center with a stop at the Hilltop Park and Ride. In the Project Area, the route travels along San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way with scheduled stops at San Pablo Dam Road / El Portal Drive and Appian Way / La Paloma Road. Weekday southbound and northbound service operates with 30- minute headways from 5:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Weekend service is provided with 60-minute headways between about 6:30 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. AC Transit Route 74 travels between Marina Bay in Richmond to the Orinda BART station. In El Sobrante the route travels on San Pablo Dam Road with scheduled stops in the Project Area at San Pablo Dam Road / Appian Way. Weekday service operates from about 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. with approximately 30-minute headways in both directions. Weekend service to El Sobrante operates from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. with hourly headways in both directions. AC Transit Route 669 and 679 provide school service with one bus each morning and afternoon per route. Previous studies 5 indicated that the bus boardings and alightings through the Project Area are relatively low, which may be attributed to the poor accessibility of the existing bus stops from the surrounding neighborhoods, the low density of development along these corridors, and lack of bus stop amenities. AC Transit has recently proposed service changes to certain routes in western Contra Costa County, including routes that serve the El Sobrante area. These proposed service changes include: • Route 70 – proposed route change that would truncate operations between Richmond BART Station and Richmond Parkway Transit Center via Appian Way; weekday span changes to end service at 9 p.m.; weekend span changes to begin service at 7 a.m. and end service at 8 p.m. • Route 74 – route change to eliminate service to Marina Bay; route change to eliminate service to Orinda BART Station; span change to end weekday service at 9 p.m.; and, span change to end weekend service at 7 p.m. There are no proposed changes to Route 669 and Route 679. 5 The Downtown El Sobrante Transportation and Land Use Plan indicated low ridership. 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Page 3-30 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities An inventory of existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the Project Area was conducted. Sidewalks are currently provided along most sections of Appian Way and all sections of San Pablo Dam Road through the Project Area. Pedestrian-actuated crossings are provided at each signalized study intersection. There is an actuated signalized pedestrian crossing on San Pablo Dam Road west of Pitt Way. In addition, there is an actuated signalized pedestrian crossing and fire station access on Appian Way between Pebble Drive and La Paloma. Bicycle lanes are classified as Class I, II or III as follows: • Class I bike paths are physically separated from motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic; • Class II on-street bike lanes are defined by a painted stripe; • Class III bike routes are represented only by posted route signs. According to the Contra Costa County Countywide Bicycle Master Plan (May 1995), 0.5 percent of commute trips are made via bicycle countywide; in El Sobrante, bicycles are used for 0.4 percent of commute trips. San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way have been designated as part of the bikeway network with on- street facilities (Class II bicycle lanes or Class III bicycle route designation). While most of San Pablo Dam Road provides Class II bicycle lanes, only the Class III bicycle route designation exists through downtown El Sobrante. Appian Way provides Class II bike lanes between San Pablo Dam Road and Valley View Road, and continues with Class III bicycle route designation to the north. Parking On-street parking is allowed on the north side of San Pablo Dam Road. Parking is limited in certain areas ranging from twenty minutes to two hours. On the south side, parking is prohibited except for a short section near Appian Way, allowing two-hour parking and a fifteen minute loading zone. On- street parking is allowed on both sides of Appian Way. Parking is limited in certain areas ranging from twenty minutes to four hours. Throughout the Project Area, off-street parking is provided to serve commercial uses. Observations made between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 and 6:00 p.m., on Tuesday and Wednesday, May 8 and 9, 2007, found less than half of the on-street parking spaces occupied with most of the parking occurring in off-street parking lots. Regulatory Setting Contra Costa County has several planning documents that provide policy and procedural guidance for transportation planning in the County. A brief description of key documents is provided below. West County Action Plan 2009 Update Service level standards for Routes of Regional Significance are to be established through a cooperative process among jurisdictions and are to be institutionalized in documents called Action Plans. In 2000, the West Contra Costa County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance was adopted for the West County jurisdictions, and was subsequently updated in August 2009. Traffic Service Objectives (TSOs) were established for these facilities. Table 3.3-5 summarizes the TSOs for 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-31 the routes of regional significance within and near the study area, including El Portal Drive, San Pablo Dam Road, and Appian Way. In addition to TSOs, the Action Plans contain actions that were cooperatively determined by the cities and the County to address the regional impacts of new development. Specific actions identified to help achieve each TSO goal are not reproduced here but can be found in the Action Plan. Table 3.3-5 TRANSPORTATION SERVICE OBJECTIVES Roadway MTSO (2009) El Portal Drive Maintain LOS “D” or better at all signalized intersections on Appian Way. [Measured using the CCTALOS software to analyze peak hour vehicular turning movement counts.] San Pablo Dam Rd Maintain San Pablo Dam Road transit ridership of 3,000 passengers per weekday by 2012. Maintain LOS “E” or better at all signalized intersections along San Pablo Dam Road. [Measured using the CCTALOS software to analyze peak hour vehicular turning movement counts.] Appian Way Maintain LOS “D” or better at all signalized intersections on Appian Way. [Measured using the CCTALOS software to analyze peak hour vehicular turning movement counts.] Source: West County Action Plan 2009 Update, West Contra Costa County Transportation Advisory Committee, August 2009. Congestion Management Program Passage of Proposition 111 in 1990 required each urban county in California to designate a Congestion Management Agency (CMA) to prepare and update a Congestion Management Program (CMP). In the fall of 1990, Contra Costa County and Contra Costa cities designated CCTA as the CMA. The most current CMP was updated by CCTA in 2001. An objective of the CMP is to apply and monitor traffic LOS standards on designated state highways and principal streets, establishing a CMP Road Network. The CMP Road Network is a sub-set of the Routes of Regional Significance. The Contra Costa County CMP roads in the Project Area include San Pablo Dam Road and El Portal Drive. The CMP intersection LOS Standards for these roadways are set forth in Table 3.3-6. Table 3.3-6 CMP LOS INTERSECTION STANDARDS Roadway LOS Intersection Standard El Portal Drive LOS E at most signalized intersections. LOS F is an exception at the intersections of Road 20 and I-80 ramps. San Pablo Dam Rd LOS E at most signalized intersections. LOS F is an exception at the intersections of the I-80 ramps. Source: Contra Costa County Congestion Management Program, Contra Costa County Transportation Authority, October 2001. 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Page 3-32 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Project Conditions Project Description The County Board of Supervisors approved the Downtown El Sobrante Transportation and Land Use Plan (January 2002) as a planning document that establishes a vision for a more livable community in downtown El Sobrante. The downtown is envisioned as a place that invites walking and bicycling both among residents and visitors, while continuing to serve local and regional vehicle traffic. Since then the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development and Public Works Department have been working with the El Sobrante community, specifically through the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Committee, on a scaled-back version of the plan that would bring about less dramatic changes to the area. The scaled-back version of the plan reflects the community’s sentiment that while revitalization of El Sobrante’s commercial area is desirable, and updating corresponding policies in the General Plan are necessary, they are concerned about the intensity of development and impacts associated with this development. They are particularly concerned about traffic impacts associated with the proposed changes to the General Plan. Land Use Element Changes Implementation of the proposed project would include the following changes to the Land Use Element: • For the area on San Pablo Dam Road between El Portal Drive and Appian Way, the project would re-designate the land use from commercial to mixed-use. The new mixed use designation would accommodate the addition of a maximum of 221,920 square feet of office and retail space and a maximum of 204 multi-family units. The actual amount of development that eventually occurs could be less than the maximum amounts set forth. The focal point would be the Village Center within an approximately 25-acre area bounded by Hillcrest Road and Pitt Way. • The mixed-use designation would also extend along selected portions of Appian Way between San Pablo Dam Road and Valley View Road. The added development could reach up-to 180,665 square feet of office and retail space and 286 multi-family units. Based on historic development patterns in El Sobrante and the vicinity, it is projected that 70 percent of the mixed-use designations would be developed with retail space and the remaining 30 percent would be developed with commercial and professional office uses. These assumptions are made for the purpose of analysis. The actual mix of uses within the mixed use areas will depend on development trends and market opportunities over time. Transportation-Circulation Element Changes The proposed project includes two changes to the Transportation-Circulation Element amendments: • The General Plan currently provides that San Pablo Dam Road would be converted to a westbound travel way as part of a one-way couplet through El Sobrante. The Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment would amend this General Plan provision and maintain San Pablo Dam Road as a two-way facility. The couplet concept would no longer be reflected in General Plan maps or diagrams. Instead, the cross-section of San Pablo Dam Road would be retained as a four-lane facility. In addition, streetscape improvements including improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities would be established along San Pablo Dam Road. A new two-lane roadway, based on an extension of Pitt Way to Hillcrest Road, would be included. 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-33 • The General Plan provides that Appian Way would be widened from an existing two-lane configuration to a four-lane facility in the future. The Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment proposes to maintain the existing configuration of two vehicular travel lanes and the bike lanes. Trip Generation Projections Trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation (7th Edition) Manual were used to estimate the trips generated by the residential, retail and office land uses proposed as part of the project. Adjustments were made to the gross total trip generation to account for the benefits of vehicle trip reduction at multi-use facilities and pass-by trips. Appropriate mixed-use reductions were estimated using ITE’s methodology in the Trip Generation Handbook. To account for mixed-use and pass-by trips, a reduction of 15 percent was applied to the gross total trip generation. Survey results show larger reduction factors than 15 percent; however, to be conservative because the specific use is not known at this time, this analysis assumes only 15 percent. This percentage reduction amounts to between a 24 and 29 percent reduction to the shopping related trips, which is within the range for trip generation adjustments by use of pass-by for shopping center (ranges from 0 to 60 percent reduction) as cited in the CCTA Technical Procedures Update. Trip reduction benefits of mixed use are less prevalent in the morning, and the ITE pass-by rates are only provided for the PM peak period. Therefore, the reduction is not assumed for the AM peak hour. It should also be noted that the 15% reduction is consistent with that applied in the March 2003 Downtown El Sobrante Redevelopment Draft EIR. Table 3.3-7 summarizes the resulting trip generation during the AM and PM peak hours, as well as average daily conditions. Table 3.3-7 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Trip Rate Trips Land Use Units In Out Total In Out Total SAN PABLO DAM ROAD CORRIDOR Multi-Family Residential: (Dwelling Units)a AM Peak Hour 204 0.10 0.41 0.51 21 83 104 PM Peak Hour 204 0.40 0.22 0.62 82 44 126 Daily 204 3.36 3.36 6.72 685 685 1370 Retail: (1,000 Square Feet)b AM Peak Hour 155 0.80 0.51 1.31 124 80 204 PM Peak Hour 155 1.12 1.42 2.54 173 221 394 Daily 155 21.51 21.51 43.02 3342 3342 6684 Office: (1,000 Square Feet)c AM Peak Hour 67 1.36 0.19 1.55 91 12 103 PM Peak Hour 67 0.25 1.24 1.49 17 82 99 Daily 67 5.51 5.51 11.02 367 367 734 Multi-Use Reduction:d PM Peak Hour -41 -52 -93 Subtotal AM Peak Hour 236 175 411 PM Peak Hour 231 295 526 Daily 4353 4342 8695 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Page 3-34 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment APPIAN WAY CORRIDOR Multi-Family Residential: (Dwelling Units)a AM Peak Hour 283 0.10 0.41 0.51 29 115 144 PM Peak Hour 283 0.40 0.22 0.62 114 61 175 Daily 283 3.36 3.36 6.72 951 951 1902 Retail: (1,000 Square Feet)b AM Peak Hour 126 0.87 0.56 1.42 110 70 180 PM Peak Hour 126 1.13 1.44 2.57 143 182 325 Daily 126 21.54 21.54 43.08 2724 2724 5448 Office: (1,000 Square Feet)c AM Peak Hour 54 1.36 0.19 1.55 74 10 84 PM Peak Hour 54 0.25 1.24 1.49 14 67 81 Daily 54 5.51 5.51 11.02 298 298 596 Multi-Use Reduction:d PM Peak Hour -41 -47 -88 Subtotal AM Peak Hour 213 196 409 PM Peak Hour 230 263 493 Daily 3932 3926 7858 TOTAL PROJECT TRIPS AM Peak Hour 449 371 820 PM Peak Hour 461 558 1019 Daily 8285 8268 16553 Notes: a Multi-Family Residential total trip generation determined using average trip generation rate for LU 220 (Apartments). The number of trips then calculated by multiplying the trip generation rate by the number of dwelling units. The rates associated with the “Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic” are used when available. b Retail total trip generation determined using regression equations for LU 814 (Specialty Retail). Trip generation rates then calculated by dividing the number of trips by the square footage. Since neither average rate or regression equation is available for the AM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic for Specialty Retail, the AM peak hour trip generation was determined using regression equation for the AM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic for LU 820 (Shopping Center) which is identified in the ITE Trip Generation Manual as a related use and is based on a much larger sample size including neighborhood and community shopping centers. c Office total trip generation determined using average trip generation rate for LU 710 (General Office). The number of trips then calculated by multiplying the trip generation rate by the number of dwelling units. The rates associated with the “Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic” are used when available. d A reduction of 15 percent has been applied to all uses during the PM peak hour to account for the trip reduction benefit of a multi-use facility. Daily total number of trips adjusted lower by the PM peak hour reductions. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition. As shown in Table 3.3-7, approximately 8,695 daily trips are expected with the San Pablo Dam Road development and about 7,858 daily trips are expected with the Appian Way development. During the morning peak hour, a total of about 820 trips would be generated by both sites; and during the evening peak hour, a total of about 1,020 trips would be generated. Trip Distribution and Assignment Distribution and assignment of project trips was estimated using the CCTA Model select zone for traffic analysis zones (TAZs) in El Sobrante. The select zone results were used to estimate distribution patterns to local gateways. 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-35 Table 3.3-8, Project Trip Distribution, and Figure 3.3-4 summarize the various distribution patterns. Using the percentages shown in Table 3.3-8, project trips were assigned to the road network based on their location. The project trips were added to the existing counts for existing plus project conditions. The proposed roadway system with the project is shown in Figure 3.3-5. The lane configuration on San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way remain unchanged, but a new roadway connection is provided between Pitt Way and Hillcrest Road. The Existing Plus Project traffic volumes are shown in Figure 3.3-6. Table 3.3-8 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION Gateway AM Distribution PM Distribution East of San Pablo Dam Rd and Appian Way Intersection 15% 15% East of Appian Way and Valley View Rd Intersection 8% 9% West of Appian Way and Valley View Rd Intersection 24% 25% North of El Portal Dr and San Pablo Dam Rd Intersection 27% 21% West of El Portal Dr and San Pablo Dam Rd Intersection 26% 30% Traffic Analysis Analysis Scenarios The traffic analysis was performed in a manner consistent with the Technical Procedures, Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), July 19, 2006. The General Plan Amendment “Project” changes the ultimate land uses on selected blocks within the study area (see Figure 3.3-1). The analysis identifies project impacts on the surrounding transportation network under the following scenarios: • Existing Conditions: This scenario reflects transportation conditions in 2007. • Existing Plus Project Conditions: This scenario represents near-term transportation conditions with the General Plan Amendment. • Cumulative Conditions: This scenario represents long-term forecasted conditions with the General Plan Amendment (GPA). It considers future transportation conditions based on GPA growth through the year 2030 within Contra Costa County including the Project Area. Traffic Forecasting The cumulative scenario considers existing traffic, future background (through) traffic due to regional growth, traffic generated by development likely to occur in the Project Area, and project (GPA) traffic. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Travel Demand Model 6 was utilized to extract the base and future traffic volumes for year 2000 and 2030, respectively. The 2030 land use and socio-economic data were from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections 2003. Year 2000 and 2030 model volumes were used to develop 6 The forecasts were developed using the CCTA Model, version 4.8. 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Page 3-36 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment . 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-37 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Page 3-38 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-39 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Page 3-40 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment adjusted 2030 intersection turning movement volumes using the “Furness” process described in the CCTA Technical Procedures. For the 2030 roadway volumes, the increment in AM and PM peak hour volumes from 2000 to 2030 was applied to the existing counts. The origin-destination matrix estimation (ODME) balancing procedures were not applied for this study. Project traffic is also included within the cumulative scenario and will be discussed further in the next section. Existing Plus Project Levels of Service The CCTALOS methodology was applied, producing the LOS results presented in Table 3.3-9 for Existing Plus Project conditions. Addition of project traffic would increase the volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio at all the study intersections. However, with the addition of project traffic to existing conditions, all intersections would operate at LOS D or better. Table 3.3-9 EXISTING VERSUS EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Existing (v/c ratio / LOS) Existing + Project (v/c ratio / LOS) Study Intersection AM PM AM PM 1. San Pablo Dam Rd / El Portal Dr 0.65 / B 0.65 / B 0.74 / C 0.82 / D 2. San Pablo Dam Rd / Hillcrest Rd 0.49 / A 0.53 / A 0.54 / A 0.63 / B 3. San Pablo Dam Rd / Appian Way 0.72 / C 0.60 / A 0.84 / D 0.76 / C 4. El Portal Dr / I-80 WB Ramps 0.42 / A 0.64 / B 0.45 / A 0.68 / C 5. El Portal Dr / I-80 EB Ramps 0.39 / A 0.69 / B 0.43 / A 0.75 / C 6. Appian Way / Valley View Dr a 0.51 / A 0.58 / A 0.54 / A 0.64 / B Note: a Although this intersection is striped as two through lanes and one right-turn pocket in the southbound direction, it operates and was therefore analyzed as one through lane and one right- turn lane. This assumption is based on the approaching lanes and their geometry, given right approaching lane is relatively short in length. Source: CCTALOS based on Technical Procedures, CCTA, July 19, 2006. With the addition of project traffic, the peak hour volumes on the roadways would increase. The resulting volumes and roadway LOS are shown in Table 3.3-10. With the project, roadway LOS drops to LOS F on San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way, and to LOS E during the PM peak hour on El Portal Drive. 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-41 Table 3.3-10 EXISTING VERSUS EXISTING PLUS PROJECT ROAD SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE Study Intersection Existing Volume / LOS (Peak Direction) Existing + Project Volume / LOS (Peak Direction) AM PM AM PM 1. San Pablo Dam Rda 995 / C (EB) 1537 / D (WB) 1525 / D (EB) 1153 / C (WB) 1233 / D (EB) 1711 / F (WB) 1878 / F (EB) 1580 / E (WB) 2. Appian Wayb 377 / C (NB) 668 / D (SB) 623 / D (NB) 486 / D (SB) 578 / D (NB) 865 / F (SB) 976 / F (NB) 814 / E (SB) 3. El Portal Drive 453 / C (NB) 506 / D (SB) 616 / D (NB) 563 / D (SB) 531 / D (NB) 635 / D (SB) 787 / E (NB) 708 / D (SB) Notes: a With existing CLASS IV functional category b With existing geometry, 1-lane per direction Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000. Transit Service The proposed General Plan Amendment is likely to generate new demand for transit service. The Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment includes several measures that seek to improve transit ridership. These include development of mixed-use neighborhoods that are pedestrian oriented with improved sidewalks and/or bus stop bays where possible. The goal of these proposals for future improvements is to create an environment that encourages transit use and provides greater opportunity for the community to use public transit. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities The proposed Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment is likely to increase pedestrian and bicycle activity in El Sobrante. Because the General Plan Amendment will affect San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way, more protected pedestrian crossings of these roadways may occur. Implementation of the General Plan Amendment will not directly disrupt, interfere or conflict with existing or planned bicycle and pedestrian facilities, but, rather, will enhance them with the implementation of pedestrian and bicycle improvements. Although the exact alignment of such improvements is not known at this time, the General Plan Amendment envisions improved sidewalks and cycling facilities, and pedestrian-oriented ground floor commercial uses, which will enhance the safety and travel experience for pedestrians and bicyclists. Without the widening of Appian Way to four-lanes, the pedestrian crossings would be shorter with the two-lane configuration. Parking Although specific development proposal are not known at this time, the new land use designations along San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way are likely to generate new parking demand. The extent of such demand, and the location of uses generating such demand, cannot be determined at this time, and would be identified and evaluated on a project-specific basis. . 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Page 3-42 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Cumulative Traffic Conditions Trip Generation Projections For the cumulative analysis, the trip generation is handled internally in Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) traffic demand model. The number of households and jobs were entered in the land use database to estimate the trips generated by the residential, retail and office land uses proposed as part of the project. The CCTA model predefines employment rate to 3.32 employees per 1,000 office-square-feet and 1.62 employees per 1,000 retail square feet. The commercial square feet projected were divided into 30% for office and 70% for retail. According to the CCTA model, office employment is accounted in other employment (OTHEMP), while the retail employment is accounted as RETEMP. The dwelling units were assumed to be multi-family units. The total population was based on the existing household population rate per Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) in the CCTA model. Since the boundaries of the GPA fall within several TAZs and the model already assumes some growth in these TAZs, a detailed review of the land uses was conducted to estimate what portion of the growth was attributed to the GPA and what portion was outside of the GPA but within the TAZ. Table 3.3-11 on page 3-Error! Bookmark not defined. shows the total household and employment numbers for each CCTA TAZ within the GPA area. The trip generation process is handled by the CCTA model including the daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips. Figure 3.3-7 illustrates the model zones listed above. Trip Distribution and Assignment Trip distribution and assignment were done by using the CCTA Decennial Model with Projections 2003 Land Use to distribute and assign traffic based on the revised land use. Figure 3.3-8 shows the cumulative intersection traffic volumes. These volumes represent the adjusted volumes that use the increment from the model to adjust the existing counts as described in the Technical Procedures’ Furness adjustment. Table 3.3-11 MODEL LAND USE DATA 2000 Land Use Total GPA Project Land Use Total CCTA TAZ Year 2000 MF Households Year 2000 Total Employment Year 2030 MF Households Year 2030 Total Employment 10185 392 184 596 712 10186 531 603 341 411 10187 389 268 403 285 10189 898 508 957 621 10192 898 311 1,033 311 10193 577 174 988 175 10197 900 312 1,011 312 Total 4,585 2,360 5,329 2,827 MF – Multi-family Households. 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-43 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Page 3-44 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-45 Cumulative Levels of Service The CCTALOS methodology was applied to the cumulative scenario. Table 3.3-12 summarizes the LOS results of 2030 General Plan Amendment (GPA) scenario. The GPA scenario assumes no roadway modification. Both San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way will operate under existing roadway condition, 4-lane and 2-lane for San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way, respectively. Table 3.3-12 CUMULATIVE INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE SUMMARY Study Intersection 2030 with GPAa (v/c ratio / LOS) AM PM 1. San Pablo Dam Rd / El Portal Dr 1.05 / F 0.99 / E 2. San Pablo Dam Rd / Hillcrest Rd 0.69 / B 0.85 / D 3. San Pablo Dam Rd / Appian Way 1.05 / F 1.03 / F 4. El Portal Dr / I-80 WB Ramps 0.61 / B 0.96 / E 5. El Portal Dr / I-80 EB Ramps 0.58 / A 0.77 / C 6. Appian Way / Valley View Dr b 0.66 / B 0.86 / D Notes: a Assumes 2-lane Appian Way. b Although this intersection is striped as two through lanes and one right-turn pocket in the southbound direction, it operates and was therefore analyzed as one through lane and one right-turn lane. This assumption is based on the approaching lanes and their geometry, given right approaching lane is relatively short in length. Source: CCTALOS based on Technical Procedures, CCTA, July 19, 2006. The addition of project traffic would contribute to congestion at several study intersections under Cumulative conditions. Traffic volumes would become 1% to 5% higher than capacity. By Year 2030, two intersections would operate at LOS F. • Operations at San Pablo Dam Road / El Portal Drive would deteriorate to LOS F by 2030 during the AM peak hour. • Operations at San Pablo Dam Road / Appian Way would deteriorate to LOS F by 2030 during both AM and PM peak hours. Future road segment levels of service are shown in Table 3.3-13. Under cumulative conditions, all three roadways would operate at LOS F conditions during one or both of the peak hours. As noted above, the trip generation, trip distribution, and assignment were conducted using the CCTA Decennial Model, which in some cases results in directional roadway volumes under the Cumulative condition as shown in Table 3.3-13 that are lower than the Existing Plus Project condition shown in Table 3.3-10. This difference can be attributed to the structure of the countywide model, including trip generation based on household survey data for the region rather than standard ITE rates, and mode choice consistent with the MTC model. 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Page 3-46 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Table 3.3-13 CUMULATIVE ROAD SEGMENT LEVELS OF SERVICE Study Intersection 2030 with Project (GPA) Volume / LOS (Peak Direction) AM PM 1. San Pablo Dam Rda 1159 / C (EB) 2195 / F (WB) 2506 / F (EB) 1536 / D (WB) 2. Appian Wayb 717 / D (NB) 908 / F (SB) 1099 / F (NB) 968 / F (SB) 3. El Portal Drive 768 / D (NB) 514 / D (SB) 931 / F (NB) 887 / F (SB) Notes: a Class IV, 3-3 couplet for 2030 No Project; Class IV, 2 lanes each way for 2030 with Project. b Class III, 2 lanes each way for 2030 No Project; Class IV, 1 lane each way for 2030 with Project. Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000. Under GPA, San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way would operate at LOS F during AM and PM peak hours by 2030. Furthermore, LOS F on El Portal Drive would occur by 2030 during the PM peak hour. Delay Index Delay Index is calculated based on the total free flow travel time and total average travel time, on selected links in the CCTA TransCAD travel demand model, during peak hours. ilink of timeflow free FFT i,link of time travelaverage t Index,Delay DI where DI i i = = = =∑ ∑ i i i i FFT t The delay index was determined for San Pablo Dam Road between I-80 and State Route 24 in Orinda. The results are shown in Table 3.3-14. Table 3.3-14 PEAK HOUR ROADWAY TRAVEL SPEEDS AND DELAY INDEX TSO Average Speed (mph) Delay Index San Pablo Dam Rd (I-80 to SR 24) TSO EB WB TSO EB WB 2030 Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Roadway 15 34.33 25.76 2 1.17 1.49 PM Peak Hour Roadway 15 23.17 34.29 2 1.72 1.16 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-47 For San Pablo Dam Road, both average speed and delay index satisfy the Traffic Service Objectives (TSO) for both AM and PM Peak Hours. Cumulative No Project Comparison The cumulative conditions with the project traffic were compared to the cumulative impacts of the current General Plan. The land use inputs to the CCTA model were prepared for the current General Plan using the same approach as was applied to the GPA. The General Plan household and total employment is compared to the GPA land uses in Table 3.3-15. While the total number of households does not change dramatically, the total employment for the GPA represents a decrease of almost 5,000 jobs when compared to the buildout of the Project Area under the existing General Plan. Table 3.3-15 MODEL LAND USE COMPARISON General Plan Land Use Total GPA Project Land Use Total CCTA TAZ Year 2030 MF Households Year 2030 Total Employment Year 2030 MF Households Year 2030 Total Employment 10185 491 2182 596 712 10186 341 739 341 411 10187 483 622 403 285 10189 1236 1733 957 621 10192 921 1106 1033 311 10193 1021 551 988 175 10197 1092 702 1011 312 Total 5586 7636 5329 2827 MF – Multi-family Households. The current General Plan includes the widening of Appian Way to four lanes and the three-lane couplet on San Pablo Dam Road between El Portal and Appian Way. The General Plan land uses are assigned to the roadway network and the differences in volumes were compared to the GPA volumes as shown in Table 3.3-16. These volumes are raw model volumes, which have not been adjusted. The GPA volumes shown here are not directly comparable to those shown earlier in Table 3.3-13. However, the model volumes show the difference between the two forecasts. 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Page 3-48 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Table 3.3-16 VOLUME AND VOLUME-TO-CAPACITY RATIO COMPARISON (2030 GP and 2030 GPA) 2030 GP Roadway Volume / Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c) AM PM 1. San Pablo Dam Rd 1154 / 0.40 (EB) 3503 / 1.08 (WB) 3274 / 1.06 (EB) 1862 / 0.65 (WB) 3 lanes 3 lanes 3 lanes 3 lanes 2. Appian Way 603 / 0.32 (NB) 1745 / 0.78 (SB) 1912 / 0.94 (NB) 1277 / 0.67 (SB) 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 3. El Portal Drive 1305 / 1.45 (NB) 375 / 0.42 (SB) 716 / 0.80 (NB) 1480 / 1.64 (SB) 1 lane 1 lane 1 lane 1 lane 2030 GPA Roadway Volume / Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c) AM PM 1. San Pablo Dam Rd 853 / 0.45 (EB) 2680 / 1.26 (WB) 2816 / 1.28 (EB) 1326 / 0.70 (WB) 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2. Appian Way 513 / 0.54 (NB) 883 / 0.80 (SB) 1301 / 1.11 (NB) 851 / 0.90 (SB) 1 lane 1 lane 1 lane 1 lane 3. El Portal Drive 946 / 1.05 (NB) 529 / 0.59 (SB) 703 / 0.78 (NB) 979 / 1.09 (SB) 1 lane 1 lane 1 lane 1 lane With the additional lane of capacity in each direction on San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way as part of the current General Plan, the volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) decreases, but the peak hour volumes increase dramatically. This increase can be attributed to both the higher development with the General Plan, but also to additional freeway traffic avoiding the congestion on I-80. Traffic Diversion Based on the select link analysis conducted in December 2005 as part of Supplemental Transportation Analysis for El Sobrante General Plan, the model forecasts found that the widening of San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way resulted in diversion off the freeway. The widenings of San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way resulted in most changes in trips for sub-regional traffic to and from Pinole and Richmond, but also regional traffic to and from Solano and Alameda counties as well as San Francisco. The benefits of the widening were shown to be very limited for local trips with origins or destinations within El Sobrante. 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-49 However, due to the added capacity on San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way, fewer trips would use Hilltop Drive and Richmond Parkway through the residential neighborhoods of El Sobrante. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Evaluation Criteria Traffic Based on CEQA guidelines, a traffic increase from the project or from cumulative development is considered to be a significant impact if the associated changes to the transportation system: • Conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located; or • Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. These general CEQA provisions provide the basis for the specific criteria that have been applied in this EIR to evaluate the significance of project-related traffic increases. Based on the Contra Costa County General Plan and the TSOs outlined in the West County Action Plan 2000 Update (West Contra Costa County Transportation Advisory Committee, July 2000), the following standards of significance are set forth: • A significant impact occurs if LOS E cannot be maintained at the intersections of San Pablo Dam Road / El Portal Drive, San Pablo Dam Road / Hillcrest Road, San Pablo Dam Road / Appian Way, El Portal Drive / I-80 WB Ramps, El Portal Drive / I-80 EB Ramps, and Appian Way / Valley View Road. • A significant impact occurs if LOS D cannot be maintained on all segments of El Portal Drive. • A significant impact occurs if LOS E cannot be maintained on all segments of Appian Way. • A significant impact occurs if Delay Index of 2.0 cannot be maintained on San Pablo Dam Road or maximum wait time of no more than one cycle length for drivers on side streets of San Pablo Dam Road. Alternative Transportation Modes Based on CEQA guidelines, an impact on alternative transportation modes from the project or from cumulative development is considered to be significant if associated changes to the transportation system result in: • Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation modes (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). The project is solely responsible for the mitigation of an impact thus created; or • Insufficient capacity of alternative transportation modes that will result in increased use of the automobile or will discourage use of alternative modes of transportation. The project is solely or partially responsible for the mitigation of such impact depending on conditions that would exist in the absence of the project. 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Page 3-50 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Based on the Contra Costa County General Plan and the TSOs outlined in the West County Action Plan 2000 Update (West Contra Costa County Transportation Advisory Committee, July 2000), the following standards of significance are applied: • A significant impact occurs if the project directly disrupts, interferes, or conflicts with existing or planned alternative transportation services or facilities, discouraging the use of alternative modes. • A significant impact occurs if there is an increase in the number of conflict points between motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. • A significant impact occurs if there is insufficient provision for pedestrian and bicyclist facilities to accommodate access to community facilities, residential areas, business districts, and other points of public interest. Parking Based on CEQA guidelines, a parking impact from the project or from cumulative development is considered to be significant if the associated changes to the transportation system result in: • Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site that may cause illegal parking; or, • Conflicts with parking design standards. The project is solely responsible for the mitigation of an impact thus created. No specific County objectives are set forth for parking; however, based on CEQA guidelines, the following standard of significance is set forth for the Project Area: • A significant impact occurs if the redeveloped parcels cannot accommodate parking demand after development or if the parking does not meet design standards. CMP Compliance Land Use Evaluation Program The CCTA model was used to forecast cumulative conditions. The land use inputs for the study area and surrounding zones in West County were reviewed and updated to reflect the latest development project lists from the County and the City of Richmond. The future roadway network was reviewed and updated. Model runs were prepared for the Year 2000 Validation and Year 2030 Forecast. LOS Standards CMP LOS standard were used to develop the significance criteria and intersection and roadway LOS were analyzed. The CMP LOS intersection standard of LOS E at most signalized intersections, except at intersections that were already operating at LOS F at program inception. The following intersections would be non-compliant in 2030: • San Pablo Dam Road / El Portal Drive, and • San Pablo Dam Road / Appian Way. 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-51 Traffic Impacts and Mitigations Intersection Levels of Service IMPACT 3.3-1: The General Plan Amendment would increase volumes at studied intersections. Discussion and Conclusion: The traffic generated by development assumptions under the Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment would result in, and contribute to future unacceptable operations at the intersections of: San Pablo Dam Road/El Portal Drive and San Pablo Dam Road/Appian Way. These intersections will operate at LOS F under Cumulative conditions, which exceed the threshold of significance. The impact of future development, including that under the General Plan Amendment, occurs at some point when the levels of service at these two intersections are expected to violate the Congestion Management Program standards discussed above. If and when monitoring of traffic at these intersections reveals that a deficiency has occurred, the County will work with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to develop a deficiency plan as required by the Congestion Management Program (2001 Update to the Contra Costa Congestion Management Program, Chapter 8, Deficiency Planning, page 77). These efforts do not provide a sufficient level of certainty with regard to the funding of design and implementation costs to mitigate the potential impact. This impact is considered potentially significant. The following measures would lessen the severity of the identified impacts: □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.3-1A: Widen westbound San Pablo Dam Road approaching El Portal Drive to include an exclusive right-turn pocket. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.3-1B: Widen westbound San Pablo Dam Road approaching Appian Way to include an exclusive right-turn pocket. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-1A would improve future intersection operations to LOS E during the morning peak hour; however, future intersection operations would be LOS D during the evening peak hour. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-1B would improve future intersection operations to LOS E during the morning and evening peak hours. It should be noted that the identified mitigation measure at San Pablo Dam Road and El Portal Drive might need additional right-of-way on the northeast corner of this intersection. In addition, the identified mitigation measure at the intersection of San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way may require widening into the San Pablo Creek. Additional engineering evaluation would be required to ensure that the identified mitigations could be implemented. With the delays at the intersection of San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way, this intersection serves to meter traffic coming into downtown El Sobrante from the east. By adjusting the signal timing at this intersection, the County could slow traffic and control the number of vehicles entering downtown El Sobrante on either San Pablo Dam Road or Appian Way. The operations of this intersection would 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Page 3-52 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment affect the queue on San Pablo Dam Road, which has the potential to back-up into upstream intersections. Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level. Table 3.3-17 CUMULATIVE INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE – WITH MITIGATIONS Study Intersection 2030 with GPA1 – Mitigated (v/c ratio / LOS) AM PM 1. San Pablo Dam Rd / El Portal Dr 0.93 / E 0.88 / D 3. San Pablo Dam Rd / Appian Way 0.92 / E 0.98 / E Note: 1 Assumes 2-lane Appian Way. 2 Although this intersection is striped as two through lanes and one right-turn pocket in the southbound direction, it operates and was therefore analyzed as one through lane and one right-turn lane. This assumption is based on the approaching lanes and their geometry, given right approaching lane is relatively short in length. Source: CCTALOS based on Technical Procedures, CCTA, July 19, 2006. Roadway Segment Level of Service IMPACT 3.3-2: The General Plan Amendment would contribute to unacceptable levels of service on San Pablo Dam Road, Appian Way and El Portal Drive. Discussion and Conclusion: The traffic generated by development assumptions under the General Plan Amendment would result in and contribute to future unacceptable operations on El Portal Drive, Appian Way, and San Pablo Dam Road. These roadway segments will operate at LOS E or F under Existing Plus Project and/or Cumulative conditions. This impact is considered potentially significant. As an alternative to constructing the San Pablo Dam Road couplet and the widening of Appian Way, which result in community disruption, right-of-way acquisition, and traffic diversion from the congested I-80 freeway, the following measures would lessen the severity of the identified impacts: □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.3-2A: To the extent feasible, provide signal coordination along the corridors where signals are closely spaced. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.3-2B: Modify signal timings to establish a traffic gateway at key signalized intersection(s) to meter traffic entering the El Sobrante area, and continuously monitor and evaluate traffic flows and patterns both upstream and downstream from these intersections. 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-53 □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.3-2C: Minimize additional driveways during development review process. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.3-2D: Implement streetscape improvements along San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way to support and encourage alternative modes of transportation and, as necessary, establish a funding mechanism for the ongoing maintenance of these streetscape improvements. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-2A would control the flow of traffic along the main corridors, while implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-2B would meter traffic into the El Sobrante area. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-2C would minimize additional driveways which result in mid-block vehicular turning movements that would adversely affect the through traffic stream as well as pedestrian environment. In addition, adequate access and facilities for pedestrians and cyclists will be planned at the development sites. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-2D is intended to improve the appearance and accessibility of these facilities to support walking, bicycling, and the use of public transit. While these measures would improve the flow of traffic on these corridors, it is difficult to determine whether or not the aforementioned improvements would be sufficient to fully mitigate identified impacts without further detailed traffic operations analyses, particularly when evaluating the 2030 traffic conditions, and assumptions on the effectiveness of the design measures. Therefore, the impact on the roadway segment LOS is considered to be a significant and unavoidable impact. Commuter Traffic Diversion IMPACT 3.3-3: The General Plan Amendment would contribute to diversion of commuter traffic onto local streets within the Project Area. Discussion and Conclusion: Future congestion on San Pablo Dam Road, Appian Way and El Portal Drive would result in diverting some cut-through traffic on the local streets of Hilltop Drive neighborhood. The cut-through traffic on local streets is considered to be a potentially significant impact. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.3-3: To address the neighborhood cut-through traffic, the County shall work with the local community and adjoining cities to develop a comprehensive Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure: A comprehensive Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program for the Hilltop Drive neighborhood may include measures to reduce speeds and restrict access to reduce diversion into the neighborhood residential streets. 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Page 3-54 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Implementation of the design and operational improvements on the major corridors (described under Impact 3.3-2) combined with the establishment of a traffic calming program on the local streets would eliminate/minimize diversion of commuter traffic onto the residential community to a less-than- significant level. Traffic Service Objectives (TSOs) 7 IMPACT 3.3-4: Under 2030 cumulative conditions with the General Plan Amendment, the average speeds and delay index on San Pablo Dam Road would not exceed the traffic service objective (TSO). Discussion and Conclusion: The average speeds and delay index were determined for San Pablo Dam Road between I-80 and State Route 24 in Orinda. With TSOs of 2.0 for delay index and 15 mph for average speeds for San Pablo Dam Road, both average speed and delay index satisfy the Traffic Service Objectives (TSO) for both AM and PM Peak Hours. The impact of the GPA on the delay index is considered to be a less-than-significant impact. □ Mitigation Measure: No mitigation measures are required. Alternative Modes Impacts and Mitigations Transit Services IMPACT 3.3-5: The General Plan Amendment may generate new demand for transit services and facilities. Discussion and Conclusion: The proposed General Plan Amendment may generate increased demand for transit service. Increased ridership on bus routes may exceed the capacity of the existing and planned transit system, despite the current low ridership along these corridors. The GPA is intended to increase transit ridership by adding mixed-use developments along the corridor, improving access to bus stops, and providing amenities at bus stops. With the mix of residential and commercial development along San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way, the GPA provides an opportunity for future transit service. For instance, AC Transit Route L currently does not extend east of El Portal and the former Transbay service along San Pablo Dam Road was 7 The TSO for side street wait time was not applied. The side street wait time would depend upon the actual signal cycle length and the signal timing, which would require more detailed intersection operations analysis than is typically required of planning-level study. Specifically, the CCTALOS methodology required for the intersection LOS analysis is capacity-based and does not include the signal timing. Assumptions on signal timing, phasing, and cycle length would be required to prepare the more detailed operations analysis using 2030 forecasts of future demand that do not account for intersection operations and capacity constraints. 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-55 discontinued. The change in developments in Downtown El Sobrante combined with the congestion along I-80 provide an opportunity for increased transit services. This impact is considered potentially significant. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.3-5: The County shall consult with AC Transit prior to the approval of individual projects that may significantly increase transit patronage. Increases in transit demand generated by individual projects shall be assessed at the time application is made. Individual projects shall provide mitigation to accommodate increases in transit demand, if necessary. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure: Implementation of the above mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Pedestrian Activity IMPACT 3.3-6: The General Plan Amendment is intended to enhance and improve the pedestrian connectivity. Discussion and Conclusion: The proposed General Plan Amendment could be viewed as generating additional conflicts between motor vehicles on the one hand, and pedestrians and bicyclists on the other. The baseline for environmental review, however, is the existing physical environment, and the conditions to which motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists are now exposed. The existing conditions in the area are not conducive to pedestrian and bicycle travel. Motor vehicle traffic on San Pablo Dam Road is concentrated, moves at relatively high speed, and allows little or no room for safe bicycle travel. Appian Way has few amenities for bicycle travel. The existing development along both San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way provide few amenities that would encourage pedestrians to visit or stay. Movement of motor vehicles to and from businesses along both San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way currently creates conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists. The proposed General Plan Amendment seeks to promote pedestrian and bicycle facilities and access. It also seeks to encourage development and infrastructure design that would remove or reduce conflicts with motor vehicles. Strategies to reduce the speed of motor vehicle traffic include the installation of medians, construction of the roadway connecting Pitt Way to Hillcrest Road, and potential installation of marked bicycle lanes where feasible. The proposed General Plan Amendment would include specific policies and measures to provide pedestrian pathways and sidewalks that connect existing and proposed developments with the area parks, public gathering places, and the El Sobrante Public Library. Contra Costa County General Plan Policy 5-25 calls for a system of safe and convenient pedestrian ways as a means of connecting community facilities, residential areas, and business districts. This impact is considered beneficial. □ Mitigation Measure: No mitigation measures are required. 3.3 TRANSPORTATION Page 3-56 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Bicycle Access IMPACT 3.3-7: The General Plan Amendment may generate new bicycle activity within the area. Discussion and Conclusion: While the proposed General Plan Amendment would not directly disrupt, interfere, or conflict with existing or planned bicycle facilities, the changes to the General Plan may result in greater bicycle activity within the area. This in turn could result in increased conflict points between motorists and bicyclists. Contra Costa County General Plan Policy 5-13 requires physical conflicts between vehicular traffic and bicyclists to be minimized. This impact is considered significant. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.3-7: The County shall require integration of bicycle facilities within the area. When individual development applications are received, the County shall ensure that adequate bicycle parking, access facilities, and signage are provided and oriented to encourage bicycle travel. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 3.3-7 would ensure that planning for bicycle access and travel would occur in connection with the review of individual project applications in the area as they are submitted. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. It should also be noted that special considerations (through proper design, signal operation, etc.) will be taken when possibly implementing the recommended westbound right-turn lane on San Pablo Dam Road at each of Appian Way and El Portal Drive. Such considerations will be taken to minimize any potential impacts of added roadway capacity on the pedestrian and bicycle movements. Parking Impacts IMPACT 3.3-8: The General Plan Amendment will generate new parking demand associated with development within the area. Discussion and Conclusion: Mixed use designations that provide for commercial and multiple family housing developments within the area will generate new parking demand that may exceed existing parking supply. This impact is considered potentially significant. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.3-8: When individual development applications are received, the County shall apply General Plan Policy 5-19 which requires individual projects to provide adequate off-street parking to serve anticipated parking demand generated by the site, or contribute funds, and/or institute programs to reduce parking demand. The possibility of shared parking because of the complementary nature of residential and commercial uses shall be considered when assessing appropriate parking supply. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure: Implementation of the above mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. 3.4 NOISE Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-57 3.4 NOISE Ambient noise in the planning area of the Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment is dominated by roadway traffic on San Pablo Dam Road, Appian Way, and other local arterial streets, commercial activities, and general neighborhood activities. This section describes existing noise conditions in the planning area, describes criteria for determining the significance of noise impacts, and estimates the likely noise that would result from activities associated with implementation of the General Plan Amendment. Where appropriate, mitigation measures are recommended to reduce project-related noise impacts to a less-than-significant level. Environmental Setting Acoustical Terminology Noise is often described as unwanted sound. Sound is defined as any pressure variation in air that the human ear can detect. If the pressure variations occur frequently enough (at least 20 times per second), they can be heard and hence are called sound. The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound, and is expressed as cycles per second, called Hertz (Hz). Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a very large and awkward range of numbers. To avoid this, the decibel scale was devised. The decibel scale uses the hearing threshold (20 micropascals), as a point of reference, defined as 0 dB. Other sound pressures are then compared to the reference pressure, and the logarithm is taken to keep the numbers in a practical range. The decibel scale allows a million-fold increase in pressure to be expressed as 120 dB, and changes in levels (dB) correspond closely to human perception of relative loudness. Table 3.4-1 provides examples of typical maximum noise levels. The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent upon many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental noise levels, perception of loudness is relatively predictable, and can be approximated by the A-weighing network. There is a strong correlation between A-weighted sound levels (expressed as dBA) and the way the human ear perceives noise. For this reason, the A-weighted sound level has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment. All noise levels reported in this section are in terms of A-weighted levels. Community noise is commonly described in terms of the "ambient" noise level, which is defined as the all-encompassing noise level associated with a given noise environment. A common statistical tool to measure the ambient noise level is the average, or equivalent, sound level (Leq), which corresponds to a steady-state A-weighted sound level containing the 3.4 NOISE Page 3-58 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Table 3.4-1 Typical A-Weighted Maximum Sound Levels of Common Noise Sources Decibels Description 130 Threshold of pain 120 Jet aircraft take-off at 100 feet 110 Riveting machine at operators position 100 Shot-gun at 200 feet 90 Bulldozer at 50 feet 80 Diesel locomotive at 300 feet 70 Commercial jet aircraft interior during flight 60 Normal conversation speech at 5-10 feet 50 Open office background level 40 Background level within a residence 30 Soft whisper at 2 feet 20 Interior of recording studio Source: Bollard & Brennan, Inc. same total energy as a time-varying signal over a given time period (usually one hour). The Leq is the foundation of the composite noise descriptor, Ldn, and shows very good correlation with community response to noise. The Day-night Average Level (Ldn) is based upon the average noise level over a 24-hour day, with a +10 decibel weighing applied to noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours. The nighttime penalty is based upon the assumption that people react to nighttime noise exposures as though they were twice as loud as daytime exposures. Because Ldn represents a 24-hour average, it tends to disguise short-term variations in the noise environment. Table 3.4-2 provides a listing of acoustical terminology. Existing Traffic Noise Levels Traffic noise levels in the downtown planning area have been quantified using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA RD-77-108) traffic noise prediction model. Direct inputs to the model include traffic volumes provided by the project traffic consultant,8 day/night distribution of traffic volumes, speeds and truck mix percentages. Table 3.4-3 shows the results of the existing traffic noise level calculations. 8 Dowling Associates, Inc. 2007. Final Transportation Analysis for Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment. October 18. 3.4 NOISE Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-59 Table 3.4-2 ACOUSTIC TERMINOLOGY Term Definitions Decibel, dB A unit of measurement that denotes the ratio between two quantities proportional to power; the number of decibels is 10 times the logarithm (to the base 10) of this ratio. Frequency, Hz Of a function periodic in time, the number of times that the quantity repeats itself in one second (i.e., number of cycles per second). A-Weighted Sound Level, dBA The sound level obtained by use of A-weighting. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. All sound levels in this report are A-weighted, unless reported otherwise. L01, L10, L50, L90 The fast A-weighted noise levels equaled or exceeded by a fluctuating sound level for 1 percent, 10 percent, 50 percent, and 90 percent of a stated time period. Equivalent Continuous Noise Level, Leq The level of a steady sound that, in a stated time period and at a stated location, has the same A-weighted sound energy as the time varying sound. Community Noise Equivalent Level, CNEL The 24-hour A-weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained after the addition of five decibels to sound levels occurring in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and after the addition of 10 decibels to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Day/Night Noise Level, Ldn The 24-hour A-weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained after the addition of 10 decibels to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Lmax, Lmin The maximum and minimum A-weighted sound levels measured on a sound level meter, during a designated time interval, using fast time averaging. Ambient Noise Level The all encompassing noise associated with a given environment at a specified time, usually a composite of sound from many sources at many directions, near and far; no particular sound is dominant. Intrusive The noise that intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level. Source: Harris, C.M. 1998. Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control. 3.4 NOISE Page 3-60 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Table 3.4-3 FHWA TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION RESULTS FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS DOWNTOWN EL SOBRANTE Traffic Noise Levels (dB Ldn) 100 feet from Centerline Existing Conditions Centerline to Ldn Contours (feet) Roadway/Segment Existing Conditions 65 dB Ldn 60 dB Ldn San Pablo Dam Road West of El Portal Dr El Portal Dr to Hillcrest Rd Hillcrest Rd to Appian Way East of Appian Way 62.7 60.5 60.4 64.6 78 58 57 101 161 115 113 212 Appian Way San Pablo Dam Rd to Valley View Rd East of Valley View Rd 59.4 62.5 < 50 a 79 107 170 El Portal Drive North of San Pablo Dam Rd 56.7 < 50 68 Hillcrest Road South of San Pablo Dam Rd 48.7 < 50 < 50 La Colina Road South of San Pablo Dam Rd 46.1 < 50 < 50 Valley View Road East of Appian Way 61.0 61 124 Note: a Traffic noise within 50 feet of the roadway centerline requires site-specific analysis. Source: LSA Associates, Inc., March 2009. The traffic modeling results show that existing traffic noise levels along modeled roadway segments in the downtown plan area range from 46.1 dB to 64.6 dB Ldn at 100 feet from the centerline. (Refer to Appendix C.) Regulatory Setting Contra Costa County General Plan Noise Element Criteria Section 11.8 of the Contra Costa County General Plan Noise Element establishes Goals, Policies, and Land Use Compatibility Criteria for new developments. Figure 3.4-1, Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments, corresponds to Figure 11-6 of the General Plan Noise Element, and shows the land use compatibility criteria for Contra Costa County. 3.4 NOISE Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-61 Figure 3.4-1 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments Source: Contra Costa County General Plan, January 2005 Figure 3.4-1 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments 3.4 NOISE Page 3-62 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment The following outlines the relevant goals and policies of the County’s General Plan Noise Element for the planning area: N OISE E LEMENT Goals: 11-A. To improve the overall environment in the County by reducing annoying and physically harmful levels of noise for existing and future residents and for all land uses. 11-B. To maintain appropriate noise conditions in all areas of the County. 11-C. To ensure that new developments will be constructed so as to limit the effects of exterior noise on the residents. 11-D. To recognize the economic impacts of noise control and encourage an equitable distribution of these costs. 11-E. To recognize citizen concerns regarding excessive noise levels, and to utilize measures through which concerns can be identified and mitigated. Policies: 11-1. New projects shall be required to meet acceptable exterior noise level standards as established in the Noise and Land Use compatibility Guidelines contained in [General Plan] Figure 11-6. 11-2. The standard for outdoor noise levels in residential areas is a DNL (Ldn) of 60 dB. However, a DNL of 60 dB or less may not be achievable in all residential areas due to economic or aesthetic constraints. One example is small balconies associated with multi-family housing. In this case, second and third story balconies may be difficult to control to the goal. A common outdoor use area that meets the goal can be provided as an alternative. 11-4. Title 24, Part 2, of the California Code of Regulations requires that new multiple-family housing projects, hotels, and motels exposed to a DNL of 60 dB or greater have a detailed acoustical analysis describing how the project will provide an interior DNL of 45 dB or less. The County also shall require new single-family housing projects to provide for an interior DNL of 45 dB or less. 11-6. If an area is currently below the maximum “normally acceptable” noise level, an increase in noise up to the maximum should not be allowed necessarily. 11-7. Public projects shall be designed and constructed to minimize long-term noise impacts on existing residents. 11-8. Construction activities shall be concentrated during the hours of the day that are not noise- sensitive for adjacent land uses and should be commissioned to occur during normal work hours of the day to provide relative quiet during the more sensitive evening and early morning periods. Significance of Changes in Ambient Noise Levels Criteria The potential increase in traffic noise from the project is a factor in determining significance. Research into the human perception of changes in sound level indicates the following: 3.4 NOISE Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-63 • A 3 dB change is barely perceptible, • A 5 dB change is clearly perceptible, and • A 10 dB change is perceived as being twice or half as loud. For the purposes of this analysis, an overall increase of 3 dB due to the project will result in a significant impact. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Evaluation Criteria Criteria for determining the significance of noise impacts were developed based on information contained in the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines). According to those guidelines, a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it would result in any of the following: • 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; • A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; or • A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Construction Noise Impacts IMPACT 3.4-1: Short-term noise impacts would be generated by construction activity. These sounds, generally range between 85 to 90 dB at a distance of 50 feet, and could exceed normally acceptable sound levels at neighboring receptor locations. Discussion and Conclusion: During the construction phases of individual projects that would result from implementation of the Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment, noise from construction activities would add to the noise environment in the immediate vicinity of these individual projects. Activities involved in construction could generate maximum noise levels, as indicated in Table 3.4-4, ranging from 85 to 90 dB at a distance of 50 feet. Construction activities would be temporary in nature and are anticipated to occur during normal daytime working hours. 3.4 NOISE Page 3-64 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Table 3.4-4 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE Type of Equipment Maximum Level, dB at 50 feet Bulldozers 87 Heavy Trucks 88 Backhoe 85 Pneumatic Tools 85 Source: Environmental Noise Pollution, Patrick R. Cunniff, 1977. Noise would also be generated during the construction phase by increased truck traffic on area roadways. A significant project-generated noise source would be truck traffic associated with transport of heavy materials and equipment to and from construction sites. This noise increase would be of short duration, and would likely occur primarily during daytime hours. This impact is considered potentially significant. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.4-1A: All heavy construction equipment and all stationary noise sources (such as diesel generators) shall be equipped with manufacturer-installed mufflers, or replacements that are at least as effective as the original equipment. Mufflers shall be maintained in good working order. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.4-1B: Equipment warm up areas, water tanks, and equipment storage areas shall be located in an area as far away from existing residences as is feasible. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.4-1C: Construction hours shall be restricted to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Saturday. The County may consider alternative hours for construction outside the time period restrictions identified above under hardship cases subject to approval by the County Zoning Administrator. No construction shall occur on Sundays or holidays. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure 3.4-1A would minimize the noise generated by construction activities through the requirement that construction equipment and stationary sources of noise have mufflers in good working order. Mitigation Measures 3.4-1B and C would assure that noise created by related activities is restricted to areas that are located away from existing residences. Mitigation Measures 3.4-1A through 3.4-1C are sufficient to reduce Impact 3.4-1 to a less-than-significant level. 3.4 NOISE Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-65 Traffic Noise Impacts IMPACT 3.4-2: The plus project traffic noise levels are expected to result in increases in noise levels on the street system in the project vicinity. These increases in traffic noise levels could result in noise levels that exceed the General Plan Noise Element criteria, or result in an otherwise significant increase in traffic noise levels. Discussion and Conclusion: Table 3.4-5 shows the comparison of existing traffic noise levels with and without the proposed project. Based upon the analysis, the project-related traffic noise levels would increase by 0.0 dB to 2.1 dB under existing plus project conditions. No roadway segment is predicted to experience an increase in traffic noise levels under existing plus project conditions in excess of the 3 dB threshold of significance. Therefore, traffic noise level increases under the existing plus project conditions would be considered a less-than-significant increase and no mitigation would be required. Table 3.4-6 shows the comparison of traffic noise levels under existing without the proposed project to those under the cumulative (year 2030) traffic conditions with the proposed project.9 Based on the modeling results, the cumulative plus project traffic noise levels would increase by 1.1 dB to 4.7 dB along modeled roadway segments compared to existing conditions without the project. The only roadway segments at which the project-related traffic noise level increase is predicted to exceed the 3 dB threshold of significance for this project is La Colina Road south of San Pablo Dam Road which would experience an increase in traffic noise levels of up to 4.7 dB under cumulative plus project conditions compared to existing conditions without the project. Since a 3.0 dB change is considered to be barely perceptible, and a 5 dB change is considered to be clearly perceptible, this impact is considered to be potentially significant. This potentially significant increase in traffic noise levels under cumulative plus project conditions would affect existing noise-sensitive land uses (primarily residences), which are already located along this impacted segment of La Colina Road. The only practical way to reduce noise levels at these locations would be to construct noise barriers between the noise 9 This represents a very conservative comparison since typically the cumulative plus project conditions would be compared to cumulative without project conditions. However, no cumulative without project traffic volume data was available from the traffic study prepared for this project. 3.4 NOISE Page 3-66 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Table 3.4-5 FHWA TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION RESULTS EXISTING NO PROJECT VS. EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS Traffic Noise Levels (Ldn, dB) 100 feet from Centerline Existing + Project Centerline to Ldn Contours (feet) Roadway/Segment Existing No Project Existing + Project Change 65 dB Ldn 60 dB Ldn San Pablo Dam Road West of El Portal Dr El Portal Dr to Hillcrest Rd Hillcrest Rd to Appian Way East of Appian Way 62.7 60.5 60.4 64.6 63.6 61.6 61.5 65.0 + 0.9 + 1.1 + 1.1 + 0.4 88 66 65 107 183 136 133 226 Appian Way San Pablo Dam Rd to Valley View Rd East of Valley View Rd 59.4 62.5 62.6 64.3 + 2.1 + 0.7 69 88 146 188 El Portal Drive North of San Pablo Dam Rd 56.7 58.5 + 1.0 < 50 a 79 Hillcrest Road South of San Pablo Dam Rd 48.7 49.9 + 0.0 < 50 < 50 La Colina Road South of San Pablo Dam Rd 46.1 47.3 + 0.0 < 50 < 50 Valley View Road East of Appian Way 61.0 61.6 + 0.0 61 124 Note: a Traffic noise within 50 feet of the roadway centerline requires site-specific analysis Source: LSA Associates, Inc., March 2009. source (the roadway) and the receptor (the residences), or to re-pave the roadway in question with noise-reducing asphalt (such as rubberized asphalt or open gap asphalt). The construction of solid noise barriers could reduce traffic noise levels at the nearest noise sensitive receptors to the roadway. However, barriers would not be feasible because access to these residential land uses is from the roadway. It should be noted that although this increase is potentially significant, the resulting traffic noise levels would only range up to 52.0 dB Ldn under cumulative plus project conditions. This noise level is well below the County’s standard of 60 dB Ldn for outdoor noise levels in residential areas. 3.4 NOISE Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-67 Table 3.4-6 FHWA TRAFFIC NOISE PREDICTION RESULTS EXISTING NO PROJECT VS. CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS Traffic Noise Levels (Ldn, dB) 100 feet from Centerline Cumulative + Project Centerline to Ldn Contours (feet) Roadway/Segment Existing No Project Cumulative + Project Change 65 dB Ldn 60 dB Ldn San Pablo Dam Road West of El Portal Dr El Portal Dr to Hillcrest Rd Hillcrest Rd to Appian Way East of Appian Way 62.7 60.5 60.4 64.6 65.6 62.9 62.7 67.1 + 2.3 + 1.8 + 1.7 + 1.9 107 73 71 134 226 150 146 284 Appian Way San Pablo Dam Rd to Valley View Rd East of Valley View Rd 59.4 62.5 63.2 64.8 + 2.7 + 1.2 76 95 161 204 El Portal Drive North of San Pablo Dam Rd 56.7 59.3 + 1.8 < 50 89 Hillcrest Road South of San Pablo Dam Rd 48.7 51.7 + 1.8 < 50 < 50 La Colina Road South of San Pablo Dam Rd 46.1 52.0 + 4.7 < 50 < 50 Valley View Road East of Appian Way 61.0 62.7 + 1.1 71 145 Note: a Traffic noise within 50 feet of the roadway centerline requires site-specific analysis Source: LSA Associates, Inc., March 2009. Implementation of the General Plan Amendment could also result in construction of individual projects that could include development of noise sensitive land uses along impacted roadway segments. Individual project sites could be exposed to traffic noise levels which exceed the County’s standard of 60 dB Ldn for outdoor noise levels in residential areas, or which exceed the County’s interior noise level standard for new residential land uses of 45 dB Ldn. As shown in Table 3.4-5, existing plus project traffic noise levels would range up to as high as 65.0 dB Ldn along San Pablo Dam Road east of Appian Way. The cumulative plus project traffic noise levels, shown in Table 3.4- 6, would range up to as high as 67.1 dB Ldn along San Pablo Dam Road east of Appian Way. However, since the location and design for individual projects that may be proposed in the future is unknown, overall traffic noise impacts cannot be determined at this time. Noise reduction alternatives often have impacts of their own, and the implementation of a noise reduction plan should take these into account. For example, noise walls may reduce noise for particular properties, but the noise wall may have a negative impact on aesthetics, as well as pedestrian and bicycle access and circulation. Other alternatives, such as use of alternative roadway pavements such as rubberized asphalt or open gap asphalt, which have been shown to reduce overall 3.4 NOISE Page 3-68 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment traffic noise levels by approximately 3 dB to 5 dB, should be considered but may not be feasible for a variety of reasons. Evaluation of specific noise reduction measures should, therefore, occur when specific development proposals have been submitted. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.4-2: The project applicant of individual residential or transient lodging land use development projects proposed for construction within any of the 60 dB Ldn noise contours shown in Tables 3.4-5 and 3.4-6, shall prepare a noise impact analysis. The noise impact analysis shall be submitted to the County’s Department of Conservation and Development for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. The noise impact analysis shall demonstrate how the proposed project would comply with the General Plan noise standards through site design, construction standards, or through implementation of appropriate design measures. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure: The proposed project does not include site-specific development proposals. Such proposals would provide detailed information that would provide the basis for a determination as to whether the General Plan Noise Element standards would be satisfied. In the absence of any specific development proposal, it would be possible to establish a minimum setback from noise sources for residential structures. Such an approach would, however, require speculation as to the noise levels at the time of project application, other noise sources or effects on noise in the project vicinity that have affected noise levels, and design and construction components of the proposed project that could reduce noise impacts. The mitigation measure would require a noise analysis for individual projects as they are proposed, thus ensuring that General Plan standards would be identified and enforced. Thus, the mitigation is sufficient to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Stationary Noise Impacts IMPACT 3.4-3: Stationary noise sources associated with increased commercial uses within the Project Area could exceed the applicable noise level criteria. Discussion and Conclusion: There are a variety of stationary noise sources associated with future development within the Project Area that have the potential to create noise levels in excess of the General Plan Noise Element noise standards or result in annoyance at existing and future noise- sensitive developments within the Project Area. Such uses/noise sources include, but are not limited to, commercial loading docks associated with such uses as grocery stores, on-site truck circulation on commercial facilities, rooftop heating and ventilation equipment and trash pickup. The noise level criteria described above would be used for determining land use compatibility with residential uses. At the program level, specific development projects have not been identified, and detailed site and grading plans associated with these types of noise sources have not yet been developed. As a result, it is not feasible to identify specific noise impacts associated with these sources. Design of facilities can be completed in a manner that minimizes noise impacts. As noted above, noise reduction facilities may have impacts in terms of aesthetics, circulation or other aspects of the project, and planning should, therefore, proceed with these impacts in mind. In general, the following design criteria should be considered in commercially zoned property: 3.4 NOISE Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-69 • Establish minimum distance of loading docks from residential property lines (e.g., 150 feet). • Construction of sound walls, usually 8-feet in height, relative to building pad elevations along property lines between commercial unloading areas or commercial truck routes, and adjacent residential uses. • Restriction of hours for loading dock activities and on-site truck traffic. Such activities could, for example, be limited to the daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. or more restrictive hours depending on policy considerations of the site-specific design. • Rooftop HVAC equipment could be required to create no more than 50 dBA at a distance of 25-feet. In addition, rooftop parapets of minimum height, usually 6 feet in height, to be constructed on all commercial facades facing residential uses. • Loading docks should be located a minimum of 150 feet from residential property lines. • Sound walls 8 feet in height, relative to building pad elevations should be constructed along property lines between commercial unloading areas or commercial truck routes, and adjacent residential uses. • Loading dock activities and on-site truck traffic should be limited to the daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. • Rooftop HVAC equipment should create no more than 50 dBA and a distance of 25-feet. In addition, rooftop parapets should be constructed on all commercial facades facing residential uses, which are a minimum of 6-feet in height. Based upon the discussion described above, the noise impacts associated with commercial development could be potentially significant. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.4-3: Individual development projects shall be required to conduct a site-specific noise analysis for multi-family residential development, demonstrating compliance with the General Plan noise standards through site design, construction standards, or other means, and through implementation of appropriate measures. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures: Since the proposed project does not include site-specific development proposals, future development proposals must provide detailed information that would present the basis for a determination as to whether the General Plan Noise Element standards would be satisfied. In the absence of any specific development proposal, it would be possible to establish a minimum setback from noise sources for residential structures. Such an approach would, however, require speculation as to the noise levels at the time of project application, other noise sources or effects on noise in the project vicinity that have affected noise levels, and design and construction components of the proposed project that could reduce noise impacts. Thus, the mitigation would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. 3.5 AIR QUALITY Page 3-70 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment 3.5 AIR QUALITY This section describes the existing air quality setting for the Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment and has been prepared using methodologies and assumptions recommended in the air quality impact assessment guidelines of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).10 In keeping with these guidelines, this report describes existing air quality, impacts of future traffic on local carbon monoxide levels, and consistency with the BAAQMD’s Clean Air Plan. Mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potentially significant air quality impacts are identified, where appropriate. Air quality modeling results are provided in Appendix D. Environmental Setting The following discussion provides an overview of existing air quality conditions in the region and the El Sobrante area. Ambient air quality standards and the regulatory framework relating to air quality are summarized. Climate, air quality conditions, and typical air pollutant types and sources are also described. Air Pollution Climatology The amount of a given air pollutant in the atmosphere is determined by the amount of pollutant released and the atmosphere’s ability to transport and/or dilute that pollutant. The major determinants of transport and dilution are wind, atmospheric stability, terrain and for photochemical pollutants, sunshine. Air quality is a function of both local climate and local sources of air pollution. Air quality is the balance of the natural dispersal capacity of the atmosphere and emissions of air pollutants from human uses of the environment. Two meteorological factors affect air quality in El Sobrante: wind and temperature. Winds affect the direction of transport of any air pollution emissions and wind also controls the volume of air into which pollution is mixed in a given period of time. While winds govern horizontal mixing processes, temperature inversions determine the vertical mixing depth of air pollutants. In the El Sobrante area, marine air travels through the Golden Gate, as well as across San Francisco and through the San Bruno Gap creating a dominant weather factor. The prevailing winds for most of this area are from the west. Temperatures have a narrow range due to the proximity of the moderating marine air. Maximum temperatures in the summer average in the mid-70s, with minimums in the mid-50s. Winter highs are in the mid- to high-50s, with lows in the low-to mid-40s. Air Quality Standards Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), and suspended particulate matter (PM). In addition, the state has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the populace with a reasonable margin of safety. These ambient air quality standards are levels of 10 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 1999. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. 3.5 AIR QUALITY Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-71 contaminants which represent safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality standards cover what are called “criteria” pollutants. Federal standards include both primary and secondary standards. Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased visibility, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings.11 Health effects of criteria pollutants and their potential sources are described below and are summarized in Table 3.5-1. The standards would have to be exceeded by a large margin or for a prolonged period of time for the health effects to occur. Table 3.5-2 shows both federal and state standards for these criteria pollutants. The California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) are more stringent than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Air Pollutants of Concern A description of the air quality pollutants of concern in Contra Costa County is provided in this subsection. Ozone. Ozone (smog) is formed by photochemical reactions between oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROG), rather than being directly emitted. Ozone is a pungent, colorless gas. Elevated ozone concentrations result in reduced lung function, particularly during vigorous physical activity. This health problem is particularly acute in sensitive receptors such as the sick, elderly, and young children. Ozone levels peak during the summer and early fall months. Carbon Monoxide. Carbon monoxide (CO) is formed by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, almost entirely from automobiles. It is a colorless, odorless gas that can cause dizziness, fatigue, and impairments to central nervous system functions. CO passes through the lungs into the bloodstream, where it interferes with the transfer of oxygen to body tissues. 11 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007. www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html. January. 3.5 AIR QUALITY Page 3-72 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Table 3.5-1 HEALTH EFFECTS OF AIR POLLUTANTS Pollutant Health Effects Examples of Sources Suspended Particulate Matter (PM2.5 and PM10) y Reduced lung function. y Aggravation of the effects of gaseous pollutants. y Aggravation of respiratory and cardio respiratory diseases. y Increased cough and chest discomfort. y Soiling. y Reduced visibility. y Stationary combustion of solid fuels. y Construction activities. y Industrial processes. y Atmospheric chemical reactions. Ozone (O3) y Breathing difficulties. y Lung damage. y Formed by chemical reactions of air pollutants in the presence of sunlight; common sources are motor vehicles, industries, and consumer products. Carbon Monoxide (CO) y Chest pain in heart patients. y Headaches, nausea. y Reduced mental alertness. y Death at very high levels. y Any source that burns fuel such as cars, trucks, construction and farming equipment, and residential heaters and stoves. Lead (Pb) y Organ damage. y Neurological and reproductive disorders. y High blood pressure. y Metals processing. y Fuel combustion. y Waste disposal. Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) y Lung damage. y See carbon monoxide sources. Toxic Air Contaminants y Cancer. y Chronic eye, lung, or skin irritation. y Neurological and reproductive disorders. y Cars and trucks, especially diesels. y Industrial sources such as chrome platers. y Neighborhood businesses such as dry cleaners and service stations. y Building materials and products. Source: CARB and EPA, 2005. Nitrogen Oxides. Nitrogen dioxide (NO2), a reddish-brown gas, and nitric oxide (NO), a colorless, odorless gas, are formed from fuel combustion under high temperature or pressure. These compounds are referred to as nitrogen oxides, or NOx. NOx is a primary component of the photochemical smog reaction. Nitrogen oxides also contribute to other pollution problems, including a high concentration of fine particulate matter, poor visibility, and acid deposition. NO2 decreases lung function and may reduce resistance to infection. 3.5 AIR QUALITY Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-73 Table 3.5-2 FEDERAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS California Standardsa Federal Standardsb Pollutant Averaging Time Concentrationc Methodd Primaryc,e Secondaryc,f Methodg 1-Hour 0.09 ppm (180 μg/m3) No federal standard Ozone (O3) 8-Hour 0.07 ppm (137 μg/m3) Ultraviolet Photometry 0.075 ppm (147 μg/m3) Same as Primary Standard Ultraviolet Photometry 24-Hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3 Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 μg/m3 Gravimetric or Beta Attenuation – Same as Primary Standard Inertial Separation and Gravimetric Analysis 24-Hour No Separate State Standard 35 μg/m3 Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 μg/m3 Gravimetric or Beta Attenuation 15 μg/m3 Same as Primary Standard Inertial Separation and Gravimetric Analysis 8-Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) 1-Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8-Hour (Lake Tahoe) 6 ppm (7 mg/m3) Non-Dispersive Infrared Photometry (NDIR) – None Non- Dispersive Infrared Photometry (NDIR) Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.03 ppm (57 μg/m3) 0.053 ppm (100 μg/m3) Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1-Hour 0.18 ppm (339 μg/m3) Gas Phase Chemilumin- escence – Same as Primary Standard Gas Phase Chemilumin- escence 30-day average 1.5 μg/m3 – – – Calendar Quarter – Atomic Absorption 1.5 μg/m3 Lead (Pb) h Rolling 3-month averagei – 0.15 μg/m3 Same as Primary Standard High-Volume Sampler and Atomic Absorption Annual Arithmetic Mean – 0.030 ppm (80 μg/m3) – 24-Hour 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3) 0.14 ppm (365 μg/m3) – 3-Hour – – 0.5 ppm (1300 μg/m3) Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 1-Hour 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3) Ultraviolet Fluorescence – – Spectrophoto- metry (Pararosani- line Method) 3.5 AIR QUALITY Page 3-74 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Table 3.5-2, Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards (continued) California Standardsa Federal Standardsb Pollutant Averaging Time Concentrationc Methodd Primaryc,e Secondaryc,f Methodg Visibility- Reducing Particles 8-Hour Extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer - visibility of 10 miles or more (0.07–30 miles or more for Lake Tahoe) due to particles when relative humidity is less than 70 percent. Method: Beta Attenuation and Transmittance through Filter Tape. Sulfates 24-Hour 25 μg/m3 Ion Chromatography Hydrogen Sulfide 1-Hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3) Ultraviolet Fluorescence Vinyl Chlorideh 24-Hour 0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3) Gas Chromatography No Federal Standards Notes: a California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter—PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles, are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. b National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8- hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24- hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact U.S. EPA for further clarification and current federal policies. c Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. d Any equivalent procedure which can be shown to the satisfaction of the CARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used. e National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. f National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. g Reference method as described by the EPA. An “equivalent method” of measurement may be used but must have a “consistent relationship to the reference method” and must be approved by the EPA. h The CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as 'toxic air contaminants' with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants. i National lead standard, rolling 3-month average: final rule signed October 15, 2008. Source: CARB, November 2008. 3.5 AIR QUALITY Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-75 Sulfur Dioxide. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, irritating gas formed primarily from incomplete combustion of fuels containing sulfur. Industrial facilities also contribute to gaseous SO2 levels in the region. SO2 irritates the respiratory tract, can injure lung tissue when combined with fine particulate matter, and reduces visibility and the level of sunlight. Particulate Matter. Particulate matter is the term used for a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air. Coarse particles are those that are larger than 2.5 microns but smaller than 10 microns, or PM10. PM2.5 refers to fine suspended particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less that is not readily filtered out by the lungs. Nitrates, sulfates, dust, and combustion particulates are major components of PM10 and PM2.5. These small particles can be directly emitted into the atmosphere as by-products of fuel combustion, through abrasion, such as tire or brake lining wear, or through fugitive dust (wind or mechanical erosion of soil). They can also be formed in the atmosphere through chemical reactions. Particulates may transport carcinogens and other toxic compounds that adhere to the particle surfaces, and can enter the human body through the lungs. Regulatory Framework The BAAQMD is primarily responsible for regulating air pollution emissions from stationary sources (e.g., factories) and indirect sources (e.g., traffic associated with new development), as well as for monitoring ambient pollutant concentrations. The BAAQMD’s jurisdiction encompasses seven counties—Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Napa—and portions of Solano and Sonoma counties. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulate direct emissions from motor vehicles. Federal Clean Air Act The federal 1970 Clean Air Act authorized the establishment of national health-based air quality standards and also set deadlines for their attainment. The federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 changed deadlines for attaining National Ambient Air Quality Standards as well as the remedial actions required of areas of the nation that exceed the standards. Under the Clean Air Act, state and local agencies in areas that exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards are required to develop State Implementation Plans to show how they will achieve the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for O3 by specific dates. The Clean Air Act requires that projects receiving federal funds demonstrate conformity to the approved State Implementation Plan and local air quality attainment plan for the region. Conformity with the State Implementation Plan requirements would satisfy the Clean Air Act requirements. Bay Area Clean Air Plan The BAAQMD, along with the other regional agencies (i.e., Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission), has prepared an Ozone Attainment Plan to address the 1-hour NAAQS for ozone. Although EPA revoked the 1-hour NAAQS, commitments made in the Ozone Attainment Plan along with emissions budgets remain valid until the region develops an attainment demonstration/maintenance plan for the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone. The region will be required to submit a maintenance plan and demonstration of attainment with a request for redesignation to EPA when the 8-hour ozone NAAQS is met. A Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan was approved in 1998 by US EPA, which demonstrated how NAAQS for CO standard would be maintained. 3.5 AIR QUALITY Page 3-76 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Air quality plans addressing the California Clean Air Act are developed every three years. The plans are meant to demonstrate progress toward meeting the more stringent 1-hour ozone CAAQS. The latest plan, which was adopted in January 2006, is called the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. This plan includes a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions from stationary, area and mobile sources. The plan indicates how the region would make progress toward attaining the stricter state air quality standards, as mandated by the California Clean Air Act. The plan is designed to achieve a region- wide reduction of ozone precursor pollutants through the expeditious implementation of all feasible measures. The plan proposes expanded implementation of transportation control measures (TCMs) and programs such as Spare the Air. The Ozone Strategy also includes stationary-source control measures to be implemented through BAAQMD regulations, mobile-source control measures to be implemented through incentive programs and other activities, and transportation control measures to be implemented through transportation programs in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), local governments, transit agencies, and others. The clean air planning efforts for ozone will also reduce particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), since a substantial amount of this air pollutant comes from combustion emissions such as vehicle exhaust. In addition, BAAQMD adopts and enforces rules to reduce particulate matter emissions and develops public outreach programs to educate the public to reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. Senate Bill (SB) 656 requires further action by CARB and air districts to reduce public exposure to PM10 and PM2.5. Efforts identified by the BAAQMD in response to SB 656 are primarily targeted reductions in wood smoke emissions and adoption of new rules to further reduce NOx and particulate matter from internal combustion engines and reduce particulate matter from commercial charbroiling activities. NOx emissions contribute to ammonium nitrate formation that resides in the atmosphere as particulate matter, so a reduction in NOx emissions would also reduce wintertime PM2.5 levels. The Bay Area experiences the highest PM10 and PM2.5 in winter when wood smoke and ammonium nitrate contributions to particulate matter are highest. Attainment Status Designations The California Air Resources Board is required to designate areas of the state as attainment, nonattainment or unclassified for all state standards. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate the standard for a pollutant in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the standard, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria. An “unclassified” designation signifies that data does not support either an attainment or nonattainment status. The California Clean Air Act divides districts into moderate, serious, and severe air pollution categories, with increasingly stringent control requirements mandated for each category. The EPA designates areas for O3, CO, and NO2 as either “does not meet the primary standards,” or “cannot be classified,” or “better than national standards.” For SO2, areas are designated as “does not meet the primary standards,” “does not meet the secondary standards,” “cannot be classified” or “better than national standards.” Table 3.5-3 provides a summary of the attainment status for the Bay Area Air Basin with respect to national and state ambient air quality standards. El Sobrante is within the jurisdiction of the BAAQMD, which regulates air quality in the San Francisco Bay Area. Air quality conditions in the San Francisco Bay Area have improved significantly since the BAAQMD was created in 1955. Ambient concentrations of air pollutants and the number of days during which the region exceeds air quality standards have fallen dramatically. 3.5 AIR QUALITY Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-77 The Bay Area has met the CO standards for over a decade and is classified attainment maintenance by the US EPA. The US EPA grades the region unclassified for all other air pollutants, which include PM10 and PM2.5. At the state level, the region is considered serious non-attainment status for ground level ozone and non-attainment status for PM10. Pollutant monitoring results for the years 2005 to 2007 at the San Pablo Rumrill Boulevard ambient air quality monitoring station, the closest monitoring station to El Sobrante indicate that air quality in the project area has generally been good. Table 3.5-4 summarizes the last three years of published data from this monitoring station. Levels of PM10 in the Bay Area currently exceed California Clean Air Act standards and, therefore, the area is considered a nonattainment area for this pollutant relative to the state standards. PM10 monitored levels exceeded the state’s standard three times in 2006 and two times in 2007. The Bay Area is an unclassified area for the federal PM10 standard. The federal standard was not exceeded at this monitoring station in the past three years. Levels of PM2.5 exceeded federal standards five times in 2005 and 2007. The standard was exceeded seven times in 2008. No exceedances of the state or federal CO standards have been recorded at any of the region’s monitoring stations since 1991. The Bay Area is currently considered a maintenance area for state and federal CO standards. Federal and state ozone standards have not been exceeded at this site in the last three years. CO, SO2 and NO2 standards were not exceeded in the project area during the three-year period. 3.5 AIR QUALITY Page 3-78 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Table 3.5-3 BAY AREA ATTAINMENT STATUS California Standards a National Standards b Pollutant Averaging Time Concentration Attainment Status Concentrationc Attainment Status 8-Hour 0.07 ppm (137 µg/m3) Nonattainment h 0.075 ppm Nonattainment d Ozone (O3) 1-Hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3) Nonattainment Not Applicable Not Applicable c 8-Hour 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) Attainment 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) Attainment f Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1-Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) Attainment 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) Attainment Annual Mean 0.030 ppm (56 mg/m3) Attainment 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3) Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1-Hour 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3) Attainment Not Applicable Not Applicable Annual Mean 20 µg/m3 Nonattainment g Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10) 24-Hour 50 µg/m3 Nonattainment 150 µg/m3 Unclassified Annual Mean 12 µg/m3 Nonattainment g 15 µg/m3 Attainment Suspended Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 24-Hour Not Applicable Not Applicable 35 µg/m3 i Unclassified Annual Mean Not Applicable Not Applicable 0.03 ppm (80 µg/m3) Attainment 24-Hour 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3) Attainment 0.14 ppm (365 µg/m3) Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 1-Hour 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3) Attainment Not Applicable Not Applicable Notes: Lead (Pb) is not listed in the above table because it has been in attainment since the 1980s. ppm = parts per million mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter a California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1-hour and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter - PM10, and visibility reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. The standards for sulfates, Lake Tahoe carbon monoxide, lead, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride are not to be equaled or exceeded. If the standard is for a 1-hour, 8-hour or 24-hour average (i.e., all standards except for lead and the PM10 annual standard), then some measurements may be excluded. In particular, measurements are excluded that CARB determines would occur less than once per year on the average. The Lake Tahoe CO standard is 6.0 ppm, a level one-half the national standard and two-thirds the state standard. b National standards other than for ozone, particulates and those based on annual averages are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The 1-hour ozone standard is attained if, during the most recent three-year period, the average number of days per year with maximum hourly concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one. The 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the 3-year average of 3.5 AIR QUALITY Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-79 Table 3.5-3, Bay Area Attainment Status (continued) the fourth highest daily concentrations is 0.075 ppm (75 ppb) or less. The 24-hour PM10 standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of monitored concentrations is less than 150 g/m3. The 24-hour PM2.5 standard is attained when the 3-year average of 98th percentiles is less than 35 g/m3. Except for the national particulate standards, annual standards are met if the annual average falls below the standard at every site. The national annual particulate standard for PM10 is met if the 3-year average falls below the standard at every site. The annual PM2.5 standard is met if the 3-year average of annual averages spatially-averaged across officially designed clusters of sites falls below the standard. c National air quality standards are set by EPA at levels determined to be protective of public health with an adequate margin of safety. d In June 2004, the Bay Area was designated as a marginal nonattainment area of the national 8- hour ozone standard. EPA lowered the national 8-hour ozone standard from 0.80 to 0.75 PPM (i.e., 75 ppb) effective May 27, 2008. EPA will issue final designations based upon the new 0.75 ppm ozone standard by March 2010. e The national 1-hour ozone standard was revoked by U.S. EPA on June 15, 2005. f In April 1998, the Bay Area was redesignated to attainment for the national 8-hour carbon monoxide standard. g In June 2002, CARB established new annual standards for PM2.5 and PM10. h The 8-hour CA ozone standard was approved by the Air Resources Board on April 28, 2005 and became effective on May 17, 2006. i EPA lowered the 24-hour PM2.5 standard from 65 g/m3 to 35 g/m3 in 2006. EPA is required to designate the attainment status of BAAQMD for the new standard by December 2009. Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2008. Bay Area Attainment Status. 3.5 AIR QUALITY Page 3-80 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Table 3.5-4 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY AT THE RUMRILL BOULEVARD, SAN PABLO MONITORING STATION Pollutant Standard 2005 2006 2007 Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maximum 1 hour concentration (ppm) 2.8 2.5 2.4 State: > 20 ppm 0 0 0 Number of days exceeded: Federal: > 35 ppm 0 0 0 Maximum 8 hour concentration (ppm) 1.3 1.4 1.2 State: > 9 ppm 0 0 0 Number of days exceeded: Federal: > 9 ppm 0 0 0 Ozone (O3) Maximum 1 hour concentration (ppm) 0.066 0.061 0.074 Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.09 ppm 0 0 0 Maximum 8 hour concentration (ppm) 0.057 0.050 0.051 State: > 0.07 ppm ND ND ND Number of days exceeded: Federal: > 0.08 ppm 0 0 0 Coarse Particulates (PM10) Maximum 24 hour concentration (µg/m3) 42.2 80.5 52.4 State: > 50 µg/m3 0 3 2 Number of days exceeded: Federal: > 150 µg/m3 0 0 0 Annual arithmetic average concentration (µg/m3) 16 19 19 State: > 20 µg/m3 No No No Exceeded for the year: Federal: > 50 µg/m3 No No No Fine Particulates (PM2.5) a Maximum 24 hour concentration (µg/m3) 49.8 62.1 46.8 Number of days exceeded: Federal: > 35 µg/m3 5 5 7 Annual arithmetic average concentration (µg/m3) 9.1 9.3 8.4 State: > 12 µg/m3 No No No Exceeded for the year: Federal: > 15 µg/m3 No No No Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Maximum 1 hour concentration (ppm) 0.054 0.055 0.052 Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.25 ppm 0 0 0 Annual arithmetic average concentration (ppm) 0.012 0.013 0.012 Exceeded for the year: Federal: > 0.053 ppm No No No Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Maximum 1 hour concentration (ppm) 0.025 0.017 0.017 Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.25 ppm 0 0 0 Maximum 3 hour concentration (ppm) 0.013 0.012 0.012 Number of days exceeded: Federal: > 0.5 ppm 0 0 0 Maximum 24 hour concentration (ppm) 0.006 0.005 0.005 State: > 0.04 ppm 0 0 0 Number of days exceeded: Federal: > 0.14 ppm 0 0 0 Annual arithmetic average concentration (ppm) 0.002 0.002 0.002 Exceeded for the year: Federal: > 0.030 ppm No No No Notes: ppm = parts per million µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter ND = No data. There was insufficient (or no) data to determine the value. a 2956 Treat Boulevard, Concord, CA, was the closest monitoring station with PM data. Source: CARB and EPA, 2008. 3.5 AIR QUALITY Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-81 Air Quality Issues Five key air quality issues—CO hotspots, vehicle emissions, fugitive dust, odors, and construction equipment exhaust—are described below. Local Carbon Monoxide Hotspots Local air quality is most affected by CO emissions from motor vehicles. CO is typically the pollutant of greatest concern because it is created in abundance by motor vehicles and it does not readily disperse into the air. Because CO does not readily disperse, areas of vehicle congestion can create “pockets” of high CO concentration called “hot spots.” These pockets have the potential to exceed the state 1-hour standard of 20 ppm and/or the 8-hour standard of 9.0 ppm. While CO transport is limited, it does disperse with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions. However, under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near congested roadways or intersections may reach unhealthful levels affecting local sensitive receptors (e.g., residents, schoolchildren, the elderly, hospital patients, etc). Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with roadways or intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service or with extremely high traffic volumes. In areas with high ambient background CO concentration, modeling is recommended to determine a project’s effect on local CO levels. Vehicle Emissions Long-term air emission impacts are those associated with changes in automobile travel within the City. Mobile source emissions would result from vehicle trips associated with increased vehicular travel. As is true throughout much of the United States, motor vehicle use is projected to increase substantially in the region. The BAAQMD, local jurisdictions, and other parties responsible for protecting public health and welfare will continue to seek ways of minimizing the air quality impacts of growth and development in order to avoid further exceedances of the standards. Fugitive Dust Fugitive dust emissions are generally associated with demolition, land clearing, exposure of soils to the air, and cut and fill operations. Dust generated during construction varies substantially on a project-by-project basis, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations and weather conditions. The EPA has developed an approximate emission factor for construction-related emissions of total suspended particulate of 1.2 tons per acre per month of activity. This factor assumes a moderate activity level, moderate silt content in soils being disturbed and a semi-arid climate. The CARB estimates that 64 percent of construction-related total suspended particulate emissions is PM10. Therefore, the emission factors for uncontrolled construction-related PM10 emissions are 0.77 tons per acre per month of PM10, or 51 pounds per acre per day of PM10. However, construction emissions can vary greatly depending on the level of activity, the specific operations taking place, the equipment being operated, local soils, weather conditions, and other factors. There are a number of feasible control measures that can be reasonably implemented to significantly reduce PM10 emissions from construction. Rather than attempting to provide detailed quantification of anticipated construction emissions from projects, the BAAQMD suggests the following: “The determination of significance with respect to construction emissions should be based on a consideration of the control measures to be implemented. From 3.5 AIR QUALITY Page 3-82 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment the Districts’ [BAAQMD] perspective, quantification of emissions is not necessary, although a lead agency may elect to do so. If all of the control measures indicated as appropriate, depending on the size of the project are implemented, then air pollution from emissions from construction activities would be considered a less-than-significant impact.”12 Odors During construction, the various diesel powered vehicles and that would be used would create localized odors. These odors would be temporary and are not likely to be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the construction area. Construction Equipment Exhaust Construction activities cause combustion emissions from utility engines, heavy-duty construction vehicles, equipment hauling materials to and from construction sites and motor vehicles transporting construction crews. Exhaust emissions from construction activities vary daily as construction activity levels change. The use of construction equipment results in localized exhaust emissions. Regulatory Setting The following are policies from the Conservation Element of the Contra Costa General Plan that specifically address air quality: C ONSERVATION E LEMENT 8-99. The free flow of vehicular traffic shall be facilitated on major arterials. 8-100. Vehicular emissions shall be reduced throughout the County. 8-101. A safe, convenient and effective bicycle and trail system shall be created and maintained to encourage increased bicycle use and walking as alternatives to driving. 8-102. A safe and convenient pedestrian system shall be created and maintained in order to encourage walking as an alternative to driving. 8-103. When there is a finding that a proposed project might significantly affect air quality, appropriate mitigation measures shall be imposed. 8-104. Proposed projects shall be reviewed for potential to generate hazardous air pollutants. 8-105. Land uses which are sensitive to air pollution shall be separated from sources of air pollution. 8-107. New housing in infill and peripheral areas which are adjacent to existing residential development shall be encouraged. 12 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 1996. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans. April. (Amended in December 1999.) 3.5 AIR QUALITY Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-83 Impacts and Mitigation Measures This subsection analyzes air quality impacts that could result from implementation of the El Sobrante General Plan Amendment. The subsection begins with the criteria of significance, which establishes the threshold for determining whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this subsection presents the impacts associated with the proposed project, and recommends mitigation measures as appropriate. Impact Evaluation Criteria The Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment would result in a significant impact on air quality if it would: • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. According to the BAAQMD, the following criteria must be satisfied for a local plan to be determined to be consistent with the Clean Air Plan (CAP): – The local plan should be consistent with the CAP population and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) assumptions. This is demonstrated if: (1) population growth for the jurisdiction will not exceed the values included in the current CAP; and (2) the rate of increase in VMT for the jurisdiction is equal to or lower than the rate of increase in population; – The local plan should be consistent with CAP transportation control measures (TCMs); – Provide buffers from toxic sources; • Violate any ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or project air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment; • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or • Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Impact Analysis The following discussion describes the air quality impacts associated with implementation of the Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment project. Because no specific locations or projects are associated with the General Plan Amendment, the discussion of potential air quality impacts associated with the project is at a general program level. Carbon Monoxide Effects of Traffic IMPACT 3.5-1: Development within the Project Area would contribute to local carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations. Discussion and Conclusion: Traffic generated by the project would contribute to local carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations, the pollutant of greatest concern at the local scale. Concentrations of this pollutant are related to the levels of traffic and congestion along streets and at intersections. The 3.5 AIR QUALITY Page 3-84 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment CALINE-4 13 computer simulation model was used to evaluate seventeen intersections near the project site. These intersections were selected on the basis of afternoon peak hour level of service (LOS) modeling described in the transportation analysis prepared by Dowling Associates, Inc.14 The year 2008 CO emission factors were used for the existing and existing plus project scenarios as a worst-case scenario (since these emission factors decrease in the future as a result of technological advancement). The results of the existing, existing plus project and cumulative conditions for the four selected intersections are shown in Table 3.5-5. The projected 1-hour concentrations in Table 3.5-5 are to be compared to the state and federal ambient 1-hour air quality standards of 20 ppm and 35 ppm, respectively. Predicted 8-hour concentrations in Table 3.5-5 are to be compared to the state and federal 8-hour standards of 9 ppm. As shown in Table 3.5-5, all project study area intersections will meet all ambient air quality standards under existing and future conditions. Table 3.5-5 Worst-Case Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Near Selected Intersections, in PPM Intersection Existing (2008)a Existing Plus Project (2008) Future (2030) Exceeds State Standardsb 1-Hr 8-Hr 1-Hr 8-Hr 1-Hr 8-Hr 1-Hr 8-Hr El Portal Drive/San Pablo Dam Road 4.5 2.7 5.1 3.1 3.1 1.7 No No Hillcrest Avenue/San Pablo Dam Road 4.5 2.7 5.1 3.1 3.2 1.8 No No Appian Way/San Pablo Dam Road 4.4 2.6 5.2 3.2 3.1 1.7 No No Appian Way/Valley Vie Road 4.8 2.9 4.8 3.2 3.1 1.7 No No Notes: a Includes ambient 1-hour concentration of 2.5 ppm and ambient 8-hour concentration of 1.3 ppm. Measured at the San Pablo monitoring station. b The 1-hour CO state standard is 20 ppm and the 8-hour CO standard is 9 ppm. Source: LSA Associates, 2008. Concentrations in 2030 would be lower than year 2008 concentrations, despite increased traffic, due to gradual reductions in emission rates for vehicles resulting from state-mandated emission control programs for automobiles. Concentrations in 2030 would remain well below the applicable standards. The impact of the proposed project on local CO concentrations in the cumulative condition would be considered less than significant. □ Mitigation Measure: No mitigation measures are required. 13 University of California, Davis Institute of Transportation Studies and the California Department of Transportation, 1998. Caline4 Model. 14 Dowling Associates, Inc., 2007. Final Transportation Analysis for Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendments. October 18. 3.5 AIR QUALITY Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-85 Odor Impacts IMPACT 3.5-2: New development and revitalization of existing parcels in the Project Area could result in objectionable odors during construction. Discussion and Conclusion: Some objectionable odors may be generated from the operation of diesel-powered construction equipment and/or asphalt paving during the project construction period. However, these odors would be short term in nature and would not result in permanent impacts to surrounding land uses, including sensitive receptors within and adjacent to the project site. While it is unknown at this point what types of specific establishments could be developed under implementation of the General Plan Amendment, it is possible that some uses (e.g., fast food restaurants) could have the potential to produce odors. However, potential odor-generating uses would be regulated through El Sobrante and Contra Costa County’s Standard Conditions of Approval for specific use types. Potential objectionable odors would be considered a less-than-significant impact. □ Mitigation Measure: No mitigation measures are required. Demolition and Construction IMPACT 3.5-3: Demolition- and construction-period activities related to development allowed under the plan could generate significant dust, exhaust, and organic emissions. Discussion and Conclusion: One significant air quality impact related to construction period emissions and operational regional emissions would result from implementation of the project. Construction activities such as excavation and grading operations, construction vehicle traffic and wind blowing over exposed earth would generate exhaust emissions and fugitive dust that would affect local air quality and impact nearby sensitive receptors. This is considered a significant impact. Construction activities are also a source of organic gas emissions. Solvents in adhesives, non-waterbased paints, thinners, some insulating materials and caulking materials would evaporate into the atmosphere and would participate in the photochemical reaction that creates urban ozone. Asphalt used in paving is also a source of organic gases for a short time after its application. During construction, various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment would be in use. In 1998 the California Air Resources Board (CARB) identified particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines as a toxic air contaminant (TAC). CARB has completed a risk management process that identified potential cancer risks for a range of activities using diesel-fueled engines.15 High volume freeways, stationary diesel engines and facilities attracting heavy and constant diesel vehicle traffic (distribution centers, truckstops) were identified as having the highest associated risk. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines 15 California Air Resources Board, Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles, October 2000. 3.5 AIR QUALITY Page 3-86 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment identify the following types of facilities as a potential for exposing sensitive receptors to high levels of diesel exhaust: • Truck stop • Warehouse/distribution center • Large retail or industrial facility • High volume transit center • School with high levels of bus traffic • High volume highway • High volume arterial/roadway with high level of diesel traffic Health risks from TACs are a function of both concentration and duration of exposure. Unlike the above types of sources, construction diesel emissions are temporary, affecting an area for a period of days or perhaps weeks. Additionally, construction related sources are mobile and transient in nature, and the bulk of the emission occurs within the Project Area at a substantial distance from nearby receptors. Because of its short duration, health risks from construction emissions of diesel particulate would be a less-than-significant impact. Construction dust would affect local air quality at various times during construction of subsequent specific development projects. The dry, windy climate of the area during the summer months creates a high potential for dust generation when and if underlying soils are exposed. Clearing, grading and earthmoving activities have a high potential to general dust whenever soil moisture is low and particularly when the wind is blowing. The effects of construction activities would be increased dustfall and locally elevated levels of particulates downwind of construction activity. Construction dust has the potential to create a nuisance at nearby properties or at previously completed portions of a project. In addition to nuisance effects, excess dustfall can increase maintenance and cleaning requirements and could adversely affect sensitive electronic devices. Emissions of particulate matter or visible emissions are regulated by the BAAQMD under Regulation 6 “Particulate Matter and Visible Emissions.” Specifically, visible particulate emissions are prohibited where the visible particulates are deposited on real property other than that of the person responsible for the emissions and cause annoyance. The following three-part mitigation measure includes all feasible measures for construction emissions identified by the BAAQMD. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.5-3A: The “Basic” and “Enhanced” control measures recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and listed in Table 3.5-6 shall be implemented during construction of specific development projects in the Project Area. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.5-3B: Any temporary haul roads to soils stockpiles areas used during construction of projects shall be routed away from existing neighboring land 3.5 AIR QUALITY Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-87 uses. Any temporary haul roads shall be surfaced with gravel and regularly watered to control dust or treated with an appropriate dust suppressant. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.5-3C: Water sprays shall be utilized to control dust when material is being added or removed from soils stockpiles. If a soils stockpile is undisturbed for more than one week, it shall be treated with a dust suppressant or crusting agent to eliminate wind-blown dust generation. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure: According to the District’s threshold of significance for construction impacts, implementation of this measure would reduce construction impacts to a less- than-significant level. Local Plan Consistency The Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment would slightly reduce the total number of households in the El Sobrante area from 5,586 to 5,329. This slight change actually reduces the population, rather than increases. It would not conflict with population assumptions used in the development of the Clean Air Plan (CAP). Further, the current General Plan would provide for the conversion of San Pablo Dam Road to a one-way couplet through El Sobrante and Appian Way would be widened from an existing two-lane configuration to a four-lane facility. The previously proposed Transportation-Circulation Element changes would have created an increase in VMT in the vicinity of El Sobrante from Interstate 80 through El Sobrante. The General Plan Amendment would reduce VMT by limiting trip diversion. Additionally, the GPA would include improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities along San Pablo Dam Road and would also maintain the existing bike lanes on Appian Way, which would encourage a reduction in VMT through the use of alternative modes of transportation. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the CAP. Table 3.5-6 FEASIBLE CONTROL MEASURES FOR CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS OF PM10 BASIC CONTROL MEASURES The following controls should be implemented at all construction sites. y Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. y Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. y Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (nontoxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. y Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. ENHANCED CONTROL MEASURES The following measures should be implemented at construction sites greater than 4 acres in area. y All “Basic” control measures listed above. y Hydroseed or apply (nontoxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). y Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (nontoxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). y Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. y Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. 3.5 AIR QUALITY Page 3-88 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment y Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. OPTIONAL CONTROL MEASURES The following control measures are strongly encouraged at construction sites that are large in area, located near sensitive receptors, or which for any other reason may warrant additional emissions reductions. y Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site. y Install wind breaks, or plant trees/vegetative wind breaks at windward side(s) of construction areas. y Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. y Limit the area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity at any one time. Source: BAAQMD, 1999. 3.6 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-89 3.6 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Increasing public awareness and general scientific consensus that global climate change is occurring have placed a new focus on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a potential means to address a project’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. CEQA requires that lead agencies consider the reasonably foreseeable adverse environmental effects of projects considered for approval. Global climate change can be considered an “effect on the environment” and an individual project’s incremental contribution to global climate change can have a cumulatively considerable impact. Land use projects may contribute to the phenomenon of global climate change in ways that would be experienced worldwide, and with some specific effects felt in California. However, no scientific study has established a direct causal link between individual land use project impacts and global warming. Cumulative impacts are the collective impacts of one or more past, present, or future projects, that when combined, result in adverse changes to the environment. Climate change is a global environmental problem in which: (1) any given development project contributes only a small portion of any net increase in GHGs and (2) global growth is continuing to contribute large amounts of GHGs across the world. No individual project would result in a significant impact on global climate change, or an environmental impact resulting from global climate change. Therefore, this section addresses climate change primarily as a cumulative impact. This section begins by providing general background information on climate change and meteorology. It then discusses the regulatory framework for global climate change, provides data on the existing global climate setting, and evaluates potential global greenhouse gas emissions associated with the proposed project. Modeled project emissions are estimated based on the land uses proposed as part of the General Plan Amendment, vehicle data, and project trip generation, among other variables. The section then evaluates whether the project could cause a cumulatively considerable contribution to climate change by conflicting with the implementation of GHG reduction measures under AB 32 or other state regulations. The information and analysis provided in this section rely primarily on the Climate Action Team 2006 Final Report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Reports, various California Air Resources Board (CARB) staff reports, and other related global climate change documents that provide background information on the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions. Environmental Setting The following discussion provides an overview of global climate change, its causes, and its potential effects. Global Climate Change Global climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans in recent decades. The Earth’s average near-surface atmospheric temperature rose 0.6 ± 0.2° Celsius (°C) or 1.1 ± 0.4° Fahrenheit (°F) in the 20th century. The prevailing scientific opinion on climate change is that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. The increased amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHGs are the primary causes of 3.6 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Page 3-90 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment the human-induced component of warming. GHGs are released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing, agriculture, and other activities, and lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect.16 GHGs are present in the atmosphere naturally, are released by natural sources, or are formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. The gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced global climate change are: • Carbon dioxide (CO2) • Methane (CH4) • Nitrous oxide (N2O) • Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) • Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) • Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) Over the past 200 years, humans have caused substantial quantities of GHGs to be released into the atmosphere. These extra emissions are increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, and enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, which is believed to be causing global warming. While manmade GHGs include naturally-occurring GHGs such as CO2, methane, and N2O, some gases, like HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 are completely new to the atmosphere. Certain gases, such as water vapor, are short-lived in the atmosphere. Others remain in the atmosphere for significant periods of time, contributing to climate change in the long term. Water vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs above because it is short-lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation. For the purposes of this EIR, the term “GHGs” will refer collectively to the gases listed above only. These gases vary considerably in terms of Global Warming Potential (GWP), which is a concept developed to compare the ability of each greenhouse gas to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. The global warming potential is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiation and length of time that the gas remains in the atmosphere (“atmospheric lifetime”). The GWP of each gas is measured relative to carbon dioxide, the most abundant GHG; the definition of GWP for a particular greenhouse gas is the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of the greenhouse gas to the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of CO2 over a specified time period. GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of pounds or tons of “CO2 equivalents” (CO2eq). Table 3.6-1 shows the GWPs for each type of GHG. For example, sulfur hexaflouride is 22,800 times more potent at contributing to global warming than carbon dioxide. The following discussion summarizes the characteristics of the six GHGs. 16 The temperature on Earth is regulated by a system commonly known as the "greenhouse effect." Just as the glass in a greenhouse lets heat from sunlight in and reduces the heat escaping, greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere keep the Earth at a relatively even temperature. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be a frozen globe; thus, although an excess of greenhouse gas results in global warming, the naturally occurring greenhouse effect is necessary to keep our planet at a comfortable temperature. 3.6 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-91 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) In the atmosphere, carbon generally exists in its oxidized form, as CO2. Natural sources of CO2 include the respiration (breathing) of humans, animals and plants, volcanic outgassing, decomposition of organic matter and evaporation from the oceans. Human caused sources of CO2, include the combustion of fossil fuels and wood, waste incineration, mineral production, and deforestation. Natural sources release approximately 150 billion tons of CO2 each year, far outweighing the 7 billion tons of man-made emissions of CO2 each year. Nevertheless, natural removal processes, such as photosynthesis by land- and ocean-dwelling plant species, cannot keep pace with this extra input of man-made CO2, and consequently, the gas is building up in the atmosphere. In 2002, CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion accounted for approximately 98 percent of man- made CO2 emissions and approximately 84 percent of California's overall GHG emissions (CO2eq). The transportation sector accounted for California’s largest portion of CO2 emissions, with gasoline consumption making up the greatest portion of these emissions. Electricity generation was California’s second largest category of GHG emissions. Methane (CH4) Methane is produced when organic matter decomposes in environments lacking sufficient oxygen. Natural sources include wetlands, termites, and oceans. Decomposition occurring in landfills accounts for the majority of human-generated CH4 emissions in California and in the United States as a whole. Agricultural processes such as intestinal fermentation, manure management, and rice cultivation are also significant sources of CH4 in California. Methane accounted for approximately 6 percent of gross climate change emissions (CO2eq) in California in 2002. Total annual emissions of methane are approximately 500 million tons, with manmade emissions accounting for the majority. As with CO2, the major removal process of atmospheric methane—a chemical breakdown in the atmosphere—cannot keep pace with source emissions, and methane concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing. Table 3.6-1 GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIALS Gas Atmospheric Lifetime (Years) Global Warming Potential (100-year Time Horizon) Carbon Dioxide 50–200 1 Methane 12 25 Nitrous Oxide 114 298 HFC-23 270 14,800 HFC-134a 14 1,430 HFC-152a 1.4 124 PFC: Tetrafluoromethane (CF4) 50,000 7,390 PFC: Hexafluoromethane (C2F6) 10,000 12,200 Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 22,800 Source: IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. 3.6 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Page 3-92 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Nitrous Oxide (N2O) Nitrous oxide is produced naturally by a wide variety of biological sources, particularly microbial action in soils and water. Tropical soils and oceans account for the majority of natural source emissions. Nitrous oxide is a product of the reaction that occurs between nitrogen and oxygen during fuel combustion. Both mobile and stationary combustion emit N2O, and the quantity emitted varies according to the type of fuel, technology, and pollution control device used, as well as maintenance and operating practices. Agricultural soil management and fossil fuel combustion are the primary sources of human-generated N2O emissions in California. Nitrous oxide emissions accounted for nearly 7 percent of man-made GHG emissions (CO2eq) in California in 2002. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) HFCs are primarily used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances regulated under the Montreal Protocol.17 PFCs and SF6 are emitted from various industrial processes, including aluminum smelting, semiconductor manufacturing, electric power transmission and distribution, and magnesium casting. There is no aluminum or magnesium production in California; however, the rapid growth in the semiconductor industry leads to greater use of PFCs. HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 accounted for about 3.5 percent of man-made GHG emissions (CO2eq) in California in 2002. The latest projections, based on state-of-the art climate models, indicate that temperatures in California are expected to rise 3 to 10.5°F by the end of the century.18 Because GHGs persist for a long time in the atmosphere (see Table 3.6-1), accumulate over time, and are generally well-mixed, their impact on the atmosphere cannot be tied to a specific point of emission. Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Climate change may result from: • Natural factors, such as changes in the sun’s intensity or slow changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun • Natural processes within the climate system (e.g., changes in ocean circulation and reduction in sunlight from the addition of GHGs and other gases to the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions) • Human activities that change the atmosphere’s composition (e.g., through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g., from deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, and desertification) The impact of human activities on global climate change is readily apparent in the observational record. For example, surface temperature data show that 11 of the 12 years from 1995 to 2006 rank among the 12 warmest since 1850, the beginning of the instrumental record for global surface temperature. In addition, the atmospheric water vapor content has increased since at least the 1980s over land, sea, and in the upper atmosphere, consistent with the capacity of warmer air to hold more 17 The Montreal Protocol is an international treaty that was approved on January 1, 1989, and was designated to protect the ozone layer by phasing out the production of several groups of halogenated hydrocarbons believed to be responsible for ozone depletion. 18 California Climate Change Center, 2006. Our Changing Climate. Assessing the Risks to California. July. 3.6 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-93 water vapor; ocean temperatures are warmer to depths of 3,000 feet; and a marked decline has occurred in mountain glaciers and snow pack in both hemispheres, and polar ice, and ice sheets in both the Arctic and Antarctic regions. Air trapped by ice has been extracted from core samples taken from polar ice sheets to determine the global atmospheric variation of CO2, CH4 and N2O, from before the start of industrialization (around 1750) to over 650,000 years ago. For that period, it was found that CO2 concentrations ranged from 180 parts per million (ppm) to 300 ppm. For the period from around 1750 to the present, global CO2 concentrations increased from a pre-industrialization period concentration of 280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005, with the 2005 value far exceeding the upper end of the preindustrial period range. The primary effect of global climate change has been a rise in the average global tropospheric19 temperature of 0.2°C per decade, determined from meteorological measurements worldwide between 1990 and 2005. Climate change modeling using 2000 emission rates shows that further warming could occur, which would induce additional changes in the global climate system during the current century. Changes to the global climate system, ecosystems, and the environment of California could include, but are not limited to: • The loss of sea ice and mountain snow pack, resulting in higher sea levels and higher sea surface evaporation rates with a corresponding increase in tropospheric water vapor due to the atmosphere’s ability to hold more water vapor at higher temperatures; • Rise in global average sea level primarily due to thermal expansion and melting of glaciers and ice caps in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets; • Changes in weather that include widespread changes in precipitation, ocean salinity, and wind patterns, and more energetic aspects of extreme weather, including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, extreme cold, and the intensity of tropical cyclones; • Decline of the Sierra snowpack, which accounts for a significant amount of the surface water storage in California, by 70 percent to as much as 90 percent over the next 100 years; • Increase in the number of days conducive to ozone formation by 25 to 85 percent (depending on the future temperature scenario) in high ozone areas of Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley by the end of the 21st century; and • High potential for erosion of California’s coastlines and seawater intrusion into the Delta and levee systems due to the rise in sea level. Emissions Inventories An emissions inventory that identifies and quantifies the primary human-generated sources and sinks of GHGs and, thereby, accounts for the amount of GHGs emitted to or removed from the atmosphere over a specific period of time by a particular source is a well-recognized and useful tool for addressing climate change. This section summarizes the latest information on global, United States, California, and local GHG emission inventories. 19 The troposphere is the zone of the atmosphere characterized by water vapor, weather, winds, and decreasing temperature with increasing altitude. 3.6 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Page 3-94 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Global Emissions Worldwide emissions of GHGs in 2004 were 30 billion tons of CO2eq per year 20 (including both ongoing emissions from industrial and agricultural sources, but excluding emissions from land-use changes). U.S. Emissions In 2004, the United States emitted about 8 billion tons of CO2eq or about 25 tons/year/ person. Of the four major sectors nationwide—residential, commercial, industrial and transportation—transportation accounts for the highest fraction of GHG emissions (approximately 35 to 40 percent); these emissions are entirely generated from direct fossil fuel combustion. Between 1990 and 2006, total U.S. GHG emissions rose approximately 14.7 percent.21 State of California Emissions According to CARB emission inventory estimates, California emitted approximately 480 million metric tons 22 of CO2eq emissions in 2004.23 This large number is due primarily to the sheer size of California compared to other states. By contrast, California has the fourth lowest per-capita carbon dioxide emission rate from fossil fuel combustion in the country, due to the success of its energy efficiency and renewable energy programs and commitments that have lowered the state’s GHG emissions rate of growth by more than half of what it would have been otherwise.24 Another factor that has reduced California’s fuel use and GHG emissions is its mild climate compared to that of many other states. The California EPA Climate Action Team stated in its March 2006 report that the composition of gross climate change pollutant emissions in California in 2002 (expressed in terms of CO2eq) was as follows: • Carbon dioxide (CO2) accounted for 83.3 percent; • Methane (CH4) accounted for 6.4 percent; • Nitrous oxide (N2O) accounted for 6.8 percent; and • Fluorinated gases (HFCs, PFC, and SF6) accounted for 3.5 percent.25 20 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 2007. Sum of Annex I and Non-Annex I Countries Without Counting Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF). Predefined Queries: GHG total without LULUCF (Annex I Parties). Bonn, Germany, http://unfccc.int/ghg_emissions_data/predefined_queries/items/3814.php, accessed May 2. 21 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. The U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: Fast Facts. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/2008_GHG_Fast_Facts.pdf. 22 A metric ton is equivalent to approximately 1.1 tons. 23 California Air Resources Board, Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data - 1990 to 2004. Available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm. Accessed November 2008. 24 California Energy Commission (CEC), 2007. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004 – Final Staff Report, publication # CEC-600-2006-013-SF, Sacramento, CA, December 22, 2006; and January 23, 2007 update to that report. 25 California Environmental Protection Agency, 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. March. 3.6 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-95 The California Air Resources Board estimates that transportation is the source of approximately 38 percent of the state’s GHG emissions in 2004, followed by electricity generation (both in-state and out-of-state) at 25 percent, and industrial sources at 20 percent. Agriculture is the source of approximately 6 percent, as are residential and commercial activities.26 CARB is responsible for developing the California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory. This inventory estimates the amount of GHGs emitted to and removed from the atmosphere by human activities within the State of California and supports the AB 32 Climate Change Program. CARB’s current GHG emission inventory covers the years 1990-2004 and is based on statewide fuel use, processing, and activity data. The emission inventory estimates are based on the actual amount of all fuels combusted in the state, which accounts for over 85 percent of the GHG emissions within California. CARB staff has projected 2020 unregulated GHG emissions, which represent the emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of any GHG reduction actions. CARB staff estimates the statewide 2020 unregulated GHG emissions will be 596 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2eq. GHG emissions in 2020 from the transportation sector as a whole are expected to increase to 225.4 MMT of CO2eq. The industrial sector consists of large stationary sources of GHG emissions and includes oil and gas production and refining facilities, cement plants, and large manufacturing facilities. Emissions for this sector are forecast to grow to 100.5 MMT of CO2eq by 2020, an increase of approximately 5 percent from the average emissions level of 2002-2004. The commercial and residential sectors are expected to contribute 46.7 MMT of CO2eq, or about 8 percent of the total state-wide GHG emissions in 2020. Bay Area Emissions The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) established a climate protection program in 2005 to acknowledge the link between climate change and air quality. The Air District regularly prepares inventories of criteria and toxic air pollutants to support planning, regulatory and other programs. The most recent emissions inventory estimates greenhouse gas emissions produced by the San Francisco Bay Area in 2007.27 The inventory updates the Air District’s previous GHG emission inventory for base year 2002, which was published November 2006. In 2007, 102.6 million metric tons of CO2eq of greenhouse gases were emitted by the San Francisco Bay Area. Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector was the single largest source of the San Francisco Bay Area’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2007. The transportation sector, including on-road motor vehicles, locomotives, ships and boats, and aircraft, contributed over 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the Bay Area. The industrial and commercial sector (excluding electricity and agriculture) was the second largest contributor with 34 percent of total GHG emissions. Energy production activities such as electricity generation and co-generation were the third largest contributor with approximately 15 percent of the total GHG emissions. Off-road equipment such as construction, industrial, commercial, and lawn and garden equipment contributed 3 percent of GHG emissions. 26 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2008. http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/inventory/index.html. September. 27 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2008. Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions. December. 3.6 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Page 3-96 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Contra Costa County Emissions During 2007 and 2008, Contra Costa County conducted an emissions inventory to quantify existing emissions from municipal operations and community-wide actions using software from ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability (formerly the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives). ICLEI works with local governments to help them reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and therefore their impact on global climate change. The GHG emissions inventory uses data on energy use, fuel use, and waste disposal to identify emissions from both municipal operations and from countywide activities. The GHG emissions inventory was conducted using 2005 as the countywide baseline year for consistency with other local governments, and 2006 as the baseline year for municipal operations due to data quality and availability. In July 2008, the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors accepted a revised emissions inventory report.28 The inventory was revised from a 2007 report to include emissions factors that reflect local transportation patterns and energy sources, as well as updated waste disposal emissions calculations. The revised Inventory Report also includes separate community-wide data for incorporated and unincorporated emissions sources, which was not available at the time of the original report. In 2005, countywide greenhouse gas emissions in Contra Costa County totaled 12.3 million metric tons of CO2eq. The majority of emissions (approximately 62 percent) in the county are related to energy use. This percentage of emissions related to energy use is even higher (approximately 79 percent) when considering only the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County. Countywide transportation emissions are approximately 37 percent of the total emissions, which is similar to the percentage of the overall state inventory. Approximately 1 percent of emissions in the county are related to landfilling of solid waste.29 Regulatory Setting The regulatory framework and other governmental activities addressing GHG emissions and global climate change are discussed in this subsection. Federal Regulations There are no adopted federal regulations for GHG emissions. In February 2002, the United States government announced a comprehensive strategy to reduce the GHG intensity 30 of the American economy by 18 percent over the 10-year period from 2002 to 2012. This strategy has three basic components: (1) slowing the growth of emissions, (2) strengthening science, technology and institutions, and (3) enhancing international cooperation.31 In 2002, the United States government also announced a climate change research initiative to focus on key remaining gaps in climate change science. To meet this goal, the federal multi-agency Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) was established to investigate natural and human-induced changes in the Earth’s global environmental system; to monitor, understand, and predict global change; and to provide a sound scientific basis for national and international decision-making. The federal government established the multi-agency Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP) to accelerate 28 Contra Costa County, 2008. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Report. June. 29 Ibid. 30 GHG intensity measures the ratio of GHG emissions to economic output. 31 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Climate Change: Basic Information. www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html. 3.6 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-97 the development and deployment of key technologies which offer great promise to reduce GHG emissions significantly. The CCTP works closely with CCSP to make further progress in understanding and addressing global climate change. The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) primary role in CCSP is evaluating the potential consequences of climate variability and the effects on air quality, water quality, ecosystems, and human health in the United States. Currently there are no adopted federal regulations to control global climate change. However, recent authority has been granted to the EPA that may change the voluntary approach taken under the current administration to address this issue. On April 2, 2007, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the EPA has the authority to regulate CO2 emissions under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). Over a decade ago, most countries joined an international treaty, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), to begin to consider what can be done to reduce global warming and to cope with the physical and socioeconomic effects of climate change. More recently, a number of nations have ratified an amendment to the treaty: the Kyoto Protocol, which has a more powerful effect on its signatories. Because the Kyoto Protocol will affect virtually all major sectors of the economy, it is considered to be the most far-reaching agreement on the environment and sustainable development ever adopted. Most of the world’s countries eventually agreed to the Protocol, but some nations (including the United States) chose not to ratify it. Following ratification by Russia, the Kyoto Protocol entered into force on February 16, 2005, for signatory nations. As of July 2008, 182 countries have ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Participating nations are separated into Annex 1 countries (i.e., industrialized nations) and Non-Annex 1 countries (i.e., developing nations) that have different requirements for GHG reductions. The goal of the Protocol is to achieve overall emissions reduction targets for six GHGs by 2012. The six GHGs regulated under the Protocol are CO2, CH4, N2O, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons. Each nation must reduce GHG emissions by a certain percentage below 1990 levels (e.g., 8 percent reduction for the European Union, 6 percent reduction for Japan). The average reduction target for nations participating in the Kyoto Protocol is approximately 5 percent below 1990 levels. Although the United States has not ratified the Protocol, on February 14, 2002, it established a goal of an 18 percent reduction in GHG emissions intensity by 2012. State Regulations In 1967, the California Legislature passed the Mulford-Carrell Act, which combined two Department of Health bureaus, the Bureau of Air Sanitation and the Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board, to establish the CARB. Since its formation, the CARB has worked with the public, the business sector, and local governments to find solutions to California’s air pollution problems. The resulting state air quality standards set by the CARB continue to outpace the rest of the nation and have prompted the development of new anti-smog technology for industrial facilities and motor vehicles. In a response to the transportation sector’s significant contribution to California’s CO2 emissions, Assembly Bill 1493 (AB 1493, Pavley) was enacted on July 22, 2002. AB 1493 requires CARB to set GHG emission standards for passenger vehicles and light duty trucks (and other vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the state) manufactured in 2009 and all subsequent model years. In setting these standards, the CARB considered cost effectiveness, technological feasibility, and economic impacts. CARB adopted the standards in September 2004. When fully phased-in, the near-term (2009 to 2012) standards would result in a reduction in GHG 3.6 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Page 3-98 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment emissions of approximately 22 percent compared to the emissions from the 2002 fleet, while the midterm (2013 to 2016) standards would result in a reduction of approximately 30 percent. To set its own GHG emissions limits on motor vehicles, California must receive a waiver from the EPA. However, in December 2007, the EPA denied the request from California for the waiver. In January 2008, the California Attorney General filed a petition for review of the U.S. EPA’s decision in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; however, no decision on that petition has been published as of January 2009. In June 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger established California’s GHG emissions reduction targets in Executive Order S-3-05. The Executive Order established the following goals: GHG emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010; GHG emissions should be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020; and GHG emissions should be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. California’s major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is outlined in Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the “Global Warming Solutions Act,” passed by the California state legislature on August 31, 2006. This effort aims at reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, a reduction of approximately 25 percent, and then an 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. The CARB has established the level of GHG emissions in 1990 at 427 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2eq. The emissions target of 427 MMT requires the reduction of 169 MMT from the state’s projected business-as-usual 2020 emissions of 596 MMT. CARB must prepare a Scoping Plan by January 1, 2009 that outlines the main state strategies for meeting the 2020 deadline; on December 11, 2008, CARB approved the Scoping Plan. Emission reductions that are projected to result from the recommended measures in the Scoping Plan are expected to total 174 MMT of CO2eq, which would allow California to attain the emissions goal of 427 MMT of CO2eq by 2020. The Scoping Plan, when completed, will include a range of GHG reduction actions that may include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, and market-based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade system. In addition to reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, AB 32 directed CARB and the newly created Climate Action Team (CAT) 32 to identify a list of “discrete early action GHG reduction measures” that can be adopted and made enforceable by January 1, 2010. On January 18, 2007, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-1-07, further solidifying California’s dedication to reducing GHGs by setting a new Low Carbon Fuel Standard. The Executive Order sets a target to reduce the carbon intensity of California transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020 and directs CARB to consider the Low Carbon Fuel Standard as a discrete early action measure. In June 2007, CARB approved a list of 37 early action measures, including three discrete early action measures (Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Restrictions on High Global Warming Potential Refrigerants, and Landfill Methane Capture).33 Discrete early action measures are measures that are required to be adopted as regulations and made effective no later than January 1, 2010, the date established by Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 38560.5. The CARB adopted additional early action measures in October 2007 that tripled the number of discrete early action measures. These measures relate to truck efficiency, port electrification, reduction of perfluorocarbons from the semiconductor industry, reduction of propellants in consumer products, proper tire inflation, and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) 32 CAT is a consortium of representatives from State agencies who have been charged with coordinating and implementing GHG emission reduction programs that fall outside of CARB’s jurisdiction. 33 California Air Resources Board. 2007. Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California Recommended for Board Consideration. October. 3.6 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-99 reductions from the non-electricity sector. The combination of early action measures is estimated to reduce state-wide GHG emissions by nearly 16 MMT.34 To assist public agencies in the mitigation of GHG emissions or analyzing the effects of GHGs under CEQA, including the effects associated with transportation and energy consumption, Senate Bill 97 (Chapter 185, 2007) requires the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop CEQA guidelines on how to minimize and mitigate a project’s GHG emissions. OPR is required to prepare, develop, and transmit these guidelines on or before July 1, 2009 and the Resources Agency is required to certify and adopt them by January 1, 2010. OPR has not issued any formal regulations as of November 2008. However, preliminary guidance released by OPR in June 2008 suggests that global climate change analyses in CEQA documents should be conducted for all projects that release GHGs, and that mitigation measures to reduce emissions should be incorporated into projects, to the extent feasible. SB 375, which was signed into law on October 1, 2008, provides emissions-reduction goals and provides incentives for local governments and developers to follow new conscientiously planned growth patterns. SB 375 enhances the CARB’s ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing CARB to develop regional greenhouse gas emission reduction targets to be achieved from the automobile and light truck sectors for 2020 and 2035. CARB will also work with California's 18 metropolitan planning organizations to align their regional transportation, housing, and land use plans and prepare a “sustainable communities strategy” to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled in their respective regions and demonstrate the region’s ability to attain its greenhouse gas reduction targets. Additionally, SB 375 provides incentives for creating attractive, walkable, and sustainable communities and revitalizing existing communities. The bill exempts home builders from certain CEQA requirements if they build projects consistent with the new sustainable community strategies. It will also encourage the development of more alternative transportation options, to promote healthy lifestyles and reduce traffic congestion. As noted above, AB 32 requires CARB to prepare a Scoping Plan containing the main strategies California will use to reduce the GHGs that cause climate change. The Scoping Plan approved by CARB on December 11, 2008, includes measures to address GHG emission reduction strategies related to energy efficiency, water use, and recycling and solid waste, among other measures.35 The Scoping Plan, even after Board approval, remains a recommendation. The measures in the Scoping Plan will not be binding until after they are adopted through the normal rulemaking process, with the necessary public input. Local Policies While the Contra Costa County General Plan does not include policies that specifically address global climate change, the following goals and policies would be expected to reduce GHG emissions. 34 California Air Resources Board. 2007. “CARB approves tripling of early action measures required under AB 32”. News Release 07-46. http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr102507.htm. October 25. 35 California Air Resources Board. 2008. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan: a framework for change. October. 3.6 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Page 3-100 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment General Plan Goals, Policies and Measures that Reduce GHG Emissions L AND U SE E LEMENT Goals 3-A. To coordinate land use with circulation, development of other infrastructure facilities, and protection of agriculture and open space, and to allow growth and the maintenance of the County’s quality of life 3-E. To recognize and support existing land densities in most communities, while encouraging higher densities in appropriate areas, such as near major transportation hubs and job centers. 3-F. To permit urban development only in locations of the County within identified outer boundaries of urban development where public service delivery systems that meet applicable performance standards are provided or committed. 3-H. To adopt and implement an innovative Countywide Growth Management Program which effectively links land use policy with transportation and other infrastructure improvements. 3-K. To develop a balance between job availability and housing availability with consideration given to wage levels, commute distance and housing affordability. Implementation Measures 3-5. New development within unincorporated areas of the County may be approved, providing growth management standards and criteria are met or can be assured of being prior to the issuance of building permits in accordance with the growth management. 3-8. Infilling of already developed areas shall be encouraged. 3-25. Innovation in site planning and design of housing developments shall be encouraged in order to upgrade quality and efficiency of residential living arrangements and to protect the surrounding environment. 3-28. New residential development shall be accommodated only in areas where it will avoid creating severe unmitigated adverse impacts upon the environment and upon the existing community. 3-g. Adopt land use regulations which allow mixed-use developments as a mechanism for achieving a jobs/housing balance. T RANSPORTATION AND C IRCULATION E LEMENT Goals 5-A. To provide a safe, efficient and balanced transportation system. 5-D. To maintain and improve air quality standards. 5-I. To encourage use of transit. 5-J. To reduce single-occupant auto commuting. 3.6 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-101 5-L. Increase the opportunities for bicycle use in Contra Costa County for transportation as well as recreational purposes. 5-M. Develop a coordinated, interjurisdictional Countywide network of bikeways that connect residential areas with major employment, commercial, educational, transit and cultural centers. 5-P. Provide secure bicycle parking facilities at appropriate locations and improved access to transit systems. 5-Q. Promote bikeway planning and coordination among cities, transit agencies and public utilities. Policies 5-21. All efforts to use alternative transportation systems to reduce peak period traffic congestion shall be encouraged. 5-22. Use of alternative forms of transportation, especially transit, shall be encouraged in order to provide necessary services to transit-dependent persons and to help minimize automobile congestion and air pollution. 5-23. Improvement of public transit shall be encouraged to provide for increased use of local, commuter and intercity public transportation. 5-25. Planning and provision for a system of safe and convenient pedestrian ways, bikeways and regional hiking trails shall be continued as a means of connecting community facilities, residential areas, and business districts, as well as points of interest outside the communities utilizing existing public and semi-public right-of-way. 5-26. Rail transit facilities or additional high occupancy vehicle lanes proposed within a designated transit corridor shall be considered consistent with this General Plan. Implementation Measures 5-n. Enforce County TDM (Transportation Demand Management) Ordinances consistent with state law, and encourage neighboring jurisdictions to adopt similar ordinances. 5-o. Develop and implement a comprehensive program of park-and-ride lots, in cooperation with the cities, transit agencies, and Caltrans, to serve the demand forecasted by this Plan. 5-p. Coordinate efforts with BART to expand parking facilities at or near stations. 5-v. Expand transit service areas to serve all urbanized portions of the El Sobrante Valley. 5-w. Provide safe pedestrian ways in the vicinity of schools and other public facilities, and in commercial areas, and provide convenient access to bus routes. 5-x. Construct the bikeways shown in the future Bikeway Network Plan and incorporate the needs of bicyclists in major roadway construction projects and normal safety and operational improvements. 3.6 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Page 3-102 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment 5-ae. Support the establishment and operation of commuter transit services, serving the Transit Corridors identified on the Transit Network Plan, with emphasis on service to major employment centers and transit stations. 5-ai. Design and allow for on-road bikeways on arterials and collectors as an alternative to car travel where this can be safely accommodated. C ONSERVATION E LEMENT Goals 8-K. To encourage the use of renewable resources where they are compatible with the maintenance of environmental quality. 8-L. To reduce energy use in the County to avoid risks or air pollution and energy shortages which could prevent orderly development. 8-AA. To meet Federal Air Quality Standards for all air pollutants. 8-AB. To continue to support federal, state and regional efforts to reduce air pollution in order to protect human and environmental health. 8-AC. To restore air quality in the area to a more healthful 8-AD. To reduce the percentage of Average Daily Traffic (ADT) trips occurring at peak hours. Policies 8-98. Development and roadway improvements shall be phased to avoid congestion. 8-99. The free flow of vehicular traffic shall be facilitated on major arterials 8-100. Vehicular emissions shall be reduced throughout the County. 8-101. A safe, convenient and effective bicycle and trail system shall be created and maintained to encourage increased bicycle use and walking as alternatives to driving. 8-102. A safe and convenient pedestrian system shall be created and maintained in order to encourage walking as an alternative to driving. 8-103. When there is a finding that a proposed project might significantly affect air quality, appropriate mitigation measures shall be imposed. 8-107. New housing in infill and peripheral areas which are adjacent to existing residential development shall be encouraged. Implementation Measures 8-br. Prepare guidelines for solar design to be included as a revision to the subdivision ordinance. 8-bs. Include provisions for solar access within design review of projects. 8-dn. Consistent with the uses and ranges of density specified in this plan, particularly those in the Land Use Element and the Growth Management Element, encourage development that would 3.6 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-103 reduce long distance commuting, positively affect the desired jobs/housing balance or promote alternative forms of transportation. 8-do. In addition to improving then jobs/housing balance, an effort to fill jobs in the County with County residents through “local hire” policies could be encouraged. Job training programs for County residents should be tailored to local jobs. 8-dp. Review proposed development to encourage maximum use of bicycle, pedestrian and transit modes of transportation. Impacts and Mitigation Measures This subsection evaluates significant impacts to global climate change that could result from implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendment (the proposed project would not result in less-than-significant impacts to global climate change). Because it is not possible to tie specific GHG emissions to actual changes in climate, this evaluation focuses on the project’s emission of GHGs. Mitigation measures are identified as appropriate. Impact Evaluation Criteria There is no CEQA statute, regulation, or judicial decision that requires an EIR to analyze the GHG emissions of a project, or identifies under what circumstances a project would have a significant impact on global warming. The recommended approach for GHG analysis included in OPR’s June 2008 release is to: (1) identify and quantify GHG emissions, (2) assess the significance of the impact on climate change, and (3) if significant, identify alternatives and/or mitigation measures to reduce the impact below significance.36 Neither the CEQA statute nor Guidelines prescribe thresholds of significance or a particular methodology for performing an impact analysis, and no state agency or local air quality management district has issued any regulations or standards of significance for the analysis of GHGs under CEQA; as with most environmental topics, significance criteria are left to the judgment and discretion of the lead agency. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b) provides that the “determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data,” and further, states that an “ironclad definition of significant effect is not always possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting.” Some policy makers and regulators suggest that a zero emissions threshold would be appropriate when evaluating GHGs and their potential effect on climate change. However, most feel that such an absolute threshold would be analytically impractical and would interfere with the ability of the economy to function. Such a rule also appears inconsistent with the state’s approach to mitigation of climate change impacts. AB 32 does not prohibit all new GHG emissions; rather, it requires a reduction in state-wide emissions to a given level. Thus, AB 32 recognizes that GHG emissions will continue to occur; increases will result from certain activities, but reductions must occur elsewhere. 36 California, State of, 2008. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. June 19. 3.6 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Page 3-104 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Because no applicable numeric thresholds have yet been defined, and because the precise causal link between an individual project’s emissions and global climate change has not been developed, it is reasonable to conclude that an individual development project cannot generate a high enough quantity of GHG emissions to affect global climate change. However, individual projects incrementally contribute toward the potential for global climate change on a cumulative basis in concert with all other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. This analysis identifies qualitative factors to determine whether the General Plan Amendment’s emissions should be considered cumulatively significant. Until the County or other regulatory agency devises a generally applicable climate change threshold, the analysis used in this study may or may not be applicable to other County projects. Accordingly, for purposes of this analysis, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulative impact of global climate change if it would substantially conflict with or obstruct the implementation of GHG emissions reduction goals under AB 32 or other state regulations. GHG Emissions Background Emissions estimates for the proposed General Plan Amendment are discussed below. GHG emissions estimates are provided herein for informational purposes only, as there is no established quantified GHG emissions threshold. Bearing in mind that CEQA does not require “perfection” but instead “adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure,” the analysis below is based on methodologies and information available to the County at the time this EIR was prepared. Estimation of GHG emissions in the future does not account for all changes in technology that may reduce such emissions; therefore, the estimates are based on past performance and represent a scenario that is worse than that which is likely to be encountered (after energy-efficient technologies have been implemented). While information is presented below to assist the public and the County’s decision makers in understanding the project’s potential contribution to global climate change impacts, the information available to the County is not sufficiently detailed to allow a direct comparison between particular project characteristics and particular climate change impacts, nor between any particular proposed mitigation measure and any reduction in climate change impacts. Construction and operation of development associated with the General Plan Amendment would generate GHG emissions, with the majority of energy consumption (and associated generation of GHG emissions) occurring during the project’s operation (as opposed to its construction). Typically, more than 80 percent of the total energy consumption takes place during the use of buildings and less than 20 percent is consumed during construction.37 Currently, there is no study that quantitatively assesses all of the GHG emissions associated with each phase of the construction and use of an individual development. Overall, the following activities associated with the proposed project could directly or indirectly contribute to the generation of GHG emissions: • Removal of Vegetation: The net removal of vegetation for construction results in a loss of the carbon sequestration in plants. However, planting of additional vegetation would result in additional carbon sequestration and lower the carbon footprint of the project. 37 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2007. Buildings and Climate Change: Status, Challenges and Opportunities, Paris, France. 3.6 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-105 • Construction Activities: During construction of the project, GHGs would be emitted through the operation of construction equipment and from worker and builder supply vendor vehicles, each of which typically uses fossil-based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil- based fuels creates GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O. Furthermore, CH4 is emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. • Gas, Electric and Water Use: Natural gas use results in the emissions of two GHGs: CH4 (the major component of natural gas) and CO2 from the combustion of natural gas. Electricity use can result in GHG production if the electricity is generated by combusting fossil fuel. California’s water conveyance system is energy intensive. Preliminary estimates indicate that the total energy used to pump and treat this water exceeds 6.5 percent of the total electricity used in the state per year.38 • Solid Waste Disposal: Solid waste generated by the project could contribute to GHG emissions in a variety of ways. Landfilling and other methods of disposal use energy for transporting and managing the waste and they produce additional GHGs to varying degrees. Landfilling, the most common waste management practice, results in the release of CH4 from the anaerobic decomposition of organic materials. CH4 is 25 times more potent a GHG than CO2. However, landfill CH4 can also be a source of energy. In addition, many materials in landfills do not decompose fully, and the carbon that remains is sequestered in the landfill and not released into the atmosphere. • Motor Vehicle Use: Transportation associated with the proposed project would result in GHG emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels in daily automobile and truck trips. GHG emissions generated by the proposed project would predominantly consist of CO2. In comparison to criteria air pollutants, such as ozone and PM10, CO2 emissions persist in the atmosphere for a substantially longer period of time. While emissions of other GHGs, such as CH4, are important with respect to global climate change, emission levels of other GHGs are less dependent on the land use and circulation patterns associated with the proposed land use development project than are levels of CO2. Significant Climate Change Impacts Significant impacts of the proposed project are described in the following section. Long-term operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions from area and mobile sources, and indirect emissions from stationary sources associated with energy consumption. Mobile-source emissions of GHGs would include project-generated vehicle trips associated with employee commutes, and visitor and delivery vehicle trips to the project site. Area-source emissions would be associated with activities such as landscaping and maintenance of proposed land uses, natural gas for heating, and other sources. Increases in stationary source emissions would also occur at off-site utility providers as a result of demand for electricity, natural gas, and water by the proposed uses. 38 California Energy Commission (CEC), 2004. Water Energy Use in California (online information sheet) Sacramento, CA, August 24. Website: energy.ca.gov/pier/iaw/industry/ water.html. Accessed July 24, 2007. 3.6 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Page 3-106 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment GHG emissions associated with the project would occur over the short term from construction activities, consisting primarily of emissions from equipment exhaust. There would also be long-term regional emissions associated with project-related vehicular trips and stationary source emissions, such as natural gas used for heating. Preliminary guidance from OPR and recent letters from the Attorney General critical of CEQA documents that have taken different approaches indicate that lead agencies should calculate, or estimate, emissions from vehicular traffic, energy consumption, water conveyance and treatment, waste generation, and construction activities. The calculation presented below includes construction emissions in terms of CO2, and annual CO2eq GHG emissions from increased energy consumption, water usage, solid waste disposal, as well as estimated GHG emissions from vehicular traffic that would result from implementation of the General Plan Amendment. Consistent with the final transportation analysis,39 this subsection provides a summary of impacts for both the San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way Corridor Areas. The San Pablo Dam Road Corridor Area includes a maximum of 221,920 square feet of office and retail space and a maximum of 204 multi-family units. The Appian Way Corridor Area includes up to 180,665 square feet of office and retail space and a maximum of 286 multi-family units. It is projected that 70 percent of the mixed-use designations would be developed as retail and the remaining 30 percent would be developed as office space.40 The GHG emission estimates presented in Tables 3.6-2 through 3.6-4 show the emissions for the San Pablo Dam Road Corridor Area, Appian Way Corridor Area, and total project emissions associated with the level of development envisioned by the proposed General Plan Amendment, respectively. Construction Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various sources such as site grading, utility engines, on-site heavy-duty construction vehicles, equipment hauling materials to and from the site, asphalt paving, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust emissions from on-site construction activities would vary daily as construction activity levels change. Precise construction timelines are not known, and a development timeline calculator was used to estimate the timeline of each of the individual construction phases.41 The only GHG with well- studied emissions characteristics and published emissions factors for construction equipment is CO2. Using the URBEMIS 2007 model, it is estimated that the project construction-related CO2 emissions associated with construction equipment exhaust for the proposed project would total approximately 7,134 tons for San Pablo Dam Road Corridor Area and 7,752 tons for the Appian Way Corridor Area. Total project construction emissions would be approximately 14,886 tons of CO2. The project would be required to implement the construction exhaust control measures listed in Mitigation Measure 3.6-1, including minimization of construction equipment idling and implementation of proper engine tuning and exhaust controls. Both of these measures would reduce GHG emissions during the construction period; these, as well as other measures, are included in Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 to reduce GHG emissions to a less-than-significant level. 39 Dowling Associates, 2007. Final Transportation Analysis for Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment. October 18. 40 Ibid. 41 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 2008. Development Timeline Calculator. Available at http://www.valleyair.org/ISR/ISRResources.htm. While the calculator was developed for the Indirect Source Review program in the San Joaquin Valley, it is not location-specific and is applicable to projects located in other areas. Outputs are designed to be used in URBEMIS 2007. 3.6 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-107 Architectural coatings used in construction of the specific General Plan Amendment projects may contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that are similar to reactive organic gases (ROG) and are part of ozone precursors. However, there are no significant emissions of GHGs from architectural coatings. Table 3.6-2 SAN PABLO DAM ROAD CORRIDOR AREA GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Emissions (Metric Tons Per Year) Emission Source CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq Percent of Total Vehiclesa 6,416 0.34 1.1 6,752 75% Electricity Production 1,300 0.015 0.0081 1,300 14% Natural Gas Combustiona 711 0.014 0.013 716 8% Solid Waste -- -- -- 134 1% Other Area Sourcesb 98.47 -- -- 98.47 1% Total Annual Emissions 8,500 0.37 1.1 9,000 100% Table 3.6-3 APPIAN WAY CORRIDOR AREA GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Emissions (Metric Tons Per Year) Emission Source CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq Percent of Total Vehiclesa 6,237 0.31 1 6,542 74% Electricity Production 1,300 0.015 0.0081 1,300 15% Natural Gas Combustiona 764 0.017 0.016 770 9% Solid Waste -- -- -- 120 1% Other Area Sourcesb 136.34 -- -- 136.34 2% Total Annual Emissions 8,400 0.34 1 8,868 100% Table 3.6-4 TOTAL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Emissions (Metric Tons Per Year) Emission Source CO2 CH4 N2O CO2eq Percent of Total Vehiclesa 12,652 1 2 13,294 74% Electricity Production 2,600 0 0 2,600 15% Natural Gas Combustiona 1,476 0 0 1,486 8% Solid Waste N/A N/A N/A 254 1% Other Area Sourcesb 235 N/A N/A 235 1% Total Annual Emissions 16,900 1 2 17,868 100% Note: Numbers in table may not appear to add up correctly due to rounding. a CO2 emissions for Vehicles and Natural Gas input from URBEMIS 2007 outputs. b Includes emissions from landscaping equipment. Source: LSA Associates, Inc., January 2009. 3.6 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Page 3-108 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Energy and Natural Gas Use Buildings represent 39 percent of the United States' primary energy use and 70 percent of electricity consumption.42 The proposed project would increase the demand for electricity and natural gas due to the increased office and retail square footage, number of employees and number of multi-family residences. Greenhouse gas emissions related to electricity consumption were calculated based on data provided by the Energy Information Administration. CO2 emissions for natural gas consumption were estimated using URBEMIS 2007; methane and nitrous oxide emissions were estimated with data provided by the Energy Information Administration. The General Plan Amendment would indirectly result in increased GHG emissions from off-site electricity generation at power plants of approximately 2,600 metric tons of CO2eq per year. Water Use Water-related energy use consumes 19 percent of California’s electricity every year.43 Energy use and related GHG emissions are based on water supply and conveyance, water treatment, water distribution, and wastewater treatment. A Water Supply Assessment projecting the water demand as a result of the proposed project was not available at the time this climate change section was developed. Water use estimates were based on usage factors provided by the other studies in the Bay Area and the Pacific Institute.44 The additional water demand for the proposed project is projected to be approximately 77 acre-feet per year for San Pablo Dam Road Corridor Area and 99 acre-feet per year for the Appian Way Corridor Area for a combined project total of 176 acre-feet per year of additional water demand. Solid Waste Disposal The proposed project would also generate solid waste during the operation phase of the project. Average waste generation rates from a variety of sources are available from the California Integrated Waste Management Board.45 This analysis uses an average waste generation rate of 0.0108 tons per year per square foot of office use, 0.0024 tons per year per square foot of retail use, and 1.17 tons per year per unit. The General Plan Amendment would generate approximately 1,331 tons per year in the San Pablo Dam Road Corridor Area and 1,223 tons per year in the Appian Way Corridor Area. To determine the net GHG emissions from landfilling, the CO2eq emissions from CH4 generation, carbon storage (treated as negative emissions), and transportation CO2 emissions were considered. Mobile Sources Mobile sources (vehicle trips and associated miles traveled) would be the largest emission source of GHGs associated with the proposed project. Transportation is also the largest source of GHG emissions in California and represents approximately 38 percent of annual CO2 emissions generated in the state. Like most land use development projects, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the most direct indicator of CO2 emissions from the proposed project and associated CO2 emissions function as the best indicator of total GHG emissions. The proposed General Plan Amendment would generate an 42 United States Department of Energy. 2003. Buildings Energy Data Book. 43 California, State of, 2005. California Energy Commission. California’s Water-Energy Relationship. November. 44 Pacific Institute, 2003. Waste Not, Want Not: The Potential for Urban Water Conservation in California. November. 45 California Integrated Waste Management Board, 2009. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Available at http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/wastechar/wastegenrates/. 3.6 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-109 additional 16,553 trips over current conditions (8,695 trips in San Pablo Dam Road Corridor Area and 7,858 trips in the Appian Way Corridor Area). The proposed General Plan Amendment would generate up to 17,868 tons of CO2eq per year of new emissions, as shown in Table 5. The emissions from vehicle exhaust would comprise approximately 74 percent of the project’s total CO2eq emissions. The emissions from vehicle exhaust are controlled by the state and federal governments and are outside the control of Contra Costa County. However, the emissions from project-related vehicles would be reduced by the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs, as applicable, to projects developed as part of the General Plan Amendment.46 The remaining CO2eq emissions are primarily associated with building heating systems and increased regional power plant electricity generation due to the project’s electrical demands. Specific development projects proposed under the General Plan Amendment would comply with existing state and federal regulations regarding the energy efficiency of buildings, appliances, and lighting, which would reduce the project’s electricity demand. The new buildings constructed in accordance with current energy efficiency standards would be more energy efficient than the older industrial buildings that currently exist on the site. However, in the absence of supplementary mitigation measures, the General Plan Amendment would obstruct the implementation of GHG reduction goals under AB 32. At present, there is a federal ban on CFCs; therefore, it is assumed the project would not generate emissions of CFCs. The project may emit a small amount of HFC emissions from leakage and service of refrigeration and air conditioning equipment and from disposal at the end of the life of the equipment. However, the details regarding refrigerants to be used in the project site are unknown at this time. PFCs and sulfur hexafluoride are typically used in industrial applications, none of which would be used on the project site. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project would contribute significant emissions of these additional GHGs. Project Greenhouse Emissions IMPACT 3.6-1: Implementation of the General Plan Amendment could result in greenhouse gas emission levels that could conflict with implementation of the greenhouse gas reduction goals under AB 32 or other state regulations. Discussion and Conclusion: The California Environmental Protection Agency Climate Action Team (CAT) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have developed several reports to achieve the Governor’s GHG targets that rely on voluntary actions of California businesses, local government and community groups, and state incentive and regulatory programs. These include the CAT’s 2006 “Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature,” CARB’s 2007 “Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California,” and CARB’s “Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan: a Framework for Change.” 46 Contra Costa County, 2003. Chapter 82-32 Transportation Demand Management. 3.6 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Page 3-110 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment The reports identify strategies to reduce California’s emissions to the levels proposed in Executive Order S-3-05 and AB 32 that are applicable to proposed project. The Proposed Scoping Plan is the most recent document, and the strategies included in the Scoping Plan that apply to the project are contained in Table 3.6-5, which also summarizes the extent to which the project would comply with the strategies to help California reach the emission reduction targets. The strategies listed in Table 3.6-5 are either part of the project, required mitigation measures, or requirements under local or state ordinances. Without implementation of these strategies/measures, the project’s contribution to cumulative GHG emissions would be considered a potentially significant impact. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.6-1: To the extent feasible and to the satisfaction of the County, the following measures shall be incorporated into the design and construction of the projects seeking County approval and developed as part of the General Plan Amendment: Construction and Building Materials • On-site idling of construction equipment shall be minimized as much as feasible (no more than 5 minutes maximum); • All construction equipment shall be properly tuned and fitted with manufacturer’s standard level exhaust controls; • Limit the hours of operation of heavy duty equipment and/or the amount of equipment in use; 3.6 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-111 Table 3.6-5 PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION REDUCTION STRATEGIES Strategy Project Compliance ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES Energy Efficiency Maximize energy efficiency building and appliance standards, and pursue additional efficiency efforts including new technologies, and new policy and implementation mechanisms. Pursue comparable investment in energy efficiency from all retail providers of electricity in California (including both investor-owned and publicly owned utilities). Renewables Portfolio Standard Achieve a 33 percent renewable energy mix statewide. Green Building Strategy Expand the use of green building practices to reduce the carbon footprint of California’s new and existing inventory of buildings. Compliant with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would be required to comply with the updated Title 24 standards for building construction. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the requirements of Mitigation Measure GCC-1, identified below, including measures to incorporate energy efficient building design features. WATER CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCY MEASURES Water Use Efficiency Continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy sources to move and treat water. Approximately 19 percent of all electricity, 30 percent of all natural gas, and 88 million gallons of diesel are used to convey, treat, distribute and use water and wastewater. Increasing the efficiency of water transport and reducing water use would reduce GHG emissions. Compliant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project would be required to comply with the requirements of Mitigation Measure GCC-1, identified below, including measures to increase water use efficiency. SOLID WASTE REDUCTION MEASURES Increase Waste Diversion, Composting, and Commercial Recycling, and Move Toward Zero-Waste Increase waste diversion from landfills beyond the 50 percent mandate to provide for additional recovery of recyclable materials. Composting and commercial recycling could have substantial GHG reduction benefits. In the long term, zero-waste policies that would require manufacturers to design products to be fully recyclable may be necessary. Compliant. Preliminary data available from the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) indicates the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County have met the 50% diversion rate since 2005. 3.6 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-112 Strategy Project Compliance TRANSPORTATION AND MOTOR VEHICLE MEASURES Vehicle Climate Change Standards. AB 1493 (Pavley) required the state to develop and adopt regulations that achieve the maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of GHG emissions from passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Regulations were adopted by the CARB in September 2004. Light-Duty Vehicle Efficiency Measures. Implement additional measures that could reduce light-duty GHG emissions. For example, measures to ensure that tires are properly inflated can both reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel efficiency. Adopt Heavy- and Medium-Duty Fuel and Engine Efficiency Measures. Regulations to require retrofits to improve the fuel efficiency of heavy-duty trucks that could include devices that reduce aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance. This measure could also include hybridization of and increased engine efficiency of vehicles. Low Carbon Fuel Standard. CARB identified this measure as a Discrete Early Action Measure. This measure would reduce the carbon intensity of California's transportation fuels by at least 10% by 2020. Compliant. The General Plan Amendment does not involve the manufacture, sale, or purchase of vehicles. However, vehicles that operate within and access the project site would comply with any vehicle and fuel standards that the CARB adopts. Regional Transportation-Related Greenhouse Gas Targets. Develop regional greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles. Local governments will play a significant role in the regional planning process to reach passenger vehicle greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. Local governments have the ability to directly influence both the siting and design of new residential and commercial developments in a way that reduces greenhouse gases associated with vehicle travel. Compliant with Mitigation Incorporated. Specific regional emission targets for transportation emissions do not directly apply to this project. The proposed General Plan Amendment is intended to enhance and improve pedestrian connectivity and generate demand for transit services and new bicycle activity within the project area. Specific projects proposed as part of the General Plan Amendment may be required to implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, if applicable.a Measures to Reduce High Global Warming Potential (GWP) Gases. CARB has identified Discrete Early Action measures to reduce GHG emissions from the refrigerants used in car air conditioners, semiconductor manufacturing, and consumer products. CARB has also identified potential reduction opportunities for future commercial and industrial refrigeration, changing the refrigerants used in auto air conditioning systems, and ensuring that existing car air conditioning systems do not leak. Compliant. New products used, sold, or serviced in the project site (after implementation of the reduction of GWP gases) would comply with future CARB rules and regulations. a Contra Costa County, 2003. Chapter 82-32 Transportation Demand Management. The TDM requirements currently apply to residential projects containing 13 or more dwelling units and non-residential or mixed-use development applications, including certain expansions, that must be approved through a public hearing process and have not received final approval. Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2009. 3.6 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-113 • Use locally produced and/or manufactured building materials for construction of the project; • Recycle/reuse demolished construction material; and • Use “Green Building Materials,” such as those materials which are resource efficient, and recycled and manufactured in an environmentally friendly way, including low Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) materials. Energy Efficiency Measures • Design all project buildings to exceed California Building Code’s Title 24 energy standard, including, but not limited to any combination of the following: − Increase insulation such that heat transfer and thermal bridging is minimized; − Limit air leakage through the structure or within the heating and cooling distribution system to minimize energy consumption; and − Incorporate ENERGY STAR or better rated windows, space heating and cooling equipment, light fixtures, appliances or other applicable electrical equipment. Design, construct and operate all newly constructed and renovated buildings and facilities as equivalent to “LEED Silver” or higher certified buildings. • Design building to facilitate use of solar energy for electricity, water heating and/or space heating/cooling; • Provide a landscape and development plan for the project that takes advantage of shade, prevailing winds, and landscaping; • Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems. Use daylight as an integral part of lighting systems in buildings; • Install light colored “cool” roofs and cool pavements; • Install energy efficient heating and cooling systems, appliances and equipment, and control systems; and • Install solar or light emitting diodes (LEDs) for outdoor lighting. Water Conservation and Efficiency Measures • Devise a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the project and location. The strategy may include the following, plus other innovative measures that might be appropriate: − Create water-efficient landscapes within the development, including drought tolerant landscaping; − Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture-based irrigation controls; 3.6 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Page 3-114 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment − Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures and appliances, including low-flow faucets, dual-flush toilets and waterless urinals; and − Restrict watering methods (e.g., prohibit systems that apply water to non-vegetated surfaces) and control runoff. Transportation and Motor Vehicle Measures • Provide transit facilities (e.g., bus bulbs/turnouts, benches, shelters); • Provide bicycle lanes and/or paths, incorporated into the proposed street systems and connected to a community-wide network; and • Provide sidewalks and/or paths, connected to adjacent land uses, transit stops, and/or community-wide network. • To the extent feasible, provide infrastructure and support programs to facilitate shared vehicle usage such as carpool drop-off areas, designated parking for vanpools, or car- share services, ride boards, and shuttle service to mass transit.47 Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure: In order to ensure that the proposed project complies with and would not conflict with or impede the implementation of reduction goals identified in AB 32, the Governor’s Executive Order S-3-05, and other strategies to help reduce GHGs to the level proposed by the Governor, the mitigation measure above shall be implemented. Many of the individual elements of this measure are already included as part of the proposed project or are required as part of project-specific mitigation measures recommended in the land use, transportation/circulation and public services/utilities sections of this chapter. In addition, the project would also be subject to all applicable regulatory requirements, which could also reduce the GHG emissions of the project. After implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.6-1 and application of regulatory requirements, the General Plan Amendment would implement appropriate GHG reduction strategies and would not conflict with or impede implementation of reduction goals identified in AB 32, the Governor’s Executive Order S-3-05, and other strategies to help reduce GHGs to the level proposed by the Governor. Therefore, the project’s contribution to cumulative GHG emissions would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Impacts to the Proposed Project from Global Climate Change IMPACT 3.6-2: Global climate change could occur with or without development as envisioned by the proposed project. Local temperatures could increase in time as a result of global climate change, with or without development as envisioned by the General Plan Amendment. This increase in temperature could lead to other climate effects including, but not limited to, increased flooding due to increased precipitation and runoff, and a reduction in the Sierra snowpack. At present, the extent of climate change impacts is uncertain, and more extensive monitoring of runoff and snowpack is necessary for greater 47 Based on U.S. Green Building Council, LEED, 2005. Green Building Rating System for New Construction & Major Renovations. Version 2.2. October. 3.6 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-115 understanding of changes in hydrologic patterns. Studies indicate that increased temperatures could result in a greater portion of peak streamflows occurring earlier in the spring with decreases in late spring and early summer.48 These changes could have implications for water supply, flood management, and ecosystem health. The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) supplies water and provides wastewater treatment for parts of Alameda and Contra Costa counties. While climate change could reduce the size of the snowpack, which is a source of water for many parts of California, EBMUD has determined that the impact of climate change on delivery of an adequate water supply to the region would be minimal with changes to the management of its system.49 EBMUD also manages the San Pablo Reservoir Recreation Area in Contra Costa County. A 2004 study showed the dam is susceptible to an earthquake on the Hayward fault, and water could flow over the top of the dam, resulting in flooding downstream. Based on the recommendations of the study, EBMUD lowered the water level behind the dam by 20 feet to protect downstream communities from flooding. Construction of a permanent retrofit started in July 2008 and is expected to be complete in approximately two years. The location of the project site (near San Pablo Bay) and the elevation of the site could expose the site to coastal hazards arising from global climate change, such as sea level rise. While estimates vary, sea level is expected to rise an additional 22 to 35 inches by the year 2100.50 A report by the Pacific Institute and the Stockholm Environment Institute showed that the area of General Plan Amendment in Contra Costa County would not be affected by a 1-meter (approximately 39 inch) rise in sea level.51 Therefore, the potential effects of climate change (e.g., water supply, effects of flooding, etc.) on the proposed project would not be significant. □ Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 48 U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2001. Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. 49 Wallis, M.J., M.R. Ambrose and C.C. Chan, 2008. Climate Change: Charting a Water Course in an Uncertain Future. Journal of the American Water Works Association 100:6. June. 50 California Climate Change Center, 2006. Our Changing Climate. Assessing the Risks to California. CEC-500-2006-077. July. 51 Gleick, P.H. and E.P. Maurer. Assessing the Costs of Adapting to Sea-Level Rise: A Case Study of San Francisco Bay. Originally Published on April 18, 1990. Reformatted on February 17, 2004. Sea level rise map available at http://www.pacinst.org/reports/sea_level_rise/Fig8-13_lg.pdf. 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Page 3-116 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section addresses issues related to sensitive biotic resources occurring in the Project Area; the federal, state, and local laws related to such resources; potential project impacts; and mitigation measures that could be implemented to reduce the magnitude of anticipated impacts. The constraints analysis was based on the known and potential biotic resources for the Project Area. Sources of information used in the preparation of this analysis included: (1) the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CDFG 2002); (2) the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2001); and (3) the Flowering Plants of Monterey County and Ferns, Fern Allies, and Conifers (Matthews 1997); (4) California’s Wildlife, Volumes I, II, and III (Zeiner et. al 1988-1990); (5) Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (USFWS 2002); (6) Annual Report on the Status of California State Listed Threatened and Endangered Animals and Plants (CDFG 2002); and (7) The California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2001). Live Oak Associates, Inc., conducted reconnaissance surveys in the Project Area in October 2002 and January 2003. During these surveys, the principal biotic habitats of the site were identified and the constituent plants and animals of each were noted. Environmental Setting The proposed Project Area, located in western Contra Costa County, California, is a developed urban area with two creeks running through the site. See Figure 3.7-1, Biotic Habitats. Development in the Project Area consists of small strip malls, individual business locations, single- and multi-family residences, including a mobile home park, and several vacant properties. Major transportation routes in the Project Area include San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way. A few areas of open space are present on the eastern edge of the Project Area, consisting of open grasslands and wetland areas. There are also sixteen vacant grassland and grassland/riparian lots along Appian Way. A portion of the Project Area is situated along the San Pablo Creek, adjacent to San Pablo Dam Road, and is adjacent to moderate to high value riparian habitat that may support several species of special concern. These include the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and the western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata). In addition, Appian Creek meanders on both sides of Appian Way. This reach of riparian corridor has a low to moderate value and supports mostly willows. Portions of the Project Area that support grasslands may contain suitable habitat for the Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia), a California endangered plant species. 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-117 Figure 3.7-1 Biotic Habitats (Landscape) 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Page 3-118 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Existing Conditions The Project Area is located approximately 2.5 miles inland from the coast of San Pablo Bay in unincorporated Contra Costa County, California. The site can be found on the U.S.G.S. Richmond 7.5 minute quadrangle map. The topography of the Project Area consists of mostly level terrain in the northern portion with moderate increases in elevation toward the eastern boundary of the San Pablo Dam Road portion, and on either side of Appian Way. Elevations range from approximately 80 to 290 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). The majority of the Project Area contains parcels that have been developed with urban uses. There are a several areas of open space in the Project Area. These parcels contain mainly grasslands, and may offer habitat for the Santa Cruz tarplant. In addition, several of these parcels support drainages and small areas of wetland and/or riparian vegetation. Annual precipitation in the general vicinity of the Project Area is between 12 and 18 inches, almost all of which falls between the months of October and March. Virtually all precipitation falls in the form of rain. Biotic Habitats Three natural terrestrial communities were identified in the Project Area: riparian, seasonal drainage, and non-native grassland. One additional land use was identified that is typical of human environments: developed/urban. See Figure 3.7-1, Biotic Habitats. Riparian San Pablo Creek San Pablo Creek flows westerly through the middle of the Project Area. This creek experiences moderate flows throughout the year, increasing in the winter. This reach of San Pablo Creek supports willows (Salix spp.), cottonwoods (Populus fremontii), buckeyes (Aesculus californica), coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia), California bays (Umbellularia californica), and Mexican elderberries (Sambucus mexicana). The understory contains various species of blackberries (Rubus spp.), English ivy (Hedera helix), coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), and oxtongue (Picris echiodes). This reach of the creek offers a dense canopy cover and structural diversity, and as such, wildlife use would be consistent with species that are typical of an urban riparian system (e.g., raccoon, opossum, common passerines). Due to the healthy condition of this reach of the creek, California red-legged frogs and western pond turtles may find suitable habitat in the creek. In addition, because of the high quality cover and maturity of the riparian corridor, raptors are likely to forage along this reach of the creek. The wildlife value for this reach ranges from moderate to high. Appian Creek Appian Creek flows in a generally southwesterly direction on both sides of Appian Way, emptying into San Pablo Creek. Appian Creek is an ephemeral watercourse, but can experience moderate flows at various times throughout the year, especially in the winter. This reach of Appian Creek supports mainly willows. Other tree species found were pines (Pinus spp.), dogwoods (Cornus sericea), and oleanders (Nerium oleander). The understory and modest banks of the creek contain blackberries, English ivy, and giant reed (Arundo 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-119 donax). However, this creek does not support a wide riparian corridor. Wildlife values along this reach of Appian Creek are considered low to moderate. This reach of the creek offers little canopy cover and structural diversity, and as such, wildlife use would be limited to species that are typical of an impacted urban riparian system (e.g., raccoon, opossum, common passerines). Seasonal Drainages Two seasonal drainages were found in the southern portion of the site within non-native grassland. One of these drainages flows downslope towards San Pablo Dam Road, possibly into San Pablo Creek. Vegetation in this area consists primarily of coyote bush, oxtongue, and blackberries. The second seasonal drainage was found in the same area adjacent to residential development. This drainage was better established and consists of willows, coast live oaks, buckeyes, and coyote bushes. Non-Native Grassland The final biotic habitat present within the Project Area was non-native grassland. The vegetation is dominated by grasses and forbs of European origin. Herbaceous species observed included valley wild-rye (Leymus triticoides), wild radish (Raphanus sp.), California poppy (Eschscholzia californica), oxtongue, lupine (Lupinus sp.) and a number of grass species. Tree, shrub, and vine species were not as common but the following were found sparsely scattered throughout the non- native grasslands; eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.), coast live oak, California bay, buckeye, alder (Alnus sp.), northern walnut (Juglans hindsii), Pincushion bush (Hakea laurina), coyote bush, toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), and California wild rose (Rosa californica). Non-native grasslands provide important habitat to many terrestrial vertebrates including reptiles, amphibians, resident and migratory birds, and a number of small mammals. Some of these species are grassland residents, and some use a variety of other habitats as well. Some are migrants that use the grasslands of the study area for only a portion of each year. Developed The majority of the Project Area consists of residential and commercial development that supports primarily landscaped vegetation. The wildlife use of the residential and commercial areas is consistent with urban environments of the North Bay. Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Several species of plants and animals within the state of California have low populations, limited distributions, or both. Such species may be considered "rare" and are vulnerable to extirpation as the state’s human population grows and the habitats these species occupy are converted to agricultural and urban uses. As described more fully later in the Regulatory Setting subsection, state and federal laws have provided the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with a mechanism for conserving and protecting the diversity of plant and animal species native to the state. A sizable number of native plants and animals have been formally designated as threatened or endangered under state and federal endangered species legislation. Others have been designated as "candidates" for such listing. Still others have been designated as "species of special concern" by the CDFG. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) has developed its own set of lists of native plants considered rare, threatened or endangered (CNPS 2001). Collectively, these plants and animals are referred to as "special-status species." 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Page 3-120 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Prior to site surveys, published information concerning threatened, endangered, or other special-status species that may occur in the area was collected from several sources and reviewed by Live Oak Associates, Inc. biologists. The sources consulted included California’s Wildlife, Volumes I, II, and III (Zeiner et. al 1988-1990), California Natural Diversity Data Base (CDFG 2002), Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (USFWS 2002), Annual Report on the Status of California State Listed Threatened and Endangered Animals and Plants (CDFG 2002) and The California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2001). This information was used to evaluate the potential for special-status plant and animal species to occur on site. A number of special status plants and animals occur in the vicinity of the Project Area. These species, and their potential to occur in the Project Area, are listed in Table 3.7-1. Table 3.7-1 includes only those plant species that are likely to occur within the habitat types of the Project Area. Figure 3.7-2 shows the location of special status species found by the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) and updated from the previous EIR analysis of 2003. 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-121 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Page 3-122 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Table 3.7-1 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA (STATUS, HABITAT AND POTENTIAL TO OCCUR) PLANTS Species Listed as Threatened or Endangered under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Act Species Status Habitat Occurrence in the Project Area Hispid bird’s-beak (Cordylanthus mollis spp. hispidus) FE, CR Meadows, seeps, valley and foothill grassland/alkaline. Absent. Nearest occurrence in Solano and Alameda counties. Alameda Manzanita (Arctostaphylos pallida) FT,CE Broadleaved upland forest, closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub/siliceous shale, sandy or gravelly; elevation 185-465 meters Absent. No suitable habitat occurs within the study area. Santa Cruz Tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia) FT, CE Coastal Prairie, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland/ often clay, sandy, elevation 10-220 meters. Possible. Non-native grassland present on site. Surveys should be conducted during the plant’s blooming period. Annual; blooms June–October. Closest sighting was approximately 0.5 mile from site. PLANTS Other Special Status Plants Listed by CNPS Species Status Habitat Occurrence in the Study Area Bent-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia lunaris) CNPS 1B Coastal bluff scrub, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland. At elevations between 3-500 meters. Unlikely. Non-native grassland present on site. Surveys should be conducted during the plant’s blooming period. Annual; blooms March-June. Alkali milk vetch (Astragalus tener var. tener) CNPS 1B Valley and foothill grassland (adobe clay), vernal pool/alkaline. Unlikely. Non-native grassland present on site. Surveys should be conducted during the plant’s blooming period. Annual; blooms March-June. Mt. Diablo fairy lantern (Calochortus pulchellus) CNPS 1B Chaparral, cismontane woodland, riparian woodland, valley and foothill grassland at elevations between 30-840 meters. Unlikely. Non-native grassland present on site. Surveys should be conducted during the plant’s blooming period. Annual; blooms April-June. Brewer’s calandrinia (Calandrinia breweri) CNPS 4 Chaparral, coastal scrub/sandy or loamy, disturbed and burns at elevations between 10-1220 meters. Unlikely. Non-native grassland present on site. Surveys should be conducted during the plant’s blooming period. Annual; blooms March-June. Brewer’s clarkia (Clarkia breweri) CNPS 4 Chaparral, cismontane woodland and coastal scrub, at elevations between 215-1000 meters. Absent. No suitable habitat occurs within the study area. Loma Prieta Hoita (Hoita Strobilina) CNPS 1B Chaparral, cismontane woodland, riparian woodland Absent. Located approximately .75 mile from Project Area. Species has been considered expirtated from Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Western leatherwood CNPS 1B Broadleaved upland forest, closed-cone forest, cismontane Unlikely. Species not found during site visit. 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-123 PLANTS Other Special Status Plants Listed by CNPS Species Status Habitat Occurrence in the Study Area (Dirca occidentalis) woodland, North Coast coniferous forest, riparian scrub, riparian woodland; from 50-395 meters in elevation. Mt. Diablo buckwheat (Eriogonum truncatum) CNPS 1A Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grasslands/sandy at elevations of 105-600 meters. Unlikely. Non-native grassland present on site. Surveys should be conducted during the plant’s blooming period. Annual; blooms April-November. Jepson’s woolly sunflower (Eriophyllum jepsonii) CNPS 4 Chaparral, cismontane woodland and coastal scrub, sometimes on serpentine. Absent. No suitable habitat occurs within the study area. Fragrant fritillary (Fritillaria liliacea) CNPS 1B Cismontane woodland, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland/often serpentinite at elevations of 3- 410 meters. Unlikely. Non-native grassland present on site. Surveys should be conducted during the plant’s blooming period. Annual; blooms February-April. Diablo helianthella (Helianthella castanea) CNPS 1B Broadleaved upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, riparian woodland, valley and foothill grassland. Unlikely. Non-native grassland present on site. Surveys should be conducted during the plant’s blooming period. Perennial; blooms April-June. Hall’s bushmallow (Malacothamus hallii) CNPS 1B Chaparral and coastal scrub. Absent. No suitable habitat occurs within the study area. Most beautiful jewel-flower (Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus) CNPS 1B Chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland/serpentinite at elevations of 120-1000 meters. Absent. Non-native grassland present on site as marginal habitat, although elevations on site are lower than 120 meters. Robust monardella (Monardella villosa ssp. globosa) CNPS 1B Openings in chaparral, cismontane woodland and coastal scrub at elevations from 185-600 meters. Absent. No suitable habitat occurs within the study area. 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Page 3-124 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment ANIMALS (adapted from CNDDB 2002 and USFWS 2001) Species Listed as Threatened or Endangered under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Act Species Status Habitat Occurrence in the Study Area California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii) FT, CSC Rivers, creeks and stock ponds of the Sierra foothills and coast range, preferring pools with overhanging vegetation. Possible. The Project Area contains habitat for the CRLF, along San Pablo Creek. Appian Creek offers only the slightest potential for occurrence on site. CRLF have been recorded within 3 miles of the Project Area. Alameda Whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus) FT, CT Ranges from the inner coast range in western and central Contra Costa and Alameda counties. Found in rock outcroppings and talus pilings, scrub communities, grasslands, oak, and oak/bay woodlands. Unlikely. The site is out of the Alameda whipsnake’s current critical habitat range. Furthermore, there have been no sightings of the AWS within 3 miles of the Project Area Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) CT Nests in oaks or cottonwoods in or near riparian habitats; forages in grasslands, irrigated pastures, and grain fields. Absent. Swainson’s hawks rarely occur in this part of the county. American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) FE, CE Nests and roosts on protected ledges of high cliffs, usually adjacent to lakes, rivers, or marshes that support large populations of other bird species. Unlikely. No suitable nesting habitat exists on site or in the near vicinity of the site for the peregrine falcon. Due to the urbanized nature of the site it is unlikely that peregrine falcon would forage in this region. Western Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata) CSC Open slow-moving water of rivers and creeks of central California with rocks and logs for basking. Possible. The Project Area contains habitat for the WPT, along San Pablo Creek. Appian Creek offers only the slightest potential for occurrence on site. WPT and CRLF are commonly found utilizing the same type of habitat. Silvery Legless Lizard (Anniella pulchra pulchra) CSC Sandy or loose loamy soils under sparse vegetation of beaches, chaparral, pine-oak woodlands or native riparian vegetation. Unlikely. Although San Pablo Creek offers some habitat for the silvery legless lizard, there are no sightings listed in the CNDDB for El Sobrante or the surrounding area. Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii) CSC Breeds in oak woodlands, riparian forests and mixed conifer forest of the Sierra Nevada, but winters in a variety of lowland habitats. Possible. No Cooper’s hawks were observed on site. However, the Project Area and its surroundings support foraging habitat for the Cooper’s hawk. Therefore, this species may be an occasional winter occupant. Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus) CSC Breeds in the mixed conifer forests of the northern Sierra Nevada. This species winters in a variety of habitats of the state. Unlikely. No sharp-shinned hawks were observed on site. However, the Project Area and its surroundings support foraging habitat for the sharp-shinned hawk. Therefore, this species may be an occasional winter occupant. 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-125 ANIMALS (adapted from CNDDB 2002 and USFWS 2001) Species Listed as Threatened or Endangered under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Act Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) CSC Typically frequents rolling foothills, mountain areas, sage-juniper flats and desert. Unlikely. No breeding habitat exists on site for the Golden Eagle, however, the Project Area and its surroundings support some foraging habitat for the golden eagle. Therefore, this species may be an occasional visitor. Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis) CSC Open terrain in plains and foothills where ground squirrels and other prey are available. Unlikely. No breeding habitat exists on site for the Ferruginous hawk, and only marginal foraging habitat exists (open space and vacant lots), and only several ground squirrel burrows were noted during site surveys. Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) CSC Frequents meadows, grasslands, open rangelands, freshwater emergent wetlands; uncommon in wooded habitats. Possible. No northern harriers were observed on site. However, the Project Area and its surroundings support some foraging habitat for the species. Therefore, this species may be an occasional visitor. Federal Candidate Species and State Species of Special Concern White-tailed Kite (Elanus caeruleus) CSC Open grasslands and agricultural areas throughout central California. Unlikely. White-tailed kites would be unlikely to forage on the site or the in the near vicinity due to the lack of large expanses of open grasslands or agricultural areas. Merlin (Falco columbarius) CSC This falcon, which breeds in Canada, winters in a variety of California habitats, including grasslands, savannahs, wetlands, etc. Possible. Merlins may pass through the site from time to time as winter migrants. However, suitable foraging habitat is limited on site. Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) CSC Found in open, dry grasslands, deserts and ruderal areas. Requires suitable burrows. This species is often associated with California ground squirrels. Possible. Burrowing owls are known to over-winter in various places along the coast of California. However, it is unlikely a burrowing owl would breed in the limited habitat available on the site. There were only several ground squirrel burrows observed in the open spaces of the Project Area. Short-eared Owl (Asio flameus) CSC Open areas with few trees, especially swamplands, lowland meadows and grasslands, irrigated alfalfa fields; tule patches or tall grass for nesting and daytime seclusion. Absent. No suitable habitat exists on site for the short-eared owl. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) CSC Nests in tall shrubs and dense trees, forages in grasslands, marshes, and ruderal habitats. Possible. The loggerhead Shrike may forage in the open space of the site, and there is potential breeding habitat for this species. 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Page 3-126 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment ANIMALS (adapted from CNDDB 2002 and USFWS 2001) Species Listed as Threatened or Endangered under the State and/or Federal Endangered Species Act California Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris actia) CSC Short-grass prairie, annual grasslands, coastal plains, open fields. Absent. No suitable habitat exists on site for the California horned lark. Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Plecotus townsendii townsendii) CSC Primarily a cave-dwelling bat that may also roost in buildings. Occurs in a variety of habitats of the state. Possible. Foraging habitat occurs on site for the Townsend’s big-eared bat, and roosting habitat may be available. Western Mastiff Bat (Eumops perotis californicus) CSC Forages over many habitats, requires tall cliffs or buildings for roosting. Possible. The California Mastiff Bat is a potential forager, but no only limited roosting habitat occurs on site. Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus) CSC Grasslands, chaparral, woodlands, and forests of California; most common in dry rocky open areas providing roosting opportunities. Unlikely. The site does not provide the preferred roosting habitat for the Pallid Bat. Ringtail (Bassariscus astutus) CP Occurs in riparian and heavily wooded habitats near water. Likely. The Ringtail may forage on site (along both San Pablo and Appian Creeks), however, breeding grounds would likely be limited to the areas of habitat located along San Pablo Creek. * Present: Species observed on the site at time of field surveys or during recent past. Likely: Species not observed on the site, but it may reasonably be expected to occur there on a regular basis. Possible: Species not observed on the site, but it could occur there from time to time. Unlikely: Species not observed on the site, and would not be expected to occur there except, perhaps, as a transient. Absent: Species not observed on the site, and precluded from occurring there because habitat requirements not met. STATUS CODES FE Federally Endangered CE California Endangered FT Federally Threatened CT California Threatened FPE Federally Endangered (Proposed) CR California Rare FC Federal Candidate CSC California Species of Special Concern CNPS California Native Plant Society Listing CP California Protected Regulatory Setting Site development of open space parcels may modify biotic habitats used by sensitive plant and wildlife species. In such cases, site development may be regulated by state or federal agencies, provisions of the CEQA, policies of the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005–2020), or some combination of these regulatory provisions. State and Federal Threatened and Endangered Species State and federal "endangered species" legislation provides the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) with a mechanism for conserving and protecting plant and animal species of limited distribution and/or low or declining populations. Species listed as threatened or endangered under provisions of the state and federal endangered species acts, candidate species for such listing, state species of special concern, and some plants listed 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-127 as endangered by the California Native Plant Society are collectively referred to as "species of special status." Permits may be required from both the CDFG and USFWS if activities associated with a proposed project will result in the "take" of a listed species. "Take" is defined by the state of California as "to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill" (California Fish and Game Code, Section 86). "Take" is more broadly defined by the federal Endangered Species Act to include "harm" (16 USC, Section 1532(19), 50 CFR, Section 17.3). Furthermore, the CDFG and the USFWS are responsible agencies under the CEQA. Both agencies review CEQA documents in order to determine the adequacy of their treatment of endangered species issues and to make project- specific recommendations for their conservation. Migratory Birds State and federal laws protect most bird species. The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (FMBTA: 16 U.S.C., sec. 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 Birds of prey are also protected in California under provisions of the California Fish and Game Code, Section 3503.5, (1992), which provides 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 CDFG. Wetlands and Other Jurisdictional Waters Natural drainage channels and wetlands may be considered "Waters of the United States" (hereafter referred to as "jurisdictional waters"). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the filling or grading of such waters under the authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The extent of jurisdiction within drainage channels is defined by "ordinary high water marks" on opposing channel banks. Wetlands are habitats with soils that are intermittently or permanently saturated, or inundated. The resulting anaerobic conditions select for plant species known as hydrophytes that show a high degree of fidelity to such soils. Wetlands are identified by the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils (i.e., soils saturated intermittently or permanently saturated by water), and wetland hydrology according to methodologies outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE 1987). All activities that involve the discharge of fill into jurisdictional waters are subject to the permit requirements of the USACE (Wetland Training Institute, Inc. 1991). Such permits are typically issued on the condition that the applicant agrees to provide mitigation that results in no net loss of wetland functions or values. No permit can be issued until the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issues a certification (or waiver of such certification) that the proposed activity will meet state water quality standards. The RWCQB is also responsible for enforcing National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, including the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit. All projects requiring federal money must also comply with Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands). 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Page 3-128 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment The California Department of Fish and Game has jurisdiction over the bed and bank of natural drainages pursuant to provisions of Section 1601 and 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code. Activities that would disturb these drainages are regulated by the CDFG via a Streambed Alteration Agreement. Such an agreement typically stipulates that certain measures will be implemented for the purpose of protecting the habitat values of the drainage in question. Contra Costa County General Plan Relevant policies in the General Plan relating to biological resources include the following: 1990-Measure C: "[P]reserve at least 65% of land in the county for agriculture, open space, wetlands, parks and other non-urban uses" within the urban limit line. Policies to Protect and Maintain Riparian Zones 8-78. Where feasible, existing natural waterways shall be protected and preserved in their natural state, and channels that already are modified shall be restored. A natural waterway is defined as a waterway which can support its own environment of vegetation, fowl, fish and reptiles, and which appears natural. 8-79. Creeks and streams determined to be important and irreplaceable natural resources shall be retained in their natural state whenever possible to maintain water quality, wildlife diversity, aesthetic values, and recreation opportunities. Policies for New Development Along Natural Watercourses 8-85. Natural watercourses shall be integrated into new development is such a way that they are accessible and provide a positive visual element. 8-86. Existing native riparian habitat shall be preserved and enhanced by new development unless public safety concerns require removal of habitat for flood control or other public purposes. 8-87. On-site water control shall be required of major new developments so that no increase in peak flows occurs relative to the site’s pre-development condition, unless the Planning Agency determines that offsite measures can be employed which are equally effective in preventing adverse downstream impacts. 8-88. New development which modifies or destroys riparian habitat because of needed flood control, shall be responsible for restoring and enhancing an equivalent amount of habitat within or near the Project Area. 8-89. Setback areas shall be provided along natural creeks and streams in areas planned for urbanization. The setback areas shall be of a width adequate to allow maintenance and to prevent damage to adjacent structures, the natural channel and associated riparian vegetation. The setback area shall be a minimum of 100 feet; 50 feet on each side of the centerline of the creek. 8-91. Grading, filling and construction activity near watercourses shall be conducted in such a manner as to minimize impacts from increased runoff, erosion, sedimentation, biochemical degradation, or thermal pollution. 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-129 In addition, water drainage from any construction or local use must be taken into consideration, since all of the water in the county eventually drains into the Bay. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Evaluation Criteria Specific project impacts to biological resources may be considered "significant" if they will: • 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. • 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. • 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. • 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. • Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. • Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. CEQA Guidelines Section 15065 states that a project may trigger the requirement to make a mandatory findings of significance if the project has the potential to substantially 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 an endangered, rare or threatened species. The most sensitive habitat, and the vacant parcels that could be developed as part of the proposed project, exist along San Pablo Creek, Appian Creek, and along the eastern portion of the Project Area. Mitigation measures that relate to this portion of the Project Area will minimize impacts elsewhere, and are therefore identified first. Riparian Habitat IMPACT 3.7-1: The proposed project would have potential direct and indirect impacts to the riparian habitat of San Pablo Creek and its tributaries, including Appian Creek. 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Page 3-130 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Discussion and Conclusion: Riparian areas or creek corridors in northern California support a rich and diverse wildlife component. In urbanized areas such as the Project Area, wildlife use of available habitat is affected by the close proximity of human activity and associated urban development. The quality of the creek corridor and type of structures or activities adjacent to it determines the overall effect on wildlife use. In general, the greater the amount of human activity and the closer that activity occurs to creek corridors, the greater the potential for negative impacts to wildlife use. Although there are currently no specific plans for build-out of the Project Area parcels affected by San Pablo Creek or Appian Creek, eventual build-out could both directly and indirectly impact habitat associated with the creeks. The exact acreage of riparian habitat affected by future development cannot be accurately determined at this time because the location and design of future projects is unknown. According to General Plan policies (8-78 to 8-82 and 8-85 to 8-91), remaining creeks and streams should be made accessible to the public, and consideration given to incorporating drainage features as parks or open space. San Pablo Creek and Appian Creek are linear features that support riparian habitat of moderate to high value. See Figure 3.7-1, Biotic Habitats. Appian Creek does not provide a broad riparian corridor. Any direct loss of riparian habitat or encroachment would constitute a potentially significant impact due to the rarity of this habitat type and its value to wildlife. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.7-1A: The construction envelope for proposed projects in the Project Area, including areas of construction, staging areas or other indirect activities, shall be identified as part of the application, and shall avoid a buffer area to include all areas within 50 feet of the top-of-bank or edge of riparian growth of San Pablo Creek or Appian Creek. Future projects shall be developed and operated, when feasible, in such a way as to avoid both direct (e.g., removal of riparian woodlands) and indirect (e.g., encroaching within the buffer with development) effects in the buffer area to the extent feasible. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.7-1B: Direct loss of riparian habitat in San Pablo Creek or Appian Creek shall be mitigated at an acreage ratio of 3:1 (acres of mitigation : acres of impact). Indirect or encroachment impacts shall be replaced at a 1:1 ratio. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.7-1C: Projects that cause a direct or indirect loss of riparian habitat shall develop a Riparian Restoration Plan that describes the precise impact, area or areas where mitigation is proposed, the species mix, the planting density, performance standards and a monitoring plan that adequately evaluates the success of the mitigation program. The final success criteria for the site shall define the long-term goals for the site and identify percent vegetative cover and tree height. The Riparian Restoration Plan shall provide for regular maintenance for a minimum of three years for plant establishment. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.7-1D: Planting shall be conducted from November to January and all riparian plantings should be native species that are expected to occur regionally. The mitigation area shall be graded as required to provide appropriate topography and hydrology for the riparian planting. Plantings shall be installed according to the various species’ soil moisture requirements. 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-131 □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.7-1E: Lighting associated with proposed projects shall be designed and sited to minimize light and glare impacts to wildlife within the riparian corridor. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.7-1F: Future projects shall avoid using invasive exotic species in landscaping for common areas. Invasive species include tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), pampas grass (Cortaderia jubata), periwinkle (Vinca major), and English ivy (Hedera helix). Project proponents shall submit landscaping plans to the County for approval. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.7-1G: Prior to grading or vegetation removal in riparian areas the project shall obtain all required permits from USACE, CDFG, and RWQCB. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures: General Plan Policy 8-89 calls for projects to establish a 50- foot minimum buffer on each side of watercourses as measured from the mid-point of the creek. General Plan Policy 8-89 calls for a minimum 50-foot set back from the middle of the creek, but the value of habitat in San Pablo Creek and Appian Creek calls for a larger set back here. Mitigation Measure 3.6-1A would implement a set back a minimum of 50 feet from the top-of-bank or edge of riparian growth, rather than the centerline of the creek, whichever is greater. A 50-foot setback as measured from the centerline of the creek of a barren channel is likely to result in an upland buffer of 30 to 45 feet, assuming a channel width of 5 to 20 feet, while a 50-foot buffer along a creek that has a broad riparian corridor, such as that found in San Pablo Creek, would fall in the middle of the riparian habitat. Avoiding impact to a sensitive resource is the preferred method of mitigation. Mitigation Measure 3.7-1A ensures that avoidance would be considered in each case. Mitigation Measure 3.7-1B requires replacement for direct and indirect loss of habitat. Replacement ratios for impacts to areas of riparian habitat are dependent on the quality of the riparian habitat affected. The ratio for replacement is related to the quality of the affected habitat. The mitigation measures identified above would require the replacement of riparian trees and shrubs at a density that would replace the functions and values of the area impacted. The specific mitigation areas to be used would be selected during the final design process for specific projects. The mitigation area should be located as close as possible to the impact site and designed to expand riparian vegetation to a site that currently supports little or no existing riparian vegetation. The mitigation goal is to create and enhance riparian habitat with habitat functions and values equal to, or greater than, those impacted. Performance criteria, which could include such factors as survival, percent cover and tree height, are quantitative benchmarks against which incremental revegetation progress should be tracked during the first years of site development. Trend characteristics (e.g., plant vigor/health, natural recruitment, reproduction, canopy stratification, and plant damage) are site characteristics to be monitored that have no fixed criteria and must be developed as part of the specific project design. These provide supplementary information concerning site development and should guide maintenance activities, and remedial action, if required. 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Page 3-132 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment All mitigation areas would require regular maintenance for a minimum of three years for plant establishment. While each maintenance plan is unique, the following general observations apply to such plans generally, and provide some perspective on their operation: Maintenance activities usually include irrigation, weeding, plant replacement, and other measures deemed appropriate by maintenance personnel or staff biologists. It is anticipated that irrigation would not be required after this establishment period. Herbicide use should be discouraged within the mitigation areas. The area within the plants’ watering basins is usually required to be kept weed-free during the plant establishment period. The layer of woodchip mulch should also be maintained during this period. The foliage protectors should be maintained until the growth of the plants is restricted by the protectors, at which time they should be carefully and promptly removed. The trees should not be pruned except as necessary for safety. Dead plants should be replaced from November to January. Plant replacement should use the same plant materials (e.g., species, stock size) and techniques used at the original installation. Some portion of the swales that drain into San Pablo Creek would probably be considered jurisdictional by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and as such any activity that would result in fill in these areas would likely require a permit from the USACE and a Section 401 certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Once the relevant permits are obtained, the project proponent would be required by the affected agency to comply with all conditions of the permits during and after site construction. Implementation of the mitigation measures would reduce project impacts to a less-than-significant level. Loss of Plant Habitat IMPACT 3.7-2: Development may result in the loss of habitat for special-status plants. Discussion and Conclusion: New development that occurs in the Project Area may require permanent or temporary removal of some of the natural vegetation. Future grading necessary to accommodate development may remove ruderal grassland, and may also encroach on some riparian vegetation. Seven species listed in Table 3.7-1 are not expected to occur within the Project Area. These include hispid bird’s-beak, Alameda manzanita, brewer’s clarkia, Jepson’s woolly sunflower, Hall’s bushmallow, most beautiful jewel-flower, and robust monardella. The proposed project would have no impact on these species. Of the 16 special-status plant species that occur regionally, only the Santa Cruz tarplant has the potential to occur within the Project Area. Eight species noted in Table 3.7-1 are unlikely to occur, but reconnaissance surveys occurred outside the blooming period and were restricted to observation from public areas. These species include bent-flowered fiddleneck, alkali milk vetch, Mt. Diablo fairy lantern, brewer’s calandrinia, western leatherwood, Mt. Diablo buckwheat, fragrant fritillary, and Diablo helianthella. Their presence on a specific project site proposed for later development cannot be completely ruled out. 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-133 The potential impact caused by loss of habitat would be potentially significant. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.7-2A: Project applicants for projects that would construct urban development in a previously vacant parcel shall conduct a survey for special status species during the appropriate survey period, and shall provide a written report to the County. In the event special status species are identified, the applicant shall comply with Mitigation Measures 3.7-2B and 3.7-2C. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.7-2B: Project applicants shall minimize impacts to the special status plant species populations, to the extent feasible, by one or more of the following actions: • Conducting survey and identifying sensitive plants. • Design development on the site to avoid direct impacts. • Establish buffers around any identified populations of special status plant species. Buffers as narrow as 50 feet could be sufficient depending on the adjacent uses but much wider buffers might be needed in certain circumstances (e.g., development up-slope of the population). • Establish a conservation easement on the area to be preserved and transfer it to an acceptable (as determined in consultation with CDFG and USFWS) agency or land trust organization for control and management. • Erect construction fencing around special status plant populations to ensure that these areas will not be inadvertently affected during construction. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.7-2C: If the impact cannot be sufficiently avoided, then the applicant shall develop a Plant Restoration Plan that would identify suitable sites to propagate the species. This plan would at a minimum identify the following: • Locate suitable sites within the Project Area or within the region that supports proper soils, aspect, slope, biotic habitat; • Identify appropriate propagation techniques relevant for the target species; • Develop a monitoring schedule to evaluate the success of the mitigation; • Identify success criteria such as growth rate and cover, percent survival, etc; • Identify remedial and contingency measures that would be employed to correct failures; • Describe the process to preserve the mitigation site such as establishing a conservation easement on the area to be preserved and transferring it to an acceptable (as determined in consultation with CDFG and USFWS) agency or land trust organization for control and management. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures: Project applicants would be required to conduct surveys to ascertain if any of the special status plant species from Table 3.6-1 occur on a subject parcel. If one or more special status plant species were detected, the project applicant would be required to comply 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Page 3-134 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment with the identified mitigation. Implementation of the mitigation measures would result in a less-than- significant impact. Loss of Animal Habitat IMPACT 3.7-3: The proposed project could result in loss of habitat for special- status animals. Discussion and Conclusion: Twenty-one special status animal species occur, or once occurred, regionally. See Table 3.7-1. Of these, 10 species are absent or unlikely to occur in the Project Area. Of the remaining 11 species, ten species are possible or likely to occur within the Project Area as rare to occasional foragers and migrants. These include California red-legged frog, western pond turtle, Cooper’s hawk, Northern harrier, merlin, logger-head shrike, burrowing owl, and Townsend’s big- eared bat, western mastiff bat, and ringtail. The proposed project is expected to result in a moderate reduction in potential foraging habitat for these species regionally. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact on these 11 species. Two such species may breed or be resident within the Project Area; these include the Loggerhead Shrike and ringtail. The primary habitat for these species within the Project Area is the existing riparian habitat. Mitigation Measures 3.6-2A, B and C, set forth above, would minimize the loss of habitat due to urban development, and this impact would therefore be less than significant. □ MITIGATION MEASURE: Because Mitigation Measures 3.7-2A, B and C, set forth above, would mitigate the impact to a less-than-significant level, no additional mitigation measures are required. California Red Legged Frog / Western Pond Turtle IMPACT 3.7-4: Development in the Project Area could adversely impact the California Red Legged Frog (CRLF) and Western Pond Turtle (WPT). Discussion and Conclusion: While there are no records for CRLF and WPT in the reach of San Pablo and Appian Creeks within the Project Area, there is a potential for the CRLF and the WPT to occur within the Project Area. The CNDDB shows two sightings for CRLF within three miles of the Project Area. The riparian habitat within the Project Area ranges from low to high. The Project Area, including the affected reaches of San Pablo and Appian Creeks, is well outside the area designated for recovery of the CRFL by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2000), and well outside any unit designated for critical habitat (Federal Regulations 50 CFR Part 17, Vol. 6, No. 49:14626, March 2001) for the CRLF. The WPT has a greater chance of occurring within these reaches of the two Creeks. It should be noted, again, that the riparian habitat of San Pablo Creek is superior to that of Appian Creek. 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-135 While it is unclear to what degree future development is expected to directly (e.g., removal of riparian habitat) or indirectly (e.g., encroachment on the riparian buffer) impact the creeks, the mitigation measures identified above would minimize impacts to the creeks’ systems. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6-2A, B and C, the development within the Project Area would not result in a significant impact to these two species due to the modest probability for these two species to occur within the Project Area. Impacts to the creek and associated riparian habitat would be adequately mitigated. The impact on the California Red Legged Frog and Western Pond Turtle would be less than significant. □ MITIGATION MEASURE: Because Mitigation Measures 3.7-2A, B and C, set forth above, would mitigate the impact to a less-than-significant level, no additional mitigation measures are required. Loss of Habitat IMPACT 3.7-5: The proposed project could result in loss of habitat for native wildlife. Discussion and Conclusion: The total loss of habitat for native wildlife cannot be determined at this time, due to the lack of any specific proposal for development of specific sites. The most sensitive habitats in the Project Area are the riparian corridors of San Pablo and Appian Creeks, and the open space to the east of San Pablo Dam Road. The open space areas of the site are included in the foraging radius for many avian species. The territories for many of these species may exceed the size of the site. A number of other avian species, primarily raptors, likely forage over the Project Area and beyond. Bird species with relatively small foraging territories that may breed in the Project Area include the plain titmouse, chestnut-backed chickadee, California towhee, rufous-sided towhee, song sparrow, common bushtit, acorn woodpecker, and Nuttall's woodpecker. Dispersing juveniles of these species might traverse specific sites, immigrate, or emigrate from specific sites in search of suitable unoccupied habitat. No raptors were observed nesting on site, but the site provides some foraging opportunities for several raptor species that nest within the region. These include the red-tailed hawk and red-shouldered hawk. A number of common mammals such as opossum, dusky footed woodrat, deer mouse, voles, and raccoon use portions the site for breeding and foraging. The home ranges of several of these species are larger than the site. Therefore, the movement patterns (i.e., their home ranges) for these species would include portions of adjacent lands. Juveniles of these species would traverse the site, immigrate, or emigrate from it. Some species (such as red-legged frog, if they are present on the site) may spend their entire life cycle within these riparian habitats, use the habitats for cover, or access other habitats along the creek. While future development may impact the riparian corridor, Mitigation Measures 3.7-2A, B and C, identified above, would minimize the impact to the corridor, and native wildlife would continue to use 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Page 3-136 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment the riparian corridor and other portions of the Project Area that include grasslands that remain undeveloped. The project is expected to result in a less-than-significant impact for native wildlife. □ MITIGATION MEASURE: Because Mitigation Measures 3.7-2A, B and C, set forth above, would mitigate the impact to a less-than-significant level, no additional mitigation measures are required. Movement of Wildlife IMPACT 3.7-6: Development of the Project Area could interfere with the movement of native wildlife. Discussion and Conclusion: While Project Area is predominantly urbanized, it contains an intact riparian corridor (San Pablo Creek), and a somewhat impacted riparian corridor (Appian Creek). It is likely that a diverse assemblage of wildlife species use these corridors. The movements of these various species on- and off-site vary depending on the species in question. Assessing the importance of an area as a "movement corridor" depends on differentiating between animals’ consistent use patterns. Animal movements generally can be divided into three major behavioral categories: • Movements within a home range or territory; • Movements during migration; and • Movements during dispersal. While no detailed study of animal movements has been conducted for the Project Area, knowledge of the site, its habitats, and the ecology of the species on the site permit a reasonable prediction to be made regarding the types of movements occurring in the region and whether proposed development would constitute a significant impact to animal movements. The small areas of grassland may be considered a movement corridor, especially the open space area to the east of San Pablo Dam Road, due to its proximity to oak woodland. Furthermore, the riparian habitats likely function as movement corridors facilitating regional movements of wildlife. While project implementation could impact the riparian habitats to some extent, this would not necessarily interrupt wildlife movements. The most common of the wildlife species presently using these reaches of San Pablo and Appian Creeks would be likely to continue moving along the reaches. While development would convert some natural habitat to residential use, it would not act as a substantial barrier for most wildlife species that presently use these habitats. Build-out of the Project Area would, therefore, result in a less-than-significant impact to regional movements of wildlife. □ Mitigation Measure: No mitigation measures are required. 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-137 Disturbance to Wetlands IMPACT 3.7-7: Future development could disturb wetland areas. Discussion and Conclusion: The reconnaissance surveys performed as part of the review for biological resources were limited to those areas accessible to the public. The surveys were not sufficient to delineate the precise boundary of potential wetlands/drainages contained in the open space to the east of San Pablo Dam Road; however, the surveys were sufficient to determine that some portion of these features would probably be regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The proposed General Plan Amendment does not include a specific development plan, and the extent of wetlands were not precisely determined. A general analysis and appropriate guidance have been provided above, consistent with the scope of review for a program-level EIR. While impacts to riparian areas have been minimized through the mitigation measures identified above, new development could adversely affect wetland areas, and this is considered a potentially significant impact. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.7-7: Each specific project applicant shall comply with provisions of the 404 Clean Water Act and all U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permitting requirements, file a Section 401 Water Quality Certification, or waiver, to be obtained from the RWQCB, and comply with Section 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code by entering into a Streambed Alteration Agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game for any work that will substantially alter the bed or banks of a seasonal creek. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure: Impacts to wetland areas that could be affected by specific development proposals are regulated by state and federal agencies. Compliance with permitting requirements would include the following activities: • Wetland Delineation. Prior to proceeding with the construction of any project, the applicant would be required to submit a final map and receive verification from the Corps. This map would be prepared according to "Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Preliminary Wetland Delineations," a set of guidelines for consultants preparing wetland delineations for the Corps. All fieldwork conducted would comply with methodologies found in Section D (Routine Determinations) of the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. The application process may involve consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act. • Preparation of Permit Application. An application package for a Clean Water Act permit would include the verified wetland delineation, plan view drawings and cross-sections of the proposed work, a conceptual mitigation plan and framework for implementation and a Section 404b(1) alternatives analysis. The mitigation plan must be prepared according to applicable USACE guidelines. This plan would provide a course of action for reducing the level of impacts to wetlands, either through restoration, enhancement or creation of other wetlands on or off the specific project site. • Every mitigation plan must also include a monitoring component. This component ensures that the success of the mitigation plan can be determined over time, and that remedial measures can be employed if performance objectives listed in the plan are not being met. An 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Page 3-138 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment alternatives analysis must be prepared according to USACE guidelines. This analysis must show why the project could not be constructed differently, or elsewhere, such that impacts to wetland habitats are avoided. • The Streambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to Section 1603 of the Fish and Game Code requires analysis of all seasonal creeks within the specific Project Area, and project plans must be provided to the CDFG. The applicant and the CDFG would then enter into an agreement that identifies any mitigation measures designed to protect the biotic values associated with the seasonal creeks. • The application for 401 Water Quality Certification must include the verified wetland delineation, project plans, a copy of the Clean Water Act Permit, a copy of the Streambed Alteration Agreement, and the notice of certification of the EIR. Once the full extent of wetlands is known on the specific project site and the impact has been determined, then the project applicant develops a Wetland Restoration Plan. The Plan would include the following features or their equivalent: – Replacement of lost wetland habitat acreage at a ratio sufficient to retain functions and values. A minimum of a 1:1 replacement ratio (replacement : lost) would be expected to off-set wetland resource impacts adequately. The resource agencies frequently request replacement ratios of 2:1 for loss to wetland habitats. The final ratio depends on the quality of the replacement habitat that is being offered. – Compensation involving preservation, restoration, enhancement, and/or creation of seasonal wetlands and/or seasonal drainage channels elsewhere on- or off-site. The preferred method is to identify appropriate on-site locations for replacement habitat and / or to enlarge other existing on-site wetlands to create seasonal wetlands. – Establishment of undeveloped buffers on both sides of seasonal wetlands or seasonal drainage channels consistent with the primary objective of the wetland in question. Implementation of the mitigation measure requiring compliance with the permit requirements of state and federal agencies would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Disturbance to Raptor Nests IMPACT 3.7-8: Future development projects as a result of the General Plan Amendment could disturb active raptor nests. Discussion and Conclusion: The Project Area supports suitable habitat for both tree nesting and ground nesting (i.e., burrowing owl, northern harrier) raptors. Future construction activities that could adversely affect nesting activity or result in mortality of individual birds would be a violation of state and federal law. Construction activities during the raptor breeding season (February through August) could result in the abandonment of active nests or direct mortality to these birds. Construction activities on any specific parcel could adversely affect active nesting habitat for raptors; and would also violate state and federal law. Additionally, construction activities that would harm or kill a burrowing owl (a ground nesting raptor) during the non-breeding season would also constitute a potentially significant impact. While a similar legal prohibition exists for tree nesting raptors, these 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-139 birds are not subject to unintended harm or injury during the non-breeding season, as they roost in trees. This impact is considered a potentially significant impact. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.7-8A: A qualified ornithologist shall conduct a pre- construction survey for nesting raptors, including both tree and ground nesting raptors, on any site on which construction is proposed. If ground disturbance is to occur during the breeding season (i.e., February 1 to August 31), the survey shall be conducted within the thirty-day period prior to the proposed date of commencement of construction. The survey shall be based on the accepted protocols for the various target species. The survey shall explicitly consider the burrowing owl as a potential target species. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.7-8B: If nesting raptors are identified on or adjacent to a specific site, the ornithologist shall determine a ground disturbance-free setback zone around the nest, to be established as a minimum of 250 feet. The actual distance of the ground disturbance free zone will depend on the species, location of the nest in the tree and local topography. The setback shall be temporarily fenced, and construction equipment and workers shall not enter the enclosed setback until the conclusion of the breeding season, or until young have fledged from the nests. A biological monitor shall periodically check to ensure that the construction free zone is being honored, and to determine when young have fledged. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.7-8C: A qualified ornithologist shall conduct pre- construction surveys for burrowing owls during the non-breeding season. If the survey determines that burrowing owls occupy the site just prior to construction, and avoiding development of occupied areas is not feasible, and the applicant has not provided for mitigation in the form of a conservation easement, then habitat compensation on off-site mitigation lands shall be implemented. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures: Off-site mitigation, as identified in Mitigation Measure 3.7- 8C, is not the preferred form of mitigation, and would occur only if it were determined that the alternative methods of mitigation were not feasible. Off-site mitigation typically entails evicting the affected owls from the project site and setting aside and managing specific areas for burrowing owls. Implementation of the mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. 3.8 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Page 3-140 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment 3.8 GEOLOGY AND SOILS The following studies and reports provide information and data on the geology and soils of the Project Area and vicinity: • Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020: Environmental Impact Report, Resource and Safety Issues, pages VII-104 to VII-132. • Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020: Safety Element, pages 10-3 to 10-26. • Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada: Map E-17. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. February 1998. • Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, California. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. September 1977. • U.S. Geological Survey, Preliminary Earthquake Report, November 24, 2002. Information and setting descriptions and impacts evaluation in this section are summarized and excerpted from the reports listed above. Environmental Setting The proposed Project Area is located in the western portion of unincorporated Contra Costa County, in the downtown El Sobrante vicinity. The Project Area is located along Appian Way and San Pablo Dam Road, to the southwest of El Sobrante, with El Portal Drive as the western border and Valley View Road as the northern border. Contra Costa County is located within the central Coast Range Geomorphic Province of California. Geologic formations within this province consist of a northwest- trending series of mountain ranges and intermontane valleys. Unconsolidated alluvium terrace deposits and bay mud occupy the lowland areas. Alluvial and terrace deposits occupy the intermontane valleys and lower foothills, while Bay muds occupy the eastern northern and northwestern margins of the County. Within the Project Area, the geologic formations consist primarily of quaternary alluvium sediments with some areas of tertiary formations composed of hard marine sandstones and shales intruding along the margins of the Project Area in the southwest and northeast portions. Elevations range from approximately 100' above mean sea level (MSL) on the western boundary of the Project Area to 230' MSL on the northeast boundary of the Project Area. Most of the Project Area located along Appian Way is at an elevation of 150' MSL. The majority of the Project Area is located along the stream bottoms and lower slopes of the surrounding hills. San Pablo Creek, a perennial stream, runs through a portion the Project Area on an east-west alignment, but most of it is located outside of the Project Area to the south. An intermittent stream, which is tributary to San Pablo Creek, runs northeast through the Project Area roughly parallel to Appian Way. Soils in the Project Area consist mostly of areas classified within the Lowland Soil Association, which includes six lowland soil associations. These soils associations are slowly to very slowly permeable, highly expansive and corrosive with slight erosion hazards. Also included in the Project Area are 3.8 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-141 areas classified within the Upland Soil Association, which includes five upland soil associations (Figure 8-5, page 8-59, Contra Costa County General Plan 2005–2020). The upland soils are located along the southern and northeast portions of the Project Area. These soil associations are generally highly expansive and corrosive with moderate to slow permeability. See Figure 3.8-1, Soils Map. The geology of Contra Costa County is dominated by several northwest trending fault systems, which include the Hayward fault system, the Pinole fault system, and the Calaveras-Franklin fault systems near the Project Area. The main trace of the Hayward fault system is located approximately 0.9 mile to the west of the western boundary of the Project Area. Parallel traces of the Hayward fault are located approximately 0.15 mile west of the western boundary of the Project Area and another trace bisects the Project Area in the northern portion. The eastern edge of the Hayward fault's "A Fault Zone" intersects the junction of San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way (Map E-17, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada). The shaded zone of the A Fault boundary designates a zone within 2 kilometers (1.25 miles) of known seismic sources. The Pinole fault system is located approximately 1.5 miles east of the Project Area. The Calaveras- Franklin fault system is located approximately 7.5 miles east of the Project Area. Other major faults that are located in the County, but that are farther removed to the east from the Project Area, include the Concord fault, Clayton Segment and Marsh Creek-Greenville fault, Black Diamond Area faults, Mt. Diablo fault and Antioch fault. Contra Costa County has been subjected to numerous seismic events, originating from faults both within the County and in other parts of the region. Both the Hayward and Calaveras fault systems have produced historic earthquakes and have exhibited creep. These historic events include the 1836 and 1868 earthquakes on the Hayward fault and the 1861 earthquake on the Calaveras fault. A Magnitude 3.9 earthquake along with numerous swarms of smaller seismic events occurred along the Calaveras fault southeast in San Ramon as recently as November 24, 2002 (U.S. Geological Survey, Preliminary Earthquake Report, November 24, 2002). The San Andreas fault system, located to the west of the County near San Francisco, is also capable of generating strong seismic events in the County. The epicenter of a Magnitude 2.4 earthquake occurred adjacent to the junction of San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way between 1934–1971. The epicenter of a Magnitude 2.5–3.4 earthquake also occurred adjacent to Hilltop Drive, approximately 0.4 mile north of the Project Area between 1934–1971. Contra Costa County is therefore considered to be an area of relatively high seismicity in a state characterized by moderate to high seismic activity. 3.8 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-142 3.8 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-143 An earthquake probability estimate has been prepared for Contra Costa County that evaluated the likelihood of earthquakes capable of producing damage within the County during a 50-year period. A seismic event of Magnitude 6.0–7.0 was considered "likely" (i.e., greater than 50% probability) on the Hayward fault, while an event of Magnitude 7.0–7.5 was considered "intermediate" (between 15–50% probability). In comparison, the forecast showed the Calaveras fault was classified for a Magnitude 6.0–7.0 event as intermediate, and for a Magnitude 7.0–7.5 event as "intermediate-low" (less than a 15% probability of occurrence). This forecast shows that a structure built in Contra Costa County is likely to be subjected to a severely damaging earthquake during its useful life. The areas in Contra Costa County that are most susceptible to ground failure during a strong seismic event include the geologically younger sediments of the San Francisco Bay estuary, including the Delta lowlands. These areas consist of continually wet, unconsolidated deposits, which are potentially unstable. The Project Area is located upon areas classified as Pliocene bedrock and older (Pleistocene) alluvium, and younger (Holocene) alluvium. The Pliocene bedrock and older alluvium areas are mostly located north of San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way, and east of Appian Way. The younger alluvium areas are located mostly along the course of San Pablo Creek. The Project Area has been classified as Zone 2, an area that has "moderately low damage susceptibility," and Zone 3, an area that has "moderate damage susceptibility" (Figure 10-4, page 10-13, Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020 Safety Element). The direct effects of seismic activity include the shifting and rupturing of ground along a fault and ground shaking. Ground shaking can cause indirect effects including landslides, subsidence and differential settlement, liquefaction and lurching and cracking. Seismic disturbance can also result in "seiche," which is an abnormal wave that can cause flooding. Other activities that are unrelated to earthquakes such as landslides, high tides and winds can also create seiches. Most of the Project Area has been classified as an area with "generally moderate to low" liquefaction potential. Areas classified as "generally low" occur on the margins of the Project Area to the north of San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way, and east of Appian Way (Figure 10-5, page 10-15, Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020Safety Element). The Project Area is not located within or near areas classified as a geological (landslide) hazard or an area of steep slopes (Figures 10-6, 10-7, pages 10-24-25, Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020 Safety Element). Development constraints in the Project Area include conditions related to soil depth, slope, permeability, percolation rates, water table, soil drainage, and overflow or flooding hazards. Some soils change in volume as a direct effect of moisture content influenced by the kind and amount of clay in the soil. Shrink-swell behavior can have a substantial effect on foundations and roadways. The Project Area is located within an area classified as having septic tank or leachfield constraints. The Project Area is within the San Pablo septic tank moratorium area, but is not within a designated reservoir drainage area (Figure 7-4, page 7-19, Contra Costa County General Plan 2005-2020). Regulatory Setting State Provisions The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Alquist-Priolo Act) was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. This state law was a direct result of the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake, which was associated with extensive surface fault 3.8 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Page 3-144 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment ruptures that damaged numerous homes, commercial buildings, and other structures. Surface rupture is the most easily avoided seismic hazard. The Alquist-Priolo Act's main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Act only addresses the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards. The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, passed in 1990, addresses non-surface fault rupture earthquake hazards, including liquefaction and seismically induced landslides. The law requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones (known as Earthquake Fault Zones) around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps. ["Earthquake Fault Zones" were called "Special Studies Zones" prior to January 1, 1994.] The maps are distributed to all affected cities, counties and state agencies for their use in planning and controlling new or renewed construction. Local agencies must regulate most development projects within the zones. Projects include all land divisions and most structures for human occupancy. Single family wood-frame and steel-frame dwellings up to two stories not part of a development of four units or more are exempt. However, local agencies can be more restrictive than state law requires. Before a project can be permitted, cities and counties must require a geologic investigation to demonstrate that proposed buildings will not be constructed across active faults. An evaluation and written report of a specific site must be prepared by a licensed geologist. If an active fault is found, a structure for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and must be set back from the fault, generally at a distance of 50 feet. The Project Area is not included within a regulatory zone under the Alquist-Priolo Act. The Project Area is, however, located near the Hayward fault 0.9 mile to the west, and the Calaveras fault 7.5 miles to the east that are designated as Earthquake Fault Zones under the Alquist-Priolo Act. See Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada: Map E-17. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. February 1998, available for inspection through the Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development. County Provisions The Uniform Building Code (UBC) as adopted by Contra Costa County incorporates data regarding the response of structures to seismic events as a basis for structural design. The UBC considers primary lateral seismic forces and general soil type. The objective of the UBC is to protect the life safety of building occupants and the public. The UBC provisions are enforced by the County through the building permit process during which plans for proposed structures are examined for compliance with the applicable provisions of the UBC. In large earthquakes, compliance with provisions of the UBC would ensure that the building would not collapse, but some structural and non-structural damage may be expected. Buildings constructed prior to the code revisions in the 1970s would generally not be expected to meet the current design provisions for earthquake forces incorporated into the UBC at that time. Damage that may be anticipated for different types of buildings is set forth below: • The most severe hazards are presented by unreinforced masonry buildings constructed of brick or concrete block. Under strong intensity ground shaking, these structures may collapse or suffer severe structural damage. 3.8 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-145 • Other types of buildings constructed of steel and concrete framing may also be severely damaged if they were not designed and constructed to resist earthquake vibrations. Older reinforced brick and masonry structures may also suffer severe damage. • Light wood-frame structures, which includes most residential structures, and sheet metal buildings, would be expected to have no more than moderate damage in most cases. • Steel-frame structures designed to withstand earthquake vibrations have an excellent record in earthquakes. New construction in the Project Area would be required to comply with the current version of the UBC as adopted by the County. Future projects undertaken as part of the proposed land use must be consistent with the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020). Relevant goals and policies in the General Plan relating to geology and soils include the following: S AFETY E LEMENT Seismic Hazard Goals 10-A. To protect human life and reduce the potential for serious injuries from earthquakes; and to reduce the risks of property losses from seismic disturbances which could have severe economic and social consequences for the County as a whole. 10-B. To reduce to a practical minimum injuries and health risks resulting from the effects of earthquake ground shaking on structures, facilities and utilities. 10-C. To protect persons and property from the life-threatening, structurally and financially disastrous effects of ground rupture and fault creep on active faults, and to reduce structural distress caused by soil and rock weakness due to geologic faults. 10-D. To reduce to a practical minimum the potential for life loss, injury, and economic loss due to liquefaction-induced ground failure, levee failure, large lateral land movements toward bodies of water, and consequent flooding; and to mitigate the lesser consequences of liquefaction. Seismic Hazard Policies 10-1. Contra Costa County, as part of an area with high seismicity, shall recognize that a severe earthquake hazard exists and shall reflect this recognition in its development review and other programs. 10-2. Significant land use decisions (General Plan amendment, rezoning, etc.) shall be based on a thorough evaluation of geologic-seismic and soils conditions and risk. 10-4. In areas prone to severe levels of damage from ground shaking (i.e., Zone IV on Map 10-4), where the risks to life and investments are sufficiently high, geologic-seismic and soils studies shall be required as a precondition for authorizing public or private construction. Groundshaking Policies 10-8. Ground conditions shall be a primary consideration in the selection of land use and in the design of development projects. 3.8 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Page 3-146 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment 10.9. In areas susceptible to high damage from ground shaking (i.e., Zone IV on Map 10-4), geologic-seismic and soils studies shall be required prior to the authorization of major land developments and significant structures (public or private). 10.10. Policies regarding liquefaction shall apply to other ground failures which might result from groundshaking but which are not subject to well-defined field and laboratory analysis. Liquefaction Policies 10-20. Any structures permitted in areas of high liquefaction danger shall be sited, designed and constructed to minimize the dangers due to earthquake-induced liquefaction. Soil Resources Goals 8-P. To encourage the conservation of soil resources to protect their long-term productivity and economic value. 8-Q. To promote and encourage soil management practices that maintain the productivity of soil resources. Soils Resources Policies 8-62. The County shall protect soil resources within its boundaries. 8-63. Erosion control procedures shall be established and enforced for all private and public construction and grading projects. 8-65. In the absence of more detailed site-specific studies, determinations of soil suitability for particular land uses shall be made according to the Soil Conservation Service's Soil Survey of Contra Costa County. 8-66. The existing County slope map shall be used to identify areas in the County where slope poses severe constraints for particular land uses. 8-67. Lands having a prevailing slope above 26 percent shall require adequate special erosion control and construction techniques. 8-68. Lands having a high erosion potential as identified in the Soil Survey shall require adequate erosion control methods for agricultural and other uses. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Evaluation Criteria The project would be considered in this EIR to have a significant adverse impact on geology and soils if it would expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: • 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. 3.8 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-147 • Strong seismic ground shaking. • Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. • Landslides. The project would also be considered to have a significant impact if it would result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, or the loss of a unique geologic feature. A significant adverse impact could also result if the project is located on: • Strata 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. • Expansive soil creating substantial risks to life or property. Groundshaking IMPACT 3.8-1: Development in the Project Area could expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking. Discussion and Conclusion: In a state characterized by moderate to high seismic activity, the Project Area is considered to be one of relatively high seismicity. Major faults that have historically produced earthquakes of the greatest magnitudes in the Project Area vicinity include the Hayward, and Calaveras faults, and the San Andreas fault located outside of Contra Costa County. Designated Earthquake Fault Zones are not present in the Project Area, but one is located nearby to the west along the Hayward fault. The Project Area has been classified as an area with both moderately low damage susceptibility and moderate damage susceptibility. An earthquake on faults in the Project Area vicinity could result in strong seismic ground shaking, resulting in potentially significant impacts to people and property within the Project Area. Un- reinforced masonry structures located in the Project Area could be damaged and become a human safety hazard as a result of ground shaking. New construction would comply with the applicable standards of the current Uniform Building Code requirements, including seismic standards, thus, this impact is considered less than significant. □ Mitigation Measure: No mitigation measures are required. 3.8 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Page 3-148 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Geologic Hazards IMPACT 3.8-2: Development activities could expose people and property to geologic hazards, including liquefaction, landslides, slope instability, expansive soils and subsidence in the Project Area. Discussion and Conclusion: Slope instability is typically most affected by the degree of slope and the applicable geologic conditions. Exposed soil on steeper slopes is susceptible to instability as a result of heavy rains, excavation, or earthquakes. Significant differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are dry and well drained; others are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. The Lowland and Upland Soil Associations that are prevalent throughout the Project Area have been classified as being highly expansive. These soils change in volume as a direct effect of moisture content influenced by the kind and amount of clay in the soil. Shrink-swell behavior can have a substantial effect on foundations and roadways. Others are shallow to bedrock. Some are stable building sites while others are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Liquefaction occurs in clean, well-sorted, sandy soils that turn unstable, like quicksand, when hit by a severe earthquake. Structures affected by liquefaction may sink or float during such events. The Project Area is classified as "generally moderate to low" and "generally low" for estimated liquefaction potential. Ground failure has been documented in Contra Costa County, primarily in areas overlain by modern sediments, located upon landslide deposits, filled areas, or on slopes steeper than 25%. These deposits/characteristics are not present within the Project Area. However, a major seismic event would pose potential risk for damage to structures due to severe ground shaking. This is considered a potentially significant impact. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.8-2: Structures proposed as part of any project in the Project Area shall be designed to required earthquake standards of the Uniform Building Code, taking into due consideration the findings of required geotechnical and soils studies to mitigate the potential hazards of expansive soils. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure: Enforcement of the Uniform Building Code related to construction, excavation and foundation standards would mitigate concerns of seismic-safety and expansive soils to a less-than-significant level. Erosion IMPACT 3.8-3: Construction activities related to future development could increase the risk of erosion in the Project Area. Discussion and Conclusion: Future development could involve construction grading and site development. Such activities could result in erosion of soils. While the Project Area has mainly 3.8 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-149 gentle slopes and occurs mostly along the lower slopes and stream bottom areas, slopes present on specific project sites could increase the potential for erosion to potentially significant levels. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.8-3: Development projects in the Project Area shall include a site-specific erosion control plan. Development projects greater than 1-acre shall prepare an erosion and sediment control plan, including implementation of appropriate Best Management Practices, to be implemented for exposed soil surfaces during construction. No onsite grading activities shall occur prior to approval of erosion and sediment control plans, grading plans or any other applicable plans. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure: A Best Management Practice (BMP), as identified in Mitigation Measure 3.8-3, is defined in the California Storm Water Best Management Practice handbook as "any program, technology process, siting criteria, operating method, measure, or device that controls, prevents, removes, or reduces pollution." BMPs can be universally applied standards and project-specific protection practices. The Clean Water Act and subsequent regulations require that BMPs should be developed in an iterative process. Performance of implemented BMPs is reviewed and the designs are modified as necessary, and they are further monitored and modified again to improve their performance and ensure that protection measures remain appropriate and best. The three major functions of erosion and sediment control measures are to: (1) absorb the impacts of raindrops; (2) reduce the velocity of runoff; and (3) allow precipitation to enter the soil rather than carry soil particles down slope. BMPs designed to reduce the impacts of rainfall include: • schedule projects so clearing and grading are done during the time of minimum erosion potential; • stage construction to avoid exposing large areas of land to erosive influences; • route construction traffic to avoid existing or newly planted vegetation; • protect natural vegetation with fencing, tree armoring, and retaining walls or tree wells; • stockpile topsoil and reapply to re-vegetate site; • cover or stabilize topsoil stockpiles; • use wind erosion controls; • seed and fertilize, use seeding and mulch/mats, sodding and wildflower cover to protect soil from erosive influences. BMPs designed to reduce the impacts of runoff include: locate potential non-point pollutant sources away from steep slopes, water bodies, and critical areas; intercept runoff above disturbed slopes and convey it to a permanent channel or storm drain; intercept runoff on long or steep, disturbed, or man- made slopes; and utilize retaining walls and check dams. BMPs designed to reduce the impacts of sedimentation include: sediment basins and traps; use of filter fabric; straw bale barrier; inlet protection; construction entrance control; and vegetated filter strips. 3.8 GEOLOGY AND SOILS Page 3-150 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Implementation of the Best Management Practices as required in Mitigation Measure 3.8-3 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. 3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-151 3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS This section reviews the potential impacts of the proposed project with regard to hazardous materials. As a part of the previous EIR a records search of the project area was undertaken to identify sites that may contain hazardous materials from either existing or past use. Environmental Setting The proposed Project Area is located in the unincorporated portion of Contra Costa County, in an area that is predominantly urbanized. The Project Area includes multiple parcels in the unincorporated community of El Sobrante along San Pablo Dam Road between El Portal Drive and Appian Way, and along Appian Way between San Pablo Dam Road and Valley View Drive. See Figure 2-1, Site Map. The Project Area includes operating businesses and industries that may use, transport and dispose of a variety of hazardous materials. For example, automotive related uses occupy eight parcels along San Pablo Dam Road between Appian Way and El Portal Drive. A Pacific Bell vehicle storage yard is located at the end of Pitt Way, south of San Pablo Dam Road (Downtown El Sobrante Transportation and Land Use Plan Environmental Scan, December 2001, page 5). These activities are regulated, as noted below, by federal, state and local laws and regulations. The California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control Division's (DTSC) Facility Inventory Data Base of Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites ("Cortese List") did not identify any sites within the proposed Project Area (DTSC Facility Inventory Data Base Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List, City List, January 23, 2002). No hazardous land uses are identified within, or adjacent to the Project Area. No oil and gas wells are located within or near the Project Area, nor are there any petroleum product or natural gas pipelines identified within the Project Area. (See General Plan, Safety Element.) An Environmental Data Resources (EDR) Government Records Database search was conducted on December 24, 2002, for the project and surrounding area. In order to capture the entire Project Area, a one-mile radius was searched from the approximate center of the Project Area located at the intersection of La Paloma Road and Appian Way. As a result, a larger area than the actual Project Area is included in the EDR Report, and not all sites identified in the report, fall within the Project Area. See Appendix E for a copy of the Executive Summary and Overview Map from the EDR Report. 3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Page 3-152 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment The EDR database search report identified numerous sites including 20 small quantity generator sites associated with dental and medical practices, dry cleaners and automotive/ trucking business related facilities, two Emergency Release Notification System (ERNS) reported releases of oil and hazardous substances, one California Hazardous Material Incident Report System (CHMIRS), fifteen Cortese sites, twenty-four Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST), eight Registered Underground Storage Tanks (UST), thirteen Active, and Inactive UST sites (CA Facility Inventory Database [FID] List), thirteen Historic UST sites, thirty Facility Index System (FINDS) sites, one FTTS site, six drycleaners, fifty-seven HAZNET sites, and forty-six Contra Costa County Site List sites within the Project Area and the one-mile search radius distance vicinity. Information on the identified sites located within the Project Area and vicinity is provided in Table 3.9-1. A review of the EDR Report's findings indicates that a majority of the identified sites located within the Project Area are clustered along San Pablo Dam Road between El Portal Drive and Appian Way. The majority of the sites identified include facilities such as gasoline stations/minimarts, automotive servicing and repair shops, drycleaners, medical/dental practices, a fire station, Pacific Bell yards and facilities, photo processing facilities, and miscellaneous small quantity generators. A number of other sites occur along Appian Way from its junction with San Pablo Dam Road to the northeast boundary of the Project Area at the junctions of Valley View Boulevard and Sobrante Avenue. Several gasoline stations/minimarts, and automotive repair businesses are located in the northeast portion of the Project Area at the region of the junctions of Appian Way, Sobrante Avenue and Valley View Road. A reported release of oil or hazardous substance occurred in this vicinity at 425 Appian Way according to the ERNS list. A quantity of asbestos-containing waste was removed from a facility located at 4200 Appian Way near the junction of Garden Road and at another facility located at 3630 San Pablo Dam Road as well as from another facility located outside the Project Area. Several of the sites identified in Table 3.9-1 are listed more than once in each site list, as well as being listed on multiple lists, due to the nature of activities that have occurred at the subject facility over time. Releases of motor vehicle fuels and waste oils have occurred at some of the LUST/UST sites. These releases have impacted both soils and groundwater at some of the sites. Some sites have completed corrective actions such as remediation, while at other sites, corrective action is still underway. Some LUST sites have been tested for the presence of MTBE and its presence has been identified at several locations in both the soil and groundwater. Reported concentrations of MTBE in groundwater ranged from 960 parts per billion (ppb) up to 64,000 ppb. USTs have been closed at various locations, and releases in some cases were discovered at the time of tank closure. Table 3.9-2 provides a summary of the known release sites within the Project Area. Figure 3.9-1, Location of LUST/UST Sites, identifies the approximate locations of these known sites. For more complete details, the Executive Summary from the EDR report provided in Appendix E should be consulted. 3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-153 Table 3.9-1 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY DATABASE INQUIRY REVIEW Target Property: DATABASE Search Distance (miles) < 1/8 1/8– 1/4 1/4– 1/2 1/2–1 > 1 Total Plotted FEDERAL ASTM STANDARD NPL 1.0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 Proposed NPL 1.0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 CERCLIS 1.0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 CERC-NFRAP 1.0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 CORRACTS 1.0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 RCRIS-TSD 1.0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 RCRIS LG QUAN GEN 1.0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 RCRIS SM QUAN GEN 1.0 0 2 6 12 NR 20 ERNS 1.0 0 0 0 2 NR 2 STATE ASTM STANDARD AWP 1.0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 Cal-Sites 1.0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 CHMIRS 1.0 0 0 0 1 NR 1 CORTESE 1.0 0 2 5 8 NR 15 NOTIFY 65 1.0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 TOXIC PITS 1.0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 STATE LANDFILL 1.0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 WMUD/SWAT 1.0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 LUST 1.0 0 2 9 13 NR 24 CA BOND EXP PLAN 1.0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 UST 1.0 0 0 4 4 NR 8 VCP 1.0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 CA FID UST 1.0 0 1 3 9 NR 13 HIST UST 1.0 0 1 3 9 NR 13 FEDERAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL CONSENT 1.0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 ROD 1.0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 DELISTED NPL 1.0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 FINDS 1.0 0 2 8 20 NR 30 HMIRS 1.0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 MLTS 1.0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 MINES 1.0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 NPL LIENS 1.0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 PADS 1.0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 RAATS 1.0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 TRIS 1.0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 TSCA 1.0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 SSTS 1.0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 FTTS 1.0 0 0 0 1 NR 1 STATE OR LOCAL ASTM SUPPLEMENTAL AST 1.0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 CLEANERS 1.0 0 0 2 4 NR 6 CA WDS 1.0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 DEED 1.0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 CA SLIC 1.05 0 0 0 0 NR 0 HAZNET 1.0 1 4 21 31 NR 57 Contra Costa Co. Site List 1.0 0 3 14 29 NR 46 EDR PROPRIETY DATABASES COAL GAS 1.0 0 0 0 0 NR 0 Notes: 1) Sites may be listed in more than one database. (2) NR = Not Requested at this search distance. 3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Page 3-154 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Table 3-9.2 KNOWN LUST/UST AND OTHER RELEASE SITES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA Map Ref # Site Name Site Location Case #/ Database/ EDR ID # Status Date Reported Case Type Substance/ Concentration 1 CCC Consolidated Fire Dist Station # 69 4640 Appian Way 07-0749 (RWQCB)/ LUST/ S103890458 Case Closed 02/26/98 Soil Only Unleaded Gasoline/ MTBE (260 ppb) 2 M&H Mini Market 4917 Appian Way 07-0775 (RWQCB)/ LUST/ S105023638 PSA Work plan 04/02/99 Other Groundwater Affected Gasoline/ MTBE (3150 ppb) 3 Union Oil SS# 3906 3753 San Pablo Dam Road 07-0355 (RWQCB)/ LUST Pollution Character- ization 07/18/90 Other Groundwater Affected Gasoline/ MTBE (4300 - 64000 ppb) Benzene 4 Shell 3621 San Pablo Dam Road 07-0626 (RWQCB)/ LUST/ S102436888 Pollution Character- ization 10/07/94 Other Groundwater Affected Gasoline/ MTBE (9900 ppb) 5 Chevron SS# 91574 3548 San Pablo Dam Road 07-0053 (RWQCB)/ LUST/ S101580729 Closed Not Reported Other Groundwater Affected Gasoline/ MTBE (960 ppb) 6 425 Appian Way 425 Appian Way ERNS/ 90168568/ Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 7 Dean Brothers Mohawk Station 478 Appian Way 0700508 (RWQCB)/ LUST/ S105033354 PSA Workplan 04/14/94 Soil Only Gasoline 8 San Pablo Gas & Mini Mart 3363 San Pablo Dam Road 07-0741 (RWQCB)/ LUST/ S103285910 PSA Workplan 05/21/98 Other Groundwater Affected Gasoline/ MTBE (33000 ppb) 9 Checker Oil Company 521 Appian Way 07-0051 (RWQCB)/ LUST/ S101624640 Not Reported Not Reported Soil Only Misc. Motor Vehicle Fuels Source: EDR Report, December 24, 2002. 3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-155 Figure 3.9-1 Location of LUST/UST Sites (Landscape) 3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Page 3-156 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Regulatory Setting State and Federal The California Department of Toxic Substances Control regulates hazardous waste in California primarily under the authority of the federal resources Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, and the California Health and Safety Code. Other laws that affect hazardous waste are specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup and emergency planning. Contra Costa County The Contra Costa County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, prepared pursuant to state law, is a comprehensive analysis of all aspects of hazardous waste management from generation through disposal. The General Plan indicates that all hazardous wastes that require commercial treatment or disposal are shipped out of the County. One of the primary goals of the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan is to determine and provide for the capacity of commercial hazardous waste management facilities that will be needed in the future to enable the County to manage the hazardous wastes that it produces. The County Hazardous Waste Management Plan is incorporated by reference into the County General Plan. Relevant policies in the General Plan relating to hazards and hazardous materials include the following: Hazardous Waste Management Goals 7-AM. To eliminate the generation and disposal of hazardous waste materials to the maximum extent feasible, by: (1) reducing the use of hazardous substances and the generation of hazardous waste at their source; (2) recovering and recycling the remaining waste for reuse; (3) treating those wastes not amenable to source reduction or recycling so that the environment and community health are not threatened by their ultimate disposal; (4) incinerating those wastes amenable to this technology; and (5) properly disposing of treated residuals in approved residual repositories. S AFETY E LEMENT Hazardous Materials Goal 10-I. To provide public protection from hazards associated with the use, transport, treatment and disposal of hazardous substances. Hazardous Materials Policies 10-61. Hazardous waste releases from both private companies and from public agencies shall be identified and eliminated. 10-62. Storage of hazardous material and wastes shall be strictly regulated. 10-63. Secondary containment and periodic examination shall be required for all storage of toxic materials. 3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-157 10-67. To the greatest extent possible, new fuel pipelines should not be routed through centers of population nor should they cross major disaster evacuation routes. 10-69. When an emergency occurs in the transportation of hazardous materials, the County Office of Emergency Services shall be notified as soon as possible. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Evaluation Criteria The project would be considered to have a significant adverse impact related to hazardous materials/contaminated sites if: • It would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. • It would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment. • It would result in hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. • It is located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. • It would 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. Hazardous Materials IMPACT 3.9-1: The Project Area includes sites that contain hazardous materials and future development activities could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Discussion and Conclusion: The proposed project would allow for a change in land use to develop the Project Area through a variety of activities, such as new development on underutilized or vacant sites, or the replacement of existing structures. Developed parcels within the Project Area are, in some cases, developed with automobile-oriented uses, including gas stations and other operations that have used or stored hazardous materials. The proposed project would encourage transition to a more pedestrian-friendly environment, and replacement of existing businesses is contemplated. As this transition occurs, it is likely that some parcels that contain hazardous materials will be affected. The identity and location of the parcels that could be affected is not known at this time, and the proposed project does not include specific development plans for any part of the Project Area. The environmental review in this EIR is at the program level, and the discussion of impacts, and the 3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Page 3-158 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment mitigation measures identified in this analysis, would be consulted as specific projects are proposed either by Contra Costa County or private applicants. This is considered a potentially significant impact. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.9-1: In the event that storage, handling, or use of hazardous materials occurs on any parcel within the project Area, the applicant shall implement a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP). Prior to occupancy clearance, the applicant shall submit a HMBP to the Contra Costa Consolidated Fire District for review and approval. The plan shall be updated annually and shall include a monitoring section. The business plan shall also include a hazardous materials inventory, an emergency response plan and procedures, and a training program as required by the Health and Safety Code, Sections 25500-25520. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure: Transportation and disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous waste in the proposed Project Area is subject to local, state and federal regulations. The policies included in the Contra Costa County General Plan, identified above, address storage and disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. All development activities within the proposed Project Area must be consistent with these policies. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.9-1 would ensure that hazardous materials are identified and subject to continued regulatory oversight to ensure compliance with applicable provisions regarding safety. The mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Asbestos / Lead Based Paint IMPACT 3.9-2: Rehabilitation and demolition of older structures could encounter asbestos containing materials and lead based paint, which could be released into the environment. Discussion and Conclusion: Buildings erected prior to 1976 may contain asbestos and lead-based paint. Asbestos containing waste has been removed from several facilities within the Project Area in the past. Disposal of hazardous waste generated in a proposed Project Area is subject to local, state and federal regulations. Development of the contaminated sites within the Project Areas would require cleanup and agency approval of the remedial actions prior to establishment of new uses. Agency approvals of remedial actions could include the requirement for placing a deed restriction on the future land uses that could be undertaken at a contaminated parcel to protect the public health and safety. The policies included in the Contra Costa County General Plan, identified above, address storage and disposal of hazardous wastes. All development within the proposed Project Area must be consistent with these policies. This is considered a potentially significant impact. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.9-2: In the event that substantial rehabilitation or demolition of older, substandard structures is undertaken as part of future development activities, asbestos and lead surveys shall be undertaken prior to any demolition work, and any appropriate abatement measures be implemented. Soil sampling on any proposed project site shall be conducted to determine if elevated levels of lead are present in the soils as a result of the confirmed use of lead-based paint on older structures. 3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-159 Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure: The proposed project does not identify specific development proposals for specific sites, and the analysis is therefore on a program level. As development is proposed in the future for specific sites, building records should be reviewed for any structures that are proposed for rehabilitation or demolition. If structures older than 1976 are identified as a result of this research, and the proposed project involves substantial renovation or demolition that would be likely to disturb materials, asbestos and lead surveys should be conducted to determine the presence or absence of these constituents on the subject site prior to the start of any rehabilitation or demolition work. Any sampling and remediation should be conducted by certified personnel in accordance with all local, state and federal regulations related to hazardous waste site characterization and remediation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.9-2 would ensure that potentially hazardous waste containing building materials are identified and subject to continued regulatory oversight to ensure compliance with applicable provisions regarding safety. The mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Utilization and Release of Hazardous Materials IMPACT 3.9-3: The Project Area may include sites that utilize hazardous materials or that have historically used or released hazardous materials at the site, and, as a result, development activities could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Discussion and Conclusion: Reliance on the state list of hazardous materials sites prepared pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 alone may not identify the present or past use of hazardous materials on the property. Other regulatory lists should also be consulted, to determine the potential use of hazardous materials on the property. The prior uses of a particular parcel may have included the use or release of hazardous materials on the parcel. An EDR Government Records Search report conducted on December 24, 2002 (see Appendix E) confirms that there have been such releases in the past that have impacted soil and groundwater at some properties, and that hazardous materials are being used by a variety of businesses located in the Project Area. Development of the contaminated sites within the Project Area would require cleanup and agency approval of the remedial actions prior to establishment of new uses. Agency approvals of remedial actions could include the requirement for placing a deed restriction on the future land uses that could be undertaken at a contaminated parcel to protect the public health and safety. Should such materials be unknowingly encountered during construction activities, they could create a significant hazard to the public or environment. This is considered a potentially significant impact. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.9-3A: The parcel history shall be evaluated for parcels identified in the December 24, 2002 EDR report (Appendix E) that are proposed for a new use, significant modification/demolition or subsurface excavation. This evaluation will determine whether current or past use of hazardous materials has occurred on the site. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.9-3B: The parcel history shall be evaluated for parcels identified in the December 24, 2002 EDR report (Appendix E) that are proposed for a new use, significant modification/demolition or subsurface excavation. The evaluation will 3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Page 3-160 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment determine whether the site had a historical release of oil or hazardous substances occurring on the site. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure: The identification of recognized environmental conditions is most appropriately conducted through the preparation of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, or a Transaction Screen Analysis pursuant to ASTM Standards E 1527-00 and E1528-00 or successor standards. The development of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment or Transaction Screen Analysis would include the review and evaluation of a current comprehensive government records review to identify potential recognized environmental conditions on or nearby the parcel. The results of either of these two analyses shall be provided to the County Department of Conservation and Development official for review and comment on whether additional measures are necessary to address the report's findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.9-3A would ensure that the past use/releases of potentially hazardous materials or hazardous waste are identified and subject to continued regulatory oversight to ensure compliance with applicable regulatory provisions regarding protection of public health, safety and the environment. The identification of recognized environmental conditions is most appropriately conducted through the preparation of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment pursuant to ASTM Standard E 1527-00. The development of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment would include the review and evaluation of a current comprehensive government records review, and agency interviews to identify potential recognized environmental conditions on or nearby the parcel. The results of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment shall be provided by the project applicant to the County Department of Conservation and Development official, and involved stakeholder regulatory agency staff for review and comment on whether additional measures are necessary to address the report's findings, as well as to determine the appropriate level of subsequent environmental review that would be required for any potential remedial actions that might be involved with the particular project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.9-3B would ensure that the properties, which have had documented past releases of hazardous materials or hazardous waste, are identified and subject to continued regulatory oversight to ensure compliance with applicable regulatory provisions regarding protection of public health, safety and the environment. The mitigation measure would also provide for the subsequent evaluation of the level of potential environmental impacts that could be involved in a remedial action that is not presently a reasonably foreseeable development scenario. This mitigation measure would provide for the analysis, evaluation, and mitigation of environmental impacts in a subsequent tiered CEQA analysis to reduce potentially significant impacts that could occur with future development on certain parcels where releases have occurred. These mitigation measures would reduce the impact related to development on sites that have utilized or released hazardous materials to a less-than-significant level. 3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-161 3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section reviews the potential impacts of the proposed project with regard to intensification of existing land uses in the Project Area, and the resulting increases in stormwater runoff. Environmental Setting The Project Area, and its existing development, drains to San Pablo Creek and along Appian Way to Appian Creek, an ephemeral branch of San Pablo Creek. It occupies the hillside-circumscribed historic flood plains, flood channels, and lower banks of these streams. Development may be generally characterized, from a drainage standpoint, as composed of strip commercial properties partially, but not wholly, composed of buildings, parking facilities and other impervious surfaces. The streets serving the Project Area are fully paved, with curbs and gutters. Properties in the Project Area principally have frontages on San Pablo Dam Road or on Appian Way; some properties drain directly to one of the streams, the balance to the fronting streets. Project elevations vary from about 200 feet above mean seal level to approximately 100 feet above mean sea level along the nearly 2 mile project length. Both San Pablo Creek, and its ephemeral branch, Appian Creek, occupy well-defined, incised, channels. The elevation difference between the upper limits of Appian Creek within the Project Area and the lower limits of San Pablo Creek within the Project Area is approximately 100 feet. The streams generally parallel San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way. The San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way drainage systems connect directly, without impoundment or detention, to the paralleling streams. Regulatory Setting State and Federal The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program is administered for the Environmental Protection Agency by the state’s Regional Water Quality Control Boards, and is designed to reduce discharge from stormwater and runoff, and may require a permit from parties discharging to lakes, streams and other water bodies. Phase II of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program will incorporate construction activities for small projects between 1 to 5 acres. Modifications to the state's General Construction Permit for Discharges of Storm Water (Water Quality Order 99-08-DWQ) to incorporate small projects are underway and should be adopted in the near future by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Contra Costa County Future development projects undertaken as part of the proposed land use, must be consistent with the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020). Relevant policies in the General Plan relating to hydrology and flood prevention include the following: 3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Page 3-162 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment P UBLIC F ACILITIES/SERVICES E LEMENT Drainage and Flood Control Goals 7-O. To protect and enhance the natural resources associated with creeks and the Delta, and their riparian zones, without jeopardizing the public health, safety, and welfare. 7-P. To protect creeks and riparian zones identified as valuable from damage caused by nearby development activity. 7-Q. To employ alternative drainage systems improvements which rely on increased retention capacity to lessen or eliminate the need for structural modifications to watercourses, whenever economically possible. 7-R. To enhance opportunities for public accessibility and recreational use of creeks, streams, drainage channels and other drainage system improvements. 7-T To ensure that new development pays its fair share of the costs related to increased runoff created by the development. 7-U. To support the concept that existing development pays the cost of building and maintaining drainage improvements required to serve existing developed areas. Drainage and Flood Control Policies 7-38. Watershed management plans shall be developed which encourage the development of detention basins and erosion control structures in watershed areas to reduce peak stormwater flows, as well as to provide wildlife habitat enhancement. 7-39. Land use plans and zoning shall be the primary means for floodplain management in preference to structural improvements, where possible. 7-40. Aesthetic, environmental, and recreational benefits shall be taken into full consideration when determining the costs and benefits of alternative drainage system improvements. 7-44 New development should be required to finance its legal share of the full costs of drainage improvements necessary to accommodate projected peak flows due to the project. Reimbursement from subsequent developments which benefit from the added capacity may be provided. 7-45. On-site water control shall be required of major new developments so that no significant increase in peak flows occurs compared to the site’s pre-development condition, unless the Planning Agency determines that off-site measures can be employed which are equally effective in preventing adverse downstream impacts expected from the development or the project is implementing an adopted drainage plan. Water Resources Goals 8-T. To conserve, enhance and manage water resources, protect their quality, and assure an adequate long-term supply of water for domestic, fishing, industrial and agricultural use. 8-U. To maintain the ecology and hydrology of creeks and streams and provide an amenity to the public, while at the same time preventing flooding, erosion and danger to life and property. 3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-163 8-W. To employ alternative drainage system improvements which rely on increased retention capacity to lessen or eliminate the need for structural modifications to watercourses, whenever economically possible. 8-X. To enhance opportunities for public accessibility and recreational use of creeks, streams, drainage channels and other drainage system improvements. General Water Resources Policy 8-75. Preserve and enhance the quality of surface and groundwater resources. Flood Hazard Goal 10-G. To ensure public safety by directing development away from areas which may pose a risk to life from flooding, and to mitigate flood risks to property. General Policy 10-33. The areas designated on [General Plan] Figure 10-8 shall be considered inappropriate for conventional urban development due to unmitigated flood hazards as defined by FEMA. Applications for development at urban or suburban densities in areas where there is a serious risk to life shall demonstrate appropriate solutions or be denied. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Evaluation Criteria The proposed project would have a significant impact in terms of hydrology and water quality if it would: • Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. • 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). • 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 that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. • 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 that would result in flooding on- or off-site. • Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. • Otherwise substantially degrade water quality. • 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. 3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Page 3-164 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment • Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows. • 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. • Create or substantially increase the risk of inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Impervious Surfaces IMPACT 3.10-1: The proposed project could increase the amount of impervious surfaces resulting in decreased recharge of groundwater. Discussion and Conclusion: The Project Area is not, because of its limited extent and the amount of impervious surface already in place, a significant groundwater recharge area. Urban areas downstream of the project site are served with surface water supplies by East Bay Municipal District and not reliant upon groundwater supplies. The groundwater effects of the project, despite potential project-related impervious surface increases due to greater development intensity, are less than significant. □ Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Stream Courses/Drainage Systems IMPACT 3.10-2: Projects associated with the change in land use could alter stream courses or drainage systems. Discussion and Conclusion: The project does not propose or require stream or drainage pattern alteration. Any such alteration would require a Streambed Alteration Permit pursuant to Section 1601 of the Fish and Game Code and would be subject to site-specific environmental evaluation. This impact is less than significant. □ Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Stormwater Discharge IMPACT 3.10-3: Projects associated with the change in land use could increase impervious surfaces, resulting in increased stormwater discharges to existing drainage systems. 3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-165 Discussion and Conclusion: Project development and operation will increase impervious surfaces within the Project Area and thus increase total runoff. It will not, assuming project compliance with the County’s EPA/state-mandated Storm Water Management Plan requiring detention of runoff, result in increased runoff flows. Future development would increase total runoff volumes, but since runoff flows will not be increased and there are no downstream impoundments that might be impacted by an increase in total runoff volume, there is a less-than-significant impact. □ Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 100-Year Floodplain IMPACT 3.10-4: Development in the Project Area could be affected by the 100- year floodplain. Discussion and Conclusion: Significant portions of the Project Area lie within the FEMA-designated boundaries of flood flows of Appian Creek and San Pablo Creek with a statistical 100-year return period. The depths of such projected flood flows, and their precise boundaries, are undesignated. See Figure 3.10-1, Floodplain Map. Project development in accord with the strictures of the County’s EPA/state-mandated Storm Water Management Plan would reduce storm flow increments to a less-than-significant level. The General Plan designations and zoning of the Project Area do not provide for the construction of new, single- story, single-family housing subject to 100-year flood hazard. The construction and placement of other structures which do not require streambed alteration (and thus a Section 1601 permit and separate environmental evaluation) or which illegally encroach upon Appian Way or San Pablo Dam Road rights-of-way would not significantly impact the existing flood-flow capacities of the two stream canyons. There are no significant project-related 100-year flood flow impacts, and this impact is, therefore, less than significant. □ Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-166 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RELATED FACILITIES Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-167 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RELATED FACILITIES This section discusses the impact of the proposed project on public services, utilities, and physical facilities that are used to provide such services. The following services are reviewed: water, wastewater, solid waste, electricity, fire protection, police services, schools, and parks and recreation facilities. See Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, for a discussion of flood control issues and potential project impacts. Environmental Setting The proposed Project Area is located in an urbanized portion of the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. See Figure 2-1 for a map of the Project Area. It is predominantly urbanized, and is served by a full range of urban services. San Pablo Dam Road is characterized by commercial development. The portion of San Pablo Dam Road within the Project Area serves as a major connection between Interstate 80 and State Highway 24. The types of development along Appian Way within the Project Area vary and include commercial and multi-family uses. Public services in the Project Area are provided by the following entities: Water: East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Wastewater: West County Wastewater District (WCWD) Solid Waste: (disposal and collection services are privately owned) Electricity and Natural Gas: Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) Fire Protection: Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (CCCFPD) Police Services: Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff (CCCOS) Schools (K-12): West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD) Parks and Recreation Facilities: East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) County Service Area 9 City of Richmond, and West Contra Costa Unified School District (Joint Use Facilities) Water The proposed project is located within the East Bay Municipal Utility District (District) Road 24, Berryman and Argyle Pressure Zones (PZ). The Road 24 PZ provides water service to customers within an elevation range of 100 to 200 feet; the Berryman PZ provides service to those within the range of 200 to 400 feet elevation; and the Argyle to those at elevations between 200 and 375 feet. The District owns and operates water distribution pipelines throughout the proposed Project Area. The District provides continuous service to District customers in the area. 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RELATED FACILITIES Page 3-168 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment The District’s water supply system consists of a network of reservoirs, aqueducts, treatment plants and distribution facilities that extend from its principal water source, the Pardee Reservoir in the Mokelumne River Basin in the Sierra Nevada foothills, to the East San Francisco Bay area. The District maintains five terminal reservoirs within its East Bay service area: Briones, Lafayette, San Pablo, Chabot and Upper San Leandro reservoirs. The District serves 20 incorporated cities and 15 unincorporated communities. As part of its water conservation efforts, the District recommends the use of drought resistant plants, use of inert materials, and minimal use of turf areas for ornamental purposes, and the use of new evapotranspiration-based self adjusting irrigation timers for automatic irrigation systems and the use of drip irrigation for irrigating planting areas. In addition to state and federal mandated water efficient plumbing standards, the District encourages the use of water efficient appliances (e.g., horizontal-axis clothes washers) and other devices in and around homes and businesses to further water conservation practices. The District also encourages submetering of landscape irrigation for common areas and offers landscape plan review services for new applicants. Due to the District's limited water supply, the District advises all customers to conserve water use. Wastewater The Project Area is served by the West County Wastewater District (WCWD), which serves a portion of Richmond, El Sobrante, and San Pablo. Sewer service consists of the transmission of municipal and industrial wastewater to a treatment facility, treatment, and disposal of the wastewater and residual waste solids. The WCWD operates a sewage treatment plant that has a design capacity of 12.5 million gallons per day (mgd); average dry weather flows were 8 mgd prior to the recent reduction in flows due to lower water use during the three-year dry period. The District covers some of the areas in western Contra Costa County that have a high potential for future development or redevelopment, including the entire North Richmond unincorporated area, and the lands along Castro Ranch Road in El Sobrante. Sewers leading to the treatment plant may have to be enlarged to accommodate increased flows, particularly areas of flat terrain west of San Pablo Avenue. Solid Waste The Contra Costa County Environmental Health Department operates a site for the collection and disposal of household hazardous waste. The site is located at the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (Central County), 4797 Imhoff Place, Martinez. In Contra Costa County, the private sector has traditionally been responsible for solid waste collection and disposal. Approximately 750,000 tons per year of solid waste is generated by residences, businesses and industries in the County. More detailed information regarding the source of these wastes is documented in the Contra Costa Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP). The role of government in solid waste management is one of planning, administration, and facility approval. Fourteen of the 18 cities and eight special districts franchise solid waste collection. Cities and the County have land use approval over solid waste facilities located within their jurisdiction. 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RELATED FACILITIES Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-169 All of the solid waste disposal facilities in Contra Costa County, as well as the collection services, are privately owned. As a result, the range of actions, including new facility applications, landfill expansions, waste stream diversions, and the use of landfills in other counties, requires private sector-initiated applications or agreements as well as government policy direction and approvals. Electricity and Natural Gas The Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) provides electricity and natural gas service in the Project Area. PG&E’s service area extends from Eureka to Bakersfield, and from the Pacific Ocean to the Sierra Nevada. PG&E maintains 131,000 miles of electric lines, and 43,000 miles of natural gas pipelines. The company has 4.5 million electric customer accounts, and 3.7 million natural gas customer accounts. PG&E has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project. The project would not have an impact on PG&E’s personnel, facilities or level of service. Fire Protection The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District (District) provides fire protection and emergency medical response services for the Project Area. The closest fire station is located at 4640 Appian Way, El Sobrante (Station 69). This station is staffed with three personnel at all times, one of which is a paramedic. The station is equipped with two fire engines (one Type 1 and one Type 3) and a rescue vehicle. All portions of the Project Area are within the 1.5-mile radius of the station, thereby providing a response time (dispatch plus travel) of less than six minutes 90 percent of the time. See Figure 3.11-1, Fire and Police Stations. A total of ten fire departments provide fire protection and suppression services to Contra Costa County. Three of these are governed by the County Board of Supervisors. All fire agencies within the County have signed mutual aid agreements to provide assistance to neighboring agencies. Primary responsibility for fire safety review involves the fire agencies. In their review, the agencies rely upon a number of sources, including the Uniform Building Code of California (UBC), which provides standards and guidelines related to firewalls, building separation, and other fire safety related construction standards used throughout the state for reviewing projects. 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RELATED FACILITIES Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-170 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RELATED FACILITIES Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-171 In addition, the County Department of Conservation and Development (CDCD), in its review and approval process of applications within unincorporated areas, relies upon standards contained in the Contra Costa County Code, including Title 9: Subdivisions. The County Code includes a number of provisions relevant to fire protection and suppression as they apply to subdivision map approval. These include street design (e.g., turning radius, width, slope) and provision of fire hydrants. The current County Sprinkler Ordinance requires that developers provide all homebuyers with the option of sprinkler installation. The primary source of revenues for fire protection and suppression activities is property taxes. Other sources include fees and charges for inspection services, and exactions and dedications levied as conditions of project approval. Ordinances that implement development fees are established for certain districts and the Special District Augmentation Fund. In 1986, the County adopted an ordinance to allow the establishment of fire facility fees. This policy is currently being implemented via ordinances establishing the exact amount of the fees for specific agencies' service areas. The implementing ordinances adopted by the County apply to County- governed agencies with adopted five-year plans, and agencies that are independent districts. The County collects the fees in the unincorporated portion of the independent district. Benefit assessment districts are in the process of being implemented in service areas of County- governed agencies, under the authority of Government Code Article 3.6, Section 50078-50078.20. Police Services Public protection services are essential to the community in responding to day-to-day emergencies, as well as to potential future demands due to a major earthquake or other disaster. Police services in the Project Area are provided by the Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff. Other police agencies that may provide police services within the Project Area are the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the California Highway Patrol. The Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff (Department) provides police protection services for all unincorporated areas in the County. The closest Sheriff’s field office is located at 5555 Giant Highway, Richmond (Richmond Bay Station). See Figure 3.11-1, Fire and Police Stations. The Department is a party to mutual aid agreements with the cities of Richmond, Pinole and San Pablo. The Department operates five beats from the Richmond Bay Station. Each beat consists of one deputy in a car. Beat 3 is assigned to the El Sobrante area. The Department sponsors a number of programs designed to deter crime in residential neighborhoods. These include Neighborhood Watch programs, which involve fostering acquaintance among neighbors and an attitude of care for neighboring properties, and placement of permanent identification markings on household items and signs on property indicating that valuable items have been marked (Operation I.D.). These programs have resulted in reduced rates of theft and other types of crime in neighbor-hoods throughout the County. Schools (K-12) The West Contra Costa Unified School District (School District) provides K-12 public education for the Project Area. See Figure 3.11-2, Schools Within One Mile of Project Area. 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RELATED FACILITIES Page 3-172 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Parks and Recreation Facilities The East Bay Regional Park District is the primary provider of regional park facilities and activities for Alameda and Contra Costa counties. The regional park system consists of 55 regional parklands and in excess of 1,000 miles of trails on approximately 85,000 acres of land. The District is governed by a publicly elected Board of Directors, and is headquartered in Oakland, California. The regional parks closest to the Project Area are Alvarado Park, which is 42.26 acres in size, and Wildcat Canyon Regional Park, which encompasses 2,429 acres and contains numerous trails and picnic sites. The Contra Costa County Public Works Department operates and maintains local and neighborhood parks in the Project Area and vicinity as County Service Area R-9. Park and recreation opportunities for the residents of the Project Area are also provided by the City of Richmond, which provides 26.42 acres of park and recreation space to the El Sobrante Valley as well as a recreation facility at the May Valley Community Center. The City of Richmond has established eleven recreation districts, basing geographic boundaries on factors such as geography, population and local character. The City includes the Project Area as part of Recreation Service District Area 11. The West Contra Costa Unified School District cooperates with both the City of Richmond and Contra Costa County in the operation of joint-use facilities. The School District has seven schools within the El Sobrante Valley, providing formal and informal recreational opportunities for Valley residents. The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) makes approximately 1,000 acres of its watershed land available for recreation. The land includes San Pablo reservoir, a play structure for children, and facilities for picnicking, hiking and biking. See Figure 3.11-3 for an Inventory of Park Sites. 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RELATED FACILITIES Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-173 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RELATED FACILITIES Page 3-174 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RELATED FACILITIES Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-175 Regulatory Setting Public services and facilities may be subject to a regulation at the federal, state or local level. The discussion below identifies regulatory requirements that relate generally to performance and quality of service standards with respect to each of the identified services. The provisions of the Contra Costa County General Plan also apply to such services are included in this section. Water Senate Bills 610 (Chapter 643, Statutes of 2001) and Senate Bill 221 (Chapter 642, Statutes of 2001) amended state law, effective January 1, 2002, to improve the link between information on water supply availability and certain land use decisions made by cities and counties. SB 610 and SB 221 are companion measures that seek to promote more effective collaboration between local water suppliers and cities and counties. Each of the statutes requires public water agencies to provide information to cities and counties prior to the approval of large development projects. SB 610 requires that a water supply assessment be provided early in the land use decision process; SB 221 requires that a tentative map for a large development project include a condition requiring a water supply certification as a condition of final map approval. SB 610 SB 610 applies only when the lead agency determines an application for land use approval involves a project that is subject to CEQA. The definition of "project" for this purpose is provided by CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15376). For CEQA purposes, a project is an activity that may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change and is either an activity undertaken by a public agency, supported by a public agency, or one involving the discretionary issuance of a lease, permit, license, certificate or other entitlement for use by the public agency. SB 610 only applies to certain "projects" as defined in the applicable section of the Water Code, which basically identifies projects that would generate water demand equivalent to 500 residential dwellings. Water Code Section 10912 identifies examples, including a proposed hotel or motel having more than 500 rooms or a shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. The statute covers any project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project. Water Code Section 10910 provides that a city or county shall identify any public water system that may supply water to a project as defined in SB 610 "...at the time it determines whether an environmental impact report, a negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration is required for any project identified pursuant to this subdivision..." The public water system is required by the statute to provide a water supply assessment within 90 days of receiving a request from the city or county. The water supply assessment is then used by the city or county for the purpose of identifying environmental impacts as well as determining whether an adequate supply of water exists for the project. The proposed project, which amends existing land uses in the County General Plan,, is subject to CEQA. The General Plan Amendment, however, does not include any request for approval of a "project" as defined in SB 610, and no water supply assessment is required. SB 610 would, however, apply to an application for discretionary approval by the County of a project as defined in SB 610 at the time such an application is submitted. 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RELATED FACILITIES Page 3-176 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment SB 221 SB 221 has the same general purpose as SB 610. SB 221 applies to a tentative map for a residential development of more than 500 dwellings that would be served by a public water system. If the project is subject to SB 221, the tentative map is required to include a condition calling for a certification of adequate water supply from the public water agency prior to final map approval. The General Plan amendment process, which is subject to this EIR, does not include any request for a tentative map and is not subject to SB 221. Wastewater The federal Clean Water Act and regulations adopted by the California Department of Health Services and State Water Resources Board regulate the discharge of effluent to surface waters. Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 503, and Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations, and regulations adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board regulate the disposal of biosolids. Solid Waste Three active permitted landfill sites are located in Contra Costa County. Table 3.11-1 sets forth information concerning the total and remaining capacity of each landfill. California Public Resources Code Sections 41770 and 41822 provide for the preparation and review of a Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan. The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (CIWMA) established an integrated waste management planning process whereby cities and counties must achieve adopted waste diversion goals for source reduction recycling and composting programs. Each county must prepare and adopt a Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP). The Act established an "Integrated Waste Management Hierarchy," a state policy requiring that waste management practices have the following order of priority: source reduction, recycling and composting, environmentally safe transformation (incineration), and environmentally safe landfill disposal. The CIWMP must include a Source Reduction and Recycling Element prepared and adopted by each city within a county, as well as by each county for its unincorporated areas. These elements must identify the means by which such local governments will divert from their waste streams 25 percent of the landfilled solid wastes by the year 1995, and 50 percent (or the maximum feasible amount) by, the year 2000. The CIWMP must also include a Countywide Siting Element that identifies existing or new facilities with sufficient disposal capacity for 15 years of the residual solid waste stream that is not reduced at the source, recycled, composted or transformed. The County of Contra Costa (County) completed the five-year review of its Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP) required under Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 41770 and 41822, and reported to the California Integrated Waste Management Board in August 2006. The County determined that a revision of the CIWMP was not necessary at the time of review. California Integrated Waste Management Board (Board) staff conducted a review of this report and concurred with the County that a CIWMP revision is not needed at this time. 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RELATED FACILITIES Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-177 Table 3.11-1 CAPACITY OF CONTRA COSTA LANDFILLS Name Location Total Capacity Remaining Capacity Daily Limit Years Remaining at Daily Limit West Contra Costa County Landfill Parr Blvd. and Garden Tract Road 17,875,000 cubic yards None. Stopped accepting solid waste Oct. 2006 Not applicable None. Stopped accepting solid waste Oct. 2006 Acme Landfill 950 Waterbird Way 268,700 cubic yards 175,000 cubic yards 1,500 tons/day (2,500 cubic yards/day) Less than one year Keller Canyon Landfill 901 Bailey Road 75,018,280 cubic yards 62,632,000 cubic yards 3,500 tons/day (5,833 cubic yards/day) 29 years Note: Daily limit conversion to cubic yards based on in-place density of 1,200 pounds per cubic yard. Source: Reporting Year Disposal Tonnage, Contra Costa County, submitted to California Integrated Waste Management Board, 3/16/2009, by Deidra Dingman, Solid Waste Program Manager, Department of Conservation and Development, Contra Costa County. California has established a regulatory framework, enacted as AB 2185/2187, that provides for the identification and handling of hazardous materials that may be present on real property. The regulations provide that businesses that handle a hazardous material or a mixture containing a hazardous material shall establish and implement a business plan. The business plan shall include a hazardous materials inventory, an emergency response plan and procedures, and a training program as required by the Health and Safety Code, Sections 25500-25520. Electricity The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission responsibilities include the regulation of transmission and sale of electricity in interstate commerce, licensing of hydroelectric plants and oversight of related environmental matters. The California Public Utilities Commission has adopted rules for the planning and construction of new transmission facilities. Contra Costa County General Plan The General Plan includes goals and policies that relate to public services, and the most pertinent of these are identified below. The growth management provisions in the General Plan are discussed in detail in Section 3.2, Land Use. These provisions, set forth in the Land Use Element and Growth Management Element, are intended to work together. Policies and standards are established that relate to traffic levels of services, and performance standards for fire, police, parks, sanitary facilities, and water and flood control. The Growth Management Element represents the County’s effort to establish a long-range program that matches the demand for public facilities to serve new development with plans, capital improvement programs and development impact mitigation programs. 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RELATED FACILITIES Page 3-178 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment G ROWTH M ANAGEMENT E LEMENT Goal 4-A. To provide for the levels of growth and development depicted in the Land Use Element, while preserving and extending the quality of life through the provision of public facilities and ensuring traffic levels of services necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. Water The County, pursuant to its police power and as the proper governmental entity responsible for directly regulating land use density or intensity, property development and the subdivision of property within the unincorporated areas of the County, shall require new development to demonstrate that adequate water quantity and quality can be provided. At the project approval stage, (subdivision map, land use permit, etc.) the County may consult with the appropriate water agency. The County, based on information furnished or available to it from consultations with the appropriate water agency, the applicant or other sources, should determine whether (1) capacity exists within the water system if a development project is built with a set period of time, or (2) capacity will be provided by a funded program or other mechanism. Project approvals conditioned on (1) or (2) above, will lapse according to their terms if not satisfied by verification that capacity exists to serve the specific project ("will serve letters"), actual hook-ups or comparable evidence of adequate water quantity and quality available. Sanitary Sewer The County, pursuant to its police power and as the proper governmental entity responsible for directly regulating land use density or intensity, property development and the subdivision of property within the unincorporated areas of the County, shall require new development to demonstrate that adequate sanitary sewer quantity and quality can be provided. At the project approval stage, (subdivision map, land use permit, etc.) the County may consult with the appropriate sewer agency. The County, based on information furnished or available to it from consultations with the appropriate sewer agency, the applicant or other sources, should determine whether (1) capacity exists within the sewer system if a development project is built with a set period of time, or (2) capacity will be provided by a funded program or other mechanism. Project approvals conditioned on (1) or (2) above, will lapse according to their terms if not satisfied by verification that capacity exists to serve the specific project ("will serve letters"), actual hook-ups or comparable evidence of adequate sewage collection and wastewater treatment capacity available. Fire Protection Fire stations shall be located within one and one-half miles of developments in urban, suburban and central business district areas. Automatic fire sprinkler systems may be used to satisfy this standard. Public Protection A Sheriff facility standard of 155 square feet of station area per 1,000 population shall be maintained within the unincorporated area of the County. Parks and Recreation Neighborhood parks: 3 acres required per 1,000 population. 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RELATED FACILITIES Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-179 P UBLIC F ACILITIES/SERVICES E LEMENT Goals 7-A. To give a high priority to funding quality civic, public, and community facilities which serve a broad range of needs throughout the County. 7-B. To permit development in unincorporated areas only when financing mechanisms are in place or committed which assure that adopted performance standards in the growth management program will be met. 7-C. To utilize equitable financing methods which assure that adopted performance standards are achieved. Other Public Facilities Goals 7-AW. To assure that high quality civic, medical, and other community facilities are provided to meet the broad range of needs within unincorporated areas of the County. Water Service Goals 7-F. To assure potable water availability in quantities sufficient to serve existing and future residents. 7-H. To encourage the conservation of water resources available to the County and to the State. 7-I. To protect and enhance the quality of the water supplied to County residents. Water Service Policies 7-16. Water service systems shall be required to meet regulatory standards for water delivery, water storage and emergency water supplies. 7-21. At the project approval stage, the County shall require new development to demonstrate that adequate water quantity and quality can be provided. The County shall determine whether (1) capacity exists within the water system if a development project is built within a set period of time, or (2) capacity will be provided by a funded program or other mechanism. This finding will be based on information furnished or made available to the County from consultations with the appropriate water agency, the applicant, or other sources. 7-25. Land uses and activities that could result in contamination of groundwater supplies shall be identified, monitored and regulated to minimize the risk of such contamination. 7-26. The need for water system improvements shall be reduced by encouraging new development to incorporate water conservation measures to decrease peak water use. Sewer Service Goals 7-K. To provide sewer collection, treatment and disposal facilities adequate to meet the current and projected needs of existing and future residents. 7-L. To provide wastewater treatment that preserves, and to the extent feasible, enhances water quality and the natural environment. 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RELATED FACILITIES Page 3-180 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment 7-M. To develop wastewater reclamation as a supplement to imported surface water supplies. 7-N. To assure that new development pays the costs related to the need for increased sewer system capacity. Sewer Service Policies 7-29. Sewer treatment facilities shall be required to operate in compliance with waste discharge requirements established by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. Development that would result in the violation of waste discharge requirements shall not be approved. 7-33. At the project approval stage, the County shall require new development to demonstrate that wastewater treatment capacity can be provided. The County shall determine whether (1) capacity exists within the wastewater treatment system if a development project is built within a set period of time, or (2) capacity will be provided by a funded program or other mechanism. This finding will be based on information furnished or made available to the County from consultations with the appropriate [waste]water agency, the applicant, or other sources. Solid Waste Management Goals 7-AE. To provide for the safe, efficient, and cost-effective removal of waste from residences, businesses, and industry. 7-AF. To provide adequate disposal capacity at landfills for the County's solid waste. 7-AG. To reduce the amount of waste disposed of in landfills by: (1) reducing the amount of solid waste generated (waste reduction); (2) reusing as much of the solid waste as possible (recycling); (3) utilizing the energy and nutrient value of the solid waste (waste to energy and composting); and (4) to properly dispose of the remaining solid waste (landfill disposal). 7-AH. To divert as much waste as feasible from landfills through recovery and recycling. 7-AJ. To minimize the potential impacts of waste collection, transportation, processing, and disposal facilities upon residential land uses. 7-AK. To provide for the safe and efficient handling of special wastes. Fire Protection Goals 7-Y. To ensure a high standard of fire protection, emergency, and medical response services for all citizens and properties throughout Contra Costa County. 7-Z. To reduce the severity of structural fires and minimize overall fire loss. 7-AA. To incorporate requirements for fire-safe construction into the land use planning and approval process. 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RELATED FACILITIES Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-181 7-AB. To minimize the cost of fire protection services through utilization of modern fire protection practices and technologies. 7-AC. To locate and design new fire stations in a manner compatible with surrounding development. Fire Protection Policies 7-62. The County shall strive to reach a maximum running time of 3 minutes and/or 1.5 miles from the first-due station, and a minimum of three firefighters to be maintained in all central business district (CBD), urban and suburban areas. 7-63. The County shall strive to achieve a total response time (dispatch plus running and set-up time) of five minutes in CBD, urban and suburban areas for 90 percent of all emergency responses. 7-65. Needed upgrades to fire facilities and equipment shall be identified as part of project environmental review and area planning activities, in order to reduce fire risk and improve emergency response in the County. Public Protection Goals 7-V. To provide a high standard of police protection services for all citizens and properties throughout Contra Costa County. Public Protection Policies 7-57. A sheriff facility standard of 155 square feet of station area per 1,000 population shall be maintained within the unincorporated area of the County. 7-59. A maximum response time goal for priority 1 or 2 calls of five minutes for 90 percent of all emergency responses in central business district, urban and suburban areas, shall be strived for by the sheriff when making staffing and beat configuration decisions. Schools Goals 7-AO. To assure the provision of adequate primary, secondary, and college facilities in the County. 7-AP. To provide new schools in optimal locations to serve planned growth. 7-AQ. To encourage the efficient multi-purpose uses of school facilities. 7-AR. To assure that primary and secondary school facilities are adequate or committed to be adequate, prior to approvals of major applications for residential growth. 7-AS. To maximize the use of existing educational resources and school facilities. 7-AT. To assure that school districts are seeking and receiving their fair share of state and/or federal funds for school facilities. Schools Policies 7-136. The environmental review process shall be utilized to monitor the ability of area schools to serve development. 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RELATED FACILITIES Page 3-182 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment (Refer to Implementation Measure 7-CT, below.) 7-137 To the extent possible, new development, General Plan Amendments or Rezonings, shall in the absence of the Planning Agency’s satisfaction that there are overriding considerations (e.g., low or moderate cost housing) be required to adequately mitigate impacts on primary and secondary school facilities. Schools Implementation Measures 7-CT. Develop, in conjunction with interested school districts and residential developers, the content and format of district facility information which will be used to identify the impact of a proposed residential project on the district and possible appropriate facility mitigation. The facility information shall utilize state classroom size standards as a basis for determining the adequacy of area schools. The facility information should include consideration of district reorganization of boundaries to the extent possible. Contra Costa County Code, Title 8, Chapter 82-26 Water Conservation Landscaping in New Developments The Contra Costa County Code, Title 8, 82-26, establishes provisions for water conservation landscaping in new developments. The provisions regulate turf areas, planting materials, and irrigation practices for new development throughout the County, including the proposed Project Area. Water conservation landscape requirements shall apply to all new single-family residential developments having common areas, including landscaped front yards, or model homes, and to all other new developments. Conditions of approval for new development subject to the provisions of this section shall require landscape plans to be submitted to the community development department for final review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. The provisions of Section 86-26 include the following regulations: • Turf areas are limited to twenty-five percent of planted area in all developments subject to the section. A higher percentage may be allowed where turf is an essential part of the development, such as in school playing fields or in public parks. • At least ninety percent of the plants in a non-turf areas must be low- water-requiring, drought- tolerant plants approved by the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. • A minimum of two inches of mulch must be added to the soil surface after planting. • The section regulates irrigation of plants and turf areas: – Sprinklers and sprays are not allowed in areas less than eight feet wide. Drip and bubbler systems must not exceed one-and one-half gallons per minute per device. – Sprinkler heads with a precipitation rate of .85 inch per hour or less must be used in slopes exceeding fifteen percent or slopes exceeding ten percent within ten feet of hardscape to minimize runoff. – Valves and circuits must be separated based on amounts of water required for each area. – Drip or bubbler irrigation systems shall be required for trees that cannot be sustained by ground or rain water. 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RELATED FACILITIES Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-183 – Sprinkler heads must have matched precipitation rates within each control valve circuit and must be designed to prevent runoff and overspray onto non-irrigated areas or hardscape. – All irrigation systems must be equipped controls for cycles and flexible scheduling. – Foundations, ponds or other water bodies that are part of the landscaping for new developments are discouraged. Unless the water body is an integral part of the operation of the new development, the surface area of the water body is counted as turf in calculating maximum allowable turf for the landscaped area. • Landscape plans submitted as part of the application process must indicate the total landscape area, the area and percentage of drought-tolerant planting, and the area and percentage of ornamental non-drought-tolerant plantings. The plans shall be certified as being in compliance with Chapter 82-26 by a licensed landscape contractor, architect or other landscape professional whose qualifications have been approved by the Community Development Department. Landscape plans must include a water budget, precipitation rates for each valve circuit, and a monthly irrigation schedule for the plant establishment period and the following year. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Evaluation Criteria The proposed project would have a significant impact on public services and utilities if it would: • Conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community, or interfere with emergency response plans. • Cause a substantial increase in demand for a public service or utility greater than the demand the affected agency plans to accommodate. • Cause a substantial decrease in the quality or level of service for a public service or utility to such an extent that the County General Plan public service performance standard could not be met. • Require extension of a public service or utility to an area not planned for service. Water Demand IMPACT 3.11-1: The proposed change in land use designations in the Project Area would result in an increased demand for water. Discussion and Conclusion: The proposed Project Area is supplied with water by the East Bay Municipal Utility District. The primary source of water for the District is the Mokelumne River. During prolonged periods of drought, the Mokelumne River cannot meet all of the District’s customer demands. The District expects this situation to worsen due to increased diversions by other water agencies holding water rights on the Mokelumne River senior to those of the District; the commitment to instream flow releases to improve fishery conditions on the river; and a small increase in customer demand beyond 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RELATED FACILITIES Page 3-184 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment that which can be off-set by conservation and recycled water programs (East Bay Municipal Utility District, Urban Water Management Plan 2000, February 2001). The District evaluates the available water supply each year based upon projected demand. Due to the substantial amount of conservation and reclamation that has reduced the ability of demand to be further reduced in the event of drought, a limit of 25 percent rationing during a drought was adopted by the District Board of Directors as a reasonable planning criterion in 1989. The District is also subject to potential disaster situations that could result in catastrophic interruption of water supplies. These situations include, but are not limited to, a regional power outage, earthquakes and water contamination. The District maintains a water shortage contingency plan to respond to any such occurrences. During non-drought years, the District currently supplies its customers with an annual average of approximately 220 million gallons per day (MGD) of water. At present, the District’s supply is insufficient to meet customer demands in multiple-year droughts, despite water conservation and recycling programs. Water use restrictions have occurred in the past, and are expected to occur more frequently in the future in the absence of new water supplies. The current Demand Study used by the District projects rapid growth from 2000 to 2010, and a 2020 planning demand of 229 MGD, which includes estimates for water conservation and recycling. The District’s long-range planning indicated that, taking water conservation and recycling into account, adequate water supplies are available for normal years, but shortages will occur in multiple-drought years. In response to this concern, the District initiated the Freeport Regional Water Project with the County of Sacramento. Scheduled for completion in 2009, this project will convey up to 100 MGD of Sacramento River water to the District’s Mokelumne Aqueduct system during dry years. With the Freeport Regional Water Project in place, the drought limit of 25 percent rationing will continue in the future. New development in the proposed Project Area would increase demand on water supplies. This is considered a potentially significant impact. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.11-1A: Individual development projects shall be required to provide a written description of water conservation practices to demonstrate the irrigated landscape will meet a landscape water budget not exceeding 80 percent of reference evapotranspiration. The applicant shall provide a legal description and accurate calculation of the irrigated area (e.g., measured in square feet) that shall be provided to the District for inclusion in the District's Irrigation Reduction Information System. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.11-1B: Individual development projects, depending upon size, shall be subject to the District's Water Service Regulations at time of application for service and will be required to prepare a Water Supply Assessment report. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures: The Project Area is located within an urbanized area of the unincorporated portion of Contra Costa County. Development activities could include the buildout of now-vacant parcels, which would be subject to the County’s water conservation ordinance and the 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RELATED FACILITIES Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-185 mitigation measures identified above. With the implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Wastewater Demand IMPACT 3.11-2: The proposed change in land use designation within the Project Area could increase the demand for wastewater collection, treatment and disposal. Discussion and Conclusion: The Project Area is fully sewered and wastewater generated in the Project Area is treated by the West County Wastewater District. The District’s facilities are in compliance with the waste discharge requirements of the State Regional Water Quality Control Board. Any new stormwater facilities required by project development and operation must comply with the requirements of the County’s EPA/state-mandated Storm Water Management Plan which mitigates storm pollution of surface waters. The project will not diminish water quality nor will it result in a violation of waste discharge requirements. Therefore, this impact is less than significant. □ Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Solid Waste Disposal IMPACT 3.11-3: The change in land use designation in the Project Area would result in an increase in the generation of solid waste and an increased demand for solid waste disposal facilities. Discussion and Conclusion: The Project Area is predominantly urbanized. It is projected that development would result in a total of 490 additional multiple-family residential dwelling units, and 402,585 square feet of additional office, commercial and retail space. The California Integrated Waste Management Board (Board) does not officially endorse any particular waste generation factor that could be applied to future development, but does provide examples of such rates that are used by agencies in connection with their environmental review processes, and rates that have been utilized in environmental impacts concerning various projects in the state. Estimates for solid waste generation provided by the Board range include an estimate of 0.0024 tons/sq ft/year for commercial retail, which is the most likely type of development in the mixed use designation. Development of 402,585 square feet of commercial retail space would result in the generation of an additional 966 tons per year of solid waste from this use. Estimates for solid waste generation for residential uses provided by the Board range from 3.6 to 8.6 pounds/dwelling unit per day. Using the maximum generation rate of 8.6 pounds per dwelling unit per day, the solid waste generated by the projected multiple-family dwelling units would be 769 tons per year (490 dus x 8.6 lbs/day x 365 days ÷ 2,000 lbs). 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RELATED FACILITIES Page 3-186 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment The discussion under Environmental Setting, above, identifies the Keller Canyon Landfill as having substantial remaining capacity. The California Integrated Waste Management Board estimates that the remaining available capacity at the Keller Canyon Landfill is 62,382,000 cubic yards. Solid waste deliveries to Keller Canyon Landfill are rapidly approaching the permitted limit of 3,500 tons per day, and the landfill company is in the process of preparing an Environmental Impact Report regarding increasing this limit. Assuming the in-place density of solid waste disposed in the landfill is 1,200 pounds per cubic yard, the remaining life of the landfill at the current daily limit is 29 years. Assuming 50 percent of the solid waste is recycled, composted or transformed, the maximum annual increase in solid waste generation by the proposed project would be 868 tons per year (0.5 x (966 tons/year + 769 tons/year)). The General Plan Amendment would not result in a significant impact on landfill facilities, given the relatively minor increase in solid waste generation that would occur. The Project Area is located in an urbanized portion of the County, and solid waste demand from properties zoned for urban uses is included in long-range planning for solid waste facilities. The proposed project would contribute to a cumulative impact on solid waste facilities, but this impact would be less than significant. □ Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. Electricity and Gas Demand IMPACT 3.11-4: New development in the Project Area would increase the demand for electricity and natural gas. Discussion and Conclusion: It is not possible to identify the specific increase in electricity or natural gas that would occur as a result of the project. The Project Area is located in an urbanized portion of the County of Contra Costa, and the vacant parcels within the Project Area have been designated for urban use in the Contra Costa County General Plan. Increases in electricity and natural gas demand have been anticipated as part of the General Plan planning process. Alternative sources of energy in Contra Costa County have been, and continue to be, investigated and developed. The Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission of the State of California has identified the Altamont Pass Area as an area with a high potential for development of wind-generated electricity, and development of this source of energy continues. The County’s mild climate makes solar heating feasible if structures are properly sited and have their solar access protected. This is feasible in large-scale developments without specific site constraints, neither of which conditions apply to the vacant parcels in the Project Area. The vacant parcels in the Project Area include land designated for retail and multiple-family use. The development of such uses would assist in the effort to minimize commuting, which is relatively energy-inefficient. The project does not include the development of other facilities that would generate substantial demand for new energy. The impact of the proposed project on energy demand, considering the relatively small increase in demand and the beneficial impacts of the project on the energy efficiency of existing residences, would be less than significant. 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RELATED FACILITIES Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-187 □ Mitigation Measure: No mitigation measures are required. Fire and Police Services IMPACT 3.11-5: The proposed change in land use designation could result in an increased demand for fire or police services in the Project Area. Discussion and Conclusion: The proposed General Plan Amendment would allow for higher densities within the Project Area. The land use assumptions for the proposed project anticipate that 490 new multiple-family dwelling units would be constructed. The average household size for the El Sobrante CDP in the 2000 Census was 2.65 for owner-occupied units, and 2.56 for renter-occupied units. The multiple-family units constructed under the Mixed Use designation proposed in the project could be either owner- or renter- occupied units, and an average figure of 2.69 persons per household (Association of Bay Area Governments 2010 household size projections) has been adopted for purposes of this discussion. Using this base, if 490 multiple-family dwelling units were constructed, approximately 1,421 residents would be added to the population of the El Sobrante CPD. New development would tend to reduce demands for fire protection services, particularly if units within the mixed-use development are required to be sprinklered. However, as indicated in their February 27, 2009 letter in Appendix A, the Fire District cannot adequately protect the project area without implementing certain fire protection systems; e.g., additional hydrants and traffic signal pre- emption systems. The entire Project Area is currently being served with fire protection services. The proposed project does not include the development of any specific site within the proposed Project Area. Vacant parcels exist within the Project Area, especially along Appian Way. It is anticipated that development of these parcels would occur earlier than what might occur with sites that are presently underutilized or those sites where existing buildings will be replaced. Any structures constructed would be required to obtain building permits and to comply with the applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code as enacted in Contra Costa County. Development of these sites would not generate significant additional demand on fire or police services in the area. Other parcels within the Project Area are currently improved with structures, and could be replaced with newer structures. Such replacement could increase the intensity of development, but each such structure would be subject to current development and construction standards. The resulting development would not increase the risk of fire or need for fire protection services. The proposed project would increase public usage of the San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way corridors, and would increase the number of calls for service received by the Office of the Sheriff. The El Sobrante community is one of the busiest communities within the County, and assigned deputies are typically required to respond from call to call without time for active patrol. The development projected by the land use assumptions would require an increased law enforcement presence, especially during the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. However, County budget constraints may prevent any increase in service. 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RELATED FACILITIES Page 3-188 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment In addition to general law enforcement complaints, parking enforcement would also become a substantial issue, particularly in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Village Center. The Sheriff does not currently have a dedicated position assigned to address parking issues for the El Sobrante community. Parking issues would most likely be assigned to a non-sworn Parking Enforcement Officer with assignment to the El Sobrante area. These impacts could be cumulatively significant. As new development occurs within the Project Area, the safety and security of the community would improve, which would be a beneficial impact of the change. Improvement in the appearance of commercial facades, improvements in street lighting, and other improvements that may be undertaken as part of the individual project could reduce the potential for crime. Some impacts of the proposed project would be beneficial in terms of fire and police protection services, but impacts on police services could be cumulatively considerable, and are considered potentially significant. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.11-5A: Each project proponent of a site-specific proposal that would increase the square footage of commercial or residential development on the subject site shall, prior to project approval, enter into an agreement with the County to fund its proportionate share of the additional police services that would be generated by new development. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.11-5B: During roadway improvements, additional hydrants shall be installed along both sides of San Pablo Dam Road, Appian Way and the new collector street to comply with the Fire District’s current standards for hydrant spacing. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.11-5C: Traffic signal pre-emption systems (Opticom) shall be provided on all new or modified traffic signals installed for the San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way improvements. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures: Mitigation Measure 3.11-5A would require the County and project proponents to evaluate the need for additional police and parking services in the Project Area as development proceeds. Site-specific development proposals are not included in the proposed project, and project proponents and the County may be able to design and install improvements or systems that would minimize cumulative impacts on police services. This could serve to minimize impacts and associated costs, and would ensure that service levels are not adversely impacted by future development. Mitigation Measures 3.11-5B and 3.11-5C require specific fire protection improvements to better serve new and existing development in the El Sobrante area. Ongoing review of specific development proposals, and implementation of funding mechanisms as needed, as well as installment of specific fire-fighting equipment would reduce the cumulative impact to a less-than-significant level. Increase in Student Population IMPACT 3.11-6: The proposed project would result in an increase in population in the Project Area, and generation of additional students in the local public school district. 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RELATED FACILITIES Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-189 Discussion and Conclusion: The proposed project would change the General Plan land use designation for most of the Project Area to mixed use. The land use assumptions applied for the project call for the development of 490 multiple-family residential dwelling units in the Project Area. This would result in additional student generation in the school district. The 2000 Census data for the El Sobrante CPD (see discussion in Section 3.2, Land Use, Population and Housing) indicated that approximately 21% of the total population was of school age (i.e., ages 5 to 19). Based upon the ABAG 2010 household projections, the project would accommodate approximately 1421 persons the same. Based on this total projection, an estimated 298 students would be generated at full build-out (490 du x 2.9 residents/du x 21%). The cumulative impact of the additional demand is potentially significant. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.11-6: Each project proponent of a site-specific proposal that would construct residential dwelling units shall, prior to project approval, submit proof of satisfactory arrangements to pay the appropriate mitigation fee to the West Contra Costa Unified School District to fund the project’s proportionate share of the additional school services and facilities that would be generated by new development. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 3.11-6 would require the County and project proponents to evaluate, in coordination with the West Contra Costa Unified School District, the need for school services and facilities in the Project Area as development proceeds. State law provides that new development must pay school facility fees that are based on $2.97 per square foot for multiple-family dwellings. These fees are applied to the individual projects at the time building permits are issued. Ongoing review of specific development proposals, and implementation of funding mechanisms as needed, would reduce the cumulative impact to a less-than-significant level. Parks and Recreation Demand IMPACT 3.11-7: The proposed project would result in an increase in population in the Project Area, and an increase in demand for park and recreation facilities. Discussion and Conclusion: The Contra Costa County General Plan establishes a standard of 3.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The County and the City of Richmond have recognized that the development of parks has not kept pace with population growth. Currently, the El Sobrante Valley existing park inventory does not meet the General Plan standard. Based upon a 2001 population (23,625) in the valley, the existing park inventory is 26.42 acres, thereby creating an existing parkland deficit of 44.46 acres (23,625 persons ÷ 1,000 = 23.62 x 3 acres = 70.87). Projected population increases in the El Sobrante Valley would increase this deficit by 5.75 acres to 50.21 acres in the next few years. Previous studies have identified approximately 50 acres of land within the El Sobrante Valley, including sites within the Project Area, as potential parkland. 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RELATED FACILITIES Page 3-190 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Applying the General Plan park standard, the proposed General Plan Amendment and subsequent development would add 1,421 residents to the area, resulting in a park demand of approximately 4.3 acres. The proposed General Plan Amendment Land Use Map designates one site as Park and Recreation (PR) and the adjoining pocket park El Sobrante library site near the Appian Way/San Pablo Dam Road intersection, adjacent to San Pablo Creek. The service area of this proposed park site would include much of the Project Area. These two sites combined total 1.5 acres, and thus may not be adequate to meet the Growth Management park standard. However, the proposed project seeks to facilitate a transition in the Project Area from a neighborhood heavily impacted by automobile traffic and automobile-oriented businesses to a pedestrian-oriented, vibrant downtown area. Future development proposals would be subject to appropriate impact fees, and the proposed project includes provisions for future consideration of park and recreation facilities, ensuring that future development would contribute its fair share to the development of new park and recreation space. The proposed project would promote the identification and development of new park and recreation space, and the impact of the proposed project would, therefore, be less than significant. □ Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 3.12 AESTHETICS/LIGHT AND GLARE Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-191 3.12 AESTHETICS/LIGHT AND GLARE This section addresses visual quality issues related to potential new development in the proposed development Project Area. Existing visual characteristics and view corridors in the Project Area and vicinity are identified, and potential visual quality effects from potential future development projects are evaluated. Visual impacts are generally subjective, and the significance of impacts varies depending on a number of factors. Sensitivity to change in the visual environment varies with individuals, and is affected by the nature and character of the change, the prominence of the change in a particular viewshed, the number of persons exposed to the change, and the amount of time such persons are exposed. The exact nature and location of future development activities that could result from approval of the project are unknown. No specific projects are proposed, and the design details of actual future projects cannot be identified. The environmental review process for the project, is completed at the programmatic level, focusing on the nature and character of the changes to visual resources that could occur and that could affect the overall ambience and visual character of the Project Area. Environmental Setting Project Vicinity Visual Character and Resources The Project Area is located in western Contra Costa County along San Pablo Dam Road between El Portal and Appian Way, and along Appian Way from its intersection with San Pablo Dam Road to Valley View Drive. The Contra Costa County General Plan provides that West County consists of five cities (El Cerrito, Hercules, Pinole, Richmond and San Pablo) and several unincorporated communities, including El Sobrante. The West County area is developed with a variety of land uses, and development in the vicinity of the Project Area includes residential and commercial uses. The Project Area is located just east of Interstate 80. A variety of land uses are located in the vicinity of the Project Area. These land uses include retail and commercial uses with frontage on San Pablo Dam Road, and commercial and residential uses along Appian Way. The El Sobrante Library is located on Appian Way adjacent to San Pablo Creek. San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way are the major arterials in the Project Area. San Pablo Dam Road is a major connection between Interstate 80 and State Highway 24. The topography in the Project Area is level along San Pablo Dam Road, and rises gently along Appian Way to Valley View Drive. San Pablo Creek runs parallel to and north of San Pablo Dam Road. Hillsides rise just south of San Pablo Dam Road. Parcels adjacent to Appian Way on the north are at a slightly higher elevation than the roadway, and some parcels slope up to the north. Properties to the south of Appian Way are at a lower elevation, and Appian Creek parallels the roadway to the south. Vegetation in the project vicinity is concentrated in San Pablo Creek. Vegetation in the developed areas consists of typical urban and commercial landscaping. 3.12 AESTHETICS/LIGHT AND GLARE Page 3-192 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Visual Character and Key Observation Points of the El Sobrante Project Area The Project Area can best be characterized by focusing on three separate aspects: (1) San Pablo Dam Road between El Portal and Appian Way; (2) Appian Way between San Pablo Dam Road and Valley View Drive; and (3) San Pablo Creek. The Project Area extends along these two major roadways, and Appian Creek is not readily visible from the roadways or other public viewing areas. San Pablo Dam Road This portion of the Project Area is characterized by commercial development; the major visual feature is San Pablo Dam Road and the various businesses with frontage along the roadway. Many of the structures provide services directly related to the automobile (e.g., car repair, gas stations, car sales). The view along San Pablo Dam Road is intensely urban. Landscaping is intermittent, with some large flowerpots spaced along the roadway. Most business locations along San Pablo Dam Road have no formal landscaping median. The major portion of the streetscape consists of commercial structures, parking lots, and the roadway itself, which consists of four lanes with a middle turn lane. See Photograph 3.12-1. San Pablo Creek runs parallel to San Pablo Dam Road to the north. The creek is not visible along the roadway, but trees in the immediate vicinity of the creek are visible from the roadway. Trees and other vegetation are visible at the intersection of San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way. See Photograph 3.12-2. Hillsides that slope up to the south of San Pablo Dam Road are visible from the roadway, along with the residential development that exists on the hillsides. Appian Way Appian Way increases gently in elevation from the intersection with San Pablo Dam Road to Valley View Drive. The roadway consists of two travel lanes, with several wide areas for parking. Some parcels along Appian Way are vacant, and the appearance of these lots varies with the season. Commercial and residential structures are interspersed along the roadway. 3.12 AESTHETICS/LIGHT AND GLARE Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-193 Photograph 3.12-1 – (Portrait) 3.12 AESTHETICS/LIGHT AND GLARE Page 3-194 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Photograph 3.12-2 (Portrait) 3.12 AESTHETICS/LIGHT AND GLARE Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-195 Several large apartment buildings are located in this portion of the Project Area, consisting of sharply rectangular buildings, usually with stucco façade, and without fenestration or other visual amenities. The El Sobrante Library is located near the intersection of Appian Way and San Pablo Dam Road. The grounds of the Library are pleasant, but are not readily seen from the roadways. See Photograph 3.12-3 for views of Appian Way and see Photograph 3.12-4 for views of the existing park setting at San Pablo Creek near the Library. San Pablo Creek Trees and vegetation in and near San Pablo Creek, and the creek itself, can be viewed from the bridge at San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way. A raised pedestrian sidewalk is provided on the bridge, and provides the best viewing area. See Photograph 3.12-5. Regulatory Setting Relevant policies in the General Plan relating to aesthetics include the following: L AND U SE E LEMENT Community Identity and Urban Design The design of new buildings and the rehabilitation of existing buildings shall reflect and improve the existing character of the commercial districts in the County. 3-16. Opportunities shall be provided for retaining, enhancing and diversifying the cultural activities available to the County. 3-17. Flexibility in the design of projects shall be encouraged in order to enhance scenic qualities and provide for a varied development pattern. 3-18. Buffers shall be provided between new industrial developments and residential areas by establishing setbacks, and park-like landscaping or other appropriate mechanisms. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Evaluation Criteria The proposed project would be considered to have a significant adverse impact on aesthetics/light and glare if it would: • have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or obstruct views of the water or waterfront from public areas such as parks, observation areas or open spaces; 3.12 AESTHETICS/LIGHT AND GLARE Page 3-196 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Photographs 3.12-3 (Portrait) 3.12 AESTHETICS/LIGHT AND GLARE Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-197 Photographs 3.12-4 (Portrait) 3.12 AESTHETICS/LIGHT AND GLARE Page 3-198 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Photograph 3.12-5 (Portrait) 3.12 AESTHETICS/LIGHT AND GLARE Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-199 • damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway; • substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site and its surroundings; or • create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. View Disruption IMPACT 3.12-1: Future development activities could result in the disruption of public views and scenic vistas. Discussion and Conclusion: The Project Area is predominantly urbanized. The proposed amendment, which was developed through the cooperative efforts of the County Department of Conservation and Development and the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council (MAC), is designed to provide a cohesive development along both San Pablo Avenue and Appian Way, including the Triangle Area at Appian Way and Valley View Drive. The amendment with its requirements for building form, height and mass, is consistent with the Contra Costa County General Plan, and the General Plan policies relating to the Appian Way and San Pablo Dam corridors. Conformance with these requirements would serve to mitigate potentially significant impacts on visual resources. The primary opportunities for scenic vista include the view of hillsides from San Pablo Dam Road, and the views of San Pablo Creek. The proposed project would seek to implement the vision of the Municipal Advisory Council, with its vision to create a town square or pedestrian plaza near Hillcrest Drive, and to create a pedestrian- friendly environment that would attract residents and visitors, and gradually replace existing automobile-dependent businesses with restaurants, shops and offices. The plan includes provisions for maintaining a low profile along San Pablo Dam Road in order to preserve the view corridor. As new development or revitalization of existing structures proceeds, amenities, such as street landscaping, signage and lighting would be incorporated into the design plans. The proposed General Plan Amendment would redesignate land uses in most of the San Pablo Dam Road portion of the Project Area, and some properties along Appian Way, to Mixed Use. The land use assumptions utilized for analysis of the project provide that a total of 402,585 square feet of commercial and office space, and 490 multiple-family residential units, could be constructed in the Project Area. At least some of this development would occur on parcels that are currently developed, and some could occur on the few vacant parcels within this portion of the Project Area. No specific development proposals are included in the proposed project. It is very likely, however, that some future development would occur on parcels that are now vacant. Structures that are constructed on such parcels could block views of the hillsides. Pedestrian travel in this portion of the Project Area is not prevalent at the present time. Most travel is by automobile, and the opportunity to enjoy views of the hillsides is limited, and diminution of the 3.12 AESTHETICS/LIGHT AND GLARE Page 3-200 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment view would not be significant. The proposed project would most likely provide additional viewing opportunities, given the goal of creating a pedestrian-friendly business and residential area, thus providing substantial opportunities for those present to enjoy the views presented. Visual impacts of development in the Project Area that is consistent with the General Plan would be minimal. This impact is considered less than significant. □ Mitigation Measure: No mitigation measures are required. Light and Glare IMPACT 3.12-2: Light and glare in the Project Area could increase as a result of new or rehabilitated electrical lighting facilities. Discussion and Conclusion: Review of specific proposed development within the Project Area would evaluate building location, material selection, lighting design, parking and signage placement to buffer light impacts on surrounding uses. Development in the Project Area must be consistent with the General Plan. Improvement and rehabilitation of existing housing that occurs as a result of development efforts would not create new sources of light and glare, and this effect is considered less than significant. While specific projects would be subject to review to determine consistency with the General Plan and other development standards, the potential sources of light and glare could increase as a result of development activities. This impact is cumulative and is considered potentially significant. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.12-2: The configuration of exterior light fixtures shall emphasize close spacing and lower intensity lighting that is directed downward in order to minimize light spill to adjacent streets and properties. Highly reflective mirrored glass walls shall be avoided as a primary building material. (See also Mitigation Measure 3.7-1E.) Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 3.12-2 requires review of lighting at the individual project level. Mitigation Measure 3.7-1E provides that lighting shall be designed and sited to minimize impacts to wildlife, and would also serve to mitigate this impact. While some increase in light and glare from individual projects is unavoidable, the mitigation measure would reduce the cumulative impacts of individual projects to a less-than-significant level. 3.13 CULTURAL RESOURCES Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-201 3.13 CULTURAL RESOURCES The Project Area is located on both sides of Appian Way and a portion of San Pablo Dam Road. Almost all of the Project Area has been developed in commercial and residential uses. The pre-construction setting of much of the Project Area is quite sensitive for archeological resources, since San Pablo Creek and tributaries cross the Project Area. Although construction has limited the sensitivity of the Project Area for significant resources, the environmental setting is excellent for prehistoric resources. Early historic resources are less likely to be present. The existing Contra Costa County General Plan includes an archeological sensitivity map that indicates most of the Project Area is largely urbanized and, therefore, was excluded from the archeological sensitivity survey. In order to assess possible impacts to significant cultural resources, Peak & Associates, Inc., (consultants for the Downtown El Sobrante Redevelopment EIR, 2003) assembled background data, conducted a records search at the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System, and conducted an in-field reconnaissance. This work was intended to identify any previously recorded sites in the Project Area, evaluate their current condition and evaluate the potential for the existence of other sites in the Project Area. Environmental Setting Ethnography Ancestors of the Costanoan people moved into the San Francisco and Monterey Bay areas from the Delta of the San Joaquin and Sacramento rivers about A.D. 500. The designation "Costanoan" derives from the Spanish term for coastal people and was not used by the Indian people. In 1971, Costanoan descendants incorporated as the Chlone Indian Tribe, and commonly refer to themselves as Qhlones, apparently applying the name of a former village on the San Mateo coast to the broader contemporary sociopolitical unit (Breschini et al. 1982:281; Kroeber 1925:462-465). The Karkin tribelet settled on the southern side of the Carquinez Strait near present-day Martinez. Researchers estimate that the Karkin numbered about 200 persons in 1770, before the effects of contact with Spanish explorers and missionaries reduced the population. Spanish explorers of coastal California between 1767 and 1776 described the Costanoans living a traditional existence. Between 1770 and 1797, the Franciscans established seven missions in Costanoan territory and effectively changed the Indian way of life. After the Mexican government secularized the missions (between 1834 and 1836), some Costanoans returned to traditional religious and subsistence practices while others worked on Mexican ranchos. Former mission residents formed multi-tribal Indian communities in Pleasanton and other locations within Costanoan territory. History The discovery of the Carquinez Straits and initial exploration of the area of modern Contra Costa County was accomplished by Pedro Fages, who toured the country with twelve soldiers, an Indian guide and Father Juan Crespí in the spring of 1772 (Bancroft 1882). This expedition was followed in 1776 by a party led by Captain Juan Bautista de Anza that generally followed along the same route 3.13 CULTURAL RESOURCES Page 3-202 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment from San Francisco Bay to the Carquinez Straits, continued toward the interior and passed somewhere east of Mt. Diablo (Beck and Haase 1974:17). The Mexican War brought the conquest and occupation of California by United States forces. Subsequently, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) transferred sovereignty over California to the United States. These events were accompanied by the discovery of gold in the Mother Lode region of the Sierra Nevada, to the east of the study region, which vastly accelerated population growth. The gold rush and the long-term success of mining in turn encouraged the development of ranching, farming, trade, and urban growth, beginning a cycle of development that has caused California's population to increase every decade since the 1850s at a higher rate than the national increase. Under Anglo-American domination, the pioneer economy took over the land and its resources. In 1851, following an initial period of disarray, the federal government established a special California land commission to determine land titles based on claims under Mexican land grants. The Project Area was part of the Rancho El Sobrante grant. The massive influx of population that accompanied the gold rush was a direct stimulus for the development of cattle raising and agriculture within most of the project region. By sale and other means, Hispanic California families surrendered title to the largest part of their confirmed land grant holdings to new owners (Pitt 1966). Railroad construction by the Southern Pacific gave impetus to the beginning of industrial development in Contra Costa County. By the 1890s, the sole reliance on natural resource production, so typical of California's economy early in the pioneer era, was being supplemented by the rise of food processing, a diversified transportation industry, and a thriving commercial sector. The 1900s saw El Sobrante evolve as a residential community, as population density grew rapidly in the East Bay, with small commercial concerns developing to serve the increasing population. Although the project vicinity is primarily commercial now, it was an area of small farms in the recent past and some evidence of this has survived. Information Center Record Search A record search by the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System revealed that there are four previously recorded cultural resources in the Project Area. There have been a very large number of previous surveys in or adjacent to the Project Area, but all have covered very small areas as specific lots have been proposed for development. Still, most of the Project Area has been surveyed. An examination of historic maps failed to identify specific sensitive areas. Field Reconnaissance A reconnaissance level field inspection of the Project Area was undertaken by Robert Gerry of Peak & Associates (2003). There is very little property in the Project Area that has not been developed for either residential or commercial purposes. The density of development in the Project Area precludes meaningful results from surface inspection of most areas. The current investigation involved, primarily, inspection of recorded resources to assess current condition and a windshield survey of existing structures. The previously recorded sites consist of three prehistoric sites and an old farm/residence complex with standing structures. All the archeological sites are shell middens, locations where shellfish, primarily mussels, were prepared and eaten. The result is a culturally altered soil with high organic content and numerous shell fragments. This type of site is normally a residential site as well and can contain 3.13 CULTURAL RESOURCES Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-203 human burials within the midden. Shell middens on the immediate bay shore were often huge accumulations of living debris. The two larger middens are associated with the main branch of San Pablo Creek. CA-CCO-155 was first recorded in 1950 near the corner of Appian Way bridge over San Pablo Creek. Much of the site is now occupied by the community library and associated buildings, but the site extends outside of the library boundary. In 1950, George Pardee was the owner of the library portion of the site and he claimed that the depth of midden was 14 feet. The original record reports bone tools, projectile points and choppers from the site, but it is not clear if this was observed by the recorder or reported by Pardee. In 1985, after construction of the library, Peter Banks examined the site and updated the site record. He observed obsidian and chert debitage and a high shell content in the black soil. He could not see any unusual surface features due to the construction disturbance in the area. The current investigation could add no new information to this. The site still appears just as Banks described it. CA-CCO-156 lies near CCO-155 but it is on a terrace above the main creek channel and adjacent to a small tributary. This might suggest a winter village, since it had less chance of flooding. This site was also first recorded in 1950, at which time two residences and a hayfield occupied most of the site. Banks did an update in 1985 and reported that chert and obsidian debitage was observed in the shell midden and the tenant of one of the houses reported that pestles and charmstones had been recovered from the site. He also reported that he had found human bone in his garden and that a human skull had been unearthed during excavation for a swimming pool. The current investigation found that two additional residences have been built on the site area since 1985. The site lies in and around the cul- de-sac at the end of Garden Road. CA-CCO-505 was not recorded until Banks’ survey of 1985. This was recorded as a low-density shell scatter and midden on the north bank of the minor drainage mentioned in connection with CCO-156. This is also the location of the Lu Farm Complex (P-07-839), the only recorded historic period resource in the Project Area. Banks reported that local residents claim that burials and a stone mortar have been recovered from the site. Banks observed only a shell midden and the current investigator observed the same. There does not appear to have been any significant disturbance since 1985. The Lu Farm Complex includes a currently occupied residence and associated shed at 4439 Appian Way. Behind this are several outbuildings in poor repair. Noted by Banks, the complex was recorded in 1999 by a team from the Anthropological Studies Center at Sonoma State University. They dated construction of the residence to the 1920s and most of the outbuildings to the same era. There is nothing architecturally unusual about any of the buildings. A windshield survey of existing structures was conducted which revealed no particularly old buildings (the Lu complex is probably the oldest) and no structures of unusual architectural distinction. Regulatory Setting Relevant policies in the General Plan relating to cultural resources include the following: O PEN S PACE E LEMENT Overall Open Space Goals 9-A. To preserve and protect the ecological, scenic and cultural/historic, and recreational resource lands of the County. 3.13 CULTURAL RESOURCES Page 3-204 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Historic and Cultural Resource Goals 9-G. To identify and preserve important archaeological and historical resources within the County. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Evaluation Criteria Virtually any physical evidence of past human activity can be considered a cultural resource, although not all such resources are considered to be significant. Such resources often provide the only means of reconstructing the human history of a given site or region, particularly where there is no written history of that area or that period. Consequently, their significance is judged largely in terms of their historical or archaeological interpretive values. Along with research values, cultural resources can be significant, in part, for their aesthetic, educational, cultural and religious values. In assessing historical impacts under CEQA, the most directly applicable criteria are those contained in the California Register Act, enacted by the California Legislature in 1992, and codified in Public Resources Code Sections 5020, 5024 and 21085. This Act created the California Register of Historical Resources and established criteria for assessing a "substantial adverse change" to a property that may be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. The law creates several categories of properties that may be eligible for the California Register. Certain properties are included in the program automatically, including: properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places; properties determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places; and certain classes of state Historical Landmarks. Other properties may be added through a nomination process and according to criteria yet to be developed by the State Historical Resources Commission (SHRC). The most practical criteria for assessing eligibility for the California Register are the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The National Park Service has developed explicit eligibility criteria for listing in the National Register and guidelines for applying those criteria. Section 15064.5 of the state CEQA Guidelines provides guidance for determining the significance of impacts to archaeological and historical resources. Demolition or material alteration of an historical resource, including archaeological sites, would be considered a significant impact. Disturbance of Cultural Resources IMPACT 3.13-1: Construction activities associated with the proposed land use changes could disturb or destroy identified or previously unidentified cultural resources within the Project Area, including human remains. Discussion and Conclusion: The project includes changes in designation of land use for parcels within the Project Area, and changes to the Circulation Element affecting the existing alignment of San Pablo Dam Road. None of the shell middens in the Project Area has been excavated, therefore, there is insufficient evidence to conclude whether any or all of them are eligible for the National Register of Historic 3.13 CULTURAL RESOURCES Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 3-205 Places. Human burials have reportedly been observed at two of the sites and the other, reportedly, has a depth of cultural deposit of 14 feet. This testimonial evidence, which is not confirmed by available physical remains, suggests that all three sites would be considered significant in terms of the National Register criteria. The Lu complex does not appear to satisfy National Register criteria, nor do the other structures observed in the Project Area, but this is based on a brief inspection. Formal evaluation should be conducted on a case-by-case basis as permits are considered. Development of a town square near Hillcrest Avenue would not affect any of the identified resources. CCO-156 is relatively safe up on its terrace, but it could be affected by residential construction. The proposed project would amend the Circulation Element to retain the existing alignment of Appian Way, and this would avoid significant impacts due to road construction. No sites have been identified within the remainder of the Project Area, but it is possible that historic activities have obscured evidence of them. The project impacts are considered potentially significant. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.13-1A: Archival research and field study to identify unrecorded cultural resources shall be completed prior to the commencement of construction on a project-specific basis within the Project Area for development activities involving construction and excavation. The Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted for a Sacred Lands File Check and a list of appropriate Native American contacts for consultation concerning the project site and to assist in identification of mitigation measures. If such resources are identified, the County Department of Conservation and Development (CDCD) shall identify and implement appropriate mitigation measures. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.13-1B: If the area of potential effect contains buildings, structures, and objects 45 years or older, the CDCD shall consult with the Office of Historic Preservation regarding potential impacts to these properties and implement appropriate mitigation measures, with the exception of affordable housing rehabilitation projects. □ MITIGATION MEASURE 3.13-1C: If cultural resources are encountered during construction or excavation for development activities, construction shall be halted and the materials and their context shall not be altered until a cultural resource consultant has evaluated the site and appropriate mitigation measures are implemented. Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on DPR 523 (historic properties) forms. If human remains are encountered, the County Coroner shall be notified and local Native American organizations consulted. All cultural resource work shall be conducted by a qualified historian, architectural historian, or archaeologist. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure(s): Implementation of the mitigation measures set forth above would ensure that cultural or historic resources encountered during construction would be properly identified, evaluated and preserved, and this reduces the impact to less than significant. Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 4-1 4 IMPACT OVERVIEW This chapter includes a discussion of topics that are required in an environmental impact report by various provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 4.1 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES The following excerpt from Section 15126.2(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines defines the nature of this analysis: Uses of non-renewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified. Approval of the General Plan Amendments would encourage mixed-use development in the Project Area and, more generally, promote the goals of the Downtown El Sobrante Transportation and Land Use Plan (approved by the Board of Supervisors on January 15, 2002) and implement the recommendations from the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council for downtown El Sobrante affecting areas along San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way. The analysis of environmental impacts in this Draft EIR is based on land use assumptions for eventual buildout of the Project Area, consisting of a total of 490 new multiple-family dwelling units, and 402,585 square feet of commercial and office space. The Project Area is predominantly urbanized and committed to urban uses, and an irreversible commitment of non-renewable resources has already been made in the proposed Project Area. The adverse impacts on the physical environment that could result from the activities that could result with implementation of the General Plan Amendment are addressed in this EIR. While some additional commitment of energy resources would occur, and remaining vacant parcels could be developed, the additional commitment of such resources is not substantial when the extent of existing development is considered. 4. IMPACT OVERVIEW Page 4-2 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment 4.2 IMPACTS [EFFECTS] FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT Section 15128 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible new significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant, and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR. Some of those effects are discussed in the individual topics in Chapter 3. The effects listed here were determined to be less than significant based on the discussion contained in the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation and responses to the Notice of Preparation contained in Appendix A, and include the following: Aesthetics Impacts on aesthetic and visual resources that are considered potentially significant are discussed in Chapter 3 of this EIR. Construction activities themselves would create visual disruption, but would be temporary in nature and are considered less than significant. The proposed Project Area is predominantly urbanized, and new development would be consistent with the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020). Such activities would not result in an adverse impact on any scenic vistas, nor would they substantially damage scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings within a state scenic highway. These impacts on aesthetics are considered less then significant. Agricultural Resources The Project Area is located in an urbanized portion of unincorporated Contra Costa County. A commercial nursery is located near the intersection of Appian Way and Valley View Drive, but continuation of this use would not be inconsistent with the General Plan. The General Plan amendment relates to changes in the density of residential areas near the Project Area, and would not affect agricultural resources or uses. The proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance to urban uses, and there is no impact on such lands. Air Quality Impacts on air quality that are considered potentially significant are discussed in Chapter 3 of this EIR. The proposed project would include an amendment to the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005-2020) to change the land use designations for portions of the Project Area to mixed- use. This land use designation change is intended to promote mixed use development (e.g. uses that include retail, commercial or professional office on the first floor, and multiple- family residential uses on the upper floors). The existing uses in the Project Area include these types of uses, as well as uses that are specifically oriented to the automobile, such as gas stations. The proposed project would not introduce a new source of offensive odors to 4. IMPACT OVERVIEW Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 4-3 the Project Area, and could replace uses that generate such odors at present. This impact is considered less than significant. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts concerning hazards and hazardous materials that are considered potentially significant are discussed in Chapter 3 of this EIR. The Project Area is not located within the vicinity of an airport or airstrip, and these impacts are considered less than significant. The Project Area is located in a predominantly urbanized area, and the threat of wildland fires is less than significant. The Initial Study checklist discussion indicated this was a less- than-significant impact. The checklist itself, which identified the impact as potentially significant, was in error. The threat of wildland fires is less than significant. Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts on hydrology and water quality that are considered potentially significant are discussed in Chapter 3 of this EIR. San Pablo Reservoir and Briones Reservoir are located approximately 5 miles and 9 miles, respectively, upstream on the San Pablo Creek and Appian Creek drainage-sheds from the intersection of San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way. The dams creating these impoundments are owned and operated by East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), are fully engineered and are subject to the continuing surveillance of the State Division of Dam Safety. 1 Although portions of the Project Area are subject to inundation if either of these dams were to fail, the likelihood of such failure of either dam is so remote as to be less than significant. Land Use, Population, and Housing Impacts on land use and planning that are considered potentially significant are discussed in Chapter 3 of this EIR. No habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan applies to the Project Area. This impact is less than significant. The mixed-use designation encourages the development of multiple-family housing, and the land use assumptions for the proposed project assume that 490 multiple-family residential dwelling units could be built in the Project Area. The project would, therefore, have a less- than-significant impact on housing. 1 In August 2008, EBMUD began construction of a seismic upgrade project for San Pablo Reservoir Dam, which is expected to be completed in late 2010. 4. IMPACT OVERVIEW Page 4-4 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Mineral Resources The Project Area is predominantly urbanized, and no mineral or other soil resource recovery activity is occurring in the Project Area. The Project Area has not been identified as a site for potential mineral extraction, and any such activities would be inconsistent with the General Plan designations for the area. The impact of the proposed project on mineral resources is less than significant. Noise Noise impacts that are considered potentially significant are discussed in Chapter 3 of this EIR. It is not anticipated that construction would involve the use of pile drivers or other machinery that would create excessive ground-borne vibrations, and the project impacts related to this impact are considered less than significant. The Project Area is not located within the vicinity of an airport or airstrip, and these impacts are considered less than significant. 4.3 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED The phrase “significant effect on the environment” is defined as follows in Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines: “Significant effect on the environment” means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, mineral, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. A social or economic change related to a physical change may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant. Section 15126 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the EIR describe any significant impacts, including those that can be mitigated but not reduced to a level of insignificance. Where there are impacts that cannot be alleviated without imposing an alternative design, their implications and the reasons why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding their effect, should be described. The environmental effects of adopting and implementing the proposed General Plan amendment on selected aspects of the environment are discussed in detail in Chapter 3 of this EIR. The impacts of the proposed project on transportation and air quality have been 4. IMPACT OVERVIEW Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 4-5 identified as significant and unavoidable, and those sections of the EIR should be reviewed for a full discussion of such impacts. 4.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires consideration and discussion of cumulative impacts of the project in an EIR. The cumulative discussion is required when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable and the cumulative impact is significant. Incremental effects that are less than significant should also be discussed. A cumulative impact is an impact that is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts. The Project Area is located in the unincorporated portion of Contra Costa County, adjacent to the City limits of Richmond and San Pablo. No past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts similar to those that could be produced by the proposed project have been identified within the Project Area. Chapter 3 of this EIR has identified the cumulative impacts on transportation as significant and unavoidable. 4.5 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS The proposed amendment to the General Plan would encourage development that is more compact, pedestrian-friendly and conducive to a downtown business and residential environment. The Project Area is located within the unincorporated portion of Contra Costa County and within the sphere of influence of the City of Richmond. The project area is located in an urbanized area of the community, and any growth that occurred through the proposed General Plan amendment and subsequent development would not result in the conversion of agricultural land. The proposed project would not result in the loss of additional agricultural land. The proposed project would result in less commercial square footage and fewer new dwelling units within the project area than that projected in the General Plan (2005-2020). The reduction in commercial square footage would be 87 percent from that estimated in the 2005 General Plan and the number of residential units would be 68 percent less. Some of the commercial/retail/office development would replace existing uses, but the land use assumptions do not attempt to identify or quantify the location or identity of such uses, nor the quantity of developed space that might be replaced. The new development that is proposed would generate additional employment and demand for housing. The new housing 4. IMPACT OVERVIEW Page 4-6 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment would, in a similar manner, generate demand for urban services from both the public and private sector. This demand for public services is discussed in Section 3.11. The proposed project does not include extension of urban services to new areas of the County, and does not remove obstacles to growth. Development as proposed in the Project Area could, and probably would, induce growth by creating an additional population and business base in the community. However, the growth-inducing impact is significantly less than what was previously projected in the 2005 General Plan. Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 5-1 5 ALTERNATIVES 5.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter evaluates project alternatives. CEQA requires an EIR to assess a reasonable range of project alternatives that might achieve project objectives with less environmental impact than the proposed project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d)(2) requires that a “No Project” alternative must also be presented in the EIR. The alternatives to be considered should include those that offer substantial environmental advantages over the proposed project, and that may feasibly be accomplished considering the various economic, environmental, social, technological and legal factors. The proposed project is an amendment to the Contra Costa County General Plan (2005– 2020) that would revise the Land Use Element and Transportation-Circulation Element of the General Plan for the unincorporated community of El Sobrante, California, for the purpose of encouraging the development of a pedestrian-friendly downtown area. The project objectives are as follows: • Promote the goals of the Downtown El Sobrante Transportation and Land Use Plan (approved by the Board of Supervisors on January 15, 2002) and implement the April 2008 recommendations from the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council for downtown El Sobrante affecting areas along San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way; • Establish a development pattern that is more compact and conducive to a vibrant downtown business and residential environment; • Support for the Board of Supervisors recent directives to promote a “healthy” built environment in the unincorporated areas of the County, which encourages infill development (compact and mixed use) and other changes to the built environment that provide healthy lifestyle choices for residents; • Implement the principles of “Complete Streets”, which recognizes that streets do more than move vehicles and serve many users (motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians) and establishes that the development of the local roadway system needs to accommodate multiple modes of travel (e.g. transit, bicycling, and walking); • Encourage economic development consistent with the provisions of the Contra Costa County General Plan; and • Provide opportunities for decent and affordable housing to all segments of the community. 5. ALTERNATIVES Page 5-2 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment The alternatives identified for consideration are as follows: • Alternative A: No Project. • Alternative B: Reduced Project Area (Excludes Appian Way). • Alternative C: Transportation-Circulation Element Amended – No Change in Land Use Designations. • Alternative D: Land Use Amendment – No Change in Transportation-Circulation Element. The discussion below presents a description of each alternative and an analysis of the respective alternative in the context of CEQA and the state CEQA Guidelines. The discussion focuses on the comparative environmental attributes of the respective alternative and the degree to which the identified alternative might accomplish the project objectives. CEQA does not require the alternatives to be analyzed in the same level of detail as the proposed project, and the discussion below therefore presents a qualitative analysis, including discussion of an environmentally superior alternative. 5.2 ALTERNATIVE A: NO PROJECT Description of Alternative No change in the General Plan Land Use Element or Transportation-Circulation Element would be made. Under the No Project Alternative, the General Plan Amendment would not be considered, which would have the following effects: • Without a General Plan Amendment, the existing land use designations would remain unchanged, and it is likely the existing land uses would be retained along San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way. The existing businesses along San Pablo Dam Road are automobile-oriented and, in the absence of a General Plan Amendment, the goal of replacing such businesses with pedestrian-friendly, neighborhood-serving land uses would probably not be achieved. Land uses along Appian Way vary and it was the intent of the proposed project to create a pedestrian-friendly environment and to encourage the development of businesses that serve the local community, as well as provide for multiple-family housing. The No Project Alternative would, in the absence of a General Plan Amendment, retain the existing land use designations. It is likely that the Appian Way portions of the Project Area would continue to develop in a manner consistent with existing development. • The proposed project would change the General Plan Transportation-Circulation Element to eliminate the current provision for a bypass couplet parallel to San Pablo Dam Road and provide a Village Center Loop at Hillcrest and Pitt Way, a low-speed, aesthetically pleasing route to motorists wishing to patronize local businesses. Additionally, the proposed change in the General Plan Transportation-Circulation 5. ALTERNATIVES Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 5-3 Element would eliminate reference to the future expansion of Appian Way to a four- lane roadway. Under the No Project Alternative, no change in the Transportation-Circulation Element would be made and San Pablo Dam Road would retain its existing configuration. The Village Center Loop would not be constructed. Under the No Project Alternative, the General Plan reference to future expansion of Appian Way would remain. Aesthetics Future development under a Mixed Use designation would generally have a beneficial impact on aesthetics and visual resources, including construction of infill development and improved streetscapes in the Project Area. The proposed project does not include any proposed actions that would restrict views or construct features that would have an adverse visual impact, and the No Project Alternative does not avoid or minimize adverse visual impacts. The proposed project, especially as it concerns the San Pablo Dam Road corridor from El Portal to Appian Way, would provide the initial basis for substantial improvements to the aesthetics of the area. The General Plan calls for a visually pleasing environment, attractive design of streets, creation of public places, and storefronts that attract pedestrian traffic. These changes would be beneficial, and could relieve the current aesthetic environment, which is characterized by hardscape, minimal landscaping, and infrastructure and businesses that are oriented to automobile traffic. The environmental impact of the No Project Alternative on the aesthetics of the project area would most likely be negative, depriving the area of a potential source of support for improvement in its condition. The No Project Alternative would perpetuate the status quo. Widening of Appian Way could remove large mature trees along the roadway, as well as potentially encroach into front yards. The proposed project would be superior to the No Project Alternative. Air Quality The proposed project would result in eventual development of new multiple-family residential uses and a substantial amount of commercial/retail/office development. At least some portion of the new development would replace existing uses. It is likely that the rate and amount of development would be less than that projected in the General Plan as shown in Table 2-1. The No Project Alternative would reduce some of the air quality impacts of construction that would occur with the proposed project. Unlike the proposed project that encourages pedestrian traffic, the No Project Alternative would result in a continuation of current development and traffic patterns, which focus on automobile-oriented businesses. Given the potential buildout projected in the County General Plan (2005–2020), it is reasonable to assume the applicable air quality emissions thresholds could be exceeded. Therefore, the air 5. ALTERNATIVES Page 5-4 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment quality impacts and the impact on greenhouse gasses can be considered similar to the proposed project. The Transportation-Circulation Element would not be changed, potentially resulting in the construction of the bypass couplet and the widening of Appian Way. Such improvements could likely attract more motorists who wish to divert from I-80 when freeway traffic congestion occurs. This could result in a higher number of traffic volumes going through the project area which would generate more emissions, thus contributing to a deterioration in air quality and adding to the greenhouse gasses. This could create greater impacts than those of the proposed project. Biological Resources The proposed project could impact biological resources through development of parcels that are currently unimproved, and this would have an impact on the habitat for various species. The project impacts can, however, be reduced to a less-than-significant level. However, maintaining the status quo and considering the potential construction of a bypass roadway and the widening of Appian Way, the impact on biological resources could be greater than those associated with the proposed project. The widening of Appian Way would result in replacing the bridge that crosses San Pablo Creek which could interfere with the creek habitat and construction of a new bypass couplet would extend through undeveloped land that currently provides habitat for wildlife. This alternative could have greater impacts on biological resources than the proposed project. Cultural Resources With less potential for new development activities under the No Project Alternative, the impacts on cultural and historic resources would be reduced. The project area is predominantly urbanized, and potential impacts to cultural resources can be adequately mitigated. The No Project Alternative would retain the existing General Plan references to Appian Way as a four-lane roadway, and expansion of Appian Way to such a configuration would have an adverse impact on cultural resources. In addition, the alignment for the bypass couplet may contain unknown buried cultural resources that would be disturbed during grading activities for the roadway. Impacts on cultural resources would not be reduced with the No Project Alternative. Geology and Soils Impacts related to geology and soils under the proposed project (while not significant) would be reduced by the No Project Alternative. The Project Area is predominantly urbanized, but changes in the use of particular parcels would, in some cases, require disturbance of the soil, and could result in intensification of use on parcels with substandard soils. Older dwellings and commercial buildings would continue to be subject to severe ground shaking. As new buildings are constructed and/or older buildings are demolished and replaced with new construction as envisioned by the General Plan, the level of destruction as a result of severe ground shaking would be substantially decreased. New construction and/or rehabilitation of 5. ALTERNATIVES Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 5-5 existing buildings would be required to meet Uniform Building Code requirements, which reduces the risk from seismic shaking. Implementation of the San Pablo Road bypass couplet would result in the necessity to grade the hillside located to the south of San Pablo Dam Road, cutting into unstable slopes. Due to the instability and steepness of the hillside, it is likely that retaining walls would be required to hold the slope. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The No Project Alternative could reduce the amount of new development that would potentially be exposed to hazardous materials. Hydrology and Water Quality The No Project Alternative would avoid some development that could have an impact on water quality due to potential erosion and increased runoff due to impervious surfaces. However, the bypass couplet and the widening of Appian Way would increase the impervious surface in the project area, resulting in greater runoff and further deterioration of water quality in the two creeks. This alternative would create greater hydrological/water quality impacts than the proposed project. Land Use, Population and Housing In the absence of a General Plan Amendment, the existing pattern of development would continue. The land use assumptions for the proposed project call for the development of 490 new housing units in the Project Area as compared to 1,350 new housing units under the existing General Plan. (Refer to Table 2-1 in Chapter 2, Project Description.) In terms of increasing the housing supply, the No Project Alternative is superior to the proposed project. The road improvement projects would take away the opportunity to create a pedestrian- friendly downtown core and the automobile-oriented type of land uses would continue to be developed. Noise The No Project Alternative would avoid some construction- and operation-related noise impacts. The existing conditions are not, however, conducive to enjoyment of the Project Area by residents or visitors, and any project impact in terms of noise would be negligible. Noise impacts of the No Project Alternative would be similar to the proposed project. New development would be constructed to meet Title 24 standards (required attenuation measures). Construction noise would occur with or without the proposed project as new development or rehabilitation occurs in the project area. Implementation of the roadway projects would create greater traffic noise for persons living along Appian Way and near the bypass couplet. The roadways would bring traffic closer to residences. The proposed project is environmentally superior to the No Project Alternative. 5. ALTERNATIVES Page 5-6 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Public Services, Utilities and Related Facilities The No Project Alternative would continue development as proposed under the existing General Plan. The number of dwellings within the Project Area under the existing General Plan would be substantially greater than what is proposed with the proposed project. At buildout under the No Project Alternative, the demand for public services would be much greater than with the proposed project. The proposed project is environmentally superior to the No Project Alternative. Transportation The No Project Alternative would leave the General Plan Transportation-Circulation Element in its current form. The benefits of developing a pedestrian-friendly alternative to the existing circulation system, including development of the Village Center Loop, would not be achieved. The evaluation of Transportation in Section 3.3 of this Draft EIR concluded that the proposed project would have significant and unavoidable impact due to the project’s contribution to traffic levels that would result in unacceptable operations at the intersections of San Pablo Dam Road with El Portal, and San Pablo Road and Appian Way (see Impact 3.3-2). It is unknown whether the No Project Alternative would generate less traffic. As development proceeds in the El Sobrante/Richmond area, traffic operations at these intersections could still reach unacceptable levels in the absence of the project. Growth in the Bay Area generally, and increased levels of diversion from Interstate 80 that can be anticipated as traffic congestion increases, would increase levels of traffic at these intersections. In addition, the No Project Alternative would result in at least some development in the Project Area that would also contribute to such impacts. It is not certain, therefore, that the significant and unavoidable impact of the proposed project could be avoided by the No Project Alternative. 5.3 ALTERNATIVE B: REDUCED PROJECT AREA This alternative would limit the Project Area to only that portion along San Pablo Dam Road between El Portal Drive and Appian Way. The Transportation-Circulation Element would be amended to remove the six-lane bypass couplet for San Pablo Dam Road between El Portal Drive and Appian Way and the future four-lane configuration on Appian Way. Aesthetics This alternative would result in the aesthetic benefits of the proposed project as they relate to development along San Pablo Dam Road, but would not include new development along Appian Way. Some aesthetic benefits would be lost. This alternative does not provide substantially greater impacts or benefits than the proposed project for that portion along San Pablo Dam Road. 5. ALTERNATIVES Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 5-7 Air Quality Reduction in the size of the Project Area could avoid some project-specific impacts such as generation of dust, but such impacts would be less than significant. Regional air quality would not be affected by reducing the Project Area. Alternative B would result in a continuation of current development patterns along Appian Way, which focus on automobile- oriented businesses. The Reduced Project Area alternative would result in similar air quality impacts as that described for the proposed project. A majority of the commercial development projected for the Project Area would occur with this alternative. The air quality impacts identified for the proposed project are considered less than significant and, under the reduced alternative, the impacts would be less than that projected for the proposed project. The impact on greenhouse gasses and global climate change would also be less than that identified for the proposed project. Biological Resources Reducing the Project Area would avoid any identified impacts to Appian Creek, but the identified impacts to biological resources along San Pablo Creek would remain. Cultural Resources The Project Area is predominantly urbanized, and potential impacts to cultural resources can be adequately mitigated. Geology and Soils Because the Project Area is predominantly urbanized, this alternative is not anticipated to result in a substantial increase in the risk due to seismic activity or other exposure to hazards relating to soils. Existing unreinforced buildings would continue to be subject to substantial damage in the event of a major earthquake on Bay Area faults. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Reduction in the size of the Project Area could reduce the potential exposure of persons to hazardous materials that may be present on the commercial properties. Hydrology and Water Quality The Project Area is predominantly urbanized, and the impacts on drainage and water quality that would result from new development are not expected to be substantial. Land Use, Population and Housing Future development along San Pablo Dam Road under the General Plan Amendment proposal would occur with this alternative. New development along Appian Way would be required to follow existing General Plan and zoning provisions. This would likely result in a continuation of the existing development pattern. 5. ALTERNATIVES Page 5-8 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Noise Noise impacts from the proposed project would be temporary and less than significant. The reduced project alternative would avoid some of these impacts. Noise levels would remain virtually the same along Appian Way as presently measured. Public Services, Utilities and Related Facilities This alternative would reduce the area for future development. The increase in demand for public services, utilities and related facilities would be somewhat less for this alternative than for the proposed project. Transportation Increases in traffic that could potentially result from increased economic activity along Appian Way would be avoided by reducing the Project Area. This alternative would generate more traffic than the No Project Alternative, and it is not certain that the significant and unavoidable impact of the proposed project could be avoided by this alternative. See the discussion of Transportation under the No Project Alternative. 5.4 ALTERNATIVE C: TRANSPORTATION-CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDED – NO LAND USE AMENDMENT Under this alternative, the County would not proceed with the General Plan Amendment to change the land use designations along Appian Way and San Pablo Dam Road. The Transportation-Circulation Element would be amended to remove the San Pablo Avenue bypass couplet and the widening of Appian Way to four lanes. Private development would continue to occur in the Project Area under the existing General Plan Land Use designations. This alternative, as it relates to impacts associated with the land use, would be no different than the No Project Alternative and therefore the impacts identified in Section 5.2 would be the same. The existing businesses are automobile- oriented, and in the absence of a General Plan Amendment, the goal of replacing such land uses with pedestrian-friendly, neighborhood-serving businesses would most likely not be achieved. The precise nature of private development projects that might be proposed under this alternative is unknown and comparative environmental impacts cannot be quantified. The discussion below compares Alternative C to the proposed project on a qualitative basis. Amending the Transportation Circulation Element of the General Plan (2005-2020) would remove the potential for constructing the bypass couplet and widening of Appian Way to four lanes. Potential impacts associated with these roadway improvements would be negated. 5. ALTERNATIVES Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 5-9 Aesthetics Without amendments to the existing General Plan, the existing land use pattern would continue, with a reliance on automobile-dependent businesses. The Transportation- Circulation Element would be amended and the Village Center Loop could ultimately be pursued providing adjoining parcels could be developed that would create a central downtown area. Without an overall land use designation that encourages a coordinated development pattern, this alternative would result in no substantial improvements in visual amenities, improved design of streetscapes and buildings, a new public plaza and park, nor substantial landscaping that are proposed by the project. The proposed project is environmentally superior to this alternative. Air Quality Without the advent of new development along both major roadways, this alternative would reduce some of the air quality impacts of construction that would occur with the proposed project. The proposed project would encourage pedestrian use of the area, and would have some beneficial impacts on air quality that would not occur with this alternative. Given the potential congestion on Interstate 80 and diversion of traffic from the freeway through El Sobrante, deterioration in air quality as a result of increased emissions would continue. Under this alternative, development would continue with no characteristic development pattern to encourage pedestrian use. The proposed project is environmentally superior to this alternative. Biological Resources Alternative C would avoid some of the impacts that could occur to biological resources related to Appian Creek and San Pablo Creek. It is likely that some impacts would occur, depending on the extent and location of specific development projects. The proposed project would be environmentally superior to this alternative concerning biological resources. Cultural Resources A reduction in the impact on cultural and historic resources would result under this alternative if the land uses do not change and the Transportation-Circulation Element is amended to remove language regarding future roadway improvements for San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way. Development patterns would continue as allowed under the County General Plan (2005–2020) and roadways would remain in place, thereby not disturbing potential cultural resources as a result of roadway expansion. Geology and Soils The Project Area is predominantly urbanized, but changes in the use of particular parcels would, in some cases, require disturbance of the soil, and could result in intensification of use on parcels with substandard soils. Older dwellings and commercial buildings would continue to be subject to severe ground shaking. As new buildings are constructed and/or older buildings are demolished and replaced with new construction as envisioned by the General Plan Amendment, the level of destruction as a result of severe ground shaking would be substantially decreased. New construction and/or rehabilitation of existing buildings would 5. ALTERNATIVES Page 5-10 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment be required to meet Uniform Building Code requirements, which reduces the risk from seismic shaking. Hazards and Hazardous Materials This alternative could reduce the amount of new development that would potentially be exposed to hazardous materials. Development would proceed under current General Plan land use designations. Hydrology and Water Quality This alternative would avoid the construction of a new road and the widening of an existing roadway which would eliminate the potential for increased runoff and deterioration of water quality due to an increase in impervious surfaces. Existing development patterns would most likely occur without a change in the General Plan. The existing land use pattern would continue which tends to cater to an automobile-serving public. Such development creates large expanses of paved areas for parking, thereby contributing to the runoff that flows into nearby creeks, causing further deterioration in the water quality of the creeks. The Proposed Project is environmentally superior to this alternative. Land Use, Population and Housing In the absence of a General Plan Amendment, the existing pattern of development would continue. The existing housing densities would result in a greater number of units than that which is proposed for the project. (Refer to Table 2-1 in Chapter 2, Project Description.) Specific projects generated by landowners and developers would be subject to the County’s project review process. The amendment to the Transportation-Circulation Element would not affect existing land uses, population or housing. The land use designations would remain as dictated by the County General Plan (2005–2020) and the goal to create pedestrian-friendly, neighborhood-serving businesses would probably not be achieved. The Proposed Project is environmentally superior to this alternative. Noise This alternative would create construction noise impacts associated with rehabilitation of existing development and future development under the existing General Plan. The potential noise impacts associated with construction of the bypass couplet and widening of Appian Way, as well as the resultant traffic noise, will no longer be a potential impact under this alternative. From a noise standpoint, this alternative to a certain extent is better than the proposed project. Public Services, Utilities and Related Facilities The demand for public services and utilities under the existing General Plan development would create greater impacts than with the proposed project. As shown in Table 2-1, population and dwelling unit projections are considerably higher than the proposed project. 5. ALTERNATIVES Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 5-11 Transportation The evaluation of Transportation in Section 3.3 of this Draft EIR concluded that the proposed project would have significant and unavoidable impact due to the project’s contribution to traffic levels that would result in unacceptable operations at the intersections of San Pablo Dam Road with El Portal, and San Pablo Road and Appian Way (see Impact 3.3-2). It is unknown whether this alternative would generate less traffic. As development proceeds in the El Sobrante/Richmond area, traffic operations at these intersections could still reach unacceptable levels in the absence of the project. Growth in the Bay Area generally, and increased levels of diversion from Interstate 80 that can be anticipated as traffic congestion increases, would increase levels of traffic at these intersections. In addition, this alternative would result in at least some development in the Project Area that would also contribute to such impacts. It is not certain, therefore, that the significant and unavoidable impact of the proposed project could be avoided by this alternative. 5.5 ALTERNATIVE D: LAND USE AMENDMENT – NO CHANGE TO TRANSPORTATION-CIRCULATION ELEMENT Under this alternative, the General Plan designations applicable to Project Area parcels would be changed to reflect a mixed-use development and the Transportation-Circulation Element of the General Plan would remain as stated in the County General Plan (2005– 2020). This alternative would allow for potential mixed-use development that would create a pedestrian friendly downtown. By not removing the language and figures in the Transportation-Circulation Element, the potential exists for future roadway improvements that would create the San Pablo Avenue bypass couplet and widening of Appian Way to four lanes. As stated previously, the widening of Appian Way could interfere with developing many of the parcels fronting on that roadway. Aesthetics The aesthetic value of this alternative is no different than with the proposed project. This alternative allows for the future mixed use as envisioned by policies in the General Plan and would create a downtown that would be pedestrian friendly. The Transportation-Circulation Element would not be amended, and although there are no plans to proceed with the roadway improvements to widen Appian Way or construct the San Pablo Dam Road bypass couplet, nonetheless, the policy remains and the potential exists for these improvements to occur. . Should Appian Way be widened, the widening could interfere with future development and reduce front-yard setbacks, as well as potentially cause the removal of heritage along the roadway alignment. Air Quality Like the proposed project, this alternative redesignates the Project Area to provide for mixed- use development. This would result in developing under utilized and vacant parcels in the 5. ALTERNATIVES Page 5-12 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment project area. The Transportation-Circulation Element would not be changed, potentially resulting in the construction of the bypass couplet and the widening of Appian Way. Such improvements could likely attract more motorists who wish to divert from I-80 when traffic congestion occurs on the freeway. This could result in a higher number of traffic volumes going through the project area which would generate more emissions, thus contributing to a deterioration in air quality and adding to the greenhouse gasses. Therefore, the air quality impacts of this alternative would be no different than with the proposed project. Biological Resources This alternative would result in the development of the Village Center and the possible development of pedestrian bridges across San Pablo Creek. Without an amendment to the Transportation-Circulation Element, the widening of Appian Way would occur which would impact the bridge crossing of San Pablo Creek and potentially disrupting and eliminating the riparian habitat. Biological impacts would be greater under this alternative than with the proposed project. Cultural Resources Under this alternative, the Transportation-Circulation Element reference to the future configuration of Appian Way as a four-lane roadway would remain. Expansion of the roadway to such a configuration would have adverse impacts on cultural resources. Unknown cultural resources may also be present along the alignment of the bypass couplet. Grading and excavation of the roadway could possibly disrupt these resources. The proposed project is superior to this alternative in that respect. Geology and Soils New construction that could expose persons to hazards due to soils and geologic conditions would be reduced, but the risk posed by such development, given the Uniform Building Code requirements applied to new construction, would be less than significant in any event. Implementation of the San Pablo Road bypass couplet would result in the necessity to grade the hillside located to the south of San Pablo Dam Road, cutting into unstable slopes. Due to the instability and steepness of the hillside, it is likely that retaining walls would be required to hold the slope. Hazards and Hazardous Materials It is unlikely this alternative would have an impact on the number of additional persons that might be exposed to hazardous materials. Future development of parcels containing hazardous materials would be required to undergo soil sampling and potential site cleanup should the soil samples confirm the presence of hazardous materials. Some hazardous materials could be uncovered if the roadway projects were to be implemented. Hydrology and Water Quality Development projects would be required to comply with the County’s requirements regarding drainage impacts related to specific projects. Development of land uses under this 5. ALTERNATIVES Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 5-13 alternative would be no different than with the proposed project. However, retaining the language in the Transportation-Circulation Element would allow for future development of the bypass couplet and widening of Appian Way. Should these improvements occur, the amount of impervious surface in the Project Area would be increased, resulting in greater runoff and further deterioration of water quality in the two creeks. This alternative would create greater impacts than the proposed project. Land Use, Population and Housing The land use, population and housing impacts would be no different than those identified for the proposed project. The General Plan Amendment would also promote mixed uses along both San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way. The results of the General Plan Amendment would tend to change the land uses in the Project Area by encouraging relocation of automobile-oriented businesses, and attraction of business that are neighborhood-serving enterprises. Future widening of Appian Way, as stated in the Transportation-Circulation Element, could interfere with the development of some parcels, particularly those that are small and would not have adequate setbacks from the widened roadway. Noise The General Plan Amendment would result in some increase in noise as identified for the proposed project. Construction noise associated with the development of the Village Center and Village Center Loop would occur. Future development of the bypass couplet and Appian Way widening could also create greater noise impacts for persons residing adjacent to the roadways. There would be no reduction in noise impacts under this alternative and could possibly be more severe than the proposed project. Public Services, Utilities and Related Facilities Under this alternative, the Village Center and Village Center Loop would be constructed. Development of the businesses and residences as provided for in the proposed project would increase the demand on various public services, although the population projections for the proposed project are substantially less compared to the projections of the County General Plan (2005–2020). Similar to the proposed project, development under this alternative would reduce the impacts on public services over the long run. Transportation Traffic volumes would remain the same as those projected for the proposed project. The deterioration of levels of service at key intersections would be no different under this alternative and the traffic impacts would remain the same. Under this alternative, the language and maps in the Transportation-Circulation Element of the County General Plan (2005–2020) regarding the San Pablo Dam Road bypass couplet and the widening of Appian Way would not change. Although there are no plans to construct these roadway improvements, at some point in the far future the County could decide to carry out the policies of the General Plan and construct these improvements. Such improvements could detract from the purpose of creating a pedestrian-friendly downtown environment and interfering with the development of parcels along Appian Way due to the roadway widening. 5. ALTERNATIVES Page 5-14 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment The improvements could also attract more motorists who wish to divert from I-80 when traffic congestion becomes worse on the freeway. The proposed project is superior to this alternative. 5.6 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE In accordance with the state CEQA Guidelines, project alternatives have been evaluated for their comparative environmental superiority. Based on the discussion of alternatives in this chapter, it has been determined that the environmentally superior alternative is the proposed project, implemented with the mitigation measures identified in this Draft EIR. The proposed project includes various components that are designed to transform the Project Area from an automobile-oriented and automobile-dependent area to a pedestrian-friendly neighborhood. The General Plan Amendment would implement a mixed-use development concept that includes both commercial/office and residential land uses, and amends the Transportation-Circulation Element with regard to roadway planning for San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way. The impact analysis in Chapter 3 includes various mitigation measures that avoid or reduce potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed project. Section 3.3, Transportation, concludes that additional traffic associated with the proposed project would cause impacts that are significant and unavoidable. All other potentially significant impacts can be reduced to a less-than-significant level. The evaluation of the various alternatives discussed above considers the potential benefits of the proposed project, as well as the adverse impacts. Development along San Pablo Dam Road would provide new urban amenities for residents and visitors, creating a more pleasing environment as well as reducing reliance on the automobile. This type of development could have benefits in terms of air quality, traffic and noise as well. It is also noted that the proposed project would generate a lower population than what is projected under the existing County General Plan (2005–2020) as detailed in Table 2-1. If development proceeds under the General Plan designations, transportation, noise and air quality impacts could be greater than with the proposed project. Also, as indicated above, as congestion increases along Interstate 80, automobile traffic diverts to San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way, thereby increasing traffic volumes which in turn increases noise levels and vehicle emissions that affect air quality. One traffic impact was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact of the proposed project. It is not certain that the unacceptable traffic operations at the impacted intersections would be avoided by any of the alternatives, including the No Project Alternative. If the existing policy language in the Transportation/ Circulation Element is not amended, the potential exists for the roadway improvements, which would interfere with the pedestrian- friendly type of development envisioned with the proposed project. As stated previously, 5. ALTERNATIVES Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 5-15 these improvements could attract more traffic through the area, which could have significant impact on existing intersections. Table 5-1 summarizes the alternatives analysis set forth above with respect to each identified alternative, with brief text comparing the identified alternative with the proposed project. In those cases in which the alternative is clearly environmentally superior to the proposed project, the text is prefaced with (+); in those cases in which the alternative either would produce additional impacts, or would forego substantial beneficial environmental effect, the text is prefaced with (–); otherwise the impact is similar to the proposed project and there is no change. 5. ALTERNATIVES Table 5-1 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Environmental Impact Category Alternative A: No Project Alternative Alternative B: Reduced Project Area (San Pablo Dam Road) Alternative C: Transportation-Circulation Element Change Only Alternative D: Land Use Designation Change Only Aesthetics (–) Does not achieve any aesthetic benefits of the proposed project. (-) Many proposed project benefits would be achieved but only along San Pablo Dam Road. (–) Does not achieve any aesthetic benefits of the proposed project. Similar to proposed project; circulation improvements remain in General Plan – no impact on aesthetic benefits of project Air Quality Impacts similar to proposed project. (+) Most of the adverse and beneficial impacts still present, but less than proposed project. Long-term potential benefits for air quality would probably not be obtained. Impacts would be the same as the proposed project. Biological Resources (-) Greater impacts than proposed project. Impacts identified for San Pablo Creek would remain. Some project impacts avoided. (-) Project impacts would remain; significant impact to San Pablo Creek riparian corridor where bridge crossing occurs due to street widening. Cultural Resources Potential project impacts from expansion of Appian Way remain, other effects eliminated. Impacts slightly less than proposed project (+) Project impacts would be avoided. (-)Potential project impacts from expansion of Appian Way remain. Geology and Soils Project impacts reduced, but existing buildings subject to ground shaking. Minimize project impacts Project impacts reduced, but existing buildings subject to ground shaking. Impacts same as with proposed project. Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 5-16 5. ALTERNATIVES Environmental Impact Category Alternative A: No Project Alternative Alternative B: Reduced Project Area (San Pablo Dam Road) Alternative C: Alternative D: Transportation-Circulation Land Use Designation Element Change Only Change Only Hazards/Hazardous Materials (-) Most impacts probably reduced, but no long-term effort to replace existing uses that may contribute to impacts; future roadway projects could uncover hazardous soils. (-) Some impacts avoided. Most impacts probably reduced, but no long-term effort to replace existing uses that may contribute to impacts. Same as proposed project, but future roadway projects could uncover hazardous soils. Hydrology (-) Some reduction in drainage impacts, but potential road projects could create greater impacts. Some reduction in impacts. Some reduction in impacts, although new development under existing General Plan would contribute to increased runoff. Same as proposed project, but roadway projects could result in increased runoff due to new impervious surface and deterioration of water quality. Land Use (–) No adverse impacts but alternative retains status quo. (–) Integration of land use on Appian Way would not occur. No adverse impacts, but status quo retained in Project Area. Same as the proposed project. Appian Way widening could interfere with development of some parcels. Noise Construction impacts avoided; roadway improvements could impact noise levels near residential properties. Most project impacts and benefits remain. Most project impacts and benefits eliminated. Noise impacts would occur as individual parcels are developed under General Plan. Same as the proposed project, but roadway improvements would increase traffic noise. Public Services/Utilities (-)Impacts on public services would be greater under General Plan buildout projections. (+) Impacts reduced. (+) Greater demand for services under existing General Plan buildout. Same as the proposed project. Transportation Impacts of project would be avoided, but benefits of Village Center concept would not occur. Significant and unavoidable impact could still occur. Most project impacts and benefits would remain. Significant and unavoidable impact could still occur. Impacts of project would be avoided, but benefit of Village Center would not occur. Significant and unavoidable impact could still occur due to future development and traffic diversion from I-80. Same as proposed project; significant and unavoidable impact could still occur. Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 5-17 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Page 6-1 6 REPORT PREPARATION EIR Authors Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Patrick Roche, Principal Planner EIR Team Mills Associates Carolyn A. Mills, Project Director Lynne LeRoy, Document Processing Robert Mills, Public Services Dowling Associates, Inc. (Transportation) Alice Chen LSA – Fresno (Noise and Air Quality Jason Paukovits Tony Chung Phil Ault) 6. REPORT PREPARATION Page 6-2 Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Persons Contacted Ron Bradley, Lieutenant, Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff Adrienne Blalock, Director of Facilities, West Contra Costa Unified School District Tony, Catrino, Facilities Planner, West Contra Costa Unified School District Ken Cook, Associate Engineer, West County Wastewater District Ron Guelden, Fire Inspector, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District Rick King, Keller Canyon Landfill Company Dave Rehnstrom, East Bay Municipal Utility District Source of Information Quad Knopf, Inc., Draft EIR, Downtown El Sobrante Redevelopment Project March 2003. Appendix A Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Responses Appendix A - continued Responses to NOP Appendix B Technical Traffic Data FINAL Transportation Analysis for: Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment Prepared for: Contra Costa County Community Development Department Submitted by: 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 250 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 839-1742; Fax: (510) 839-0871 www.dowlinginc.com Contact: Alice Chen x101 October 23, 2007 Table of Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................1 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................2 Traffic Impact Analysis Area .............................................................................2 Study Facilities.................................................................................................4 Level of Service Concept ...................................................................................4 Existing Conditions ...........................................................................................7 Regulatory Setting ..........................................................................................12 West County Action Plan 2000 Update .............................................................12 Congestion Management Program...................................................................13 Project Conditions...........................................................................................14 Project Description.........................................................................................14 Traffic Analysis...............................................................................................21 Transit Service ...............................................................................................23 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities......................................................................23 Parking..........................................................................................................24 Cumulative Traffic Conditions .........................................................................24 Impacts and Mitigation Measures...................................................................32 Significance Criteria .......................................................................................32 Traffic Impacts and Mitigations .......................................................................34 Alternative Modes Impacts and Mitigations......................................................37 Parking Impacts .............................................................................................40 CMP Compliance .............................................................................................41 List of Figures Figure 1. Study Area.........................................................................................2 Figure 2. Existing Roadway and Intersection Lane Geometrics ......................5 Figure 3. Existing Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes.............................7 Figure 4. Project Trip Distribution .................................................................18 Figure 5. Proposed Roadway Network...........................................................19 Figure 6. Existing Plus Project Intersection Traffic Volumes ........................20 Figure 7. Traffic Analysis Zones.………………...…………………………………….26 Figure 8. Cumulative Intersection Traffic Volumes .......................................27 List of Tables Table 1 - Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions .........................6 Table 2 - Road Segment Level of Service Definitions .......................................7 Table 3 - Existing Intersection Levels of Service ..............................................9 Table 4 - Existing Road Segment Levels of Service ..........................................9 Table 5 - Tra nsportation Service Objectives...................................................12 Table 6 - CMP LOS Intersection Standards .....................................................13 Table 7 - Project Trip Generation....................................................................16 Table 8 - Project Trip Distribution ..................................................................17 Table 9 – Existing Versus Existing+Project Intersection Levels of Service ..22 Table 10 - Existing Versus Existing+Project Segment Levels of Service........23 Table 11 – Comparison of Model Land Use Data between 2000 & GPA .........25 Table 12 – Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service ...................................28 Table 13 - Cumulative Road Segment Levels of Service .................................28 Table 14 – Peak Hour Roadway Travel Speeds and Delay Index ...................29 Table 15 – Comparison of Model Land Use Data between GP & GPA .............30 Table 16 – Volume and Volume -to-Capacity Ratio for GP & GPA ...................30 Table 17 – Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service – With Mitigations ….35 Downtown El Sobrante GPA 1 Introduction This report describes the transportation setting of the proposed Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment and the potential impacts of the project on the transportation system. The evaluation of potential impacts includes roadway operations, local circulation, and pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and parking provisions. The General Plan Amendment includes the establishment of new mixed -use land use designations for selected areas along San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way in downtown El Sobrante, and revisions to the Roadway Network Plan in the Transportation/Circulation Element, including removal of the San Pablo Dam Road Bypass Couplet and a reduction in the ultimate lane configuration to Appian Way. San Pablo Dam Road, between El Po rtal Drive and Appian Way, and Appian Way, between San Pablo Dam Road and Valley View Road, are the focus of the traffic analysis. Downtown El Sobrante GPA 2 Environmental Setting Traffic Impact Analysis Area The Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment (GPA) covers the proposed land use and circulation changes along both sides of San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way, extending from El Portal Drive on the west and extending northeast to Valley View Road. Figure 1 provides an overview of the area and the project site parcels involve d around the Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment . The West County Action Plan 2000 Update (West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee, July 2000) identifies several major roadways as routes of regional significance. Each route of regional significance within the project study area is described below. Figure 1. Study Area Intra-County Corridors San Pablo Dam Road provides a connection between I-80 and State Route 24 in Orinda. It provides local access to I-80 and serves as a commuter route. San Pablo Dam Road has been designated a Scenic Route in the Contra Costa County General Plan. Through downtown El Sobrante, this facility provides two travel lanes in each direction Downtown El Sobrante GPA 3 plus a two-way left-turn lane . Within the Project Area San Pablo Dam Road carries about 31,200 vehicles per day1. While many sections of San Pablo Dam Road provide Class II bicycle lanes (i.e., on-street bike lanes designated by a painted stripe), through downtown El Sobrante the roadway acc ommodates only a Class III bicycle route (i.e., bike route designated by posted signs, but no painted lane). The Contra Costa County General Plan Transportation-Circulation Element Map includes a one -way couplet through downtown El Sobrante that would require the conversion of existing San Pablo Dam Road to a westbound roadway. The new roadway (couplet) would have been constructed to the south of existing San Pablo Dam Road to accommodate eastbound traffic. However, the construction of a one- way couplet will not be pursued due to cost, difficult slopes, potential for community disruption, and its inconsistency with downtown revitalization efforts. The proposed project proposes to amend the Transportation-Circulation Element, which would maintain two directions of travel on San Pablo Dam Road with the provision for a new roadway connecting Pitt Way to Hillcrest Road . Major Arterials Appian Way provides a connection between San Pablo Dam Road and I-80. Through El Sobrante, this facility carries about 12,800 vehicles per day2. Appian Way provides Class II bicycle lanes through the Project Area. The Contra Costa County General Plan Transportation-Circulation Element Map includes widening of Appian Way to two lanes in each direction. The project proposes to amend the Transportation- Circulation Element to maintain one travel lane in each direction. El Portal Drive provides direct access between I-80 and the Project Area. El Portal Drive extends from San Pablo Dam Road to San Pablo Avenue. El Portal Drive carrie s about 14,000 vehicles per day3. Local Roadways In addition to the regionally significant routes identified above, the following local road is important to this study area. Hillcrest Road intersects San Pablo Dam Road within the Project Area. It extends south to Alpine Road and serves as the border for the neighboring City of San Pablo. 1 Count conducted on November 15, 2006 by the County’s PW Department. 2 Count conducted on April 17, 2007. Previous count conducted by Fehr & Peers Associates on January 15, 2003 was 11,200 vehicles per day. 3 Count conducted on April 17, 2007. Downtown El Sobrante GPA 4 Study Facilities The following intersections and roadway segments were chosen for study because of their importance to traffic circulation within the Project Area, and the ir importance as routes of regional significance : § San Pablo Dam Road / El Portal Drive (signalized intersection); § San Pablo Dam Road / Hillcrest Road (signalized intersection); § San Pablo Dam Road / Appian Way (signalized intersection); § El Portal Dr / I-80 WB Ramps (signalized intersection); § El Portal Dr / I-80 EB Ramps (signalized intersection); § Appian Way / Valley View Road (signalized intersection); § San Pablo Dam Road, between Appian Way and El Portal Drive (road segment); § Appian Way, between Valley View Road and San Pablo Dam Road (road segment); and § El Portal Drive, between I-80 EB Ramps and San Pablo Dam Road (road segment). The existing lane geometrics for the study intersections and roadway segments are shown in Figure 2. Traffic operations were examined at each study intersection during the weekday morning (AM) and weekday evening (PM) peak hours, consistent with peak commute traveler behavior in the area. Level of Service Concept Level of Service (LOS) is used to rank traffic operation on various types of roadway facilities based on traffic volumes and roadway capacity using a series of letter designations ranging from A to F. Generally, LOS A represents free flow conditions and LOS F represents forced flow or over -capacity conditions. The LOS designation is generally accompanied by a unit of measure that indicates a level of delay or a volume -to -capacity (v/c) ratio. In general, intersection service levels are determined by methods including volume -to-capacity calculations and computations of vehicular delay. Road segment service levels are typically defined by theoretical service volumes. The following describes the analysis methodologies for each facility type. Downtown El Sobrante GPA Existing Roadway and Intersection Lane Geometrics Figure 2 N S W E Not to Scale 34(12) AM(PM) Peak Hour Volumes Traffic Signal LEGEND Study Roadway 4 El Portal Dr / I-80 WB Ramp 5 El Portal Dr / I-80 EB Ramp 6 Appian Wy / Valley View Rd Appian Wy / San Pablo Dam Rd32Hillcrest Rd / San Pablo Dam RdEl Portal Dr / San Pablo Dam Rd1 PITT WYEL PORTAL DRSAN PABLO DAM RD HILLCREST RDSAN PABLO DAM RD APPIAN WYSAN PABLO DAM RD EL PORTAL DRI-80 WB OFF RAMP EL PORTAL DRI-80 EB ON RAMP APPIAN WYAPPIAN WY VALLEY VIEW RDI-80 EB OFF RAMP APPIAN W YAPPI AN WYVALLEY V I EW RDMANOR RD HIL LTOP D R LA COLINA RDEL P O R TALSAN P A L B ODAM RD D R HILLTOP R D HIL L C RESTRDEL SOBRANTE 4 5 1 2 6 31 111 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 22 2 2 1 11 LAA PALOMA RD Downtown El Sobrante GPA 6 Signalized Intersections The specific evaluation approach is documented in CCTA’s Technical Procedures (July 19, 2006). The methodology required by the CCTA for impact studies on intersections is known as Contra Costa Transportation Authority Level of Service (CCTALOS) intersection capacity analysis. This method relates the total traffic volume for critical opposing movements to the theoretical capacity for those movements. The resulting v/c ratio is related directly to LOS grades, as shown in Table 1. Table 1 - Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Level of Service Description V/C Ratio A Operations with very low control delay, up to 10 seconds per vehicle. This LOS occurs when progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. 0.00 – 0.60 B Operations with control delay greater than 10 and up to 20 seconds per vehicle. This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. 0.61 – 0.70 C Operations with control delay greater than 20 and up to 35 seconds per vehicle. These higher dela ys may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping. 0.71 – 0.80 D Operations with control delay greater than 35 and up to 55 seconds per vehicle. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. 0.81 – 0.90 E Operations with control delay greater than 55 and up to 80 seconds per vehicle. This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. 0.91 – 1.00 F Operation with control delay in excess of 80 seconds per vehicle. This level, considered to be unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with oversaturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and lo ng cycle lengths may also be contributing factors to such delay levels. > 1.00 Sources: Technical Procedures, CCTA, July 19, 2006 and Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000. Roadway Segments Downtown El Sobrante GPA 7 CCTA’s Technical Procedures does not contain a specified methodology for roadway segment analysis. For this study, service volumes presented in the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity Manual (2000) were utilized to assess peak hour, peak direction road segment operations. San Pablo Dam Road is a major arterial with a posted speed limit of 25 mph, and is therefore assumed to represent a Class IV facility as an arterial with 10 signals per mile and speeds of 30 miles per hour . Appian Way has slightly higher posted speed limit of 35 mph, and is assumed to be a Class III facility for an arterial with 5 signals per mile and speeds of 35 miles per hour . El Portal Road has posted speed limit of 35 mph west of I-80. Consequently, it is also assumed to be a Class III facility similar to Appian Way. Table 2 shows the LOS grades for these roads. Table 2 - Road Segment Level of Service Definitions Peak Direction Service Volume (veh/hr) San Pablo Dam Road 1 Appian Way3 Level of Service CLASS IV, 2 Lanes CLASS I V, 3 Lanes El Portal Drive2 CLASS I II CLASS III, 1 Lane CLASS III, 2 Lanes C = 1,200 = 1,900 = 480 = 480 = 1030 D 1,200 – 1,570 1,900 – 2,370 480 – 780 480 – 780 1030 – 1600 E 1,570 – 1,620 2,730 – 2,430 780 – 850 780 – 850 1600 – 1690 F > 1,620 > 2,430 > 850 > 850 > 1690 Notes: 1. Class IV (10 signals per mile), with two lanes in the peak direction. Class I V (10 signals per mile), with three lanes in peak direction. 2. Class III (5 signals per mile), with one lane in the peak direction. 3. Class III (5 signals per mile), with one lane in the peak direction. Class III (5 signals per mile), with two lanes in peak direction. Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000 , pg 10-10. Existing Conditions Existing Levels of Service Operating conditions were evaluated for the study intersections during both the AM and PM peak hours on a typical weekday. Traffic counts, shown in Figure 3, Existing Intersection Traffic Volumes, were conducted on three consecutive weekdays, April 17, 2007, Wednesday, to April 19, 2007 and are included in the technical appendix. The AM and PM peak traffic hours in the Project Area typically begin around 8:00 a.m. and 4:45 p.m., respectively. Table 3 shows the existing intersection levels of service, based on the methodologies discussed above. Detailed service level calculations are contained in the technical appendix. As shown, each study intersection operates at LOS B or better during each peak hour. 4 El Portal Dr / I-80 WB Ramp 5 El Portal Dr / I-80 EB Ramp 6 Appian Wy / Valley View Rd Appian Wy / San Pablo Dam Rd32Hillcrest Rd / San Pablo Dam RdEl Portal Dr / San Pablo Dam Rd1 PITT WYDowntown El Sobrante GPA Figure 3 Existing Intersection Volumes N S W E Not to Scale 34(12) AM(PM) Peak Hour Volumes Traffic Signal LEGENDEL PORTAL DRSAN PABLO DAM RD 1(0)1(34)5(21)435(431)15(28)56(104)64(163) 602(1020) 16(29) 388(419) 1046(695) 2(9)HILLCREST RDSAN PABLO DAM RD 42(46)0(0)71(56)0(0)0(0)0(0)0(0) 957(1457) 38(68) 0(0) 1466(1097) 54(42)APPIAN WYSAN PABLO DAM RD 17(8)17(26)36(21)167(170)17(29)484(287)184(417) 785(1040) 4(6) 176(180) 1086(825) 13(30)EL PORTAL DRI-80 WB OFF RAMP 452(717) 468(735) 287(415) 186(294)EL PORTAL DRI-80 EB ON RAMP 181(344)245(346)218(471)436(558)207(371) 91(130)APPIAN WYAPPIAN WY 820(629)96(42) 584(689)340(447)363(468) 4(8)VALLEY VIEW RDI-80 EB OFF RAMP APPIAN W Y APPI AN WYVALLEY V I EW RDMANOR RD HH I LL LL TO P D R LA COLLINA RDEL P O R TALSAN P A L B ODAM RD D R HILLTOP R D HIL L C RESTRDEL SOBRANTE 4 5 1 2 6 3 L A P A LOM A R D Downtown El Sobrante GPA 9 Table 3 - Existing Intersection Levels of Service Existing V/C ratio / LOS Study Intersection AM PM 1. San Pablo Dam Rd / El Portal Dr 0.65 / B 0.65 / B 2. San Pablo Dam Rd / Hillcrest Rd 0.49 / A 0.53 / A 3. San Pablo Dam Rd / Appian Way 0.72 / C 0.60 / A 4. El Portal Dr / I-80 WB Ramps 0.42 / A 0.64 / B 5. El Portal Dr / I-80 EB Ramps 0.39 / A 0.69 / B 6. Appian Way / Valley View Dr 1 0.51 / A 0.58 / A Notes: 1. Although this intersection is striped as two through lanes and one right-turn pocket in the southbound direction, it operates and was therefore analyzed as one through lane and one right- turn lane. This assumption is based on the approaching lanes and their geometry, given right approaching lane is relatively short in length. Source: CCTALOS based on Technical Procedures, CCTA, July 19, 2006. Existing road segment levels of service are shown in Table 4 for each direction of travel during the AM and PM peak hours. San Pablo Dam Road currently operates at LOS D during both peak hours. Appian Way and El Portal Drive both also operate at LOS D during both peak hours. Table 4 - Existing Road Segment Levels of Service Road Segment Existing Volume / LOS AM PM 1. San Pablo Dam Rd 995 / C (EB) 1537 / D (WB) 1525 / D (EB) 1153 / C (WB) 2. Appian Way 377 / C (NB) 668 / D (SB) 623 / D (NB) 486 / D (SB) 3. El Portal Drive 453 / C (NB) 506 / D (SB) 616 / D (NB) 563 / D (SB) Assume AM peak is from 7-9am, and PM peak is from 4-7pm. Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Res earch Board, 2000. Side Street Delay The side street delays for minor streets along San Pablo Dam Road were observed during the peak period during several signal cycles to determine whether side street traffic experienced delays beyond one signal cycle. Side street observations were made at Hillcrest, Appian Way, La Colina, and El Portal. Queues determined during the “red” phase were observed to see if all vehicles cleared during the next “green” phase. Observations of at least 25 cycles during each of the AM and PM peak hours found few instances were the queues on the side streets did not clear. At Appian Way, one instance out of 25 cycles during the AM peak hour and three out of 25 cycles during the PM peak hour, the queue did not clear. At El Portal , only one instance out of 32 was observed during the AM peak hour where the queue did not clear. Downtown El Sobrante GPA 10 Delay Index The delay index represents the ratio of congested travel time to uncongested travel time along a corridor. Based on the Traffic Service Objective s Monitoring Report prepared in 2004, the delay index for San Pablo Dam Road from I-80 to State Route 24 in Orinda was 1.3 and 1.2 for eastbound and westbound traffic, respectively, during the AM peak hour, and 1.5 eastbound and 1.2 westbound during the PM peak hour. Transit Public transit service in the area is provided by Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit ). AC Transit bus stops are located throughout the Project Area in both directions of San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way. AC Transit Ro ute 70 runs on Appian Way, while Routes 70, 74, 669, and 679 provide service to San Pablo Dam Road. AC Transit Route 70 travels between El Cerrito Del Norte BART and the Richmond Parkway Transit Center with a stop at the Hilltop Park and Ride. In the Project Area the route travels along San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way with scheduled stops at San Pablo Dam Road / El Portal Drive and Appian Way / La Paloma Road. Weekday southbound and northbound service operates with 30-minute headways from 5:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Weekend service is provided with 60-minute headways between about 6:30 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. AC Transit Route 74 travels between Marina Bay in Richmond to the Orinda BART station. In El Sobrante the route travels on San Pablo Dam Road with scheduled stops in the Project Area at San Pablo Dam Road / Appian Way. Weekday service operates from about 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. with approximately 30-minute headways in both directions. Weekend service to El Sobrante operates from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. with hourly headways in both directions. AC Transit Route 669 and 679 provide school service with one bus each morning and afternoon per route. Previous studies4 indicated that the bus boardings and alightings through the downtown area are relatively low, w hich may be attributed to the poor accessibility of the existing bus stops from the surrounding neighborhoods, the low density of development along these corridors, and lack of bus stop amenities. 4 The Downtown El Sobrante Transportation and Land Use Plan indicated low ridership. Downtown El Sobrante GPA 11 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities An inventory of existi ng bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the Project Area was conducted. Sidewalks are currently provided along most sections of Appian Way and all sections of San Pablo Dam Road through the Project Area. Pedestrian-actuated crossings are provided at each signalized study intersection. There is an actuated signalized pedestrian crossing on San Pablo Dam Road west of Pitt Way. In addition, there is an actuated signalized pedestrian crossing and fire station access on Appian Way between Pebble Drive and La Paloma. Bicycle lanes are classified as Class I, II or III as follows: § Class I bike paths are physically separated from motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic; § Class II on-street bike lanes are defined by a painted stripe; § Class III bike routes are represented only by posted route signs. According to the Contra Costa County Countywide Bicycle Master Plan (May 1995), 0.5 percent of commute trips are made via bicycle county-wide; in El Sobrante, bicycles are used for 0.4 percent of commute trips. San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way have been designated as part of the bikeway network with on-street facilities (Class II bicycle lanes or Class III bicycle route designation). While most of San Pablo Dam Road provides Class II bicycle lanes, only the Class III bicycle route designation exists through downtown El Sobrante. Appian Way provides Class II bike lanes between San Pablo Dam Road and Valley View Road, and continues with Class III bicycle route designation to the north. Parking On-street parking is allowed on the north side of San Pablo Dam Road for up to two hours, except for a short section that is limited to 20 minutes. On the south side, parking is prohibited except for a short section near Appian Way, allowing two -hour parking. On-street parking bays are provided periodically along Appian Way. Throughout the project area, off–street private parking is provided to serve commercial uses. Observations made between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 and 6:00 p.m., on Tuesday and Wednesday, May 8th and 9th, 2007 found less than half of the on-street parking spaces occupied with most of the parking occurring in off-street parking lots. Downtown El Sobrante GPA 12 Regulatory Setting Contra Costa County has several planning documents that provide policy and procedural guidance for transp ortation planning in the County. A brief description of key documents is provided below. West County Action Plan 2000 Update Service level standards for Routes of Regional Significance are to be established through a cooperative process among jurisdictions and are to be institutionalized in documents called Action Plans. In 2000, the West Contra Costa County Action Plan for Routes of Regional Significance was adopted for the West County jurisdictions. Traffic Service Objectives (TSOs) were established for these facilities. Table 5 summarizes the TSO’s for the routes of regional significance within and near the study area, including El Portal Drive, San Pablo Dam Road, and Appian Way. In addition to TSOs, the Action Plans contain actions that were cooperatively determined by the cities and the County to address the regional impacts of new development. Specific actions identified to help achieve each TSO goal are not reproduced here but can be found in the Action Plan. Table 5 - Transportation Service Objectives Roadway TSO El Portal Dr Maintain LOS D on all segments of the roadway. By 2005, increase bus ridership by ten percent. By 2005, provide a bikeway network. San Pablo Dam Rd Maintain a delay index of 2.0 or better by 2005. Maintain a maximum wait time of no more than one cycle length for drivers on side streets. Achieve a drive alone rate of no more than 75%. Appian Way Maintain LOS E on all segments of the roadway. By 2005, increase bus ridership by ten percent. By 2005, provide a bikeway network. Source: West County Action Plan 2000 Update, West Contra Costa County Transportation Advisory Committee, July 2000. Downtown El Sobrante GPA 13 Congestion Management Program Passage of Proposition 111 in 1990 required each urban county in California to designate a Congestion Management Agency (CMA) to prepare and update a Congestion Management Program (CMP). In the fall of 1990, Contra Costa County and Contra Costa cities designated CCTA as the CMA. The most current CMP was updated by CCTA in 2001. An objective of the CMP is to apply and monitor traffic LOS standards on designated state highways and principal streets, establishing a CMP Road Network. The CMP Road Network is a sub-set of the Routes of Regional Significance. The Contra Costa County CM P roads in the Project Area include San Pablo Dam Road and El Portal Drive. The CMP intersection LOS Standards for these roadways are set forth in Table 6. Table 6 - CMP LOS Intersection Standards Roadway LOS Intersection Standard El Portal Dr LOS E at most signalized intersections. LOS F is an exception at the intersections of Road 20 and I-80 ramps. San Pablo Dam Rd LOS E at most signalized intersections. LOS F is an exception at the intersections of the I-80 ramps. Source: Contra Costa County Congestion Management Program, Contra Costa County Transportation Authority, October 2001. Downtown El Sobrante GPA 14 Project Conditions Project Description The County Board of Supervisors approved the Downtown El Sobrante Transportation and Land Use Plan (December 2001) as a planning document that establishes a vision for a more livable community in downtown El Sobrante. The downtown is envisioned as a place that invites walking and bicycling both among residents and visitors, while continuing to serve local and regional vehicle traffic. Since then the Contra Costa County Community Development Department and Public Works Department have been working with the El Sobrante community, specifically through the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Committee, on a scaled -back version of the plan that would bring about less dramatic changes to the area. The scaled -back version of the plan reflects the community’s sentiment that while revitalization of El Sobrante’s commercial area is desirable, and updating corresponding policies in the General Plan are necessary, they are concerned about the intensity of development and impacts associated with this development. They are particularly concerned about traffic impacts associated with the proposed changes to the General Plan. Land Use Element Changes Implementation of the proposed project would include the following changes to the Land Use Element: § For the area on San Pablo Dam Road between El Portal Drive and Appian Way, the project would re -designate the land use from commercial to mixed -use. The new mixed use designation would accommodate the addition of a maximum of 221,920 square feet of office and retail space and a maximum of 204 multi -family units. The actual amount of development that eventually occurs could be less than the maximum amounts set forth. The focal point would be the Village Center within an approximately 25-acre area bounded by Hillcrest Road and Pitt Way. § The mixed -use designation would also extend along selected portions of Appian Way between San Pablo Dam Road and Valley View Road. The added development could reach up -to 180,665 square feet of office and retail space and 286 multi -family units. Based on historic development patterns in El Sobrante and the vicinity, it is projected that 70 percent of the mixed -use designations would be developed with retail space and the remaining 30 percent would be developed with commercial and professional office uses. Downtown El Sobrante GPA 15 These assumptions are made for the purpose of analysis. The actual mix of uses within the mixed use areas will depend on development trends and market opportunities over time. Transportation -Circulation Element Changes The proposed project includes two changes to the Transportation- Circulation Element amendments: § The General Plan currently provides that San Pablo Dam Road would be converted to a westbound travel way as part of a one -way couplet through El Sobrante. The Downtwon El Sobrante General Plan Amendment would amend this General Plan provision and maintain San Pablo Dam Road as a two -way facility. The couplet concept would no longer be reflected in General Plan maps or diagrams. Instead, the cross -section of San Pablo Dam Road would be retained as a four-lane facility. In addition, streetscape improvements including improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities would be established along San Pablo Dam Road. A new two -lane roadway, based on an extension of Pitt Way to Hillcrest Road , would be included. § The General Plan provides that Appian Way would be widened from an existing two -lane configuration to a four -lane facility in the future. The Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment proposes to maintain the existing configuration of two vehicular travel lanes and the bike lanes. Trip Generation Projections Trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation (7th Edition) Manual were used to estimate the trips generated by the residential, retail and office land uses proposed as part of the project. Adjustments were made to the gross total trip generation to account for the benefits of vehicle trip reduction at multi -use facilities and pass-by trips. Appropriate mixed -use reductions were estimated using ITE’s methodology in the Trip Generation Handbook. To account for mixed -use and pass-by trips, a reduction of 15 percent was applied to the gross total trip generation. Survey results show larger reduction factors than 15 percent; however, to be conservative because the specific use is not known at this time, this analysis assumes only 15 percent. This percentage reduction amounts to between a 24 and 29 percent reduction to the shopping related trips, which is within the range for trip generation adjustments by use of pass-by for shopping center (ranges from 0 to 60 percent reduction) as cited in the CCTA Technical Procedures Update. Trip reduction benefits of mixed use are less prevalent in the morning, and the ITE pass-by rates are only provided for the PM peak period. Therefore the reduction is not Downtown El Sobrante GPA 16 assumed for the AM peak hour. It should also be noted that the 15% reduction is consistent with that applied in the March 2003 Downtown El Sobrante Redevelopment Draft EIR. Table 7 summarizes the resulting trip generation during the AM and PM peak hours, as well as average daily conditions. Table 7 - Project Trip Generation Trip Rate Trips Land Use Units In Out Total In Out Total San Pablo Dam Road Corridor Multi-Family Residential: (Dwelling Units)1 AM Peak Hour 204 0.10 0.41 0.51 21 83 104 PM Peak Hour 204 0.40 0.22 0.62 82 44 126 Daily 204 3.36 3.36 6.72 685 685 1370 Retail: (1,000 Square Feet)2 AM Peak Hour 155 0.80 0.51 1.31 124 80 204 PM Peak Hour 155 1.12 1.42 2.54 173 221 394 Daily 155 21.51 21.51 43.02 3342 3342 6684 Office: (1,000 Square Feet)3 AM Peak Hour 67 1.36 0.19 1.55 91 12 103 PM Peak Hour 67 0.25 1.24 1.49 17 82 99 Daily 67 5.51 5.51 11.02 367 367 734 Multi-Use Reduction:4 PM Peak Hour -41 -52 -93 Subtotal AM Peak Hour 236 175 411 PM Peak Hour 231 295 526 Daily 4353 4342 8695 Appian Way Corridor Multi-Family Residential: (Dwelling Units)1 AM Peak Hour 283 0.10 0.41 0.51 29 115 144 PM Peak Hour 283 0.40 0.22 0.62 114 61 175 Daily 283 3.36 3.36 6.72 951 951 1902 Retail: (1,000 Square Feet)2 AM Peak Hour 126 0.87 0.56 1.42 110 70 180 PM Peak Hour 126 1.13 1.44 2.57 143 182 325 Daily 126 21.54 21.54 43.08 2724 2724 5448 Office: (1,000 Square Feet)3 AM Peak Hour 54 1.36 0.19 1.55 74 10 84 PM Peak Hour 54 0.25 1.24 1.49 14 67 81 Daily 54 5.51 5.51 11.02 298 298 596 Multi-Use Reduction:4 PM Peak Hour -41 -47 -88 Subtotal AM Peak Hour 213 196 409 PM Peak Hour 230 263 493 Daily 3932 3926 7858 TOTAL PROJECT TRIPS AM Peak Hour 449 371 820 PM Peak Hour 461 558 1019 Daily 8285 8268 16553 Downtown El Sobrante GPA 17 Notes: 1 Multi-Family Residential total trip generation determined using average trip generation rate for LU 220 (Apartments). The number of t rip s then calculated by multiplying the trip generation rate by the number of dwelling units. The rates associated with the “Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic” are used when available. 2 Retail total trip generation determined using regression equations for LU 814 (Specialty Retail). Trip generation rates then calculated by dividing the number of trips by the square footage. Since neither average rate or regression equation is available for the AM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic for Specialty Retail, the AM peak hour trip generation was determined using regression equat ion for the AM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic for LU 820 (Shopping Center) which is identified in the ITE Trip Generation Manual as a related use and is based on a much larger sample size including neighborhood and community shopping centers. 3 Office total trip generation determined using average trip generation rate for LU 710 (General Office). The number of t rip s then calculated by multiplying the trip generation rate by the number of dwelling units. The rates associated with the “Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic” are used when available. 4 A reduction of 15 percent has been applied to all uses during the PM peak hour to account for the trip reduction benefit of a multi-use facility. Daily total number of trips adjusted lower by the PM peak hour reductions. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition. As shown in Table 7, approximately 8,695 daily trips are expected with the San Pablo Dam Road development and about 7,858 daily trips are expected with the Appian Way development. During the morning peak hour, a total o f about 820 trips would be generated by both sites; and during the evening peak hour, a total of about 1,020 trips would be generated. Trip Distribution and Assignment Distribution and assi gnment of project trips was estimated using the CCTA Model select zone for traffic analysis zones (TAZs) in El Sobrante. The select zone results were used to estimate distribution patterns to local gateways. Table 8, Project Trip Distribution, and Figure 4 summarizes the various distribution patterns. Using the percentages shown in Table 8, project trips were assigned to the road network based on their location. The project trips were added to the existing counts for existing plus project conditions. The proposed roadway system with the project is shown in Figure 5. The lane configuration on San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way remain unchanged, but a new roadway connection is provided between Pitt Way and Hillcrest Road . The Existing Plus Project traffic volumes are shown in Figure 6. Table 8 - Project Trip Distribution Gateway AM Distribution PM Distribution East of San Pablo Dam Rd and Appian Way Intersection 15% 15% East of Appian Way and Valley View Rd Intersection 8% 9% W est of Appian Way and Valley View Rd Intersection 24% 25% North of El Portal Dr and San Pablo Dam Rd Intersection 27% 21% West of El Portal Dr and San Pablo Dam Rd Intersection 26% 30% NSWENot to ScaleFigure 4Trip Distribution for Existing and Existing plus Project ScenariosDowntown El Sobrante GPALEGENDStudy IntersectionYTrip DistributionAM% (PM%)APPIAN WYA P P I A N W Y V A L L E Y V I E W R D MANOR RDHILLTOP DRLA COLLINA RD PITT WY ELPOR T A LS ANPABLODAMRDDR HILLTOPRDHILLCRESRTDL AA PA L O M A RD 451263ELSOBRANTE24% (25%)27% (21%)26% (30%)15% (15%)8 % (9 %) Figure 5 Proposed Roadway Network N S W E Not to Scale 34(12) AM(PM) Peak Hour Volumes Traffic Signal LEGEND Study Roadway PITT WY4 El Portal Dr / I-80 WB Ramp 5 El Portal Dr / I-80 EB Ramp 6 Appian Wy / Valley View Rd Appian Wy / San Pablo Dam Rd32Hillcrest Rd / San Pablo Dam RdEl Portal Dr / San Pablo Dam Rd1 APPIAN W YAPPI AN WYVALLEY V I EW RDMANOR RD H ILLTOP D R LA COLLINA RDEL P O R TALSAN P A L B ODAM RD D R HILLTOP R D HIL L C RESTRDEL SOBRANTE 4 5 1 2 6 3 LAA PA LOMA RDEL PORTAL DRSAN PABLO DAM RD HILLCREST RDSAN PABLO DAM RD APPIAN WYSAN PABLO DAM RD EL PORTAL DRI-80 WB OFF RAMP EL PORTAL DRI-80 EB ON RAMP APPIAN WYAPPIAN WY VALLEY VIEW RDI-80 EB OFF RAMP Downtown El Sobrante GPA 1 1111 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 22 2 2 1 11 1 4 El Portal Dr / I-80 WB Ramp 5 El Portal Dr / I-80 EB Ramp 6 Appian Wy / Valley View Rd Appian Wy / San Pablo Dam Rd32Hillcrest Rd / San Pablo Dam RdEl Portal Dr / San Pablo Dam Rd1 PITT WYDowntown El Sobrante GPA Figure 6 Existing Plus Project Intersection Volumes N S W E Not to Scale 34(12) AM(PM) Peak Hour Volumes Traffic Signal LEGEND Study RoadwayEL PORTAL DRSAN PABLO DAM RD 1(0)1(34)5(21)556(576)15(28)56(104)64(163) 719(1228) 16(29) 466(590) 1142(951) 2(9)HILLCREST RDSAN PABLO DAM RD 42(46)0(0)71(56)0(0)0(0)0(0)0(0) 1195(1810) 38(68) 0(0) 1640(1524) 54(42)APPIAN WYSAN PABLO DAM RD 17(8)17(26)36(21)196(209)17(29)652(576)353(735) 811(1129) 4(6) 208(215) 1121(894) 13(30)EL PORTAL DRI-80 WB OFF RAMP 497(811) 522(811) 287(415) 226(356)EL PORTAL DRI-80 EB ON RAMP 214(421)290(440)218(471)530(696)207(371) 118(137)APPIAN WAYAPPIAN WY 820(629)96(42) 584(689)448(620)452(681) 4(8)VALLEY VIEW RDI-80 EB OFF RAMP APPIAN W YAPPI AN WYVALLEY V I EW RDMANOR RD HILLTOP DR LA COLLINA RDEL P O R TALSAN P A L B ODAM RD D R HILLTOP R D HIL L C RESTRDEL SOBRANTE 4 5 1 2 6 3 LAA PALOMA RD Downtown El Sobrante GPA 21 Traffic Analysis Analysis Scenarios The traffic analysis was performed in a manner consistent with the Technical Proce dures, Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), July 19, 2006. The General Plan Amendment “Project” changes the ultimate land uses on selected blocks within the study area (see Figure 1)., The analysis identifies project impacts on the surrounding transportation networ k under the following scenarios: § Existing Conditions: This scenario reflects transportation conditions in 2007. § Existing Plus Project Conditions : This scenario represents near -term transportation conditions with the General Plan Amendment. § Cumulative Conditions: This scenario represents long-term forecasted conditions with the General Plan Amendment (GPA). It considers future transportation conditions based on GPA growth through the year 2030 within Contra Costa County including the Project Area. Traffic Forecasting The cumulative scenario considers existing traffic, future background (through) traffic due to regional growth, traffic generated by development likely to occur in the Project Area, and project (GPA) traffic. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) Travel Demand Model5 was utilized to extract the base and future traffic volumes for year 2000 and 2030, respectively. The 2030 land use and socio - economic data were from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG ) Projections 2003. Year 2000 and 2030 model volumes were used to develop adjusted 2030 intersection turning movement volumes using the “Furness” process described in the CCTA Technical Procedures . For the 2030 roadway volumes, the increment in AM and PM peak hour volumes from 2000 to 2030 was applied to the existing counts. The origin-destination matrix estimation (ODME) balancing procedures were not applied for this study. Project traffic is also included within the cumulative scenario and will be discussed further in the next section. 5 The forecasts were developed using the CCTA Model, version 4.8. Downtown El Sobrante GPA 22 Existing Plus Project Levels of Service The CCTALOS methodology was applied, producing the LOS results presented in Table 9 for Existing Plus Project conditions. Addition of project traffic would increase the volume -to -capacity (v/c) ratio at all the study intersections. However, with the addition of project traffic to existing conditions, all intersections would operate at LOS D or better. Table 9 – Existing Versus Existing Plus Project Intersection Levels of Service Existing (v/c ratio / LOS) Existing + Project (v/c ratio / LOS) Study Intersection AM PM AM PM 1. San Pablo Dam Rd / El Portal Dr 0.65 / B 0.65 / B 0.74 / C 0.82 / D 2. San Pablo Dam Rd / Hillcrest Rd 0.49 / A 0.53 / A 0.54 / A 0.63 / B 3. San Pablo Dam Rd / Appian Way 0.72 / C 0.60 / A 0.84 / D 0.76 / C 4. El Portal Dr / I-80 WB Ramps 0.42 / A 0.64 / B 0.45 / A 0.68 / C 5. El Portal Dr / I-80 EB Ramps 0.39 / A 0.69 / B 0.43 / A 0.75 / C 6. Appian Way / Valley View Dr 1 0.51 / A 0.58 / A 0.54 / A 0.64 / B Notes: 1. Although this intersection is striped as two through lanes and one right-turn pocket in the southbound direction, it operates and was therefore analyzed as one through lane and one right-turn lane. This assumption is based on the approaching lanes and their geometry, given right approaching lane is relatively short in length. Source: CCTALOS based on Technical Procedures, CCTA, July 19, 2006. With the addition of project traffic, the peak hour volumes on the roadways would increase. The resulting volumes and roadway LOS are shown in Table 10. With the project, roadway LOS drops to LOS F on San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way, and to LOS E during the PM peak hour on El Portal Drive. Downtown El Sobrante GPA 23 Table 10 – Existing Versus Existing Plus Project Road Segment Levels of Service Study Intersection Existing Volume / LOS (Peak Direction) Existing + Project Volume / LOS (Peak Direction) AM PM AM PM 1. San Pablo Dam Rd 1 995 / C (EB) 1537 / D (WB) 1525 / D (EB) 1153 / C (WB) 1233 / D (EB) 1711 / F (WB) 1878 / F (EB) 1580 / E (WB) 2. Appian Way2 377 / C (NB) 668 / D (SB) 623 / D (NB) 486 / D (SB) 578 / D (NB) 865 / F (SB) 976 / F (NB) 814 / E (SB) 3. El Portal Drive 453 / C (NB) 506 / D (SB) 616 / D (NB) 563 / D (SB) 53 1 / D (NB) 635 / D (SB) 787 / E (NB) 708 / D (SB) Note: 1. With existing CLASS IV functional category 2. With existing geometry, 1 -lane per direction Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000 Transit Service The proposed General Plan Amendment is likely to generate new demand for transit service. The Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment includes several measures that seek to improve transit ridership. These include development of mixed -use neighborhoods that are pedestrian oriented with improved sidewalks and/or bus stop bays where possible.. The goal of these proposals for future improvements is to create an environment that encourages transit use and provides greater opportunity for the community to use public transit. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities The proposed Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment is likely to increase pedestrian and bicycle activity in El Sobrante. Because t he General Plan Amendment will affect San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way, more protected pedestrian crossings of these roadways may occur. Implementation of the General Plan Amendment will not directly disrupt, interfere or conflict with existing or planned bicycle and pedestrian facilities, but, rather, will enhance them w ith the implementation of pedestrian and bicycle improvements. Although the exact alignment of such improvements is not known at this time, the General Plan Amendment envisions improved sidewalks and cycling facilities, and pedestrian-oriented ground floo r commercial uses, which will enhance the safety and travel experience for pedestrians and bicyclists. Without the widening of Appian Way to four -lanes, the pedestrian crossings would be shorter with the two -lane configuration. Downtown El Sobrante GPA 24 Parking Although specific d evelopment proposal are not known at this time, the new land use designations along San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way are likely to generate new parking demand. The extent of such demand, and the location of uses generating such demand, cannot be determined at this time, and would be identified and evaluated on a project-specific basis. The Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment estimated that an additional 250 parking spaces would be developed in the downtown area, bringing the total to 1,000 spaces. Cumulative Traffic Conditions Trip Generation Projections For the cumulative analysis, the trip generation is handled internally in Contra Costa Traffic Authority (CCTA) traffic demand model. The number of households and jobs were entered in the land use database to estimate the trips generated by the residential, retail and office land uses proposed as part of the project. The CCTA model predefines employment rate to 3.32 employees per 1,000 office -square -feet, and 1.62 employees per 1,000 retail-square-feet. The commercial square feet projected was divided into 30% for office and 70% for retail. According to the CCTA model, office employment is accounted in other employment (OTHEMP), while the retail employment is accounted as RETEMP. The dwelling uni ts were assumed to be multi -family units. The total population was based on the existing household population rate per Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) in the CCTA model. Since the boundaries of the GPA fall within several TAZs and the model already assumes some growth in these TAZs, a detailed review of the land uses was conducted to estimate what portion of the growth was attributed to the GPA and what portion was outside of the GPA but within the TAZ. Table 11 shows the total household and employment numbers for each CCTA TAZ within the GPA area. The trip generation process is handled by the CCTA model including the daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour trips. Downtown El Sobrante GPA 25 Table 11 –Model Land Use Data 2000 Land Use Total GPA Project Land Use Total CCTA TAZ Year 2000 MF Households Year 2000 Total Employment Year 2030 MF Households Year 2030 Total Employment 10185 392 184 596 712 10186 531 603 341 411 10187 389 268 403 285 10189 898 508 957 621 10192 898 311 1,033 311 10193 577 174 988 175 10197 900 312 1,011 312 Total 4,585 2,360 5,329 2,827 Figure 7 illustrates the model zones listed above. Trip Distribution and Assignment Trip distribution and assignment were done by using the CCTA Decennial Model with Projections 2003 Land Use to distribute and assign traffic based on the revised land use. Figure 7 shows the cumulative intersection traffic volumes. These volume s represent the adjusted volume s that use the increment from the model to adjust the existing counts as described in the Technical Procedures’ Furness adjustment. Cumulative Levels of Service The CCTALOS methodology was applied to the cumulative scenario . Table 12 summarizes the LOS results of 2030 General Plan Amendment (GPA) scenario . The GPA scenario assumes no roadway modification. Both San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way will operate under existing roadway condition, 4-lane and 2-lane for San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way, respectively. The addition of project traffic would contribute to congestion at several study intersections under Cumulative conditions . Traffic volumes would become 1% to 5% higher than capacity. By Year 2030, two intersections would operate at LOS F. § Operations at San Pablo Dam Road / El Portal Drive would deter iorate to LOS F by 2030 during the AM pe ak hour. § Operations at San Pablo Dam Road / Appian Way would deteriorate to LOS F by 2030 during both AM and PM peak hour s. 4 El Portal Dr / I-80 WB Ramp 5 El Portal Dr / I-80 EB Ramp 6 Appian Wy / Valley View Rd Appian Wy / San Pablo Dam Rd32Hillcrest Rd / San Pablo Dam RdEl Portal Dr / San Pablo Dam Rd1 PITT WYDowntown El Sobrante GPA Cumulative Intersection Volumes N S W E Not to Scale 34(12) AM(PM) Peak Hour Volumes Traffic Signal LEGEND Study Roadway APPIAN W YAPPI AN WYVALLEY V I EW RDMANOR RD HILLTOP DR LA COLLINA RDEL P O R TALSAN P A L B ODAM RD D R HILLTOP R D HIL L C RESTRDEL SOBRANTE 4 5 1 2 6 3 LAA P ALOMA RDEL PORTAL DRSAN PABLO DAM RD 1(0)1(34)5(21)435(635)15(28)64(224)379(374) 791(1803) 16(29) 388(523) 1737(977) 2(9)HILLCREST RDSAN PABLO DAM RD 42(53)0(0)107(108)0(0)0(0)0(0)0(0) 1096(2383) 63(123) 0(0) 2088(1428) 59(42)APPIAN WYSAN PABLO DAM RD 38(28)46(92)59(47)276(422)52(92)580(454)243(681) 863(1706) 8(12) 428(326) 1589(955) 48(70)EL PORTAL DRI-80 WB OFF RAMP 676(855) 490(851) 415(874) 340(294)EL PORTAL DRI-80 EB ON RAMP 181(344)557(490)224(471)518(833)215(371) 91(151)APPIAN WYAPPIAN WY 1102(629)264(119) 625(853)561(527)453(933) 7(140)VALLEY VIEW RDI-80 EB OFF RAMP Downtown El Sobrante GPA 28 Table 12 – Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service Summary Study Intersection 2030 with GPA1 (v/c ratio / LOS) AM PM 1. San Pablo Dam Rd / El Portal Dr 1.05 / F 0.99 / E 2. San Pablo Dam Rd / Hillcrest Rd 0.69 / B 0.85 / D 3. San Pablo Dam Rd / Appian Way 1.05 / F 1.03 / F 4. El Portal Dr / I-80 WB Ramps 0.61 / B 0.96 / E 5. El Portal Dr / I-80 EB Ramps 0.58 / A 0.77 / C 6. Appian Way / Valley View Dr 2 0.66 / B 0.86 / D Notes: 1. Assumes 2-lane Appian Way 2. A lthough this intersection is strip ed as two through lanes and one right- turn pocket in the southbound direction, it operates and was therefore analyzed as one through lane and one right-turn lane. This assumption is based on the approaching lanes and their geometry, given right approachin g lane is relatively short in length. Source: CCTALOS based on Technical Procedures, CCTA, July 19, 2006. Future road segment levels of service are shown in Table 13. Under cumulative conditions, all three roadways would operate at LOS F conditions during one or both of the peak hours . As noted above, the trip generation, trip distribution, and assignment were conducted using the CCTA Decennial Model, which in some cases results in directional roadway volumes under the Cumulative condition as shown in Table 13 that are lower than the Existing Plus Project condition shown in Table 10. This difference can be attributed to the structure of the Countywide model, including trip generation based on household survey data for the region rather than standard ITE rates, and mode choice consistent with the MTC model. Table 13 - Cumulative Road Segment Levels of Service Study Intersection 2030 with Project (GPA) Volume / LOS (Peak Direction) AM PM 1. San Pablo Dam Rd 1 1159 / C (EB) 2195 / F (WB) 2506 / F (EB) 1536 / D (WB) 2. Appian Way2 717 / D (NB) 908 / F (SB) 1099 / F (NB) 968 / F (SB) 3. El Portal Drive 768 / D (NB) 514 / D (SB) 931 / F (NB) 887 / F (SB) Note: 1. Class IV, 3-3 couplet for 2030 No Project; Class IV, 2 lanes each way for 2030 with Project 2. Class III, 2 lanes each way for 2030 No Project; Class IV, 1 lane each way for 2030 with Project Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000 Downtown El Sobrante GPA 29 Under GPA, San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way would operate at LOS F during AM and PM peak hours by 2030. Furthermore , LOS F on El Portal Drive would occur by 2030 during the PM peak hour . Delay Index Delay Index is calculated based on the total free flow travel time and total average travel time, on selected links in the CCTA TransCAD travel demand mo del, during peak hours. ilink of timeflow free FFT i,link of time travelaverage t Index,Delay DI where DI i i = = = =å å i i i i FFT t The delay index was determined for San Pablo Dam Road between I- 80 and State Route 24 in Orinda. The results are shown in Table 14. Table 14 – Peak Hour Roadway Travel Speeds and Delay Index TSO Average Speed (mph) Delay Index San Pablo Dam Rd (I -80 to SR 24) TSO EB WB TSO EB WB 2030 Cumulative Plus Project AM Peak Hour Roadway 15 34.33 25.76 2 1.17 1.49 PM Peak Hour Roadway 15 23.17 34.29 2 1.72 1.16 For San Pablo Dam Road, both average speed and delay index satisfy the Traffic Service Objectives (TSO) for both AM and PM Peak Hours. Cumulative No Project Comparison The cumulative conditions with the project traffic were compared to the cumulative impacts of the c urrent General Plan. The land use inputs to the CCTA model were prepared for the current General Plan using the same approach as was applied to the GPA. The General Plan household and total employment are compared to the GPA land uses in Table 15. While the total number of households does not change dramatically, the total employment for the GPA represents a decrease of almost 5,000 jobs when compared to the General Plan Downtown El Sobrante GPA 30 Table 15 – Model Land Use Comparison GP Land Use Total GPA Project Land Use Total CCTA TAZ Year 2030 MF Households Year 2030 Total Employment Year 2030 MF Households Year 2030 Total Employment 10185 491 2182 596 712 10186 341 739 341 411 10187 483 622 403 285 10189 1236 1733 957 621 10192 921 1106 1033 311 10193 1021 551 988 175 10197 1092 702 1011 312 Total 5586 7636 5329 2827 The current General Plan includes the widening of Appian Way to four lanes and the three -lane couplet on San Pablo Dam Road between El Portal and Appian Way. The GP land uses are assigned to the roadway network and the differences in volumes were compared to the GPA volumes as shown in Table 16. These volumes are raw model volumes, which have not been adjusted. The GPA volumes shown here are not directly comparable to those shown earlier in Table 13. However, the model volumes show the difference between the two forecasts. With the additional lane of capacity in each direction on San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way as part of the current General Plan, the volume -to -capacity ratio (v/c) decreases, but the peak hour volumes increase dramatically. This increase can be attributed to both the higher development with the GP, but also to additional freeway traffic avoid ing the congestion on I-80. Table 16 – Volume and Volume -to-Capacity Ratio Comparison Roadway 1154 / 0.40 (EB) 3503 / 1.08 (WB) 3274 / 1.06 (EB) 1862 / 0.65 (WB) 3 lanes 3 lanes 3 lanes 3 lanes 603 / 0.32 (NB) 1745 / 0.78 (SB) 1912 / 0.94 (NB) 1277 / 0.67 (SB) 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 1305 / 1.45 (NB) 375 / 0.42 (SB) 716 / 0.80 (NB) 1480 / 1.64 (SB) 1 lane 1 lane 1 lane 1 lane AM 3. El Portal Drive 1. San Pablo Dam Rd 2. Appian Way 2030 GP PM volume / volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) Downtown El Sobrante GPA 31 Table 16 – Volume and Volume -to-Capacity Ratio Comparison (Cont.) Roadway 853 / 0.45 (EB) 2680 / 1.26 (WB) 2816 / 1.28 (EB) 1326 / 0.70 (WB) 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 2 lanes 513 / 0.54 (NB)883 / 0.80 (SB) 1301 / 1.11 (NB)851 / 0.90 (SB) 1 lane 1 lane 1 lane 1 lane 946 / 1.05 (NB)529 / 0.59 (SB) 703 / 0.78 (NB)979 / 1.09 (SB) 1 lane 1 lane 1 lane 1 lane 3. El Portal Drive 1. San Pablo Dam Rd 2. Appian Way 2030 GPA volume / volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) AM PM Traffic Diversion Based on the select link analysis conducted in December 2005 as part of Supplemental Transportation Analysis for El Sobrante General Plan, the model forecasts found that the widening of San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way resulted in diversion off the freeway. The widenings of San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way resulted in most changes in trips for sub-regional traffic to and from Pinole and Richmond, but also regional traffic to and from Solano and Alameda counties as well as San Francisco. The benefits of the widening were shown to be very limited for local trips with origins or destinations within El Sobrante. However, due to the added capacity on San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way, fewer trips would use Hilltop Drive and Richmond Parkway through the residential neighborhoods of El Sobrante. Downtown El Sobrante GPA 32 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Criteria Traffic Based on CEQA guidelines, a traffic increase from the project or from cumulative development is considered to be a significant impact if the associated changes to the transportation system: § Conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located; or § Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. These general CEQA provisions provide the basis for the specific criteria that have been applied in this EIR to evaluate the significance of project -related traffic increases. Based on the Contra Costa County General Plan and the TSO’s outlined in the West County Action Plan 2000 Update (West Contra Costa County Transportation Advisory Committee, July 2000), the following standards of significance are set forth: A significant impact occurs if LOS E cannot be maintained at the intersections of San Pablo Dam Road / El Portal Drive, San Pablo Dam Road / Hillcrest Road, San Pablo Dam Road / Appian Way, El Portal Drive / I-80 WB Ramps, El Portal Drive / I-80 EB Ramps, and Appian Way / Valley View Road. A significant impact occurs if LOS D cannot be maintained on all segments of El Portal Dr. A significant impact occurs if LOS E cannot be maintained on all segments of Appian Way. A significant impact occurs if Delay Index of 2.0 cannot be maintained on San Pablo Dam Road or maximum wait time of no more than one cycle length for drivers on side streets of San Pablo Dam Road. Alternative Transportation Modes Based on CEQA guidelines, an impact on alternative transportation modes from the project or from cumulative development is considered to be significant if associated changes to the transportation system result in: Downtown El Sobrante GPA 33 § Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation modes (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). The project is solely responsible for the mitigation of an impact thus created; or § Insufficient capacity of alternative transportation modes that will result in increased use of the automobile or will discourage use of alternative modes of transportation. The project is solely or partially responsible for the mitigation of such impact depending on conditions that would exist in the absence of the project. Based on the Contra Costa County General Plan and the TSO’s outlined in the West County Action Plan 2000 Update (West Contra Costa County Transportation Advisory Committee, July 2000), the following standards of significance are applied: A significant impact occurs if the project directly disrupts, interferes, or conflicts with existing or planned alternative transportation services or facilities, discouraging the use of alternative modes. A significant impact occurs if there is an increase in the number of conflict points between motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. A significant impact occurs if there is insufficient provision for pedestrian and bicyclist facilities to accommodate access to community facilities, residential areas, business districts, and other points of public interest. Parking Based on CEQA guidelines, a parking impact from the project or from cumulative development is considered to be significant if the associated changes to the transportation system result in: § Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off -site that may cause illegal parking; or , § Conflicts with parking design standards. The project is solely responsible for the mitigation of an impact thus created. No specific County objectives are set forth for parking; however, based on CEQA guidelines, the following standard of significance is set forth for the project area: A significant impact occurs if the redeveloped parcels cannot accommodate parking demand after development or if the parking does not meet d esign standards. Downtown El Sobrante GPA 34 Traffic Impacts and Mitigations Intersection Levels of Service Impact 1: The Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment would increase volumes at studied intersections. Discussion and Conclusion: The traffic generated by development assumptions under the Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment would result in, and contribute to future unacceptable operations at the intersections of: San Pablo Dam Road /El Portal Drive and San Pablo Dam Road/Appian Way. These intersections will operate at LOS F under Cumulative conditions, which exceed the threshold of significance . The impact of future development, including that under the General Plan Amendment, occurs at some point when the level s of service at these two intersections are expected to violate the Congestion Management Program standards discussed above. If and when monitoring of traffic at these intersections reveals that a deficiency has occurred, the County will work with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to develop a deficiency plan as required by the Congestion Management Program (2001 Update to the Contra Costa Congestion Management Program, Chapter 8, Deficiency Planning, page 77). These efforts do not provide a sufficient level of certainty with regard to the funding of de sign and implementation costs to mitigate the potential impact. This impact is potentially significant. Mitigation Measure: The following measures would lessen the severity of the identified impacts: A. Widen westbound San Pablo Dam Road approaching El Portal Drive to include an exclusive right-turn pocket. B. Widen westbound San Pablo Dam Road approaching Appian Way to include an exclusive right-turn pocket. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation Measure A would improve future intersection operations to LOS E during the morning peak hour ; however, future intersection operations would be LOS D during the evening peak hour . Implementation of Mitigation Measure B would improve future intersection operations to LOS E during the morning and evening peak hours. It should be noted that the identified mitigation measure at San Pablo Dam Road and El Portal Drive may need additional right -of-way on the northeast corner of this intersection. In addition, the identified Downtown El Sobrante GPA 35 mitigation measure at the intersection of San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way may require widening into the San Pablo Creek. Additional engineering evaluation would be required to ensure that the identified mitigations could be implemented. With the delays at the intersection of San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way, this intersection serves to meter traffic coming into downtown El Sobrante from the east. By adjusting the signal timing at this intersection, the County could slow traffic and control the number of vehicles enter ing downtown El Sobrante on either San Pablo Dam Road or Appian Way. The operations of this intersection would affect the queue on San Pablo Dam Road, which has the potential to back-up into upstream intersections. Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. Table 17 – Cumulative Inters ection Levels of Service – With Mitigations Study Intersection 2030 with GPA1 - Mitigated (v/c ratio / LOS) AM PM 1. San Pablo Dam Rd / El Portal Dr 0.93 / E 0.88 / D 3. San Pablo Dam Rd / Appian Way 0.92 / E 0.98 / E Notes: 1. Assumes 2-lane Appian Way 2. A lthough this intersection is striped as two through lanes and one right- turn pocket in the southbound direction, it operates and was therefore analyzed as one through lane and one right-turn lane. This assumption is based on the approaching lanes and their geometry, given right approaching lane is relatively short in length. Source: CCTALOS based on Technical Procedures, CCTA, July 19, 2006. Roadway Segment Level of Service Impact 2 : The Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment would contribute to unacceptable levels of service on San Pablo Dam Road, Appian Way and El Portal Drive Discussion and Conclusion: The traffic generated by development assumptions under the General Plan Amendment would result in and contribute to future unacceptable operations on El Portal Drive, Appian Way, and San Pablo Dam Road . These roadway segments will operate at LOS E or F under Existing Plus Project and/or Cumulati ve conditions. This impact is potentially significant. Mitigation Measures: As an alternative to constructing the San Pablo Dam Road couplet and the widening of Appian Way, which result in community disruption, right-of-way acquisition, overwhelming of the Downtown El Sobrante GPA 36 County’s financial and staff resources, and traffic diversion from the congested I -80 freeway, the following measures would lessen the severity of the identified impacts: A. Provide signal coordination along the corridors where signals are closely space d. B. Modify signal timings to establish a traffic gateway at key signalized intersection(s) to meter traffic entering the El Sobrante area. C. Minimize additional driveways during development review process. D. Implement s treetscape improvements along San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way to support and encourage alternative modes of transportation. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation Measure A would control the flow of traffic along the main corridors, while i mplementation o f Mitigation Measure B would meter traffic into the El Sobrante area . Implementation of Mitigation Measure C would minimize additional driveways which result in mid -block vehicular turning movements that would adversely affect the through traffic stream as well as pedestrian environment. In addition, adequate access and facilities for pedestrians and cyclists will be planned at the development sites. Implementation of Mitigation Measure D is intended to improve the appearance and accessibility of these facilities to support walking, bi cycling, and the use of public transit. While these measures would improve the flow of traffic on these corridors, it is difficult to determine whether or not the aforementioned improvements would be sufficient to fully mitigate identified impacts without further detailed traffic operations analyses, particularly when evaluating the 2030 traffic conditions , and assumptions on the effectiveness of the design measures. Therefore , the impact on the roadway segment LOS is considered to be a significant and unavoidable impact. Impact 3: The Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment would contribute to diversion of commuter traffic onto local streets within the Project Area. Discussion and Conclusion: Future congestion on San Pablo Dam Road, Appian Way and El Portal Drive would result in diverting some cut-through traffic on the local streets of Hilltop Drive neighborhood. Downtown El Sobrante GPA 37 The cut -through traffic on local streets is considered to be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure: To address the neighborhood cut-through traffic, the County shall work with the local community to develop a comprehensive Traffic Calming Program. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure: A comprehensive Traffic Calming Program for the Hilltop D rive neighborhood may include measures to reduce speeds and restrict access to reduce diversion into the neighborhood residential streets. Implementation of the design and operational improvements on the major corridors (described under impact #2) combine d with the establi shment of a traffic calming program on the local streets would eliminate/minimize diversion of commuter traffic onto the residential community to a less than significant level. Traffic Service Objectives (TSOs) Impact 4: Under 2030 cumulative conditions with the Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment, the average speeds and delay index on San Pablo Dam Road would not exceed the traffic service objective (TSO).6 Discussion and Conclusion: The average speeds and delay index were determined for San Pablo Dam Road between I-80 and State Route 24 in Orinda. With TSOs of 2.0 for delay index and 15 mph for average speeds for San Pablo Dam Road, both average speed and delay index satisfy the Traffic Service Objectives (TSO) for both AM and PM Peak Hours. The impact of the GPA on the delay index is considered to be a less than significant impact. Mitigation Measure: No mitigation measures are required. 6 The TSO for side street wait time was not applied. The side street wait time would depend upon the actual signal cycle length and the signal timing, which would require more detailed intersection operations analysis than is typically required of planning-level study. Specifically, the CCTALOS methodology required for the intersection LOS analysis is capacity-based and does not include the signal t iming. Assumptions on signal timing, phasing, and cycle length would be required to prepare the more detailed operations analysis using 2030 forecasts of future demand that do not account for intersection operations and capacity constraints . Downtown El Sobrante GPA 38 Alternative Modes Impacts and Mitigations Transit Services Impact 5: The Downtown General Plan Amendment may generate new demand for transit services and facilities. Discussion and Conclusion: The proposed General Plan Amendment may generate increased demand for transit service. Increased ridership on bus routes may exceed the capacity of the existing and planned transit system, despite the current low ridership along these corridors. The GPA is intended to increase transit ridership by adding mixed-use developments along the corridor, improving access to bus stops, and providing amenities at bus stops . With the added residential development and increased commercial uses along San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way, the GPA provides an opportunity for future transit service. For instance, Route L currently does not extend east of El Portal and the former Tranbay service along San Pablo Dam Road was discontinued. The added developments in Downtown El Sobrante combined with the congestion along I-80 provide an opportunity for increased transit services. This impact is considered potentially signif icant. Mitigation Measure: The County shall consult with AC Transit prior to the approval of individual projects that may significantly increase transit patronage. Increases in transit demand generated by individual projects shall be assessed at the time application is made. Individual projects shall provide mitigation to accommodate increases in transit demand, if necessary. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure: Implementation of the above mitigation measure will reduce this impact to a less than significant level Pedestrian Activity Impact 6: The Downtown General Plan Amendment is intended to enhance and improve the pedestrian connectivity. Discussion and Conclusion: The proposed General Plan Amendment could be viewed as generating additional conflicts between motor vehicles on the one hand, and pedestrians and bicyclists on the other. The baseline for environmental review, however, is the existing physical environment, and the conditions to which motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists are now exposed. Downtown El Sobrante GPA 39 The existing conditions in the area are not conducive to pedestrian and bicycle travel. Motor vehicle traffic on San Pablo Dam Road is concentrated, moves at relatively high speed, and allows little or no room for safe bicycle travel. Appian Way has few amenities for bicycle travel. The existing development along both San Pablo Dam Road and Appian Way provide few amenities that would encourage pedestrians to visit or stay. Movement of motor vehicles to and from business es along both San Pablo Dam Road and A ppian Way currently creates conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists. The proposed General Plan Amendment seeks to promote pedestrian and bicycle facilities and access. It also seeks to encourage development and infrastructure design that would remove or reduce conflicts with motor vehicles. Strategies to reduce the speed of motor vehicle traffic include the installation of medians, construction of the roadway connecting Pitt Way to Hillcrest Road , and potential installation of marked bicycle lanes where feasible . The proposed General Plan Amendment would include specific policies and measures to provide pedestrian pathways and sidewalks that connect existing and proposed developments with the area parks, public gathering places, and the El Sobrante Public Library. Contra Costa County General Plan Policy 5-25 calls for a system of safe and convenient pedestrian ways as a means of connecting community facilities, residential areas, and business districts. This impact is beneficial. Mitigation Measure: No mitigation measures are required. Bicycle Access Impact 7: The Downtown General Plan Amendment may generate new bicycle activity within the area. Discussion and Conclusion: While the proposed General Plan Amendment would not directly disrupt, interfere, o r conflict with existing or planned bicycle facilities, the changes to the General Plan may result in greater bicycle activity within the area. This in turn could result in increased conflict points between motorists and bicyclists. Contra Costa County G eneral Plan Policy 5-13 requires physical conflicts between vehicular traffic and bicyclists to be minimized. This impact is significant. Mitigation Measure: The County shall require integration of bicycle facilities within the area. When individual deve lopment applications are received, the County shall ensure that adequate bicycle parking, access facilities, and signage are provided and oriented to encourage bicycle travel. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure would ensure that planni ng for bicycle access and travel would occur in connection with the review of individual project applications in the Downtown El Sobrante GPA 40 area as they are submitted. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. It shoul d also be noted that special considerations (through proper design, signal operation, etc.) will be taken when possibly implementing the recommended westbound right -turn lane on San Pablo Dam Road at each of Appian Way and El Portal Drive. Such considerat ions will be taken to minimize any potential impacts of added roadway capacity on the pedestrian and bicycle movements. Parking Impacts Impact 8: The Downtown El Sobrante General Plan Amendment will generate new parking demand associated with development within the area. Discussion and Conclusion: Mixed use designations that provide for commercial and multiple family housing developments within the area will generate new parking demand that may exceed existing parking supply. This impact is potentially significant. Mitigation Measure: When individual development applications are received, the County shall apply General Plan Policy 5 -19 which requires individual projects to provide adequate off -street parking to serve anticipated parking demand generated b y the site , or contribute funds , and/or institute programs to reduce parking demand. The possibility of shared parking because of the complementary nature of residential and commercial uses shall be considered when assessing appropriate parking supply. Ef fectiveness of Mitigation Measure: Implementation of the above mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Downtown El Sobrante GPA 41 CMP Compliance Land Use Evaluation Program The CCTA model was used to forecast cumulative conditions. The land use inputs for the study area and surrounding zones in West County were reviewed and updated to reflect the latest development project lists from the County and the City of Richmond. The future roadway network was reviewed and updated. Model runs were prepared for the Year 2000 Validation and Year 2030 Forecast. LOS Standards CMP LOS standard were used to develop the significance criteria and intersection and roadway LOS were analyzed. The CMP LOS intersection standard of LOS E at most signalized intersections, except at intersections that were already operating at LOS F at program inception. The following intersections would be non- compliant in 2030: ? San Pablo Dam Road / El Portal Drive ? San Pablo Dam Road / Appian Way Appendix C Technical Noise Data Appendix D Air Quality Monitoring Data Appendix E EDR Report Appendix F Board of Supervisors Order and Summary of Downtown El Sobrante Transportation and Land Use Plan TO FROM DATE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DENNIS M BARRY AICP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR JANUARY 15 2002 Contra Costa 0z2 County SUBJECT APPROVAL IN CONCEPT Of THE DOWNTOWN EL SOBNENSPORTATIO AND LAND USE PLAN AND AUTHORIZATION FOR STAFF TO SEEK FUNDING AN INITIATE ACTIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE PLAN SPECIFIC REQUESTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1 APPROVE in concept the Downtown El Sobrante Transportation and Land Use Plan see Exhibit A 2 AUTHORIZE staff to initiate a General Plan Amendment Study rezoning redevelopment study and related environmental review to support the longterm land use recommendations in the Downtown El Sobrante Transportation and Land Use Plan 3 AUTHORIZE staff to submit grant applications to the Community Development Block Grant Program the California Department of Housing and Community Development and other appropriate sources for grants to finance the General Plan Amendment Study rezoning possible redevelopment plan adoption process and related environmental review 4 AUTHORIZE staff to apply for implementation grants from the Transportation for Livable Communities program and other applicable grant programs to implement the shortterm early phase projects in the plan including streetscaping and pedestrian improvements and 5 AUTHORIZE the Director of Community Development and Director of Public Works to sign contracts with grant agencies if the County receives the aforementioned grants for these purposes FISCAL IMPACT Minimal impact to the General Fund The total cost of the steps in Recommendation 3 above is estimated at 400000 Grants will be sought Other possible funding sources to be explored include a Redevelopment Agency loan County road funds and other agencies that may benefit from redevelopment of the area EuCONTINUEDONATTACHMENTXYESSIGNATUR g ACTION OF BOARD ON January 15 2002 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED ZZ OTHER J SPEAKERS Reva Clark E1 Sobrante MAC Board Member on Project Steering Commitee E1 Sobrante Chamber of Commerce E1 Sobrante Planning Zoning 45561Appian Wy E1 Sobrante Robert Sharp Task Force 94803 3875 Dam Road E1 Sobrante VOTE OF SUPERVISORS Z UNANIMOUS ABSENT AYES NOES ABSENT ABSTAIN None Contact John Greitzer 9253351201 cc Community Development Department CDD J Kennedy CDD Public Works Department A Nguyen MTC via CDD StransportationBoardOrder jan 15 el sobrantedoc I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEr AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN ATTESTED January 15 2002 JOHN SWEETEN CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR B jjj DEPUTY DOWNTOWN EL SOBRANTE TRAN JANUARY 15 2002 Page 2 RTATION AND LAND USE PLAN BACKGROUNDREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS The Downtown El Sobrante Transportation and Land Use Plan was completed after a year long planning effort with the El Sobrante community see Exhibit A The plan was undertaken in response to initiatives that emerged from earlier efforts including the multi jurisdictional El Sobrante Valley Joint Planning Study the San Pablo Dam Road Commercial District Baseline Study conducted in 1999 by the UC Berkeley Institute of Urban and Regional Development and a downtown visioning workshop cosponsored by the County and the El Sobrante Chamber of Commerce in 2000 The plan is part of the Countys effort to revitalize the El Sobrante business district along San Pablo Dam Road between El Portal Drive and Appian Way The downtown plan was cosponsored by the County the El Sobrante Chamber of Commerce a community group called the 94803 Task Force and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission MTC The consultant contract for the project was funded largely through a 50000 Transportation for Livable Communities grant from MTC Additional funding came from County road funds and the Chamber of Commerce Plan Development The plan was developed with the assistance of a 19member steering committee and was discussed at a series of four community meetings as well as additional targeted meetings with particular neighborhoods and property owners Development of the plan was coordinated with other agencies including the City of Richmond the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee WCCTAC and AC Transit Public outreach was accomplished through numerous mechanisms including direct mail to downtown area residents businesses and property owners newspaper advertisements news releases and press coverage a project newsletter and the Community Development Department website The plan recommends improvements in transportation land use and open space in the business district as described in Exhibit A The plans Early Phase improvements include additional signalized pedestrian crossings of San Pablo Dam Road streetscaping gateway signs announcing to motorists that they are entering the downtown business district and landscaped medians with left turn pockets along parts of San Pablo Dam Road Longerterm recommendations include development of a new mixeduse village center combining retail office and residential uses and a public plaza multifamily housing in certain parts of the downtown area and rezoning much of the business district to allow mixedusedevelopment such as storefront retail with housing on the second floor or other combined retailresidentialoffice projects The overall emphasis of the plan is to transform downtown El Sobrante over time into a pedestrianfriendly appealing business district that will attract visitors and residents alike to shop dine or conduct business there The transformation will be accomplished through a combination of trafficcalming circulation and pedestrian improvements public plazas and recreational spaces and landuse changes as summarized above and described in detail in the plan Steps Needed to Adopt and Implement the Plan The Board of Supervisors is asked to approve the Downtown El Sobrante Transportation and Land Use Plan on January 15 as the concept plan for the area Additional steps are needed to ensure the plan can be fully adopted financed and implemented overtime The necessary steps are discussed below Approval ofplan in concept recommendation 1 The Board is asked to approve the plan in concept only because a General Plan amendment and environmental review are needed before the plan can be officially reflected in the County General Plan Approval in concept means the plan will have the status of a planning and feasibility study which doesnt have environmental review requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA As part of the project the consultant team performed an environmental scan in which they assessed the likely environmental impacts of the plan This will provide a foundation for the formal environmental review required by CEQA DOWNTOWN EL SOBRANTE TRAr JANUARY 15 2002 Page 3 ORTATtON AND LAND USE PLAN BACKGROUNDREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS Continued General Plan Amendment Study recommendation 2 The current General Plan doesnt include a mixeduseland use designation or multifamily housing for downtown El Sobrante Nor does the General Plan include the parks and creek walkway proposed in the downtown plan The General Plan also differs from the new downtown plan in its recommendations for the downtown El Sobrante street network Therefore a General Plan Amendment is needed to create consistency between the General Plan and the new downtown plan Rezoninq recommendation 2 The downtown El Sobrante area will need to be rezoned to facilitate the desired mixeduseand multifamily residential development Staff envisions a planned unit P1 zoning process for the downtown area P1 zoning spells out all permitted and nonpermitted specific uses within the zoned area Environmental review recommendation 2 The General Plan Amendment is subject to environmental review under CEQA The environmental review must be certified before the General Plan Amendment can be adopted Redevelopment plan adoption process recommendation 2 The longterm cumulative infrastructure costs of the Downtown El Sobrante Transportation and Land Use Plan are estimated at 17 million not including land acquisition costs Some of these costs will be borne by the private sector through development plans and conditions To cover the public costs a longterm dedicated source of revenue is desirable Staff seeks authorization to pursue grants and other funding to initiate a redevelopment plan adoption process including the necessary redevelopment study Like the General Plan amendment a redevelopment plan also is subject to CEQA environmental review If funding can be obtained for both the General Plan amendment and redevelopment work staff will structure the environmental review to apply to both processes to the fullest extent possible Grant appfications and other funds for the above steps recommendation 3 Staff estimates about 400000 will be needed to finance the General Plan amendment rezoning redevelopment study and environmental review To help finance these efforts Board authorization is sought to seek up to 75000 in Community Development Block Grant CDBG funds and a 75000 Downtown Rebound grant from the California Department of Housing and Community Development CDBG grants are available for a variety of uses to improve lowerincome communities The Downtown Rebound program offers grants up to 75000 to finance General Plan amendments zoning changes and site inventories for the purpose of housing development in existing communities Other possible sources of funding to be explored include a loan from the Redevelopment Agency and contributions from other agencies that could benefit from the revitalization of El Sobrante Entities such as the West Contra Costa Sanitary District and Flood Control District may be eligible to receive redevelopment funds to upgrade their infrastructure in El Sobrante if the area becomes a redevelopment area Staff will initiate discussions with these entities about possible financial contributions for the General Plan Amendment Study rezoning redevelopment studies and environmental work Early phase improvement proects recommendation 4 Most of the early phase projects in the plan are consistent with the existing General Plan and therefore arentdependent on a General Plan amendment These could be pursued as soon as sufficient funding can be obtained These projects which will improve the pedestrian environment calm traffic and upgrade the visual appearance of the business district include streetscaping pedestrian crosswalks on San Pablo Dam Road and gateway signs for downtown El Sobrante Staff seeks Board authorization to apply for capital grants for these projects including a Transportation for Livable Communities TLC construction grant offered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission It is anticipated staff will applyforthe maximum 15 million TLC grant The exact size and scope of the TLC construction grant application will be determined through discussions with the El Sobrante community the Public Works Department the Community Development Department and City of Richmond DOWNTOWN EL SOBRANTE TRANS XTATION AND LAND USE PLAN JANUARY 15 2002 Page 4 BACKGROUNDREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS Continued Entering into grant contracts recommendation 5 Along with authorization to apply for the grants staff requests authorization for the Community Development Director and Public Works Director to sign grant contracts in the event the County receives any of the aforementioned grants Typically grant contracts indicate the grantors requirements for timely use of the grant funds periodic progress reports and other administrative matters In addition to actions taken by Contra Costa County the El Sobrante community is taking actions to help implement the plan The Chamber of Commerce is creating a 501c3 non profit entity that would be eligible to apply to many private foundations and public programs offering grants for downtown revitalization sustainable community development and related efforts In addition creation of a business improvement district assessment district andor a landscape and lighting district is under consideration Some type of district will be necessary to pay for ongoing maintenance of the infrastructure improvements County staff is assisting the El Sobrante community in these discussions Exhibit A Downtown El Sobrante Transportation and Land Use Plan Prepared for the Contra Costa County Community Development Department in association with Pittman Associates • Mundie Associates December 2001 A “Transportation for Livable Communities” Project D O W N T O W N E L S O B R A N T E prepared by ARUP • BMS Design Group TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE PLAN Downtown El Sobrante Transportation and Land Use Plan D O W N T O W N E L S O B R A N T E TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE PLAN A “Transportation for Livable Communities” Project Prepared for the Contra Costa County Community Development Department Project Co-Sponsors: 94803 Task Force El Sobrante Chamber of Commerce Contra Costa County The Metropolitan Transportation Commission December 2001 Prepared by: ARUP BMS Design Group In Association with Pittman Associates Mundie & Associates Downtown El Sobrante Transportation and Land Use Plan THE PLAN IN BRIEF 1 BACKGROUND 3 Introduction The Planning Process Location Purpose of the Study COMMUNITY GOALS 6 Transportation and Traffic Vision and Goals Landscape and Design Vision and Goals Business Environment, Activities and Recruitment Goals Additional Vision Statements Suggested Strategies PLANNING CONTEXT 9 Existing Land Use Context Existing Transportation and Traffic Conditions Economic Context Regulatory Context THE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE PLAN 18 Section 1. Plan Principles Section 2. Future Development Pattern Section 3. Land Use Section 4. Transportation Framework Section 5. Open Space Framework Section 6. Urban Design Concepts Section 7. Landscape Framework IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 56 Community Plan Implementation Organization Individual Private Landowners and Businesses Public Sector Initiatives Phasing Early Action (Phase 1) Public Implementation Actions Early Action (Phase 1) Improvement Costs Next Steps APPENDIX A Downtown El Sobrante Market Analysis APPENDIX B Project Team TABLE OF CONTENTS Downtown El Sobrante Transportation and Land Use Plan Figure Title Figure 1 Bay Area Context Figure 2 Regional Context Figure 3 Study Area Figure 4 Existing Land Use Figure 5 Existing Traffic Level of Service Diagram Figure 6 General Plan Land Use Figure 7 Existing Zoning Figure 8 Subdistricts Figure 9 Existing Street Framework Figure 10 Proposed Street Framework Figure 11 Proposed Land Use Figure 12 Proposed Street Operation Figure 13 Street Types Figure 14 Pedestrian Circulation Figure 15 Parking Location Concept Figure 16 Open Space and Parks Figure 17 El Sobrante Village Center (Concept Sketch Plan) Figure 18 El Sobrante Village Center Aerial View Figure 19 Section A: Village Center Drive (cross-section) Figure 20 Section B: Street Character in the Village Center Drive (cross-section) Figure 21 San Pablo Dam Road in the Village Center Figure 22 Section D: San Pablo Dam Road Character in the Village Center Figure 23 Section E: San Pablo Dam Road Outside of the Village Center (cross-section) Figure 24 Section C: Village Center Drive East Figure 25 Gateway to Downtown El Sobrante at El Portal Drive Figure 26 Landscape Framework Figure 27 Early Action (Phase 1) LIST OF FIGURES Downtown El Sobrante Transportation and Land Use Plan 1 THE PLAN IN BRIEF The Downtown El Sobrante Transportation and Land Use Plan will create a vibrant “full service” downtown with a stronger retail base, restaurants, commercial offices, public spaces for social and cultural events, small parks, walkways, apartments and condominiums. The new downtown will provide an appealing, accessible shopping district that will attract local residents and visitors alike. Specifically, this long-range plan will bring the following benefits to the downtown area along San Pablo Dam Road between El Portal Drive and Appian Way: ·A new Village Center of approximately 25 acres will be located along a large block formed by four streets. The streets that will form the focus of the Village Center are a portion of San Pablo Dam Road, between Hillcrest Road and Pitt Way; an improved Pitt Way; an improved Hillcrest Road; and a new east-west connecting street known as Village Center Drive. The Village Center will have a mixture of shops, offices, residential units and a public plaza, to serve as a focal point for the downtown area. ·Redesign of the San Pablo Dam Road cross-section from a five-lane roadway. Currently the road is four lanes plus a dedicated center lane that allows left turns into driveways throughout the corridor. The road will be reconfigured to provide four lanes with wide sidewalks in the Village Center portion of San Pablo Dam Road and four lanes with a landscaped median in areas outside of the Village Center. ·A revised pattern of land uses in the downtown. Currently, much of the land in the downtown is devoted to automobile-dependent uses and are not conducive to a pedestrian-oriented neighborhood commercial district. These uses will be encouraged to gradually relocate over time to other more suitable areas of the County and a new mix of downtown uses will be encouraged through incentive and regulatory programs. A total maximum mixed use development of 375,000 square feet of commercial space combined with up to 580 residential units are possible according to the land use framework of this plan. Traffic studies indicate that if this maximum capacity were achieved, traffic within the downtown would not exceed acceptable county standards. ·Landscaped streets and wider sidewalks in the Village Center and along the entire length of San Pablo Dam Road. ·Traffic calming measures and pedestrian improvements on San Pablo Dam Road, making it easier to walk or bicycle in the downtown and easier to cross the street. Downtown El Sobrante Transportation and Land Use Plan 2 ·Attractive street furnishings for bus stops and other public places along the street. ·Redesigned commercial properties along San Pablo Dam Road with storefronts located along the sidewalk and shared parking lots behind the businesses to encourage visitors to park their cars and walk around the downtown area. ·A total of approximately 1000 parking spaces in the downtown located in a combination of shared lots (established through a Parking District), private lots, and on-street parking. This is an increase of approximately 250 spaces over the current condition, most of which is now provided in numerous individual, on-site lots. Shared, concentrated parking will improve the pedestrian environment and visual appearance of the downtown. ·New downtown parks and open space including a new Village Center Park suitable for community gatherings, an improved and expanded Library Park, and two new creekside parks at the western end of the downtown. The plan strikes a balance between the dual uses of San Pablo Dam Road as the access road to downtown El Sobrante on one hand, and a regional route on the other. Some aspects of the plan likely can be accomplished within a couple of years, but other aspects are longer-term and may take five to ten years or more, depending upon funding, market conditions for development, and other factors. The planning process was co-sponsored by Contra Costa County, the El Sobrante Chamber of Commerce, the community- based 94803 Task Force, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). MTC provided a $50,000 “Transportation for Livable Communities” grant that financed most of the consultant contract for the project. Additional funds came from the Chamber of Commerce, County Public Works Department and Community Development Department. Downtown El Sobrante Transportation and Land Use Plan 3 BACKGROUND Introduction The El Sobrante Transportation and Land Use Plan is the result of a year-long process involving residents, business owners, citizens and Contra Costa County staff with the goal of improving the economic and physical environment of downtown El Sobrante, an unincorporated area of western Contra Costa County. The elements of the Plan described in this report are initial concepts and are not final policy of Contra Costa County. Rather, they are intended to provide direction for further planning efforts for the downtown, including additional detailed studies leading to future capital improvements in the downtown area. The Planning Process This plan had its origins in a downtown visioning workshop that was conducted in El Sobrante in January 2000, at which about 75 residents and business-persons gathered to offer their views on the downtown commercial district. The visioning workshop was sponsored by the El Sobrante Chamber of Commerce and funded with a $40,000 Community Development Block Grant. A professional planning firm, Communities by Design, was hired to facilitate the workshop and help participants establish a vision for the downtown. The visioning workshop resulted in agreement on the need to revitalize the downtown area. One of the key recommendations from the workshop was to create a community task force to lead the downtown improvement effort. The result was formation of the 94803 Task Force, named for the El Sobrante zip code. The Task Force became a co-sponsor of the downtown revitalization effort, and formed three subcommittees – a Landscape and Design Committee, a Traffic and Transportation Committee, and a Business Committee. Subsequently, the Task Force and its sub committees identified goals and initial strategies for improvement of downtown El Sobrante. These are summarized in the Community Goals section of this report. In September 2000, the transportation planning firm of ARUP, in association with BMS Design Group (urban design), Mundie Associates (economics) and Pittman Downtown El Sobrante Transportation and Land Use Plan 4 Figure 1.El Sobrante in the context of the San Francisco Bay Area.US 101I - 80SR 24 Associates (environmental) were selected by the 94803 Task Force and Contra Costa County to prepare specific transportation and land use recommendations that would help achieve the goals established by the Task Force. This report is the result of that work effort. The work process has included meetings with a 19 member Steering Committee, a Town Hall meeting to introduce the study to the community and four community meetings. Individual presentations also were made to various organizations including the El Sobrante Joint Planning Effort, the Aquatic Outreach Institute, the El Sobrante Rotary Club, the El Sobrante Municipal Advisory Council, downtown residents, St. Callistus Church, and the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee. Figure 2. El Sobrante is located at the intersection of three jurisdictions: the City of San Pablo, the City of Richmond and Contra Costa County. City of San Pablo City of Richmond Contra Costa County Appia n W a y I-80 Location Downtown El Sobrante is located along a ½ mile portion of San Pablo Dam Road between Interstate 80 and State Route 24 in the East Bay region of the San Francisco Bay Area. It is situated in the El Sobrante Valley at the intersection of three jurisdictions: Contra Costa County, the City of Richmond and the City of San Pablo. The physical landscape of Contra Costa County varies widely, from the urbanized shoreline of the Bay in the west to the Diablo Mountain Range to the east. The El Sobrante Valley lies in the western portion of the county, in a semi-rural pocket of low density residential development and local- serving businesses, surrounded by the highly developed urban and suburban areas that typify the I-80 corridor. The natural landscape of the area is characterized by rolling hillsides, oak trees, creeks and lush vegetation, all of which contribute to valley residents’ appreciation of the area’s woodland character. San Pablo Creek, which flows out of San Pablo Reservoir above the downtown area, passes through the downtown parallel to San Pablo Dam Road on the north. San PabloDam Ro a d Downtown El Sobrante Transportation and Land Use Plan 5 Figure 3. Study AreaI- 80El Po r t a l D r i v e San Pabl o D a m R o a d Existing Church Existing Bank LibraryAppian WayHillcrestPurpose of the Study Historically, San Pablo Dam Road between El Portal Drive and Appian Way has served as downtown El Sobrante’s local commercial and retail area. Until the 1950’s the corridor was a vibrant center containing shops, restaurants, small department stores and grocery stores serving local needs. In recent years, however, urban growth patterns in the surrounding area have resulted in a shift in commercial activity to areas outside the downtown, with a resulting decline in economic activity. At the same time, increasing development in the surrounding region has increased traffic demands on highways in and adjacent to El Sobrante. San Pablo Dam Road now functions as an important commute corridor for West Contra Costa County. Today the economic decline and increased traffic along San Pablo Dam Road has resulted in a 5-lane roadway (4 lanes plus left turns). Motorists often speed through the area at speeds well in excess of the posted 25 mile per hour speed limit. Acres of parking and an abundance of auto- serving uses such as auto repair, gas stations and auto sales dominate the area. The area has become almost entirely dependent on the use of the automobile, with poor facilities for pedestrians, transit and bicycle users. The purpose of this study is to define a plan to reverse the economic, transportation and development trends that have occurred in the area over the past 40 years and reestablish a pedestrian-oriented mixed use neighborhood commercial district. Study Area 0 500 City/County Boundary Legend Downtown El Sobrante Transportation and Land Use Plan 6 COMMUNITY GOALS During the workshops and meetings held between January and July 2000, the 94803 Task Force and its subcommittees defined vision statements, goals and initial strategies for the revitalization of Downtown El Sobrante. These goals focused on three subject areas: ·Transportation and Traffic ·Landscape and Community Design ·Business Environment Generally, the vision statements and goals can be summarized in a desire to create a pedestrian friendly, mixed-use neighborhood commercial district with a range of goods and services to serve local needs. The following is a summary of the key elements of the goals and vision statements prepared by each of the three subcommittees. Transportation and Traffic Vision and Goals Vision Statement of the 94803 Transportation & Traffic Committee: “We envision the creation of a friendly, attractive, village-like downtown through improved circulation and parking in the downtown area, slower traffic, increased pedestrian/bicyclist safety, and alternative transportation from neighboring areas.” Transportation-related goals included: ·Separate local shopping traffic from traffic that is just passing through on San Pablo Dam Road. ·Provide parking convenience for local shoppers. ·Improve the downtown pedestrian environment for local shoppers. ·Improve local traffic circulation downtown. ·Improve connections between downtown and adjacent residential areas. Downtown El Sobrante Transportation and Land Use Plan 7 Landscape and Design Vision and Goals Vision Statement of the 94803 Landscape and Design Committee: “To help restore the business district as the vital core of the community and a destination offering a diversity of activity, business, and points of interest, incorporating outdoor settings that invite people to linger.” Design-related goals included: ·Install and maintain attractive litter receptacles at bus stops and major intersections. ·Honor businesses that are contributing to the beauty and vitality of the area with awards and publicity. ·Work with business owners and a certified arborist to replant trees which add beauty downtown without obstructing storefronts. ·Acquire park sites to beautify and enhance the downtown shopping experience. ·Work with business owners and code enforcement officials to facilitate a visually pleasing standard for signage that will attract customers. · Commission public art to add to the charm and beauty of downtown. Business Environment, Activities and Recruitment Goals The vision statement of the Business Environment Committee is as follows: “Downtown El Sobrante has a reasonable variety of businesses that are owner- operated and friendly and provide products and services customers want. The Chamber of Commerce facilitates cooperation among merchants and sponsors events, such as the El Sobrante Stroll, that bring people to downtown El Sobrante.” Business-related goals included: ·Develop and expand programs for downtown customer sharing. ·Sponsor a “Paint up/Fix up” program to improve the appearance of downtown businesses and buildings. ·Determine what new businesses would help the business mix and develop a focused program of business recruitment. ·Expand the programs for community events that attract people downtown. Additional Vision Statements “…an attractive, inviting, lovely place to visit for a variety of community, civic, cultural, entertainment, recreational as well as commercial activities, a vital core that is the heart of El Sobrante Valley…Walkways, open space, visual and aesthetic vistas, biking, etc. will be a part of this oasis.” “The configuration or reconfiguration of large monolithic buildings that stand out like islands in a sea of asphalt must be of concern to the consultant. Either they should be moved up to the street (sidewalk) or they must be changed so the parking lot has new stores, walkways, landscaping, open spaces, etc.” “We want to be a full service downtown, with all the other amenities that result from streetscaping, landscaping, traffic calming, public open space (i.e. civic, cultural, entertainment, recreation, etc.)” Downtown El Sobrante Transportation and Land Use Plan 8 Suggested Strategies The 94803 Task Force and its committees generated many ideas to help achieve the community’s vision. Most of these ideas, which are listed below, have been incorporated into the Transportation and Land Use Plan. Not all of these strategies can be achieved, however, since some are in conflict with one another or are not feasible. 1. Pedestrian crosswalks (with traffic lights) to create a pedestrian-oriented downtown. 2. Bikeways, bike lanes and bike parking facilities. 3. A parallel street to San Pablo Dam Road (to improve circulation and parking, and provide a means to turn around for motorists along San Pablo Dam Road). 4. An intelligent parking plan. 5. Turn-a-bouts (rotaries) at intersections to improve circulation 6. Bulb-outs at pedestrian crosswalks. 7. Mini-parks, rest areas with benches, waste receptacles, flowers, etc. 8. Massive streetscaping, trees, plants, flowers. 9. Incorporate the creek visually and as a walkway/bicycle path, with due sensitivity to the residents across the creek. 10. Public spaces. 11. Appropriate housing in mixed-use form. 12. Wider sidewalks. 13. Improved lighting, with additional and more interesting lights. 14. Improved transit, with covered bus stops at convenient places. This will require that San Pablo Dam Road be reduced to two lanes, diagonal parking, and extensive landscaping which will make the parallel street an imperative to the livable downtown. 15. Complete reconfiguration of many buildings, parking spaces, lateral streets connecting the two parallel streets, and even pedestrian malls (a la Santa Barbara). 16. Create a pallet of color that relates the buildings, landscaping and the creek in a kaleidoscope of beauty and charm. 17. Try to find a theme for the buildings and landscaping that is not sterile. 18. A place for public art and murals. 19. Well-placed and attractive garbage receptacles. 20. A community center with space for seniors, day-care, meetings (large and small), town hall meetings, seminars, performing arts, concerts, exhibits, classic films, and classes. 21. Clean and attractive signage. 22. A monument, signature tree or other center of attraction. 23. The design must “flow” to take people from one end of the district to the other and back again. 24. A pedestrian bridge across San Pablo Creek. 25. Design guidelines to be used in future development in the downtown area. Concerns Expressed on the Strategies The strategies shown above were discussed at various stages of the public participation process. Strong concerns were expressed by downtown residents and property owners over two of the strategies in particular – strategy #3, the proposed parallel street to San Pablo Dam Road, and strategy #9, a proposed walkway along San Pablo Creek. Due to their concerns, both of these strategies were revised to be less extensive and less intrusive on neighboring properties than originally proposed. The revised concepts are shown later in this document. !!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!Vasco R dM ars h Creek Rd C a m i n o Diablo Camino TassajaraCa mino Tassajara Walnut BlvdClayton Rd Dam RdSan P a blo Kirker P a s s R dRailroad AveStone Valley RdMo r a g a W ay Rheem Blvd Moraga RdE Cypress Rd Balfour Rd Marsh Creek Rd Lone Tree Way B y r o n Hwy Wilbur Ave Mor gan Territ o r y R d Highland Rd C ro w C a n y o n R d B o llinger C a n y on R d Blackhawk RdSt Marys RdOlympi c M t D i a b lo B lv d Cutting Blvd Arlingto n BlvdSan Pablo A v e RichmondGarrard BlvdParkway23rd StCastro R a n c h R d Happy Valley R d A lh a mbra Valley Rd Relie z V a ll ey R dAlhambra A v eY g n a c io Valley R d T re a t B lvdPor t Chi cago HwyW illow Pass RdBailey RdGeary Rd Oa kGr o v e Rd Pacheco Blvd W a t e r f r o n t R d Buchanan Rd Willow Pass Rd E 18th St Contra Costa BlvdDougher ty RdSunset Rd Chestnut St MacDonald Ave C u mmin g s S kyway Deer Valley RdSt at e Rout e 4 BypassBear Cr eek RdTaylo r B lvdS an Pabl o AveD a n ville B lv d(2-4)(4-6)(4) (2-4)(2-4)(4)(4)Appian W a y (4) ( 2 -4) ( 2 - 4 )(2-4)(4)(4)(4 )John Muir Pa r k w a y Proposed Stat e R o u t e 4 (-6 )(4)Parker Ave(4)(4 )(6 Lanes to State Route 242)(4 )(4 ) (4) ( 1 0 L a n e s t o S ta t e R o u t e 4 ) ( 4) Oak Park Blvd (4)(4)( 6 )Oak Rd(4 )Blvd Ti ce Valley B lv d (2-4) (4)(2) (4)(2-4)(2-4)(6) (4) (4) ( 6 ) (6)(4 with T r u c k C lim b ing Lanes)(2-4)(4)(4)(2)(4) (2-4) (2-4) (2-4) Balfour Rd (2-4)(2-4)(2-4)Sellers AveState Route 4 State Route 4 (4)Byron Hwy(2-4)(4)Knightsen AveBethel Island Rd(2)(4)Gateway Rd Eden Plains Rd(2) ( 2 - 4 ) V a s c o Rd( 2 - 4 ) Holey Rd Armstrong Rd Byron HotSpringsRdDelta Rd (2-6)(4)Willow Pass Rd Center Ave M a rs h D rBa n c r o ft Rd P in e h ur st Rd Rudgear Rd L iv o r n a Rd N o r r is C a n y o n Rd (2-4)·|}þ242 ·|}þ160 ¥§¦580 ·|}þ42 ·|}þ4 456J4 ¥§¦680 ·|}þ4 ·|}þ4 ·|}þ4 ¥§¦8 0 ¥§¦8 0 ¥§¦680 ¥§¦680 Richmond Antioch Concord Oakley Danville Hercules Pittsburg Orinda Pinole Lafayette WalnutCreek SanRamon Martinez Brentwood Moraga PleasantHill Clayton ElCerrito SanPablo Richmond 0 5 102.5 Miles 1:195,000 NOTE: (2) Indicates number of lanes. (unincorporated roads with no lanes indicated are 2 lane roads) (-4) Indicates number of lanes required for right of way preservation. (Shown for Unincorporated areas only) I CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Map Created on October 8th, 2013Contra Costa County Department of Conservation & Development30 Muir Road, Martinez, CA 9455337:59:41.791N 122:07:03.756W City Limits Expressway on Existing Road Existing Freeways Proposed Expressway Proposed Freeway Existing Arterial Proposed Arterial Existing Collector Proposed Collector Bay Area Rapid Transit !!!Proposed BART Proposed Bridges Major Railroads Castro R anch R dS a n Pabl o Ave(4)(2)Appian W ay(4)Appi an Way(4 )San Pablo Dam Rd H i l l t o p D r (2) Pinole SanPablo Revision to Roadway Network Plan Exhibit "D" to Board Resolution No. 2013/443 - Downtown El Sobrante GPA (County File: GP#02-0003)Revisions to Roadway Network Plan Appian Way retains current 2 lane configuration to Pinole City Limits ¥§¦80 Castro R anch R dS a n P abl o Ave(4)(2)Appian W ay(4)Appi an Way(4 )San Pablo Dam Rd H i l l t o p D r (4) Pinole SanPablo Existing Roadway Network Plan Planned Appian Way widening to 4 lanes ¥§¦80